Payne, Donald M.

English

Seton Hall University Libraries

REFLECTIONS ON LEGISLATIONREAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT:CHALLENGES THROUGHOUT THELEGISLATIVE PROCESSCongressman Donald M. Payne*TABLE OF CONTENTSI. IN TR O D U CTION ..................................................................... 315II. THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND BILL AND THEEXCELLENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY INED U CA TION A CT ................................................................... 316A . Offered Am endm ents ......................................................... 3191. 50% poverty threshold .................................................. 3192. Ed-Plus Program ........................................................... 319B. Vote in the Committee on Education and the Workforce.. 320III. RESOLVING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEHOUSE AND THE SENATE BILLS ....................................... 320IV . CON CLU SION ....................................................................... 323I. IntroductionAs a member of the House Committee on Education and theWorkforce, I had the opportunity to become actively involved in the* Congressman Payne is now serving his 7th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.Biography, Congressman Donald M. Payne, (last visited May 15, 2002) available athttp://www.house.gov/payne/biography/index.html. Rep. Payne is a member of the HouseCommittee of Education and the Workforce, where he serves on the Subcommittee onEducation Reform and the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. Id. Herepresents the 10 th Congressional District of New Jersey. Id. He is also a member of theInternational Relations Committee and its Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere andSubcommittee on Africa, where he holds the position of Ranking Member. Id. A pastChairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, he is a member of the House DemocraticLeadership Advisory Group. Id. Rep. Payne is a native of Newark, New Jersey. Id.SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNALconsideration of one of the most prominent pieces of legislation passedduring the 107 th Congress: the reauthorization of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act (ESEA).Much was at stake as this bill moved through the legislativeprocess, because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is ournation's largest and most comprehensive federal education law. ESEAwas originally authorized in 1965 during the presidency of LyndonJohnson for five years; it has been reauthorized every five years sincethen.'President George Bush had emphasized changes in educationpolicy as one of his top legislative priorities. Philosophical differencesbetween the Bush Administration and House Democrats ensured thatthere would be a contentious debate over key provisions in the bill.IL The No Child Left Behind Bill and The Excellence andAccountability in Education ActAs the 107 th Congress got underway early in 2001, HouseRepublicans introduced a bill based on a proposal by President Bush,while Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced legislationembodying their own initiatives to strengthen federal education policyand boost student achievement. The Bush Administration Bill, H.R. 1,was entitled the No Child Left Behind bill;3 the House Democrats' bill,H.R. 340, introduced by the Ranking Democrat on the Committee,Representative George Miller along with Representative Dale Kildee,was called the Excellence and Accountability in Education Act.4As a former schoolteacher, I have been involved in educationalissues throughout my entire career. Because of my firsthand experiencein the classroom, as well as my close involvement with the urbanschools I represent in Congress, I hold strong opinions about federalI Nina J. Crimm, Core Societal Values Deserve Federal Aid: Schools, Tax Credits, andthe Establishment Clause, 34 GA. L. REv. 1, 46 (Fall 1999).2 Ian Christopher McCaleb, Bush Presses Education Agenda with Smiles andHandshakes, Jan. 25, 2001, at http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/O1/25/bush.education. During his presidential campaign, Bush stated that education reform would behis priority when he reached the White House. Id.3 H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001). This bill was introduced on March 22, 2001 byCongressman Boehner. Id. The purpose was that it was a "bill to close the achievement gapwith accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind." Id.4 H.R. 340, 107th Cong. (2001) was introduced on January 31, 2001. A summary ofits primary provisions can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov.