“TRANSFORMING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN 

EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY:

HEARING ON H.R. 1, H.R. 340, AND H.R. 345” 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 29, 2001 

Serial No. 107-10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

 77-903 pdf 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents...........................................................................................................iii

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................. 2

STATEMENT OF KEITH E. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, & CEO, 

WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE 

IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. ..................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. CONNOR, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH 

COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................................................................................ 8

STATEMENT OF GAIL E. FOSTER, FOUNDER, TOUSSAINT INSTITUTE 

FUND; BOARD MEMBER, BLACK ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS, 

NEW YORK, N.Y. ......................................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED FEDERATION 

OF WORKERS; VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 

NEW YORK, N.Y. ....................................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF PAUL HOUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, WASHINGTON, D.C........... 13

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, CHARLES STEWART 

MOTT FOUNDATION, FLINT, M.I........................................................................... 16

APPENDIX A – WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN 

BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C........................................ 49

APPENDIX B – WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KEITH E. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, 

PRESIDENT, AND CEO, WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS 

COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.......... 53

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. CONNOR, 

PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................ 69
iv

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GAIL E. FOSTER, FOUNDER, 

TOUSSAINT INSTITUTE FUND; BOARD MEMBER, BLACK ALLIANCE FOR 

EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS, NEW YORK, N.Y........................................................ 79

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, 

PRESIDENT, UNITED FEDERATION OF WORKERS; VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, NEW YORK, N.Y. .......................... 89

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL HOUSTON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 103

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, 

CHARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION, FLINT, M.I.................................. 117

APPENDIX H – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, BUSINESS COALITION FOR 

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, PRESS RELEASE, “BUSINESS LEADERS GIVE 

HIGH MARKS TO HOUSE EDUCATION BILL”................................................... 129

APPENDIX I – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY KEITH E. BAILEY, 

SUMMARY OF REPORT, “INVESTING IN TEACHING”.................................... 133

APPENDIX J – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, “THE ‘RECEPTIVITY 

FACTOR’, DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCOUNTABILITY”, 

EDUCATION WEEK, BY DAVY McCLAY, Ph.D. ................................................ 137

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................... 141
1

HEARING ON “TRANSFORMING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN

EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: 

HEARING ON H.R. 1, H.R. 340, AND H.R. 345”

__________________

Thursday, March 29, 2001 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Chairman John Boehner presiding. 

Present: Representatives Boehner, Roukema, Hoekstra, McKeon, Souder, Norwood, 

Schaffer, Hilleary, Tancredo, Fletcher, Biggert, Platts, Tiberi, Keller, Osborne, 

Culberson, Miller, Kildee, Owens, Payne, Andrews, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, Rivers, 

Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Ford, Wu, Holt, Solis, Davis, and McCollum. 

Staff present: Christie Wolfe, Professional Staff Member; Kent Talbert, Professional 

Staff Member; Ben Peltier, Professional Staff Member; Whitney Rhoades, Staff 

Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. 

Martin, General Counsel; Dan Lara, Press Secretary; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff 

Member; Michael Reynard, Deputy Press Secretary; Charles Barone, Minority Deputy 

Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Denise Forte, Minority 

Legislative Associate/Education; Ruth Friedman, Minority Fellow; Cheryl Johnson, 

Minority Counsel/Education and Oversight; Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education; and Brendan 

O'Neil, Minority Legislative Associate/Education. 
2

Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce will come to order. We are meeting today to hear testimony on 

``Transforming the Federal Role in Education for the 21st Century'' and under Committee 

Rule 12-B, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be included in the record. And 

with that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to 

allow members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing 

today to be submitted in the official record. And without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 Our hearing today will focus on proposals to transform the federal role in 

education for the 21st century. We have a distinguished bipartisan panel to discuss three 

different education bills, including the President's ``No Child Left Behind'' proposal. 

 I think the need for change in our nation's education system is undeniable. Nearly 

70 percent of inner city and rural fourth graders cannot read at a basic level. This means 

they are unable to read a paragraph one would find in a children's book. Low-income 

students lag behind their counterparts by an average of 20 percentile points on national 

assessment tests. And fully one-third of all incoming college freshmen must enroll in a 

remedial writing or math class. And despite over $100 billion worth of spending at the 

federal level over the last 35 years, and $85 billion just in the last ten years, we have not 

seen any significant change in the performance of our students. 

 We will be hearing testimony today on three bills that seek to improve the quality 

of the nation's education system: H.R. 1, the President's ``No Child Left Behind'' bill; 

H.R. 340, the Excellence and Accountability in Education Act introduced by Mr. Miller 

and Mr. Kildee; and H.R. 345, the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention and 

Responsibility Act, or, as my friend from Indiana likes to call it, the three R's bill, 

introduced by Mr. Roemer, Mr. Dooley and Mr. Smith. 

 And with that, I would like to yield to my friend and Ranking Member, George 

Miller from California. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
3

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to welcome all of our witnesses. 

And Ms. Weingarten, I want to welcome you, and look forward to your testimony on 

efforts made to get qualified teachers into difficult schools, something that we are all 

trying to do. 

 I would simply say this: that all of these bills that are before us, proposals for 

legislation, have a common purpose. Clearly we would like to have all of our schools, no 

matter what their economic situation, become high-performing schools. There is some 

disagreement about how we would get here, but clearly the intent is the same. 

 I think the President has made it very clear that he wants to try and make every 

effort to see that the poorest children in the poorest-performing schools have the same 

opportunity at a high-quality education as other children do in this nation, and that he 

wants to be able to hold schools accountable for that effort. I think many of us up here 

share that desire. We have put in excess of $150 billion into this system over the last 

three decades. I would have to say that we are probably not happy with the results that 

we have received. That is not a punitive statement; it is a statement of fact, and we seek 

to do better. 

 I believe there is going to have to be accountability. I think clearly there is going 

to have to be meaningful assessment and diagnosis of what children need on a real-time 

basis, so that they don't fall behind. There is going to have to be the rapid deployment of 

resources to those children in need. Whether that is summer school or Saturday school or 

a tutor or a mentor, or a better teacher, that is going to have to be a real-time decision. In 

many schools, and certainly in the poorer schools in this country, if you fall a year behind 

or two years behind, the chances are you are going to drown and the school simply does 

not have the resources. 

 Which brings me to the final point. To achieve the results that the President says 

that he wants, and to achieve them for the children that he says that he wants to serve, I 

believe there is going to have to be significant new resources committed to this effort. I 

do not believe you are going to get high-quality, capable teachers with the full capacity to 

teach these children in difficult schools unless you are fully prepared to pay them, 

provide professional development opportunities, and provide time that you are going to 

have to buy, if somebody took my time, I would like them to buy it; I am not willing to 

give it. I think that we have to understand that these are simply the rules of the 

marketplace, and that we all know that those very same teachers today have many, many 

more options in the marketplace than they did 30 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years 

ago.

 So time is money, and it is about time that the Congress figured that out. If we 

want professional development, if we want continuous improvement, we are going to 

have to make every effort to purchase that. 

 A number of my colleagues have said it is not a mystery why some schools do 

better than others - just simply go to them. They are completely different schools. In my 

district, I represent the poorest, some of the worst performing schools; the worst 

performing school in one case; in the state. I also represent some of the best-performing 

schools. If you go to those schools, they are entirely different schools; entirely different 
4

physical facilities; entirely different types of staff; entirely different settings for those 

students, entirely different types of credentials, capacity, competency; and available 

resources. In one case there are reading specialists; in the other case there are barely 

teachers who can teach reading. 

 We understand what it takes to provide a first-class education: a quality school, 

first-class curriculum, and a well-qualified teacher. This is a chance, at the beginning of 

this millennium, to do it differently. But if you think you are going to impose the testing, 

the assessments, and all the rest of that, and not provide the resources where the poorest 

children in the poorest-performing schools reside a good portion of their day, I think we 

would be making a critical mistake. I think the President will be very disappointed four 

or five years down the road when he looks back if this happens. 

 The previous administration was real big on money and not very good on quality. 

This administration likes to say they are going to be really good on quality, but it doesn't 

appear they are going to be very good on money. At some point, we have got to stop that 

debate and put the resources and the quality assurances in the same place, and move 

forward for America's children and their education, an education that all of their parents 

and we would expect on behalf of our children. 

 I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, George. And I think it should be pretty clear to those 

who have watched these hearings over the last several months, and our activities, that 

there is not a great deal of difference between the goals set out by Mr. Miller and the 

goals set out by myself. And while we have spent a great deal of money over the last ten 

years, I think it is clear that the system has to change. And if we can get the system to 

change, and begin to add more resources, then I think we can in fact make serious 

progress.

 But we are not alone in this. Nor do we want to become the national school 

board. The states and local communities have their own responsibilities. And as I see 

this; and George, I think you see it as well; there has to be a partnership and a division of 

responsibilities.

 With that, let me introduce our witnesses this morning. First, we have Keith 

Bailey. Mr. Bailey is a member of the Business Coalition for Excellence in Education, a 

coalition of leading U.S. companies and business organizations dedicated to educational 

excellence. He was named board chair of the National Alliance of Business in November 

of 2000. Mr. Bailey is Chairman, President, and CEO of Williams, a global leader in 

energy and communications headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has served as the 

Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Tulsa, and he is currently the 

Chair of the Board of Trustees at the University of Missouri in Rolla. 

 Secondly, we have Mr. Ken Connor. Mr. Connor is the head of the Family 

Research Council, a pro-family public policy organization located here in Washington. 

Previously, Mr. Connor was a trial attorney in Florida, and has served as the Chairman of 

the State of Florida Commission on Ethics, and as a member of the State Constitution 

Revision Commission. He has been involved in state and national political affairs, and he 
5

has had a leading role in presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial campaigns. In 

1994, Mr. Connor was a contender for the Republican nomination for governor of the 

state of Florida. We want to welcome you. 

 And we have Dr. Gail Foster with us. Dr. Foster is a former high school teacher, 

and has been working for over a decade on behalf of parental choice. She founded the 

Toussaint Institute Fund in 1988 in response to the pleas of low-income and struggling 

working-class families, helping them to find and access good public or private schools for 

their children. Dr. Foster is also a Board member of the Black Alliance for Educational 

Options, a national organization which seeks to create, promote and support efforts to 

empower black parents to exercise choice in determining options for their children's 

education.

 We have Ms. Randi Weingarten. Ms. Weingarten is President of the United 

Federation of Teachers, representing more than 140,000 active and retired nonsupervisory educators in the New York City public education system. She is also Vice 

President of the more than 1 million member AFT, the UFT's national affiliate, and a 

member of the Boards of Directors of the New York State United Teachers and New 

York City's Central Labor Council. And she is here this morning testifying in favor of 

Mr. Miller's bill. 

 Then we have Dr. Paul Houston. Dr. Houston has served as an Executive 

Director of the American Association of School Administrators since 1994. He has 

served schools in North Carolina, New Jersey and Alabama, prior to serving as 

Superintendent of Schools in Princeton, New Jersey, Tucson, Arizona, and Riverside, 

California.

 And then lastly we will have Mr. William White. Mr. White has served as 

Chairman of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation since 1988. The Mott Foundation of 

Flint, Michigan, funds and supports commitment and school partnerships designed to 

help meet the needs of children and families in local communities. 

 Sorry, I was going to introduce you, Mr. Kildee, to do that. Anything else you 

would like to add about Mr. White? 

Mr. Kildee. Well, I appreciate your good introduction there, too. Bill White has been a 

great friend of mine for many, many years. I knew Charles Stewart Mott, the founder of 

the Mott Foundation, very well, too. Mr. White received his B.A. and his M.B.A. from 

Dartmouth College, and his experience includes work on Wall Street. He happens to live 

in my district, Mr. Chairman, and that makes him very special to me, of course. 

 The Mott Foundation began the community school movement long before the 

21st Century Community Learning Centers program ever existed. Efforts to encourage 

and enact community schools have been the mission of the Mott Foundation since the 

mid-1930s. My brothers and I, my mother and the whole family, benefited from the work 

of the Mott Foundation. 

 The Mott Foundation has built upon this base of experience by spending 

considerable time and resources totaling over $100 million in working with the U.S. 
6

Department of Education in providing technical assistance to 21st Century program 

grantees. Mr. White has been here in Washington many times, working with the 

Secretary of Education, and has committed his time, his talent and his work to the 21st 

Century programs. 

 The work of the Foundation, and his work in particular, Mr. Chairman, has been 

essential in both expanding the quality and quantity of local programs. And I am very 

pleased to have my friend Bill White here this morning. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Dale, thank you. And I am sorry; I had this very big print, ``Mr. 

Kildee to introduce.'' Why I did not see it, I don't know. I must have a reading problem 

this morning. 

 I would remind all of our witnesses that your entire written testimony will be 

made part of the record. You have five minutes this morning, and you will have a green 

light, the last minute you will have a yellow light, and when it turns red, it is time to wrap 

it up. 

 With that, Mr. Bailey, would you like to begin? 

