PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WARREN G. HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
I AM WARREN HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EDUCATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATES (ECS). ECS GREATLY APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT VIEWS TO THIS COMMITTEE ON THE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT SUBJECT
OF CREATION OF A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. WE WISH TO
COMPLIMENT YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP IN
GAINING ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR IMPROVED ORGANIZATION OF THE
EDUCATION FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
ECS IS A COMPACT AMONG 46 STATES, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND PUerto
RICO. THE COMPACT WAS FORMED IN 1966 THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE LATE JAMES BRYANT CONANT AND FORMER NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR
TERRY SANFORD. A FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR THE INITIATION OF ECS,
WHICH HAS DIRECT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A FEDERAL
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS THE NEED FOR A MECHANISM THROUGH
WHICH THE POLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF STATES COULD
WORK TOGETHER WITHIN STATES AND AMONG STATES IN THE FORMULATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EDUCATION POLICY. THE MEMBERSHIP OF ECS IS
COMPOSED OF STATES, NOT INDIVIDUAL STATE OFFICIALS. THE SEVEN
COMMISSIONERS FROM EACH STATE INCLUDE A CROSS-SECTION OF THE
EDUCATION AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF THAT STATE: TYPICALLY THE
GOVERNOR, STATE LEGISLATORS, THE CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICER, THE
STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICER, STATE BOARD MEMBERS,
AND CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.
THROUGH FORUM, CLEARINGHOUSE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS, ECS SEEKS TO ADDRESS CRITICAL EDUCATION ISSUES THROUGH THE COLLECTIVE ACTION OF ITS MEMBER STATES. DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIP
IN EDUCATION BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE
OF ECS'S HIGHEST PRIORITIES.
ECS POSITION ON CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AT THE ECS ANNUAL MEETING IN 1975, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED A
RESOLUTION PRESENTED FROM THE FLOOR FAVORING THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THIS POSITION WAS FORMALLY
VOTED, BUT WAS NOT BASED ON A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION
BY THE COMMISSION AND, FRANKLY, ECS COMMISSIONERS, IF THEY WERE
POLLED, WOULD BE DIVIDED ON THE SUBJECT. SOME WOULD SEE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEPARATE CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENT AS THE MOST
IMPORTANT ACTION THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD TAKE TO SIGNAL THE
NATIONAL PRIORITY OF EDUCATION; OTHERS WOULD EITHER PLACE A LOW
PRIORITY ON, OR ACTUALLY OPPOSE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEPARATE
DEPARTMENT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS INCLUDING A STRONG BELIEF
THAT IT WOULD LEAD TO AN EVEN GREATER FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE
PRIMARY STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION.
MY PURPOSE THIS MORNING IS NOT TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST
A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT. I STAND BY THE FORMAL POSITION ADOPTED IN
1975. THIS COMMITTEE HAS HEARD IN GREAT DETAIL THE ARGUMENTS
PRO AND CON. PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT
PRESIDENT CARTER INTENDS TO FULFILL THE COMMITMENT MADE IN HIS
CAMPAIGN AND MOST RECENTLY REAFFIRMED IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION
ADDRESS. WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CONGRESS, CREATION OF A
SEPARATE DEPARTMENT IS QUITE LIKELY IF NOT WITHIN THIS CONGRESS,
AT LEAST WITHIN THE NEXT. THE NEED, THEN, IS TO FOCUS ON HOW A
SEPARATE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ORGANIZED, NOT ON WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. MY COMMENTS, HOWEVER, SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES.
THE NEED FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION
WHATEVER STEPS ARE TAKEN TO REORGANIZE FEDERAL EDUCATION ACTIVITIES,
THESE STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF A CLEARLY ARTICULATED
STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION. THIS FEDERAL ROLE
SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN RELATIONSHIP TO, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORIC PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION
BORNE BY THE STATES. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO
DEFINE THE MOST APPROPRIATE FEDERAL EDUCATION STRUCTURE, WITHOUT
A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE FUNCTIONS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
AND SHOULD NOT PERFORM, OF THE FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHARES RESPONSIBILITY WITH STATES, SCHOOLS AND
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OF THE FUNCTIONS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN OR CANNOT PERFORM EFFECTIVELY. IN BRIEF, ECS
BELIEVES THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION
SHOULD UNDERGIRD CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT REORGANIZATION OF FEDERAL
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.
