The other thing that the Federal Government does has been to leverage all kinds of other behaviors, and maybe the clearest example of that is special education, in that although the Federal Government has never provided the proportion of funds that they said that they would in the early 1970's-in point of fact, led to the Federal law, leveraged all kinds of money on a group and all kinds of services on a group, which really had not been before really looked at by the public education system. And I know that Madeleine Will will talk about this at length.

I used to be a director of services for exceptional children. When I got into the field, it was just before the special ed laws were passed, so I began when special education was done in church basements and when children were hidden, and where lots of the less serious disabilities were not recognized as disabilities at all, but were simply blamed on the kids, that they were not trying hard enough, et cetera.

So I have seen personally and professionally the Federal role in special education even though the money has never gone beyond 12 percent-the role that it has played in shining the spotlight, in saying these are the standards, here is a flexible framework of how to make this work, and requiring certain parallel behaviors from States without dictating but the details.

It has had an impact well beyond the financial role.

Senator FRIST. I know the second panel-I want to get to the second panel because a lot of these issues will come back up, but this really does help set the platform for that.

On the flip side, what has the Federal Government-through all of our best of intentions and a good amount of money-what has the Federal Government-again, based on your research of programs over the years, what has the Federal Government not done well?

Dr. JOYNER. I will start. I think-again, I would say in general terms that it has not held States, held the recipients of the funds accountable in a sense beyond requirements and paperwork in the past and now moving toward less of that; but that in this area, as in other parts of Federal programs, there has not been as much focus on the actual outcome and the actual results of this, and building in requirements for finding out what works. Again, this is not unique to education in comparison with others. But to spend this amount of money over this amount of time without knowing really what is working, what is not working, and what we could do to improve it, to rely on a belief-the knowledge this is an important problem, and a belief that this will probably help, and to put the money there without wisely spending it by finding out with what result I would say that is the most general concern that I would have.

Senator FRIST. This goes back to your opening statement, as well, this evaluation and self-evaluation. When we talk of children and we talk of education and we talk of families, is there a tendency to rely more on emotion, on the fact that it makes us feel good to give money to a system that is supposedly meeting the needs of that individual? Does that apply more to education than it does to other fields? I am sort of leading up to the point: Does it allow people to escape or programs to escape and resist evaluation, recogniz

ing that you are dealing with emotional issues, important issues that really strike home? Is it worse in education than other fields? Dr. JOYNER. Well, I think it is certainly an important factor in education because, by and large, I think people want to help the children and believe that they are helping. And there is usually anecdotal evidence that something is working. People do not just keep doing things that they can see are not helping. But that sense of confidence that what they see-they know that this child is better off in sort of a gut-level way, and that it does matter to them, I think, again, makes them uncomfortable in an experimental design where you are withholding something. If you really believe this is bound to help and this is a child you are trying to help, then you want to give it to everyone instead of waiting to see whether it really does or not.

And so it is a very emotional area and government-wide, Federal Government-wide, there has not been a lot of emphasis on the results and an evaluation mind-set, and certainly evaluation resources on that have been reduced in recent years.

Senator FRIST. In your opening statement, you mentioned Head Start, and every time I mention Head Start, there is such a gut feeling, it is so positive, that I have to keep separating it and say, what is the data, let's look at the outcome, has it been measured, have people done the appropriate study, recognizing there are lots of different endpoints which both of you have pointed out.

But your statement that caught me and I wonder how much it applies to all the other agencies-is a seeming resistance not to take the suggestion that you have to be measuring outcome and that is what you implied. I think you said that when you suggest to a group in education using Head Start that there are outcome measures you should be making along the way, that there is a resistance there.

It is important for us because it means that if we are moving in the direction of a program, we need to build it in right up front. Dr. JOYNER. Exactly.

Senator FRIST. Do you want to comment?

