[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13365-S13422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:N O T I C E
Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page S13366]]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R.
1, to close the achievement gap with accountability,
flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind,
having met, have agreed the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the
same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both
Houses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2\1/2\ hours of debate on the conference report with 2
hours to be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and
ranking member or their designees for 15 minutes each for Senators
Wellstone and Jeffords.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to talk for a few minutes about
the bill before us today--the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
First of all, I would like to commend the members of the conference
committee who worked for months to reach a final agreement.
In Congress, you very rarely get exactly what you want, and in this
bill I think both sides reached a good compromise that will help our
children and our schools.
I have 9 kids and 35 grandkids, and I know exactly how important
education is.
I know how crucial it is for children to be challenged and encouraged
at school. It is one of the most important elements of their
development.
Every child in America deserves a good education, and the President
is exactly right when he says no child should be left behind. This bill
takes a big step in that direction.
It provides increased flexibility of funds, accountability for
student achievement and more options for parents. It is a win-win-win
bill for students, parents and schools.
First, the bill gives new options to kids who have been trapped year
after year in failing schools.
Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress will face
increasingly stiff penalties. For example, students trapped in failing
schools will be allowed to transfer to another public school.
Personally, I would have preferred giving children and their parents
even more options and given them the choice of going to a private or
religious school as well. But there is no doubt the legislation
represents a definite improvement over current law.
If a school continues to fail on a long-term basis, students will
receive money for supplemental services like tutoring or an after-
school program.
Also, I am very pleased the final version of this bill allows
supplemental services to be provided by public, private or faith-based
organizations. This could be especially important in smaller
communities that offer fewer options to kids.
Furthermore, the bill provides that schools that continue to fail
students can be completely restructured.
This means they could be taken over by the states or incompetent
staff could be fired.
I know this is drastic. No one wants to see anything like this
happen. But if it's a choice between helping the kids or protecting a
failing school, the choice is clear.
Second, this bill provides states and school districts greater
flexibility with federal education dollars.
For years, many of us have argued we need to preserve local control
over education and guard against a bigger federal bureaucracy.
It is the local school board and state education officials who know
better than anyone in Washington what works in their communities, and
this bill represents a fundamental shift toward better education
policy.
For instance, the legislation before us allows every local school
district and state to transfer certain federal funds among a variety of
programs, along with establishing a local Straight A's program which
will be available for 150 school districts nationwide.
Straight A's is a great idea that actually lets the local officials
direct federal money to their most pressing needs, whether it be hiring
more teachers or buying new books, in exchange for meeting certain
performance goals.
I hope many schools in Kentucky take advantage of these new
opportunities.
If you think about it, we trust our local school officials with our
children every day. But more and more, we have not been trusting them
to know best how to spend education dollars. That does not make any
sense to me and now that is going to change.
This bill also consolidates some existing funding for class size
reduction and professional development to give schools more options in
improving teacher quality.
Under the legislation, schools will have the ability to help teachers
do their jobs better, whether it is reducing class size, providing
training or recruiting new teachers.
We all know good teachers are one of the keys to a good education.
Now school officials are going to have more tools at their disposal to
help teachers do their job.
I have always said teachers have one of the hardest, most important
jobs in the world, and too often they do not get the credit they
deserve. I hope that starts to change.
I am also glad this bill contains the important Troops to Teachers
Program. There are no better role models for kids than men and women
who have sacrificed for our country. The conference report is going to
continue this program.
Along that same line, the legislation also requires schools to give
military recruiters the same access to high school students as job
recruiters.
Since September 11, there has been a newfound appreciation by many
for our military. I hope many of our young people who feel called to
serve their country will take advantage of the benefits the armed
services can provide.
Finally, I realize some are concerned funding for the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act was not included in this bill. This is
an important program. I have long supported increasing funding for IDEA
and for the Federal Government living up to its commitment of full
funding at 40 percent.
In fact, under a Republican controlled Congress, IDEA funding has
virtually tripled from 1994 to 2001. Although we still have not met our
goal and have a long way to go to fully fund this program, I am looking
forward to working with my colleagues on reauthorizing IDEA next year.
In conclusion, the bill we have before us is a good proposal. It is
not perfect, but there is no doubt about it, it represents a clear
improvement over current law. I believe our children, our Nation, and
our schools will benefit from it. I look forward to voting for this
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a year ago this week, in Texas, I joined
several colleagues as the then-chairman of the Senate Education
Committee and met with President-elect Bush to discuss education
reform.
It is interesting to note that the meeting occurred in Texas, the
home of the current President, and the home of our 36th President,
Lyndon Johnson, who, in 1965, signed into law the original Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
As we emerged from last year's Austin meeting, we made a bipartisan
commitment to write and pass an education reform bill that would raise
school accountability and improve student achievement.
With the projection of budget surpluses for as far as the eye could
see, it appeared that we would not only set in motion innovative
reforms, but we would also match those reforms with new monetary
investments.
It has been 362 days since we left that optimistic Austin meeting,
and the scenario has dramatically changed. We are not only facing a
very different economic reality, but we also have an administration in
place that does not support the funding needed to successfully carry
out its own education reform initiative.
There is no question that we need to improve our Nation's schools.
Results from the recently released National Assessment of Educational
Progress show that only 1 in 5--that is only 1 in 5--of this country's
high school seniors are proficient in math and science, and only 2 in 5
are proficient in reading.
Further, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study shows
[[Page S13367]]
that performance in math and science by U.S. students declines relative
to that of students in other nations as students move through the
grades of our school system.
Another startling statistic is that almost half of all adults have
either dropped out of high school or have not pursued any type of post-
secondary education.
Last year, we had to again raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas
because this Nation is lacking the skilled employees necessary to meet
the workforce demands of the high-tech and health care industries. That
is insulting.
I commend the President and the chairmen and ranking members of the
House and Senate Education Committees for creating legislation
specifically mandating that States and schools must significantly
improve performance.
The bill before us imposes very strict mandates on our schools,
requiring States to separate achievement data by race, gender, and
other subgroups to better identify those students having academic
difficulties. This is a very worthy goal and one which I fully support.
However, I fear that this bill, without the sufficient resources,
will merely highlight our shortcomings. I fear it will not provide the
assistance--both financial and technical--that schools will need to
meet the goal of having every student reach their full academic
potential.
Educational budgets throughout this Nation are facing severe cuts
due, in part, to the recent economic downturn, but also due to the high
costs associated with providing students with disabilities special
education services.
In Vermont, 92 percent of the children with disabilities, between the
ages of 6 and 11, are educated in their neighborhood schools in
classrooms with their nondisabled peers. Special education costs in
Vermont have increased 150 percent over the past 10 years.
The Federal underfunding of special education leads to State and
local districts spending approximately $20 million more in Vermont from
local sources than would be necessary if Federal funding were provided
at the level Congress promised in the original law.
In 1975, we, in the Congress, authorized the Federal Government to
pay up to 40 percent of each State's excess cost of educating children
with disabilities. It has been 26 years since we made that commitment,
and we have failed to keep our promise. We are currently providing only
16 percent of the original 40 percent promised.
Earlier this year, during Senate consideration of the ESEA bill, this
body unanimously adopted the Harkin-Hagel amendment that required
Congress to fully fund IDEA through progressive annual increases. I am
extremely disappointed that the final product we are considering today
does not include this critical amendment. Without the inclusion of the
Harkin-Hagel amendment, and without sufficient funding for the programs
outlined in the bill, I am afraid this bill may actually do more harm
than good.
The primary feature of H.R. 1 is adequate yearly progress. Under the
revamped title I program, every student in every school must be
proficient within 12 years. This sounds reasonable. However, at current
funding levels, and even with over a billion-dollar increase for title
I in the coming year, we will still only be funding less than half of
the children who qualify under the title I program.
Since title I was created in the landmark Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, neither Congress nor any administration has
provided the dollars required to fund all of the students needing
services. It seems to me that Congress has failed to meet its own
adequate yearly progress goals for the past 36 years.
I have been in Congress for more than 25 years. I have never voted
against an education bill before. But to vote for this education bill
as it now stands, I believe, is counterproductive, if not destructive.
My instincts tell me that this bill will become law within a matter of
days.
Although I am voting against this bill, I will work very hard with
all of my colleagues to obtain the funding that is needed so that our
educational system will not only be strengthened but, as Dr. Seuss once
said in one of the last books to be issued before this author's
passing: ``. . . you'll be the best of the best. Wherever you go, you
will top all the rest.''
We can only be the ``best of the best'' by not only adequately
funding these programs but also working with parents and teachers and
principals and superintendents and school personnel and school board
officials and students, for they have many of the answers that will
enable us and our students ``to top all of the rest.''
Today, I vote against this bill because I believe it is better to
approve no bill rather than to approve a bad bill. I am sincerely
hoping, for the sake of our children, that history will prove me wrong.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for his work on
this legislation. He was chairman of our committee when we reported out
the Senate version. Sometime after that, we had a change in leadership.
As a matter of fact, the bill itself was on the floor. I had the
opportunity to chair the legislation.
The Senate should know that on this legislation, the first parts were
reported out of the committee when Senator Jeffords was the principal
architect. Although we come to different conclusions in terms of the
outcome on this legislation, I express our great appreciation to him
for his longstanding commitment to funding the IDEA. He has been
passionate about that and has worked on it. He makes a compelling case.
We are closer to the day when I think we will get there. I think we
will get there, and we are going to. When we do, Senators Jeffords,
Harkin, and Hagel will all have been enormously helpful in our
achieving it.
The final point I will mention: We have in this legislation expanded
the afterschool program by 200,000 children. We still have a long way
to go. I am mindful that that program started out in 1994 sponsored by
Senator Jeffords. It started out as a $50 million program and several
thousand students. Now there are probably more subscriptions for that
program than any other program in these last years because of the
recognition of the difference it makes in terms of being a resource for
children to get assistance after school. I thank him for his good work.
I wish he had come to a different conclusion, but the Senate should
know.
I see the Senator from Minnesota. We expect him to talk. If I may, I
yield for 30 seconds to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy.
I had the opportunity yesterday to speak at length on this bill and
to commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, our
colleagues from the other body, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Miller, and Senator
Jeffords for his leadership as chairman.
I neglected to commend people who were much responsible for this
legislation, and that is staff members, particularly my staff member
Elyse Wasch who did a remarkable job.
I also extend my thanks and congratulations to Danica Petroshius,
Roberto Rodriguez, Michael Dannenberg, Dana Fiordaliso, and Michael
Myers of the majority staff and Denzel McGuire of the Republican staff.
Their efforts were remarkable.
Much of the success of the bill was because of these individuals. I
thank them personally for their great work, particularly Elyse Wasch of
my staff.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take some time now and I will
reserve the final 5 minutes right before the vote.
Senator Reed, in his characteristically gracious style, thanked his
staff and other staff here for their great work. I would as well. I
include Joe Morningstar who works with me in that mix.
I also say to Senators Kennedy and Gregg that I appreciate all of
their commitment and all of their very hard work.
I say to Senator Jeffords that I greatly appreciate his soul, his
unbelievable commitment to children, how strongly he feels about this
question.
[[Page S13368]]
And I very much find myself in agreement with his analysis.
I must say with a smile that I am amazed that so many of my
colleagues are now supporting a Federal mandate right under the school
district saying every school district--school districts have
represented the essence of graduate political culture in our country--
every school district, every school, you will test every child, grades
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I must say that I think this oversteps, if not
the authority, the sort of boundaries of congressional decisionmaking
on education. Here I am, a liberal Senator from Minnesota, but this is
my honest-to-God belief. I am just amazed that so many Senators have
voted for this, especially my conservative friends.
Having said that, I voted for the bill when it was on the Senate
floor for two reasons: One, we had the IDEA program mandatory. That is
hugely important in terms of getting funding back to our States and
school districts. No. 2, I wanted to get on the conference committee to
try to make the bill better.
I thank both my colleagues. I can't say the Chair and I always agreed
on everything, but I wanted to thank them for letting me be on the
conference committee. I enjoyed the work. There is a lot of good policy
in this bill. I will be proud of whatever I contributed, but also many
Senators contributed to that.
Let me just say that for my own part, the big issue with me is this
sort of rush to testing, as if it is the reform. The testing is
supposed to test the reform, it is not supposed to be the reform.
This focus on standardized tests, multiple choice tests, and teachers
teaching to it has become drill education. It is educationally
deadening.
There are a lot of amendments and provisions in this bill I had a
chance to work on that talk about high-quality testing, how we do that,
and multiple measures, giving our States maximum flexibility so that
they have 3 years in the aggregate of testing before they begin to use
them as high stakes testing, see how schools do. And they don't have to
start until 2005 or 2006. Therefore, we don't get the result until 2008
or 2009, and I am glad we will not have this mad rush to the worst of
standardized testing.
There are some good provisions in this bill that will make a
difference when it comes to having high-quality testing.
We also have very good legislation in here that deals with teacher
recruitment and retainment. That had to do with Senators Hutchison,
Clinton, Kennedy, and DeWine. That is a huge issue--how we can recruit
and retain teachers.
Parent information and resource centers, local family information
centers, the ways in which you can have parents more involved--and
quite often you have to do it through some of the nonprofits and
nongovernmental organizations in the neighborhoods and communities--
that is extremely important. We have a great program in Minnesota after
which this is modeled. I am so glad that is in the bill.
Then I thank Sheila my wife because she is my teacher when it comes
to violence in homes, and there are some really good provisions in this
bill that deal with children who witness violence and how to help them.
That is all to the good. But we had the chance to make our rhetoric
of the last 26 years about the IDEA program a reality. We did that on
the Senate side, but the House Republican leadership killed it on the
House side and the administration opposed it. That is what I am saddest
about. I believe we could have made the fight for children in
education, and we could have said to this administration: You cannot
realize this goal of leaving no child behind unless the resources are
there to go with the testing. The tests don't bring more teachers. The
tests don't lead to smaller class size. The tests don't lead to good
textbooks. The tests don't lead to better technology. The tests don't
mean the children come to kindergarten ready to learn. All of these
things have to change.
Without a commitment to making IDEA mandatory and making the full
funding over a 6-year period that should have been this year, we cheat
our States and school districts and our schools, and we cheat our
teachers and we cheat our children.
That is why I oppose this legislation. People in my State of
Minnesota are angry because they believe by acceding to the House
Republican position and the administration position, we have cheated
Minnesota out of $2 billion of IDEA money over the next 10 years--about
$45 million on the glidepath this year. They are angry because no
longer are we going to be able to have all-day kindergarten in a lot of
our schools. They are angry because we are having to eliminate some of
our good early childhood development programs. They are angry because
we are going to have to eliminate some of our afterschool programs. And
they are angry because we are eliminating teachers and we are
increasing class size. They are angry because we are having to make
cuts in the school lunch program. They are angry because we are having
to make cuts in transportation.
There are first graders who are going to have to walk a mile, and
seventh graders 2 miles, to go to school because the bus service has
been cut out.
Colleagues, if we had lived up to our commitment on full funding of
IDEA, we would not have to make those cuts in Minnesota. But we did.
That is why I will vote no. I will vote no for my State of Minnesota.
The Center for Education Policy has a quote that I think is so
important:
Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the public into
thinking that testing and accountability alone will close the learning
gap. Policymakers on the State and national level should be wary of
proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap, but do not help
build the capacity to accomplish that goal.
I believe what we have here is a Federal unfunded mandate calling on
our States and school districts to do more with less, calling on them
to test every child every year, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and telling
them that they have to do so without a Federal mandate that every child
will have the same opportunity to do well on these tests.
Where are the resources to make sure that all the children in America
have the same chance to do well? And when they don't do well on these
tests or the schools don't do well, where are the additional resources
to help them? Not in this bill. When you start talking about we have
increased funding for title I, no, not in real dollar terms. We are in
a recession. There are many more children who are eligible. We are not
doing any more funding in real terms. About a third of the eligible
children are going to get the funding, and that is it. We didn't live
up to our commitment to fully fund the IDEA program, and there is a
pittance in the Federal budget for early childhood development so that
children can come to school ready to learn.
The President and the administration talk about leaving no child
behind--the mission of the Children's Defense Fund--and that is the
title of this bill. We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child
behind on a tin cup budget. We are setting a lot of schools and
children and school districts up for failure because we have not lived
up to this promise. We are calling on the schools to be more
accountable. But what about our accountability to our States and our
school districts and our teachers and our children? We have failed the
test of accountability by not making the IDEA program mandatory and
providing full funding. We have failed the test of accountability by
not providing that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator has 5 minutes
remaining. The Senator wanted to be informed.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes of the original 15?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take another 2 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield 5 minutes of our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his graciousness.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we were trying to arrange some additional
time. We were unable to do that. The vote will occur around 12 noon
today.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have made my point. I will say to colleagues that I
am amazed that Senators don't want to have a little more debate on
this. What is the problem? There are people who want to speak against
it, too. I am just amazed that apparently my colleagues
[[Page S13369]]
on the Republican side, I gather, are opposed to this. They don't want
to have more debate. I don't blame you because a lot of people in our
States are going to feel quite betrayed.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I don't understand the Senator's accusation
against Republicans on that issue. The time agreement on this bill was
reached between the majority party and the minority party. It was not
unilaterally agreed to by the minority party. It was put forward by the
leadership on both sides. Do not accuse the Republican side of the
aisle of being the people who are trying to limit this. You have an
opportunity to speak. You got 15 minutes. The Senator
from Massachusetts has been kind enough to offer you more. I will offer
you 5 more minutes of my time if you want more.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Since the Senator speaks with such indignation, I am
pleased to offer an explanation. First of all, it is not about me; it
is about other colleagues who want to speak. Yesterday, we had an
understanding for 2 hours and a half hour--or 1 hour and a half hour.
Then there was a unanimous consent yesterday to extend an additional
hour for the proponents. I asked the majority whip whether we could
have more time for other Senators to speak, and my understanding is
that that is fine on our side, but the Republicans have turned that
proposal down, in which case, Senator, I stand by my remarks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds Senators to address each
other in the third person and through the Chair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Let's make sure we
have the time down here. It is my understanding that the Senator from
Massachusetts graciously agreed to give the Senator from Minnesota 5
minutes, and the Senator from New Hampshire also agreed to give him an
additional 5 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will reserve that. The Senator has
clearly rejected my offer.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Minnesota has an additional 5 minutes that
the Senator from Massachusetts extended. I ask that that be approved by
unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator this. There were several other
Senators who wanted to speak in opposition. The Senator from Minnesota,
Mr. Dayton, is one.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Vermont allocated the Senator his 7\1/2\
minutes, and he has 5 from Senator Kennedy.
