1999 Ron Paul 81:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to
express my opposition to the Teacher Empowerment
Act (H.R. 1995). Although H.R.
1995 does provide more flexibility to states
than the current system or the Administration’s
proposal, it comes at the expense of increasing
federal spending on education. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that
if Congress appropriates the full amount authorized
in the bill, additional outlays would be
$83 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $6.9 billion
over five years.
1999 Ron Paul 81:2 H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The
most important feature of the bill is the provision
forbidding the use of federal funds for
mandatory national teacher testing or teacher
certification. National teacher testing or national
teacher certification will inevitably lead
to a national curriculum. National teacher certification
will allow the federal government to
determine what would-be teachers need to
know in order to practice their chosen profession.
Teacher education will revolve around
preparing teachers to pass the national test or
to receive a national certificate. New teachers
will then base their lesson plans on what they
needed to know in order to receive their Education
Department-approved teaching certificate.
Therefore, all those who oppose a national
curriculum should oppose national
teacher testing. I commend Chairman GOODLING
and Chairman MCKEON for their continued
commitment to fighting a national curriculum.
1999 Ron Paul 81:3 Furthermore, this bill provides increased
ability for state and local governments to determine
how best to use federal funds. However,
no one should confuse this with true federalism
or even a repudiation of the modern
view of state and local governments as administrative
agencies of the Federal Government.
After all, the very existence of a federal program
designed to “help” states train teachers
limits a state’s ability to set education priorities
since every dollar taken in federal taxes to
fund federal teacher training programs is a
dollar a state cannot use to purchase new
textbooks or computers for students. This bill
also dictates how much money the states may
keep versus how much must be sent to the
local level and limits the state government’s
use of the funds to activities approved by Congress.
1999 Ron Paul 81:4 In order to receive any funds under this act,
states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy
by applying to the Department of
Education and describing how local school
districts will use the funds in accordance with
federal mandates. They must grovel for funds
while describing how they will measure student
achievement and teacher quality; how
they will coordinate professional development
activities with other programs; and how they
will encourage the development of “proven, innovative
strategies” to improve professional
development — I wonder how much funding a
state would receive if their “innovative strategy”
did not meet the approval of the Education
Department! I have no doubt that state
governments, local school districts, and individual
citizens could design a less burdensome
procedure to support teacher quality initiatives
if the federal government would only
abide by its constitutional limits.
1999 Ron Paul 81:5 Use of the funds by local school districts is
also limited by the federal government. For example,
local schools districts must use a portion
of each grant to reduce class size, unless
it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
state that it needs the money to fund other priorities.
This provision illustrates how this bill
offends not just constitutional procedure but
also sound education practice. After all, the
needs of a given school system are best determined
by the parents, administrators, community
leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to
the students — not by state or federal bureaucrats.
Yet this bill continues to allow distant
bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local
education officials.
1999 Ron Paul 81:6 Furthermore, this bill requires localities to
use a certain percentage of their funds to
meet the professional development needs of
math and science teachers. As an OBGYN,
I certainly understand the need for quality
math and science teachers, however, for Congress
to require local education agencies to
devote a disproportionate share of resources
to one particular group of teachers is a form
of central planning — directing resources into
those areas valued by the central planners, regardless
of the diverse needs of the people.
Not every school district in the country has the
same demand for math and science teachers.
There may be some local school districts that
want to devote more resources to English
teachers or foreign language instructors.
Some local schools districts may even want to
devote their resources to provide quality history
and civics teachers so they will not
produce another generation of constitutionally-illiterate
politicians!
1999 Ron Paul 81:7 In order to receive funding under this bill,
states must provide certain guarantees that
the state’s use of the money will result in improvement
in the quality of the state’s education
system. Requiring such guarantees assumes
that the proper role for the Federal
Government is to act as overseer of the states
and localities to ensure they provide children
with a quality education. There are several
flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th
amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits the Federal Government from exercising
any control over education. Thus, the
Federal Government has no legitimate authority
to take money from the American people
and use that money in order to bribe states to
adopt certain programs that Congress and the
federal bureaucracy believes will improve education.
The prohibition in the 10th amendment
is absolute; it makes no exception for federal
education programs that “allow the states
flexibility!”
1999 Ron Paul 81:8 In addition to violating the Constitution, making
states accountable in any way to the federal
government for school performance is
counter-productive. The quality of American
education has declined as Federal control has
increased, and for a very good reason. As
mentioned above, decentralized education
systems are much more effective then centralized
education systems. Therefore, the best
way to ensure a quality education system is
through dismantling the Washington-DC-based
bureaucracy and making schools more accountable
to parents and students.
1999 Ron Paul 81:9 In order to put the American people back in
charge of education, I have introduced the
Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935)
which provides parents with a $3,000 tax credit
for K12 education expenses and the Education
Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936),
which provides all citizens with a $3,000 tax
credit for contributions to K12 scholarships
and for cash or in-kind donations to schools.
I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut
Act, which encourages good people to enter
and remain in the teaching profession by providing
teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. By returning
control of the education dollar to parents
and concerned citizens, my education
package does more to improve education
quality than any other proposal in Congress.
1999 Ron Paul 81:10 Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment
Act not only continues the federal control of
education in violation of the Constitution and
sound education principles, but it does so at
increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge
my colleagues to reject the approach of this
bill and instead join me in working to eliminate
the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes,
and thus return control over education to
America’s parents, teachers, and students.
Notes:
1999 Ron Paul 81:6
As an OBGYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers, however,
probably should have a smi-colon instead of a comma: As an OBGYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers; however, or even start a new sentence:
As an OBGYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers. However,.
1999 Ron Paul 81:6
constitutionally-illiterate probably should be unhyphenated: constitutionally illiterate.
