Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Education Funding (CEF), a coalition of 100 education organizations. CEF has called for an investment plan that doubles federal education spending to meet national education goals. NSBA and CEF also are strongly supporting congressional initiatives to increase funds significantly this year for the major education programs that directly affect the lives of students.

In particular, the Senate Budget Committee has reported its spending plan which includes Sen. Tim Wirth’s Homefront Budget Initiative. This $4.4 billion initiative passed by a 15–6 bipartisan vote. It allocates a $2 billion increase for programs that enhance equity in education, including Chapter 1, Handicapped education, Even Start, Impact Aid, and Head Start. It also provides a $600 million increase for programs that contribute to America's competitiveness including the Math Science program, vocational and adult education, literacy, and job training as well as a $1.1 Billion increase for post secondary students aid and campus-based programs. We urge the Appropriations Committee to make allocations that directly reflect the spending priorities of the Wirth initiative. Only by appropriating these increases for proven federal education programs can we make real progress toward improving equity and excellence in education and helping America's children and youth to meet the challenges of the 21st æntury. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kealey; 12th in public spending on education out of 15 industrialized nations, I understand that is as a percent of GNP?

Mr. KEALEY. Yes; it is an international measure of gross national product.

Senator HARKIN. Is this spending at all levels?

Mr. KEALEY. It is public spending. It is a proportion of public spending

Senator HARKIN. That is everything?
Mr. KEALEY. Yes; all levels.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kealey. We appre-
ciate your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARNIE HAYES, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL RELATIONS,

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS
Senator HARKIN. Next is Judith Billings, director of Federal/
State relations for the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Ms. HAYES. Hello, Senator. I am Carnie Hayes, director of Federal relations for the Council of Chief State School Officers. Judy Billings, our State superintendent from Washington, had to stay back in the State today and arbitrate a labor dispute, so she sends her regrets to you and to the two Senators from her State on the committee.

Senator HARKIN. We are happy to see you here today.
Ms. HAYES. I am very pleased to be here.

I have five very quick points to make. The first is a very deep thank you from the Council of Chief State School Officers for your leadership, this committee's leadership last year in providing the $2.6 billion increase in education programs. This helps assure our first step, our downpayment toward national goals, and we are deeply pleased that you all took this lead.

Our second point, we ask that this year you support the Senate budget resolution that comes to the Senate floor this week. It includes, as Ed Kealey mentioned, the homefront budget initiative, which provides an additional $4.4 billion for vital children and human resource programs, including $3.1 billion for education. We are going to do everything we can to help assure that these funds find their way to your subcommittee and urge you to appropriate these increases to education because there is no area that requires

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

a more sustained and ongoing effort in education if we are to reach our national goals.

The third point I would like to make is that, like last year, we urge you to appropriate an increase of $1 billion for Chapter 1. Serving all eligible children under Chapter 1 has been a goal of the Hawkins-Stafford amendment, the S. 2 recently last week reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, legislation for national goals that was overwhelmingly supported by Congress and the administration last year. We are inching toward that mark, and with this $1 billion investment we would move that much closer to serving all children by 1993. These are our neediest children.

My fourth and a really key point is to urge you to include a full appropriation of 0.5 percent for Chapter 1 program improvement. We attach with our testimony and subrait excerpts froin a survey that we do every year of the States on how Chapter 1 implementation is going. It includes from North Dakota and Iowa examples of local schools that Chapter 1 funds and particularly program improvement funds are serving. At Molten Elementary where they have a schoolwide project in Iowa in Des Moines, and in Cass Valley North in Argisville, ND, if I pronounced that right.

So we urge you to provide the full $34 million based on a $1 billion increase for the program improvement, which is really the accountability in a Chapter 1. It assures that every Chapter 1 school is raising achievement of students as expected, and the States annually, if they get more practice with this procedure, are raising the standards along with the committees of practitioners.

The most important thing these funds can buy at the school level in technical assistance is staff development, because that is one of the biggest changes that can happen in a rural school or an urban one, for staff to learn techniques for involving parents and better teaching methodology.

We also ask that you appropriate the full 1 percent for State administration as you did last year, because we cannot use any program improvement funds to administer program improvement, and it is taking between 20 and 75 percent of State staff's time to do program improvement and the technical assistance requested.

My final request on behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers is that you restore chapter 2 to its fiscal year 1987 level of $500 million plus inflation, because it slipped down to less than $450 million, and this is really critical flexible seed money for a lot of innovations, including a lot of the prototypes to assessment and to school improvement that we are doing now in Chapter 1, and they complement each other.

PREPARED STATEMENT We have other requests for the full scope of elementary and secondary higher education programs that I will submit for the record.