Mr. WELLSTONE. All together I have how much time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. REID. Plus the 7\1/2\ minutes from the Senator from Vermont, who
agreed to let him use that time, but also 5 minutes from the Senator
from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I guess we are going to have more
discussion on these points. I think it is appropriate at this time to
briefly respond to the Senator from Minnesota relative to his
representations on especially IDEA funding.
There is a history to this funding which I think has to be reviewed.
During the Clinton administration, not once in the first 7 years of
that administration was there an increase sent to the Congress for
special education funding--not once--of any significance at all.
However, a group of us on our side of the aisle said that was not
right. We decided to significantly increase the IDEA funding beginning
about 5 years ago. We were successful in accomplishing that. Over the
last 5 years, we have increased IDEA funding, special education
funding, by 173 percent. That is the single largest percentage increase
that any significant policy account has received over the last 5 years.
The new President, President Bush, also understood, because he was a
Governor who was sensitive to this issue, that IDEA was not properly
funded.
He sent up in his budget the single largest increase in IDEA funding
ever proposed by an administration. At the end of this appropriating
process which will occur this year, hopefully before Christmas, IDEA
funding will have gone from approximately 6 percent when we began this
process in 1995 and 1996, up to approximately 20 percent of the cost of
IDEA, not the 40 percent which is our goal, but the obvious path which
is being pursued is towards full funding.
I do not believe the Senator from Minnesota voted against any of the
budgets offered by President Clinton which had zero increases in
special education funding. I do not believe he did. But he comes here
today and says that because special education funding was not included
in this bill which deals with title I funding we should vote against
title I funding.
I find that inherently inconsistent, first because we are on a path
towards full funding of special education, but second, by voting
against a bill which significantly increases funding for title I, which
is the low-income children of this country and who represent a primary
responsibility of the Federal Government, which we have assumed as a
Federal Government, we are undercutting the capacity of those children
to have a chance to compete effectively in the school systems.
These are two different issues, special education and title I. Yes,
there is overlap on children, no question about it, but the policy
issues involved in the two are significantly different. So a decision
was made since we are going to reauthorize special education next year
that we should take on the policy issues of special education and the
funding issues of special education as a package, as a unit, and do it
next year, in the context of the fact we are increasing special
education this year by over $1 billion. It is not as if we are saying
we are not going to do anything in the special education accounts for
dollars; we are actually increasing it by $1 billion this year. The
money is being put on the table, but the policy that needs to be
addressed in the special education accounts are as important as the
dollars that need to be addressed. For example, the issue of discipline
needs to be addressed. The disparity in discipline between special
education kids and kids who are not in special education is a big
problem in school systems.
The issue of bureaucracy needs to be addressed. It is extremely
expensive to school districts to meet the bureaucratic requirements of
IDEA.
The issue of attorney's fees needs to be addressed. We have created a
cottage industry for attorneys dealing with special education. We need
to address that.
There are significant policy concerns which should be addressed at
the same time we address the issue of how we set up the funding stream.
I have one other point on the mandatory funding stream. This in some
ways is a smokescreen because, as I pointed out, there is a dramatic
expansion in funding occurring in special education.
The question is, Is that money going to come out of the discretionary
accounts or is it going to come out of the mandatory accounts, and that
is an inside-the-beltway baseball game, but it is a big game because if
we move it all over to the mandatory accounts, basically we free up $7
billion in the discretionary accounts. That is $7 billion the
Appropriations Committee, on which I have the honor to serve, has
available to spend on anything they want to spend it on. It does not
have to spend it on education. It frees up that money.
A lot of this exercise in mandatory accounts is an exercise to free
up $7 billion of discretionary spending.
I do think the argument that because the IDEA language was not
included in this bill, therefore, I am going to vote against the title
I reform language is inconsistent with the fact pattern because we know
we are going to reauthorize special education next year, we know we
will visit the issue of mandatory spending next year, and, at the same
time, we know we are significantly increasing special education funding
this year through the discretionary accounts; we have done it over the
last 6 years.
I find that argument to be one that does not have much in the way of
legs,
[[Page S13370]]
as far as I am concerned, as a reason to oppose this bill. There may be
other issues in this bill, and the Senator from Minnesota raised the
issue of testing. That is a legitimate issue in this bill. We are
significantly changing the role of the Federal Government relative to
testing in the States. That is a legitimate issue. I know the Senator
from Minnesota feels strongly about that issue and has very credible
arguments, in my opinion, but the IDEA is another issue.
I now yield to the Senator from Idaho 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
the bill. I came down to express my strong support for this
legislation, not only because of the important reforms in education
that it proposes but because of the significant new resources that the
Federal Government will be providing to public education, and also to
discuss the fact we are going to be moving forward from this
legislation to reform and strengthen the IDEA legislation next year. I
look forward to being a part of that process and working with our
chairman and ranking member on addressing these critical needs of our
children.
I have worked for the last 3 or 4 years myself with the committee and
with others to see if we could somehow reach that goal of 40-percent
funding for IDEA, which is our objective. We have had a lot of
difficult battles over that issue, and we have had a number of votes to
try to get us moving down that path. We are on the path toward
achieving that objective.
I certainly agree with my good friend, Senator Gregg, about the fact
because we have not yet achieved success does not mean we should vote
against this legislation. I also have concerns about the testing
language in the legislation. I have concerns about where we should
address a number of the critical issues in education.
Not everything in this legislation is as I would have had it.
However, I consider this bill to be an important step forward, and I
look forward to working with the committee next year on achieving both
substantive reforms and the financial commitment we need to make to
IDEA.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to take 1
minute to respond, and I want to yield the floor to Senator Dayton for
a few minutes, and that will be in opposition.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there is an order, and the time is being
controlled by the Senator from Massachusetts, not by the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, after the Senator winds up, I was hoping
we were going to go to Senator Mikulski. The Senator had been
recognized for 15 minutes and then the tentative agreement is that
Senator Mikulski was going to be able to respond. We are trying to work
out an accommodation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. How about Senator Mikulski speaking and then Senator
Dayton will follow?
Mr. KENNEDY. We are trying to go from one side to the other.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I was trying to do.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thought the Senator was trying to get Senator Dayton
after himself.
Mr. WELLSTONE. No.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to yield time to Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts
what order we are in, and I am happy to take whatever order he deems
appropriate.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thought the Senator might be here a little after 10:30
a.m., if that is convenient to the Senator. We are trying to do the
best we can, but we do have an order. I am glad to yield 3 minutes to
the Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to make clear
that I will vote for the legislation called the No Child Left Behind
Act. The reason I am going to vote for this legislation is because I am
a pragmatist. Does the legislation do everything in education that I
want done? No. Does it do everything on funding the way I want it to be
done? No. But there is a crying need in our public schools to pass this
modernization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I do
not want to make this legislation be an example of the perfect is the
enemy of the good.
We do many fine things in this legislation. Technology is one area in
which I have been concentrating.
This bill does include my amendment to create an education technology
goal that every child be computer literate by the eighth grade. It
includes my amendment to authorize community tech centers to create and
expand community tech centers in rural and distressed urban areas, in
other words, to bridge the digital divide and allows the Department of
Education to provide competitive grants to community-based
organizations.
These nonprofits would set up technology centers where children and
adults would have access to technology. What does this mean? It means a
safe haven for children; it lets them do their homework as well as surf
the Web. It also means job training for adults during the day. This
legislation also includes more flexibility for the tech approach, such
as maintenance and repair.
In Baltimore, the Social Security Administration gave over 1,000
computers to the Baltimore city school system, but they needed repairs.
Some of the microchips had been broken. No one could afford to pay for
them. My amendment would allow schools greater flexibility to have
these public-private partnerships to repair this equipment.
Now I will address the issue of IDEA. Full funding for IDEA is
essential for our special needs children and all of the children. Had
the Senate passed the Harkin-Hagel amendment, this would have meant $42
million for my State, as well as an increase of $2.5 billion in overall
IDEA funding. Yet that approach was rejected by the House conferees.
I salute Senator Jeffords and Haskin others who led the fight to add
more money for IDEA, because at the rate we are funding IDEA it will
take us to the year 2017 to fund IDEA at the 40 percent we promised 26
years ago. However, I chose not to hold up this bill over this topic
because there is increased funding and next year we are going to
address the issue of IDEA, which is: What is the right money and what
is the right policy?
Since the IDEA legislation was passed 26 years ago, so many of our
children come to school now far more medically challenged than when the
legislation was passed, far more challenged with psychological or other
learning disabilities. I think we need to take a new look, based on
research-driven recommendations, that will give us the guiding
principles on what is the right way to handle special needs children
because of the complexity of their needs. It is often not only someone
who helps sign in the classroom, but it is often the school nurse who
now is required to dispense medication or medical treatment.
I could say a lot more about this bill, but when they call my name I
will vote aye. I congratulate Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Jeffords for
moving this legislation in the Senate. I also want to thank their
staffs and my staff for their outstanding work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I think the Senator from Minnesota is next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the
Senator from Minnesota is next.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had indicated we were going to
alternate. The last time I saw Senator Mikulski she was a Democrat, so
now we will go to the Republican side. That is what I indicated
earlier. That is the way we proceeded yesterday. That is our
understanding today, and that is the way we will proceed right now.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend, I thought we were taking a
viewpoint on----
Mr. KENNEDY. We are going from one side to the other.
Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the ruling of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota controls his own
[[Page S13371]]
time. It was the understanding of the Chair that Senator Dayton was to
be next, using Senator Wellstone's time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator
Dayton, Senator Bond be recognized for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my decision to
vote against the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Conference
Report.
Let me first say what enormous respect I have for the bill's manager,
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who, throughout his
Senate career, has fought heroically to improve the quality of
education for our nation's schoolchildren. He and other Senate
conferees have labored long and hard for months to negotiate the best
bill possible with the House and the White House, who have other,
higher priorities. All year long, they have placed tax giveaways to the
rich and the powerful above our nation's schoolchildren.
Let there be no doubt: this legislation fails to achieve the
President's stated goal: ``Leave No Child Behind.'' President Bush,
this legislation leaves many thousands of children behind throughout
this country. It fails, for the 25th consecutive year, to keep the
Federal promise to pay for 40 percent of the costs of special
education. This broken promise is costing my state of Minnesota over
$183 million this year. It means the 110,000 Minnesota schoolchildren
in these programs are receiving less special education than they need
and deserve. It means that other Minnesota schoolchildren are harmed,
as state and local money intended for their educations must be shifted
to cover the Federal shortfall. It means that Minnesota taxpayers must
pay higher property taxes to fund this broken Federal promise.
To make matters worse, the House conferees refused to accept the
Senate's bipartisan commitment to bring Federal funding for special
education to 40 percent over the next six years. Earlier this year, Mr.
President, I proposed an amendment to this legislation, which would
have funded the 40 percent promise in two years. That amendment was
defeated, in favor of a six-year timetable. Now, the House Republicans
are saying that even six years is too soon.
That is absolutely unconscionable, unjustifiable, and it should be,
to this Senate, unacceptable. As a result, under this legislation, next
year's Federal funding for IDEA will cover only 17.5 percent of those
costs nationwide. In Minnesota, it will fund only 15 percent. This
failure will leave thousands of children behind.
House Republicans reportedly refused to accept the Senate position
until after IDEA is ``reformed.'' Yet, just a few weeks earlier, the
House added over $30 billion in tax breaks to large energy companies in
their Energy Bill. The House Economic Stimulus package would repeal the
corporate alternative minimum tax, and it would refund over $25 billion
to some of America's largest and most profitable corporations. Neither
of these two huge tax giveaways was predicated on any kind of
``reform.''
The failure to fully fund IDEA is tragic, because that money was
available earlier this year. There was also enough money to
significantly increase the Federal government's support of all
elementary and secondary education nationwide. But massive tax cuts for
the rich and powerful were the President's and the House Republicans'
higher priorities. Now, those projected Federal surpluses are gone, and
our nation's schoolchildren must wait in line again.
Less money and more testing. That will be the legacy of this
``education President.'' Well, the President and the Congress have
failed their big education test this year. It shouldn't be surprising
when, as a direct result of their failure, more of our nation's schools
and schoolchildren do also in the years ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a member of the conference committee, we
spent nearly 6 months crafting this bill. I am pleased to rise in
support of this landmark legislation which leaves no child behind.
As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, this bill provides
the most comprehensive education reform since 1965. I take this
opportunity to thank and congratulate the leader on our side, the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the manager of the bill, the
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
Their tireless work to bring this bill to the Senate has placed
comprehensive education reform within reach of all students across the
country.
Too many children in America are segregated by low expectations,
illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a constantly changing world that demands
increasingly complex skills from its workforce, children are being left
behind. Over the years, we have empowered the Federal Government and
faceless bureaucrats while burying our educators and schools in
regulation, redtape, mandates, and endless paperwork. As a result, we
have disenfranchised educators and slowly eroded the opportunity for
creativity and innovation at the local level.
At last count, the Federal Government had 760 different education
programs operating within 39 different agencies, boards, and
commissions. Each was launched as a step toward reform, but each new
program comes with added regulation and paperwork.
By one estimate, compliance consumes 50 million hours each year, the
equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees just to process the forms. Ask
the teacher who has to deal with 760 programs, or the administrator who
has to handle it, just how much this detailed reform and direction from
Washington has helped them focus on their children. In my State they
will say ``not one bit.''
Today, nearly 70 percent of low-income fourth graders are unable to
read at a basic level. Our high school seniors trail students of most
industrialized nations on international math tests. Nearly a third of
our college freshmen must take a remedial course before they are able
to begin college level courses. This is why President Bush has chosen
education reform as a cornerstone of his administration.
This conference report reflects an agenda that President Bush
outlined during his first days in office. It emphasizes flexibility,
local control, accountability, literacy, and parental involvement. I am
honored to have had a hand in shaping that policy. Parental
involvement, early childhood, and parents as teachers are issues I have
worked with a long time. I am pleased the principles of my direct check
for education were included in the legislation. Over the years, I have
worked with Missouri educators to develop the direct check approach to
education reform, which consolidates Federal education programs, cuts
Federal strings and paperwork, and sends the money directly to local
school districts.
Like my direct check proposal, this conference report recognizes that
educational reform and progress will take place in the classrooms in
America, not in Washington, DC. This report consolidates a myriad of
existing Federal programs and allows States and local school districts
to make decisions on their own, to determine their priorities. By
reducing the mandates, as well as the costly and time-consuming
paperwork that local school districts must endure to obtain Federal
grants and funding, parents and teachers are empowered to take back
control of educating our Nation's children.
To me, the issue is simple. We must empower our States and local
school districts with flexibility to utilize the limited amount of
Federal resources as they best see fit to educate our children. This
conference report does just that. Local schools will immediately be
given the flexibility they need, where they are most needed, because a
school in Joplin, MO, may have different needs than one in Hannibal,
Kansas City, St. Louis, or Boonville, MO.
Some schools need new teachers. Others may need new textbooks or
computers, or wish to begin an after-school program.
We simply cannot continue to ask teachers and local schools to meet
higher expectations without empowering them with the freedom and
flexibility to do the job.
[[Page S13372]]
This legislation strikes a delicate balance. It keeps the Federal
Government out of the day-to-day operations of local schools; gives
States and school districts more authority and freedom; and requires
performance in return.
Education, while a national priority, remains a local responsibility.
I believe that those who know the names of the students are better at
making decisions than bureaucrats at the Department of
Education. Parents, teachers, local school boards are the key to true
education reform, not big government, Washington-based educational
bureaucracy. In addition to giving local schools more control, I am
pleased this conference report recognizes parental involvement and
increases resources to our very successful Parents as Teachers Program
which we hope to provide to every State in the Nation as well as
foreign countries. It strengthens accountability, it provides the
necessary funds to attract and retain quality teachers, and develops
literacy programs to guarantee all students will be able to read by the
third grade.
With its emphasis on the child rather than the bureaucracy, this
legislation offers an opportunity to make real progress in our schools.
The great Missourian Mark Twain said: Out of public schools grows the
greatness of a nation.
One-sixth of the American population is enrolled in public schools.
The content and quality of their education will determine the character
of our country.
I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy to me as well as
for their great work over the 6 months in bringing this conference
report to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. As he
mentioned in his comments, he, as a Governor, was involved in the
Parents as Teachers Program. We have developed a different way of
recognizing this as a national problem, a national challenge, and
different ways to bring people into the teaching profession. His is one
of the imaginative and creative programs. We always welcome his
continued interest in this program.
Before yielding 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, I take a
brief moment to respond to the Senator from Minnesota.
I gather there are three major points the Senator made, one about the
funding for the IDEA program. I am in strong support of that program.
It seems to me we are only meeting 17 percent of our responsibilities.
We are pitting children, title I children, against disabled children.
Two-thirds of those who receive the funding under special needs are
title I children. We are talking about a similar group of children. We
are trying to bring about significant reforms in this program. We will
bring about the reforms next, but we should move ahead and recognize we
are going to try to be of assistance to them. I am sympathetic and a
strong supporter of that.
However, I don't know whether the Senator has read the conference
report when it comes to testing because we have effectively accepted
the Senator's amendments. The Senator is quite correct, testing is not
performed.
We have a situation with some States spending $1.46 per student in
one State and another State is $3.16, another State is $3.21. In this
legislation we are committing with a trigger that says, if the
resources are not there, these provisions do not apply.
We have the most overtested group of students in the country. We
understand that. However, what we do not have are content standards
established by the States, curriculums established by the States, well-
trained teachers to be able to teach the curriculum, and assessments
about how the children are doing so they can be assisted in academic
achievement and accomplishment. That is what this bill is committed to,
not off-the-shelf tests.
We do a disservice in describing this bill as the off-the-shelf test.
It is not. It has been rejected. If the Senator read page 458, he would
see his language is effectively accepted to enable States or
consortiums of States to collaborate with institutions of higher
education, other research institutions, other organizations, to improve
quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond
the requirements for such assessments described in the act, and
measuring students' academic achievement using multiple measures from
multiple sources.