[Vol. 26:22002] THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT 317education policy and the need to provide support to disadvantagedstudents. I oppose the use of vouchers for private schools because ofthe damaging impact such a program would have on the public schoolsystem. I believe it is unrealistic to divert resources away from publicschools which educate the vast majority of our students. Another areaof concern I had about the Bush Administration's plan was the testingprovision.' While I believe in accountability in public education, themeasures in the bill would basically punish schools whose studentsscore poorly on tests. It is not surprising that children fromdisadvantaged homes often have lower scores than their more affluentcounterparts.6 Testing is a subjective tool. Many urban schools are insuch poor physical condition that they are considered unsafe. In NewJersey, 87% of schools report a need for modernization or repairs inorder to achieve a fundamental rating of "good overall condition."7Urban schools often lack modem computers and other technologicalequipment which are important to help students keep up with theirpeers.ESEA programs supplement state and local initiatives to helpensure that all children have access to a sound education by targetingresources to specific needs. Goals of the programs include providingincreased assistance to help low-achieving students improveperformance; improving teacher and principal training and recruitmentefforts; assisting students with English language proficiency needs; andsupporting programs such as safe and drug-free schools and before- andafter-school community learning centersWhen Congressional hearings on ESEA began, the sharpdifferences in opinion regarding federal education policy were broughtinto focus. One of the witnesses for the Republican majority was Mr.Kenneth Connor, President of the conservative Family ResearchCouncil based in Washington, D.C.9 In his testimony, he voiced5 H.R. 1, 107th Cong. § 1501 (2001).6 Gerald Bracey, What They Did on Vacation, THE WASH. POST, Jan. 16, 2002, at A 19.7 How Do You Define National Security?, NATIONAL PRIORITIES PROJECT: GRASSROOTSFACTBOOK, VOL. III, SERIES 1, January 2000, at http://www.natprior.org/sos2000/pdf/newark.pdf (last visited March 23, 2002).8 Erik W. Robelen, An ESEA Primer, EDUC. WEEK, Jan. 9, 2002, athttp://www.edweek.org/ew/ewprintstory.cfin?slug=16eseabox.h21 (last visited April 2,2002).9 The Family Research Council (http://www.frc.org/) espouses marriage and family asessential in society. The organization articulates several core principles on their website:* God exists and its sovereign over all creation. He created humanSETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNALapproval for some of the cornerstones of the Bush Administrationproposal: diverting resources away from public schools through the useof vouchers; a block grant program calledStraight A's, which would also weaken the federal role ineducation; and new testing requirements. 0  He also expressedenthusiasm for components of the Administration's plan which wouldpromote voluntary school prayer and offer afterschool grants toreligious organizations."Giving a different perspective as a witness was Ms. RandiWeingarten, President of the United Federation of Teachers and VicePresident of the American Federation of Teachers. 2 She expressed herorganization's belief that the federal role in education is critical,especially for urban areas which lack adequate property wealth andtherefore rely more heavily on federal supplementary support. 3 Shecalled the Administration's bill "fatally flawed" because of its supportof vouchers and block grants.4As a representative from an urban area of Northern New Jersey,one of the items in the reauthorization of ESEA which was of utmostimportance to me was Title I funding for disadvantaged students. TitleI has been a tool for promoting equal educational opportunities forbeings in his image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right tolife is the most fundamental of political rights." Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expressionin the institutions of marriage and the family." Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family inlaw and public policy.* The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic." American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composedof families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.10 Education for the 21st Century: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Educ. and theWorkforce, 107th Cong. (2001) (testimony of Kenneth L. Connor), available at 2001 WL2006711.I Id.12 See http://www.aft.org/about/diverse.html (last visited Mar. 20, 2002). The AmericanFederation of Teachers (AFT) is an organization created for the collective bargaining orteachers. Id. It began in the 1960's and continues today; it's members include not onlyteachers, but other para-professionals and school related personnel. Id.13 Transforming the Federal Role in Education for the 21st Century: Hearing in H.R.1,H.R. 340 and H.R. 345 Before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,107th Cong. 1 (2001) (statement of Ms. Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation ofTeachers).14 Id. at 2. Ms. Weingarten stated "[t]he AFT believes that the Administration bill isfatally flawed, however, with its incorporation of vouchers and block grants." Id.