-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/3c7e95623d0f5364da42d23eb93c9131.pdf
4f065a45e60f5eff87771d3ddfe38dc3
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2008-0700-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Heather Hurlburt
Subseries:
19912
OA/ID Number:
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Education Budget 10-5-00 [Remarks]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
91
6
7
1
�Final 10/04/00 9:50am
Heather Hurlburt
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
EDUCATION REMARKS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, DC
October 4, 2000
Good morning. Before we begin, I want to say a few words about the Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, which passed the Senate unanimously yesterday. This bill will
help thousands of low-income women with cancer get the early, affordable treatment which can
save their lives. I urge the House to take up the Senate bill and send it to me as soon as possible,
so help can start flowing to women for whom it is a matter of life and death. I was proud to
include funding for this initiative in our budget, and I will be proud to sign it into law. It is a
good example of how we can work together to get things done for the American people.
I asked a group of Congressional Democrats to come here today to work out a strategy on
another critical issue- education. Unfortunately, we don't have the same bipartisan approach.
We've made education our top priority this year- but the majority party seems to have made it
their last priority. We have made investments in education that are already getting results across
the country. Now we're asking Republicans in Congress to help us build on those investments.
But so far, all we've gotten is false starts and stalling.
For seven years, we've worked to invest more in our schools and demand more from
them: by hiring teachers, shrinking class size, promoting high standards, boosting Head Start,
after-school and summer school initiatives, and connecting 95 percent of schools to the Internet.
We are gaining ground. In 1993, only about 14 states had real standards and a core
curriculum. Today, 49 states do. Math and reading scores are rising across America- with
some of the greatest gains in the most disadvantaged schools. The number of students taking
advanced placement courses has risen by two-thirds in eight years. College entrance exam
scores are rising -- and more students from disadvantaged backgrounds are taking the test.
But nobody believes that we've finished the job of renewing American education. The
students who went back to school this fall are the biggest, most diverse group in our nation's
history. They will graduate into a competitive, high-tech economy. We owe it to them to invest
in their future- and we know what works. Let me give just one example.
We've been working for years to reduce class sizes- because study after study, from
Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, has shown that smaller classes boost test scores and
learning, especially among the most disadvantaged students. Two years ago, we launched a class
size reduction initiative, to put more teachers in the classroom and better train those already
there. And as a re.sult, school districts across the country have hired 29,000 teachers.
�Today, the Council of the Great City Schools issued its second annual report on the
results of our class size initiative. Last year alone, the report says, 25 of our biggest city school
systems used federal funds to hire more than 2700 teachers and train 25,000 more. In
Philadelphia, the teacher-student ratio in kindergarten and first grade has been cut to 15-to-1 .
. San Francisco used federal funds to get eighth-grade math and language arts classes down to a
20-to-1 ratio from a high of 33-to-1. Just as the rigorous academic studies told us they would,
urban schools across the country report that test scores are up in smaller classes. Student
confidence and teacher morale are higher. And disciplinary problems are down.
Michael Casserly, who runs the Council of Great City Schools, is with us today. I thank
him for his commitment to America's schools. I've been fortunate to visit successful schools
like those he documents, from small-town Kentucky to inner-city New York. Around the
country, what I've seen is an education revival, not an education recession.
This report provides more strong proof that cutting class size and investing in
teacher quality produces results -- whether schools are urban or rural, big or small. But
every year, we have to fight the majority in Congress for the funding that class size
reduction deserves.
The budget proposed by the Republican leadership does nothing to meet our goal of
hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. And that's not the only
place they haven't done their homework on education. Their budget fails to guarantee
investment in building or modernizing classrooms, although our school construction deficit is
now $127 billion. It shortchanges funding for afterschool programs and teacher quality. It
underfunds our GEAR-UP program, denying as many as 600,000 kids help preparing for college.
It walks away from our pledge to identify failing schools and help turn them around- or shut
them down and reopen them under new management. It fails to give middle-class families a
$10,000 tax deduction for college. And it fails to fund our $1 billion initiative for teacher
quality. We'll get returns on every cent we spend for teacher quality- and we should be using
some of it to reduce the number of uncertified teachers in our classrooms. In schools with the
highest minority enrollment, students have a less than fifty percent chance of having a math or
science teacher with a license and degree in the field.
There is no excuse for this. We have plenty of evidence that, if you invest more in
schools and teachers, and demand more from them, you can turn schools around, change young
people's lives for the better, and improve the economic prospects of our entire nation.
I want to be clear - everyone here today is committed to staying at the table until we have
an education budget that meets the needs of21 51 -century schools. We're going to keep fighting
to strengthen accountability; to hire 100,000 new teachers for smaller classes; to help
communities build or modernize schools; to expand after-school programs and college
opportunities; and to put a qualified teacher in every single classroom in America.
We will hear in a moment from Senator Robb and Congresswoman Berkley about some
of the specific ways Congress can make a difference right now by investing in teachers and
schools across our· nation. This is worth fighting for. We know our initiatives are working. And
�we owe it to our kids - and to ourselves - to make sure kids in every classroom across the nation
get the chance to excel in school, and to succeed in life.
Thank you.
�3ent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:20PM;
i
REDUCING (LASS SIZE
ASMART WAY TO IMPROVE
AMERICA'S URBAN SCHOOLS
Council of the Great City Schools
October 2000
Page 2
�~en~
By: N¥C BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
oct-3-00
Report Prepared by
Manish Naik
Legislative and Research Specialist
Michael Casserly
Executive Director
Gabriela Uro
Manager of Intergovemmcrital Affairs
<
*
...
~
4:22PM;
t->age d
�3en~
By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:22PM;
t-'age 4
.E)(ECUTIV.E.·SU:M'MARY
The Council of the Great City Schools, a coalition ofthe nation's largest urban public
school systems, surveyed its membership to determine how they were using federal class
size reductionfunds in the 2000-2001 school year. Some 25 major urban school systems
responded. Results indicated thatApproximately 2,737 new first, second, and third grade teachers were hired in 25 of
the nation's largest urhan school systems with second-year federal class size
duction funds.
•
The 25 major city school systems received approximately $161.3 million in federal
class size funds for the 2000-2001 school year.
•
All 25 major cities used their federal class size funds to recruit and hire teachers.
•
About $138.6 million of the $161.3 million received (85.9%) was spent by the 25 city
school systems on teacher salaries in grades one, two, and thr~e.
•
All 25 cities used a portion oftheir federal class size reduction monies to provide
professional development to new and veteran teachers.
•
Some 26,309 urban school teachers received professional development in the 25 cities
paid for with federal class size reduction funds.
•
The 25 major cities devoted approximately $17.2 million (10.7%) of their federal
class size aid to teacher professional development and $5.6 million (3.5%) to
recruiting expenses.
•
Funding under the program has been flexible enough for urban school systems to hire
new teachers or provide professional development-or both depending on need.
•
Preliminary data, like that gathered by the Fort Worth Public Schools, indicates that
the federal class size reduction program is improving: student achievement and is
receiving strong teacher support.
•
The federal program is also flexible enough to compiement local and state efforts to
reduce class sizes.
2
�~ent.
By: NVC BD ED DC OFFICEj
202 347.4790j
Oct-3-00
4:22~Mj
t-'age ::l
TABLE OF GGNTENT·S •
Introduction ....................................................................... ·...... ·.. ···.... · .. ··. ·· .. ··. ·.
The Research .............................................................. ·.... ···· .. ·· ·. · .. ·· ··· ··· .. ············
The Program ..........................................................·.......................................... ..
Findings ................................................................ ;........................................... .
Descriptions of Programs ................................................................................ ..
Appendix A. Class Size Reduction Program ................................................... .
Appendix B. Class Size Reduction Survey .................................... :....... ~ ......... .
3
�.
;ent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:22PM;
Page 6
Reducing Class Size
A Smart Way to I1nprove AmeriGa's Urban Schools
By the
Council of the Great City Schools
The lesson to be learned here is that, politics and fights over financing aside,
there no longer seems to be any question about the important benefits of
reducing class size, especially in the early grades. Studies have shown that
those benefits last for years. The challenge ... is to keep the money flowing
while rebuilding the physical plant to the point where smaller classrooms are
the nonn.
. New York Times
. May 8, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Improving the quality of public education has emerged as one of the nation's most
prominent concerns. And no where arc these concerns more evident than in America's
Great City Schools. Urban schools often face challenges that would daunt other
organizations, public or private. The litany of hurdles confronting these schools and the
children they enroll are now familiar, but the solutions to their probl~ms have only
recently emerged from the research: comprehensive early childhood education, extended
time for learning before and after school and during suminers, higher academic standards,
better Leaching and professional development for teachers, adequate facilities, and smaller
class sizes.
Evidence has grown stronger in the last several years that reducing class sizes, in
particular, can have a dramatic and long-lasting effect on student achievement,
particularly the achievement of children in poverty. Reducing class size is being shown to
give every student more of the teacher's time and more. individualized attention to grasp
tht: dassroom material. This report is the second in a series of reports updating the nation
on how the federal Class Size Reduction program is effecting America's urban public
school systems.
THE RESEARCH
·il
Research on the effects of reducing class sizes on student achievement has
become clearer over the last five years. The new stu<,iics point incn:asingly to higher
academic performance, greater parental satisfaction, and stronger teacher effectiveness in
smaller classes. Some ofthc most definitive studies include:
j
.~
~-
4
�->ent· By: N'YC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:23PM;
t-'age 1
1. The Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (or Project STAR) study. Project
STAR was a longitudinal study of some 6,000 children from 1985 to 1989. The
project followed students from kindergarten to fourth grade, placed in three types of
cla.-;ses: small (13-17 children per class). regular (22-25 students per class), and
regular with a full-time teacher aide. While no advantage was found in larger classes
having a teacher aide, students in smaller classes showed significantly higher
achievement on standardized tests than either of the larger classe:s. The higher rates of
achievement were evident in the first grade and lasted through second and third
grades. Results also showed that the greatest benefits of smaller classes were found in
inner city schools with the poorest students. Follow-up studies of Project STAR
students found that the benefits'ofthe smaller classes remained after the third grade.
2. TI1e second study on the effects of reducing class ·sizes involved the "Class Size
reduction (CSR) program in California. Enacted · in the summer of 1996, the
California program mandated that all 1st and 2nd graders be in classes of no more than
20 students. Preliminary evaluations of the program indicated significant student
achievement gains in the 3rd grad~the only grade where it was possible to compare
learners in CSR and non-CSR classes. Teachers. in CSR classes also reported
spending more time with weak readers and students with higher needs, less time on
discipline. Data also showed that the program has resulted in higher parental
satisfaction.