We have leaned over backwards to do it right. The Senator was right
in his amendment. We have it right in this program. To try to distort
it does not serve the issue well. It is not an accurate reflection of
what is in the bill.
I do not yield to the Senator from Minnesota or anyone else in terms
of getting additional resources. We started with modest resources, the
3-percent increase in terms of the title I program. That happened to be
increased to 20 percent. We started off with only a third of the
children covered. It is true, we are facing recession and there will be
600,000 more children covered under this program. They are going to
be eligible this year because of the state of the economy, but we only
reach 40 percent of the Head Start children. Are we against Head Start
because it only reaches 40 percent? Are we breaking our promises? We
are out here to try to get full investment in these reforms. That is
what I am committed to do.
I think we have made some progress. It is always easy to criticize
the failures, but I think, along with our colleagues, this is one of
the most important efforts made by the Congress in terms of enhancing
academic achievement and accomplishment. We might come back to the
other areas, but I thought this was the time to respond.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana. I thank the Senator.
There is additional targeting. Under this bill, Minnesota would get $20
million more for title I. But the targeting, both in urban areas and
rural areas, is a direct tribute to the Senator from Louisiana. She
fought for that and built a coalition. It is always difficult to alter
or change formulas. It is a significant alteration to reach the
neediest children. We are grateful to her for her commitment in this
area.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts
for those kind remarks and I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg
for their extraordinary effort that has not gone unnoticed by the
Members of this Senate and all the people who have followed so closely
the tireless efforts to get to this point where we can support such a
solid, principled compromise that all Members can be proud of passing
today. It is a great victory for our school system and our Nation and
for the Presiding Officer, in the role played as a former Governor of
Indiana. I thank also Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator
Sessions. It was a really bipartisan effort. And to the President, I
say thank you. Through all of the efforts, along with the war in
Afghanistan and our defense, trying to stand up and defend our
homeland, the President stayed focused on education. We stayed focused
on education. I think that speaks well of the work we have done. I am
proud to be a part of it.
This bill works for our Nation to strengthen our schools and to build
on a promise that every child deserves a quality education and the
belief that we can fund it and strengthen it so that every child can
learn and so that every child should have an opportunity--not a
guarantee but an opportunity--to be all that God created them to be and
all their parents and loved ones hope for them to be.
That is why I am excited about this bill. It outlines some new goals
and objectives that are going to be difficult and challenging. But we
need to lift those expectations for our children. We need to challenge
our Nation. We need to fund it.
That is why I thank Senator Kennedy, our leader from Massachusetts.
He fought like a tiger to say: Yes, we want accountability. Yes, we
want flexibility. Yes, we want to work in partnership with the
Governors, but we want to give them the resources to fight the battle.
That is what this bill does. It is the single largest investment in
education in a single year.
I also thank the Governors who are our partners--the 23 Governors who
are on the front line with mayors and school boards around the Nation
leading this fight for their support.
Let me focus on three issues.
First, accountability. We say if you are going to run a school, run
it right. If not, we are going to reconstitute it so that every child
has a chance.
[[Page S13373]]
Second, the flexibility issues that we fund at the Federal level, but
we allow the local jurisdictions to make those decisions.
Third, targeting. Senator Kennedy mentioned this. I want to say for
Louisiana that this will mean $100 million more for title I to help
with the resources to make these classes really work for children. It
will help us with technology and will make sure kids really have an
opportunity. It is going to help us with afterschool programs. It is
not just given out by a grant but a formula, so we get it to the
parishes that really need the most help. This will give them the
helping hand.
I am proud to join my colleagues. I could speak for hours and days. I
congratulate our leaders for doing such a fine job. It was a joy for me
to work on this bill. It will mean a lot to the kids in Louisiana and
their families.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues
on the conference committee for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's
school children. This legislation encompasses a number of important
reforms for our schools. One notable provision reforms the collection
and dissemination of personal information collected from students to
protect their privacy.
Earlier this year Senator Dodd and I introduced the Student Privacy
Protection Act. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that parents
have the ability to protect their children's privacy by requiring
parental notification of any data collection for commercial purposes
from their children during the school day. I am pleased that the
conference agreed with Senator Dodd and me on the importance of
protecting student's privacy and the essential nature of parental
participation in the process.
The need for this provision stems from the growing practice of a
large number of marketing companies going into classrooms and using
class time to gather personal information about students and their
families for purely commercial purposes. In many cases, parents are not
even aware that these companies have entered their children's school,
much less that they are exploiting them in the one place they should be
the safest, their classroom.
The provision included in H.R. 1 builds on a long line of privacy
legislation to protect kids, such as the Family Educational Rights Act,
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the Protection of
Pupil Rights Act. The goal of these laws, as is the case with our
provision, is to ensure that the privacy of children is protected and
that their personal information cannot be collected and/or disseminated
without the prior knowledge and, most importantly, the ability of
parents to exclude their children from such activities.
We understand that schools today are financially strapped and many of
these companies offer enticing financial incentives to gain access. Our
goal is not to make it more difficult for schools to access the
educational materials and the computers that they so desperately need
or to deter beneficial relationships. Rather our goal is to ensure that
the details of these arrangements are disclosed and that parents are
allowed to participate in the decisionmaking process.
The bottom line is that parents have a right and a responsibility to
be involved in their children's education. Much of these noneducational
activities are being done at the expense of the parents' decision
making authority because schools are allowing companies direct access
to students. The provision included in H.R. 1 enhances parental
involvement by giving them an opportunity to decide for themselves who
does and does not get access to their children during the school day.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan education bill before
the Senate today puts in place some strong and unprecedented reforms in
elementary and secondary education to make schools more accountable and
help students learn. For the public, this bill helps assure that our
schools get results and that we know what those results are.
California's public schools should be helped by this bill.
To bolster student achievement, this bill includes several needed
reforms, tying the receipt of Federal funds to getting results:
The bill continues the current requirement that States must have
academic standards for reading and math and adds a requirement that
States establish standards for science.
Schools must assure that students make continuous and substantial
academic improvement and that students reach a proficient level within
12 years.
To measure student achievement, States are required to test every
student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on State
standards, by 2005-06.
To ensure accountability, schools that fail for 2 consecutive years
to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and
also must identify specific steps to improve student performance.
After 3 years, a failing school must offer public school choice and
provide supplemental services. After 4 years, a school must take
corrective actions such as replacing staff or implementing a new
curriculum. After 5 years, a failing school must undertake major
restructuring. The bill provides $500 million to help turn around low-
performing schools.
In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to
States for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services.
States must assure that all teachers are qualified by 2006.
The bill authorizes $1.25 billion in 2002 and up to $2.5 billion in
2007 for afterschool programs remedial education, tutoring and other
services to improve student achievement.
The bill requires public ``report cards,'' which will report on
academic achievement, graduation rates and the names of failing
schools.
There are many other important initiatives and reforms.
Another important feature of this bill is that it better directs
Federal funds to disadvantaged students than does current law. Here are
some examples:
It requires that for the largest Federal education program, Title I,
Aid to the Disadvantaged, the poor children count be updated every year
instead of every 2 years under current law. This is very important to
California, a State that has a higher than average poverty rate and
high growth in the number of low-income children.
The bill requires that more funds be funneled to States and districts
using the targeted grant formula, which is focused on concentrations of
poverty, areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego and other major cities.
California is expected to receive a larger share of targeted grant
funding than under current law because of its concentrated child
poverty enrollment.
The bill shifts bilingual and immigrant education funding from a
competitive grant program to a formula grant program based on the
number of children. California has a very high proportion of limited-
English proficient and newly-immigrant children and should be greatly
helped by this change.
These are welcomed changes and should send the resources to where the
needs are.
The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total education
funding, but the strength of this bill is that it tries to leverage the
Federal share to prod States and school districts to make schools
responsible for real results. I believe the bill offers hope and
resources to California's students, school officials, parents, and the
public.
California's schools are facing huge challenges. California has a
projected enrollment rate triple that of the national rate.
Unfortunately, many California students perform poorly compared to
students in many other States. California has some of the largest
classes in the Nation. California has overcrowded and substandard
facilities and 30,000 uncredentialed teachers.
I am sorry to say that 34 percent of California's schools that
participate in Title I are identified for improvement compared to the
national average of 19 percent, according to the U.S. Department of
Education.
According to the January 2001 Education Weekly Quarterly Report, only
20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient in
reading, ranking 36 out of 39 States. California ranks 32 out of 36
States for proficient eighth graders in reading, at 22 percent.
American students are falling behind their counterparts in other
countries.
In literacy, 58 percent of U.S. high school graduates rank below an
international literacy standard, dead last
[[Page S13374]]
among the 29 countries that participated, according to Education Week,
April 4, 2001.
United States eighth graders scored significantly lower in
mathematics and science than their peers in 14 of the 38 participating
countries, according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are
``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent.
The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent,
according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
United States students' knowledge of civic activities ranked 3rd out
of the 28 countries that participated. However, those same students
have been slipping in scores relating to math and science, according to
Civic Know-How: US Students Rise to Test, International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
The final bill includes several initiatives that I suggested:
As to Title I funding, I have long argued that Title I should reflect
the real numbers of poor students. This bill retains the requirement
that the poor child count be updated every two years. Also, the bill
better targets funds on concentrations of poor children, which should
particularly help our urban school districts, like Los Angeles.
As to master teachers, the bill allows funds under the teacher
training title to create ``exemplary'' or ``master'' teachers who could
mentor and guide less-experienced teachers, in an effort to keep new
teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of my bill, S. 120.
As to the Title I audit, the bill requires the Inspector General to
conduct of audit to determine how Title I funds are used and the degree
to which they are used for academic instruction. The Senate had
accepted my amendment to better direct Title I funds to academic
activities and away from things like playground supervisors. While the
limitations of my amendment are not included in the final bill, the
required audit will help us determine specifically whether Title I
funds are being used to help students learn.
As to small schools, the bill allows the use of Innovative Education
funds to create smaller learning environments. While the final bill
does not include my amendment that puts in place certain school-size
requirements, as a condition for receiving funds, it does move that
direction and recognize that smaller schools produce more learning.
As to gun-free schools clarification, the bill includes several
clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the 1994 law which
requires a 1-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to school.
This bill includes students who ``possess'' a gun at school; it
clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire school campus, any
setting under the control and supervision of the local school district;
and it requires that all modifications of expulsions be put in writing.
These are important clarifications to the law, the need for which was
highlighted by an Inspector General's report on the implementation of
that law.
This bill makes some of the most profound revisions to Federal
education policy since ESEA was first enacted in 1965. It is an
important reform designed to help students learn, achieve and in fact,
excel.
The bill authorizes significant new funding. For example, Title I's
authorized funding would grow from $13.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 to
$25 billion in 2007. Now the challenge is to in fact provide those
funds so that this bill will not be an empty promise.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1,
the No Child Left Behind Act, which will reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, ESEA.
Last year, presidential candidate George W. Bush appropriately
indicated that education reform was a top priority. This year,
President Bush has worked to make this top priority a reality. The
Senate will soon pass H.R. 1, legislation which is based on President
Bush's education blueprint, entitled, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I share
the President's goal; our educational system must leave no child
behind.
I commend President Bush, Secretary of Education Paige, and my
colleagues who served with me on the Education Conference Committee. We
have worked in bipartisan fashion to forge this legislation that will
substantively reform elementary and secondary education in this
country.
Education is the key to a better quality of life for all Americans.
From early childhood through adult life, educational resources must be
provided and supported through partnerships with individuals, parents,
communities, and local government. The Federal Government has a limited
but important role in assisting states and local authorities with the
ever-increasing burdens of education.
Originally passed in 1965, the ESEA provides authority for most
federal programs for elementary and secondary education. ESEA programs
currently receive about $18 billion in federal funding, which amounts
to an estimated 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent on education.
Nearly half of ESEA funds are used on behalf of children from low-
income families under title I. Since 1965, the federal government has
spent more than $120 billion on Title I.
Despite the conscientious efforts of federal, state, and local
entities over many years, our education system continues to lag behind
other comparable nations. Nearly 70 percent of inner city fourth
graders are unable to read at a basic level on national reading tests.
Fourth grade math students in high poverty schools remain two grade
levels behind their peers in other schools. Our high school seniors
score lower than students in most industrialized nations on
international math tests. And, approximately one-third of college
freshman must take a remedial course before they are able to even begin
college level courses.
The underlying issue is--do we just pour more taxpayer dollars to
perpetuate these mediocre results or do we take some bold new
initiatives?
The No Child Left Behind Act takes some bold new initiatives by
increasing federal education funding, increasing state and local
flexibility in their use of Federal funds, and increasing
accountability--each are steps in the right direction.
First, in regard to funding, the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes
$26.5 billion for elementary and secondary education. This includes a
substantial increase for Title I programs--which are education programs
directed toward disadvantaged children. The bill also provides
substantial funding for programs aimed at having all children read by
the 3rd grade, teacher quality programs, and programs aimed at making
our schools safe and drug free.
Next, in regard to flexibility, the bill significantly increases
State and local flexibility in the use of their Federal education
dollars.
Under the ESEA law that exists today, most ESEA programs have a
specified purpose and a target population. Our states and localities
are given little, if any flexibility in the use of the federal dollars
they receive.
Our schools do not need a targeted one size fits all Washington, D.C.
approach to education. While schools in some parts of the country may
need to use federal education dollars to hire additional teachers to
reduce classroom size, schools in other parts of the country may wish
to use federal dollars for a more pressing need, like new text books.
Federally targeted programs for a specified purpose do not recognize
that different states and localities have different needs.
Who is in a better position to recognize these local needs, Senators
and Representatives in Washington, D.C. or Governors, localities, and
parents? Those Virginians serving in state and local government and
serving on local school boards throughout the Commonwealth are
certainly in a better position than members of Congress from other
states to determine how best to spend education dollars in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The No Child Left Behind Act increases flexibility and local control.
For example, the bill allows every local school district in America to
make spending decisions with up to 50 percent of the non-title I funds
they receive from the federal government. Thus, with regard to non-
title I funds, every local school district will have the freedom to
choose alternative uses for these funds within certain broad
guidelines.
Moreover, the bill provides even more flexibility in the use of
federal
[[Page S13375]]
education dollars for up to 7 states and 150 school districts. These
states and local school districts will be given the opportunity to
consolidate a number of federal education programs, providing the
participating states and localities the ability to focus federal
dollars where they are needed most.
Finally, accountability, in certain areas, is needed. Our education
policy is locking out many students and not providing them the key to a
better life. It's time to move forward in education to ensure that all
of our children are given the opportunity to receive a higher quality
of education.
President Bush's proposal to test students annually in grades 3-8 in
reading and math, which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act, is a
strong proposal that promotes accountability.
These tests will result in parents and teachers receiving the
information they need to know to determine how well their children and
students are doing in school and to determine how well the school is
educating its students. Testing also provides educators the information
they need to help them better learn what works, improve their skills,
and increase teacher effectiveness.
While some have expressed concern that this legislation calls for too
much testing, I have a different view. A yearly standard test in
reading and math will allow our educators to catch any problems in
reading and math at the earliest possible moment. Tests are becoming a
vital part of life, no matter how onerous. If America is to survive in
the rapidly emerging global economy, tests are a key part.
I note that Virginia has already recognized the importance of
testing, having installed an accountability system called the Standards
of Learning (SOLs). In Virginia, we already test our students in math
and science in grades 3, 5, and 8. The No Child Left Behind Act will
build upon Virginia's experience.
Increased funding, increased flexibility, and enhanced
accountability, are all steps in the right direction that we take with
the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I must remind my colleagues that
we have more work to accomplish.
President Bush's ``No Child Left Behind'' blueprint calls for tax
relief for America's teachers when they dip into their own pocket to
purchase supplies for students. Senator Collins and I have worked
together since early this year to pass legislation to provide teachers
with this type of tax relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today
does not contain these provisions.
In my view, as we leave no child behind, we must not forget our
nations' teachers.
The important role that our nations' teachers play in educating
today's youth and tomorrow's leaders cannot be overstated. Quality,
caring teachers along with quality, caring parents, play the
predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind.
Nevertheless, in part because of their low salaries and the numerous
out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession, we are
in the midst of a national teaching shortage. Teacher tax relief
legislation is one way the federal government can help.
So, while I look forward to voting in support of the No Child Left
Behind Act and look forward to President Bush signing this important
education reform legislation into law, I also look forward to working
with the President and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that our
teachers receive the tax relief they deserve.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the
education bill before us.
First of all, I thank my colleagues for the many hours of work they
have spent on this bill. From day one, they have had the best interests
of our students and teachers in mind. It is difficult to design a
Federal education plan that supports the needs of the countless school
districts around the country. But this bill affirms the Federal
Government's role as one that seeks to narrow the achievement gap
between poor students and their wealthier counterparts. This is clearly
a worthy goal, and, while I am not entirely pleased with this
compromise, I plan on supporting this bill when we vote on its approval
tomorrow morning.
I believe this education bill sets a platform from which we can build
a solid, supportive role for the Federal Government in our schools
across the country. I must say, however, that this bill does not do
everything it needs to do. I am on the floor today to remind my
colleagues that we have a long ways to go, that this bill is merely a
step along the way, and that our schools will need additional
investments if we want to provide our children with the knowledge and
skills that will bring them opportunities for personal and professional
success.
I want to outline the challenges that lie before us. Our biggest
challenge may be to fulfill old promises before requiring new mandates.
I am, of course, speaking of our failure to fully fund the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. I am extremely
disappointed that we failed to do so, because I recognize the burden
that schools face in coming up with special education funds from their
own pockets.
We have the very worthy intent of educating all students in this
country, regardless of their ability or capability. It simply makes
good common sense that we would do whatever we can to support that
cause from the federal level. Fulfilling a promise we made to schools
in 1975 is an easy way to support that effort. I challenge my
colleagues to build on the successful Senate amendment to fully fund
IDEA with a bill to fully fund IDEA during next year's reauthorization.
I also want to challenge my colleagues to recognize that a federal
presence in our state's education systems must fit into the structure
of each state. That has not always been the case in my home state of
Montana.
