Cass Ballenger: “Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Michael substitute for H.R. 6. As a member of the committee, I would like to say…”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Michael substitute for H.R. 6. As a member of the committee, I would like to say that I had many amendments, and none of them was accepted. As it is, H.R. 6 is a disappointing bill that will do little to improve America's schools. Instead it relies on opportunity to learn standards and unfunded Federal mandates. True education reform must be driven locally, by parents, teachers, local administrators, and the community as a whole-- not the Federal Government. H.R. 6 relies far too heavily on Federal control. It will stifle locally driven reform. Under current law, ESEA covers 61 programs. President Clinton's proposal to reauthorize ESEA contained only 26 programs. Unfortunately, many programs were added back by the majority during the committee markup. As it stands, the number of programs in H.R. 6 is back up to a grand total of 48. The problem with so many programs is a lack of focus and priorities. When the Appropriations Committee designates funding, it will try to fund as many programs as possible, thereby diluting funds to the larger and broader programs like chapter 1 and chapter 2. The Michel substitute eliminates the programs that were added back to the original bill sent to us by the President. The Michel substitute gives schools the tools to improve, and eliminates the cumbersome opportunity to learn standards.”