3. A third study was a quasi-experimental study of the "Student Achievement Guarantee
in Education (SAGE) program in Wisconsin. SAGE, a five-year pilot program. is
designed to increase the academic achievement of high poverty students by reducing
the student-teacher ratio to 15:1 in kindergarten through third grade. Results from the
1997-98 school year showed that first and second graders in the smaller SAGE
classes tested higher in math, reading, and language: arts than students in the larger
classes. Study results also indicated that African American students in smaller classes
outperformed African American students in larger classes. Qualitative findings
suggest that teachers in the SAGE program knew their students better, required less
time for management and discipline, and had greater opportunities for one-on-one
instruction. Similar results were found in a comparable 1996-97 study.
4. A fourth analysis involved trends on NAEP scores on reading and math among
central cities. This preliminary analysis conducted by researchers from the Rand
Corporation for the Council of the Great City Schools showed that lower pupilteacher ratios had dramatic effects on student achievement in urban schools. ·
Reducing the pupil-leacher ratio to 24:1 resulted in an average 5.8 NAEP percentile
point gains among central city students. Reducing class sizes to 21 resulted in NAEP
gains of 3.7 points, and to 18 produced additional :NAEP gains among central city
stutlents of 1.6 points. The analysis showed that no central city with a pupil-teacher
ratio above 18: 1 had made significant improyement on reading or math scores in the
last eight years.
5
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:24PM;
Page
THE PROGRAM
The federal Class Size Reduction program was signed into law on October 21,
1998 with the goal of placing 100,000 new teachers into America's classrooms. The law
provides federal funds to local school systems to reduce class sizes to 18 in grades 1-3.
ln the first year of the program, some 82% of the federal funds could be used to recruit,
hire, and train new certified classroom teachers. Up lo fifteen percent of the allocation
could be used to test m:w teachers on state certification requirements and to provide
professional ·development for existing teachers. No more than three percent of funds
could be used for administratil)n.
School systems received the first installment of $1.2 billion to meet the goal in
July 1999. Some 80% of the program's funds were targeted on school systems with the
highest rates of student poverty, the very school systems most likely to have the largest
classes and where research indicated that the most benefit could be derived by lowering
class sizes.
Approximately $300 million dollars of the program was targeted on urban schools
in the first year. A 1999 survey by the Council of the Great City Schools of 40 urban
school disni.cts showed that the class-size reduction:. program provided over 3,500
teachers to the neediest urban children, as well as training for over 22,000 new and
current urban school teachers. A national evaluation of the program showed that 29.000
teachers had been hired through(.lul the country and that the effort reduced class sizes for
some 61,000 current teachers and approximately L7 million children in 90,000
classrooms (Department of Education, 2000)- ·
Congress approved $1.3 billion for the program'$ sec'oml year. TI1e initiative was
amended somewhat for the 2000-2001 school year to lift the proportion of funds that
could be spent on professional development from 15%. to 25% and to allow additional
-expenditures for professional development in "Ed Flex" states.
FINDINGS
The Council of the Great City Schools conducted a survey of its members in
September 2000 asking for information on how second year funding was being used for
the 2000-2001 school year. (A copy of the survey form is found in Appendix B.)
Approximately twenty-six (26) districts responded.
Fifty four (54) urban school districts comprising the Great City Schools received
some $304 million ofthe approximately $1.3 billion that Congress allocated in FYOO for
the federal class size reduction program.
The twenty-six (26) urban districts responding to this survey indicated that they
received approximately $161.3 million in FYOO class size reduction funds and were able
to hire or support 2,765 teachers for the 2000-2001 school year. The total salary and
6
a
�Sen1 By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347
4790;
Oct-3-00
4:24PM;
Page 9
benefits of these teachers accounted for nearly $140 million or about 86.8% of all class
size funding r~ceived by these 26 major city school systems.
Some respondents ~pecified the number of new. teachers they hired by grade.
These districts indicated that the class size program enabled them to hire a total of 678
(50.4%) new first grade teachers, 437 (32.5%) second grade teachers, 425 (31.6%) third
grade teachers, and 231 ( 17.2%) teachers in other grades 1,
Table 1. Total Number, of New Teachers, Salaries, and Benefits Provided in
Urban Schools with F~deral Class Size ReduCtion Funds by Grade
Grade One
Teachers
Salary and Benefits
Grade Two
Grade Three
Other
678
437
425
231
$27,289,810
$18,263,117
$15,207,572
$8,147,917
Total'
. 2,765
.
$139.468.478
• lndi'tiduat grade$ do not sum 10 total since some districts w~tre unatlle to provide a per..greae breakdown.
NEW TEACHERS
All 26 major urban school districts responding to this survey used a portion of
their federal class size funds to hire new teachers. Four districts, however, used all of
their class-size allocation for the salaries and benefits of new teachers, relying on state
and local fund:s to provide professional development.
Twenty-one of the 26 districts (80.8%) are using their federal funds to train their
new teachers, with some 2,300 new urban instructors receiving professional development
services through the program. Some 476 (25.6%) new first grade teachers, 462 (24.9%)
new second grade teachers, 432 (23.3%) new third grade teachers, and 488 (26.3%)
teachers in the other grades were provided professional development in the districts that
were able to detail by grade where they targeted their training resources.
Table 2. Number of Teachers Receiving Professional Development in Urban
.Schools with Federal Class Size Reduction Funds by Grade
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Other
Total"
New Teachers
476
462
432
488
2,329
Currenl Teachers
758
710
627
397
5,099
1,234
1,172
1,059
865
7,428
TOTAL
• Individual grades do not sum to total since some districtS were unable to pro~ ide a per-grBde ~kdown.
1
Does not r~present all teachers hired.
7
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:25PM;
Page ·1 0
CURRENT TEACHERS
The major benefit of the class siz~:: reduction program is that it actually reduces
the size of clao,;ses, but a secondary benefit involves· the professional development
available to current teachers. Nineteen of the 26 districts responding to the survey
indicated that they used a portion of their funds to provide professional development to
veteran teachers.
Approximately 758 (30.4%) veteran first grade teachers, 710 (28.5%) veteran
second grade teachers, 627 (25.1%) veteran third grade teachers, and 397 (15.9%)
teachers in other-grades were provided professional development in the districts that we;:rc
able to detail by grade where they targeted their training resources. In addition, some
veteran teachers ,,.·ere trained as mentors for new teachers, while others were kept up-todate on the latest instructional practices.
Overall, some $17.2 million of the class size funds received by the 26 responding
cities was used to train 26,309 new and existing teachers in the nation's urban schools.
RECRUITING
The class-size reuucliou program also allo,-s.•s districts to use· a small portion of
their federal funds to attract new teachers. Eleven of the responding districts (42%) used
, part of their allocation on recruiting costs, spending some $5.6 million or 3.5% of the
distl;cts' total class size funds. Most of this amount was used for advertising. Other
common recruitment expenses included travel to intervit:w teacher candidates, salary and
supply costs for a district recruiting.offices, and hiring bonuses.
'
Table 3. Use of Federal Class Size Reduction Funds in Urban Schools
(% of districts)
Hiring New Teachers ·
Professional
Development
Recruiting
Exclusively for Salaries
and Benefits
0%
40%
20%
8
60%
80%
100%
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
TRI!:NDS BETWEEN
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:25PM;
Page 11/34
1999 AND 2000 IN SPENDING CLASS SIZE REDUCTION FUNDS
This report also examined trends in the use of class size reduction funds from last
year to see if districts were changing priorities or to determine the effecL'l of amendments
to last year's legislation. The Council of the Great City Schools looked at responses from
cities that participated in both last year's and this year's surveys. Twenty-t\7.r'O districts
participated in both. There were modest but interesting trends.
First, the amounl of monies received by the 22 major cities increased slightly, $12
million, due largely to the small increase in the overall appropriations last year. This
increase allowed these districts to hire an additional 145 teachers in 2000-2001,
compared with 1999-2000. Some $11.7 million of the $12 million increase was devoted
to the salaries and benefits of newly hired teachers rather than to professional
development.
Second, the number of teachers receiving professional development with federal
class size reduction funds actually increased in the 21 city school systems2 by a nt!t 3,700
individuals, but the total amount of program resources devoted to professional
development dropped by $1.75 million. This apparent anomaly may be due to a number
of factors. Spending on professional development may have been encouraged more in the
tirst year because administrators were unclear about the program's future. There was
some anecdotal evidence that schools were somewhat reluctant in the first year to commit
funds and contrdcts for individuals they could not support over the long run. The higher
number of teachers receiving professional development at lower costs may be due to
increasing needs or to the availability of other federal, state, and local funds to fill
training requirements. The anomaly suggests that both: teacher hiring and professional
development are major priorities for urban schools, but, when pitted against one another,
that reducing class sizes takes precedence.
2
Does not include New York City.
9
�~en~
By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:26PM;
Page 12/34
DESCRIPTIONS OF FEDERAL CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
IN SELECTED GREAT CITY SCHOOLS
DENVER
The Denver Public Schools has used its federal Class Size Reduction funds in the 2000-2001
school year to hire 25 new classroom teachers, as well as an additional 29 mentor teachers for its
"Primary Lead Teacher Project". After a summer of training, the mentor teachers, known as
Primary Lead Teachers, were assigned to low performing elementary schools, where their daily
responsibilities included three hours of direct instruction. These mentor teachers provide reading,
writing and math instruction during this period to small groups, and work individually with
students in programs such as ..Success in Early Reading.., "Reading Recovery" and
''Descubriendo Ln Lectura."
Primary Lead Teachers also assist with implementing building-wide, standards-based math and
literacy instruction, and acting as their schools' liaisons for CBLA, CSAP, and other districtrelated activities. Primary Lead Teachers at each site, moreover, are responsible for coaching and
mentoring new primary grade teachers. Mentors debrief teachers on instructional teclmiques and
lesson plans. The mentors offer support in assessment; lesson planning, and classroom
management, as well as providing release time for teachers to plan, observe, and share
information on what works with other instructors.
Finally, Primary Lead Teachers plan and facilitate professional development for school staff, as
well as professional study groups and school book clubs. In tum, elementary cuniculum and
Title I specialists provide regular, ongoing, and school-based coaching and mentoring to the
Primary Lead Teachers. The Lead Teachers also attend bimonthly seminars focused on methods
of balanced literacy instruction, implementation of math· content standards, leadership, and
coaching techniques, and student preparation for CSAP tests in reading, writing, and math.