Montana's very successful education system is built on a system of
local control. Montana's Constitution is built on this premise, giving
control of most education decisions to local school boards rather than
to the state. This system has proven effective, but makes compliance
with state oversight of federal programs difficult, sometimes
impossible. As a result, Montana has not been able to meet the testing
and assessment requirements implemented in 1994, despite recording some
of the highest student outcomes in the nation.
With the strengthening of accountability provisions in this bill, I
am very concerned that Montana's education system may suffer from the
inability to integrate federal reforms. The construction of Montana
law, for example, will make any attempt by the state to ``institute a
new curriculum,'' ``restructure the local educational agency,''
``reconstitute school district personnel,'' or ``make alternative
governance arrangements,'' as outlined in this year's bill, an
unconstitutional measure. I hope my colleagues recognize this
incongruity and will work to insure that our successful system of local
control is not stymied by federal intervention.
Finally, for all our talk of wanting to support public education, I
think it is unfortunate that we spend an enormous amount of time,
energy, and resources in this bill on oversight and accountability
measures from the federal level. As I've just mentioned, our state's
successes in education have often been the result of local communities
taking on the responsibility to build a successful program tailored to
their individual environment.
Just as our communities have taken on the responsibility of providing
their students with the best possible education at the local level, so
must we, at the federal level, make decisions that support our Federal
education goals to support local schools and to eliminate achievement
gaps. To that end, our focus must be on improved student outcomes. I am
not convinced that the provisions outlined in this bill will reach that
goal.
I certainly do not want strict controls to be placed on schools, like
those in Montana, that have outstanding student outcomes on limited
budgets. Montana's schools, for example, would be much better off with
additional funds for teacher and principal recruitment and retention
programs, school maintenance and repair, technology hardware and
training, and on-going professional development opportunities.
In the end, this bill starts us on a very critical path towards
addressing the acute and variable needs of schools in states as diverse
as Montana and Florida. This bill takes a good, hard
[[Page S13376]]
look at the role of the federal government in our elementary and
secondary schools for the first time since its inception in 1965. It
would be overly optimistic to expect that we could accomplish
everything necessary to provide an ideal environment for closing
achievement gaps and supporting school teachers and administrators
across the country in this bill.
We certainly have not reached that point yet. But we have done
something very important in starting that dialogue and in attempting to
meet that need. Again, I challenge my colleagues to keep the education
debate alive and active and to work every day to make our schools a
place where student success is the number one priority.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the conference report we have before us
represents the first comprehensive overhaul of the Federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, in 35 years. And from what all of us
have learned, overhaul is mandatory.
Since 1965, the Federal Government has pumped more than $135 billion
into our educational system. Yet despite this infusion of funds,
achievement gaps between students rich and poor, disadvantaged and
affluent remain wide.
In fact, only 13 percent of low-income fourth graders score at or
above the ``proficient'' level on reading tests. As the 2000 National
Assessment of Education Progress shows, the reading scores of fourth
grade students have shown no improvements since 1992. That is
unacceptable.
This conference report reflects the four principles underlying
President Bush's education reform plan--accountability and testing;
flexibility and local control; funding for what works, and expanded
parental options. President Bush promised that he would bring Democrats
and Republicans together to develop an education plan that puts
children first. And this conference report reflects that commitment.
The House passed this conference report by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote of 381 to 41. Last June, after we debated and voted on more than
40 amendments to the education reform bill, the Senate voted 91-8 in
favor of the reform measure. I expect a similar vote on this final
conference report.
Why is there such strong support for this measure? I think the reason
is simple: we cannot afford as a nation to continue to allow our public
schools to languish. Our children represent the future of America, yet
they are not getting the best training for their future. The first
thing we need to do is bring greater accountability to the education
system. This legislation does that.
It requires States to implement annual reading and math assessments
for grades 3--8. These annual reading and math assessments will give
parents the information they need to know how well their child is doing
in school, and how well the school is educating their child. This is
not a Federal learning test. The State will be able to select and
design these tests, while the Federal Government would provide $400
million to help the States design and administer the tests.
The conference report also provides unprecedented new flexibility for
all 50 States and every local school district in America to use Federal
funds. Every school district would have the freedom to transfer up to
50 percent of their Federal dollars to various educational programs.
The conference report attempts to consolidate the myriad Federal
programs that comprise ESEA, reducing the number of programs from 55 to
45.
The conference report also provides greater choices for families with
children in failing schools. Parents in such schools would be allowed
to transfer their children to a better-performing public or charter
school immediately after a school is identified as failing. Moreover,
additional title I funds, approximately $500 to $1,000 per child, can
be used to provide supplemental educational services, including
tutoring, after-school services and summer school programs, for
children in failing schools.
In addition, the conference report provides a major new expansion of
the charter school initiative, providing more opportunities for
parents, educators and interested community leaders to create schools
outside the bureaucratic structure of the education establishment.
I am very pleased that the conferees retained provisions that I
authored which allow the Education Department to provide grants to
local schools to develop and implement suicide prevention programs.
Moreover, States may use Safe and Drug Free funds to finance suicide
prevention programs.
This is a critically important program that desperately needs
attention. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15
to 25 years of age, and is the sixth leading cause of death among those
5 to 14 years of age. In Alaska, suicide is the greatest cause of death
among high school age youths. In fact, Alaska's suicide rate is more
than twice the rate for the entire United States.
None of us know the future so we can never say with certainty whether
this conference report will achieve the goals that are being set. But
we know that what we have tried in the past with regard to elementary
and secondary education has not worked. Too many children in America
are being left behind. We cannot afford as a society and as a community
to allow these failures to continue.
I believe this conference report is an important first step in
changing the interaction between Washington and local school districts
and that the ultimate beneficiaries will be the students who will
become the leaders of tomorrow.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, after many months of hard work we have
before us today an education bill that represents a quantum leap
forward for America's children. We have come together in a common-
sense, bipartisan way and we should be proud of the progress we've
made.
The bill is a strong one, and I commend my colleagues for recognizing
that a quality public education is not a conservative or liberal goal.
The education debate in Washington has too often broken down along
stale ideological lines. With this bill, we are moving beyond the false
choice of greater investment versus stricter accountability. We've
struck the right balance by both giving more to our schools and
expecting more in return. This bill increases investment in our
schools, gives new flexibility to principals and superintendents,
encourages high standards for all children, and holds schools
accountable for their performance. Every child in America has a right
to a world-class education. This bill enacts the reforms and provides
the resources necessary to make this right a reality.
My State of North Carolina has much to offer in this debate about
national education reform. Since coming to the Senate, I've tried to
bring some of North Carolina's successes to the rest of the Nation. I
am grateful that the final bill includes a provision which I introduced
that will allow States to try out a very simple plan we have
implemented with great success in North Carolina.
Here's how our program works: immediately after we learn that a
school is in trouble, we appoint a specially-trained Assistance Team
composed of experienced educators and administrators who are dedicated
to a clear and specific goal: helping that school get back on track.
The team begins with an intensive review of school operations to find
out what works and what doesn't work.
Then the team evaluates all of the school's personnel; finally, the
team works with the school staff and local boards of education to make
the changes necessary to restore educational quality, to improve
student performance, basically, to turn the school around. It's a
simple idea, but sometimes simple ideas can lead to dramatic results,
and it has worked in North Carolina. Now other States will also have
this same tool in their reform arsenal.
I must confess that I am disappointed that some of our Republican
colleagues rejected the proposal by Senators Harkin and Hagel to fully
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. For almost
three decades, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its
promise to pay 40 percent of special education costs at the local
level. The Senate approved an eminently reasonable, bipartisan proposal
to make good on this promise. I regret that this long-overdue provision
is not included in the final bill.
For all the progress we have made, my hope is that this bill will
only be
[[Page S13377]]
the beginning of our conversation about education reform. It will take
time to learn whether the changes we are making will work and whether
the resources we are providing are adequate. We must commit to
reviewing these issues periodically and consistently as the
consequences of reform become clearer. Today we take an important first
step towards a fundamental reform of American education. But it is only
a first step. Even as we approve a strong bipartisan bill, we must
commit ourselves to doing all that we can for America's children in the
months and years to come.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report on H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Authorization Act, the primary Federal law affecting K-12 education
today.
Completion of this reauthorization was a long time coming,
considering that the original reauthorization expired last year and
that the Senate passed its bill 6 months ago. It is critical that the
Senate approve this report prior to adjourning for the session.
The fact is, while education is primarily a local and State
responsibility, the seven percent of funding the Federal Government
does provide plays a key role in preparing today's students for
tomorrow's workforce. We have been faced with the daunting task of
reauthorizing and revamping the Federal Government's entire K-12
commitment, and the passage of this conference report comes not a
moment too soon for the young men and women of America.
We have spent $120 billion in title I education funds over the last
35 years, yet we have failed to close the achievement gap between
students in high-income and low-income families. We spend near the
maximum for students each year compared to our foreign competitors,
$5,300 for a primary education, yet have one of the poorest test
records in math, reading and science, with only 40 percent of grade
school students meeting today's basic reading standards and only 20
percent who are prepared for high school math. The cold hard truth is
that with 89 percent of our kids in public schools, that is almost 50
million students, we cannot afford to let this happen any longer.
So I applaud President Bush for following through on his promises and
making education a cornerstone of his Presidency. He has continually
set the proper tone by making a case for ensuring that greater
flexibility goes hand-in-hand with accountability.
Indeed, the conference report before us creates unprecedented
flexibility for States and local educational agencies, while increasing
accountability to ensure that they are getting the job done.
This reauthorization allows States to help schools that have not met
their annual goal through the dedication of additional resources to
help turn the school around, while guaranteeing students access to
supplemental services to bolster their education. Students are not
trapped in failing schools, as the conference report ensures that
students in a failing school can transfer to another public school if
their home school is considered to be failing for more than 1 year.
In order to have accountability there needs to be some sort of ruler
by which to measure the school's success. I am pleased that the
conference report allows States to determine not only the assessment
system but also the annual achievement goals.
My own State of Maine has worked for several years to develop its own
assessment system to ensure that our students, and our schools, are
achieving. Having witnessed the evolution of Maine's Learning Results
Program over the past several years, I would not support this
conference report if I thought that it would interfere with Maine's
efforts. To the contrary, I believe it would build on those efforts,
and therefore I will support passage of the conference report.
Additionally, passage of the conference report is supported by Maine's
Commissioner of Education, Duke Albanese.
My support for this package is tempered only by my disappointment
that the conferees did fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act or IDEA. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, supported the
inclusion of mandatory full funding for IDEA during consideration of
the ESEA bill in the spring.
IDEA is an unfunded mandate that is draining precious resources from
our States and in each and every community. Twenty-six years ago,
Congress committed to paying 40 percent of IDEA funding, and we have
yet to come close. While Congress has more than doubled IDEA funding
over the past 5 years, the Federal Government has not contributed more
than 15 percent of the total cost of IDEA.
Full funding would free up billions of dollars nationwide, and
approximately $60 million in Maine, freeing up local and State
education money which can then be used for other pressing needs.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have fought for full funding of
IDEA and this is a fight I will not give up.
Those conferees who opposed including the full funding provisions in
this conference report argued that this program cannot be made
mandatory until the program is reformed and reauthorized. Fortunately,
IDEA is due for reauthorization next year and I will be working to
ensure that it is fully funded.
I appreciate the diligence of my colleagues who sit on the Senate
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in this effort, and I
look forward to supporting this conference report and sending it to the
President for his signature. I believe this legislation will make an
important difference in the future of our children as well as our
Nation.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very gratified that the House and
Senate conferees included in the conference report of the elementary
and secondary education bill the language of a resolution I introduced
during the earlier Senate debate. That resolution concerned the
teaching of controversies in science. It was adopted 91-8 by the
Senate. By passing it we were showing our desire that students studying
controversial issues in science, such as biological evolution, should
be allowed to learn about competing scientific interpretations of
evidence. As a result of our vote today that position is about to
become a position of the Congress as a whole.
When the Senate bill was first under discussion in this body, I
referenced an excellent Utah Law Review article, Volume 2000, Number 1,
by David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest. The
authors demonstrate that teachers have a constitutional right to teach,
and students to learn, about scientific controversies, so long as the
discussion is about science, not religion or philosophy. As the
education bill report language makes clear, it is not proper in the
science classrooms of our public schools to teach either religion or
philosophy. But also, it says, just because some think that contending
scientific theories may have implications for religion or philosophy,
that is no reason to ignore or trivialize the scientific issues
embodied in those theories. After all, there are enormous religious and
philosophical questions implied by much of what science does,
especially these days. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that the
scientific evidence behind them is examined in science classrooms.
Efforts to shut down scientific debates, as such, only serve to thwart
the true purposes of education, science and law.
There is a question here of academic freedom, freedom to learn, as
well as to teach. The debate over origins is an excellent example. Just
as has happened in other subjects in the history of science, a number
of scholars are now raising scientific challenges to the usual
Darwinian account of the origins of life. Some scholars have proposed
such alternative theories as intelligent design. In the Utah law review
article the authors state, ``. . . The time has come for school boards
to resist threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers,
who teach the scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their
efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this
timely and compelling controversy.''
The public supports the position we are taking today. For instance,
national opinion surveys show--to use the origins issue again--that
Americans overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific
arguments against, as well as for, Darwin's theory. A recent Zogby
International poll
[[Page S13378]]
shows the preference on this as 71 percent to 15 percent, with 14
percent undecided. The goal is academic excellence, not dogmatism. It
is most timely, and gratifying, that Congress is acknowledging and
supporting this objective.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased that with the passage of
this legislation, we are on our way to assisting our Nation's schools
in providing a quality education for each and every child. I want to
thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg, Congressmen Boehner and Miller and
their staffs for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan piece of
legislation that will give children the opportunity to succeed in the
classroom.
I am also happy to see that this legislation includes an emphasis on
math and science education. Senator Frist, Congressman Ehlers and
myself have worked hard to make ensure that there is a renewed focus on
a portion of education curricula that needs addressing. Scores on the
National Assessment for Educational Progress, NAEP, test in the subject
area of science have not improved over the last several years and, in
fact, have been lower than previous years test scores. Seniors in high
school who took the 2000 NAEP science test scored, on average, three
points lower than those taking the test in 1996. Only 18 percent
correctly answered challenging science questions, down from 21 percent
and those students who knew just the basics dropped to 53 percent. This
is simply unacceptable.
According to an Associated Press article that appeared in the Kansas
City Star on November 20, many science teachers complain that they
can't persuade school officials to give them the time or money required
for training. Our math and science provision in this bill addresses
this very problem through a variety of ways, including: one, improving
and upgrading the status and stature of mathematics and science
teaching by encouraging institutions of higher education to assume
greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher
education; two, create career-long opportunities for ongoing
professional development for math and science teachers; three, provide
mentoring opportunities for teachers by bringing them together with
engineers, scientists and mathematicians; and four, develop more
rigorous math and science curricula.
This legislation authorizes the math and science partnerships at $450
million in the first year. I would encourage my colleagues, especially
in light of the recent NAEP scores, to adequately fund this program in
order to improve the abilities of our teachers to provide good, quality
instruction in math and science.
We are in an age where science and technology fields are booming and
yet we cannot produce students who even have an understanding of basic
science principles. How can we attract students into fields that are
experiencing dramatic shortages such as nursing or engineering when
they don't have a good background in math and science? We have failed
our children and I believe it is imperative to the future of our
country to make sure that our children are adequately prepared in math
and science subject areas.
I am disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to provide our
school districts the financial relief needed in the area of special
education. I have strongly supported funding the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, at the full 40 percent and yet we
will go another year with it being inadequately funded by the Federal
Government. We have made dramatic improvements in the funding levels
over the last several years. However, we are now only providing
approximately 15 percent instead of the 40 that we said we would commit
26 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleagues who have
stated throughout the conference their willingness to address this
issue next year when IDEA will be reauthorized.
I am pleased with our overall product and will be looking forward to
seeing results in the years to come as our States and local districts
work to implement the reforms made in this bill. I believe the State of
Kansas overall provides a good education for it's children and I look
forward to seeing the quality of education in Kansas get even better.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to
the conference report of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Earlier this year, I voted in support of S. 1, the Better Education for
Students and Teachers Act, with the belief that we were taking the
first step toward enacting quality education reform in our nation's
schools. My support for this legislation was to be contingent upon
taking an essential second step providing adequate financial resources
for carrying out these reforms. I will repeat now what I said then:
unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources necessary for
States to carry out the reforms outlined in the bill, we will be doing
serious harm to our children. I am afraid that in passing this bill, we
are headed down that very path.
First, I want to express my strong disappointment that an amendment
adopted during the Senate's consideration of this bill, authored by
Senator Hatch and myself, was dropped in conference. This amendment
would have re-authorized Department of Justice grants for new Boys and
Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States. In 1997, I was proud to join with
Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation authorizing
grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs
across the nation. Our bipartisan amendment to this education bill
would have authorized $60 million in Department of Justice grants for
each of the next five years, enabling the establishment of 1,200
additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation. These new grants
would have brought the total number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000,
serving 6,000,000 young people by January 1, 2007.
In my home state of Vermont, these federal grants have helped
establish six Boys and Girls Clubs in Brattleboro, Burlington,
Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. Together, Vermont's Boys
and Girls Clubs have received more than $1 million in Department of
Justice grants since 1998. I know what a great impact these after
school opportunities have had in these communities, and it is clear to
me that more resources must be invested in order to help our kids lead
healthy lives and avoid the temptations of drug use. I am disappointed
that some members of the conference committee did not want to ensure
future funding for these successful programs.
Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the No
Child Left Behind Act are the expanded requirements for measuring
student performance through annual testing of students in grades three
through eight in math and reading. This conference report requires
states to develop and administer this annual testing. While
accompanying appropriations will provide the resources necessary to pay
for a portion of the costs of developing and administering the tests,
the funds are far less than what will be necessary, leaving Vermont and
other states with large financial gaps to fill. At a time when our
economy is slowing and states are facing difficult budget choices, the
Federal Government should not be placing burdensome, unfunded mandates
on local and state officials, especially when there are education
funding commitments the Federal Government is still yet to meet.