STATEMENT OF KEITH E. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, & 

CEO, WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS COALITION 

FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to 

represent the Business Coalition for Excellence in Education. As you said, it is a large 

coalition of business corporations and organizations. We believe it is the largest ad hoc 

coalition that has been formed by the business community around the topic of education, 

and we are chaired by the CEOs of Intel, Texas Instruments, IBM and State Farm. 

 On a personal level, you mentioned some of my involvement, including National 

Alliance of Business. I also serve on the Business Roundtable education committee. I 

am a member of the board of Achieve. I am a founding member of the board of the 

Oklahoma Business Education Coalition. And on an intensely personal level, three of 

our four children are classroom teachers. So I come to you with a great commitment, 

both personal and corporate, and on behalf of the business community, on the topic at 

hand.

 The Coalition issued a press release on March 22nd applauding the efforts of this 

Committee and the introduction of H.R. 1. And I would suggest that the press release 

also be made part of the record. The press release compliments the Committee, and we 

are particularly pleased with some of the emphasis on teaching that is contained in the 

bill. And there was a report issued about a month ago that I would also submit for the 

record on investing in teaching, which represents the view of the business community in 
7

this area. 

 Certainly we believe that education should, as you have said, be a nonpartisan 

issue and a bipartisan effort on the part of this Committee and Congress. And the 

business community is prepared to work constructively with all of those involved to 

achieve legislation that embodies the principles that we have outlined with regard to the 

topic of education. 

 We believe that standards, assessment, student achievement, accountability, and 

flexibility are all critical elements. But one of the things we also are concerned about and 

would observe is that while many of these have been addressed individually in the past, 

there has been perhaps too little effort around the topic of alignment of these various 

components that are critical. And we would certainly encourage that anything that moves 

forward emphasize the issue of alignment among the various elements that are essential 

to an effective education system. 

 The other area that we would really place some emphasis on is continuing to 

highlight math and science as topics that are critical to our emerging economy in a 

knowledge-based future. And we would also encourage the integration of technology 

into the classroom. And I think that is included for two reasons. One, it certainly is a 

need that students will have. We see that our company, and the other companies 

represented in the Coalition, recognize that technology is becoming just part of virtually 

any job that we have. And not only do the students need to have fluency in technology, 

but we believe technology can offer resources that extend the available money that is 

being committed to the school system through things such as distance learning, use of the 

Internet for supplements to curriculum and that sort of thing. 

 I would close by saying that as we look at H.R. 1 we are very encouraged with 

what we see. We would urge that the Committee spend some time strengthening the 

elements that deal with the issue of alignment and standards within the bill. We do 

believe, as you stated, that the flexibility, and the involvement and the role of the local 

communities, is important, but that the Federal Government can play a role as well in 

helping establish benchmark expectations. And finally, with regard to student 

achievement, we would hope that the final bill would include more in the way of specific 

help for students that are lagging behind, and that this would be an element that would be 

incorporated. 

 With that I will, in the interest of the size of the panel and the time this morning, 

stop before my five minutes are up, and look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KEITH E. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND 

CEO, WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS COALITION FOR 

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Boehner. A most unusual circumstance in this Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. Connor, you may begin. 
8

 STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. CONNOR, PRESIDENT, FAMILY 

RESEARCH COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the 

Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to come and share some thoughts on behalf of 

the Family Research Council about the proposals embodied in H.R. 1, the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001. 

 Let me say first and foremost that the Family Research Council has been, and 

continues to be, unswervingly committed to the notion that parents ought to be the 

primary education decision makers for their children, and that by extension educational 

decision making ought to be made first and foremost at the local level and the state level.

I am here today to commend members of this Committee, and indeed, the President, for 

many of the proposals that are embodied in this bill. I would like to sound a note of 

caution, if I may, as we move forward, and make some suggestions about ways in which 

we think a very good bill can be improved as we go forward. 

 In doing so, I would like to focus, if I may, on four aspects that are embodied in 

this bill: flexibility, accountability, consolidation, and choice. 

 First of all, we are most appreciative of the provisions for flexibility that are 

accorded to state and local school districts by virtue of the provisions of this bill. This 

bill does increasingly repose educational decision making at the state and local level, and 

we applaud and appreciate that very much. We are grateful that the emphasis in this bill 

is on the product, and not the process; that this bill is a results-driven and results-oriented 

bill, rather than one that focuses on the rigmarole of the process that educrats would be 

required to go through because of the imposition of rules and regulations from the 

national level. 

 This bill recognizes that there are different ways to skin a cat, and that depending 

on the area in which educational decisions are being made, that in some cases those 

programs may thrive because of particular people; in other areas they may thrive because 

of particular programs. And this bill grants states and local school districts the flexibility 

to make those kinds of decisions. 

 We applaud the inculcation of the Straight A's process into this proposal, and the 

recognition that there are other ways in which monies may be transferred from one 

program to another, ultimately to benefit the students in a particular area. 

 In the area of accountability, we recognize and appreciate the fact that this bill 

imposes strict accountability requirements, not only for students, but for school systems 

as well, and that parents, teachers and school administrators are afforded the benefit of a 

report card, which ought to inform their educational decision making for the future. We 

believe that this kind of feedback is critical to the success of educational advancement in 

the future. 
9

 We would sound a note of caution and we appreciate the fact that this Committee 

and these proposals permit a state to have the discretion to evaluate what assessments will 

be used to measure and evaluate progress. And we encourage the continuation of that 

kind of language, and we urge you to eschew any notions that the state should impose 

any kind of uniform national test, which we fear may ultimately lead to a nationalized 

curriculum. 

 We believe strongly that these tests ought to focus on reading, writing and 

arithmetic, and ought to eschew standards for science and history, many of which cause 

controversial issues about the origin of the universe and the nature of man, and we think 

students would not be benefited by these kinds of tests. 

 We applaud the efforts at consolidation that have been made, the reduction from 

numerous conflicting and often confusing programs into a minimum number of funding 

streams, and believe that to be very helpful. 

 In the area of school choice, we appreciate the fact that parents are granted greater 

opportunities for decision making on behalf of their children, but we believe that they 

ought to be granted even greater decision making authority, and would encourage the 

Congress to move forward in the area of educational savings accounts and tax credits 

modeled after those that have been adopted by the state of Arizona. 

 I am grateful for the opportunity to share our thinking with you, and I look 

forward to discussing our views further. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. CONNOR, PRESIDENT, FAMILY 

RESEARCH COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Connor. 

Dr. Foster? 

 STATEMENT OF GAIL E. FOSTER, FOUNDER, TOUSSAINT 

INSTITUTE FUND; BOARD MEMBER, BLACK ALLIANCE FOR 

EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS, NEW YORK, N.Y. 

Ms. Foster. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing of great national importance. 

 I am here today representing the Black Alliance for Educational Options, as well 

as the Toussaint Institute Fund. I am also a board member of the Council on American 

Private Education. In addition to being a former public high school teacher in New York 

City, I also have done quite a bit of research on inner-city private schools, Catholic 

schools, for the Rand Corporation, for the Institute for Independent Education, and just 

published a study on black independent schools in a book edited by Diane Ravitch and 
10

Joseph Viteritti called ``City Schools.'' There are over seventy black independent schools 

in New York City; these schools serve those parents who are desperately seeking options 

from their poor-performing public schools. 

 There are millions of African-American parents, and untold numbers of AfricanAmerican educators, who support school choice. The Toussaint Institute Fund, which I 

founded in 1988, was founded as a spontaneous response to the desperate cries of parents 

in New York. It was a grassroots effort; it was funded by the grass roots. It was the first 

scholarship program of its kind in the country, founded by the grass roots to save black 

male children from low-performing public schools and place them in black independent 

schools. These children, second and third graders, were being labeled ``special ed,'' 

``emotionally disturbed,'' ``learning disabled,'' and placed in these special ed classes 

when, maybe it was a behavior issue, maybe they just needed a little tutoring. And they 

would be sentenced to special education. In New York, the dropout rate for students in 

special education, the high school dropout rate, is well over 90 percent, if you just look at 

the Board of Ed's own statistics on that. So these were prison sentences; these children 

went from special ed to juvenile detention. 

 Parents were desperate, and we offered them scholarships to go to black 

independent schools, where suddenly these children who were labeled ``learning 

disabled'' and ``emotionally disturbed'' started learning, and started achieving, and started 

doing very well. They went on, some of them, to attend some of the top public high 

schools in the city of New York, and some of our top boarding schools around the 

country.

 The reason African-American parents support; and every poll that is taken shows 

it; school choice is because in their neighborhoods, if a child is a bright kindergarten 

student, you can predict that in two or three years that student will be two years behind in 

reading or math. Parents know this, but they are forced by zoning laws to send their 

children to these schools, where they know their children will fall behind because these 

schools are failing. They do not have any choices. 

 If a child is a very achieving child, very bright, does their homework every day, 

get A's in school every day, and the parents have a dream of their child maybe going to 

the Bronx High School of Science, which is a great public high school in New York, they 

do not know that you can not get there from here. I do not care how many A's you get 

and how much of your homework you do. If you attend a low-performing public 

elementary school in New York, and then go to a low-performing public junior high 

school; and you are tracked from low-performing to low-performing, there is no way you 

can get into the Bronx High School of Science, because you have not been prepared 

academically. So these parents discover that these wonderful dreams they had for their 

child of becoming a doctor, and this child who was always getting great grades, suddenly 

they do not have a chance, because the schools that their child attended at the elementary 

and intermediate level did not prepare them for Bronx Science. 

 Then you have parents whose children are just average achievers and have dreams 

of going away to college. Well, low-performing public high schools do not have college 

counselors, and where they do, they have a load that is incredible, and they do not think 

of these children as going away to college. They are all prepared to go to community 
11

colleges, if they graduate at all. And it is as if, going away to a four-year college is not 

part of the high school experience. In many of these high schools SATs are not even part 

of the school culture. Students have not heard about the SAT exam until it is too late. 

 These parents want the same choice that all of us in this room have. All of us in 

this room have the resources, either the financial resources or the connections, to place 

our children either in a good private school or in a good public school. Teachers send 

their children to good public schools, not low-performing public schools. They do that 

because they have choices that African-American parents, low-income and workingclass, do not have. 

 I see the stop button. I would just like to conclude by saying that AfricanAmerican educators also in large numbers support school choice. They are the ones who 

are trying to set up alternative public schools and black independent schools, so that 

black children in these communities can have a chance. 

 Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GAIL E. FOSTER, FOUNDER, TOUSSAINT 

INSTITUTE FUND; BOARD MEMBER, BLACK ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL 

OPTIONS, NEW YORK, N.Y. – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Foster. Ms. Weingarten? 

STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED 

FEDERATION OF WORKERS; VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, NEW YORK, N.Y. 

Ms. Weingarten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Miller and the members of 

the Committee. 

 Let me just say, because I want to talk a little bit about what we have done in New 

York on some of these issues, particularly turning around low-performing schools, which, 

by my count, in the last three years we have now turned around about 60 of them. But I 

want to talk about both turning around low-performing schools and attracting and 

retaining qualified teachers, and I want to talk about it from the perspective of not just my 

union role, but as a former high school teacher for six years in an inner city high school, 

and as a former Wall Street lawyer. 

 Obviously, you know that the AFT believes that the federal role in education is 

critical; particularly for urban areas lacking adequate property wealth these federal 

supplements are essential. We have often seen that the poor kids get the least resources, 

and I see that every day, since I am in schools three times a week. 
12

 Federal education programs have to promote quality public education for all of 

our nation's children. They should promote high standards in curriculum, and I 

particularly want to emphasize that point because if the district has the same standards in 

school by school by school, then you do not get to the problem that Dr. Foster just 

mentioned. So high standards in curriculum, they have to level the playing field through 

targeting low income areas, they have to reflect the national priorities, and they have to 

be, as both the Chairman and Mr. Miller have said, accountable for results. 

 We saw that Title I changes in 1994 started pushing us in that direction, and 

attached to my testimony you will see some of the nascent results. Over the course of the 

last six years, we have turned around at least eight city school districts. They have shown 

sustained improvement for the last three years. I will not go through that because time 

does not permit. 

 But what we want to do is we want to build on that success, and particularly, not 

just, with all due respect, talking about these big long bromides, but getting into the meat 

of the sandwich. We have talked about how to create the sandwich; now we have to get 

into the meat of it. 

 In terms of the pending legislation, the AFT is very pleased that President Bush's 

new administration has put so much effort into the reauthorization and making education 

the top priority. And his proposal, as reflected in the Chairman's bill, as well as in 

Miller-Kildee bill, and as well as the Roemer-Dooley bill, they all reflect several 

common themes that the AFT believes are very important themes: accountability, 

flexibility, choice, teacher quality and targeting. And obviously the devil is going to be 

in the details. 

 Let me tell you why the AFT believes that the Miller-Kildee bill incorporates 

most of those key elements, and is the bill that we are focusing on. First, it increases 

funding and targeting for Title I. It continues key programs, like class size reduction, like 

comprehensive school reform, like reading, like technology, like afterschool programs 

and school safety. And it addresses new areas of need, areas that I see every single day in 

New York City, including school construction; since we still need, in our borough of 

Queens, for example, seats for 80,000 kids right now; and alternative services for 

suspended or expelled kids. 

