An Uncertain Legacy for the 106th Congress.

This year-end review of federal education issues is being composed in the immediate aftermath of the presidential election. Election 2000 held many surprises and uncertainties, including an endless wait to discover who will be president and whether the Senate would be split 51-49 or 50-50.

The near-even division of votes does not forecast a consensus on key issues such as education. Unfortunately, the 106th Congress has not come to any conclusions about how to update federal education policy. Members had to return in early December to finish the last four spending bills to operate the federal government through Sept. 30, 2001.

A lame duck session is not unprecedented, having occurred once before during President Clinton's two terms. What is unusual is Congress' complete inability to achieve consensus on the federal role in education. During the 35 years since the passage of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, Congress, the administration and education groups have been able to forge a consensus about the best direction and shape for federal education policy.

For the past two years, the three sides of the triangle have struggled, but we never came to any conclusions except that federal policy ought to follow the direction of the states toward high standards for all children. How to reach that end resulted in a fractured approach that no educational organization could enthusiastically support.

ESEA's various provisions describe the federal role in K-12 education. Other important federal programs include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and vocational education, but about 80 percent of federal money in education relates to ESBA.

Missing Consensus

The inability to achieve consensus on a federal role in education has many causes. In the past, House Republican leaders have stated they see little or no need for a federal role. These leaders represent the views of a significant portion of House GOP members. Other important figures, such as Education Committee Chair William Goodling, R-Pa., believe too many federal programs exist, and some House leaders, including Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., contend the number of education programs ought to be pared back sharply.

Many House Republicans, led by Goodling, believe the federal programs have been ineffective because they focus on process, not performance. These members are unwilling to spend more until the programs have been refocused on outcomes.

The consensus among Democrats is that more money for some new programs is worthwhile. However, Democrats have not pushed the majority hard enough to put additional funds in the largest, oldest and most important program in ESEA, Title I. Democrats have tended to work hard to back new initiatives from the Clinton administration, such as hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in K-2, creating a new reading program and legislating tax credits to pay debt service for school modernization.

Both the Clinton administration and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have made much of their commitment to greater flexibility. However, the vehicle they created, Ed Flex, forces school districts to maintain separate sets of books for each program, so in practice there are no savings and not much flexibility. Hill staffers simply distrust the motives of local school districts to such an extent that Congress never will trade genuine flexibility for accountability as many governors have done.

Congressional staff plays a critical role in developing federal legislation around concepts their bosses like. Unfortunately, both Democratic and Republican staff members are relatively inexperienced, and none of the most senior staff has any actual experience administering schools or educational programs.

Add to this the feeling at Washington think tanks of all ideological stripes that now it is their turn to influence federal education policy. From this emerges a disdain for current practice. Sadly, the think tanks seem to believe teachers and administrators are doing a poor job, even though none of the Washington-based institutes employs an experienced educator to deal with education policy.

Uncertain Outcomes

AASA supported the House version of Title I because it moved in the direction of the states on standards and because it contained an important new provision for rural schools, But the accountability language in Title I is a disaster. It forces school districts toward complete choice for all schools deemed "in need of improvement," regardless of local conditions such as voluntary desegregation plans, space availability or transportation difficulties.

Ideology or lack of knowledge about how schools operate drove such provisions, but the result was bad policy.

Since the lack of agreement is a given, the questions facing Congress will be resolved by members who have lost their re-election bids and others who are retiring, while influenced by a presidential election causing even more partisanship. How strong will President Clinton's voice be during his final weeks in office? If voters indicate an interest in education, maybe a lame duck Congress will listen. The new president may weigh in and swing Congress toward or against consensus on federal education policy. In the end, powerful House Republican and Democratic leaders probably will determine what happens, but with so many wild cards no one can accurately predict the education legacy of the 106th Congress.

The important thing for educators to remember is this: For the first time in 35 years, Congress, the president and education groups were not able to find agreement on the federal role in education. That lack of consensus may be a harbinger of massive changes or merely a byproduct of highly partisan congressional leadership.

Bruce Hunter is AASA director of public policy.