With this legislation, Congress had before it the opportunity to
reverse its decades-long transgression in the area of special education
funding. The conferees rejected a provision adopted during the Senate's
consideration of the education bill that would have ensured that the
Federal Government finally lived up to its commitment to our children
with special needs and the communities in which they live. I am deeply
troubled by this. When Congress first passed the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, IDEA, the States were required to comply with the
special education provisions, and in exchange, the Federal government
would contribute up to 40 percent of the costs. Instead, the Federal
contribution is generally only 12 to 15 percent, far from the promised
40 percent. The provision included in the Senate-passed bill would have
required the government to contribute the 40 percent by changing the
Federal contribution from discretionary spending to mandatory. In
Vermont, countless communities struggle each year to pass their local
school budgets, hampered by the high
[[Page S13379]]
costs of providing special education. The actions of the conferees fail
to provide the relief States are owed, and have instead placed
additional mandates that State and local education officials must find
a way to address.
In addition to the inadequate resources provided for special
education, and for implementation of the assessment provisions, I am
concerned about the extensive Federal control exerted in this bill over
the evaluation of whether a school is failing. I am particularly
concerned about the definition of what constitutes a failing school,
especially because this is a determination that could ultimately lead
to the elimination of Federal funds for that school. Finally, I find
troubling the degree to which this legislation increases Federal
control over teacher qualification and greatly increases administrative
paperwork for the States.
Current statistics leave no doubt that some schools in our country
are failing--education reform is necessary in some parts of our
country. One of the fundamental problems with this legislation,
however, is that in recognizing the areas in our education system that
are failing and in need of assistance, it fails to recognize the
successful things happening in education in some States. My state of
Vermont leads the Nation with its innovative and effective policies for
assessing student performance and providing necessary technical
assistance to struggling schools. This new Federal legislation will
require that Vermont abandon its home-grown successful tools and
implement--at a high cost--new tools selected by Federal lawmakers that
appear to be aimed at failing schools in our Nation's urban areas. This
legislation will require schools to make major changes in a short
period of time without the resources necessary to implement these
changes. With difficult financial times ahead for many States,
including Vermont, this Federal law will force State legislatures to
make very difficult budget choices in order to comply with these new
Federal mandates.
I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone into crafting this
legislation. I know that my colleagues all want to ensure that our
Nation's children have access to the quality education they deserve.
Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the legislation that has been
pieced together does more harm than good for school children in
Vermont. While there are some positive reforms included in the final
measure, there is far more that will hurt Vermont's local educational
efforts and cost the State dearly in financial resources. As the former
chairman of the Education Committee for many years, and as a leader in
education policy, my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator
Jeffords, understands better than most the impact that this bill will
have on our home State. During this debate, Senator Jeffords' continued
perseverance on the issue of increased Federal special education
funding has been outstanding, and I commend his tireless advocacy on
behalf of our Nation's schoolchildren.
I regret I am not able to support this legislation today. And I
regret that we will likely find ourselves on the Senate floor sometime
soon, once again discussing education reform efforts. Next time,
though, I believe we will be here to discuss how to fix the harm we
have done in passing the legislation before us today.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I rise to say a few words about the
Conference report to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also
known as the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, H.R. 1.
First of all, I want to thank President Bush for his leadership on
this important issue, which he has made a cornerstone of his domestic
agenda. He is to be commended for this commitment to local control of
education, and for ``leaving no child behind.''
As a former civics and history teacher and school board chairman, I
know that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local
level, and that we should not run our public schools from Washington
DC.
Although the Senate's education bill, S. 1, lacked several important
reform provisions, I voted for the bill's passage on June 14 of this
year.
I supported the bill because I wanted to move the ball forward to
improve our nation's educational system. I supported the bill because I
am tired of the status quo.
I am tired of failing schools, and smart kids who are trapped in
them. I am tired of money that is directed to our classrooms being
spent on bureaucracy. I am tired of the United States' academic
progress falling far behind that of other nations.
The reconciled education bill will make modest but necessary and much
needed reforms with the goal of making lasting improvements for our
nation's schools.
Bill Bennett, the Secretary of Education under President Ronald
Reagan and one of the most respected leaders in the education reform
movement, said in a recent article that there are several basic
ingredients to a quality education for America's children. These
ingredients are:
First, strong leadership and excellent teachers;
Second, principals and teachers sharing a common vision of the
school's academic mission with clearly defined goals which are adhered
to;
Third, a commitment to homework and testing;
Fourth, teaching character education; and
Fifth, a successful school hinges on parents being involved in the
academic lives of their children.
I agree with Mr. Bennett completely.
I want to first speak about funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is commonly called. I have heard from a
number of New Hampshire constituents who are concerned about the
Federal Government's commitment to funding our share of the costs
associated with educating children with disabilities. IDEA does receive
substantial funding increases in this bill. I support fully funding the
IDEA mandate, and I am also committed to making sure that localities
have more flexibility and that true reforms, such as cost control, are
enacted to IDEA.
I look forward to addressing IDEA next year when this bill is
reauthorized by Congress. I hope to be able to offer amendments to
reform and improve this important legislation at that time.
I am also proud to report that this bill reflects the principles of
two out of three amendments that I passed during consideration of S. 1.
The first amendment requires the Department of Education to initiate a
study on sexual abuse in our nation's schools. This is a very serious
problem that, unfortunately, has received very little national
attention, and I am glad that this amendment was included in the final
bill.
The second amendment applies ``Dollars to the Classroom'' principles
to all Federal formula grant programs, and directs 95 percent of this
money to the local level.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of all federal education funds do
not go to schools or school districts.
According to the Heritage Foundation, audits from around the country
have found as little as 26 percent of school district funds are being
spent on classroom expenditures. Classroom expenditures are defined as
expenditures for teachers and materials.
Twenty six percent is unacceptable to me.
Heritage also found that my home State of New Hampshire only receives
47 cents to the dollar of federal education money. What becomes of the
remaining 53 cents?
Many of my colleagues believe that throwing more money at our
education system will solve all of its problems.
I respectfully disagree, and let me briefly tell you why.
Over the last 36 years, the federal government has spent more than
$130 billion to shrink the scholastic achievement gap between rich and
poor students.
I am here to report that not much has improved.
Poor students lag behind their peers by 20 percent even though the
scope of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has
expanded.
In fact, the average fourth grader today who comes from a low-income
family reads at two grade levels less than his or her peer in that same
classroom.
One of the biggest reasons for this failure is that very little
accountability exists for how all of this money is spent.
Greater accountability and flexibility, not more money, is the key to
education reform.
[[Page S13380]]
I am also proud to report that the House/Senate agreement would
provide all States and local school districts with the flexibility to
shift Federal dollars earmarked for one specific purpose to other uses
that more effectively address their needs and priorities.
States would now be allowed to make spending decisions with up to 50
percent of most of their non-title I administrative funds that they
receive from the Federal Government.
The proposal would give every State the freedom to choose alternative
uses for these funds within certain broad guidelines; for example,
technology funds could now be used by the state to improve teacher
quality. States can also use Federal funding to improve education for
disadvantaged students.
In addition, every local school district will be able to transfer up
to half of its non-title I funds at its discretion.
I am also pleased to report that the proposal would also allow 150
districts to apply for waivers from most Federal education rules and
requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, as long as
they obtain certain achievement levels for their lower-income students.
Additionally, seven States will receive additional flexibility,
making it possible for State and local education agencies to enter into
State-local ``flexibility partnerships'' to coordinate their efforts
and put Federal resources to their most effective use for students.
Although these provisions fall short of what was originally
envisioned for the Straight A's concept, I am pleased that we have a
foundation on which to build regarding funding flexibility.
It is my hope that these States and school districts will effectively
demonstrate that less government heavy-handedness, with more local
control and broader decision making power at the local level is the key
to improving schools in this nation.
The conference report also consolidates wasteful federal programs.
The proposal would reduce the overall number of ESEA programs to 45,
which is 10 fewer programs than in current law, and 34 fewer programs
than in the Senate-passed legislation. The proposal would accomplish
this by streamlining programs and targeting resources to existing
programs that serve poor students.
Additionally, H.R. 1 would, for the first time, require States to
begin using annual statewide assessments and insisting that states show
that progress is being made toward narrowing the achievement gap.
National testing and federally-administered exams would be
prohibited: States would be able to design tests that are consistent
with its current academic standards--not Washington D.C.'s standards.
States would need to ensure that student academic achievement results
could be compared from year to year within the State, and federal
funding will be provided to States so they can develop their annual
assessments. I also believe that parents should have a choice in
schooling options for their children. This can come in the form of tax
credits, the option to change to another public school, or private
school vouchers. Under the agreement reached by the House and Senate,
approximately a portion of title I funding would, for the first time
ever, be used to allow parents to obtain supplemental educational
services for their children. These services include tutoring, after-
school services, and summer school programs.
I am pleased that private, church-related and religiously-affiliated
providers would be eligible to provide supplemental services to
disadvantaged students. For the first time ever, Federal title I funds
would be permitted to flow to private, faith-based educational
providers. Another component of H.R. 1 would provide parents with the
opportunity for a child trapped in a failing school to transfer to a
better public school, including a charter school, with their
transportation costs paid for. Although I would have preferred Federal
funding being permitted to flow to private schools as well, I am glad
that we obtained a good, first step toward the goal of greater
accountability in our schools. H.R. 1 contains language to push States
and local districts to take responsibility for ensuring teacher quality
through testing and certification. It also protects teachers who are
trying to maintain order in the classroom by shielding them from
frivolous lawsuits. Finally, there are several provisions in the
reconciled bill which will give rights to parents that were not
available to them previously. Schools must now develop a policy to
allow parents the right to inspect surveys given to their children as
well as instructional material used as curriculum for their child's
education. Parents must be notified about surveys and medical exams and
will have the right to opt their child out of them. In addition,
parents have new rights to see the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) test, comment on it, and to receive a response to their
concerns. Parents may also choose to opt their child out of the NAEP
exam.
I am pleased with several aspects of H.R. 1, because it: Attempts to
close the achievement gap; provides flexibility to States and school
districts; promotes accountability and teacher excellence; increases
parental involvement; provides for a limited education choice
component; and finally, this legislation returns decisions regarding
education back to the local level, where they belong.
Our children are the future of this Nation. Now, more than ever, we
need to guarantee that they will receive a quality education and that
federal money will flow to where it is most effective. We need to
support our kinds and push them to excel. We need to equip teachers to
effectively educate our children. And we need to empower parents to be
more involved in the lives of their children. Although there are still
aspects of the conference report that I wish were stronger, I am
pleased that we are taking incremental steps to raise the grades for
our Nation's schools.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when we first began the debate on the
education reauthorization bill, I came to the floor calling for three
simple things--reform, resources, and results.
Overall, I believe this education bill makes a significant step
toward achieving these three goals, and I want to highlight some of the
bill's important provisions.
The bill includes improved targeting of federal funds to the neediest
communities and increases support for Limited English Proficient and
migrant students.
It continues our federal commitment to improve public schools by
reducing class sizes and overcrowding in order to provide safe and
orderly places for learning. This will improve the performance of
students and teachers in our public schools.
Because I am a firm believer in school testing and accountability
standards when properly structured, I am pleased that my colleagues
were able to reach a compromise so that the federal government will pay
its fair share in supporting the new standards in schools.
This bill also maintains the emergency school repair and construction
program, and ensures that every classroom will be led by a qualified
teacher.
But the provision of this bill of which I am most pleased is the
Title V provision on afterschool programs. This Title includes the
afterschool amendment that I offered with my colleague Senator Ensign.
Studies have shown that services such as afterschool programs are
some of the most important weapons against juvenile crime by keeping
our kids out of the streets.
Afterschool programs provide academically-enriched services during
the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., which the FBI reports are the times
when children are most likely to be involved in crimes and other
delinquent behavior.
This is why I strongly believe in the 21 Century Community Learning
Centers program and am delighted that this authorization bill contains
the first ever multi-year authorization for afterschool services.
Although my amendment would have provided a total of $4.5 billion in
funding for fiscal year 2008, I am extremely pleased that this bill
makes a significant step forward in achieving this goal by authorizing
over $300 million in additional funds for fiscal year 2002 for a total
of $1.25 billion. This bill then increases funding levels by $250
million each year for the next five years.
This will allow for a total of $2.5 billion in 2007 and will provide
nearly four
[[Page S13381]]
million children in need access to afterschool programs.
Finally, I want to mention one thing this bill does not include that
it should. The federal government needs to meet its commitment by
contributing 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure toward the
funding of special education programs.
Providing full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act would have helped alleviate some of the strain placed
upon school districts to educate both regular and special education
students.
While I regret that we were not able to include mandatory full
funding for special education programs, I know that my colleagues and I
will not rest until this finally becomes a reality.
Reform plus Resources equals Results. This is the recipe to a
successful public school system. Just like any good recipe, we cannot
reasonably expect to have a successful public education system if we
are not willing to put forth the necessary resources.
I believe that this Education Reauthorization bill symbolizes the
willingness of all parties to put aside their differences and work
toward the betterment of our children.
Make no mistake, we still have a long way to go toward fully
supporting our public education system, but I believe that this bill is
a positive step forward in achieving this goal.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the final
conference report on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA,
and I commend Senator Kennedy and all the conferees for their hours of
negotiations to forge consensus on this vital legislation.
This package outlines our major Federal framework for education
policy for the coming years. The bill requires new emphasis on
achievement through annual testing and school report cards, but it also
calls for new investments to reach these higher education goals. We
must have higher education standards. This bill creates new goals
through the Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, standards, which charts a
12-year strategy to achieve education goals, with meaningful
measurement along the way, to ensure that all children, especially
disadvantaged students, get help and make strides. Students in schools
that are struggling and fail to meet the standards will have the option
of after-school tutoring, which is a good compromise to ensure help to
students without using controversial private school vouchers that drain
needed resources from public schools.
While high standards are crucial, it takes real resources to achieve
them. This legislation authorizes meaningful increases in title I
funding for disadvantaged schools and IDEA. This year, West Virginia
received $73.7 million in title I funding. Today's legislation
authorizes new investments in title I; depending on the final
negotiations in the pending Labor-HHS-Education appropriation
conference, West Virginia will receive between $78.8 million to $80.9
million for title I, which will be essential to achieving our new
goals. However, pushing for the additional resources is not a single
event; it will mean hard work on appropriations for the next 6 years. I
am committed to working with Senator Kennedy and others to deliver on
the needed funding to fulfill our promises on education.
This is a major legislative initiative. I particularly want to note
the emphasis on reading for young children. Teaching a child to read,
and read well, is a fundamental building block for education. We should
be proud of the bill's provisions highlighting reading and literacy,
and its special support for reading programs for preschool and early
grades. I am also pleased about the new emphasis on drop-prevent
programs and parental involvement. In addition, this legislation
protects and continues some key education programs, including the Safe
and Drug-Free School program which I worked to create more than a
decade ago. We all understand the importance of school safety and
protecting children from the dangers of drugs and alcohol.
Our bill requires that all teachers be qualified in their subjects by
the school year beginning in 2005. This will be a challenge in West
Virginia and many States, especially in crucial subject areas like math
and science. When I talk with business leaders in my State, they bring
up the importance and the difficulties of attracting teachers who are
qualified, especially in math and science. Given the national shortage
of teachers, this will be hard to achieve, but we simply must ensure
that our teachers are qualified in their subjects if we hope to achieve
the adequate yearly progress standards.
In the Senate, we voted to fulfill our Federal commitment to fully
fund the IDEA program, which suggests that the Federal Government pay
40 percent of the costs of educating children with disabilities.
However, while progress was made on better funding for IDEA, we did not
reach the Senate goal of full mandatory funding, and this is a real
disappointment to me.
We need accountability and high standards, but we also need
investments to achieve those key goals. This legislation provides the
framework for success. It will up to President Bush and the Congress to
work together over the coming years to secure the investment needed to
fill in this bold plan for education reform.
Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of
the most important pieces of legislation that we have debated this
year. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the
framework for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The
conference report currently before us, the ``No Child Left Behind
Act,'' will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the
next 6 years and beyond.
I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting
our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government
has an important role to play in supporting our States and school
districts as they carry out one of their most important
responsibilities, the education of our children.
Every child in this country has the right to a free public education.
Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not
have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the
Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the
document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our
Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and
local school districts.
It is with this conference report that we must find the right balance
between local control and Federal targeting and accountability
guidelines for the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school
districts throughout the United States.
I remain opposed to the new federally-mandated annual tests in grades
3-8. I am concerned that adding another layer of testing could result
in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who don't
have the skills necessary to become successful adults. I am pleased
that the conference committee retained a Senate provision to ensure
that the tests that are used are of a high quality and that the
conference included language to ensure that the test results are easy
to understand and are useful for teachers and school districts to help
improve student achievement.
I fear that this new annual testing requirement will
disproportionately affect disadvantaged students. We should ensure that
all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in school. I am
pleased that this conference report authorizes a 20-percent increase in
title I funding for fiscal year 2002 and that it authorizes additional
increases for this crucial funding in each of the next 5 years, 2003-
2007. I am also pleased that the conference report includes language to
ensure that these dollars are targeted to students who need them the
most. I will continue to work to ensure that Title I is fully funded.
I am pleased that the conference report includes language to ensure
that the States will not have to implement or administer this new
Federal testing mandate unless the Federal Government provides a
specific amount of funding. While the true cost of this mandate is
still unclear, it is clear that the Federal Government should provide
adequate funding for this new requirement.
I regret that the House-Senate conference voted to strip a Senate
provision that would have guaranteed full funding of the federal share
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This action,
coupled with the new Federal testing mandate, could
[[Page S13382]]
push already stretched local education budgets to the breaking point. I
will continue to work for fiscally responsible full funding of the
Federal share of IDEA when the Senate considers reauthorization of that
important law next year.
This debate gave Congress the opportunity to strengthen public
education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained
in the conference may undermine public education by blurring the lines
between public and private, between church and state, and between local
control and Federal mandates. Because this conference does not provide
the resources necessary to implement its goals, it will leave many
children behind. For those reasons, I will vote against it.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
President Bush has provided the leadership for this landmark education
reform bill. I also commend the conference members and Senate
leadership on forging an agreement that revises and improves the role
of the Federal Government in the education of our children.