[Vol. 26:22002]THE ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY EDUCATIONACT 319children from low-income families." Title I has been an importantfactor in efforts to close the achievement gap over the past threedecades.6A. Offered Amendments1. 50% poverty thresholdOn May 2nd and 3rd of 2001, the Education and the WorkforceCommittee met to consider the reauthorization of ESEA. I offered twoamendments during the consideration of the bill.The first amendment sought to retain the 50% of poverty thresholdfor school wide programs. 7 Such programs have usually been limited tohigher-poverty schools because the performance of all pupils in theschool tends to be low. The rationale for my amendment is that a levelof 50% of poverty is where we begin to see an impact on the entireschool. At poverty levels below 50%, the school poverty has a smallerimpact on the achievement level of the entire school population. The50% poverty-threshold is already a major reduction from the pre-1994threshold of 75%. Now the Committee bill before us included anadditional 10% reduction from the 50% level. Under existing law,schools below the 50% poverty level that need additional federal fundcan apply for a waiver from the Secretary of Education." Although myamendment initially was approved by the Committee, because theChairman opposed it, he called for a second vote after some membershad left the room, and it was subsequently defeated. 92. Ed-Plus ProgramThe other amendment involved the Ed-Plus program, whichprovides additional support for the special needs of urban and ruralareas, and which had been launched in the 1994 reauthorization of15 Comm. on Educ. and the Workforce: Additional Views to HR. 1, May 14, 2001,available at http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/hrIviews.html.16 Id.'" H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001), Roster of Amendments Offered, May 2, 3, 9, 2001,available at http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/l07th/fc/hrl/finalroster.htm (last visitedApril 2, 2002).18 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).19 Supra note 17.SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNALESEA. In the new reauthorization we were considering, funding wascontinued for the rural portion, but the urban portion was removed. Myamendment called for the continuation of both the rural and urban2!programs. I believe that Congress should recognize the challengesfound throughout our nation's urban schools, particularly those withhigh concentrations of ethnic and language minorities. Unfortunately,this amendment was also defeated. 22Two important changes were adopted during consideration ofamendments to the bill: removal of vouchers and state block grants.B. Vote in the Committee on Education and the WorkforceOn May 9, the vote on whether to approve the BushAdministration education bill, H.R. 1, as amended, was taken in theCommittee on Education and the Workforce. It was approved by a voteof 41 to 7.23 Some of the Republicans opposed the bill because theywere unhappy with changes which had been made to the originalversion. Six Republicans voted against the measure; I was the onlyDemocrat to oppose the compromise. In my opinion, although somepositive changes had been made, the bill was still far from what wasneeded to address the needs of our most disadvantaged students.In the Democratic-controlled Senate, a different version of the billwas emerging. With the help of a group of like-minded Republicans,the leadership was successful in increasing funding levels under ESEAfor special education, assistance to poor schools and test development,among other items. Vouchers were removed from the Senate bill. TheSenate passed its amended version ofH.R. I on June 14, 2001.25III. Resolving the Differences Between the House and Senate BillsThere were major differences between the House and Senate billsto be resolved. The Senate version provided a $14.4 billion increase for20 Supra note 17.21 Supra note 17.22 Supra note 17.23 Comm. on Educ. and the Workforce Full Committee Markup, Bill Number H.R. 1,available at http://edworkforce.house.gov.24 The six Republicans who voted "no" were Hoekstra, Graham, Souder, Schaffer,Tancredo and Demint. Id.25 See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1071/vote_00192.html (last visited April2, 2002).