Teacher Quality Bill Passes House Committee
The first component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reathorization was passed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee on June 30. While this begins the process of reauthorizing the programs of the Department of Education, the appropriations bills that fund it are hung up, faced with funding allocations lower than what was available in FY 1999.
The House Education Committee’s plan is to pass a number of separate authorization bills on different aspects of ESEA. Its first piece of legislation, the “Teacher Empowerment Act” (H.R. 1995), deals with issues of teacher hiring, certification, retention, and professional development. The bill would consolidate several Department of Education programs, including the Eisenhower Professional Development program, Goals 2000, and President Clinton’s plan to hire more teachers to reduce class size. It would preserve an emphasis on teacher development in the areas of science and math, calling for an amount to be set aside for this purpose at least equal to the currently authorized level ($250 million per year). States would be able to grant waivers to local education institutions to divert the math/science funds to other areas of teacher development, provided they first demonstrate that they are successfully meeting teachers’ professional needs in the areas of math and science (see FYI #95 for the exact bill language). Beyond science and math professional development, the bill gives states substantial freedom in determining how to address teacher quality issues. H.R. 1995 would also authorize the hiring of additional teachers, but specifies conditions for granting waivers from this requirement, too.
Democrats on the committee objected to the consolidation of Clinton’s “10,000 Teachers” classroom size reduction plan with other teacher quality initiatives, and unsuccessfully offered an amendment to separate out the President’s teacher-hiring program. Some warned that Clinton would veto any bill that does not maintain the priority on reducing classroom size. However, two Democrats, Rush Holt of New Jersey and Tim Roemer of Indiana, voted with Republicans for the bill, which passed 27-19. “We’re merely sentences or paragraphs apart” on bipartisan agreement, Roemer said. “I think we’re very, very close.”
This bill is expected to come before the House floor sometime this summer. In the Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman James Jeffords (R-VT) is taking his time with a series of hearings on portions of ESEA; it is unclear when he will introduce any legislation.
H.R. 1995’s continued emphasis on ensuring teachers receive adequate professional development in science and math is in contrast to another recently introduced House bill. The “Straight A’s Act” (H.R. 2300 in the House; S. 1266 in the Senate), introduced by Republican leaders on June 22, would give states more flexibility in using many federal education funds as they wish (see FYI #102 ). States would not be required to maintain the Eisenhower program’s priority on training for educators in math and science, nor would proof that teachers’ professional development needs are being met be necessary before waiving the federal requirements. This bill would be a step toward the Republican leadership’s objective of block granting federal dollars to the states with no strings attached. Democrats argue that some education concerns deserve national emphasis, and point out that state and local education authorities already control over 90 percent of education funding. The Straight A’s bill has not yet been scheduled for committee consideration.
Yet to be taken up this summer are the House and Senate versions of the FY 2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills. Low allocations to the Labor-HHS subcommittees are causing concern among educators; the Senate Labor-HHS allocation is more than $8 billion below FY 1999 levels, while the allocation for the House subcommittee is approximately $10 billion below FY 1999. Appropriators are still hoping for some politically acceptable way to break the outdated budget caps before the appropriations process is completed.
