![[ Home ]](/icons/EDhome.gif){kind=icon}
Testimony of Richard W. Riley
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
June 29, 1995
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to see you and the other Members of this Committee today, and to have this opportunity to discuss with you the important issue of education as you begin consideration of several proposals to significantly change both the structure and the functions of the Department of Education.
This Committee has long demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment to improving education. Just last year, for example, the Committee succeeded in passing important education reform legislation, including the Safe Schools Act, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, while also completing a comprehensive redesign of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. This bipartisan approach, on balance, has produced much that has been positive for American education.
I am hopeful that we will maintain this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in education, for we are not educating our children as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans who represent the future of this great Nation. Our Federal education programs serve an essential national purpose and meet important national needs. For example, the Department provides over half of all financial assistance for college students, delivers substantial support for States and schools in meeting the educational needs of disadvantaged, disabled, and limited English proficient elementary and secondary students, helps nearly all school districts make their schools safer and drug-free, serves as a catalyst for effective innovation, and gathers national statistics on education.
There is no doubt that education is absolutely vital for the future of America. Just a few weeks ago, Congressman Gunderson testified before this Committee on the importance of education for preparing a highly skilled workforce to compete in a global economy, and I agree with him. I also agree with President Clinton's description of education as the "fault line" dividing those of our fellow citizens who are able to compete successfully and achieve the middle-class American Dream from those who are falling behind.
For example, in 1979, the annual earnings of college graduates were 43 percent higher than high school graduates. By 1992, this earnings gap had climbed to 82 percent. The growing disparity in incomes between those whose education ends with high school and those who go on to college suggests that in the long-run, we face an education deficit even more threatening than the Federal budget deficit. This education deficit cannot be fixed with a little short-term training. We cannot ignore the fundamental need of each citizen for a solid education foundation in our schools and colleges. Education is a powerful force for good, for creating order from disorder, and for civic responsibility -- helping to develop our children into good parents, good neighbors, and solid, contributing members of civic and religious groups.
The American people clearly grasp this connection: every poll that I have seen this year shows that large majorities -- ranging from two-thirds to over 80 percent -- believe that continued support for the Department of Education and its programs is as important as reducing the budget deficit.
There is good reason for this high level of support for the limited Federal role in education: over the past 15 years the Department has served as a strong voice in identifying critical education issues and in focusing national attention on the need for educational reform and improvement.
The 1983 Department report, A Nation At Risk, sounded the alarm over the failure of our schools to prepare students for the rigors of global economic competition. In 1989, the Department helped organize the Education Summit with the Governors in Charlottesville, Virginia -- a historic meeting that produced the bipartisan National Education Goals. And in 1994 -- as I noted earlier -- the Department worked closely with parents, educators, business, and this Committee to win bipartisan passage of critical education reform legislation.
In addition to providing leadership, the Department and its programs have contributed to measurable improvements in educational opportunity and academic achievement over the past decade. We still have a long way to go, of course, but there is ample evidence that education in America is moving in the right direction. For example, nearly half of all high school graduates now take the tougher core curriculum recommended in A Nation At Risk. Since 1982, student performance in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress has risen at all grade levels tested. This improvement is especially important because of the emphasis on taking tougher math courses and the rigor of the challenging math standards developed by the Nation's math teachers. It is clear that raising standards works.
The number of students participating in Advanced Placement programs has tripled since 1982. The dropout rate for 16- to 24- year olds fell from 14 percent in 1982 to 11 percent in 1993. And over the same period, the proportion of people age 25 and over with at least four years of college increased from 18 percent to 22 percent, with the largest gains in college attainment coming among minority group members.
I want to emphasize that these improvements didn't happen by chance: a concerted, sustained effort was made nationwide to attack low math and science achievement, increase Advanced Placement participation, lower the drop-out rate, and raise college attainment.
States, local school districts, schools, and colleges deserve the lion's share of credit for these improvements, of course, but many of the innovations and reforms now underway have been encouraged by the Federal government. At the 1989 Education Summit, for example, President Bush and then-Governor Clinton worked with all the Governors to accelerate the movement toward raising educational standards and achievement. Their efforts emphasized (1) the development and adoption of high academic standards, (2) giving educators the flexibility needed to help all students reach those high standards, and (3) ensuring accountability by measuring results, not regulatory compliance.
One leading-edge State that has adopted comprehensive reforms based on this approach is Kentucky, which has overhauled its entire educational system and achieved dramatic improvements in student test scores in mathematics, reading, science, and social studies. In reading, for example, the percentage of 4th graders scoring at the proficient level increased from 7 percent to 12 percent. Not only do these results document progress, they also show that States are willing to set challenging standards presently met by only a small proportion of students.