 The AFT particularly appreciates H.R. 340's emphasis on improving the quality of 

teaching by providing teachers with high quality professional development, and ensuring 

that all teachers are qualified to teach in the field in which they are teaching. And we are 

especially pleased with the new focus on assisting high poverty schools to provide 

adequate compensation for their teachers, which will help high-need schools struggling to 

attract qualified teachers. 

 Now, the Chairman's bill also incorporates, as I said before, the recommendations 

of the administration. But it maintains the basic stricture and structure of Title I, and that 

is very important, and we very much appreciate that. 

 Let me just focus on one thing. When you turn around low-performing schools, 

which we have done in New York City, it takes several things, several important things. 
13

It takes creating professional development, lowering class size, getting a quality teacher 

in every single class. 

 What we did in the last several years is we have taken the best practices that we 

have seen, and we have molded them together, and we have turned around 60 lowperforming schools. We have done that by extending the school week by a week, by 

extending the school day by 40 minutes, by requiring that these low-performing schools 

can only hire certified teachers, by giving those certified teachers the curriculum, 

including Success For All and a good math curriculum, and by making sure that 

everything is aligned in the right direction. 

 But what it also did, to do all of that, was it cost about $1.6 million in additional 

resources and revenues per school. So what we are saying is this. Accountability 

restrictions and constrictions are fine; we are up to that challenge. But you cannot just 

lift the bar, as Diane Ravitch says. You have to put the ladder steps in there, too. And 

what we have done in New York in the last few years; and I invite Dr. Foster to see what 

we have done; we know how to turn around schools. You help us with the resources and 

with the accountability standards and the alignment, we will do it. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED 

FEDERATION OF WORKERS; VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 

TEACHERS, NEW YORK, N.Y. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Weingarten, thank you for your testimony. And for those of 

you that heard the bells go off, we have ten minutes before a vote, and after that vote will 

be followed by another vote. And so I think we will take a break here. Sorry to tell you 

it will be at least 20 minutes, so cool your heels, and we will be back. 

 We stand in recess. 

Chairman Boehner. We apologize to our witnesses and our guests for our absence.

Unfortunately, this is how we do business here, and we are all trying to do too much in 

too little time. 

 And with that, Dr. Houston, you may begin. 

 STATEMENT OF PAUL HOUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Houston. Chairman Boehner, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to address H.R. 345, otherwise called the Three R's Bill, introduced by Mr. 
14

Roemer and others. My name is Paul Houston; I am the Executive Director of the 

American Association of School Administrators, which is an organization of about 

15,000 local school system leaders. I bring to the testimony about 35 years of experience 

as a teacher, principal and superintendent, as was noted, in a variety of different kinds of 

districts, those who have and those who have not. I also have three daughters; one is a 

private school teacher, one is a public school teacher, and one is still in public school. So 

I have a personal interest in what goes on as well. 

 We are here to support H.R. 345 for essentially four reasons. We believe it 

targets funds to schools with large concentrations of high-needs students and schools with 

low resources. We feel that it deserves support because it sets high goals for student 

achievement, and places clear accountability for achievement on schools and school 

districts, and not on the students themselves. It also takes steps towards creating a bigger 

funding stream to drive a percentage of federal funds to the local level. It also promotes 

school choice while rejecting vouchers. 

 In terms of targeting, targeting we feel is the single most important issue in the 

reauthorization of ESEA for our organization. It is the first priority because we feel the 

state funding systems tend to provide more money to middle-income and wealthier 

school districts in proportion than they do with schools where families from low-income, 

or schools that rely on property taxes from agriculture. Since 1970, the state courts have 

begun to reduce that gap, but it is still unconscionably high in most states. And we are on 

record as encouraging further litigation, in fact, at the state level that would produce not 

just equal funding, but sufficient funding to meet the needs of all students. 

 We feel the Federal Government is more able to target funds than local or state 

government. My own experience as a local superintendent, I have found that while 

school boards worry about that sort of thing, it is sometimes hard for them to equalize 

funding within a district. And certainly we know that many states and state legislatures 

are controlled by suburban areas and not by the areas where the greatest needs are. 

 The January 1998 GAO study of state and federal efforts to target poor students 

found that states averaged spending an additional 62 cents for every dollar they spent on 

students, while the Federal Government spends $4.73 for poor students for every dollar 

they spend on other students. So it is very clear the federal record is much better at 

targeting than at the state level, despite the fact that there have been efforts made to 

improve that. 

 Title I has essentially always been a targeted program, and we feel that moving 

Titles II and IV in that direction is appropriate. Currently in the proposed bill, 60 percent 

of the Title II money would be targeted for poverty. That is better than the 50 percent 

that is currently. We would like to see most if not all of it targeted that way, but it is 

certainly a step in the right direction. 

 We also applaud the efforts at making support for small rural schools, again, that 

are dependent upon the lower taxes from agricultural areas, and where the isolation is 

sometimes a problem. In summary on this part, we would be supportive, because it does 

move a greater percentage of federal funds to districts for high-needs students, and we 
15

think that is a good start. 

 We are also supportive because of accountability. We recognize the Congress, 

state legislatures and local boards need to hold school districts accountable, and we 

strongly support provisions that require clear evidence of student achievement, and that 

schools are progressing towards new standards. We believe that accountability for results 

is the largest part of the new covenant between schools and the communities that they 

serve.

 But we think accountability, while it has to include test scores, has to be more 

than just test scores. And we believe that the tests used must be used properly. They 

need to be used for the purposes for which they were validated. And we also support the 

disaggregation of data, which would help focus on where the real needs in schools are. 

 We also have to make sure that we build an accountability system that students 

understand, and that the information is given back to the schools and school districts in a 

timely manner. It is no good to have a testing system that does not provide information 

back so it can be used properly. And it needs to be built on state standards, and also 

providing this regular feedback so that both quantitative and qualitative information is 

available.

 We also recommend that every time a state uses a test for multiple purposes, that 

it be valid for those purposes. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is many states using 

tests for many reasons when the test was only validated for one of those. And as I said, 

we believe that the feedback needs to be timely and be given back in a fashion where it 

can be used. 

 We also believe that disaggregation is a very positive approach which allows you 

to focus particularly on those with high need and low income. And we feel that if we are 

serious about serving these students, we need to rate the schools based upon the lowest 

group recorded, not all groups put together. 

 We also found in our research that in many cases states tend to buy the cheapest 

test package from test developers, or buy tests from off the shelf, and sometimes those do 

not reflect the standards that have been set for the state. And if that is the case, we would 

urge you to allow states, schools, school districts or consortiums of school districts to use 

alternative assessments, and not just those that have been purchased for cost purposes. 

 We are also very supportive of consolidation. We believe that there is a 

difference between block granting and consolidation, and unfortunately that sometimes 

gets lumped together, or consolidated, if you will. We support rolling similar programs 

together if they create a larger funding stream, and if they are carefully targeted to highneeds students in low-resource schools. We will support consolidated programs that have 

a clear purpose, are focused on high-needs students, and also that hold schools 

accountable.

 I see my red light is on, so I will sum up by saying that we support the issue of 

choice, public school choice, and programs that promote more public school choice. We 

have serious reservations about sending public money to private schools, and we feel that 
16

in an era where we want to make sure we leave no child behind, we also need to make 

sure we leave no school behind in the process. And when we have students who leave 

and take part of the resources with them, that is a problem. 

 Again, thank you very much for allowing me to share some of our thoughts with 

you this morning. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL HOUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. – SEE APPENDIX F

Chairman Boehner. Dr. Houston, thank you very much. Mr. White? 

 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, CHARLES 

STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION, FLINT, M.I. 

Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is William 

S. White, and I am President of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, located in Flint, 

Michigan. Like the others, I have a daughter who is a public school teacher and a son 

who is a student. I have come here today to be contrarian, and urge you to maintain the 

21st Century Community Learning Center initiative as a separate program with a separate 

appropriation as set forth in current law. In the meantime, examine the data from the 

graduating programs, and then make your decision. 

 The Mott Foundation has more than 75 years of experience in funding and 

supporting community/school partnerships designed to help meet the needs of children 

and families in local communities. And it has committed more than $100 million to 

support the 21st Century after-school initiative, which began at the local level only three 

years ago. In those 75 years we have gained some insight on what works. 

 I believe that the proposals before you could seriously undermine the program 

that, while only in its infancy, is bearing important results. In debating these proposals, I 

would ask that you consider three fundamental points. 

 One: scale and momentum. The program has momentum. It has grown very 

rapidly from a pilot program to its current funding level of $846 million. This scale is the 

best chance we have ever seen to make a permanent difference in how communities and 

schools work together. It is too soon to make wholesale changes in the program. If we 

do, we risk losing a lot. 

 Two: leverage. The federal dollars and Mott's involvement have leveraged 

millions of dollars in the private sector, as well as local and state dollars. 
17

 Three: public will. Data shows that after-school programs are popular and make 

sense to the American people. That base of public will can be the foundation for building 

long-term support for public education. 

 If the program must change, there are several things to consider. Education and 

Accountability: the 21st Century program first and foremost is about education. Its other 

benefits and byproducts, such as keeping kids safe, reducing juvenile crime in afterschool hours, opening schools and giving parents flexibility to work, are important too. 

 The program has substance, content, focus, and a commitment to quality through 

competition. After all, competition breeds quality and requires planning. Evaluations are 

in place to measure impact. Like the Congress, as a funder I want this program to be 

accountable for helping kids succeed. 

 School-based, or school-linked: the contributions that community-based 

organizations bring to education are priceless, and long overdue. But to keep the 

initiative focused on education, to build public will for education, and to be accountable 

for performance, the link to school is absolutely essential. 

 Local partnerships: local partnerships have been the cornerstone of the 21st 

Century after-school program, sparking new partnerships between schools and all facets 

of their communities, including faith-based organizations and the business community. 

Requiring these partnerships helps promote local sustainability. 

 Public-private partnership: the Mott Foundation has been able to do things the 

Department of Education couldn't do. We funded training for after-school providers. We 

funded the identification of promising practices. We have supported advocacy in state 

policy work. We have supplemented the federal evaluation dollars. We have served as a 

convener at the national and state levels, bringing folks together who otherwise wouldn't 

be talking to each other about what is best for kids. We have helped bring other private 

funders to the table, including major philanthropies and Fortune 500 companies. 

 All this has been possible because the 21st Century after-school initiative is a 

competitive, targeted, extended-day learning program based on accountability. Local 

programs are helping kids find the hero within. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, CHARLES 

STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION, FLINT, M.I. – SEE APPENDIX G 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. White. Let me thank all of our witnesses for their 

excellent testimony. 

Mr. Bailey, can you tell us a little bit about your coalition, and what the goals of the 

coalition are? 

Mr. Bailey. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Coalition consists of a group of both individual 

businesses, as well as business organizations, which have a very simple goal. We want 
18

the school systems to have higher standards, we want high quality assessments against 

those standards, and we want the schools to be held accountable for results, and we want 

students to be given the opportunity to succeed. 

 It is an ad hoc coalition. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, I believe it is 

the largest single business coalition that has been put together around the topic of 

education. And the business community generally, I believe, has built on our long 

history of involvement in education, but it has gotten much more pronounced in recent 

years as our concerns have grown with regard to the quality of education, and therefore 

the ability of our education system to produce the kind of fluency in students that we 

need to populate our companies as we move forward into the next century. 

 I can speak specifically for my company in that the three major business unit 

heads last year each identified finding qualified work force as their primary concern for 

the next decade. 

Chairman Boehner. How active do you expect the Coalition to be beyond later this 

spring or early summer, when we expect to complete this bill, when it comes to actually 

implementing the bill and doing the work that is necessary at the state level? 

Mr. Bailey. Well, I think the Coalition in its current form is created to principally work 

through the federal legislation, but I would not expect either the enthusiasm or the energy 

level or the commitment of the business community to wane once we get into the balance 

of the challenge of improving education. Our commitment is in the bottom line; the 

commitment is to improve education. 

 We recognize that the Federal Government has an important role, but a limited 

role. As my recollection is, federal money represents around seven percent of the total 

spent with regard to K through 12 education, and so it is clear that it is an important 

amount of money, but a lot of what happens will and should happen at the local and state 

level. And we will be involved at that level as well. 

Chairman Boehner. That is really the point of my questioning, is that as you heard the 

slight differences in approach between Mr. Miller and I in our opening statements, there 

is a role that the Federal Government has played, and there is a role the Federal 

Government is going to play as we move into this process. 

 But if we are going to be successful, it is a limited role that we are going to play. 

And if we are going to actually solve this problem, a lot more action is going to have to 

happen at the state and local level to target resources, sufficient resources. I would just 

encourage you to not do what a lot of coalitions do: come to town, help pass a bill, and 

then they are gone. Real work in the states would be very helpful, I think, for all of 

America's children. 

