pact on a child. Just go read to a child in a program and ask where they would be if they were not there.

Now I am in total agreement. We need to improve what we are doing, every single bit, here, and also at the State, and also at the local level, because some of our kids are doing great and some of them are falling behind. I think you make a good point that Head Start should be updated and all the rest. And a lot of us, now that we have new information that the brain is developed 90 percent by year three, understand that. We are now facing another challenge and we need to find a way that by that age a child has been stimulated. I think that is important.

Now in terms of

Dr. JOYNER. May I expand on my previous remark about the assumption

Senator BOXER. I am running out of time, but if I could continue and then if we have time we will go further.

In looking at your chart over here you point out that many, many Federal agencies serve these different children, the young children, the at-risk children, and also, to a lesser extent, the teachers. Is it unusual that we have many agencies involved in various functions, be it environment or trade or others? Is it rare that you have many agencies involved in attacking an issue?

Dr. JOYNER. No, it is not rare. It is certainly a relevant point and an important point that education programs are not unique in this respect. GAO has issued reports on the multiple programs and agencies involved in a very wide range of issues. It is definitely not unique to education.

Senator BOXER. Right. I wanted to make that point, Mr. Chairman, because one would think was an unusual thing. I think what would better serve us, me as a Senator trying to grapple with what I consider to be a national priority, and I am so honored that the Chairman here and I are working on this together, is that instead of having all these cross arrows for three groups, I would like to see all the arrows that go into the at-risk kids, and all the arrows that go into the young children, and then the teachers.

But separated rather than all in one chart would help me, because as I look at the at-risk kids and I see, yes, the Justice Department is working on that. I would rather see the Justice Department working to stop drugs and crime with our children than the Department of Education, but I do accept the fact that there ought to be a more comprehensive view.

So I appreciate the work you have done, and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator FRIST. Thank you.

Senator Murray?

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me thank you for having this task force on education. It is probably one of the most important things we can do as we move forward. Certainly, I think everybody knows that education is the single most important issue to all Americans and that education is at the heart of our Nation's future success. So how we go down the road from here is absolutely critical to every American family.

But I hope we remember as a committee and as the Senate that the Federal Government does play a very vital role in education for

our children in this country. Traditionally that has been to help young people in need. And second, we set national priorities for how we want our Nation to progress and how our schools can be an integral part of that progress. So the Federal role has to be a part of our discussion as we move along.

I do have an opening statement that I would like to include in the record that outlines some of what I think we need to move forward through.

Senator FRIST. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin my comments by thanking the Chair for calling these Task Force hearings on vital topic of education. Education is the single most important issue to most Americans. Education is at the heart of our Nation's past and future success.

Let me begin by asserting what you will find to be true through the work of this task force: The Federal Government does play a vital role in the education of students in this country. Traditionally, that role has been to target services to young people in need, and to set important priorities for the Nation's schools. These goals will remain at the heart of Federal efforts.

I must express some caution as the task force moves forward. First, I think that these matters are so critical that they should be dealt with at the full committee level. Education is the single highest budget priority of the American public, in my State, providing education funding is the "paramount duty" expressed in the State constitution. We must allow the full committee to see the importance of education funding compared to all other, lesser priorities.

Second, this task force will succeed to the extent that it makes recommendations for improving the efficiency of Federal involvement in education, but, it will only succeed if it relies upon and trusts the recommendations of the people who know best-the students, families, educators, and researchers working in local communities across America. There is research and data that can paint any picture you want of America's schools; we must in the end temper all we hear with a healthy reserve of common sense-informed by local people who know their schools.

Third, I would caution the task force and the American public that children are not Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. They are children who need the best education American adults can muster for them. I encourage this task force to look at these issues much as Chairman Frist did as we worked on IDEA legislation this year. We all must move forward together, basing our recommendations on solid research and informed views, turning away partisanship and divisiveness.