[Vol. 26:22002] THE ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY EDUCA TIONACT 321ESEA programs;6 the House version contained only a $4.6 billionincrease . In the Senate version, states and school districts would get$181 billion over 10 years to cover 40% of their costs in complyingwith the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;28 the Househad no provision. There were questions about whether the differencesbetween the two versions could be resolved.Passage of the education bill had already been a top priority of theBush Administration, and the terrorist attacks of September 1 1thstrengthened the resolve of both Congress and the Administration toproceed with the business of the people. The Chairman of theCommittee, John Boehner of Ohio, expressed his determination toproceed forward and reach an agreement. He met with the RankingMember on the House Committee, George Miller of California, SenatorEdward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Judd Gregg of NewHampshire to begin working out a bipartisan compromise.By early December, a compromise had been reached which soughtto narrow, over a 12-year period, the educational achievement gapbetween disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers andbetween minority and non-minority students.The compromise included the establishment of a state-basedannual testing system for students in grades three through eight in everystate to gauge student proficiency in reading and math. 9 The tests willmeasure the performance of an entire school, but also of subgroups ofstudents to ensure that no single group of students is allowed toconsistently under-perform." The agreement also provides new, highlytargeted resources to significantly improve the quality of education byimproving the training and salaries of teachers; paying for additionalinstruction for the neediest students and schools; and increasing thesuccess of after-school and school safety programs.3' Schools whichunder-perform would receive additional assistance, but schools whichconsistently under-perform would gradually cede greater control overtheir instructional operations until they begin to achieve high levels of26 Lynn Olson and Erik Robelen, ESEA Passage Unlikely Before Fall, EDUC. WEEK,July 11, 2001, available at 2001 WL 12046541.27 Id.28 Id.29 Robelen, supra note 8.30 Id.31 Id.SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNALperformance.32 The agreement satisfied many who see the annual test asa diagnostic tool, but not a solution.When the 107th Congress convened early in the year, it wasimpossible for me and many other education advocates to support theBush Administration's version of the ESEA bill, which had beenintroduced in the House. By making our voices heard throughout theprocess, we were able to win important concessions.The original bill contained vouchers; vouchers were eliminated.Block grants, which would have weakened federal support foreducation, were eliminated. Mandatory teacher testing was replacedwith a variety of means for assuring the quality of current teachers intheir field; the approach in the bill has more support for teachersthrough high-quality professional development. Civil rights protections,which had been eliminated from the original bill, were restored.Other key portions of the bill include the continuation of Safe andDrug-Free Schools and After-School programs." Our nationalcommitment to reducing class size and to emergency school repair andconstruction is preserved." The compromise also includes the targetingof federal funds to the neediest communities. The 50 school districtswith the highest percentage of poor students will receive a 10% increasein Title I funding as a result of formula changes. 36 In addition, themeasure seeks to ensure that parents have better information about thequality of their local schools through annual report cards and strongparent involvement requirements.37Although the Bush Administration's original proposal contained a3% increase in ESEA, the final compromise lifted that level to a 20%increase . In some areas the increase was especially dramatic; whilethere was no increase for bilingual education programs at first, wenegotiated a 57% increase.3932 Id.33 H.R. 1, 107th Cong. Title 1 (2001).34 Id.35 Id.36 Id.37 Id.38 Id.39 Id.[Vol. 26:22002]THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT 323IV. ConclusionOn December 13th, I joined the majority of my colleagues in theHouse of Representatives in approving the compromise, which passedby a margin of 381 to 41. The Senate agreed to the conference reporton December 18th by a vote of 87 to 10.4" The President signed themeasure on January 8, 2002, and it became Public Law 107-110.'2While the final version of the bill was not perfect, I believe that thechanges which were made throughout legislative process vastlyimproved the original legislation, H.R. 1. Now we face anotherchallenge as we move to the budget and appropriations process andwork to secure the actual funding to implement provisions in the newlaw. I am hopeful that the under the improved version of the bill, wewill make progress toward providing quality education to students inevery school, in every neighborhood.40 CONG. REc. HI0112 (Dec. 13, 2001).41 CONG. REc. S13422 (Dec. 18, 2001).42 Bill Sammon, Bush Hails Education Reform: Signs Bill to Cheers in Ohio, THEWASH. TIMES, Jan. 9, 2002, at Al.

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Challenges Throughout the Legislative Process

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&context=shlj

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Challenges Throughout the Legislative Process

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Seton Hall University Libraries