The Governors assembled at the Education Summit argued strongly that the Federal government should provide more flexibility in the use of Federal education funds -- through waivers of regulatory requirements, for example -- in exchange for better results in terms of student achievement. With the enactment of Goals 2000, we have delivered on that request, and we have worked hard to make countless other changes designed to make the Department of Education a more supportive partner to States and communities working to improve their schools.
When I arrived at the Department in early 1993, I found an agency with widespread management weaknesses, a demoralized staff, crumbling and dangerous (asbestos) physical infrastructure, outdated technology, and poor internal communications. These weren't just my impressions: the General Accounting Office (GAO) documented many of the same problems in a report conducted in late 1992 entitled "Long-Standing Management Problems Hamper Reforms."
We responded to these weaknesses by borrowing from the customer- focused management practices of successful businesses, beginning with a strategic planning process that established clear priorities and set performance targets in each priority area. These priorities include supporting State and local efforts to help all students reach high academic standards, assisting States and communities in the creation of school-to-work systems, ensuring access to postsecondary education and lifelong learning, and transforming the Department into a responsive partner that provides effective, flexible support for reaching the other priorities.
With the help of this Committee, we succeeded in winning passage of legislation giving us most of the tools we need to implement this comprehensive plan. Our education reform legislation reflects principles that I believe most of you share: cutting red tape, less paperwork, reduced regulation, and waivers that permit effective innovation -- all aimed at giving States and local communities maximum flexibility in the use of Federal education funds to help students reach high academic standards.
For example, we are administering Goals 2000 and School-to-Work without issuing a single regulation. Of the 49 programs included in the Improving America's Schools Act, only 11 will require regulatory guidance. We have also taken action to reduce existing regulations. President Clinton's regulatory reinvention initiative has already led to the elimination of 30 percent of the Department's regulations. Many of the regulations that remain are mandated by statute; we look forward to working with you to revise these statutes where possible to further reduce regulatory burden.
The Department also is using a combination of common sense and technology to greatly reduce the paperwork involved in Federal education programs. For example, providing notice of student aid eligibility through a computer-based system is helping to eliminate 4 million paper forms that represent an unnecessary burden to students, parents, schools, and the Department alike. Most of the programs authorized by the Improving America's Schools Act require reporting once every two or three years instead of annually -- permitting States, schools, and teachers to focus on what really counts: educating students, not paperwork.
We also are encouraging States to take advantage of the new provision permitting a single consolidated application for all Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, a change that promises not only to eliminate paperwork but also to promote comprehensive planning. For the upcoming school year -- the first under the new ESEA -- 32 States have taken advantage of this provision and submitted a single plan for all ESEA funding.
In addition, our new legislation permits broad waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements. If States and school districts find that such requirements present an obstacle to innovative reform efforts, they may seek waivers of the requirements from the Secretary. For example, the Department has approved a request from the Fort Worth Independent School District in Fort Worth, Texas, to modify the distribution of Title I funds to provide extra per child funding to four high poverty elementary schools engaged in systemic education reform.
One interesting point that has emerged from this waiver process is the nature of the requests, particularly in view of the many Department critics who claim that Federal requirements are too intrusive or burdensome and have led to a "Federal takeover" of local schools. In fact, nearly all requests are related to the targeting requirements for funds provided under the Title I program for disadvantaged students. There is no evidence thus far of any other requirements that are causing great difficulty for States or school districts.
The most far-reaching waiver approach is the new ED-FLEX demonstration, which allows the Department to give State-level officials broad authority to approve waivers of Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in the way of effective reform. We already have approved this ED-FLEX authority for the State of Oregon, and the number of States that have shown interest far exceeds the 6 authorized under the demonstration.
Another important part of changing the way we do business at the Department has been our efforts to streamline and downsize Department operations. These efforts reflect the determination of the President and the Vice President to reach the twin goals of meaningful deficit reduction and improving service to our customers by learning to do more with less.
I have to tell you that this is one area where I really believe the President has not gotten the credit he deserves. Terminating unnecessary programs and shrinking the size of government have been a priority of this Administration from the first day President Clinton took office. And it has not been easy. In each of our budgets we have proposed eliminating or consolidating dozens of programs, many with strong supporters both in the education community and on both sides of the aisle here in Congress. These proposals angered more than a few friends, and I have taken many calls on them. And for the most part, we have stuck to our guns, because it is the right and responsible thing to do.
In addition to program eliminations, we are cutting our staff and reducing administrative layers as part of a streamlining plan aimed at improving customer service and increasing efficiency. And we are saving billions in mandatory spending through implementation of the new Direct Loan program for postsecondary students.
