2001 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six
years ago
Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its
power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in
education was sold to the American people with promises that federal
bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of
education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over
education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has
periodically responded to the American peoples concerns over education
by embracing education reforms, which it promises are the silver
bullet to fixing American schools. Trust us, proponents of new
federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the
past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new
federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which
all children are above average. Of course, those reforms only
result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental
control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in
education and an inevitable round of new reforms.
2001 Ron Paul 38:2
Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national
five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called No Child Left
Behind Act. A better title for this bill is No Bureaucrat Left
Behind because, even though its proponents claim H.R. 1 restores
power over education to states and local communities, this bill
represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1
contains the word ensure 150 times, require 477 times,
shall 1,537 and shall not 123 times. These words are usually
used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town
where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut
could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in
local control!
2001 Ron Paul 38:3
H.R. 1 increases
federal control over education through increases in education spending.
Because he who pays the piper calls the tune, it is inevitable that
increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal
control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal
expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that
states test children and compare the test with a national normed test
such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While
proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy
as states can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close
observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate
on states is a violation of states and local communities authority,
protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to
control education free from federal interference.
2001 Ron Paul 38:4
Some will claim
that this does not violate states control because states are free to
not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is
the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid
compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to
circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the
peoples own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional
federal dictates.
2001 Ron Paul 38:5
Mr. Chairman,
H.R.
1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will
inevitably fashion their test to match the nationally-normed test
so as to relieve their students and
2001 Ron Paul 38:6
teachers of
having
to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel
pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses
to conform their standards with other national tests for the
childrens sake. After all, what state superintendent wants his
states top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best
jobs, or even student loans, because their states test is considered
inferior to the assessments used by the other 49 states?
2001 Ron Paul 38:7
National testing
will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach
what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated
assessment. After all, federal funding depends on how students
perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by
saying there is only one way to read and do math. Well then what
are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus
old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all
subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once
federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be
settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC.
Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable
they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years
proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP?
2001 Ron Paul 38:8
Proponents of
H.R. 1
justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools
accountable. Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools
accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain
accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state
tests upon which participating schools performance is judged. Even
under the much touted Straight As proposal, schools which fail to
live up to their bureaucratically-determined performance goals will
lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. Federal and state
bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to
participate in the Straight As programs and bureaucrats will judge
whether the states are living up to the standards set in the states
education plan — yet this is the only part of the bill which even
attempts to debureaucratize and decentralize education!
2001 Ron Paul 38:9
Under the United
States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold
states accountable for their education performance. In the free
society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to
parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of
imposing oppressive taxes on Americas families and using those taxes
to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education
by denying them control over their education dollars.
2001 Ron Paul 38:10
As a
constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools
accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R.
368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over
the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to
$3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private,
public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their
children.
2001 Ron Paul 38:11
The Family
Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free
economy to Americas education system: what the great economist Ludwig
von Mises called consumer sovereignty. Consumer sovereignty simply
means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses
that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer
sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human
happiness.
2001 Ron Paul 38:12
When parents
control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental
demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise,
parents will find alternative means to educate their children.
Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their
credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such
as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs.
Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to
pay for special services for their children.
2001 Ron Paul 38:13
According to a
recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies
promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in
parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and
the students SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute
study also found that increasing parental control of education is the
best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests.
2001 Ron Paul 38:14
I have also
introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides
a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships
as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools.
The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to
become actively involved in improving their local public schools as
well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education
necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues:
Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and
other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?
2001 Ron Paul 38:15
If, after the
experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal
bureaucrats are better able to meet childrens unique educational needs
than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you
believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control
over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do
not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a
massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put
education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my
Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.
Note:
2001 Ron Paul 38:5
nationally-normed probably should be unhyphenated: nationally normed.
This chapter appeared in Ron Pauls Congressional website at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr052301.htm