Dr. Foster, I appreciate your testimony. After you, Ms. Weingarten gave her 

testimony. You are both from the same area, you both taught in the same schools. What 

do you think about the approach that Ms. Weingarten presented the Committee? 
19

Ms. Foster. I am glad you mentioned I was from New York City. Because I said 

Toussaint Institute Fund, some people thought Arizona. So we have cleared that up. 

Chairman Boehner. I was listening closely to your testimony. 

Ms. Foster. Thank you. You know, there are two problems. One is time. Ms. 

Weingarten talked about turning these schools around. You see, for a kindergarten 

student, if you spend three years turning the school around, that child is now two years 

below grade level. Whereas if that parent would have had the choice, the option to 

transfer to another good public or private school, that child would be on grade level or 

above. In just three short years, in that much time, a child maybe who acts out a little 

gets placed in special ed. Statistics and every study shows, every parent knows, every 

black parent, that you never get out of special ed. It's a tracking. Special ed leads to the 

juvenile justice system. So that child's life is gone. 

 So parents are losing their children's lives. Three years in a low-performing 

elementary school means that this bright, gifted child has blown the chance to go to the 

Bronx High School of Science, or Stuyvesant High School, one of the city's top public 

high schools. 

 So when you are talking about parents trying to save their children's lives and 

futures, it is really the time thing that is an issue. 

 The other thing is that for years and years and years, well-meaning people have 

talked about changing the school systems. The Toussaint Institute Fund has been around 

12 years; thousands of parents have been coming through our doors trying to escape these 

schools that lots of well-meaning people like Ms. Weingarten have been working to 

change. So we have no confidence that these changes will take place. 

 If I can just say, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, which is a national 

organization of African-Americans that really supports empowering parents to have 

choice and options, we support public and private school vouchers, and charter schools, 

and tuition tax credits. But we are really concerned about the low-income and the 

struggling working-class parents who are stuck. So this is not a philosophical or political 

debate for those parents, and my concern is that for many, it is the political or 

philosophical issue they are trying to defend. 

 You know, philosophically we must defend unions, and unions are so important, 

so important in the history of our country, that you get concerned, well, what happens to 

teachers if parents start going, using their voucher dollars to go to private schools? And 

that is a philosophical discussion someone might want to have, but in terms of parents 

trying to save their children's lives, it just doesn't hold up. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Ms. Foster. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 
20

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the panelists. 

Ms. Weingarten, the Chairman and myself had an opportunity to spend a weekend 

with your superintendent of schools, and he threw out the challenge that he would be 

fully prepared to take some of the Chancellor schools that you discussed and compare 

them to the suburban schools, because of the kinds of changes that have taken place. I 

was quite struck with your testimony, in pages six through nine, the extent to which the 

response has really been customized in terms of differential pay for teachers, assignments 

of teachers, giving first priority to the low-performing schools for the properly certified 

and qualified teachers. I just wondered if you might want to expand on that, because I 

think a lot of us are concerned that big districts get into a cookie-cutter mentality and 

aren't able to change. I share all of Ms. Foster's concerns about the urgency of time in a 

young child's life. 

Ms. Weingarten. Right. I want to say this very publicly; Chancellor Crew and I took a 

big risk in June of 1999, then-Chancellor Crew. The new state assessment tests in New 

York for fourth graders had just been implemented. And we had seen what we had done 

in terms of the Chancellor's district. I actually wish Dr. Foster would come with me to 

some of these schools, because the 60 schools that I have talked about, the 12 elementary 

schools that first went into the Chancellor's district, within a year of them going into the 

Chancellor's district, all of them were on the ``off the SUR'' list, which is our lowperforming list. 

 But the real issue becomes; and we see this both with the Catholic schools, who, 

by the way, in New York the Catholic schools are unionized. So the issue about 

unionization is not an issue. But we have seen this in both the Catholic schools and the 

public schools; we see the same things. Reading, we do about the same in the early 

grades. Both school systems do a not very good job in terms of math, and that gets 

punctuated as the years go on. Same in terms of the suburban-city split. 

 So what we have been trying to do is do a lot of this analysis, as you are seeing, 

and customizing the analysis to different schools. What Chancellor Crew and I realized 

was that we had to do several things at the same time; that we had to do different things 

in different schools, yet there were certain things that had to stay constant. 

 We both took the responsibility; we took over 40 schools at one time, which is a 

lot of schools to take over at one time. And now we are prepared to do another 40 

schools, now that we have done the first 40. What we tried to do was first realize that if 

you do not have a quality teacher in every single classroom, and a quality principal, you 

are not going to have the staff support to really do all the work you need to do. 

 And we needed to increase the number of certified teachers in these places, 

because we know that in order to have a quality teacher in each of these classrooms, you 

are going to have to start with state certification. And so what we initially did was we 

increased compensation by 15 percent. But we also said to folks, you are going to have to 

work more of an organized day. Most of these folks were working well beyond their six 

hours and 20 minutes anyway, but we were going to organize more time. 
21

 And so the organized time came in two ways, a week before the start of the school 

year, and 40 minutes a day every single day. And we used it in two ways. We used it for 

professional development at the school site, done by really good people who knew their 

stuff. And we also used it to help kids who were falling behind, so that we could really 

catch kids who needed that safety net. So we used it for professional development and 

that.

 Then we also reduced class size. Then we also instituted, along with the 

professional development, a core curriculum, first Success For All, and then a Math 

Trailblazers curriculum in math. And then we also had after school programs, and then 

we had parental participation. 

 We did all of that at the same time, and what we saw in the first year of those 40 

schools, even after Chancellor Crew left; I was very concerned when he left that it would 

get destabilized, because this was the Chancellor's district; was that we had enough 

traction so that the people at the school levels really kept moving forward. And in the 

first year, we saw basically a nine point increase in reading scores. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Bailey. 

Ms. Foster. May I clarify something? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Bailey, I am a little concerned, when I look at the Republican 

legislation, the bill that was introduced on the Administration’s behalf, and even with 

some concern by the Administration, that there is backsliding on the use of the NAEP to 

try to see how we are doing in these various states. We do have a national exam that is, I 

think, considered by most people to be pretty good in measuring educational attainment 

and achievement. 

 I will express my concern. If the Chair will let you respond, I would appreciate it. 

When I look at the members of the Coalition for Education, whether it is Apple or AOL 

or your own company, or Boeing or others, and you are in worldwide production, these 

companies that produce in China and Malaysia, the United States, Mexico, have a world 

standard. You don't turn out a phone that is good enough for England, but it is not good 

enough for the United States, or it is not good enough for Japan but it is good enough for 

Mexico.

 I am a little concerned that we are slipping back on this idea of a benchmark, 

because historically students have done pretty well on state tests, and then when they 

come to take the NAEP, they drop rather dramatically. This suggests that maybe the state 

test is a test that can be taught to, or maybe is very narrow in its measurement. I would 

hope that the business alliance would keep in mind that we need some manner; I am not 

talking about a national curriculum or mandated state tests; we need some way, if we are 

going to put up another $150 billion in this system, that we are getting the same high 

quality results in Nevada and Louisiana and California that all parents should expect. I 

am worried that we are backsliding on that component. 

I raise that, because I think it is very similar to what many of your executives 

might understand in trying to keep a very disparate system together to turn out a product 
22

that is of equal quality wherever you turn it out, if you are presenting it to the public. 

Mr. Bailey. Well, we certainly agree that there is merit in having a yardstick that is 

understood, that people can make valid comparisons across the population. And certainly 

NAEP has served that purpose, as I appreciate that. It has been around for around 30 

years. It is a statistical sampling; it is not student-specific in terms of the way data is 

presented. But it does allow 41 states that use it to have a measure that is again common 

among them. 

 We are supportive of the flexibility that H.R. 1 provides. We do think, as Ms. 

Weingarten has talked about in New York, that individual districts and individual school 

systems can creatively meet the ultimate objective, which is to have a student population 

that is performing at the level that everyone would like them to perform at. 

 Certainly from a business point of view, we would think that the Federal 

Government could exercise leadership in encouraging efficiency in establishing 

assessments. We would not argue that NAEP is perfect, but certainly it is the one test 

that is there today, or the one assessment that is there today that is somewhat uniform 

across a number of the states, and certainly in 30 years hasn't led to any national 

curriculum. And I understand that that is a sensitive issue, and it is not something we 

would support either. 

 But again, quality assessment is critical, and I think because the Federal 

Government participation is substantial in absolute terms but at the margin in the total 

scheme of things, that it can encourage benchmarking and quality assessment that does 

provide some comparability of measurement across various states. 

 We operate as a company in 49 states, and we would be very happy to see the 

quality be uniform across those states. But even within individual school systems, as 

some of the professionals have pointed out, the quality is not uniform. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

Mr. Bailey. And what we want to do is see all students have the opportunity, if you 

follow the principles we have outlined; we don't think it is a smorgasbord. We think the 

principles knit together into a coherent whole. We think that all students can learn at a 

higher level, and that the output of our school systems can enable individual students, and 

ultimately the measure is individual, that a youngster has the opportunities to succeed and 

fully realize their potential in life. And we think that is doable if the principles are 

followed.

Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Weingarten. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. Hoekstra. I thank the Chair. Mr. Bailey, the statement that you have submitted 

today is silent on the issue of parental choice and parental involvement. It is a key 

component of the President's plan. Has the Business Coalition for Excellence in 
23

Education evaluated the choice component? And have you taken a position on it? 

Mr. Bailey. We certainly have taken a position on the issue of choice. We believe that, 

as some of the other witnesses have said, the parents ought to have the ability to make 

choices that they see as being correct for their children. And we are certainly sensitive to 

the time dimension as well. 

 We have not taken a position on any particular mechanism, with regard to how to 

achieve that. But we certainly believe choice is an element that is important in the 

overall context of the legislation. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Good, thank you. In terms of standing up for America's families, 

standing up for our parents, standing up for our kids, Dr. Foster, your organization is 

awesome. 

Ms. Foster. Thank you. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Your statement today was awesome, standing up for parents. Listening to 

Ms. Weingarten talk about, you know, that they have taken over 40 schools and you have 

improved the performance; congratulations. And you are ready to take over 40 more. 

What happened to the kids in those schools for this year? Those 40 failing schools? 

Dr. Foster, I think you wanted to respond to what was being said earlier. That is what I 

am concerned about. Those kids were locked into that school for this year with no 

opportunity. Dr. Foster? 

Ms. Foster. Well, what I wanted to clarify was that when Ms. Weingarten talked about a 

school getting taken off the SUR list, that the Chancellor works hard with these public 

schools to turn them around and works with the teachers, and that they get taken off the 

SUR list, you have to understand that to be removed from the SUR list does not mean 

that you are suddenly a performing school. It only means that you are not considered the 

lowest of the lowest of the lowest-performing schools. So you are still a low-performing 

school. A child still can't get there from here, or get here from there. 

 And so it is really important that we make that clear. And that was what I wanted 

to clarify. A school has to fail for several repeated years in a row, and fail to show 

improvement year after year after year after year, in order to get on the SUR list. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Yes, I just wanted to say that in the hearings that we have held, 

``Education at a Crossroads,'' we have been in New York City, we have been in Tampa, 

Cleveland, Milwaukee, Chicago. And in almost every situation, we have heard the voice 

that you articulated today, of a parent coming in and saying, my child has been in a 

failing school for two years, three years. There was a five-year plan to improve the 

schools; this was what we heard in New York the first time. A father came in and said, 

you know, my daughter was in a failing school for five years. They had a five-year plan, 

and the schools aren't any better now. Now they have a new five-year plan. 
24

Ms. Foster. That's right. 

Mr. Hoekstra. I have lost five years, and if this new plan does not work, I have lost my 

child. You know, I have not gotten help from the school system. 

 So I will tell you, we met with Virginia who is heading up the effort for the 

BAEO, and working with BAEO here in Washington, D.C. 

Ms. Foster. Yes, Virginia Walden, a member of the board. 

Mr. Hoekstra. And I just applaud the voice that you are bringing to this process, in 

speaking eloquently not as a Democrat or a Republican or a conservative or a liberal, but 

speaking up for a parent's right to be a full partner in this process, and that the way to do 

that is to bring about, not only accountability, which is the assessments and the tests and 

those types of things, but bringing up the message that says, you know, let's make room 

for parents in this process, in a process that for too long parents have been moved out of 

the process. 

 The work that you guys are doing, the standards that you are setting, thank you 

very much for that. I applaud you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. White, you mentioned in your testimony 

your opposition to consolidating the 21st Century Community Learning Center programs 

with other programs. This bill, H.R. 1, consolidates it with the Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools program. Could you expand upon your opposition to that consolidation? 

Mr. White. I am basically talking from the viewpoint of the after school initiative. And I 

am speaking as a funder. We fund programs all the time. We work with communitybased organizations. We work with all sorts of organizations. And we have to make 

tough decisions from time to time about where the dollars go. 

 And one of the things I have found, regardless of the program area, whether it is 

education, the environment, or working in Central or Eastern Europe, I have found that it 

takes a minimum of five years, really, to get a good program in place. So speaking as a 

funder, I come at this program, really, you are not going to get your first results out of 

this program until this June. And yet you are going to change the program. As a funder, 

that, to me, does not make any sense. So that is where I am coming from. 