Primary Lead Teachers work regularly with sm.all groups of students, taking
children from large classes during instruction periods and providing more
individualized instruction.
Each Primary Lead Teacher works on a weekly basis with up to 15 teachers. Mentor teachers
have established themselves as an integral part of primary instruction, and the coaching and staff
development they provide have received strong positive reviews from other teachers. Mentor
teachers have created and maintained a professional dialogue with instructional staff at the
building level, and follow up statJ development activities :individually with demonstrations in ·
each teacher's classroom. Primary Lead Teachers have gained the trust of classroom instructors
by using ilieir: time effectively, locating and sharing valuable resources, supporting
individualized and small group instruction, and providing expertise to new and veteran teachers.
-~
10
�3enf By: N~C BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:26PM;
Page 13/34
FORT WORTH
The Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) u~ed its f~deral CSR funds to reduce class
sizes in 20 schools. Participating schools were those whose TAAS Reading or Math scores were
below 70% passing, had high LEP or Special Education populations, a poverty rate of 80% or
higher, and had double-digit mobility rates. Approximately sixty Class Reduction Teachers
(CRT) were hired to reduce class sizes in Grades 1-3, and tO work with the lowcst-perfonning
students at their grade level in reading. The size of reading Classes after placing the CRT's was
reduced from 22: 1 to 11: 1.
School principals were· given the flexibility with the funds to implement one of three
instructional models. The first was the "Reduced Classroonl'' model, which clusters children in
greatest need of additional in~truction. Half of this group works with the regular teacher all day,
and the other half works with the CRT all day. The second model involved "Split Teaching,"
""here the CRT was ~ent to work with one regular teacher in the morning, and a dltlcrent teacher
in the afl.ernoon. Tn each session, the CRT and regular teacher can either team-teach, or split
students into two groups. The final model used a "Readin:g Instruction" approach, where the
CRT and a regular teacher work with four different gr~ups of students from designated
classrooms each day. The two teachers decide whether tci team-teach or to take students in
separate groups. The same four groups of children meet with the CRT for reading instruction
each day throughout the school year.
r------------------------'-------···----------.
"Limited English and below-level readers had greater opportunities for success
with the intense, direct focus on reading; pacing could easily be adjusted in the
smaller group to account for language content."
Principal, Fait Worth Independent School District
The results in the Fort Worth schools using the federal funds were significant. The Texas
Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) showed that most CRT schools showed substantial growth in
reading in Grades 1 and 2, compared with other district schools that did not have CRT resources.
Ejrst it'ade CRT cla:-srooms 2ained 31.9% in readin~ on ·the TPRJ. while re~ular first irade
~lassrooms gained 22.3%. Second grade CRT classrooms 2itined 34.3% in reading on the TPRL
wile regular second irade classrooms gained 15.7%. In addition. scycnty-fiye percent (75%) of
schools wjth CRT teachers showed a hj~cr percenta~e of students wjth passin~ TAAS Reading
scores in the third irade. compared with non-CRT schools, Third grade reading scores on T AAS
actually declined in three schools that did not have a CRTs.
The FWlSD was able to provide an additional CRT at four schools with funds from the second
year of the federal program. The district's greatest challenge is retaining highly quallticd
teachers to implement standards-based programs. This challenge has been addressed by filling
staff positions early, monitoring the program on a monthly basis, and providing ongoing
professional development in team teaching, effective questioning, individualized instruction, and
continued participation in Open Court and Reading Mastery I.iteracy Programs.
11
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:27PM;
New York City
The federal Class Size Reduction program has allowed the New York City Board of
Education (NYCBOE) to ease overcrowding in its schools, where class si:t.es were almost
25% larger than the statewide average. In the first year of the program, each of New York
City's 32 Community s~hool Districts and its Special Education District received federal
and state funds to hire teachers and reduce class size. \Vhen additional classroom space
was not available, community districts were instructed to use funds to provid~ small
group instruction for more children. The federal and state initiatives have reduced class
size for approximately 90,000 students in the early grades, almost 30% of the city's K·3
population.
The school district's Division of Assessment and Accountability conducted an evaluation
of the Reduced Class Size Program and found that teachers were overwhelmingly
positive. Teachers indicated that students were producing higher quality work compared
with regular classes. Teachers also indicated in the evaluations that students in the
smaller classes were reading more and taking more interest in their work. Finally,
teachers pointed that student motivation, self-confidence, and independence had
increased in Lhc smaller classes.
New York City is also using its class size reduction funds to mount an advertising
campaign to recruit the best new teachers to its schools. This ~ampaign will involve print,
television, radio, online, and other media outlets; will encourage certified teachers
throughout the country, college graduates, and others to teach in the nation's largest
public school district; and will encourage teachers in particularly hard-to-staff areas to
work in the district. The ads will also highlight a unique alternative certification pathway,
which allows career-changing professionals a faster way to full instructional license. The
alternative process is successful at bringing a large number of judges, attorneys,
architects, firefighters, police officers, and doctors to Nev.r York City classrooms.
"An ordinary class has become a gifted class. They ~re thinking and
responding at higher levels with an enhanced ability for learning ... "
Teacher Response
Early Grade Reduced Class Size Evaluation
NYCBOE Division qf Assess~~nt and Accountability
A recent report by the Educational Priorities Panel confirmed the benefits for students of
the smaller classes in New York City, and the opportimities they provided teachers to
better identify student needs. provide more individuai attention, cover material more
effectively, and improve student achievement (1999). The Educational Priorities Panel
found that students in smaller classes tended to display greater enthusiasm for reading,
and appeared lo be learning faster than the year before. Parental involvement also
increased, according to the report, and there was a noticeable decline in disciplinary
problems. The Panel also found that reducing class sizes in New York City increased
teacher morale and made it easier for schools to hire qualified and experienced teachers.
12
Page 14/34
�Sen~
By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:28PM;
Page 15/34
OKLAHOMA CITY
Oklahoma City Public Schools (OCPS) is using its federal funds to hire and train new teachers,
and provide professional development to classroom teacher$. In OCPS, veteran teachers who
have special training as mentors and professional development instructors provide the
professional development activities. OCPS has hired 48 new teachers with their Class-Size
Reduction allocation, including 20 tirst grade teachers, 15 second grade teaL:hcrs, and 13 third
grade teachers. In addition to those hired with Class Size Reduction money, every elementary
school in the district is eligible to send their new teachers to the professional development
provided by the federal funds, allowing instructors in 67 buildings access to this unique
opportunity.
of
Professional development is offt:rcd in a wide variety
areas, including workshops on
"Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences", ''Positive Teacher-Parent Relationships",
"Framework for Understanding Poverty", "Special Education Issues in Elementary Schools", and
"Phonetic' Tutoring from the Literacy Center". The training has allowed new teachers to improve
instruction by gaining fresh resources, generating positive ideas for use in the classroom, and
setting student expectations. The focused professional de~elopment also gives new teachers
opportunities for site-based training, as well as improving their understanding of curriculum and
assessment.
As part of their accountability efforts, OCPS is developing an annual report regarding the usc of
Class-Size Reduction funds and their impact on student l~;iaming and academic achievement.
Results from the study of the program showed that reduced class size increased individualized
attention, provided more time for instruction in core curriculum areas, increased availability of
more teaching options, increased usc of varied materials. reduced discipline problems, and
accelerated educational progress.
"Compare student perfozmance before and after class size was reduced."
·!• Improved oral reading, math, and spelling
•:• Increased student confidence due to time for individualized and personalized
instruction
•:• More on-on-one attention, thereby higher achievement
•!• Ability to cover more information
·
•!• Improved rapport with students
•!• Fewer discipline problems
•:• Better results on Accelerated Reader, ITBS, Benchmarks, and individualized
Testing
Sample Responses
Class-Size Reduction Teacher Evaluation
Oklahoma City Public Schools
13
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:28PM;
Page 16/34
PHILADELPHIA
The overwhelming majority of teachers hired by the School District of Philadelphia with federal
Class-Size Reduction funds are "Literacy Intern Teachers"-teachers with emergency
certification who hold undergraduate degrees, and in some cases, graduate and professional
degrees. The Literacy Interns are given intensive professional development in early balanced
literacy, are supported with mentors who arc experts in reading, and paired with veteran teachers
,..,.·ho have had intensive training in early literacy. The Literacy Interns work with veteran
teachers to support and enhance the instructional program by focusing on individual students and
small learning groups.
In 1999, the School District of Philadelphia hired more than 250 people with
college degrees, including those making mid-career job changes, to seiVe as
Literacy Interns in K-1 classrooms across the city. lntems are paired with veteran
teachers, reducing the student-teacher ratio in these classrooms to 15: 1.
The Literacy Intern Teacher program has proven ro be an effective alternative to traditional
teacher recn1itment programs, bringing trained professionals to the classroom to support the
reading and language development of students. The program provides the Philadelphia Public
Schools with a successful method for attracting and retaining qualified and motivated individuals
to the teaching profession and to fill positions in critical shortage areas. Preliminary data show
that 82% of the Literacy Intem Teachers hired under the first year of the progrum have remained
working for the school district-··a higher retention rate than usually found for new, first-year
teachers in Philadelphia. Some 44 of last year's Literacy Intern Teachers arc now teaching in
their own classes, reducing the number of vacancies the system had to fill at the start of the
2000-2001 school year.
.
·
·
The more important effect of the Literacy Interns, however, is the gains in student reading
achievement A oreljminary comparative analysis of teachei-~ported readin~ leyels showed that
in June 1929. prior to the implementation of the Reduced C[ass Size/Balanced Literacy initiative
in Philadelphia. 27.5% of first !m!ders in the city were ready to moyc onto second erade material.
Tn June 2000. after the first year of the Philadelphia initiative. 47.7% of first. ~radcrs in the
Reduced Class Size classrooms were ready to moyc onto second ~de materiaL An independent
evaluation of Lhc initiative showed that a majority of the veteran teachers felt that there was a
significant increase in student progress as a result of the Literacy lntems: some teachers reported
their classes had improved by 15% over past years (Research tor Action, July 2000).
14
�ent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:29PM;
Page 17/34
SAN FRANCISCO
The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has used its federal resources to reduce
middle school classes, because of the K-3 Class-Size Reduction (CSR) program operating with
state and locul funds. Current class sizes at the middle school level (approximately 33: I) require
an additional 17-18 FTEs to reduce classes to 20:1 in each subject area per grade level. Federal
funds have been used by the San Francisco schools to reduce class sizes in language a1ts and
mathematics to 20:1 in the eighth grade.