I am very pleased to be here on behalf of the chiefs, and I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.

[The statement follows:

STATEMENT OF CARNIE HAYES, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate being invited today to present the recommendations of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for education funding in fiscal year 1992. I am Carnie Hayes, Director of Federal/ State Relations with the Council. It is a special honor to appear before this Subcommittee.

On behalf of the state commissioners and superintendents of education, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues on the Subcommittee for your leadership in the unprecedented increase Congress provided for education last year. The $2.6 billion growth in education funding for fiscal year 1991, which included a nearly $1 billion increase for Chapter 1, represents a critical strategic investment in the proven federal education programs that will help us achieve national education goals. In terms of additional children served, professional development opportunities, and funds for innovation and improvement of education, the commitment is paying off for the nation's school children.

Yet no area of the budget requires a more sustained and enhanced commitment of resources than education. The first-graders who benefit from the increase of funds for the 1991–92 school year will be in second grade when fiscal year 1992 monies are made available. The class graduating from high school and ready to pursue postsecondary education at the turn of the century is now in the third grade. Recognizing this, S. 2, the Strengthening Education for America's Families Act, which was reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last week, links eight national education goals—for readiness, elementary and secondary education, higher education and adult learning-to support for the federal programs key to achieving them.

CCSSO has joined the entire education community in supporting the “Homefront Budget Initiative” to provide increases of $4.4 billion over fiscal year 1991 for vital children's and human resource programs, including $3.1 billion for education. This initiative, advanced by Senator Tim Wirth in the Senate and Chairman William Ford in the House, targets nearly half of the $9.6 billion increase available to domestic discretionary programs to our highest education and human service priorities. The Senate Budget Committee has adopted a 1992 budget resolution containing the Homefront Budget Initiative and I understand the full Senate will act on it today. We urge the Subcommittee to assure transfer of the full increase to the labor, health and human resources, and education programs in the 602b allocations, and to appropriate increases totalling $3.1 billion to U.S. Department of Education programs for fiscal year 1992.

Because improving the quality of education for America's children most at risk of school failure is our Council's highest priority, we urge that you allocate $1 billion of the increase to Chapter 1 Compensatory Education. When this program was reauthorized in 1988, Congress and the Administration agreed to a commitment to serve all eligible children by 1993. That commitment was reinforced in the national goals bill (the Educational Equity and Excellence Act), which received wide support from each house of Congress and the Administration last year, and that commitment is again contained in S. 2. Congress made great strides toward that objective in providing Chapter 1 increases of nearly $1 billion in both fiscal year 1990 and again in 1991. We ask that you stay the course in fiscal year 1992.

By allocating the increase in Chapter 1 among the allowable line item activities, we urge you to provide the fully authorized amount for program improvement, which is no less than one-half of one percent of the total appropriation for state and local grants. Program improvement is the accountability mechanism Congress added to Chapter 1 requirements in the 1988 reauthorization. Most importantly, program improvement funds enable those schools where poverty and educational disadvantage are so entrenched that children are not meeting minimum achievement standards, to receive tangible help in terms of staff development, new curricula, and other technical assistance.

Fiscal year 1992 is the first year the authorization for program improvement funds doubles from the current one-fourth of one percent of the total state and local allocation to one-half of one percent. The small state minimum authorization doubles from $90,000 to $180,000 as well. This increased authorization recognizes that in the third year of the program state technical assistance will be required for some schools where a joint plan with the local district has not had the desired results. The attached summary of a survey of states on implementation of program improvement and other key provisions of the 1988 reauthorization shows that the program is off the ground and moving toward more substantial achievement gains for all Chapter 1 schools. Our request for program improvement funds for fiscal year 1992 is $34 million, based on an assumed increase of $1 billion in state and local grants. The Administration's full funding request is for $30 million.

Similarly, we urge you to provide no less than the full one percent of total grants to state and local education agencies for state administration and technical assistance. Provisions in the Hawkins-Stafford amendments prohibited any program improvement funds to be spent on administration of program improvement activities identification of schools, development of school plans, consultation with state committees of practitioners. An interpretation of the law by the U.S. Department of Education severely restricts the use of program improvement funds for states to respond to the many requests for technical assistance from schools in need of improvement and local education agencies. Thus, we urge your Subcommittee to recognize, as you have in last year's final appropriation bill, that the full 1 percent, or $68 million based on a $1 billion Chapter 1 increase for fiscal year 1992, will be necessary to assure the success of program improvement as well as to maintain other administrative responsibilities. State Chapter 1 Coordinators spend from 20 percent to 75 percent of their time on program improvement, with the average at about onethird of administrative time.