Our central question should be "What can this country do over the next 5 to 10 years to increase funding for services that produce results for students, to reduce inefficiency, and to hold decision-makers both in Washington State and the Capitol in Washington, DC accountable for their commitments to the education of American children?"

We must strive to increase family involvement in school, in real, measurable ways. We must assure that schools are safe places to learn, and then work outward from schools to make the rest of our communities just as safe. We must improve the effectiveness, student by student and school by school, of teaching and learning-based on research, and the sharing of ideas that produce results for all students. Every penny must be spent wisely, and every necessary investment must be made.

I want public schools to work for all students. Every student must be given the opportunity to succeed, and every student has the right to learn. This is how I think we get there.

Senator MURRAY. But let me just ask a couple of questions since Dr. Joyner is in front of us.

I think that there is no surprise that education is as complex as it is, and there are so many different programs, for several reasons. One is that we have had many, many legislators in the past who want to pass a bill with their name as primary sponsor. So that tends to make a lot of different programs out there. But second, be

cause we have a lot of different needs for children, and a lot of different areas, and a lot of different ways across this country.

I think I probably laughed like everyone did when I was reading your report and opened up the page and saw the chart labeled Figure 6. But I think that what I would like to see next to the chart is another chart, child at the center and perhaps all of the different things that influence a child in their development. I can tell you as a former pre-school teacher what happens in a child's family, in their health, what is happening in their lives at home, what is happening in their lives in their communities affects them, perinatal health affects them. All kinds of things contribute to their emotional and physical well-being, which all end up in a classroom.

We often think that a teacher is just supposed to manage all of these needs without help from outside. That is one of the reasons that we have a multitude of different programs and services because there are no two children that are alike. There are no two communities that are alike. There are no two schools that are alike. What we need to offer is a lot of different alternatives for the different types of children and schools and needs and communities that are out there.

And what a local school board has to do, being a former school board member, is take a look at all of the things that are available and say, how do we coordinate this within our district? Some of it works for us, some of it does not, because of local needs and local concerns. Our ability to make sure that that is flexible level is important. But I think it is critical that we do not just say, well, "there are too many programs, we will cross them off." We must remember to go back to the very beginning and look at a child and say, "are these fitting this child's needs?"

One of the things that really struck me by your testimony was the fact that you said that studying the effectiveness of these programs is very, very expensive. Taking a look at a program, whether it is Head Start or our nutrition programs and going out in the community and determining its effectiveness is very difficult to do and very costly to do and, in your estimation, is that one of the barriers that we are going to have to get over if we want to have good answers for this?

Dr. JOYNER. I would say that that is definitely one of the reasons for the lack of information that we have now, that it is difficult to design the studies and that it is costly. But most often when we look at the lack of information, as we did with Head Start, end up saying that in our judgment it is worth spending some money to get some answers to some of those questions.

Senator MURRAY. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is one of the things we will have to look at very carefully. I know when we did welfare reform, one of the things we did was cut back nutrition programs and I am out in the community now talking to daycare centers who, because of the cost increase, decided not to be a part of the Federal program. It did save us dollars.

But one of the unknown outcomes of that is that those daycare centers are no longer visited by inspectors because they no longer attach to any Federal program. And the quality of care in those centers is not being monitored, and we are hearing a lot of horror

stories today about what is happening in child care centers. I think we need to know, if we are going to be consolidating or cutting or making changes, that we know what we are doing and that it is based on very good assessments.

The other question, very quickly, is have you looked at understanding the needs of a student? It seems to me that kind of where we are looking here is “what are all the programs?" Put up a chart and look at the programs. Have we come back at it from the other way and say what are the needs of children today?