The education of the children and youth of our Nation is a cause I
have served for many years. In fact, my first job, upon graduation from
Clemson, was as a teacher and coach. Later, I served as the County
Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, SC. There have been
many changes over the years within the educational system of our Nation
in structure, policy, technology and methods. However, there are
principles which remain constant. The fundamentals of successful
teaching, caring teachers, prepared students, and involved parents,
have not changed. This conference report builds on those fundamentals.
This legislation reflects the principles set down by President Bush
in his education reform proposal. While it does not include all that we
might have wished, I believe that it will serve the students of the
Nation well. The President asked us to link funding to scholastic
achievement and accountability, expand parental options, maintain local
control, and improve the flexibility of Federal educational programs.
This conference report delivers on all of these reforms.
First, I am very pleased with the accountability provisions of this
legislation. I believe the testing and reporting provisions are the
most promising reforms. School performance reports and statewide
results will give parents and educators much-needed information about
their students' progress. These provisions, along with the expanded
school choice provisions, should provide our schools with sufficient
incentives to make improvements.
The streamlining of Department of Education programs will allow local
schools to focus on educating children rather than filing paperwork. As
a former Governor, I am especially pleased that the legislation will
also enhance local control by allowing local school boards more
discretion in how they spend their education funds.
In addition, the legislation authorizes a number of specific programs
which I supported as the Senate debated this bill and I am pleased to
see these included in the conference report. The President's Early
Reading First program will help boost reading readiness for children in
high-poverty areas. The Troops-to-Teachers Program is an innovative
approach to bring experienced individuals into the classroom and helps
our former Servicemembers with their transition to civilian life.
Finally, I strongly supported an amendment, the `'Boy Scouts of America
Equal Access Act.'' This provision will ensure that our patriotic youth
groups will be allowed access to public schools.
In South Carolina, while we are improving in our educational
performance, we have a long way to go. This legislation, will greatly
assist us in our goal to leave no South Carolina child behind. Again, I
thank the President for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to
join in my support of this legislation which will help improve the
education of the youth and children of our great Nation.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that the Senate
can agree on, it is the obligation we have to help prepare our children
for the future. Even as we recognize the importance of education, we
must ask ourselves, if this government function is so important, how do
we best meet this obligation?
This bill does not meet our children's education needs in the best
way possible. This bill throws money at problems that can ultimately
only be resolved by more parental involvement, and it violates our
Nation's long-held tradition of federalism in which duties not
expressly assigned to the Federal Government are assigned to the State
and local level. By seeking to abolish the role that State and local
governments, specifically locally elected school boards, have in our
children's education, I fear will put us on the slippery slope to the
eventual federalization of all education in this country.
Despite its grave faults, the conference report to H.R. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act contains several provisions
that I favor.
The bill contains a modest performance partnership provision that
will help us build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act that I
worked to help pass in the 106th Congress that allows States to
consolidate Federal education programs to meet local needs.
H.R. 1 also expands local flexibility and control by block-granting
funds, consolidating many programs, and includes another amendment that
I sponsored to allow local districts to spend title II funds, if they
desire, on pupil services personnel.
On balance, however, these token allowances to local control are
insufficient to outweigh the all out assault on local control
represented by this bill.
As a former Governor and mayor, I've seen how well State and local
governments can respond to the needs of the people they serve. The
Federal Government cannot and does not have a better understanding of
how to serve the millions of students in local school districts across
this great country. That is the responsibility of sovereign local
school boards working together with parents, educators and community
leaders. Congress is not the national school board and any attempt by
it to play that role will result in a Federal curriculum of one-size-
fits-all programs that fail to prepare a nation of students for the
challenges ahead.
Our forefathers specifically warned us against the urge to federalize
in the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.''
Education is one such responsibility. Since our country's creation,
those at the local level have been responsible for educating our
children. In fact, only in the past 35 years has the Federal Government
even had much of a role in education policy, albeit a small one.
The reason for this is that the educational environments of our
children greatly vary by region, just as the economies of our Nation's
regions greatly vary. Therefore, universal education solutions will
always elude us.
As my colleagues know, the Federal Government currently provides
approximately 7 percent of all money spent on education in America,
while 93 percent is spent by local and State educators. Indeed, in
spite of this limited expenditure of Federal funds, Congress is saying
with this bill that the Federal Government has the right to dictate
that every school district in America will test their students from
grades 3 through 8.
This testing will occur regardless of how well students are
performing in their particular school districts, and despite the fact
that most of our states have mechanisms already in place that test
students' educational performances.
I can assure you that there are many teachers in Ohio who are going
to be saying, ``here we go again.'' We already have in place statewide
standardized tests in Ohio, which were controversial enough when they
were established, I speak from first-hand experience here. Yet these
tests have been good measures of the progress students are making and
were, in fact, recently revised to be even more effective. Even these
statewide tests have been criticized by local voices, however, for
being too centralized to be effective. That's because the tradition of
local control of education is zealously guarded in our Nation and will
not be easily surrendered.
[[Page S13383]]
This bill also steps on State and local control in its provisions
addressing failing schools. What this bill fails to appreciate is that
many states, such as my home State of Ohio, are already addressing the
needs of failing schools by increasing accountability, measuring school
performance, building the capacity of local schools and district
leaders, and providing significant resource assistance to low-
performing and at-risk schools.
Also under H.R. 1, the Federal Government would be able to tell
States that its teachers in many schools must meet certain Federal
qualification and certification requirements.
Further, the Federal Government would tell school districts how to
spend funds in a number of areas including: reading; teacher
development; technology; and programs for students with limited English
language skills, instead of providing States and local school districts
with full flexibility to spend funds on their own identified
priorities.
Many groups, from the American Association of School Administrators
to the National Conference of State Legislators are opposing passage of
this conference report, in large part because of its increase in the
scope and influence of the Federal Government into education matters
best left to our States and localities.
None of these provisions are, on their face, bad for education. What
is troubling is the direction in which these measures lead us. Make no
mistake, with this bill we take a giant leap forward toward
federalizing our education system. We should not let Federal
bureaucrats become the national school board.
Besides violating a long-held principle regarding State and local
control over schools, the bill's fatal flaw is that it increases
authorized spending for education by more than 41 percent over last
year's budget.
According to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, ESEA spending
totaled $18.6 billion in fiscal year 2001. The total authorization
level for this conference report for fiscal year 2002 is $26.3 billion.
If this level of funding is appropriated, that is more than a 41-
percent increase. However, according to CRS, 16 of the programs listed
in this ESEA bill are listed at unspecified authorization levels, and,
therefore, are not included in that $26.3 billion level. So the final
cost to the taxpayer may well be higher.
When you consider that the House and Senate agreed to a budget
resolution that included a modest increase in Federal spending over
last year's budget of approximately 5 percent, it's obvious that if we
are to fund ESEA with a 41-percent increase, many legitimate functions
that are the true responsibility of the Federal Government may not be
met. Our situation has been exacerbated by a war and a recession.
The response to these concerns are, of course, ``But Senator
Voinovich, are you saying that our children do not deserve all that we
can provide them?'' My response to that shallow criticism is, in fact,
``Yes, our children deserve all that we can provide them, such as a
strong military, and adequate funding for transportation and health
research, prescription drugs and unemployment insurance and all the
myriad other worthy efforts in which the Federal Government engages.''
We pursue this bill and provide this unsustainable amount of funding
authorization as if our Federal Government has no other obligations. In
a perfect world, I would love to be able to provide this much money for
education, but a perfect world isn't governed by a budget resolution
and a perfect world doesn't come with other expensive priorities that
must fit within a finite pool of dollars.
It is high-time for Congress to stand-up and show that it has the
courage to be fiscally responsible, to prioritize our spending on the
basis of those responsibilities that are truly Federal in nature, and
to make the tough choices. It is completely irresponsible to issue new
debt and further burden our children in the name of preparing them for
their futures. The two are irreconcilable and highlight one of the
major faults of this bill.
While I realize that the conference report to H.R. 1 will pass and
will likely be signed into law, I cannot in good conscience vote in
favor of this legislation. It is a well-intentioned bill but spends far
too much money at a time when we can least afford it, and on priorities
that are better left to our State and local governments.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the No Child Left Behind Act provides the
authorization for Federal assistance to States for the education of the
children of our Nation.
I support this conference report, and I am pleased with the emphasis
on flexibility it permits for State and local educators. I appreciate
very much the courtesies shown to me during the consideration of this
bill by the chairman, Mr. Kennedy, and ranking member, Mr. Gregg, of
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The conference
report includes several programs which are of particular interest to
me, and were the subject of an amendment I offered and was accepted by
the Senate during our initial consideration of H.R. 1.
The National Writing Project is one such program. This provides
teacher training in the effective teaching of writing at 164 sites
located in 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It has
been a Federal program for 10 years, and is the only Federal assistance
program aimed at writing.
Another area of interest is targeted to young children before they
begin school, and helps ensure they are ready to learn when they arrive
at school. The public television program, Ready to Learn, was launched
in 1994, and was initially authorized by legislation authored by the
chairman and myself. The essence of Ready to Learn is a full day of
non-violent, commercial-free, educational children's television
programming broadcast free of charge to every American household. This
daily broadcast includes some of the most popular, award-winning and
engaging programming available today such as Arthur, Clifford, and
Reading Between the Lions.
Other programs that have proved to be of great assistance to local
school districts which are included provide grants for arts, civics,
and foreign language education. These grants enable schools to provide
enhanced, competitive education opportunities to students in all parts
of the country.
I am especially pleased with the opportunities authorized in reading
instruction and assessment. The bill provides incentives to schools to
seek out programs with research based and proven methods as described
by the National Reading Panel.
Also authorized is funding for the National Board of Teaching
Standards, which is responsible for providing a voluntary assessment
base for teachers in all disciplines. This is a very sought after
resource for professional development as well as assessment. The
teachers in my State, for example, are given financial incentive to
seek the certification of the board. Teachers report that the process
for the certification makes them better and happier teachers.
These are a few of the programs in which I've been personally
involved throughout the consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act.
I am very hopeful that the new education authorizations and the
reauthorization of effective education programs will bring better
learning opportunities to all of America's students.
Mr. NELSON OF Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to announce my
opposition to this conference report.
During my campaign for the Senate last year I promised the people of
Nebraska that if George W. Bush occupied the White House, I would
support him when I believed he was right, and oppose him when I thought
he was wrong. In my first year in the Senate, I have worked with the
Bush administration to negotiate a tax cut, craft a compromise on a
Patient's Bill of Rights, and, recently, negotiate an economic stimulus
package. I have kept my promise to work with President Bush when he is
right, and now I must keep my promise to oppose him when he is wrong.
As Governor of Nebraska, I repeatedly protested the Federal
Government's practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on the
States, requiring the States to do something without providing the
adequate funding for them to do it.
The President's plan will impose a massive unfunded mandate on
Nebraska in the form of annual testing,
[[Page S13384]]
and it fails to provide relief from a previous mandate imposed by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Because of these mandates,
I do not believe that the President's plan will improve education in
Nebraska and I am deeply concerned that it may likely cause greater
financial harm.
The lack of IDEA funding is the bill's biggest failure, and my
primary reason for opposing it. When Congress passed the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to pay 40 percent
of the cost of educating children with special needs. Since then, it
has never contributed more than 15 percent of the funding for special
education, with the States left to cover the shortfall, placing a
greater strain on local property taxes.
When the Senate originally passed this bill in June, it included an
amendment by Senators Harkin and Hagel to finally require the Federal
Government to pay its 40 percent share of the costs of special
education. Unfortunately, the final version does not include the
Harkin-Hagel plan, depriving the State of Nebraska more than $300
million over the next 5 years. The failure to fully fund IDEA short
changes not only the services provided to students with disabilities,
but all students by forcing reductions in other State and local
education programs.
The bill will also impose costly, burdensome, and, some would argue,
duplicative annual testing requirements on Nebraska's schools. The
President has said that these tests will provide accountability for
schools that fail to properly educate their students, but Nebraska
schools are already holding themselves accountable.
We have a rigorous program of standards and assessments in place and
our students consistently rank among the best in the Nation. Local
schools and community leaders have worked hard with the State
Department of Education to put this system in place and we know it is
working. The State of Nebraska has no reservations about being held
accountable for educating its students. But I believe the people of
Nebraska have every right to demand accountability from the Federal
Government and I do not believe they are getting it with this bill.
This legislation will require Nebraska to develop and administer a
dozen additional tests each year to be in compliance but it does not
provide adequate funding to do so. Across the Nation, fewer than a
third of the States have assessments in place that will satisfy the
requirements of this bill. But States are already spending in excess of
the $400 million provided by the bill on their assessment programs,
before you factor in the new tests. We know from the outset that this
is going to cost States a considerable amount of money at a time when
taxpayer dollars are already scarce.
That is not my idea of accountability. Combined with the failure to
fully fund IDEA this marks a retreat from accountability.
The National Governors Association recently announced that
collectively the States will report a $35 billion deficit this year. In
2001, the State of Nebraska suffered a $220 million budget shortfall.
To make up for the shortfall caused by these unfunded mandates, local
governments will have to dramatically cut education spending, or
significantly increase property taxes. As a former Governor who has had
to deal with the challenges of balancing State budgets, neither of
these options is acceptable in my estimation.
This will be a difficult vote for me. The President and most of my
colleagues, both Democrat and Republican support this legislation. I
know that my colleagues have worked very hard to reach this agreement
and I appreciate their hard work. There are some victories to
celebrate. The bill provides a significant increase in overall funding,
better targeting of title I resources, greater flexibility, some
additional funding for rural schools, and mentoring legislation that I
worked on with Congressman Osborne.
But on balance, I do not believe that these ultimately outweigh the
financial problems that the plan will create within local schools and
the State budget, and accordingly, I must vote no on this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support, with some reservations, the the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization conference
report, which the Senate is about to overwhelmingly adopt. While I
support this legislation as a whole, I continue to have some concerns
about testing provisions which it contains, and I believe that the
Congress must monitor the impact of these provisions on students. I
also regret that the Senate provision requiring Congress to fully fund
the 40 percent of special education costs, was not retained in the
conference report. Keeping this commitment is critical and we must
address this issue next year during reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has sought to
help our K thru 12 students learn in an appropriate learning
environment as well as assist school communities in meeting new and
growing challenges. The work that we have concluded today seeks to help
all students make progress toward reaching their full potential. It
sets high standards for all children and provides flexible Federal
support that focuses on initiatives that we know are effective, such
as: smaller classes, high quality teachers, after-school programs,
technology and technology training for teachers, targeting resources to
title I for educationally disadvantaged students, support for students
with limited English proficiency, an expanded reading program, a strong
Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, and guarantees of a quality
education for homeless kids. Therefore, on balance, I believe this is a
good bill, not just because of what it does, but because of what it
does not do. We successfully defeated vouchers, block grants, the
repeal of After-School programs and the repeal of funding for emergency
school repair and construction.
I am especially pleased that this compromise reform legislation
provides some needed support to low performing schools. Struggling
schools will be identified for extra help so that school improvement
funds can be targeted where they are most needed. Students would have
the option of attending other schools, including public charter
schools. The legislation authorizes $500 million in direct grants to
local school districts to help improve low-performing schools most in
need of assistance. It sets a 12-year goal for States and schools to
close the achievement gaps between rich and poor, and minority and non-
minority students. The bill also ensures that parents will have better
information about their local schools through annual report cards and
strong parent involvement.
The Reading First provisions of the legislation authorize an
important new initiative that provides nearly $1 billion for States and
local school districts to improve reading education, and help teachers
get ready to ensure that all children become proficient readers. I am
pleased that an amendment I offered, to permit funds under this program
to be used for family literacy programs, was retained. The conference
report also retained two additional amendments that I offered to ensure
that teachers are trained to effectively use technology in the
classroom to improve teaching and learning.
Though not all that I had hoped for, this bipartisan legislation
contains reforms that seeks to provide all of our students with a much
greater opportunity to learn and to succeed.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today the Senate will vote to pass
comprehensive education reform legislation in the form of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2001.
This important legislation contains the Native American Education
Improvement Act of 2001 which I was proud to have introduced in January
2000, along with Senator Inouye, to improve the education of Native
American youth across the country.
I would first like to thank the Bush administration and the conferees
for working with the Indian Affairs Committee to work on the Indian
portion of this legislation to benefit the schools in Indian country
and the education of Native children.
In 1965, Congress passed The Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
ESEA, which is broad-sweeping legislation that provides funding for
various educational programs in an effort to assist underprivileged
students and school districts. While the original focus of ESEA was to
be a supplemental source for needy public schools,
[[Page S13385]]
the ESEA now provides funds to and affects virtually every public
school in the nation.
As a former teacher and one who knows all-too-well the problems faced
by Indian youngsters, I strongly believe that education holds the key
to individual accomplishment, the promotion of developed Native
communities, and real self determination.
I believe that the Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001
is legislation that improves the conditions and operations of Bureau
and tribally-operated schools.
This act represents more than 2 years' worth of committee hearings to
develop a comprehensive set of reforms that address all areas of BIA
and tribally-operated schools in issues that include accreditation,
accountability, the recruitment of Indian teachers, and the
construction of Indian schools.
I note that this legislation contains an innovative specification
requiring accreditation. Twenty-four months after enactment of this
act, Bureau funded schools must be accredited or in the process of
obtaining accreditation by one of the following: an approved tribal
accrediting body; or a regional accreditation agency; or in accordance
with State accreditation standards.
The act also requires a report to be completed by the Secretary of
Education and Secretary of Interior in consultation with tribes and
Indian education organizations leading to the establishment of a
``National Tribal Accrediting Agency.''
Quality assurance mechanisms are included in this act regarding the
failure of a school to achieve or maintain accreditation and any
underlying staffing, curriculum, or other programmatic problems in the
school that contributed to the lack of or loss of accreditation.
Indian kids around the country need a solid education that will give
them the tools they need to excel in today's competitive world. With
the passage of this act the Senate declares that it will no longer
tolerate schools that fail, year after year, with no consequences to
the schools but plenty of consequences for the children.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, one of the most important issues facing
our Nation continues to be the education of our children. Providing a
solid, quality education for each and every child is critical not only
to the prosperity of our Nation in the years ahead, but also to
ensuring that all our children reach their full potential.
Whether we work in the private sector or in government, we all have
an obligation to develop and implement initiatives that strengthen the
quality of education we offer our children. It is essential that we
provide our children with the essential academic tools they need to
succeed professionally, economically and personally.
