ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


Saturday Morning News

Is Bipartisanship Taking Hold on the Education Agenda?

Aired January 27, 2001 - 8:33 a.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, let's take a closer look at the president's education plan and some of the controversy surrounding it. We're joined by two education advocates -- of course, who's against education? Here in Atlanta we have Georgia State Representative -- he's actually a U.S. Representative, Johnny Isakson. Isakson was appointed Chairman of the Georgia Board of Education in 1996. Also with us from Philadelphia is Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews of New Jersey.

And, Mr. Andrews, I'd like to begin with you. I've noted with some interest that Senator Ted Kennedy was out there on the North Lawn of the White House praising the president for his education efforts and putting education first. I guess that is the definition of bipartisanship, isn't it?

REP. ROBERT ANDREWS (D), NEW JERSEY: It is and I agree with Senator Kennedy. I think that the president's trying to do the right thing here, which is to target resources on lifting schools that are not achieving up to the level of other schools. And I want to work with him to get that done.

O'BRIEN: And Mr. Isakson, when you hear that kind of talk from the other side of the aisle, are you optimistic there'll be some kind of positive legislation that will come at the end of it?

REP. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R), GEORGIA: I am very optimistic. I think Rob and I, I think, agree that this session is going to see some substantial reform and improvement in education and it'll be bipartisan.

O'BRIEN: All right, well, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? The president seems to be proposing more or less a carrot and stick approach, rewarding school systems that are doing well and yet I guess it's safe to say punishing those that do not perform. I'm curious, Mr. Andrews, there are risks that go along with that when school systems are not rewarded, and I'm speaking specifically about this voucher program. How much concern is there among Democrats about that idea, you know, given the fact that bipartisanship rules at the moment?

ANDREWS: Well, most of us don't believe that vouchers work. We believe that what vouchers do is let a few kids leave a failing school for an education that may or may not be better and then strands most of the children in that school. What we're interested in doing, frankly, is getting to the root of the problem in a failing school, which I believe is usually incompetent or insubordinate management, to uproot that management, replace it with people who know what they are doing and then bring in the resources, the breakfast programs, the technology, the parental involvement programs, the education upgrades to make the school better.

O'BRIEN: Well, Mr. Isakson, typically education historically in this country has been a local issue, not a federal issue. Is it appropriate for the federal government to be getting involved at this level of minutiae in how schools are run?

ISAKSON: Well, as a practical matter, the truth of the matter is the president's program only deals with the federal component and the federal funds. President Bush is quite clear that local systems should make the decisions on testing, the decisions on curriculum, but with regard to Title I money, which is that the major investment of the federal government, if that system fails a child for two successive years, they should have the right, or their parents should, to choose another public school, and if, after three, they continue to have failed the child, then the parent should have the right to use that money to help educate that child in the best way they see fit.

It's not a punishment to public education as much as an insurance policy to a child that if public education fails, parents will have control over the destiny of their child.

O'BRIEN: All right, but let's be clear here, these vouchers we're talking about which would allow some parental choice at a failing school system amount to all of $1,500 a year and anybody who's priced out a tuition at a private school these days knows that's not going to pay the freight.

ANDREWS: And Miles, I think that's right. I think the flaw in this proposal is that it doesn't do much that's very significant for parents who want to choose to leave, but it would have a major negative impact on the 85 or 90 percent of the children who'd still be there. What I think we ought to do is focus on the things that have worked in schools around the country, give failing schools the chance to do those and then if they don't do them, replace the people running those schools with people who will.

O'BRIEN: Well, Mr. Isakson, let me ask you this, the way that these schools will be judged will be through a battery of tests, according to the Bush proposal, and, you know, you and I know well what happens in these cases. These school systems feel a tremendous amount of pressure to show rising test scores and what teachers do is they, and the term is they teach the test. Does this really, in the final analysis, serve the students well when they're just teaching them to take a test?

ISAKSON: The best example is the State of Texas. It has served them well and it's particularly served those children of the disadvantaged in those communities who were the beneficiaries of Title I money. Test scores of ethnic minorities, immigrants, children of immigrants have gone up dramatically. Testing is a matter of assessment and with all due respect to Rob, if we say well, it's not enough money so let's leave it as it is, Title I's failed for 35 years. If we say to ourselves testing is no good, there must be another way, in life today there is no other measurement ultimately whether you become a lawyer, whether you become a professional of any type without measurement in testing.

So at least you have benchmarks, you can show progress and your interest is in the child, not in preserving the institution that's failing.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Andrews, final word here.

ANDREWS: Sure. I agree completely we need to test and evaluate, but I think that letting a few kids trickle out while you leave the rest in a falling system does not work. Fix the failing system. That's what we want to do.

O'BRIEN: All right, Rob Andrews, Johnny Isakson giving us a taste of the so far rather collegial debate. Bipartisanship still ruling here on CNN SATURDAY MORNING. Thanks very much for being with us.

ANDREWS: Thank you.

ISAKSON: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: And we will stay tuned to this debate as it continues.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top