ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 7, 1996 TAG: 9603070010
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Ray L. Garland
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
IN THIS hour of little faith and small budgetary discretion, politicians must find symbolic issues on which to make a stand. At the 1996 General Assembly now concluding, one of these has been the debate over federal Goals 2000 money.
First, a bit of history. In his desire to be known as the "education president," George Bush brought the nation's governors to Charlottesville in 1989 to devise a strategy for a nation placed "at risk" by reason of the poor performance of its public schools. The conclave made all manner of promises toward making American schools and students world beaters by the end of the century. Most of this was an exercise in delusional groupthink. But along came the Gulf War, a recession, Pat Buchanan and a few other problems to keep Bush's mind on other matters.
But Goals 2000 was right up the alley of President and Mrs. Clinton, who pushed for enabling legislation. This was enacted in 280(!) pages effective March 31, 1994. Though the act itself was verbose, its purpose was stated succinctly in the preamble: "To improve learning and teaching by providing a national framework for education reform...."
Considering the more than $300 billion states and localities were spending to support public schools, the federal monies contemplated under the act were almost laughingly small - no more than a few hundred million even if fully funded.
Had Virginia signed up, it would have been eligible for $1.8 million to fund "a broad-based state panel" that would develop a statewide improvement plan. There was the usual boilerplate covering the some 21 categories that should be represented on the panel, ending with the customary exhortation that "it shall reflect the diversity of the population ... with regard to race, ethnicity, gender and disability characteristics."
Assuming the improvement plan found favor with the secretary of education, and no reason to believe he would put a very fine point on his consent, the state would be eligible for about $6.8 million in federal funds to implement the plan over five years.
But Gov. George Allen rejected the entire concoction out of hand, viewing it as a potential threat to state sovereignty that was totally unwarranted by the extremely small portion of total school spending now paid for by the federal government.
The state superintendent's report for the school year ending in June 1994 - the latest available - shows total spending on public education for 1993-94 of $6.5 billion, representing an average cost of $6,385 per student. Federal grants covered $361 million of that outlay, or less than 6 percent.
This rejection of "free" money brought forth the usual demagoguery. Democrats led by Lt. Gov. Don Beyer blasted Allen for looking a gift horse in the mouth. The president of the Virginia Education Association detailed all the wonderful things the state could buy with it, such as 4,544 computers. He even implied the money could be used to raise teacher salaries. But as I read the act, the money isn't intended to take the place of specific and customary state obligations.
Scorning the whole Goals 2000 rigamarole, Allen has forced through new learning standards for all grades and wants to spend $23 million of the state's own money devising tests - at five grade levels - to see how well Virginia students are meeting the new standards.
Finding common ground in such vast areas as social studies, language arts and science is almost a pipedream. Federal efforts in the same direction have aroused even more hostility than greeted Allen's efforts. The National History Standards developed by leading academics were denounced by the U.S. Senate on a 99-1 vote. And the lone dissenter wanted even stronger denunciation.
The state Senate has voted to fund testing of the new learning standards at four grade levels instead of the five the governor wanted. But the House of Delegates insists that only three grades be tested and has stipulated the governor must apply for Goals 2000 money even to do that. Again, reading the act, I wouldn't see how all or most of the money could be used for this single purpose. My guess is the Senate view will prevail.
Well, which side has the better argument? In the main, Allen surely occupies the high ground. Considering the obligations of the federal government to fund entitlements and national defense in the context of eliminating the deficit, it's hard to see Congress increasing its modest share of public-school funding. So, why establish the means whereby the tail may wag the dog?
Goals 2000 certainly establishes a framework to nationalize educational policy. The act established four national boards and several specific offices within the Department of Education. Space permits no more than a listing, but you'll get the drift. There is the National Education Goals Panel (18 members); the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (19 members); the National Skills Standards Board (28 members); and the National Education Research Policy and Priorities Board (15 members).
Within the U.S. Department of Education, there is the Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination, the National Library of Education and the Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouses. Under the latter, there are to be not less than 10 nor more than 12 regional educational laboratories for research, development, dissemination and technical assistance.
In fairness, conservatives have their fingerprints all over the legislation. It is several times stated that education must be seen as primarily a responsibility of the states and localities and their participation in Goals 2000 is voluntary.
But times change and so do the moods of Congress. For the small sums involved, Virginia is well out of it.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Long : 102 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: D.B. JOHNSON/L.A. Times Syndicate.by CNB