The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee spent much of the week of March 7 completing its mark-up of a bill (S. 2) designed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The committee eventually approved the bill in a 10-8 vote. It may be considered on the floor as early as next month.
Debate was characterized by partisanship, with several Democrats indicating by the end up the mark-up that they will seek significant changes to the bill during floor debate.
Although the committee met on March 1 to begin the mark-up, no votes were taken until the committee reconvened on March 7. The ESEA, which was last reauthorized in 1994, represents the federal government’s contribution to public education for grades K-12. The bill, sponsored by Committee Chair James Jeffords (R-VT), would authorize more than $19.6 billion for FY2001.
S. 2 would reauthorize many current ESEA programs, including the Even Start family literacy program, the Migrant Education program, the Reading Excellence Act, the National Writing Project, the 21st Century Learning Centers, transition programs for neglected and delinquent students, the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act, arts in education programs, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, public charter schools, magnet schools, technology in education programs, the Women’s Educational Equity Act, the Inexpensive Book Distribution program, immigrant education programs, programs for homeless youth, the Innovative Education Strategies program, and programs for Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
The bill would give states the option of receiving a block grant for a variety of programs. States electing the block grant funding would be expected to document a resulting increase in academic achievement among students. Supporters of the block grant approach assert the current system is failing to provide adequate educations, and the block grant would offer states greater flexibility in their efforts to improve education.
However, according to opponents, the block grant would dilute funds intended for disadvantaged and low-income students because states would have no impetus for ensuring the funds are used to assist that population.
On March 7, the committee approved, 9-8, an amendment to expand the block grant to include several additional programs. The amendment, offered by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), would create a 15-state pilot program, block granting federal funds to the participating states for a wider range of programs than the original bill, including several programs included in Title I, the largest and most expensive portion of the ESEA. As in the original bill, participating states would be required to document student improvement or they would have to return to traditional program-by-program funding.
Sen. Gregg said the amendment’s accountability provisions will enforce effectiveness: “If you accept the flexibility, you also have to accept the responsibility of teaching those children to read and write.”
However, opponents repeated their objections. “The kids at the bottom are going to lose out,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said, adding that Congress should “make sure those kids get a good education.”
The amendment reflects a bill (H.R. 2300) approved last October by the House (see The Source, 10/22/99, p. 3). Entitled the Academic Achievement for All Act, H.R. 2300 is often described as “the Straight A’s Act.”
Also on March 7, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) to alter the formula for distributing the ESEA’s Title I funding. Title I is aimed at helping disadvantaged, low-income children reach the same educational levels as other students. The program distributes funds to school districts with more than 50 percent poor students, usually based on the number of students qualifying for school lunch assistance.
For schools with less than 50 percent poor students, those who qualify for Title I programs must be removed from the classroom for separate instruction. Otherwise, Title I funds are used for programs throughout the school. Under Sen. Frist’s amendment, the threshold for schoolwide Title I spending would be dropped from 50 percent to 40 percent.
Another amendment pertaining to Title I was approved, 9-8, on March 8. Offered by Sen. Gregg, the amendment would create a pilot program to study the effects of making Title I funds “portable.” The program’s formula would remain the same, but the funds—approximately $500 to $700 per student each year—would be assigned directly to eligible students. Therefore, the funds would follow a student who changes schools.
Supporters of portability asserted that schools would improve their services in an effort to retain students and their Title I funds. Opponents, however, argued the change would amount to vouchers, as students could use their Title I funds to transfer to private schools. Also on March 8, the committee approved, 9-8, an amendment by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to incorporate some provisions from the juvenile justice bill (S. 254) approved by the Senate last May. The provisions included in the amendment would authorize funds for training educators to identify and address school safety risks; authorize funds to purchase metal detectors, electronic locks, and surveillance cameras; allow schools to require student uniforms; establish a system for transferring the disciplinary records of students who change schools; provide for drug tests and locker searches consistent with the Fourth Amendment; and require background checks for teachers and other school personnel. A Senate-House conference involving S. 254 and H.R. 1501, which was approved by the House last June, is currently stalled. Several gun control provisions were approved as part of the Senate bill, but no such provisions were included in the House-approved measure.
On March 8, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to establish a national goal of making all students computer literate by the end of 8th grade.
Another vote taken on March 8 brought the defeat, 8-10, of an amendment by Sen. Murray. The amendment would have authorized $1.75 billion in FY2001 to continue the President’s initiative to reduce class size nationwide by hiring 100,000 new teachers over five years. For the first two years of the initiative—FY1999 and FY2000—a total of $2.5 billion was appropriated for the initiative.
However, several Republicans favor allowing states to spend the funds in areas other than teacher hiring. Sen. Murray’s amendment would have required that 75 percent of the funds be used to hire new teachers, allowing states to use up to 25 percent for teacher training. However, critics of the amendment said states should have more flexibility to spend the funds in other ways. The committee also considered an amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) that would have authorized $5 million for a program to help identify young witnesses of domestic violence and provide them with counseling. The amendment was defeated on a tie vote of 8-8.
On March 9, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to authorize $15 billion for Title I in FY2001. Originally, S. 2 would have authorized $10 billion for Title I.
Also by voice vote, the committee approved an amendment by Sen. Gregg to give parents the option of transferring students out of public schools ranked by their states as failing.
The committee approved, 11-7 another amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) allowing the use of federal funds for courses taught via computer to high-achieving students, as there are not enough advanced students in some schools to justify the classes.
Sen. Sessions offered an amendment to remove language from S. 2 that would authorize the Department of Education to produce materials designed to counter hate crimes. However, the amendment was defeated, 5-13.
In addition, several Demoratic amendments aimed at exempting certain programs—homeless education, immigrant education, Even Start literacy education, and migrant education—from the Straight A’s block grant were defeated along party lines.