 I am not saying anything about Safe and Drug-Free Schools. I am not an expert 

on that. All I do know is that these programs, from the limited data that we have been 

able to get from the first round of grantees, is they are reducing pregnancy, they are 

reducing crime, they are increasing achievement in reading and math, and we are 

increasing attendance. And I expect that if those types of things are happening, the odds 

are that probably the schools are working, they are a little safer, and maybe they are drugfree. So I look at it as a separate type; that is why I am looking at it separately. 
25

 The other thing I would say is, there is some census data that has recently been 

done, and the Census Department studied schools in about 1992-1994, in that period.

And they found out that if you were a kid engaged in sport, engaged in some club, some 

after school program, some type of positive, productive, engaged activity, the odds are 

you had a chance of being on grade. Seventy-five percent of those kids are on grade.

And if you were not engaged, you only had a 60 percent chance of being on grade. 

 So I think there is beginning to be compelling evidence. And I would just like to 

see the data come in, and then if the program is no good, pitch it. If it is good, let's stick 

with it and improve it. 

Mr. Kildee. I know the Mott Foundation. I've known it virtually all my life. The 

Foundation is a little older than I am. Your approach is a very objective, result-oriented 

manner, I know that. 

 Do you feel that five years' experience is a good benchmark to determine whether 

a program is working well? And if you consolidate it with another program, that the 

results are not that easily measured? 

Mr. White. I have found that wherever I go, the five years works. Whether it is with a 

community-based organization, a neighborhood organization, whatever it might be, it 

takes a while to get the leadership team in place. And if you are working in the school as 

my daughter is, and you get different educational philosophies, it takes a year or two to 

sort it out at the local level. 

 So it just takes a while to get that done, yes. So I find that is worthwhile. 

 I had one other point, but I can't think of it right now. 

Mr. Kildee. You answered my question there. You have traveled throughout the world.

You traveled through the Soviet Union. I think you gave a talk, recently, on 21st Century 

Learning Centers in London. Can you give us some examples of some positive results of 

this three-year experiment we have had so far, which you have helped fund significantly? 

Mr. White. Well, yes, I have mentioned the reductions in juvenile delinquency, and I 

have mentioned the increase in grades and attendance. 

 Years ago, I was in a school in Utah. And the principal thought it was so 

important that that school be open after hours to meet the needs of the community. So he 

was doing it himself, with no funding. 

 And we were walking through the school, and a little girl came up to him. She 

was in tears about the seventh grade. She says, I don't know what to do. I have a friend, 

and this friend, her parents are getting divorced, and she is thinking of taking drugs. 

Mr. Hoekstra. [Presiding] Excuse me for just a second. I am not interrupting your time, 

but we were informed, Ms. Weingarten, do you need to leave? 
26

Ms. Weingarten. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Hoekstra. All right. So they asked me to interrupt and say you have got permission 

to leave. If you are catching a plane or wherever you need to go, feel free to leave. 

Ms. Weingarten. Thank you. We have a math commission in New York today, and we 

wanted to really focus on that. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Okay. 

Ms. Weingarten. So I need to be there. Thank you. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Great. Thank you very much for being here, as a part of this panel. 

Ms. Weingarten. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Mr. White? 

Mr. White. Fine. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Excuse my interruption, and please continue. 

Mr. White. I once worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. You would 

always start a joke, and you know, two months later you would finish the punch line. So 

anyway, this little girl is in tears, and so obviously I step aside. But that principal was 

there for that kid when they needed him, and to me, we need to be there for kids. And all 

this testing, we know which kids in the first grade know their letters; we know which kids 

don't recognize words. We know that. And we have got to figure out how to be there for 

the kids. 

 One of the reasons I like to support the public schools is that all kids pass through 

them. We need to make them the best. I would like to get rid of all buildings. Turn it 

into a real estate investment trust. Get school boards out of the building business, it is not 

their business. Their business is education, and they ought to be working to figure out, 

with all the community agencies; whether they are churches, whether they are Y's, 

whether they are someone else. I have seen great programs in YMCAs. But they ought 

to be working the whole community to make sure every kid is taken care of. 

 One of my board members was Alonzo Crim, with the Atlanta school district; 

some of you probably knew him. Alonzo, as superintendent, he had a kid he mentored for 

three solid years, to try to save that kid. So that seems one of the things. We need to 

bring the community in and do everything we can to help that kid. And if that kid is in 

one of those schools we heard about, where they are trapped and they can't get to where 

they want to be, we need someone there advocating for that kid. So that is where I come 

from. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. White. 
27

Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you. Mr. Schaffer? 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Houston, my first question is for you. 

Reading through your testimony, and you are here on behalf of the American Association 

of School Administrators, you have a statement on page three, which is just one sentence.

It says, ``the Federal Government is more able to target funds than either local 

government or state government.'' Is that the position of the Association? 

Mr. Houston. I think it is more our history than our position. 

Mr. Schaffer. So it is not your position? 

Mr. Houston. Well, I think the reality is that we have not seen the targeting done at the 

state level historically, despite efforts. 

Mr. Schaffer. Okay. I just want to get it, is this the position of the Association? 

Mr. Houston. Yes. 

Mr. Schaffer. It is? Okay, thank you. You also said that the Association is strongly 

opposed to public money ending up in private schools through a voucher program. Yet, 

that is really one of the central features of H.R. 1 and the Bush plan. And you know, we 

really cannot envision the bill getting to the President's desk without this important 

provision. In fact, the option of eventually, for Title I students, being able to take their 

Federal Government money to a private school, is something many of us have been 

waiting for a long time to even be able to discuss. The door has finally been opened on 

private school vouchers. And it is an important, in fact a central, part of this bill. 

 You know, this is the real opportunity to get our foot in the door on private school 

choice. Why would you want to deny any family the opportunity to send their child to a 

school that offers more promise and a better opportunity for that child with federal funds 

any longer? 

Mr. Houston. Well, I agree with you. I think it is an extremely important issue, and 

deserves probably a lot more discussion and study than it will likely get in the process of 

being buried within a larger bill. It is interesting, from my standpoint, from my 

association, which is made up of members, about half and half between the two parties, 

we are also made up of people from urban, suburban and rural. So we are split all over 

the place on almost every issue you can think of. 

 Except this one. This is the one issue where the whole membership almost en 

masse comes together in opposition. And it is because, I think there are so many issues 

involved. It is very difficult at one level to argue for the one parent who has a child who 

wants to get out and move that child, it is very difficult to make that argument to say it is 

a bad thing for that parent. But you have the issue of the children who are left behind in 

that school that is failing, and what is to be done with those children that are still there? 
28

 You have the whole tension between whether education is a public good or a 

private good, and the issue of public policy played out as to what is the responsibility. 

Mr. Schaffer. So a private school isn't capable of contributing to a public good? Is that 

kind of the conclusion? 

Mr. Houston. No, it is what the public money is used for. As I said, I have a daughter 

who teaches at a private school, and she has a wonderful experience there. A lot of my 

friends are private school educators. One of the issues with vouchers is it may be one of 

those things, you have to be careful what you wish for because you might get it, because 

once you start having public funds going to private education, then the issue of 

accountability comes into effect. How are you going to hold the schools accountable for 

the use of that money? Not all private schools are wonderful; some of them aren't. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. That brings up one of the questions I want to make sure I ask 

of Mr. Connor. When it comes to the private school voucher, as some have called it; I 

really don't regard it as a voucher so much. But eventually, if a child is in a failing school 

long enough, they would be able to choose to take their Title I funds to a private school, 

which, under H.R. 1, would obligate that private school to test the child under the new 

federal testing mandates in the bill. Does your organization support that notion of the 

Federal Government requiring a testing, having a testing mandate for private schools? 

Mr. Connor. No, we do not. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. 

Mr. Connor. And may I say simply that on the choice issue, we would like to see the bill 

be more aggressive, and we share Dr. Foster's concern about leaving the child in a failing 

school.

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. Dr. Foster, you have indicated your passion; I agree with 

Congressman Hoekstra. I think your testimony, of all those who have come here today, 

speaks directly to children and looking at children first, and institutions perhaps second or 

even later. In order to get the real liberty in this bill, the school choice, a child has to 

languish in a failing school for three years before they are able to choose. My first 

question, is that about right? Too long? Too short? 

Ms. Foster. That is absolutely too long. 

Mr. Schaffer. And secondly, the Department of Education has identified 8,000 schools 

today that are failing, some of which have been failing for five years, others for a shorter 

period of time. I would like you to comment on the amount of time a family and a child 

has to endure a failing school before they get choice, and ask you just your organization's 

opinion on that time period. 

Ms. Foster. Yes, I am very disappointed in the three-year time period. That kind of falls 

into some of the comments you have heard other people make about, you know, just give 

us time, we will improve the school, and children are losing their futures in that time. 
29

 You know, when people say; and I just want to respond to this ``dumping ground'' 

issue; the lowest performing schools are already dumping grounds. That is what they are.

All of us in this room have escaped those schools. So now we are saying, close the hatch 

and don't let the rest escape. That is an issue. 

 Accountability? These parents want respect. They don't have respect in the 

public schools they are in now, because they are the lowest low-income parents, they are 

the least empowered parents. But when they can say, listen, I can take my $8,000 that the 

state gives per child, and I can take it to any public or private school of my choice. I can 

take it to the charter school across the street, or the black independent school down the 

street, or any other private or public school, then I get respect. Then I can stand up and I 

can get that principal and get those teachers to work with me to turn that failing public 

school around. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. I hope we can advance your dreams and goals in education. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair would attempt to correct the record that in current federal 

law, where services are provided by a private school for Title I services, assessments are 

in fact required. And we leave it to, under current law, between the local public school 

and the private school that is providing the services. And in H.R. 1, the provision does 

not change at all from current law. 

 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, one of the authors of the Three 

R's Bill, Mr. Roemer. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you studying up on the Three 

R's Bill as well, too. In our meetings, I know we have been going over that. 

Chairman Boehner. And I appreciate the testimony from your witness here, Dr. 

Houston, today. And it will be beneficial as we continue to sit down and discuss the 

issues of consolidation. I thought Dr. Houston did a great job. 

Mr. Roemer. Tom did a great job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Foster, you have talked about a voucher that would be $8,000 that might help a child 

go from one school that is failing to maybe a private school. The Bush proposal is not 

$8,000. It's not $5,000. It's not $3,000. It's not $2,000. It's $1,500. And as a product of 

Catholic schools myself, and of public schools, both of which do a very good job, we 

have all kinds of new accountability provisions in the Three R's bill and in the Bush bill. 

And we are trying to figure out more about testing, we are trying to make teachers more 

accountable, we are trying to make entire schools more accountable. 

 But then we have this provision in this bill that says you can take $1,500 from a 

public school and a taxpayer-funded school, and that $1,500 can then disappear and go to 

a private school; I attended many of these private schools, but my parents and I paid for 

those choices; and then we don't have the accountability. 

 As a product of Catholic schools, I am not sure that some of the Catholic schools 

want to be in a position that they start taking this money, and then the Federal 
30

Government starts to say to them, we are not sure we want this curriculum taught in your 

school the way you are doing it anymore. I think there is a host of very interesting First 

Amendment questions, accountability questions, church and state questions. I hope we 

get into these when we debate this bill. 

 I have a different question that I would like to ask Dr. Houston initially. We have 

three bills, as the Chairman has talked about. We have the Bush bill, which has 

approximately a $500 million increase for this program. We have the Miller bill, which 

has approximately a $20 billion increase in resources per year for this program, and the 

Three R's bill, which has about a $7 billion increase in assets and resources and 

investments for this bill. 

 I do not know that I will support mandates to our states and our local schools to 

do more tests, including NAEP tests, if we do not have sufficient resources in this bill to 

remediate the kids and help them with tutoring and after school programs to then pass the 

tests. Do you think that $500 million, as opposed to the $7 billion that you have 

endorsed, what is the difference there, in terms of implementing, and then addressing and 

remediating, these tests? 

Mr. Houston. Well, there is no question in my mind, having served in districts that 

served wealthy children where they had a lot of resources, and districts where we served 

poor children where we did not have a lot of resources, that resources do in fact make 

some difference. And it is very difficult for me to envision a lot of these inner city school 

districts, or these very poor rural school districts, being able to make the kinds of leaps 

that need to be made for their children without having sufficient resources. 

 Actually, there are things in all three of the bills that are being discussed today 

that we like. There are some things in at least two of them we are not as happy about.

But I think the challenge before you folks is to figure out how to shape a bill that really 

does do what everybody is saying they want done, which is to focus on improving 

education for America's children, to making sure that we change a system where we 

historically designed a system that was meant to leave children behind. Our historic 

design was to sort children out. We have now, as a nation, come to realize that is not a 

very good model in today's world, that we cannot afford to leave some children out of the 

mix and behind while other children are moving ahead. 

 But to make that kind of shift is going to require dramatic resource reallocation, 

or changing allocation of resources, so that you can target those resources on the children 

that need them. 

 There was a discussion about the number of schools that are failing in America. 

