THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 21, 1996 TAG: 9604190028
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: Margaret Edds
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
Franklin Del. Paul Councill is the epitome of the Virginia legislator of yesteryear - courtly, conservative, and except when he knows something worth saying, quiet. So it was striking when Councill rose during last week's General Assembly veto session to give what was for him an impassioned plea to accept federal Goals 2000 money.
Councill, who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on elementary and secondary education, half apologized for spending 42 minutes' worth of taxpayers' money on a telephone call to Washington to dissect the particulars of the plan.
But he said that call convinced him of what various testimony and conversations had already led him to suspect: that Virginians could accept $6.7 million in Goals 2000 money ``without any detriment to the school system.''
``Unfortunately,'' Councill concluded, ``this has become in some instances a political issue. It should not be.''
A line has been drawn in the political sand on Goals 2000, with Gov. George Allen, conservative think tanks, and most Republican members of the legislature on one side and Democrats on the other. This development has produced more heat than light. Voices such as Councill's are a rare exception. Here are 10 reasons why he's right, plus two observations. The observations first:
One, it was a mistake for supporters to suggest that there are no strings attached to the money, which is intended to improve the nation's schools. There is, in fact, a very detailed document laying out what the feds have in mind. To keep getting the money, states must eventually develop ``improvement plans,'' and there are extensive instructions on who should develop them and how.
Second, for those who are deeply suspicious of the federal government, who think that ``may'' means ``shall'' when uttered by a Washington bureaucrat, and who believe Goals 2000 is a dangerous first step toward federal mind control, further discussion is pointless.
But if you are willing to take the law at face value, and to judge the administrators by how they've operated in other states, here's cause to lament that Virginia has just tossed away $6.7 million.
(1) The seven National Education goals that open the act are goals with broad appeal, not mandates. Moreover, most are taken directly from the work of former GOP President George Bush and the nation's governors, who launched the idea in a conference in Charlottesville several years ago. The two goals added by Congress urge greater parental involvement and improved teacher training.
(2) Many of the statements critics focus on are optional, not mandatory. For instance, state improvement plans ``shall'' include strategies for meeting the National Education Goals through improved teaching and learning.
But they ``may'' include a process for developing "gender equitable and multicultural materials." Critics zone in on this language as West-bashing and male-bashing. They usually don't mention the word ``may.''
(3) Throughout the act, there is emphasis on encouraging ``a bottoms up form of education.'' A central tenet of Goals 2000 is that many of the best solutions to the nation's educational problems will develop at the grass-roots level, a conservative notion.
(4) Unlike most federal laws, Goals 2000 comes without regulations. That eliminates a frequently used way for bureaucrats to push their own agendas in administrating a law. It's also what prompted supporters to say there're no strings attached.
(5) A major requirement for the state ``improvement plans'' is that they include ``content standards'' for core subjects such as English and math. There must also be a way of evaluating student progress. Virginia has already recognized the merit in that idea by upgrading our ``standards of learning'' and adopting a companion testing program.
(6) There is a written assurance in the law that the federal government cannot ``mandate, direct, or control a state, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state or local resources.'' That should ease concerns about Big Brother government.
(7) There's safety in numbers. Forty-eight states accepted Goals 2000 money in its first year. Only Virginia and New Hampshire did not. In the current political climate, Gov. Pete Wilson of California has refused to release his state's second-year money, pending further review, and the Montana legislature did not authorize spending their money. Alabama's governor has raised questions. Other states are still on track for funding.
(8) Twenty states have completed their ``instructional plans,'' and despite the law's extensive guidelines, none has been rejected. This suggests there is substantial leaway in interpretation.
(9) We're paying for it. Goals 2000 is financed in part with the tax dollars of Virginians. If we elect not to participate, the money goes elsewhere. The state already collects several hundred million in federal aid to education each year, so it's not as if there isn't already a federal presence in Virginia classrooms.
(10) If taking the money proves onerous, just stop taking it.
That's the sort of practical solution that might not appeal to a political ideologue, but it would to Paul Councill. MEMO: Ms. Edds is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot.
by CNB