An eighth grade program was chosen by the district to complement the state-funded CSR in
language arts and mathematics at grade nine, and to provide additional support to meet new,
challenging language arts standards required for high school graduation. The class size reduction
effon was also easier to implement in the eighth grade than in elementary schools where students
work in core academic teams. There continues to be a need for extending CSR into grades four
and five, but space and facilities limitations make expansion ditlicult without major renovations.
•• ... Substantial perfonnance was seen in the perfqrmance levels for elementary
schools and eight grade in all subject areas. An explanation of these results is class
size reduction at the elementary grade levels, and at the eight grade."
Report of Standardized Testing Results for Spring 2000
San Francisco Unified School District
The federal, state, and local efforts are also combined to provide an energetic program of teacher
recruitment, testing, and professional development. The federal class-size investment allowed
SFUSD to hire approximately 33 new and properly qualified English and Mathematics teachers.
SFUSD provides test preparation Workshops for any teacher candidates who are not fully
credentialtd. All candidates participate in a workshop before being assigned to classrooms, and
·are provided on-the-job support through mentor teachers and site-based instructional
improvement activities.
All staff hired through the federal program arc provided release time for curriculum-focused
conferences, and professional development concentrating on effective instructional ~lrategies to
capitalize on the smaller class sizes. The program is similar to what was implemented as part of
the overall K-3 CSR effort, but with emphasis on more sophisticated and appropriate material for
the eighth grade. This includes algebraic content and reflective reading and writing skills. The
professional development program is also available to private school instructors, consistent with
the federal guidelines.
I
J.
15
�;nt By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
Oct-3-00
202 347 4790;
4:29PM;
SUMMARY OF 2'~ 0 YEAR FEDERAL CLASS SIZE REDUCTION EFlrORTS
IN THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS
$161,263,344
Federal class sizt::: reduction funds directed
To urban schools in 2000-2001
2,737
Number of new teachers hired with 2nd -year
federal class size reduction funds
$138,605,335
Amount of federal class size funds devoted
to teacher salaries and benefits
85.9%
Percentage of federal class size reduction funds
devoted to teacher salaries and benefit<;
26,309
Number of teachers receiving professional .
development with federal class size funds
$17,171,025
Amount of federal class size funds devoted
To professional development
10.7%
Percentage of federal class size reduction funds
devoted to professional development
$5,597,526
Amount of federal class size reduction funds
devoted to recruitment
3.5%
Percentage of federal class size reduction funds
devoted to recruitment
100%
Percentage of cities that used funds to pay
Teacher salaries
~~cfo
~/o
Percentage of cities that used funds to
Provide professional development
~
,.
lb
Page 18/34
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:29PM;
REFERENCE LIST
Educational Priorities Panel ( 1999). Smaller is Better: First-hand Reports of Early Grude Class Rcducrion
in New York City Public Schools. New Y~rk, NY.
Research for Action (2000). "The Best Thing I ever Did ... ··: Reduced Class Size/Balanced Literacy
Imph:menlalion. Philadelphia, PA.
United States Deparunent of Euucation (2000). The Class Size Reduczion Program: Boosting Scud•mc
Achievement in Schools Across che Nation. Washington, DC.
17
Page 19/34
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
APPENDIX A
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION SURVEY RESULTS
18
4:30PM;
Page 20/34
�Council of the Great Cihj Schools
z
-<
Class-Size Reduction Follow-up Survey Results
0
IJJ
0
Main Findings
m
0
0
0
0
-n
-n
H
0
m
Columbus
Denver
Des Moines
Detroit
Fort Worth
Jefferson
county ·
Miami
Milwaukee
Nashville
New York City
Norfolk
Oklahoma Ci_o/
Orange County
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portl<:nd
Rochester
Sacramento
$6,547,478
$0
w
$3,304.251
0
$0
83
54
$2,754,656
$424,332
-.J
54
$0
$926,824
$863,343
0
$0
27
$0
260
$13,640,640
399
$333.648
$0
-.J
lD
0
$14,248,477
Cleveland"
$0
164
$576,279
$5,414.952
486
$3,178,988
Clark County
$3,989,581
2.0
$0
77
$130,200
$4,243,374
$3,304,251
Atlanta
$2,726,480
58
$500,000
58
$135,000
$3,361,480
Albuquerque
$1,575,000
71
$400
45
$849,594
$2,424,994
$40,000
$2,678,179
$2,560,000
64
$79,979
64
$0
$2;997 .
.455.
$2,950,816 .
0
$0
95
$1,600,000
$12,342,413
$10.561,560
241
$0
241
$6,731,092
$6,206,672
$524,420
$0
102
2,400
$2,068,730
1,020
$30~,451
$2,461,731
43
$66,072,380
804
$52,875,000
18,850
$8,197,380
$1.506,815
36
$1,380,502
36
$63,109
48
$1,302,700
191
$304,877
$1,714,877
74
$2.643,280
0
$0
$2,770,810
253
253
$2,435,477
$13,180,343
$10,069,609
45
$2,169,360
45
$244,723
$2,453,462
36
$1.626.466
0
$0
$1,675,260
$2,323.711
16
$0
45
$139,423
$2,566,527
31
$1,800,000
$200,000
$2.000,000
31
$0
1\)
0
1\)
~
~
$36,569
0
()
r+
0
w
'
0
0
$5,000,000
$63,204
..
w
$0
-u
~
0
:;:::
$16,283
$333,350
$39,379
$0
-u
Ill
tO
CD
1\)
~
._
w
+>
I
�.,
~
::J
rt
leo
..
''<
z
-<
0
CD
$715,796
14
$703,656
72
$12.140
$0
0
San Antonio
$3,038,127
70
$2,377,664
1,921
$596,497
$63,966
0
San Diego
$4,167,085
65
$3,074,003
127
$968.069
$10,000
0
0
San Francisco
$1,800,950
34
$1,575,000
83
$72,000
$0
Salt Lake City
m
0
T1
T1
H
(')
m
·········n~26.
. .............................................................•..
-·----~
I\)
'0
1\)
" Cleveland also had $3,044,095 in carryover funds from their FY99 federal Clas~·Size Reduction allocation.
w
.p.
"'-J
.p.
"'-J
lD
0
0
0
rt
0
w
0
0
-u
Cll
(Q
CD
1\)
1\)
w
.p.
�en
CD
:J
~'
Council of the Great City Schools
:2:
-<
0
Class-Size Reduction Follow-up Survey
Hiring Teachers
OJ
0
m
0
0
0
0
.,
.,
·H
0
m
$1.575,000
Albuquerque
22
Atlanta
.. ..Clarl:=Ccunty .....
Cleveland
Columbus
··--················
7
45
58
16
58
.. {J9..•....
71
48
10
$3,989,581
;
..... --.
. .........
~
...
$1;716,717
83
8
.
-.
164
50
17
43
.71. ....
11,,.
$2.,726,480
$2,726,480
$1,965,658
$2,834,579
$669,238
.......
;
.. -......
•.
-
....
$292,.858
•.. -. - .•
. .... ' ..... :· :·•.--· 1\l
c
$~,304,251
c.:
.p.
$863,343
1\.:
""'
.p.
-.J
(!)
0
27
Des Moines
=-~ ········-----~-
$2,754_656
54
Denver
.
$6,547,478
$1.,996,182
S376,498
-·-·····
Detroit
260
$3,934.,800
$13,640,640
80
$4,197,120
105
$5,508,720
75
$1,080,000
$2,560,000
Fort Worth
17
64
. $680,000
20
$800,000
'1:.7
.
·Jefferson County·
$2.950,816
95
241
53,242_969
$3,462,088
510,561,560
$3,856,500
Miami
74
79
88
$5,309,744
$6,206,672
Milwaukee
7
102
$459)30
3
5182,038
5
$255,660
87
$673,540
$481,000
10
$481,000
$2,068,530
43
$432,99fl
9
Nashville
10
14
New York City
Norfolk
Oklahoma City
Orange County
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portl<!nd
Rochester
Sacramento
S-52,875,000
804
9
9
9
36
$.345,125
$345,125
$345,125
48
9
&54,.1,500
$403,000
$345,127
$3.55,400
$1,380,51}2
$1,302.,700
c
()
rl
'
Ci
'
c
c
.p
"
Ci
"
:;:
\
~·
20
'15
13
23
$821,560
$714AOO
$2,643,.280
9
74
$321,48(1
22
$785,840
2{)
151
56,053,024
5196,891
$10,.069,609
95
253
$3,740,938
2
$78,756
5
45
$629,550
$821,006
13
15
$718,804
17
$5%,947
15
36
$'7M,421
$1,626,466
8
$328,098
13
9
16
45
$826,208
19
$464,742
$2,323,711
1
31
31
5981,12.1
52.169~
'
!):
$5l,t.38
$1,800,000
S1,800,.000
c.c
ct
1\
c..
c..
.t
�':
.:f.::.\3;&:.:~:!""'~
·;·-,.,,.,..,
~,:,"I
·:.
c·
(/)
CD
:J
rt,....
OJ
..
'<
z.
-<
0
OJ
0
m
14.
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
5B
San Deigo
16
16
70
12
16
17
34
San Francisco
65
34.
$703,656
$703,656
$2,377,664
0
0
0
0
S3,074,003
"Tl
"Tl
$1,675txl(l
0
H
m
.... 'c·c·."_ .. ,. 1\)
0
1\)
n== 26
c.>
-t>""-J
-t>""-J
({)
0
0
()
r+
c.>
0
0
-toc.>
c.>
-u
;;::
-u
Ill
<D
CD
1\)
-toc.>
-to-
J
�Council of the Great City Schools
z
-<
0
Class-Size Reduction Follow-up Survey
OJ
0
m
Professional Development
0
0
0
0
"Tl
"Tl
H
0
m
AlbiJquerque
Clark CoiitHy ··· . ··a··,··
·7
······:··5···.-····
32
Fori Worth
2
2
Miami
5
12
24
300
300
$127,043
4
Detroit
Milwaukee
7
.
300
- ..
300
15
20
Philadelphia
46
2
2
Rochester
1,200
$262,2.10
San Diego
San Francisco
300
300
300
300
$15,700
9
9
27
9
77
2
$741,232
65
34
2,400
176
. $308,451
42
15
$139,423
20
20
15
16
71
1,729
16
16
15
15
62
49
.f:>.
lD
0
..
