Most federal aid to education has been traditionally based on an old bargain that no longer works: Washington offers money to states and school districts based on need, and then micro- manage how it is used, with little or no attention to what it produces in the way of educational results. While it has done much good to offset the financial inequities inherent in schools due to widely varying local revenue bases, it has also rewarded failure as often as success. That is why the disparities in education levels between poor and middle- or upper-class Americans--that justified federal aid to education to begin with--are getting worse, not better, at precisely the time when education and skills loom larger than ever as a factor determining individual opportunity.

This year's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--the primary vehicle for federal aid--offers Congress the chance to reinvent federal education policy for the Information Age. In addition, there is finally a legislative package on the horizon that would accomplish the kind of dramatic shift in strategies the country needs: DLC Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) Public Education, Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Reinvigoration Act

Lieberman's "Three R's" bill is based in large part on the Progressive Policy Institute's report, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding. In some respects, it is a more sweeping variation on the Clinton Administration's proposal to link federal education aid to accountability for educational results. It also draws on bipartisan proposals from the Governors to provide greater flexibility in administering federal education funds by consolidating a variety of programs. More fundamentally, it redefines the federal role in education and offers states and poor school districts a new bargain: strong federal support and broad administrative flexibility in exchange for a commitment to reform, innovation, and the achievement of measurable results in closing the gap between good and bad public schools.

Lieberman's "Three R's" plan would:

• Reconfigure the Title I compensatory education program for disadvantaged students by increasing the targeting of funds to the poorest schools, requiring steady progress toward the goal of ensuring math and reading proficiency for all children, demanding radical action to improve or close poor-performing schools, and raising overall funding by more than 50 percent.



• Consolidate teacher training programs into one grant focused on raising the quality of teaching as well as the quantity of qualified teachers, with strict performance standards.



• Streamline bilingual education programs while making it clear the goal of bilingual instruction is to achieve student proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking English.



• Strengthen federal efforts to provide parental choice among public schools, including universal information on school, student and teacher performance, school safety, access to technology, and physical conditions; while encouraging more performance-based "charter" schools.



• Consolidate all other K-12 programs into a single fund that would encourage innovation and experimentation on a broad array of educational challenges.



• Introduce a regime of accountability throughout all federal education programs that would reward success and punish failure according to simple performance measures.

In effect, Lieberman's bill combines the best ideas for improving public school performance from every direction. But it does not endorse the dubious logic of Republican schemes that demand accountability without standards for public schools, and no accountability at all for private schools receiving public funds.

If lawmakers in both parties believe half of what they say about the critical importance of improved education in an Information-Age global economy, they should get behind Lieberman's bill as an urgent priority.