ECS HAS ADOPTED A NUMBER OF POLICY POSITIONS OVER THE YEARS WHICH
ENUNCIATE VIEWS ON THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION. FOR EXAMPLE,
IN 1977, ECS ADOPTED A STATEMENT OF THE "PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN EDUCATION." AMONG OTHER POINTS, THIS
STATEMENT SAYS THAT THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION SHOULD BE:
TO ENUNCIATE NATIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
THAT MAY TRANSCEND THE CONCERNS OF INDIVIDUAL STATES OR
THE CAPACITY OF STATES TO RESOLVE OR RESPOND TO THEM
* TO SEE THAT NATIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
ARE ATTAINED THROUGH FEDERAL POLICIES WHICH SUPPLEMENT
AND COMPLEMENT STATE EFFORTS TO MEET THE SAME NEEDS AND
TO GIVE STATES ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES TO MEET NATIONAL
GOALS IN THE CONTEXT OF DIFFERING STATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE STATEMENT CONTINUES BY EMPHASIZING THAT, "FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY MUST BE FOUNDED UPON A RECOGNITION THAT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALL HAVE ROLES TO PLAY IN FULFILLING THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF THE NATION."
IN THE STATEMENT OF "FINDINGS AND PURPOSE" IN SECTION 2 OF S.991, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FEDERAL
ROLE IN EDUCATION TO THAT OF THE STATES. IN FACT, THE WORD "STATE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR. WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THIS STATEMENT BE REWORDED TO CORRECT THIS OMISSION. I WOULD FURTHER NOTE THAT THE WORD "STATE" IS A NOUN AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT FORM RATHER THAN AS AN ADJECTIVE.
BASIC TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHO OR WHAT CONSTITUTES THE "STATE." BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS, NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, AGENCY OR LEGISLATIVE BODY
CAN LEGITIMATELY CLAIM TO REPRESENT ALL THE VARIOUS POINTS OF
VIEW OR INTERESTS AT ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT OR ANOTHER.
IN THE
DRIVE FOR CLARITY, SIMPLICITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, THERE IS OFTEN
AN EFFORT TO ASSIGN TOTAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO A
SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OR AGENCY. WHILE THIS MAY BE POSSIBLE FOR
CERTAIN NARROWLY DEFINED FUNCTIONS, OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM IS
PURPOSELY DESIGNED TO AVOID SUCH A CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY
THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
EDUCATION POLICY AND FOR THE FINANCING AND GOVERNING OF EDUCATION
IS ACTUALLY SHARED BY A SERIES OF OFFICIALS, AGENCIES AND CITIZENS.
THE "STATE" IS NOT ONLY THE GOVERNOR, ALTHOUGH CLEARLY THE GOVERNOR,
AS THE STATE'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN EDUCATION
POLICY THROUGH OVERALL EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP, APPOINTMENTS OF
EDUCATION OFFICIALS AND OF MEMBERS OF EDUCATION BOARDS, ACTION ON
THE STATE'S BUDGET AND FINAL ACTION OF LEGISLATION. THE "STATE"
IS NOT ONLY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE
PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN EDUCATION THROUGH ENACTING THE STATUTES UNDER-
GIRDING THE GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION OF EDUCATION, AND PASSING
UPON BOTH THE TAXES AND THE BUDGETS WHICH PROVIDE FOR MUCH OF THE
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION IN THE STATES. THE "STATE" IS NOT
ONLY THE STATE EDUCATION AGENCY, ALTHOUGH THAT AGENCY MAY HAVE
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY UNDER STATE LAW FOR ADMINISTERING STATE
AND FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS. OTHER AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUALS
WHO SHARE IN THE "STATE" RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION INCLUDE THE
STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICER, STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION
(INCLUDING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
|