How many of those are failing in rich, suburban communities? Very few. 

Mr. Roemer. They have the money. Thank you very much. Let me ask Mr. Bailey a 

quick question. We have, now, states testing. In Indiana, we do three tests between 

grade three and grade eight. And we also have this national NAEP test. Now, we have 

also found that there might be 70 or 80 percent of students passing the state test, but 

maybe 30 percent of the students passing the NAEP test. So there is a 40 or 50 point 

spread between those students passing a state test and those passing the NAEP, the 
31

National Assessment of Educational Progress test. 

 Now, in the Bush bill it says that you can take the NAEP test or another similar 

test, that you can go ahead and take a Stanford 9, and we never really find out the 

difference between these states passing their own state tests, and then the comparative 

tool to align the assessments that you talked about in your testimony, with a NAEP test. 

 Are you going to support language that merely says the NAEP or similar testing? 

Or do you insist on a NAEP being the standard? 

Mr. Bailey. We would not insist on NAEP being the standard. We certainly believe that 

quality assessments and quality tests are an important part of what needs to happen. 

Mr. Roemer. Who measures that, Mr. Bailey? If you can devise any national test you 

want at the state level, it becomes just another state test. 

Mr. Bailey. Well, but the states, we believe, could be encouraged to partner in testing.

Mr. Roemer. What if Indiana and Louisiana and Ohio and New York all do different 

tests? You do not have any standard, uniform way to measure the difference. 

Mr. Bailey. Well, I think the principle that we support is a principle that the tests need to 

be high quality; they need to be proven to actually measure what we are attempting to 

measure. But we are not in the business of designing tests.

Mr. Roemer. That is what a NAEP test is, though. 

Mr. Bailey. A NAEP test does that, but we would not argue NAEP is perfect. But we 

certainly think that it has been proven to be an effective tool and an effective measure 

over a fairly extended period of years now. But today it still tests a sampling of students 

in each state. I think the average is around 2,500 students in a state in order to get an 

assessment. And that sampling, while it has some statistical validity in terms of being a 

measure, obviously any sample is as good as the sample chosen. And the ultimate issue 

is to have testing that is comprehensive, and that enables individual students, individual 

parents and individual schools to be able to measure progress and to remediate where 

remediation is necessary. 

Mr. Roemer. Well, now you are making the argument for the NAEP. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder. 

Mr. Souder. I thank the Chairman, and first let me thank all the witnesses today, because 

whether we are coming from a conservative or a liberal perspective, there is a deep 

interest in improving the lives of students and improving our education system in the 

United States. And when we go through these arguments, I think that important premise 

is important to acknowledge, because it is critical to our nation and to our families and 

kids.
32

 I want to follow up on the testing question with Mr. Bailey. You have heard both 

from Mr. Miller and Mr. Roemer how in fact we can evolve to more of a national test. 

And I want to make a statement here, because I am extremely frustrated with the business 

community.

 I believe we are being led down a path toward national control that has an impact 

far beyond the question of education. I am asked on a regular basis by the business 

community; when people come up to me and say, my hand hurts because of repetitive 

motion, and we said, oh, we don't want a national standard on ergonomics, we're going to 

leave it at the state level; when somebody comes to me and says, I am really struggling 

with my health plans and I can't figure out what kind of car insurance to get, the business 

community comes to me and says, well, we need to have state standards, because we 

don't want to have a national standard. 

 When somebody comes to me on telecommunications, about why we 

decentralized the system rather than having one national standard on telecommunications, 

or when somebody comes to me on pipeline safety, or when somebody comes to me on 

energy prices, I say, look, a national standard leads to national control. When you have 

national control, people manipulate it. Then all of a sudden we won't have energy 

production in the United States. We will have jobs move overseas if we pass some of 

these regulations. We won't have adequate health insurance. 

 Then the business community comes up to us on education; and I understand the 

motive; the kids in many cases coming into the business community aren't qualified. 

They are being graduated out, many times with a degree, and they don't have a level of 

reading. But a national test backup, even NAEP? If NAEP becomes a standard in this 

bill; and it will be the de facto standard, even if we have an alternative; it will eventually 

become a politically manipulated test with which to control people. 

 And I am incredibly disappointed at the business community, and like many other 

conservatives am continuing to look at this. What is this double standard coming out of 

the business community, and why should we all the time listen to the business 

community on other regulation questions, if, when it is in their interest, they are for a 

national regulation in another category as long as it doesn't affect their direct bottom line? 

 I just want to express these ideas, and I hope you will take that back to your 

association, because I know they are committed to education, and I know they are trying 

to do the right thing. But this pattern, the people who are asking you for a national test 

do not favor state regulation in other areas either. 

 And I also wanted to make a brief comment also to thank Dr. Foster for your 

eloquent testimony. I agree with that very much. 

 And Mr. Connor, I wanted to ask a follow-up, because I appreciate you raising the 

science question. This is a very troubling issue to many who have differences in some 

small parts of the overall science debate. There is no question that science is really 

important. But I hope you will work with the Committee in looking how, if this passes as 

a standard, we can have some sort of protection for those who have, not only in science 

but in other tests, religious convictions that could cause, for example, in a religious 
33

district, if there is a question dealing with the origins, could lead to that district scoring 

lower on a test because of the religious views. This can happen in English, depending on 

what book is measured and what the content of that book is. We do not have history in 

here, but it can happen in history. And I hope that you can work with the Committee, 

because the Chairman has been very willing overall to work with members on both sides 

as we look at this, to make sure that the test results actually measure agreed upon 

standards and don't in effect discriminate against people based on their individual 

religious beliefs. 

Mr. Connor. Congressman, we would certainly work toward that end. Our concern has 

been, and many of our constituents' concerns have been, that the school system has been 

more about indoctrination than education. And particularly when you get into these 

areas, about the origin of the universe, the nature of man, et cetera, this provokes very 

substantial disagreement, and contributes to undermining many of the parental and 

religious values that parents seek to inculcate into their children. And they felt that their 

children have been in a hostile environment. So we appreciate your concern. We 

certainly would work with the Committee in that regard. And we want to assure that the 

safeguards that you suggest are present. 

Mr. Souder. Thank you. 

Ms. Foster. Mr. Chairman? I just wanted to know if I could respond to a question that 

was raised about the $8,000? 

Chairman Boehner. Briefly. 

Ms. Foster. Okay. You know, one of the things is that politics has entered into this 

debate. BAEO is not Democrat or Republican; it is not left or right wing. Actually, it is 

made up of both Democrat and Republican, left and right wing. And if this $1,500 tax 

credit is the result of compromise between Democrats and Republicans, then what 

parents are trying to say to you is we do not need that kind of compromise. You know, 

we need you to help us escape. 

 So it is politics that has taken that whole $8,000 and reduced it to the $1,500.

And yes, parents would like the whole $8,000. But I can tell you, some of these 

struggling working class parents and low-income parents, they are working two and three 

jobs to match that $1,500 so they can escape by any means necessary. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentle lady from California, Ms. 

Woolsey.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bailey, I would love to sit down and talk 

to you about getting girls involved in technology so you will have a work force in the 

future. I can't do that; there is too much going on in this room today. 

 And I am going to start a question with a premise and an assumption that nobody 

in this room believes that schools who are low-performing schools are doing it on 

purpose, that there are no administrators, no schools and no teachers that purposefully are 

not meeting the needs of their students. And if you want to correct me on that, feel free 
34

when I get through. 

 What is in the way? We know there are schools that have challenges. They are in 

districts that are tougher than others. Why are we as a nation not stepping up to this so 

that every parent knows they can send their child to any public school, and that school 

will meet the need of that student? 

 We can skim off the top few kids that are going to poor-performing schools and 

send them to a private institution. Or we can fix our schools for every child in this 

nation. Tell me, from your perspective, why we are not doing that. Is it we don't have 

the money in this nation? We don't have the will? The Congress doesn't care enough? 

What is getting in the way? 

 Can we start with you, Mr. White? 

Mr. White. Thank you. Just to confuse the debate, I am a product of choice, because I 

would not be here if my parents had not exercised it. And we once funded, probably, 

experimental vouchers. How is that to confuse it? 

 I believe that it is because we don't have the will. I mean, absolutely we have got 

to reach down and we have got to do it at the first, the second, the third grade. So it is 

will, and we have got to get the community in there so they know what is taking place, 

and they help the school administrators change. 

Ms. Woolsey. Dr. Houston? 

Mr. Houston. Well, I would go back to the three points that I think are critical in any 

debate that you have about these policies and these programs you are talking about. You 

have got to target the resources where they are most needed, and they are most needed 

with children with the greatest needs. And you have got to then create enough flexibility 

that people will use the know-how that they have, and the local knowledge that they 

have, to make it happen. And then you have got to hold people accountable. 

 I totally agree with your premise. I have been all over this country; I have been to 

schools in virtually every state. I have never seen one where people set out purposely to 

make it bad. There are a lot of conditions around it. 

 I do think that those of us in the school business have to admit that in some cases 

we don't always make the right choices, have not always made the right choices. We 

know, for example, poor schools tend to get the least experienced teachers, the least 

experienced administrators. We have got to do better at that. 

 But there is a lot more than just that. If you correct for all that, you have still got 

a problem of kids coming to school with great need and not always having the resources 

available, to other children who come to school with less need and have more resources 

available to them. So you have got to target the resources you have in the places that 

they need the help the most, and then make sure that those resources are being used 

effectively.
35

Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Foster? 

Ms. Foster. I think it is no accident that low-performing schools are in low-income 

districts. Low-income parents have no power. They have no power to pressure school 

officials, school administrators, anyone, to change those schools. What putting the 

dollars in the parents' hands, what vouchers, what charters, what these kinds of things do, 

is it empowers those parents. Now, when we demand accountability, we can get it. 

 It also puts pressure on the schools in their neighborhoods to improve out of fear 

that, well, we will lose our students to the charter school down the street; a charter school 

is a public school, or voucher school. So that is, I really think, fundamentally poor 

parents don't have power. That is why poor schools are in low-income districts. 

Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Connor? 

Mr. Connor. Thank you, ma'am. I think the root cause of the problem often is systemic 

in nature. I think part of it is rooted in the fact that we have had an educational monopoly 

in the history of our school system. We have had a lack of competition, a lack of 

meaningful parental choice. We have had interest groups that have placed the interests of 

bureaucrats and powerful political groups ahead of the interests of children. And often 

times, we have had a lack of meaningful accountability. I think all of those are factors 

that have contributed to the problem you have identified. 

Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Mr. Bailey? 

Mr. Bailey. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, I think our set of principles that we 

have provided are comprehensive. But let me share some broader observations. 

 It seems to me that one of the things that we have lost has been some of the 

alignment among the various elements that it takes to be successful. Programs have 

become prescriptive and somewhat fragmented. And you can put a series of wellmeaning, well-intentioned programs or initiatives together that, when knit together, don't 

represent a coherent whole. I think there is an element of that involved. 

 We have, I think, turned our focus more from the output measures that we really 

have been talking about this morning, and have been paying more attention to input 

measures. So I think that that is an element that is important. 

 Certainly from the standpoint of teachers; and I was taken by Ms. Weingarten's 

comments with regard to some of the things they did to help failing schools; I think as a 

general rule in many of the large school districts, the most challenging teaching 

assignments are regularly given to the least experienced teachers. And I would say that 

that is wrong-headed. Certainly in a business we wouldn't put our newest graduate 

engineer on the most demanding construction project. 

 But on the other hand, that may not be unfair, given the fact that we have no real 

career ladders any longer for teachers to any significant degree. We are not expecting or 

rewarding professionalism in teaching to the degree that it needs to be done. And again, I 
36

think that is where the investing in teaching dimension looks at that element. 

 But to me, it is critical that we look at it on the whole, that we don't look at the 

individual component parts and lose sight that there needs to be a balance; that these 

things aren't mutually exclusive, that there clearly is no bolt of lightning that is going to 

hit everyone in this room where you have a sudden revelation and everything can be 

fixed overnight because of one simple act. It is much more complex than that. 

 But I think if we follow the broad standards that have been outlined in our 

principles, that there is progress that can be made, and that we can achieve the outcomes 

for students that we all want to achieve. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Connor, as a fellow Floridian and someone 

who has followed your career for the past decade, I can attest to your lifelong passion for 

education and your leadership for family values. And I thank you for being here today. 

Mr. Connor. Thank you. 

Mr. Keller. You are a true hero to the folks back in Florida on those issues. 

 I would like to make a brief comment on the school choice issue, and then get 

your thoughts on that. I feel a little bit like deja vu all over again here on this issue. In 

1999, the state of Florida, under Governor Jeb Bush's leadership, passed a bill that was 

nearly identical to H.R. 1 for the state of Florida, called the ``A-plus plan.'' And what 

that did was test students, and then provide accountability and school choice, including 

private school choice, for those schools that failed. 

 And because I have not yet learned to talk in a sophisticated manner or a diplomat 

as a freshman Member of Congress, I am just going to address this issue head-on. At the 

time that that bill was being debated, the opponents said this is going to bankrupt the 

public schools, by having school vouchers. The supporters said, no, it won't; having 

these accountability and school choice provisions is going to provide an incentive for the 

public schools to improve. 