One fact that you may not be aware of is that the Department of Education already has an impressive record of doing more with less. Our current staff of 5,000 is one-third smaller than the 7,700 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies prior to the Department's creation in 1979. This reduction was accomplished even though both our budget and the number of programs assisting students, schools, and colleges have doubled over that same period. As a result, administrative costs absorb just 2 percent of our budget, and we deliver 98 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students.
It is important to note as well that much of that 2 percent -- particularly in the postsecondary area -- is spent on improving accountability and making sure that taxpayer dollars are used appropriately. For example, by reducing the student loan default rate and increasing collections on defaulted loans, the Department has cut the costs to taxpayers of defaulted loans by over 50 percent.
We have accomplished much: a clear mission, a Strategic Plan, comprehensive education reform legislation, reduced paperwork and regulation, increased flexibility for States and local school districts, the elimination of outdated programs, downsizing and streamlining bureaucracy, and contributing to deficit reduction. And most importantly, these changes are helping us to meet challenges confronting America's students: learning the basics and reaching for high academic standards; ensuring a safe, disciplined, and drug-free environment; improving teaching; promoting parental involvement; getting more computers into the classroom; and improving access to higher education for deserving students.
I think these achievements represent significant progress toward transforming the Department of Education into an effective partner to States and communities seeking to improve their schools and colleges. In fact, the idea of partnerships has been central to everything we have done over the past 2 years. Perhaps the best example of this approach is the Family Involvement Partnership for Learning, an organization representing more than 100 parent, education, business, religious, and community groups. One of the Family Involvement Partnership projects is READ*WRITE*NOW, a program that brings adult and teen volunteers together with elementary school children to encourage reading and writing during the summer months. In addition to the Family Involvement Partnership, we have worked with business and religious groups; we have held a conference on character education; we have worked with States to promote innovative Charter Schools; and we have reached out to parents, educators, and citizens across the Nation through our satellite Town Meetings.
Working with Congress, we have reached a broad, bipartisan consensus on how the Federal government can best contribute to effective education reform and improvement. It is important to point out that this consensus was primarily a response to reforms underway in States like Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The legislation that we now are implementing reflects this "bottom-up" approach, and States and school districts are developing comprehensive reform plans that take full advantage of the new, more flexible assistance available from the Department.
These partnership efforts and your bipartisan support have led to a very positive response from parents, educators, civic and business leaders, schools, and colleges. Let me give you a few examples. Calls on our toll-free number (1-800-USA-LEARN) to request materials on community-based solutions to education problems have jumped from about 150 calls a day when I came into office to about 1,000 a day -- over a six-fold increase. Almost 40 percent of college students will have access to the streamlined direct loans this year. In many States, requests for Goals 2000 funds to implement reform plans exceed available funding by 4-8 times. The Department's computer-based, Online Library is "visited" over the Internet about 20,000 times each week for research data, information on Department programs, and ideas that work. Overall, well over 1 million individuals have called, written, or visited the Department in person or on-line to ask questions or express their concerns about their children's education.
Those who still think of the Department of Education as a dinosaur -- big, clumsy, obsolete, not very smart -- should take a second look. You owe it to your constituents to see for yourself how much we have changed. If we hadn't, I wouldn't be here. I didn't come to Washington to defend the bureaucracy or to protect the status quo. I came because I saw an opportunity to change things for the better. I think we are doing that, and that's why I'm here today.
In short, I believe we are on the right track. There is of course room for further improvement and streamlining in Federal education programs, but we must be careful not to undo what has been achieved, not to undermine the educational opportunities of students of all ages. This, I am sure, would be the rapid and certain result of the proposals now before the Committee calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.
Representative Gunderson and his co-sponsors are proposing to combine the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into a single new agency that would be called the Department of Education and Employment. Representative Scarborough and his co-sponsors are proposing in H.R. 1883 to dismantle the Department by transferring its functions -- including administration of two large block grants created by eliminating certain programs and consolidating others - to other agencies, primarily to the Department of Health and Human Services.
We have analyzed each of these proposals carefully. We believe that in view of the positive changes that I have described in American education and within the Department, a substantial burden of proof rests on any restructuring proposal to demonstrate that it would (1) contribute to the progress that we have made over the past two years and continue to move the Nation in the right direction, or (2) produce substantial savings without disrupting services to students in schools and colleges often those students who need help the most. Both proposals fail to meet either of these tests.
The merger proposal and H.R. 1883 share the following flaws:
Moreover, the GAO cautioned that "extensive planning and follow through" are required to absorb staff reductions without hurting service quality and the ability to meet future challenges. There is little evidence of this kind of planning in either proposal. However, we have been engaged in exactly this kind of planning at the Department for over 2 years now, and we have the results to show for it: real savings through downsizing and streamlining and improved service to our many customers. Clearly you don't need to dismantle the Department of Education to save money.