Unfortunately, we can no longer take for granted that our children
are learning to master even the most basic skill of reading. A recent
survey reported that less than one-third of fourth- graders in America
are ``proficient readers.'' In fact, 40 million Americans cannot fill
out a job application or read a menu in a restaurant much less a
computer menu. In this high-tech information age, these Americans will
be lost and that is unacceptable.
In addition, American children lack basic knowledge of their Nation's
cultural and historical traditions. For example, a recent report
indicated that half of American high school seniors did not know when
Lincoln was President; did not know the significance of ``Brown v.
Board of Education''; and had no understanding of the aims of American
foreign policy, either before or after World War II.
Since the tragic events of September 11, the American people,
especially our young citizens, have demonstrated through their courage
and generosity that they are prepared to meet the challenges that face
our Nation. But we must help them in their quest for knowledge and
instruction.
We must work to ensure that our students do not continue down the
path of cultural illiteracy and educational under-performance. But how?
Well, one major step in the right direction is to take away power from
education bureaucrats and return it to those on the front lines of
education--the local schools, the local teachers and the local parents.
Fortunately, the education authorization bill before the Senate today
is a step in that direction. This bill provides support and guidance to
our State and local communities to strengthen our schools, while also
giving much needed flexibility for every State related to the use of
Federal education dollars. This education bill contains many
initiatives that will help ensure that more Federal education dollars
reach our classrooms rather than being lost in bureaucratic black hole.
This bill also strives to improve the quality of our Nation's
teaching force by allocating $3 billion for recruiting and training
good teachers. We must ensure that our teachers are continually
improving their skills and retain their desire to teach. We also need
to ensure that we recruit the brightest and enthusiastic students into
the teaching profession.
This measure helps make schools more accommodating and friendly for
parents. In addition, it works to ensure that parents are better
informed about the public education system by providing pertinent
information regarding their child's school. Annual report cards
pertaining to each school's specific performance, along with statewide
performance results, will be available for public view.
One of the most important factors in our children's success in school
is parental involvement. Parents are our first teachers. Our first
classroom is the home, where we learn the value of hard work, respect,
and the difference between right and wrong. As I have said before, the
home is the most important Department of Education.
Parental involvement is the best guarantee that a child will succeed
in school. I am genuinely excited when I think of the many reforms
taking place across the country--namely school vouchers and charter
schools--that are wisely built on this premise: Let parents decide
where their children's educational needs will best be met.
In the broadest sense, this is what school choice is all about.
School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded
opportunities for our children to get a quality education. Our public
school system has many good schools, but there are many schools that
are broken. Instead of serving as a gateway to advancement, these
schools have become dead-end places of despair and low achievement. In
urban settings, the subject performance of 17-year-old African-American
and Hispanic students is at the same level as 13-year-old-white
students. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing failure on the part
of our public schools.
Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where
school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority school
children are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good:
test scores and performance are up.
We need more such experiments, and I am gravely disappointed that
this authorization bill failed to contain such a provision. Repeatedly,
I have proposed legislation for a 3-year Nationwide test of the voucher
program. It would be funded not by draining money away from the public
schools but by eliminating Federal pork barrel spending and corporate
tax loopholes.
This is an important component that sadly was left out of this
measure. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to provide parents and our students with choices to ensure
that our children, no matter what their family's income, have access to
the best possible education for their unique academic needs.
Finally, I am very disappointed that the conferees eliminated an
important provision adopted during the Senate debate that would have
ensured that the federal government finally fulfill its obligation to
fund 40 percent of the cost for meeting the special educational needs
of our nation's children through the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
My dear friend and colleague, Senator Hagel, fought valiantly for
this provision but unfortunately it was watered down. This is
unacceptable. Congress needs to follow the laws it makes and provide
full funding for the Federal portion of IDEA. We ask our schools to
educate children with disabilities, but we don't give them enough money
for the expensive evaluations, equipment and services needed to do
that. There
[[Page S13386]]
are 6 million children that receive special education funding, so let's
fully support their academic needs.
James Madison once wrote that without an educated electorate, the
American experiment would become ``a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps
both.'' Let us stop the slide in the performance of our students. Let
us return the control of education to our local communities. Let us
renew our trust in our parents and teachers and do what is best for our
children.
This is why I am supporting this measure today. While it could be
strengthened, the bill does make needed strides to improve our Nation's
schools.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to put my full support behind
the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act.
It has been a true honor to serve on the conference committee for
this important legislation, especially as a freshman Member of the
Senate.
I would first thank the leaders of the conference for their hard work
and determination to complete this legislation for the President's
signature this year. Senators Kennedy and Gregg worked every day with
great determination on this legislation without partisan rancor, and
Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller showed the same
determination and steadfastness.
I am pleased that Congress has finally completed action on one of
President Bush's top domestic priorities this year. President Bush and
Secretary Paige deserve commendation for their commitment not only to
this legislation, but also to the education of our Nation's children.
Never before has a President shown such commitment to the issue of
education.
In March I addressed this body for the first time as a U.S. Senator
on the topic of education. Little did I know the opportunity I would be
given to be a member of the conference committee to reauthorize of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
At that time I stated the following:
Our public schools are failing our children. And unless we
address this problem now--today--we will bear the
consequences for a generation or more. Let's not forget:
today's students are tomorrow's leaders--in business,
technology, engineering, government and every other field. If
even the brightest of our young people can't compete in the
classroom with their colleagues abroad in math and science,
how will they be able to compete with them as adults in the
world of business? How can we expect them to develop into the
innovators America needs to maintain--and, yes, expand--her
dominant role in the global marketplace? We need to make sure
every single student in America graduates with the basic
skills in communications, math, and information technology
that are necessary to excel in the New Economy. As a nation,
we simply cannot afford to accept the status quo.
With the passage of this legislation I believe that our schools will
improve. And if they fail, there will be consequences. This legislation
states loud and clear that the status quo is not acceptable. Students
will have the opportunities to be tomorrow's leaders by having access
to technology and other advanced programs that are needed for continued
excellence. Our disadvantaged children will be given the assistance
they need, and deserve, to succeed in the global marketplace of the
future.
In that same speech I mentioned that my home State of Nevada faces
many obstacles in obtaining title I funds for our eligible children.
Title I dollars are the largest source of assistance that states
receive from the Federal Government.
The No Child Left Behind Act will be particularly beneficial to title
I eligible students in my home State of Nevada by recognizing that
families move around and children are often unaccounted for when
Federal funds are dispensed from the Federal Government to States. The
State of Nevada has been particularly hard hit in the past when the
most recent and accurate ``kid counts'' were not available.
It is our responsibility to ensure that title I dollars are properly
and fairly sent to each State. My population update provision, that is
an important part of this legislation, will ensure that this happens
every year. As a member of the conference committee, I worked hard to
ensure that this provision I offered as an amendment during the
Senate's consideration of this legislation was included in the final
bill. This amendment requires the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Education to produce annually updated data on the number
of title I eligible children in each state so that title I dollars can
be accurately allocated to the States.
The annual population update provision in this legislation states:
The Secretary shall use annually updated data, for purposes
of carrying out section 1124, on the number of children, aged
5 to 17, inclusive, from families below the poverty level for
counties or local educational agencies published by the
Department of Commerce. . . .
To further clarify this language, the following statement is included
in the conference report that accompanies this legislation:
The Conferees strongly urge the Department of Education and
the Department of Commerce to work collaboratively to produce
annually updated data on the number of poor children as soon
as possible, but not later than March 2003. The conferees
believe it is imperative that the departments use annually
updated data, as produced by the Department of Commerce, as
provided for in the Conference agreement. The Conferees
recognize that additional resources will likely be necessary
to produce annually updated data and therefore expect the
Departments of Commerce and Education to submit budget
requests that reflect the efforts that will be necessary
to carry out this new responsibility.
It is imperative that the Secretary recognizes the vital importance
of this provision to children not only in Nevada, but also in every
other State in the Nation. After all, these funds represent the largest
source of Federal funds to states and local school districts, and it is
only fair that the funds are properly and fairly distributed. I look
forward to working with both the Secretary of Education and the
Secretary of Commerce in implementing this provision.
This conference agreement that is before us today also provides
States and local school districts with an unprecedented level of
flexibility. States and local school districts will finally be able to
spend Federal education dollars in a manner that will best suit their
unique needs. The Federal Government has long been too prescriptive as
to how Federal funds could be spent. School districts will now have the
freedom to provide additional funds to the children that need the most
help.
This flexibility will come with added responsibility, but it is a
challenge that I believe all States and local school districts will be
willing and, quite frankly, satisfied to accept. In giving these
entities increased flexibility, we are requiring a higher level of
accountability for student achievement. We do not want to create
another layer of bureaucracy that tells schools precisely how to
measure student achievement. We simply want to ensure that all students
are performing at grade-level and that their school is doing what it is
supposed to do: educate students. By annually testing students,
parents, teachers, and the students themselves will finally know
whether or not their school is doing its job.
If a school is failing to properly educate children, we do not want
to immediately punish that school. We understand that change is
difficult, and some years are going to be worse than others. However,
we do expect to see results. If a school is failing, the Federal
Government will provide technical support to assist in improving
student's test scores. However, the burden ultimately lies with each
school to show improvement year to year. The Federal Government cannot
simply stand by and watch some of our Nation's public schools fail to
educate our children. Their futures are simply too important to waste.
Parents, teachers, and administrators will also benefit from the
passage of this landmark legislation. Parents will be provided with
annual report cards on the performance of the school their child
attends. If the school is failing, parents will be given a choice of
where to send their child to school, including charter schools. If a
school is chronically or persistently failing, a parent will be given
federal funds for supplemental services for their child. This includes
private tutoring services by any entity of the parent's choice.
Teachers and administrators will be given more opportunities for
extensive professional development. States and local school districts
will be able to use the funds provided by this section of
[[Page S13387]]
the bill in any number of ways that they believe will most benefit
their teachers. Professional development should be held in higher
esteem than it has in the past. For the first time, teachers will be
able to enjoy comprehensive professional development opportunities that
will truly enrich their knowledge and further improve their teaching
skills.
Teachers will also be given legal protections from frivolous
lawsuits--a provision I have championed with several of my colleagues
from the very beginning. A teacher can no longer be sued for something
that he or she may do in the normal course of his or her daily duties.
It is time that students and parents realize the real day-to-day
responsibilities that teachers have and respect them to use their best
judgment to properly remedy classroom mishaps.
Above all else, the real winners in this legislation are the students
themselves. We are finally providing the most needy students with the
support they need to get an appropriate education. We are providing
their teachers with the tools they need to teach these students. We are
providing their administrators with the training they need to be the
most effective leaders they can be for these students. We are providing
them with access to technology, arts and music, and many other
important educational opportunities to ensure that they leave our
public education system as well-rounded students prepared for the
challenges of the global economy.
I am pleased with the final product that this conference committee
has produced. I can truly say that the education system in this country
is receiving a much-deserved and much-needed facelift because of this
legislation. Nevadans should also applaud this legislation. Federal
dollars will finally flow into the State at the rate they should and
will finally be utilized in ways that will most benefit the greatest
number of needy students.
The education of our children is one of the most important issues
that will come before Congress. I believe that Congress has accepted
this responsibility wholeheartedly with the passage of this
legislation. This legislation ensures that current and future
generations receive the education they deserve to succeed in this great
country.
I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference
report on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, ESEA, which expands and improves the Federal Government's
commitment to education.
In my view, there is no more important issue before the Congress than
education. As our economy becomes increasingly global and based on high
technology, its future is increasingly dependent on the quality of our
workforce. The better our educational system is, the stronger our
economy and our Nation will be. That's why, as a nation, we should make
education our top priority.
Some have suggested that local school boards should be left alone to
solve these problems on their own. But I disagree. In general, I do
support local control of education. But local control doesn't mean much
if you don't have adequate resources within your control. And it's not
enough to leave the problem to States, which can pit urban areas
against suburban communities, a fight with no winners.
No, if we are serious about education, we need to make it a national
priority. And we need to ensure that our National Government plays an
active and aggressive role.
I am pleased that the conference report on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Better Education for
Students and Teachers Act, takes a significant step toward increasing
our Federal commitment to education. I want to commend Chairman Kennedy
and Ranking Member Gregg for their tireless work in developing this
legislation.
This legislation requires States to set high standards for every
student and strengthens Federal incentives to boost low-performing
schools and significantly improve education achievement. It has strong
accountability measures that I hope will help narrow the educational
achievement gaps that threaten every child's access to the American
dream. And, it better targets funding to schools serving the neediest
students, to make sure that they have the resources to hire and train
well-qualified teachers, pay for additional instruction, and increase
access to after-school and school safety programs.
In particular, I want to note that the final conference report
contains a provision I authored to promote financial literacy.
Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, young Americans
unfortunately do not have the skills they need. Too few understand the
details of managing a checking account, using a credit card, saving for
retirement, or paying their taxes. It's a serious problem and it's time
for our education system to address it more effectively.
We need to teach all our children the skills they need, including the
fundamental principles involved with earning, spending, saving and
investing, so they can manage their own money and succeed in our
society.
I am not alone in advocating the importance of financial literacy.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said that: ``Improving
basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels
is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can
help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.''
The amendment I authored, along with Senators Enzi, Akaka and Harkin,
will include financial education as an allowable use in the local
innovative education grant program, which funds innovative educational
improvement programs. Elementary and secondary schools will be able to
apply for Federal funds for activities to promote financial education,
such as disseminating and encouraging the best practices for teaching
the basic principles of personal financial literacy, including the
basic principles involved with earning, spending, saving and investing.
As a result, schools will have access to resources to allow them to
include financial education as part of the basic educational
curriculum. I am grateful to the conferees for including this important
provision in the final conference report.
I do have some reservations about this legislation, however. In
particular, I am concerned that the testing provisions may impose
significant burdens on schools without providing them with adequate
resources to help them implement the requirements. In addition, I have
serious questions about subjecting young children to a battery of tests
every year. We do not have sufficient information to know whether
constant testing is the best way to monitor our children's educational
progress, and indeed, the pressure of such tests may detract from their
educational experiences. I hope that Congress will closely monitor the
implementation of these and other provisions to ensure that they do not
undermine the worthwhile reform efforts in this legislation.
Of course, reauthorization of ESEA is not the only critical education
issue we will face in this Congress. Next year, we will be
reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA,
which has meant so much to children with disabilities in New Jersey and
across the country. Unfortunately, however, we have drastically
underfunded this program, which has imposed a tremendous burden on
local communities in New Jersey and across the Nation.
In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3
percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other
programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs.
Or, local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened, have to pay
increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be
sharing.
I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned
constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for
the services mandated under IDEA.
One woman, for example, wrote: ``My son is currently enrolled in our
district's preschool disabled program. He is autistic and requires a
full day program with intensive, 1:1 teaching. He is one of four
children in the class, all with similar needs. Not only does this
program require extra staffing, it also requires very specialized
training.
[[Page S13388]]
Thanks to the incredible teachers and support staff, Kevin is making
wonderful progress. This, of course, would not be possible without the
funding provided by the school district.''
This woman then went on to note that in her town, special education
costs have increased by 14 percent, 26 percent, and 11 percent over the
last 3 years, while revenues have only increased by 3 percent annually.
The result has been that the school district has had to use funds
intended for regular education in order to cover the special education
costs.
Another parent, whose son has Down syndrome said, ``It makes me very
concerned when administrators are phrasing things in a way that makes
it sound like special ed is denying the other kids. It's not special
education that's denying them. It's the funding mechanism that's doing
it.''
Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that we would fulfill our
commitment to the States, fully funding the Federal share of 40 percent
of the average cost per pupil that we envisioned when IDEA first passed
the Congress. Unfortunately, the conference committee rejected full
funding of IDEA. I was very disappointed that we missed this
opportunity to ease the burden on local communities, but remain
committed to working to increase the Federal share of IDEA spending in
next year's reauthorization.
With this education reform bill we are taking significant strides to
enhance our educational system and provide every child with the
opportunity they deserve to achieve their full potential. I am pleased
to support the conference report.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join my Senate colleagues in
support of the conference agreement to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, ESEA. I want to thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for all
of the long hours I know they put into this legislation, and all of the
conferees for that matter.
Now, do I agree with all of the provisions in this bill? No. Does
this bill contain everything? No. But I do think it is heading in the
right direction, and I do look forward to working with members on many
provisions contained within this bill and those not within this bill.
This legislation is certainly not perfect, and I bet that much of what
it contains will be revisited.
There is nothing more important than making sure our kids have the
educational tools they need to get ahead in today's competitive world.
That means making sure our schools are top notch, making sure students
have access to technology and up-to-date learning materials, and our
teachers are equipped with the skills and tools they need to be their
best.
I believe that for the most part, the conferees have done a good job
coming up with a plan that will enable our children to compete in
tomorrow's economy. Companies moving to a new State place a high
priority on a quality education system and access to trained workers.
Montana's schools are among the best in the Nation. However, there is
more that needs to be done and areas where additional improvements need
to be made, such as in science and math. In order to ensure a quality
education and future for young Montanans, we must focus on critical
areas.
I am pleased to see that conferees recognize that schools in rural
areas and small America often require additional assistance in
implementing high technology programs and other advanced curriculum. So
many schools in small rural towns are isolated and technology can offer
rural students opportunities that they otherwise would not have.
Ensuring that students in rural areas are as technologically literate
as students in more urban areas is vital. I believe the conferees have
shown their commitment to improve achievement in rural areas and have
made sure that rural kids will have the tools they need to participate
in the complex economy of the 21st century.
Montana has done a lot in the area of distance learning. There is a
capability, in many schools to give children a wider variety of
classes, and this bill will only help to enhance that. We must also
focus on making sure our children have a good learning environment. All
the funding, technology and books in the world won't help our children
if they do not have a good environment in which to learn.