 Well, now, two years later, we do not have to guess what happened. We went 

from having 78 F-rated schools to only four F-rated schools. A school in my district, for 

example, called Orlo Vista Elementary School, where 86 percent of the children are 

minority, 92 percent are on the free lunch program, went from only 30 percent of the kids 

passing the standardized test to 79 percent. Another school in the Panhandle called 

Dixon Elementary, another low-income school, went from 28 percent of the kids passing 

the standardized test to 94 percent, in only one year. There was a strong incentive to 

improve, and indeed that is what they did. 

 I know from your testimony that you are concerned that H.R. 1 does not go far 

enough, that you want to be even more aggressive with respect to the school choice 
37

provisions. And I am sensitive to that. But based on our experiences in Florida, wouldn't 

you agree that at least having these accountability and school choice provisions in H.R. 1 

will truly provide an incentive for public schools to improve? 

Mr. Connor. Yes, indeed, Congressman Keller. And I would suggest that the 

indisputable, uncontroverted fact is that our educational process has improved in Florida, 

not only as evidenced by the smaller number of schools that have failing grades, but by 

the fact that during the 1999-2000 school year over 40 percent of Florida's schools 

received a school recognition award because of improvement either in the grade level or 

moving to an A-rated school. 

 I share Dr. Foster's concern, though, that leaving a child for three years, 25 

percent of their educational window, in a failing school is simply not acceptable. In 

Florida, it is a two-out-of-four year requirement, and I would urge you to consider that.

We simply think that these are years that cannot be reclaimed, and we would urge the 

Committee, and indeed the Congress, to move more aggressively in that regard. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Andrews.

Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony and the intentions 

of everyone here today. I appreciate hearing what you had to say. And I do agree that 

we need to move away from the very eloquent debates that we have had to some factual 

considerations of what affects children. 

 And with that in mind, Dr. Foster, I wanted to ask you some questions about your 

very intriguing project you are working on through the Toussaint Institute. 

Ms. Foster. That is right, as in Toussaint Overture. 

Mr. Andrews. You say that in 1988, the Institute established a fund that, in effect, gave 

school choice to low-income black male students. How many students have participated 

since 1988 in that program? 

Ms. Foster. About 40 or 50. It is a grassroots-funded program; we didn't get any funding 

from big foundations. 

Mr. Andrews. Do you have any data on the achievements? I assume the oldest student is 

probably now out of high school, beyond high school age? 

Ms. Foster. Yes. Actually, we published the data in the Ravitch and Viteretti edited 

book, ``City Schools.'' So that is available there. But we have actually a young man who 

moved to Texas, who had been in special ed, and he was doing terribly in New York City 

public schools. We took him out and put him in a black independent school, nurtured 

him. He learned to read and write, and learned how to behave like one behaves in school.

And then, when he moved to Texas and he was placed in a public high school, they didn't 
38

need to put him in special ed. And he graduated from that high school. 

 We have another young man who is graduating from the Piney Woods Boarding 

School in Mississippi. We had to get him out of New York City, because there aren't 

choices at the high school level. 

Mr. Andrews. I appreciate the fact that you have been on a shoestring budget. I admire 

people that try to work on one. Is anyone on the panel aware of more statistically 

significant data? Is there a body of data available somewhere that measures the progress 

of children who have participated in programs like the one that Mr. Connor talks about in 

Arizona, with 13,000 kids involved at the early stages? Is there any data about what 

happens when children who have been attending low-performing schools are moved to 

schools of their parents' choice, what happens to them? Is anybody aware of any data on 

that?

 I will tell you what we will do. We will keep the record open, with the 

Chairman's permission, so you can supplement the answer. 

Mr. Connor, did I pronounce your name correctly? My contacts are a little blurry. 

Mr. Connor. Yes, you did. 

Mr. Andrews. If I understand your testimony correctly, you are in support of the 

administration's choice option for the Title I money, is that correct? 

Mr. Connor. We think it is a good step, yes, sir. 

Mr. Andrews. Yes, that is correct. So if I understand, the premise of that is if we had, 

say, 500 children in a school, and two-thirds of those 500 children consistently failed to 

perform up to standard on some standardized test chosen by the state that they were in, 

and if after three years the school failed to dramatically improve that performance, the 

parents of those children would have the opportunity to take their Title I money and 

spend it at a school of their choice. That is a fair description, isn't it? 

Mr. Connor. That is a fair description. And our concern, frankly, is that it is too little, 

too late for those kids. 

Mr. Andrews. No, I understand. But let's get to another point. 

 Now, I think I heard you say earlier that once these children, however many, 

choose to go to the private school, that you do not favor any sort of standardized testing 

of them once they get there. Is that right? 

Mr. Connor. Well, look, we do not favor federal mandates for standardized testing for 

public schools, and even less so for private schools. 

Mr. Andrews. Okay. So you would not favor the standardized tests in the public school 

in the first place? 
39

Mr. Connor. We don't favor mandating the particular test. We agree with the notion that 

the state and local school officials ought to be able to select the assessment that they use, 

and we would favor that same principle for the private school as well. 

Mr. Andrews. So you would support the idea of the state and local officials having the 

right to require these children to take the test once they get to the private school? 

Mr. Connor. Well, in the final analysis I would say that I think parents are the ones who 

have the biggest stake in the outcome of their children's education. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, is the answer yes or no? If the state of Florida were to decide to 

impose its standardized tests on children that had left the public school under the Bush 

plan to go to a private school, do you think the Florida test should be administered to 

those children in a private school? 

Mr. Connor. We have not taken a position on that. My initial reaction would be that we 

would not favor a state-imposed test on a private school. 

Mr. Andrews. I have to tell you, I find your position completely disingenuous. You just 

said that based upon the results of standardized tests, we should permit parents to take 

public money and spend it in a private school. That is a valid position. I don't agree with 

it, but it is a valid position. 

 You then say once they get there, the same standardized test that would be used to 

determine their lack of achievement in a public school cannot be used to measure their 

achievement or lack of achievement in a private school. Why don't we apply it to the 

same school? 

Mr. Connor. Well, the position is not disingenuous. The position revolves around in 

part upon government intrusion into private organizations, where we think in the final 

analysis that parents are the best judge of the results being achieved. 

 I think there is a legitimate concern for ensuring that children measure up, that 

they perform to certain levels of performance. I just think that once government begins 

to mandate particular tests, whether that mandate comes from the state or Federal 

Government, on private institutions, that there are real concerns that need to be 

addressed.

Mr. Andrews. So, and I will close this; so it is your position that taking the public money 

is okay, but taking the responsibility that comes with it is not? 

Mr. Connor. No, that is not my position. I think the demonstrated history is that 

children do well in these schools. In terms of the longitudinal studies; I think if you do 

some comparisons between how these children achieve in the future compared to those in 

public schools, they do very well. I am simply suggesting that parents who opt to put 

their children in a private school, in the final analysis, ought to be the ultimate arbiters of 

whether or not that school is meeting the needs and expectations of the child. And I have 

some serious reservation about a mandated test by any form of government to be imposed 
40

on that school system, on that private school. 

Ms. Foster. May I also respond briefly, Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. Andrews. It is up to the Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Very briefly. 

Ms. Foster. Okay. I just want to say that in New York, private schools don't like to take 

the state test because it is less rigorous than the test that they give. Private schools give 

the Stanford test. The state test is much less rigorous, and if you start giving rigorous 

tests like the Stanford, and then you have to also give a lesser test like the state, you are 

testing too much. 

Mr. Andrews. Dr. Foster, the record is open for you to submit data that would 

demonstrate your point. We look forward to it. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a clean-up hitter here, I will try not to be 

redundant. I want to thank the distinguished and diversified panel here. I have learned a 

lot.

 And I would like to begin by sort of restating what my colleague, Ms. Woolsey, 

was trying to get at, and that is, the failing schools are not a mystery. They fail for a 

reason. They have characteristics that are always similar. 

 A failing school usually has inferior personnel. That is where you find the 

uncertified teachers. The pattern in New York is that the failing schools, in one case as 

many as 50 percent of the teachers at a school serving 1,000 kids, 50 percent of the 

teachers were not certified. And beyond being not certified, they were what you call 

substitutes, which are different from week to week and day to day, the worst kind of 

condition you could have at a school where children have difficulty learning. So failing 

schools do not have the right personnel. 

 The politics of it, Ms. Foster, you hit it on the head. The politics determined that 

when New York had a budget crunch several years ago, they encouraged experienced 

teachers to resign. They gave them an incentive. They encouraged experienced 

supervisors to resign; they gave them an incentive. They gave experienced principals 

incentive to resign. So you have had a drain on the system of the most important 

resource, and that is the professional resources, the expertise that you need to guide it.

New York City schools, as a result, are much worse now than they were 20 years ago or 

15 years ago. They are steadily getting worse. There is no mystery. You have to have 

something to counteract that. 

 There is no mystery, also, that in these areas where you have the failing schools, 

they usually have the worst buildings. The correlation between the failing schools and 

the number of schools that have coal-burning furnaces still; we had about 225 a few years 

ago, now we have had a crusade to get rid of them, now we are down to about 100. 
41

Schools still burning coal, you send your child to school and you put them in harm's way 

because the pollutants in the air is going to exacerbate his asthma and so forth. 

 The schools that have no libraries, because elementary schools are not required to 

have libraries, or they have libraries with the books being 30 and 40 years old, you know, 

a geography book or a history book. You can find the pattern in the failing schools, it’s 

the same all over. 

 We had an effort to try to remedy that, or have some influence on that from the 

federal level, when we reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act in 

1994. In addition, the Federal Government was encouraging the development of 

curriculum standards, which would be voluntary; we would just promote them and help 

the state develop curriculum standards. We also had testing standards, which also were 

voluntary.

 But we also had, added by the Democratic members, a thing called opportunity to 

learn standards, where, instead of focusing on the child, the classroom, you focus on the 

system. Is the state and the local education agency, are they meeting certain standards? 

Qualified teachers, qualified administrators, buildings which are safe to begin with, and 

conducive to learning, equipment, supplies. You know, can we not have standards, 

which we encourage states to live up to, not drop the accountability issue on the back of a 

child himself only? The student himself must be accountable, and we measure what 

happens in that school by their ability to pass tests. What about the accountability in 

terms of, have you provided a decent library? Have you provided teachers who are 

certified, trained? Have you provided laboratories that have some equipment that can 

help the kid pass the Regents chemistry exam? 

 So I would like for you to comment for a minute. We have this standard, it 

actually passed in legislation. It was in the legislation, the Elementary and Secondary 

School Act. In the dark of night, during the appropriations sessions, it was 

unceremoniously removed. That sort of standard, opportunity to learn standard, was 

taken out of the legislation, because from the very point that we had offered amendments 

to put it in we had resistance from the governors, heavy lobbying from the governors, 

who do not want to have that kind of accountability standard for the state or local 

education. They just say the state is responsible for education, in the final analysis. 

 So, would you comment on the fact that we had the right approach in terms of 

recognizing you have got to do more than just drop it on the backs of the child and say, 

you pass these tests? The system has to be accountable. But we deliberately took that 

out because we did not want that responsibility. That responsibility requires some 

financing, and some continual provision of resources. I would like each one of you to 

comment, if you have got time. 

Mr. White. You want me to start? First, I don't think there is any silver bullet. If I put 

on my businessman's hat, if it was a corporation and you had a bunch of failing 

operations, you would go in, you would replace the personnel in that particular operation. 

You might reassign them to other operations that were successful. And you would bring 

in a new team. And I think that is what has got to be done. And I think that is one of the 
42

finest ways. 

Mr. Owens. Somebody has to pay the bill, though. 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. You cannot have inexperienced teachers. 

Mr. White. I agree. 

Mr. Owens. You are encouraging the experienced ones to retire, because they cost less. 

Mr. White. That is why I say, if they are failing, you get the team out, you bring another 

team in, you put those people and train them with some top people, and that is the way I 

would go about it. And that is the finest choice and voucher system, to me. 

Mr. Owens. But to achieve that, you must increase the funding. 

Mr. White. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Owens. To achieve that, you must increase the funding. 

Mr. White. Well, that is why I testified that I think one of the things that has to be done 

is to increase the public will for education. And we know darn well the public will does 

not exist there. And that is why I like the after school programs; they bring the public 

into the school. You start bringing seniors into the school, and they are the ones who 

vote. And if you don't get the seniors into the school, you are not going to get them in 

there supporting the education when you need it. So that is where I come from. 

Mr. Houston. I would make two points. One is that accountability needs to be spread 

throughout the system, and everyone has to be accountable, from the top to the bottom 

and the bottom to the top. And I think that is part of the point that you are making, is it 

just doesn't stop at the student level, the school level or the district level. It has got to be 

everybody that has a role. 

 The other thing I would go to is my own personal experience. I had the 

interesting career pattern of going from Princeton, New Jersey, which was spending 

about $12,000 a kid on children, where the vast majority of kids came from homes where 

the parents were highly educated with very high expectations, and lots of support, to 

going to Tucson, Arizona, where they were spending $3,000 a year on kids who were 

coming from homes where the support system was not as strong and the expectations in 

many cases were not as high. 