Ms. JOHNSON. It is true that in most of the Federal programs that provide services to people the public at large does not get quite as emotional as they do about education. But I think this emotional reaction is true for most of the human services programs. Not only is there an emotional gut reaction that, we know this is good, it feels right, it feels good, but also because everybody has been through school, this is an area where everybody thinks they are an expert. They are an expert based on their own experience as both somebody who has been through it as a student, as a parent, and some as teachers.

And so one of the things that you are also seeing is, I think, a lack of an urgent sense of gut need for research information, because people feel they know a good program when they see it, they can tell something is working. I think that is more common in this area than you see in others.

Senator FRIST. Thank you. We are going to need to move to the second panel shortly, but I want to give both the Senators here an opportunity to question. Senator Snowe?

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, and I will ask unanimous consent to include my entire statement in the record.

Senator FRIST. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for calling today's hearing which focuses on the Federal education programs for children in pre-school and in grades K through 12. With the Congress and, indeed, the Nation, now focused on the importance of education, I can think of no topic more timely than the performance of the education programs that are funded by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have always been a strong advocate for maintaining our Federal commitment to education because of the critical role education plays in the lives of each and every American. The fact is, education is the great equalizer in our society that can give every citizen of our Nation-regardless of race, income, or geographic background-the same opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. It levels the playing field. Therefore, even as we work to achieve and maintain a balanced Federal budget, I believe we must always maintain a strong Federal commitment to supporting our Nation's schools.

Mr. Chairman, although the Federal contribution to the total cost of elementary and secondary education may seem small when compared to the total amount of money that is spent by State and local governments, it by no means diminishes the importance or impact of the dollars we spend. Overall, the Federal Government provides approximately 7 percent of all education monies that are spent. However, when we look at what that 7 percent means in real dollars, it's not pocket change. Consider that in fiscal year 1996, a total of $25 billion was spent by the Federal Government on programs that support early childhood and elementary and secondary education programs.

While I believe it is critical that we maintain our commitment to education, that does not mean we should ignore the manner in which these monies are used or cease to improve the manner in which these monies are distributed and managed. Ultimately, it's not just about spending bucks on education-it's about getting the biggest bang for the buck possible!

The Department of Education is responsible for managing the majority of the Federal monies that are spent on education-a total of $16 billion in 1996-so it is understandable that the Congress has a strong, vested interest in the performance and management of their programs. Today's hearing will provide us with an opportunity to not only study the performance of the programs that are managed by the Department of Education, but also to find ways in which we can improve these programs. In the end, the beneficiaries of improved management and performance will be the taxpayers whose money we spend to support these critical programs-and, more importantly, the children who attend out Nation's schools.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us this morning—and would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing. Thank you.

Senator SNOWE. I commend you for holding this hearing on, I think, obviously a very critical issue, and it gives us the opportunity to examine in depth some of the programs so important at the Federal level for education.

Dr. Joyner, I was interested in the GAO report on Head Start. I was curious about the fact that given the fact that Head Start has been in existence for some 30 years and $15 billion or more, according to your report-$31 billion later, that there has been no adequate assessment of the program and the impact of that program nationwide. Can you explain that to me? Because it would seem to me that at this point, given the $31 billion the Federal Government has spent on the Head Start Program for now approximately 30-odd years, with 15 million children being served by that program, that the Federal Government has not been able to assess overall the impact of Head Start on the performance of young people who have participated in that program?

In fact, I remember one of my first government jobs when I was in college was to work for the technical assistance for Head Start in the State of Maine. I think perhaps it was the second year that that program was in existence. So, I am very curious as to why we have not had an overall assessment of its effectiveness and the impact on performance.

Dr. JOYNER. I will comment on that some on the basis of our report and also on the next panel, I know that one of the panelists there is going to be prepared to talk about that in some detail, too.

I think one point that I would make is that we are aware that a lot of research has been done on Head Start. And the methodology that we used in our study was to try to develop as comprehensive list as we could of the overall studies that had been done on Head Start since its inception. And to try to winnow teh field down to the ones that really focused on the impact of the program. We had some fairly strict criteria for that on what was focusing on impact and what was a well-done study.