0
$8,197,380
$1,694.245
36
191
$47,409
$63,109
$304,877
253
$2,435.477
45
$244,723
16
16
.f:>.
$524.420
r+
'
w
0
0
.f:>.
..
w.
w
$200,000
72
()
$139,423
31
11
192
17
.
15
66
w
-..,J
·1.020
$262,210
18,850
3
16
$35,000
1,200
800
3
16
$1,600,000
1\)
-..,J
217
105
I
16
241
76
3
Sacramento
16
64
$4(),000
74
5
. San Antonio
$333,648
$206,605
60
7
Salt Lake City
399
, ... 1\)
0
$424,~32
15
176
6
. 54
18
128
29
~
$576,279
27
9
I
8
13
2
Pittsburgh
101
113
86
9
Oklahoma City
$130,200
·------···:···---_-···:··:-..--:··:· .... ·... ·:··.·.
486
67
$5,000
New York City
Norlolk
20
300
220
Nashville
$135,000
29
99
35
32.
58
322
76
136
110
25
Denver
$849,594
--·-·····--·-- ....
....................
. 2.0··· .
164
50
71
43
Cleveland
.
71
38
38
20
20
Atlanta
45
3
4
16
22
26
$12,140
-u
:;::
1.921
$596.497
127
$968,069
-u
CJ)
83
$72,000
(Q
CD
1\)
(]1
-...
w
~
�Sent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
.....
II
N
c:
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:34PM;
Page 26/34
�Council of the Great City Schools
z
-<
Class-Size Reduction Follow-up Survey
Recruitment
0
OJ
0
m
0
0
0
,
,
0
H
0
m
$400
Albuquerque
$36,000
$79,979
Fort Worth
···Nashville
Hiring Bonuses
$500,000
$500,000
Atlanta
. Used for advertising/trave·l for interviews
. . '<$36.~9.,
Nationwide advertising
$5.000,000
New York City
Norfol"l\
$16,283
Philadelphia
$333,350
$3,000
$783
$12,500
Postage and supplies
:·:·:-: 1\)
0
1\)
w
.j:>.
"'-1
.j:>.
"'-1
$333,350
(D
0
$39,379
Pittsburgh
$39,379
San Antonio
$63,966
$8,000
. $10·,000.
. ·$1,.000 ..
· Sa" Diego
ciunpaign
$18,000 for recruiting; $45,204 for indirect costs
$63,204
Orange County
Project Manager
$32,000
$23,966
$9,000 ...
0
()
r-t
'
w
'
0
0
+>..
w
U"
l:
;;:
n"' 11
�l
3ent By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
Oct-3-00
202 347 4790;
~
....
~: ·:
<• APPENDIX B
4:36PM;
·.
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM SURVEY
;. .
.
19
Page 28/34
�Sen~
By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
262 34 7 4 790; .
Oct-3-00
4:36PM;
Page 29/34
Council of the Great pity Schools
The following questions regard the funds your district has received
from the federal Ctass-Slze Reduction progra~
1- Actual amount of your school district's Class.i$tze Reduction (CSR} grant
award for the 2000-2001 school year (the secdrid year of the program)?
2. Amount of 2000-2001 CSR funds district has spent on recruiting costs:
TOTAL:
Advertising:
Travel to interview prospective teachers:
. .
Hiring bonuses:
Hiring packages {paying for COllege tuition, moving expenses, etc.):
Other:
3. Please complete the table below regarding the:teachers, and their salaries and benefits, your
district pays for with federal Class-Size Reduction funds.
·
Number
ers
w!Fedaral
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Other
4. Please provide the number of current and new teachers who have r~ceived, or are planning to receive,
professional development with CSR funds fQ.i- the 2000·2001 school year, as well as the cost.
~-
.
#of New Teachers
Grade Level
# of Current Teachers
Total
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Other_(Grades
)
TOTAL COST
5. Please provide, on an attached sheet, any a~dltlonal anecdotal information which demonstrates the
success and importance of the Class-Size R~duction program In your district.
.
.
.
Feel free to contact Manlsh Naik qr.:Gabriela Uro at (202) 393r2427 with any questions.
Please fax completed .lirveys to Manish Nalk at (202) 393-2400.
~"rv"vc mnKt h& ·raturned bv Ssatember i9 2000
�Sent By:
~YC
BD ED DC OFFICE;
Oct-3-00
I,
202 347 4790;
. • · · APPENDIXC
:fzE REDUCTION PROGRAM
CLASS S
. .
.
,.
·~.
20
4:36PM;
Page 30/34
�Seni By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:36PM;
CLASS SI EjREDUCTION PROGRAM
; :PL 106-113
SEC 310 (a) From the amount ap
Education Act of 1965 in accorda
shall make available a total of $6,
Bureau oflndian Affairs) and the
shall allocate the remainder by pr
remainder as it received of the fu
Department of Education Approp
IQpriated for title Vl of the Elementary and Secondary
~~with this section, the Secretary of Education- (1)
OQ,OOO to the Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the
:U:~lying areas for activities under this section; and (2)
vi!iing each State the same percentage of that
d$~allocated to States under Section 307(a)(2) ofthc
iations Act, 1999.
·
.. .
~
(b)( 1) Euch State that receive fqnds under this secti()t\ shall distribute l 00 percent of
such funds to local education la~encies, ofwhich-
(A) 80 percent of sue a#10unt shall be allocated to such local educational
agencies in propo :·&to the number of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside
in the school dis ct.:~erv~d by such local educational agency from
families with inc 'e,s below the poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and •~~get and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) ofthe Co . ~.mity Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S. c_ 9902(2)))
applicable to a f: 'ly of the size involved forth~ most recent fiscal year
for which satisfa oriy data are available compared to the number of such
individuals who r ~ide in the school districts served by all the local
educational agen ie~ in the State for that fiscal year; and
(B) 20 percent of sue
agencies in accor
17, in public and
within the boun
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (
section is less than the starting s
is certified within the Stale (whi
alternative routes), has a baccal
teaching skills, and subject man
that agency may usc funds unde
time teacher hired to reduce clas
State, or local funds; or (B) pay
may be. related to teaching ins
i~ount shall be allocated to such local educational
aiice with the relative enrollments of children, aged 5 to
riyate nonprofit elementary and secondary schools
t1~s of such agencies.
. ··.
...
),.:kthe award to a local educational agency under this
~ for a new fully qualified teacher in that agency who
h fuay include certification through State or local
:· tiate degree, and demonstrates the general knowledge,
r. ~now ledge required to teach in his or her content areas,
this section to (A) help pay the salary of a full- or parti:si.ze, which may be in Combination with other Federal,
ci)i\activities described
her classes.
in subsection (c)(2)(A)(iii) which
(c)( 1) The basic purpose and int f.l~~of this section is to reduce class size with fully
qualified teachers_ Each local
~c~tional agency that receives funds under this section
shall usc such funds to carry ou ~ftective approaches to reducing class size with fully
qualified teachers who are certi ed; within the State, including teachers certified through
State or local alternative routes, '·~who demonstrate competency in the areas in which
lhcy teach, to improve educatio .iUachievemcnt for both regular and special needs
21
Page 31/34
�Sent By: ~YC BD ED DC OFFICE·
l
202 347 4790;
Oct-3-00
4:37PM;
Page 32/34
::
·.
. ·.:.
children, with particular conside
grades for which some research h
idn given to reducing .class size in the early elementary
s~hown class size reduction is most effective.
.
.
(2)(A) Each such local educat 6~1 agency may use.funds under this section for
( i ) recruiting (includi &-:through the use of signing bonuses, and other
financial incentives), iHhg, and training fully qualified regular and special
education teachers (w it~ may include hiring special education teachers to
team-teach with regul i {tacht!rS in classrooms that contain both children with
disabilities and non-di atiled children) and teachers of special-needs chihlrt:n,
who are certified with n the State, including teachers certified through State or
local alternative route ;:~ve a baccalaureate degree and demonstrate the
general knowledge, te th,ing skills, and subject matter knowledge required to
teach in their content
\
:.:
!~for
( ii) testing new teac
academic content knowledge and to meet State
certi tication requirem iii~ that are consistent With title .II of the Higher
Education Act of 196 ;· ~d
( iii ) providing profe
as promoting retentio
teachers and teachers
ensuring that all inst
teaching knowledge,
content area or areas
of the Higher Educati
i()nal development ('\vhich may include suc'h activities
~*d mentoring) to teachers, including special education
f~pecial-nceds children, in order to meet the goal of
¢ti,onal staff huve the subject matter knowledge,
nd teaching skills necessary to teach effectively in the
•. ~hich they provide instruction, consistent with title II
h:Act of 1965.
i
~
.
.
.
(B)( i) Except as pro i~d under clause (ii) a local educational agency may
use not more than a t ta~ of 25 percent of the award received under this
section for activities es~ribcd in clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A).
( ii) A local educatio ~agency in an Ed-.Flex Partnership State under Public
Law 106-25, the Edu ~tion Flexibility Partnership Act, and in which 10
percent or more of te
14101(14) ofthe Ele
met applicable State
certification through
have been waived, m
would permit it to us
section for activities
helping teachern wh
certified.
6,ljers in elementary schools as defined by section
:~*tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 have not
., dlocal certification:requirements (including
~te or local alternative routes), or if such requirements
yiapply to the State educational agency for a waiver that
ili!ore than 25 percerit of the funds it receives under this
~~ribed in subparagi"aph (A)(ii1) for the purpose of
h~ve not met. the certification requirements become
(iii) If the State edu a~onal agency appmve8 the local educational agency's
application for a wai ~~under clause (ii), the. local educational agency may
use the funds subjec to:(the waiver tor activities described in subparagraph
{A)(iii) that are need dJo ensure that at least90 percent of the teachers in
elementary schools e~ertified within the State.
22
�.3en~
By: NYC BD ED DC OFFICE;
202 347 4790;
j!!
.
. .
'
(C) A local educatio i:a~ency thal has already reduced class size-in the early
grades to 18 or les ::Children (or has alrc~dy reduced ciass size to a State
e,t{hction goa] that was in effect on the day before the
enactment of the epartmcnt of Education: Appropriations Act, 2000, if
that State or local ducational agency goaUs 20 or fewer children) may
use funds receiv in·this section. .
. :,
.
..
.
.
( i ) to make further cl ss·: size reductions in grades kindergarten through 3;
.
( ii ) to reduce class si
.
'•
.e ~n other grades; or •.
(iii) to carry out acli iti*s to improve tt;acher quality, including professional
development.
