U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Publications Issue List Vote Analysis Main Page
No. 2 February 24, 1999
S. 280: Education Flexibility Partnership Act
Calendar No. 12

Reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on January 28, 1999, with one amendment. No committee report.

NOTEWORTHY
  • The Senate likely will begin consideration of S. 280 on Tuesday, March 2.

  • Senator Lott may file a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to S. 280 due to a possible objection by Senator Wellstone. Additionally, expect Senators Kennedy and Harkin to offer amendments on 100,000 teachers and on school construction.

  • Senator Lott has asked Senators on both sides of the aisle to consider withholding education amendments not relevant to this bill and offer them instead to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments (ESEA), which likely will come before the Senate for reauthorization this summer.

  • S. 280 would allow all 50 states to participate in what is now a demonstration project for only 12 states, allowing them exemption from certain burdensome federal regulations that interfere with local efforts to improve education.

  • The bill is budget-neutral, as defined by the Congressional Budget Office.

  • The National Governors' Association endorses the legislation.

  • The House is expected to mark up their version of Ed-Flex next week with likely floor consideration soon thereafter.

HIGHLIGHTS
BACKGROUND

The federal government provides only 7 percent of local school funding but demands 50 percent of all school paperwork. This paperwork burden demands nearly 49 million hours each year or the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time on paper, not students. According to Florida's former Commissioner of Education, it takes six times as many employees to administer a federal dollar as a state dollar.

S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act finds that --

"States differ substantially in demographics, in school governance, and in school finance and funding. The administrative and funding mechanisms that help schools in one State improve may not prove successful in other States.

"Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other Federal education statutes afford flexibility to State and local educational agencies in implementing Federal programs, certain requirements of Federal education statutes or regulations may impede local efforts to reform and improve education.

"By granting waivers of certain statutory and regulatory requirements, the Federal Government can remove impediments for local educational agencies in implementing educational reforms and raising the achievement levels of all children.

"State educational agencies are closer to local school systems, implement statewide educational reforms with both Federal and State funds, and are responsible for maintaining accountability for local activities consistent with State standards and assessment systems. Therefore, State educational agencies are often in the best position to align waivers of Federal and State requirements with State and local initi atives.

"The [current] Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act allows State educational agencies the flexibility to waive certain Federal requirements, along with related State requirements, but allows only 12 States to qualify for such waivers.

"Expansion of waiver authority will allow for the waiver of statutory and regulatory requirements that impede implementation of State and local educational improvement plans, or that unnecessarily burden program administration, while maintaining the intent and purposes of affected programs, and maintaining such fundamental requirements as those relating to civil rights, educational equity, and accountability.

"To achieve the state goals for the education of children in the State, the focus must be on results in raising the achievement of all students, not process."

While currently only 12 states are eligible for "Ed Flex" waivers, these 12 states clearly demonstrate the benefits of state and local education flexibility. For example:

BILL PROVISIONS

Section 1: Short Title
Section 2: Findings
Section 3: Definitions
Section 4: Education Flexibility Partnership

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS

Senator Lott has asked Senators on both sides of the aisle to consider withholding education amendments not relevant to this bill and offer them instead to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments (ESEA), which likely will come before the Senate for reauthorization this summer.

Likely amendments:

Harkin/Kennedy. School construction

Kennedy/Murray. 100,000 teachers

Kennedy. Mandates greater paperwork accountability on the states and localities

Managers' amendment. Will include a non-prescriptive requirement of public notice, a regular report from the Secretary of Education to Congress on Ed-Flex results, and other technical clarifications

Reed. Thirty-day public notice before state could waive federal regulations

Reed. Increased student achievement

Reed. Forestalls date of enactment until Secretary submits report to Congress

Wellstone. Motion to recommit

Wellstone. Excludes Title I from allowable federal waiver

Wellstone. Limits states' ability to get waiver by mandating that the Secretary of Education "thoroughly explain, and make public, his reasons for granting waiver authority." Other rumored amendments:

Bingaman. Drop out prevention

Bingaman. Mandates increased state efforts for greater teacher qualification

Boxer. Increases after-school programs

Dodd. Authorizes a grant program to combat truancy

Kennedy. Student loans

Murray. FMLA extension

Top Publications Issue List Vote Analysis Main Page