Instead of helping communities improve their schools and ensuring the availability of financial aid for college students, the Department and its staff would be forced to concentrate on the complicated and potentially costly logistics of organizational restructuring. For example, the merger proposal calls for a planning task force composed of the Secretaries of Education and Labor, the Chairman of the EEOC, the GSA Administrator, and representatives from the White House and OMB. This task force is expected to consult frequently with reorganization experts and to report periodically to Congress on its progress. The merger would be implemented over a three-year period, which means that the earliest we could hope to get back to the business of improving education is 1999. H.R. 1883 might set us back even further, since the reorganization would require coordination by several different agencies, yet could not be a major priority for any one of them in view of their other, ongoing functions.
To my mind, these flaws constitute a flashing yellow warning signal that Congress and the Nation cannot afford to ignore if we care about our children's education. We already are moving in the bipartisan-agreed-upon direction needed to bring about real improvement, and it simply doesn't make sense to reverse course by engaging in an exercise in moving boxes around on an organization chart.
A further warning comes from a study cited by Congressman Gunderson in his recent testimony before this Committee. Of 531 organizations surveyed that downsized in the early 1990s, just 61 percent were able to reduce costs, and less than half (46 percent) increased profitability. Since I believe that public sector downsizing is actually more complicated than in the private sector, those figures suggest that the disruption and dislocation created by either the merger proposal or H.R. 1883 will neither lower costs to taxpayers nor improve service to our customers. The obvious question for the Committee is this: why try either one?
In addition to the common defects afflicting the two proposals, specific aspects of each plan are likely to create additional problems. For example, the merger plan largely ignores the very different roles of the Departments of Education and Labor, and how these roles might interact in negative ways. The Federal role in education is not focused on narrow training programs aimed at securing a job, but on improving the overall quality of education and quality of life for both the individual and the Nation. By providing resources and research to help States and communities improve teaching and learning, and by ensuring access to postsecondary education, the Department helps support families in preparing their children with a solid foundation of knowledge and skills to be good citizens, responsible parents, and involved community leaders as well as good workers. The focus of the new agency on workforce issues would de-emphasize these other purposes.
Another potential problem could arise from submerging a small but active assistance agency like the Department of Education -- currently moving toward deregulation and increased flexibility in the use of Federal education funds -- inside the culture of a much larger regulatory enforcement agency like the Department of Labor. They must be tough on mine safety violations, but we must be flexible enough to allow local schools to figure out the best way to teach first-graders to read. Such conflicting missions would make it difficult to maintain our momentum toward reduced regulatory burden.
Our major concern specific to H.R. 1883 is the block grant proposals. First, we believe that block-granting nearly all Federal elementary and secondary education programs is merely the first step toward dramatically reducing -- and possibly even eliminating -- Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary education. This isn't just conjecture on our part: the 1981 consolidation of elementary and secondary programs into the Chapter 2 block grant program resulted in a 37 percent reduction in funding. Moreover, the sunset provision in H.R. 1883 for the new Office of Economic Opportunities provides additional evidence of the intention to simply eliminate the Federal role in education.
Second, the block grant concept would preclude the targeting of Federal education funds to disadvantaged populations that characterizes most of our current programs. In theory, States would be free to continue favoring poor students and communities in allocating block grant funds. However, my own experience as a former Governor, as well as the fact that over half of our States are currently involved in school finance litigation, tells me that the reality is far different, and that States may face great difficulty in allocating education funding to those students with the greatest need for assistance. Federal need-based formula grant programs -- especially Title I -- help compensate for this difficulty. In my view, rolling up these programs into a single block grant -- allocated on the basis of population -- would do just the opposite by exacerbating existing school financing inequities within States.
And third, the block grant approach complicates efforts to ensure accountability for the use of Federal funds. The "no-strings" block grant proposed in H.R. 1883 could result in the use of Federal dollars for activities of little or no educational value. A recent GAO study confirmed these fears. There is a clear need to focus on accountability for results, and funding formulas must reflect need and the ability to pay. Particularly in the context of continuing efforts to erase the Federal budget deficit, it will be very difficult to maintain block grant funding to improve education without accountability to taxpayers for how the funds are used; or worse, if funds end up being used for things no taxpayer would support.
I have examined all the different aspects of these proposals, and do not see any possible way for either of them to do anything helpful to American education. The issues addressed by the proposals appear to be derived more from political than educational considerations, and as such, I believe they would be harmful to America's children. I urge the Committee to reject both proposals.