And we did find 22 studies that we reviewed in our overall report and some of those focused on one aspect or another of Head Start. Some of them were older ones so that they did not provide very good information about the current Head Start and they all had certain strengths and weaknesses. And, so, our conclusion is to acknowledge that there is an extensive literature on it but a very small part of that really focuses on the impact of the programs.

Moreover the studies focused on cognitive outcomes but not as much on some of the other things that are really important, that if the program is going to have the long-term effect. It has to achieve some of its other social competency goals as well.

Some of them did not really have comparison groups or appropriate comparison groups, so, you would know that the result that you saw really was attributable to Head Start rather than to just their maturity. Obviously, a child a year later is going to be more mature and have certain competencies they did not have a year earlier.

So, this is an area where an anecdotal observation would say, look how much this child has developed over the year that I have worked with them. What we were looking for was a study that was carefully designed so that you would know, have some basis to conclude that absent the program, this child would not have benefitted this much, would not have developed this much.

And also, sometimes we would find a study that had not a lot of other weaknesses but only could answer the question about one location, one particular Head Start Program. So, that we felt was not sufficient to draw a conclusion about Head Start nationwide, with programs occurring in over 1,000 locations around the country.

That was really the basis of our concern: that there had not been any nationwide study or-and that does not mean that any one study would have to do it all-or even pieces of studies that could sufficiently be put together to give that overall picture.

Senator SNOWE. Do you think that it would be worthwhile for the Federal Government to do so, to undertake such a study?

Dr. JOYNER. Absolutely. We recommended that they do that. And they said they will take that under advisement and look at the possibilities.

Senator SNOWE. In looking at your chart, can you tell me in terms of trying to consolidate the number of the educational programs that are delivered by various Federal agencies, and obviously it looks like a very complex overlapping education programs, can you tell me how much it would cost to consolidate some of these education programs?

Dr. JOYNER. We have not done that analysis. I really would not be able to estimate that.

Senator SNOWE. Do you think it would be possible or maybe it would not make a material difference?

Dr. JOYNER. I would have to answer that more uniquely, looking at a particular set. We had some discussion on this earlier that these programs are usually not doing exactly the same thing. Some of them are teacher training, for example, most of them were holding conferences, developing materials, et cetera. But it would take a close look at the programs, themselves, really to know where the consolidation opportunities exist.

Senator SNOWE. One final question. In one of the GAO findings, it stated that approximately 60 percent of Federal grant funds are used by States to substitute their own funding for education programs. Does that suggest that some important programs are not getting funded? Should Congress strengthen its maintenance of effort when it comes to some of these programs?

Ms. JOHNSON. The question about fiscal substitution obviously is a very important policy question. Theoretically you might want to be providing funds to free-up State funds for other things. But, I think one of the things that GAO has brought out is that this is an issue which the policy makers should be aware of. And take that into account when you craft your legislation.

Senator SNOWE. Does it suggest that in some ways certain programs may not need additional funding from the Federal Government?

Dr. JOYNER. Well, again, if the intent is to allow that substitution to occur, then the answer would be continue to fund at that level and allow that to occur. If not, then there would be different implications.

Senator SNOWE. Actually one more question if the chairman would allow. On the issue of the way the Federal funding is allocated for education programs, often times it is not done on the basis of programmatic need. Is there a way, is it practical, feasible, fair, to allocate education money on that basis?

Ms. JOHNSON. We are going to be coming out with a report in February which will address some of those questions and, as you know, I am not free to talk about the findings of that report until that report is out. But I think you find it an interesting report. Senator SNOWE. OK, thank you.

Senator FRIST. Thank you.

Senator GORTON.

Senator GORTON. I will pass for now.

Senator FRIST. Thank you, both very much, it has been very helpful to the committee to have this as really a foundation as we