Dr. JOYNER. We have not done that kind of study because our focus has been following the Federal dollar. Where programs exist we have been asked to say what do we know about these programs. We have not been asked to do a study saying out of all of the needs of the child, what needs are being met by the existing programs. I think that we need not to forget that the child is the heart of this, and get lost in just the programs.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, that would be my other recommendation, too, is that rather than just looking at it from the top, we go out and take a look, an assessment of children today and what their needs are, and then come back and say how are these programs working. And some of them may be totally irrelevant. Some may be absolutely essential and we have just underfunded them, so they are not working.

But I think it is essential that we go to the children as the center and talk to the people who work with them, real teachers, real educators, real community members who are involved in the lives of these children because they know far better than any of us sitting hundreds of miles away, of what really works. Thank you.

Senator FRIST. Thank you. Before turning to Senator Wyden, just to go back because both Senator Boxer and Senator Murray really hit upon a key question, when you look at the individual child do we have a body of literature that you have not yet considered that answers that fundamental question, with 50 programs addressing that single child being at risk, are they working or not? Do we have that data from the child's perspective?

Dr. JOYNER. I would like to let Dr. Johnson address that, if that is OK.

Senator FRIST. That would be fine.

Ms. JOHNSON. We have not-GAO has not looked at that issue from the point of view of the child. The hard thing again is to link what we know about programs with what we know about children and what kids need. I, too, spent 10 years in the classroom. The individual child is very important. Our concern as researchers and as evaluators, is that although on a visceral level we think we "know" what is "working", when you start to ask whether programs work on an empirical level not is this a wonderful place for a child to spend the day, and that the basic needs are met but “Is this making a difference in terms of the goals that Congress has set out?" This requires a different kind of knowledge. In the case of Head Start, are we only looking at a cognitive development? It is just one of a number of goals that go into making an excellent preschool experience for a child, and giving that child what they need in terms of nutrition, in terms of health, in terms of good parenting.

www

There is just a whole range of factors we really have not looked at. And as far as I know, there is no way to link what we know about good child socialization practices and good child rearing, with the actual programs that we fund.

Senator FRIST. Thank you. We will come back to that. Let me go ahead and turn to Senator Wyden.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that today's hearing is a logical second inquiry for us. We looked at the state of American education and now particularly to look at duplication makes a lot of sense to me, and I commend you for it.

Dr. Joyner, if I could, certainly you show that chart anywhere in America at a town meeting and citizens are going to be furious, and understandably so. They are going to look at a chart like that and say I want the best for my youngster and what I am getting is some sort of Rube Goldberg contraptions, some kind of gerrybuilt mess with programs and agencies just strewn all about the countryside, and obviously going to focus on waste.

That is what I hear at home more than anything else, that the people say they want the best for their youngster, they want the finest schools, and they are upset and frustrated about waste and duplication, and they are going to look at this.

What I would like to do is ask you about an alternative approach, because my State has pursued one and I am curious whether you are familiar with it. What it is, it is called Ed-flex, and it seeks to ensure that schools and those who teach in them are held accountable. In effect, what has happened in my State is that the Federal Government has granted us waivers from a lot of what you have shown us on that chart. Basically, the Federal Government has told the State of Oregon, we are going to let you out from under some of this bureaucratic water torture, and in return we expect you to commit specifically to serving specific number of students and results.

I am curious, and I am really only going to explore this area, whether you have looked into this question of Ed-flex and what you think of it as a concept, Doctor?

Dr. JOYNER. I think that there are two levels and I would like to say something quickly and then let Dr. Johnson proceed.

That whole concept of saying what an entity is accountable for and not specifying the specifics is something that applies to education as well to the other programs that approach makes a lot of sense. I know we have done some work on that specifically on education.

Ms. JOHNSON. We did one specific study in the early days of Edflex-at that time was the only one that had been done nationwide just to see who was using it and what the waivers had been. One of the things that has struck us across a wide range of our work is that when you start talking about regulatory burden and local implementation, there seems to be a great variation in what people's understandings are of what is required, and there is a great difference across States.

Most States have not taken advantage of formally the waivers which are available, at least on the education side.