 And that was about the time that the whole standards movement came into play. I 

have always strongly supported the issue of standards, but it seems to me to have 

standards and say that the kids in Tucson should meet the same standards as the kids in 

Princeton, while ignoring the differential of what they bring to the table and what is 

brought to the table and placed before them in terms of resources, seems to me a bit of 
43

insanity. So I think the point you are making is very well taken. 

Ms. Foster. Congressman Owens, my problem with the point that you are making is that 

if rules and regulations, and court orders and more dollars in the hands of education 

bureaucracies could improve schools in low-income neighborhoods, they would have 

been improved over the last 30 years. The reality is that what we need is not more 

tinkering with old reform movements. What we need is to transform the educational 

system. 

 We need a new paradigm, and this new paradigm gets to the heart of how the 

American system works, and that is power. And in America, the dollar is power. And if 

you ever want low-income parents to ever have any power over the quality education of 

their children, you have to put the dollars in their hands. And then they can say to that 

school and school system, we want highly qualified teachers in our schools or we are 

taking our dollars elsewhere. 

Mr. Owens. Dr. Foster, I would agree with you that we need experimentation and 

diversity in the way we approach the problem. In a big city like New York, with 1,100 

schools, we could have some of them become charter schools with private contractors.

We could do some; not vouchers, vouchers is a waste of time. I won't go into that. But I 

think we could experiment, I would be in favor of that. We can afford to experiment, 

yes.

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Connor, you have 

something that you want to add? 

Mr. Connor. I was going to respond, if I may. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the gentleman be allowed to 

respond.

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman Boehner. Go ahead. 

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would yield my five minutes to Mr. Owens so he could 

complete the answers. 

Chairman Boehner. That would be fine. 

Mr. Scott. Okay. 

Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. Owens, I would suggest simply that the history of federal involvement in education 

would suggest that more rules and more regulations and more revenue do not equate with 

better results. In fact, I think the demonstrated history is that they do not translate into 

better results. And I am not aware of any studies that suggest necessarily that students 

excel because their teachers are certified. And I would suggest to you that the results of 

home schooling demonstrate the value and the contribution of people who may not be 
44

certified as teachers, who may not have the same kinds of revenue streams available to 

them as our public schools do, and who certainly do not labor under the regulations that 

our public schools do. And yet the record reflects that those yield often very 

extraordinary and positive results. 

Mr. Owens. There are some studies that do show there is a correlation between certified, 

qualified teachers and the achievements of students. There are some studies that do show 

that.

Mr. Connor. Thank you. I am simply not aware of them. 

Mr. Bailey. As I sense the heart of your question, it has to do with resources and the role 

of the Federal Government as opposed to local constituencies. 

Mr. Owens. No, not really. Any level of government, just provides the resources. It 

doesn't matter which level of government does it. 

 The Federal Government's role is seven percent, only seven percent of the 

education dollars in this country are federal dollars. So the big role in education is state 

and local. It doesn't matter where they come from. Let us have some standards which 

say that you recognize you can't expect this child to be educated if you don't meet certain 

standards in terms of the quality of teachers and the equipment and the physical 

infrastructure, et cetera. 

Mr. Bailey. Well, and that was one of the points I was going to make, is that the 

overwhelming amount of the resources do come at the state and local level. 

 But I also would suggest that the public will is built a community at a time, that it 

is very difficult to drive that from the top. And again, I think the help that can be brought 

through the education bill; certainly there are resources at the margin. But it can also 

establish the principles, the benchmarks, and the things that are demonstrated as being 

conducive to quality student output. 

 But whether New York City or Tulsa, Oklahoma, ends up having quality schools 

that either want ultimately are going to be the public will of those two communities, and 

not because someone in either state capital or in Washington has mandated that they 

accomplish something. 

Mr. Owens. But you would concede that the bully pulpit of the President, and the 

influence of business organizations and national organizations, has an impact on all this, 

and that we all have something at stake nationally? The last super aircraft carrier that 

was launched was short 300 personnel because they couldn't find the personnel in the 

Navy who had the capability to operate the high-tech equipment. In the kind of world we 

are going into, it is in everybody's interest to have a better educated population. And all 

of us can have an influence; although you might be right, the basic decisions are going to 

have to be made at the local level, and the impetus has to come from the local level. 
45

Mr. Bailey. No, and I don't quarrel with that at all. I would not be here if I didn't have 

the view that education was the number one priority in our country. 

 But my sense is that from the bully pulpit, as you described it, some of the best 

elements or the most impact can come from being a champion for the appropriate 

principles, the appropriate benchmarks, the appropriate objectives. And there is a 

resource layer that comes from the Federal Government that can be linked to some of 

those elements that can be helpful as well. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Sorry that I missed the testimony. I did have the 

opportunity to hear my good colleague, Congressman Major Owens, here. 

 I just would first of all, Mr. Kenneth Connor, I don't know if I heard your answer 

correctly when you indicated that there is no correlation between students excelling or 

quality education and qualified teachers. I would suggest that maybe you go to Exeter or 

Montclair Kimberly Academy in New Jersey, or the Peddie School. 

Mr. Connor. I think you may have recast my answer. But I understand where you are 

going.

Mr. Payne. Well, give your answer again. 

Mr. Connor. Yes, sir.

Mr. Payne. You said that there was nothing that you knew that correlated quality 

teachers.

Mr. Connor. No, sir. What I said, Congressman, was that I was not aware of any studies 

that showed that students excelled simply because their teachers were certified. 

Mr. Payne. I didn't hear ``simply.'' Maybe that is the difference. 

Mr. Connor. That is the point I am trying to make. And I think, as an example of how 

students do excel very often in the absence of certified teachers is the example of homeschooled children. 

Mr. Payne. I don't think home-schooled children are a good example. People that teach 

their children at home are not just a typical person who just walks off the street. You 

usually find that they have a certain amount of expertise, or they have a certain 

background. I think if you did a study of the parents of students who are in home 

training, I think you will find there are some particular things. 

 And you say ``simply because''; simply means to me to be like a parenthetic 

expression, it is just casual. ``Simply because they are qualified.'' In my opinion as a 
46

former educator, when you do make statements like that, one, it is easy to misinterpret; 

two, it seems like it is cavalier. 

Mr. Connor. Well, I certainly don't mean to be cavalier, and I don't want to be 

misinterpreted or misunderstood. I am certainly an advocate of qualified teachers, and I 

favor accountability measures to assure that, and also empowering parents to choose 

schools where teachers are qualified, in preference to having their children languish in 

schools that may be failing over time. 

Mr. Payne. Okay. Well, I am glad you clarified it, because I fly a lot, I like to have 

experienced pilots. 

Mr. Connor. You bet. 

Mr. Payne. I may have to be operated on, and when you did ``simply,'' I didn't know 

what industry you were in, because I was going to get nervous that this didn't grow and 

grow and grow, that we simply do not need experience. 

Mr. Connor. I am confident you would like an experienced and qualified lawyer 

representing you before the bar. 

Mr. Payne. No question about it. Fortunately I don't have to go before them. 

 But let me ask this question about what do we need in our failing schools. One of 

the things that is surprising to me is I have heard a tremendous amount of advertising that 

is going on here in Washington, D.C. I don't know, maybe Dr. Foster, are you connected 

with the group that is running these ads? 

Ms. Foster. Yes, the Black Alliance for Educational Options. 

Mr. Payne. How much have you spent? 

Ms. Foster. I don't know. You know, I am a member of the board of trustees, but I really 

do not recall what our budget was on advertising. 

Mr. Payne. You figure $5 million, $10 million? I mean, just the D.C. budget. 

Ms. Foster. I am not the person to ask. 

Mr. Payne. I would really be interested, because I have never seen so much of an interest 

in poor inner-city people by some anonymous group. Because I wondered if you would 

do the same thing with housing, which is as bad, I think, as it relates to different parts of 

our country. I would be interested to know where you stand on the quality of health care.

I have seen a tremendous amount, which makes me curious to see. And when I say 

``anonymous,'' I just don't mean that you are somewhere out there in the air. I simply 

mean by anonymous that this tremendous amount of money is coming to talk about some 

poor black kids just about education, when, as you know, the health care, the housing, the 

police protection, even the quality of food they buy at local stores, are all disparate by 
47

virtue of that. 

 And so the thing that is curious to me is this great philanthropic group that 

decides that it is ready to save inner-city kids. As a matter of fact, in my town of 

Newark, anybody; community leader, non-community leader, whatever, teacher, parent, 

non-parent; if you want to go to Milwaukee; and maybe it is your same group; you can 

just say, I want to go tomorrow. Round-trip ticket, put you up at the best hotels in 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to come out to see this whole thing work. 

 What I am saying is that there is a tremendous amount of money behind this issue. 

I see the gentleman is chuckling, but if you want to come to Newark and see the people 

that leave Newark Airport to go to look at these charter schools, you are invited to. They 

will probably let you go, too. 

 My question is, where is all of this money coming from? Is it to end the public 

school systems in the inner cities as we know them? Are there money makers at the end 

of the day that have companies that come in and just_it is a big business, because 

education is probably the last public entity in this nation where billions and billions and 

billions of dollars are spent. 

 I would just like to even get a chance to meet these philanthropic people who are 

very, very concerned about some poor black kid downtown in Anacostia, because it is 

like an anomaly. Because I haven't really run into that much benevolence in the years I 

have been involved in inner city work where I currently still live in Newark. 

Ms. Foster. With all respect, Congressman, you sound a little like me when I ask all the 

public officials who support not allowing low-income parents to escape poor-performing 

schools, when I ask them, well, where is the money coming from to support that 

particular point of view? 

 You know, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, you have never seen a 

more diverse group. I wish you had been with the 600 conveners in Milwaukee about a 

month ago. Republicans, Democrats, the most right-wing black people I have ever met in 

my life, the most left-wing black people I have ever met in my life. Me; I don't know if 

you can guess where I am from. 

 But the fact of the matter is that this is not about politics. So I would imagine that 

the same groups who are fighting and funding the fight against school choice, and the 

same groups who are funding the fight for school choice, are the groups we all know, 

because they are all behind; you know, in this country dollars support. But I can tell you 

that the African-Americans in the Black Alliance for Educational Options, if your 

question is who owns us, we own ourselves. 

Mr. Payne. Okay, well, there is nobody fighting it. There are no ads on saying don't 

listen to what they are saying. Believe me, you have got the airways all by yourself. 

There is no organized effort. 

 In concluding, because I appreciate the Chairman giving me the opportunity to 

ask my question, the thing that is interesting, too, is we have a number of public policy 
48

people in Congress, people and Senators that are pushing vouchers very, very strongly.

Interesting part is that practically all of these Congressmen and Senators who are pushing 

for vouchers; not Senators, because they have whole states, but Congressmen; they don't 

talk about vouchers in their community, because people in their community don't want 

vouchers. They will run them out of town. What do we need vouchers for? We have 

good public schools. 

 And so the question is, why can't we do in our inner cities what you have out 

there where they don't talk about the vouchers in their districts? And you see, that is 

where I come down. I think that we have to improve the public school system. I taught 

public school for 11 years, I know about public schools. I taught secondary, junior high, 

elementary. I would just like to see those who oppose school modernization from a 

federal level, those who oppose 100,000 school teachers to make class sizes smaller; you 

don't have to be a genius to know what people really want. 

 So with that, I think I heard a little tapping. It sounded like the Raven in Poe. 

I hear a tapping at my chamber door. Maybe it's the wind, and nothing more. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired some time ago. Let me thank my 

friend from New Jersey and all of my colleagues who came today, and let me especially 

thank all of our witnesses for your excellent testimony. 

 As Mr. White said at one point, there are no silver bullets. And if there is one 

thing I have learned as Chairman over the last several months, it is that there have been a 

lot of silver bullets tried over the years, and everyone thinks they have the silver bullet. It 

is going to take a concerted effort on the part of all of us in this room. And I look 

forward to working together as we bring this bill together over the next month or so. 

 Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

 Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned. 
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Boehner, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 

45, 48 

Mr. Andrews, 37, 38, 39, 40 

Mr. Bailey, 6, 18, 22, 23, 31, 35, 44, 45 

Mr. Connor, 8, 28, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46 

Mr. Hoekstra, 23, 24, 26, 27 

Mr. Houston, 14, 27, 28, 30, 34, 42 

Mr. Keller, 36, 37 

Mr. Kildee, 5, 24, 25, 27 

Mr. Miller, 3, 20, 21, 22 

Mr. Owens, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 

Mr. Payne, 45, 46, 47, 48 

Mr. Roemer, 29, 30, 31 

Mr. Schaffer, 27, 28, 29 

Mr. Scott, 43 

Mr. Souder, 31, 33 

Mr. White, 16, 24, 25, 26, 34, 41, 42 

Ms. Foster, 10, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 46, 47 

Ms. Weingarten, 11, 20, 26 

Ms. Woolsey, 33, 34, 35, 36