.
(D) If a local educati
grades to 18 or fe
this section to c
activities to impr
under subsection
.
:
.
: f agency has already :icduced class size in the early
:ei: children and interids to use funds provided under
. • out professional development activities, including
~e~teacher quality, then the State shall make the award
QYto the local educatl.ortal agency.
.
.
.
(3) Each such agency shall use f ri&s under this section oilly to supplement, and not to
supplant, State and local funds
~/in the absence of such funds, would otherwise be
spent for activities under this sec ·bn.
: ·:·
.
:
.
(4) No funds made available un ~this section may b~ used to increase the salaries or
provide benefits, other than parti ~p~tion in profcssio~l development and enrichmenJ
programs, to teachers who are n (hired under this section. Funds under this section may
be used to pay the salary ofteac er$ hired under section 307 of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1 9~.
.
.
..
.
•'
.
(d)(1) Each State receiving fi nds under this sectiotrshall report on activities in the
Stnte under this section, con ·~¢nt with section 6202fa)(2) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of (965.
·
(2) Each State and loGal edu ati:onal agency receiving funds under this section shall
publicly report to parents on ·~::prowess in reducitig da.c;s size, increasing the
percentage of classes in cor licademic areas taught by fully qualified teachers who
are certified within the State an4 demonstrate compe~ency in the content areas in
which they teach. and on th ~~pact that hiring additional highly qualified teachers
if any, on increaSing student academic achievement.
and reducing class size, has
ag,
d~ under this section: shall provide to parents upon
(3) Each school receiving
request, the professional qu if;.cations of their childis teacher.
licY
(e) If a local educational ag
uses funds made avail able under trus section for
professional development a ijVjties, the agency shall ensure for the equitable
participation of private non rihfit elementary and Secondary schools in such activities.
23
�,_
\;
http://www.pub. whitehouse.gov/uri- ... oma.eop.gov. us/200011 0/2/15 .text. I
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 2, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT EDUCATION EVENT
Presidential Hall
11:05 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Give her another hand, wasn't she great? Good job,
thank you.
(Applause.)
You know, I thought I'd be having withdrawal
today, after the Olympics -- (laughter) -- and I was wondering what I
would do for an encore, and the answer was meet Raquel.
(Laughter.)
Thank you very much for being here, and for your example.
And Secretary Riley, to you and to all these wonderful people at
the Department of Education, I thank you for the astonishing work you've
done on the student loan program and,on student assistance, generally.
When I ran for President in 1991, late 1991 and 1992, I talked a
lot about redoing the student loan program and increasing access to
financial assistance through grants, work study, tax credits and an
improved student loan program.
I'll never forget one night, it was
about 1990, I think, I was then serving as governor of my home state,
and I was up in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which is the home of the
University of Arkansas. And a friend of mine and I went out to a coffee
sho~ to have a cup of coffee.
And I did what I always do, I went around and shook hands with
everybody at all the tables in there.
(Laughter.)
And there were three
young students there having coffee, so I sat down and started talking to
them.
Two of them were planning to drop out of school.
They were
already in college -- I'll never forget this. And I asked them why in
the world they would do that, given the fact that the economy that they
would live in for their adult lives put a higher premium on education
than ever before.
And both of them said they had to go ahead and get out and work for
a couple of years because they knew they could not meet their student
loan repayment schedule. And they didn't want to take the money and not
be able to pay it back. And it had a searing impact on me.
So I said,
surely, these people are the exception to the rule, so I started nosing
around and come to find Dut there were a lot of people like this.
And that's basically how we got into the idea of the direct student
loan with the. option to repay as a percentage of your income.
I also
found a lot of young people who wanted to be teachers, like Raquel, or
police officers or nurses, who instead were taking jobs that they found
less rewarding, but paid more money so they could meet their loan
repayment schedule.
The background to all these things that we're going to talk about
here in a minute, for me at least, came alive through the stories of
young people I met. And then, when I went around the country in 1992, I
met more and more and more of them.
So, Raquel, I'm grateful to you,
but I'm also grateful to all those young people, many whose names I
don't even know, who took the time to share their stories and tell me
about the personal challenges they faced.
And it was very important to
1 of4
10/4/2000 12:31 PM
�http://Www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-... oma.eop.gov .us/2000/ 10/2/ 15.text.J
me because I never could have gotten through college and law school
without loans and grants and jobs. And I wanted everybody else to have
those opportunities, as well.
Now, one of the b{g problems we faced in 1993, when I took office,
is that the student loan program itself was in danger because its
credibility, its very financial underpinnings were threatened by a very
high default rate.
Nearly one in four students was failing, for a
variety of reasons, to repay their student loans. And yet, again I say,
we all knew that we needed more people going on to college, not fewer
people.
So the trick was how to figure out how to get more people to go
to college and do a better job of collecting on the student loans, and
get people to be more responsible in discharging their student loans.
Since 1993, as Secretary Riley said, we have more than doubled our
investment in student aid. We've increased Pell Grants; expanded
work-study slots from 700,000 to a million; created AmeriCorps, which
has now given more than 150,000 young people a chance to earn money for
college while serving in our communities; created education IRAs, the
$1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit for the first two years of college
and then a life-long learning credit for the junior and senior years and
for graduate school.
More than 5 million families already have taken
advantage of HOPE scholarship tax credit in '98 and '99.
We made it easier and cheaper to get loans and for students now to
pay them back as a percentage of their futu~e income; and you heard
Raquel talking about that.
The Direct Student Loan Program we started also, by fostering
competition, have saved students more than $9 billion in loan repayment
costs, just from lower interest rates alone.
Taken together, these
actions amount to the largest increases in college access and
opportunity since the passage of the G.I. Bill after World War II. And
we can now say to every student in America, the money is there, you can
actually go on to college.
This is profoundly important.
Students are getting the message; two-thirds of them are now going
to college.
That's up more than 10 percent over the last few years. We
have also tried, as I said, to increase responsibility for repaying
these loans -- otherwise the whole thing would be undermined over the
long run.
And here's what the Department of Education did -- and,
again, it's just another example of Secretary Riley's sterling
leadership and the great qualities of the people there.
But here's what
they essentially did to reduce the student loan default rate.
First, identified more than 800 schools with consistently high
default rates that were obviously not serving their students~ and they
were eliminated from the program.
Second, more flexible repayment
schedules were offered.
Students no longer have to default on their
loans simply because they're going through a period in their lives where
they don't have all the resources they need to make full repayments.
Third, we slashed the cost of the loans, themselves, so it's more
affordable to pay them back. A typical $10,000 student loan today costs
, $1,300 less in fees and interest costs than it did eight years ago.
That's astonishing-- $1,300 less on a $10,000 loan.
I guess that sort
of explains why some people thought our attempts to establish this
program so-- (laughter) --that $1,300 was going somewhere.
(Laughter.)
Fourth, students are borrowing less than they otherwise would have
because of the increases in Pell grants, HOPE scholarships and other tax
credits, and the work-study aid and other student aid. And finally, of
course, a stronger economy has made it easier for students to repay
their loans.
2 of4
10/4/2000 12:31 PM
�http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-... oma.eop.gov .us/2000/ I 0/211 5.text.l
But listen to this.
Thanks to all these factors, today the student
loan default rate has been cut by two-thirds -- actually, more than
two-thirds. When I took office the default rate was 22.4 percent; today
it is 6. 9 percent.
(Applause.)
Here's a really impressive thing:
this
is the lowest default rate in the history of the student loan program,
and it has been achieved while tripling the number of loans given every
year.
(Applause.)
Normally, you think if you get more loans, you'll be
loaning more at the margin of risk.
This is an astonishing achievement.
And Secretary Riley, you should be very proud.
I thank your whole team.
This is an amazing, amazing thing.
By cutting defaults, increasing collections, and making the system
more competitive, .we have saved taxpayers and students-- the students
have saved $9 billion and the taxpayers have saved twice that much, $18
billion, because of the reduction in student loan defaults since 1993.
That is· very good news for the American people, a total of $27 billion
in savings.
(Applause.)
Let me say that this lesson -- invest more, and have more
accountability and have the programs work based on how the real world,
the real lives of these students is unfolding -- that's the kind of
thing I think we ought to do in education generally. And I'd like to
say just a few words about the education budget and priorities now
pending before the Congress.
For more than seven years, we've tried to invest more in our
schools, in more teachers, smaller classes, more Head Start, more
after-school and summer school programs, hooking up 95 percent of the
schools to the Internet. We've also demanded more from our schools:
higher standards, more accountability for results, more responsibility
for turning around failing schools.
Secretary Riley points out when we
took office there were only about 14 states with real standards and a
core curriculum.
Today, there are 49 states. And we got a change in
the federal law to require the states to identify their failing schools
and have strategies to turn them around.
We wanted to go further, in terms of the ~tandards for the tests
that the students take, through the nonpartisan national association for
student testing, called NAGB. And we also would like to pass
legislation that requires states to turn around the failing schools in a
fixed amount of time or shut them down or put them under new management.
We have made a lot of progress.
Math and reading scores are rising across America -- some of the
greatest gains in some of the most disadvantaged schools. The number of
students taking advanced placement courses has risen by two-thirds in
eight years -- Among Hispanic students, by about 300 percent; among
African American students, by about 500 percent taking advance placement
courses.
College entrance exam scores are rising, even as more students
from more disadvantaged backgrounds take the test.
That is not an
education recession, that is an education revival.
(Applause.)
On the other hand, no serious person believes that American
education is where it ought to be. 'we have the largest and most diverse
student body in the history of our country. We have what is immensely
frustrating to me, which is evidence that every problem in American
education has been solved by somebody, somewhere, but we have still,
after almost 20 years of serious effort in education reform, not
succeeded in institutionalizing what works in one or two schools right
across a school district or right across a state.
So there are lots and lots of challenges still out there. And what
I believe we should be doing is to emphasize further changes in the
direction we have been moving. We need more investment, and we need
3 of4
I0/4/2000 12:31 PM
�http://www .pub. whitehouse.gov/uri- ... oma.eop.gov .us/2000/1 0/2/15.text.l
more accountability.
And we need to understand the central importance
of teachers, of principals, of modern facilities and of genuine,
effective accountability systems.
Now, that's my problem with the present congressional budget.
The
majority in Congress is pushing a budget that would neither increase
investment or account.abili ty.
It abandons the bipartisan commitment we
made just last year to hire 100,000 new highly qualified teachers to
reduce class size in the early grades.