CCSSO supports substantial increases, that is real growth beyond inflation, for other key programs serving at risk students, including the Individuals with Disabil. ities Education Act, bilingual and adult education, and vocational education. With our Council's special emphasis for 1991 on the school-to-work transition, we urge that your Subcommittee increase the Perkin's tech-prep program to $100 million in fiscal year 1992.

We particularly urge a restoration of the Chapter 2 block grant for educational improvement to its 1987 level of $500 million. That program, which provides vital support for assessment, educational innovation, and demonstration and replication of promising practices was cut to $478.7 million in fiscal year 1988, and has slipped to $463 million, $455.7 million, and now $448 million over the past three years due to across-the-board cuts and transfers to small categorical programs. Chapter 2 benefits all states and most local educational agencies. Its flexibility, coupled with provisions in the 1988 reauthorization to target the funds to critical educational priorities such as at risk students, effective school models, professional development and innovation, and libraries, makes it the best federal investment we have in reform at the state and local level.

Our Council supports the Administration's request for NAEP, the National Assessment for Education Progress, with no less than the 10 percent authorized for the activities of the National Assessment Governing Board. NAEP is the foundation of our system to assess student achievement, and it enables state-by-state analysis of programmatic performance. In the future, it will be expanded from math and science to other areas, and hopefully permit local data analysis. Consistent with this request for increased funding of assessment, we request increases for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) to conduct discretionary field-initiated research, as well as the Eisenhower math and science program.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the chief state school officers, for your outstanding commitment to education, and for continuing your efforts on behalf of the nation's school children.

Senator HARKIN. Carnie, thank you very much for your fine statement. I would make just one statement about Chapter 1. The subcommittee has been very supportive and I have been very personally of Chapter 1. I am hopeful that in the coming several years it will be moving in a different direction; that is, putting more funds into early intervention programs, and I mean really early intervention programs going clear back to birth and shortly after birth, an education component of day care and full funding of the Head Start programs. That means at age 3 rather than at age 4.

I believe by doing that you will cut down immensely the need for Chapter 1 programs. So I am hopeful that that is the direction in which we will be moving. I am sure you agree with me that nothing would be better than to not have a need for Chapter 1 programs.

They fulfill a need right now, obviously, but I think that is only because we have looked upon education as starting at kindergarten, and I think we have to change our method of thinking in this country to think about education starting at birth and the prelude to education starting in pregnancy. Once we look at it in that way, then I believe we can really focus more funds toward ma

2

ternal and child health programs and see the relationship between health and education.

I must state that I was one of those who supported separating the Department of Education out of the old HEW. In retrospect I do not know that that was such a wise move. There is such a close relationship, especially in the early years between health and education. Bad health, bad education. Good health, you can have good education. Somehow there has to be that relationship, especially during those first formative years.

That is how I hope to be moving this subcommittee in the next few years. I just wanted to state that because we are just going to keep more and more money in Chapter 1 and all kinds of remedial programs, taking care of problems that we could have taken care of earlier on.

Ms. HAYES. As you may know, Senator, the chiefs and the school boards and a number of education associations for the past number of years since we have had our focus on at-risk youth worked very hard on the connections between school, health, social services, and building those connections at the State and local level. We look forward to the time, as you do, where maybe we can prevent birth defects or handicaps or disadvantaged before it happens. For now, we look toward trying to mainstream to get the Chapter 1 kids up to their optimum level and in the regular classroom.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much. I am going to turn over the Chair to Senator Burdick. I have another engagement, and Senator Burdick has been kind enough to take over the Chair. I appreciate it very much. STATEMENT OF PAUL G. HURAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RE

SEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIA

TION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, ET AL.
Senator BURDICK (presiding). The next witness is Paul Huray,
Association of American Universities.

Welcome to the committee.
Mr. HURAY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Huray. I am senior vice president for research at the University of South Carolina. Today I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Association of American Universities, the Association of Graduate Schools, the Council of Graduate Schools, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Today I am going to limit my remarks to graduate education.

Mr. Chairman, graduate education in U.S. colleges and universities is, without qualification, the best in the world. We may buy Japanese VCR's, but 79 percent of Japanese students who study abroad choose U.S. universities. The Nation's graduate schools produce approximately 310,000 masters and 34,000 Ph.D. degrees each year.

A student's decision to pursue a graduate degree is often based upon pragmatic opportunities such as whether or not scholarship or traineeship is available. Unfortunately, federally funded fellowships and traineeships have declined from a peak of approximately 60,000 20 years ago to about 14,000 today, and partially as a result five major influences have occurred-actually six.

« PreviousContinue »