It fails to guarantee
investments in building or modernizing classrooms, when we know that the
construction and repair deficit in America's classrooms is over $120
billion today.
It shortchanges investment in after-school programs, in
improving teacher quality, in our efforts to turn around schools or shut
them down or reopen them under new management.
Even though they claim to be for accountability, the one proven
strategy we've gotten that I've seen over and over and over work -- from
small rural schools in Kentucky to urban schools in California and New
York and Ohio -- a strategy to identify the schools, turn them around,
shut them down, or put them under new management, they failed to support
this strategy.
It under-funds our GEAR UP program to get disadvantaged students
focused on and prepared for college.
It fails to give hard-pressed
middle class families a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition, which
they desperately need.
Now, we've got a $230 billion surplus, folks.
This Congress voted
to get rid of the estate tax, to give a $6.5 million tax break to some
Americans.
They voted for a marriage penalty relief that didn't just
relieve the marriage penalty, but gave other upper-income Americans huge
tax breaks.
The least we can do is adequately invest in education.
More Americans will make more money, including already wealthy
Americans, by having an educated work force in this country, than by
anything we can do in giving specialized tax cuts. And we ought to do
it, and do it now.
·
We have evidence that if you invest more and demand more, you can
turn the schools around, improve student achievement, get more of our
young people going to college -- and, as we've seen today in stunning
fashion, make the student loan program work better for more students,
and for the American tax payers as well.
This is worth fighting for.
We now have lots and lots of evidence
that if we invest more, and do it in an intelligent way, we can produce
real results for the American people.
There is no more powerful example
than what Secretary Riley and the Department of Education, along with
people that have worked with them throughout the country, in college and
university after college and university, and more responsible, active
students have done, to turn this student loan program around.
Now, it will be available for more and more and more students, and
it will do more good, for more and more and more students. We need more
stories like Raquel Talley's. We need more young people like her, who
want to give their lives to the education of our children. And we ought
to do whatever is necessary to make sure, number one, they can go to
college, get out, and succeed; and, number two, when someone like her
goes in the classroom, the rest of us do whatever we can to make sure
she succeeds in the classroom, as well.
Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
END 11:10 A.M. EDT
4 of4
10/4/2000 12:31 PM
�http://www .pub. whitehouse.gov/uri-.. ./oma.eop.gov. us/2000/ I 0/2/8. text. I
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 30, 2000
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATION
The Oval Office
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
This has been a good week for
America.
As our athletes continue to pile up rnedals.in Sydney, our
economy continues to break records .at horne.
This week we learned the
household income had reached an all-time high, poverty a 20-year low,
the budget surplus is the largest on record, and for the first time in
12 years, thanks largely to the Children's Health Insurance Program,
the number of Americans without health insurance has declined by over
1.5 million.
Today I want to talk with you about making the most of this
moment, by putting our children's education first and building better
schools for them.
This fall our schools opened their doors to the largest number
of students in history. We have to work hard to give them the best
education in history. We're working to turn our schools around, with
higher standards, stronger accountability, and more investment.
Reading, math and SAT scores are up.
So are high school graduation and
college-going rates. We dramatically increased Head Start, after-school
and summer school programs.
The number of students in states with core
curriculum standards has increased from 14 to 49, and in state after
state, failing schools are being turned around.
With the Vice President's e-rate program, we've helped
connect 95 percent of our schools to the Internet, and we're in the
process of hiring 100,000 high-quality teachers to reduce class size in
the early grades.
But it's hard for students to lift themselves up in schools
that are falling down. Across our nation, students are struggling to
learn in schools that are crowded and crumbling.
I visited schools all
over the country where this is so -- a school in Florida where classes
were held not in one or two, but 12 trailers. A school in Queens where
there were 400 more students than the school was built for.
A school
in Virginia where the electrical service in some classrooms is so poor
that if you plug in a new computer in the wall, the circuit breaker
cuts off.
This is a challenge all across our country, in cities and
rural areas, small towns and Native American communities.
The average
American school building is now more than 40 years old.
The estimated
price tag to bring our schools into good condition -- $127 billion.
Today I'm releasing a new Department of Education analysis
that highlights the nationwide need to build new schools and modernize
existing ones.
The study provides a state-by-state report card that
shows that at least 60 percent of the schools in every state are in
need of repair.
Many states and local communities are working to fix
their schools, but too many school districts simply don't have the tax
base to handle the burden alone.
That's why I've proposed a school construction tax credit to
1 of2
I 0/4/2000 11 :40 AM
�http://www. pub. whitehouse.gov /uri- .. ./oma.eop.gov. us/2000/ 10/2/8. text.1
help communities build or modernize 6,000 schools; and, also, grants
and loans for emergency repairs in nearly 5,000 schools a year for five
years.
The good news is we have a bipartisan majority in the House
of Representatives ready right now to pass school construction relief.
But the Republican leadership continues to stand in the way and refuses
to bring it to a vote.
Every day they stall is another day our
children are forced to go to school in trailers, over-crowded
classrooms and crumbling buildings.
Congress must act now.
In a larger sense, this
The schools I attended as a child
well-maintained.
They sent every
important; we take your education
generation kept faith with us and
children.
is about our priorities and values.
were fairly old, but they were very
student a clear message:
You are
seriously.
That's how my parents'
how we must keep faith with our
But the clock is ticking. At midnight tonight, the fiscal
year runs out.
Congress still hasn't sent me a budget for education
and other pressing priorities.
Yet, they have found the time, first,
to pass huge, fiscally irresponsible tax cuts; and then, after I vetoed
them, to load up the spending bills with hundreds of millions of
dollars in special interest projects.
In one appropriations bill alone,
there is $668 million in extra projects.
That's enough to do emergency
repair~ in 2,500 schools, to send another 1 million children to
after-school programs, to hire over 15,000 teachers to lower class size.
Not long ago, Senator McCain said, pork barrel spending -- and
I quote-- "has lurched completely out of control." .Well, it's time to
turn off the pork barrel spigot and deliver for our children's future.
That's why I've told my budget team to seek final negotiations
on an education budget that stays true to our values and our children's
long-term needs. We're not going to leave the table until we invest in
modernizing our schools and continue our efforts to hire 100,000 quality
teachers for smaller classes. We're going to keep fighting to
strengthen accountability; to turn around failing schools, or shut them
down or put them under new management; to expand after-school programs
and college opportunities for young people; and to ensure a qualified
teacher in every classroom.
Our children deserve 21st century schools.
In this time of
prosperity, we have a responsibility to make sure they get no less.
By
building stronger schools, we'll build a stronger America in the future.
Thanks for listening.
END
2 of2
10/4/2000 11 :40 AM
�Date: 10/4/00
Speaker: Richard A. Gephardt
Location: American University
Educating America: A National
Challenge for the 21st Century
"Thank you, Dean Broadnax, for that generous introduction.
"I am delighted to be at American University to talk about what I
believe is one of the greatest issues of the 21st century, the issue of
educating America.
"In recent years, our nation has undergone a powerful revolution that
has altered the basic contours of our social fabric. We are facing what
I think of as the double challenge in contemporary American life, the
challenge of child-raising and the challenge of education in the
Information Age. The challenges are interconnected, and our failure to
face them sows difficult, sometimes bitter seeds in our culture and our
country.
"Let me start by talking about the challenge of child-raising.
"For many years now, America has faced a crisis of family--a quiet
crisis, but one with profound implications for our children and our
future. We have undergone one of the greatest social changes since
the industrial revolution, but we as a society are still in a state of
denial.
"The crisis has its roots in the daily struggle to balance the demands
of earning a living and raising a child, at a time when most parents
work outside the home, at a point when schools and other community
networks are stretched to the breaking point. This crisis can best be
seen in the following, simple statistic: today, parents spend about 22
hours a week less time with their children.
"The causes of this phenomenon are not hard to understand.
"In recent years, the number of married mothers working for pay has
increased 79%.
"In the past 3 decades, the time married mothers have spent working
�for pay has almost doubled.
"Over the same time, for two parent families, annual hours of paid work
has increased 18%.
"Thirty percent of all families are headed by a single parent.
"Sixty percent of mothers in the workforce have children under age 6,
and 75% have children between the ages of 6 and 17.
"We are also spending much more time on the road, going to and from
work; between 1983 and 1995, the time spent commuting to work
increased 13%, and, even when families are home, they face more
distractions in the form of more pagers, more phones, more television,
more Internet use, and that time translates into less time together for
parents and children.
"The bottom line is children are not getting the time and attention
they need from their parents.
"And our public schools are not now equipped to fill the breach.
"Instead of keeping pace with modem society, many schools are
trailing behind. Instead of moving into the 21st century, many are
stuck in a 1950s world of crowded classrooms, old buildings, and
electrical systems that can't accommodate computers. Paint is
chipping off walls, plaster, falling from ceilings, desks are too small,
playgrounds, in disrepair. And there's also a national teacher shortage.
"By 2009, according to the National Center for Education Statistics,
America will require 2.7 million new, fully-qualified teachers to replace
retiring teachers and to cope with a huge number of new students.
The shortage is also the result of the large number of teachers who
quit within their first five years. Approximately 30% of new teachers
are quitting within five years of their hire date, and in cities, the
number is even higher, almost 50%.
"And who can blame them?
"Some are emotionally and physically exhausted, others are required to
teach in subject areas they know little about, and many are in schools
where the resources and training are inadequate, and in too many of
those schools there are gangs and guns instead of safety and
security.
"The challenge I just described has put terrible holes through America's
�social fabric. And our failure as a society to acknowledge that
challenge has only made things worse. We have failed to fully
understand that our families have changed dramatically and that there
are major new demands on our public schools, and we as a people
have incurred incredible costs as a result.
"Children are being neglected, and they can not raise themselves. We
know that for a fact. We know that without adequate time and
attention from adults, they suffer emotionally and physically. They get
into trouble, sometimes turning to drugs an.d violence, and they do not
become productive, functional citizens. They do not fulfill their human
potential.
"The results of this suffering are all around us, and they are among the
most painful, horrible things in America.
"Every day in America, 13 children are murdered.
· "Every day in America, almost 300 children carry a weapon to school.
"According to recent data from the Department of Education, more
than 6,000 students were expelled for bringing guns or explosives to
school in a single school year.
"Two thirds of prison inmates are high school dropouts.
"Over 2 million people in our country are in jail.
"They don't pay taxes-they don't raise families-they don't contribute
to charity. They are not functional citizens.
"At the same time we cannot fill over 2 million job opportunities in our
country.
"I believe with all my heart that America can and must do better.
"But how? How do we address one of the largest, most difficult issues
we know? How do we give children the time and attention they need
and move everyone forward into the 21st century?
"The answer, I believe, lies in our public schools.
"America's public schools are the only institutions with the scale and
capacity to serve as the focal point for giving all children the time and
attention they need and deserve.·
�"They are the only institutions with the scale and capacity to help all
children become decent, functional, productive human beings.
"They can lead children toward the power of human respect,
tolerance, and understanding in a world where there is still too much
crime and not enough solutions.
"They can help children smash through the brick walls of racism and
prejudice in a country where there is still too much hate and not
enough humanity.
"They can help families tackle the problems of gun violence, drugs,
gangs and bad neighborhoods.
"And they can move every child forward into the Information Age.
"This last point is essential, and it brings me to the second challenge,
the challenge of educating children in the Information Age.
"We live in a world defined by digital 1s and Os and high-speed
Internet connections that carry huge chunks of data around the world
at the speed of light. To make your way in that world, literacy,
training, knowledge and skills are absolutely essential.
"Fifty years ago, education was not the key to good jobs that it is
today.
"In 1950, 59% of all 17-year-olds in America graduated from high
school, and it was an acceptable graduation rate. You didn't need a
diploma to succeed in an industrial, manufacturing economy. My
father, for instance, could find a job and make a good living as a milk
truck driver even though he never finished high school, and millions of
Americans could do the same.
"But that dynamic has changed radically. Today, public schools are the
single greatest gateway to good jobs in the New Economy, and right
now, we are not giving children the skills they need to succeed. This
year, 70% of all 17 -year-olds finished high school, and that number is
too low for a hi-tech, information economy. It is not good enough for
· our children and it's not good enough for American businesses, which
need human talent to keep their companies and the economy growing.
"The subject of my talk today is public elementary and secondary
education. But let me also say that every young person who wants to
go to college should have that opportunity, whatever their family's
income. No one should be denied a college diploma just because
�financial assistance is not available.
"But the challenge before us today is to figure out how to marshal our
national resources and collective will to give children the time and
attention they are not now getting in their formative years.
"I believe that the only way to do right by our children is to
revolutionize every single public school in America. The simple fact is,
we must have scale.
"How do we achieve it?
"I believe that the federal government has an important role to play by
filling the holes in our social fabric that communities can't fill by
thems~lves. The government must call on every school-every
parent-every institution and every town to focus our national
attention--our resources--our will--on the greatest challenge at the
beginning of this century.
"The government must help give communities the resources they need
to improve their local schools. Most of all, we can, working together,
join in a great partnership that challenges every person in America to
understand the challenge and to work at the local level to rise up and
to meet it.
"The government has always helped do for communities what they
could not do for themselves. Look at the history of the last century.
Look at what we accomplished with leadership from the federal
government and commitment from the American people. We passed
Social Security--Medicare--a G.l. Bill--the Interstate Highway Act-the
Civil Rights Act--the Voting Rights Act--Head Start--national school
lunch--100,000 new cops on the street.
"At the start of the last century, our public schools had to rise up in
the face of new realities and meet the challenges of a changed world.
"In 1900, America faced another tumultuous time brought on by the
industrial revolution-by hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to
America-by a new world of cities and factories bustling with economic
activity. At a time when society was moving from a rural to an urban
society, our public schools had to adapt to a new, profoundly different
social reality. They did. We did.
"In cities, America launched a wave of new school construction,
building hundreds of high schools in a few short years. In 1880, we had
800 high schools; ten years later, we had 2,500. Educators developed
�new classes in subjects like math, science, English, and history, and
the innovators--like Calvin M. Woodward in rriy home town of St.
Louis--developed a Manual Training School that helped prepare
students for the industrial economy, giving students the tools they
needed to succeed in the 20th century.
In 1873, public schools in St. Louis established the first kindergarten
classes in the United States. By 1885, St. Louis had 60 kindergarten
programs, and by 1910, almost every major city in America had
kindergarten in the public schools.
"At the dawn of the 21st century, our challenge is to renew that
story.
"Our challenge is to tap America's bottomless capacity for innovation
and hard work to lift up every school in America.
"We don't have all the answers. We are not cookie-cutters who
believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to local schools. We believe that
the federal government can not and should not try to run local
schools. Parents are the most important adults in the lives of every
child. They care for the children. They inculcate the values. They
provide a sense of safety and security to every child, and they must
once again be front and center in their child's education.
"But government has a responsibility to help-and a capacity to create
effective incentives to do what's right for our children. We can
facilitate. We can provide leadership and focus. We can dedicate
resources for critical priorities. We can foster proven initiatives that
successfully encourage maximum flexibility and maximum
accountability. We can fight for public schools flexible enough for
every parent and accountable to the chiidren who go there.
"I'm sure most of you have heard that we are in a tight battle for
control of the House of Representatives.
"But let me tell you why I feel so passionately about winning a
majority.
"Six years ago, when we lost the House, Republican leaders put
forward radical plans for public education.
"They said they would get the government out of our schools, and
they followed through on that pledge by trying to abolish the
Department of Education.
�"They reneged on their responsibility to 'focus on the priorities of the
American people.
"And a few years prior to that, some Republicans, including their
current vice-Presidential candidate, went so far as to vote against
Head Start and school lunches.
"But saying the federal government has no place in our public schools
did nothing to lift up a child or help a parent.
"The Republican agenda did not succeed because it didn't work, and
because the American people rejected it.
"The time has come for a new vision.
"We must empower families and communities to rally around their
children in the ways that are right for them.
"We must have as our central purpose and passion making every
American child a productive, functional, law-abiding citizen--in a
changed world.
"We must passionately lead a national bipartisan commitment-almost
like World War 11-to engage the interest and effort of every institution
and every person to ensure-without excuses-thatevery child will be a
productive, functional, law-abiding citizen.
"Every family-every institution-every level of government must work
together to help schools do all the things they want to do, but can't
do.
"We will work every day in every way to equip all children to fulfill their
human potential.
"If we are fortunate enough to win a majority in November, Democrats
will make five major new commitments to modernize our public schools
and lift up every child.
"First,we will help achieve quality education by ensuring that children
have qualified teachers and smaller classes. We must attract the best
and the brightest to be our children's teachers.
"My personal experience causes my passion on this issue. My daughter
teaches 2 and 3 year old children at Montessori Prep. When she told
her friends what she wanted to do with her life, her friends laughed.
You want to be a teacher? It doesn't pay. You bum out. There aren't
�any perks.
"Well, my daughter is a terrific teacher--her students love her--and I
am so proud of her and her choice.
"Democrats will provide financial incentives for 1 million new,
fully-qualified teachers and principals over the next decade, and we1l
dedicate the resources so that teachers never have to so seriously
sacrifice their income just because they want to teach.
"We will help schools provide on-going training for teachers, principals,
and superintendents.
"We will help local schools give teachers incentives to work in
inner-cities and other under-privileged communities.
"And we will ask the states to establish tests for new teachers to
ensure teaching quality, and we will ask them to tie standards to pay
to help all teachers become great teachers.
"But 1 million new teachers and smaller class size will not get the job
done unless our schools are safe.
"Democrats will help principals and teachers, school boards and
communities make schools safe and drug-free.
"We will help by providing additional funding for more after-school,
more summer programs, more counselors to prevent violence in
schools, more alternative education for children who get suspended or
expelled.
"And we will ask schools to establish real standards of discipline and
behavior, so every teacher and parent can work within their
community to get rid of the guns and gangs and return their schools to
the mission of education.
"But safe schools will not get thejob done unless they're also excellent
schools with modem buildings and classrooms.
"If we win, Democrats will make a major new commitment to helping
local schools modernize ·every classroom and every building that needs
to be renovated.
"We will dedicate new funding for school construction and renovation.
"We will provide tax incentives that schools boards are hungry for so
�they can modernize buildings and lift up every pupil through better
facilities. In exchange for that funding, we will ask the people running
the schools to monitor the progress of every child, to make students
accountable for their performance, and toaccept responsibility for
their school's success.
"But modem schools will not lift up every child unless children have the
time and attention they need in the early years.
"To that end, Democrats will make a major commitment to early
childhood education. We want all students to start school ready to
read and ready to learn. So we intend to make high-quality early
education available to all children.
"We will achieve this by making universal pre-school available to all
children ages 3 to 5-by improving the pay and skills of child care
workers--and by fully funding Early Head Start and Head Start.
"Finally, we will help prepare every child for good jobs and successful
careers in the Information Age. Our goal is to help prepare America's
workers for tomorrow's technology, and to help give businesses the
human talent they need to succeed and the economy the talent it
needs to grow.
"We will help bring high tech learning to every classroom and
high-skilled workers to every workplace.
"We will work with school districts to close the digital divide.
"We will help school districts get the expertise and the resources they
need to tum around failing schools-to boost the performance of every
student-and to close the gap between minorities and non-minorities.
We will also dedicate new resources to workforce literacy, technology
training partnerships, employer training networks, and apprenticeship
programs, as part of our drive to educate America for the New
Economy.
"Finally, we will launch an initiative--similar to the post-Sputnik
National Defense Education Act-to give children incentives to study
science, math, and engineering and to pursue degrees in these fields in
college. This program, like its predecessor, will help inspire a
generation of students to go into careers in these important areas,
and it will help America remain a global leader in scientific and medical
discoveries.
"America is a great country.
�"We have overcome so many challenges.
"But our greatest remaining challenge is to lift up every child and fulfill
the human potential of all Americans.
"Give us this opportunity and it will be done."
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Heather Hurlburt
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Heather Hurlburt
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36161" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431953" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0700-F
Description
An account of the resource
Heather Hurlburt's speechwriting collection consists of speeches, drafts, correspondence, and background research. Hurlburt worked as Special Assistant and Speechwriter to President Clinton. Her speechwriting files date from 1999-2001. As a speechwriter, Hurlburt prepared remarks on primarily domestic issues ranging from health care to the Special Olympics to the Mississippi Delta Region to the Kennedy Center Awards. She wrote remarks for policy speeches, radio addresses, commencements, taped video remarks, and award ceremonies or tributes. She also prepared a few speeches for the First Lady, and one undelivered speech for Sandy Berger on the topic of military reform.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
128 files in 11 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Education Budget 10/5/00 [Remarks]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Heather Hurlburt
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0700-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 6
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2008/2008-0700-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431953" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/15/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431953-20080700F-006-001-2014
7431953