We must ensure that Montana parents and teachers retain control over
education decisions, that Federal funds are targeted toward Montana's
needs, and that Federal rules don't interfere with our ability to teach
our children. States must be able to free themselves from Federal red
tape and have the opportunity to use this flexibility to boost student
achievement. Whenever possible, decisions about the education of our
children should be made at the local level. Montana parents and
educators know best what works for Montana kids, and I am glad to see
that this conference agreement allows for that.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the Federal
Government makes important investments in our children, such as
educating students who live on Federal land. I am pleased to see that
this conference report also goes a long way to support Impact Aid and
fulfill the Federal Government's continuing responsibility to the
education of children living on military bases, Indian reservations, or
other Federal property. The conference committee has ensured these
programs retain high quality and provide for not only the basic
elementary and secondary educational needs, but culturally related
academic needs as well.
I think this agreement, while not perfect, does lay some groundwork
and provides an important partnership between Federal, State, and local
efforts to educate children and includes ridding some Federal mandates
that burden local educators. Rules that make sense in New York are
often restrictive and expensive in Havre, MT. I'm glad to see that our
local schools will have the flexibility they need to better educate our
children.
I must say that I have some concerns over the assessment requirements
contained in this bill and the funding of these assessments. In a State
like Montana, where money is often hard to come by, we have a difficult
time funding the few tests currently required. The Federal Government
must obligate funds toward these new testing requirements, States
cannot be left with an unfunded mandate.
Congress has correctly asked schools to teach our disabled children.
Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the funding for such activities has
come from the Federal Government. That means local school districts,
always forced to squeeze shrinking tax dollars, are often times asked
to pay thousands of dollars to comply with inflexible Federal rules
that many times disregard small rural school districts. It is
imperative that we fulfill our promise to fully fund IDEA. While we
still have a long way to go, I do believe we have made great strides,
and we are heading in the right direction, toward full funding. Full
funding of IDEA has always been extremely important to me, and I will
continue my work with educators and school boards to make sure that we
fund a larger percentage of the costs of this program. I have great
confidence that the Senate will also continue working to this end.
States and locals must have the funds to develop high-quality
professional development programs, address teacher shortages, and
provide incentives to retain quality teachers. Some of the most
important provisions in this legislation concern teachers. Teachers are
our greatest educational resources and have such a great impact on a
child's life. I am glad to see that this legislation goes a long way to
ensure technology and training opportunities for our teachers.
As Congress continues to consider various education programs, I will
be actively involved to make sure Montana's needs are addressed. I will
fight against a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach that in my opinion,
tends to do more harm to a quality education than good, and will fight
to ensure that significant investment is provided to all children and
their teachers.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my
support for the education reform package that is now before the Senate.
After debating this issue for almost three years, I am pleased we have
reached a bi-partisan agreement on a package that puts our children's
future ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and
attention for too
[[Page S13389]]
long. In my opinion, the proposal before the Senate represents an
important step in the right direction by recognizing the right of every
child to receive a high quality education.
Before I describe why I think this proposal is important for our
nation's future and my home State of Arkansas, I want to look back for
a moment on how we arrived at where we are today.
I doubt many of my colleagues remember what we did or debated in the
Senate on May 9, 2000. I remember that date very well because that's
the day I joined 9 of my Senate New Democratic colleagues in offering a
bold ESEA education reform plan known as the Three R's bill.
Prior to introducing our amendment, we had spend months drafting our
bill and were very proud of the finished product. That day we arranged
to come to the floor as a group to talk about why we felt our
innovative approach combined the best ideas of both parties in a way
that would allow both Democrats and Republicans to move beyond the
partisan stalemate that had stalled progress for so long.
Needless to say, we were disappointed when our amendment attracted
only 13 votes. Normally, I might hesitate to remind my colleagues and
constituents of a vote like that. But I felt as strongly then as I do
today, that the proposal we crafted provided an opportunity to improve
our system of public education by refocusing our attention on academic
progress instead of on bureaucracy and process.
Fundamentally, we believe that by combining the concepts of increased
funding, targeting, local autonomy and meaningful accountability,
States and local school districts will have the tools they need to
raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal
opportunity for every child.
So as I have listened to many of the comments delivered on the floor
today, I can not help but reflect back on May 9 of last year when I
joined Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh and other Senate New Democrats
on the Senate floor to unveil these fundamental principles. I am
gratified that many of the priorities we spoke of that day have been
incorporated into the final agreement we will hopefully adopt later
today.
That having been said, I know many of my colleagues played a critical
role in fashioning this very important legislation. I especially want
to express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for
their tireless efforts on behalf of our nation's school children. As
someone who has followed the progress of this bill very closely, I
think each Member of this body owes the managers of this bill a debt of
gratitude for bringing Senators with very different points of view
together to find common ground on this critical issue. I applaud their
leadership and I congratulate their success.
As I noted previously, I support this bipartisan compromise because
it contains many of the elements that I think are essential to foster
academic success. It provides school districts with the resources they
need to meet higher standards. It expands access in Arkansas to funding
for teacher quality, English language instruction, and after-school
programs by distributing resources through a reliable formula based on
need, not on the ability of school districts to fill out a federal
grant application. And finally, and most importantly, in exchange for
more flexibility and resources, it holds states and school districts
accountable for the academic performance of all children.
I do want to highlight one component of this legislation that I had a
direct role in shaping. During consideration of the Senate reform bill
in May, I successfully offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy and
others calling on Congress to substantially increase funding to enable
language minority students to master English and achieve high levels of
learning in all subjects. More importantly for my State of Arkansas,
under the approach I promoted, funding will now be distributed to
States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the
number of students who need help with their English proficiency.
Currently, even though Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase
in the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students during the
last decade, my State does very poorly in accessing Federal funding to
meet the needs of these students because the bulk of the funding is
distributed through a maze of competitive grants.
I am pleased the conferees accepted the funding level and the reforms
I advocated. This new approach represents a dramatic improvement over
the current system and will greatly benefit schools and students in my
state.
Ultimately, I believe all of the reforms that are contained in this
bill will make an important difference in the future of our children
and our nation. So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
urge the adoption of this truly landmark legislation.
Unfortunately, I fell compelled to mention one aspect of this
legislation that dampens my excitement for its passage. Even though I
believe the bill on balance represents a major improvement over the
current federal framework, I am very disappointed that we are once
again denying the promise we made to our constituents in 1975 to pay 40
percent of the costs of serving students under IDEA.
In my opinion, our failure to live up to this promise undermines to
some extent the very reforms we seek to advance. While Congress and the
Administration continue to ignore the commitment we made 26 years ago,
school districts are forced to direct more and more state and local
revenues away from classroom instruction to pay the Federal share of
the bill. I will continue to work in the Senate to reverse this record
of inaction which is profoundly unfair to school districts, teachers,
and the students they serve.
I want to close, by thanking all of my colleagues who spent many
weeks and months negotiating this agreement. Even though progress has
been slow at times, the way Democrats and Republicans have worked
together on this bill is a model I hope we can repeat often in the
future. I already mentioned Senators Kennedy and Gregg without whom
this bill would not be possible. I also want to say a special word of
thanks to Senators Lieberman and Bayh who demonstrated real leadership
by talking about many of the reforms we are about to ratify before
those ideas were very popular. They deserve a lot of credit for the
final agreement they helped draft and I was honored to join them in
crafting the original Three R's proposals that is clearly reflected in
the bill before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also thank Senator Kennedy for getting a
good target formula in this bill.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine whose fingerprints are
all over this bill--especially in the area of Rural-Flex and Ed-Flex,
which she basically designed, and the reading programs. She has put a
significant amount of time and effort into this bill, and it paid off
royally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by saluting the outstanding
leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg. It is due to their
tireless efforts, their commitment to a quality education, and their
persistence and hard work that we can celebrate today the passage of
landmark education reform legislation. It has been a great pleasure to
work with them, with Secretary of Education Paige, and with the
President to reach this day.
During the past year, it has been a pleasure to work with my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle as well as with the President
and the Secretary of Education on this landmark education legislation.
In approaching the reauthorization of the ESEA, I had three goals.
One was to provide greater flexibility and more funding to our small or
rural school districts. The second was to strengthen and put greater
emphasis on early reading programs so that we could in fact achieve the
goal of leaving no child behind. The third was fulfilling the Federal
commitment to funding its share of special education costs.
I am very pleased that we will realize the first two objectives
through the Rural Education Achievement Program as well as the Reading
First Program included in this bill. Although I am disappointed by the
failure of the IDEA mandatory funding amendments, I know the Senate
support for IDEA full funding will carry over into next year. And it
will remain one of my highest priorities.
[[Page S13390]]
The No Child Left Behind Act includes many innovative and promising
reforms. Among the improvements is the Rural Education Achievement
Program which I authored. The program would benefit school districts
with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent
of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer
students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our
284 school districts have fewer than 600 students.
Rural school districts encounter two specific problems with the
current system of Federal funding.
The first is that formula grants often do not reach small, rural
schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs.
These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore,
smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single
grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Maine district, for
example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-
free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve
the goal of that Federal program, yet the school district could not use
the funds for any other program.
Second, rural schools are often shut out of the competitive grant
process because they lack the administrative staff and the grant
writers that large school districts have to apply for competitive
grants from the Federal Government. So they do not get to participate
in those programs at all. To eliminate this inequity and give rural
schools more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation will
allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical grant
programs and use them to address that school district's highest
priorities.
In one school district, that might mean hiring a reading specialist
or math teacher. In another, the priority might be upgrading the
science lab or increasing professional development or buying a new
computer for the library. Whatever the need of that district, the money
could be combined for that purpose.
Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives
would mean for one Maine school district in northern Maine. The
Frenchville and St. Agatha school system, which serves 346 students,
receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,705 for Safe and
Drug Free Schools to $10,045 under the Class Size Reduction Act. How do
you fight drug use with $1,700? And how do you reduce class sizes with
$10,000? The grants are so small they are not really useful in
accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs
is just over $16,000. Yet each requires separate reporting and
compliance standards, and each is used for different--federally
mandated--purposes.
Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight
separate reports, for four programs, to receive the $16,000. Under our
bill, his school district would be freed from the multiple applications
and reports; paperwork and bureaucracy would be reduced, and the school
would be able to make better use of its Federal funding.
The other problem facing small rural districts is their lack of
administrative capacity. In some cases, the superintendent acts as the
sole administrator. With such minimal administrative resources, the
school district has no opportunity to apply for competitive grants.
Here in Washington, we are surrounded by large urban school districts,
each with more than 100,000 students and often having a central
administrative office with specialized staff and professional grant
writers. How can rural districts with a single administrator be
expected to compete for the same grant opportunities?
To compensate for the inequity, our legislation provides supplemental
funding. In the case of the Frenchville district, schools would receive
an additional $34,000. Combined with the $16,000 already provided, the
Rural Education Achievement Program would make sure the District had
$50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing
needs. That $50,000 can make a real difference in the education of
school children in northern Maine. The district could hire a math
teacher or a reading specialist, whatever it needed. The district could
purchase technology, upgrade professional development efforts, or
engage in any other local reforms.
With this tremendous flexibility and additional funding come
responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our
bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for
demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period.
The focus of the No Child Left Behind Act is accountability, and
rural schools are no exception. Schools will be held responsible for
what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for
time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me
the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy
to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will
happen.'' I know most superintendents feel exactly the same way.
I am equally delighted that today's education bill will include
significant new resources for early reading intervention programs.
Unfortunately, today, in many schools, there are few services available
to help a child who has a reading difficulty. Oftentimes, no help is
provided at all until that child reaches the third grade and is
identified for special education.
For students who have reached the third grade without the ability to
read, every paragraph, every assignment, every day in the classroom is
a struggle. They constantly battle embarrassment and feelings of
inadequacy, and they fall further and further behind. It is no wonder
so many children without basic reading skills lose their natural
curiosity and excitement for learning.
The two new reading programs--Reading First and Early Reading First--
in this legislation are based on the principle that if we act swiftly
and teach reading effectively in the early grades, we will provide our
children with a solid foundation for future academic success. Indeed,
the best way to ensure that no child is left behind is to teach every
child to read.
If a child's reading difficulty is detected early, and he or she
receives help in kindergarten or the first grade, that child has a 90
to 95 percent chance of becoming a good reader. These early
intervention programs work. They are a wonderful investment.
By contrast, if intervention does not occur during the period between
kindergarten and third grade, the ``window of literacy'' closes and the
chances of that child ever becoming a good reader plummet. Moreover, if
a child with reading disabilities becomes part of the special education
system, the chances of his or her leaving special education are less
than 5 percent. So this is a program that is going to improve the
quality of life for these children, help them to become successful,
and, in many cases, will avoid the need for special education and all
the costs involved in providing that kind of education. These are truly
investments that make sense.
Other than involved parents, a good teacher with proper literacy
training is the single most important prerequisite to a student's
reading success. We also know that reading is the gateway to learning
other subjects and to future academic achievement. That is why it is so
important that this bill make such a national commitment to reading
programs.
Reading First is a comprehensive approach to promoting literacy in
reading in all 50 States. It will support the efforts in States, such
as Maine, that have already made great strides under the Reading
Excellence Act in promoting literacy. Indeed, I am very proud of the
work the State of Maine has done. Our fourth graders lead the Nation
year after year in reading and other subjects.
President Bush deserves enormous credit for placing reading at the
top of our education agenda. The First Lady, Laura Bush, has also
repeatedly highlighted the importance of reading. President Bush also
deserves credit for being willing to work with us, the Members on both
sides of the aisle, to hammer out the best possible education reform
legislation.
Again, I thank the President for all of his efforts, and Senator
Gregg and Senator Kennedy, because without their combined leadership we
would not be here today. Thanks to their hard work, we have quality
legislation before us today that will reform the public education
system and bring our nation closer to the goal of providing every child
with an opportunity to succeed.
[[Page S13391]]
With the improvements in rural education, and the emphasis in this
bill on reading, flexibility, and accountability, as well as a host of
other reforms, I am delighted to support this reauthorization of ESEA
and to see our hard work and efforts over the past year come to
fruition.
I am convinced this legislation is going to make a real difference
for the children of our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
our friend and colleague, the only Member of this body who has been
both a teacher and a school board member and has led the country,
really, understanding that smaller class sizes give the best
opportunity for children to learn. She has been an invaluable member of
our Education Committee and our Human Services Committee.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
I thank Senator Kennedy, and all of his staff, for the hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of hours they have put into making this bill a
success.
I do rise today to express my support for the ESEA conference report
and to highlight some of my concerns with the bill.
Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has helped
students in our schools have more equal access and be more effective
than ever before. It is important we renew our Federal education
policies in order to keep up with the growing challenges that face our
schools.
While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I do believe
Congress must move forward with education reform to provide the support
that our students need today.
Throughout this process, five principles have guided my
consideration.
First, I believe we have to invest in what we know works.
Second, we have to protect disadvantaged students and make sure they
get the extra help they need.
Third, we have to make sure taxpayer dollars stay in public schools.
Fourth, we have to help our students meet national education goals.
And finally, we have to set high standards and provide the resources
so all students can meet them.
On balance, I believe this bill meets all of my principles.
This is a bipartisan win for our students. I am proud that as we
moved forward we left behind some of the most troubling proposals: from
vouchers to Straight A's. This bill requires high standards for all
children and provides flexible Federal support that focuses on the
things that we know work, including smaller classes, high-quality
teachers, afterschool programs, technology and technology training for
our teachers, support for students with limited-English proficiency, a
strong Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, guarantees of a quality
education for homeless students, and more resources for disadvantaged
students.
While I support the bill overall, I do continue to have significant
concerns about some of the mandates in the bill. I believe Congress
must now closely monitor how this bill impacts students.
My top concern, of course, is the funding in the bill. While we have
made progress in securing an additional $4 billion, I fear the funding
level will be short of what our communities will need to carry out the
mandates in the bill.
In part to ease this burden, I believe we must fully fund special
education next year. Almost every member of our conference committee
expressed a commitment to fulfilling the promise of full funding when
IDEA is reauthorized. Keeping that commitment is critical to the
success of education reform.
I remain concerned, as well, about how the new tests will be used and
about the Federal Government setting the formula to measure student
progress. We now have a responsibility to make sure these mandates do
not end up holding children back. If this bill leads to more crowded
classrooms, fewer high-quality teachers, or a focus on testing instead
of learning, then we will have to revisit these mandates.
But, on balance, this bill takes important steps forward to improve
our public schools. While I am not pleased with every provision, I do
not want the Federal Government to miss this opportunity to help
students throughout the country make progress.
So, again, I thank Senator Kennedy and his staff and my staff,
including Bethany Little, for the tremendous amount of work they have
done to get us to this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas, who has been a key player on this bill in a variety of
different areas. He worked very hard on the flexibility issues, the
bilingual issues, the merit pay issues, and teacher tenure. All sorts
of different parts of this bill have been impacted by his influence. He
has been great to work with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am so pleased today to be able to
rise in support of this legislation. I think it is an exciting day and
a memorable day for America that we adopt this legislation.
As a member of the Health and Education Committee and a member of the
conference committee on this bill, I have worked long and hard with my
colleagues to ensure that the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Act comes to fruition.
I especially want to thank President Bush. When he came to
Washington, he came with a vision to reform education. This is a big
step toward the fulfillment of that vision.
President Bush shows a true compassion for helping disadvantaged
students gain the tools to succeed, a compassion he gained in his work
as Governor. It is that vision and compassion that have gotten us to
this point of final passage. President Bush is to be commended for his
efforts and his vision.
I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the committee, and for
his chairmanship, his perseverance, and his willingness to reach
compromise and agreement on a number of issues.
It has been a great pleasure for me to be able to work with Senator
Gregg, as he has, through all the twists and turns in the long road of
this past year, continued to fight for accountability and expanded
options for parents. I admire his commitment to this legislation, and I
am proud to have worked with him and to serve under his leadership on
the HELP Committee.
Starting in the early months of 1999, the Senate Health and Education
Committee began holding hearings on ESEA. The Senate attempted to pass
an ESEA reauthorization bill during the 106th Congress, but was not
successful. Almost three years later, final passage is before us.
The impetus that has gotten to this point after a long and arduous
process is our President. President Bush has made education his number
one domestic priority, and has injected new ideas and a deep sense of
passion into this debate. Without his leadership, we would not be here
today.
This bill reflects the themes that were laid out by the President
last year: accountability, parental options, flexibility, and funding
what works.
This legislation will finally inject new accountability into the
title I program. For too long, we have provided billions of dollars in
funding without seeing any results. In the past, we have let our
poorest children down--no longer will we let this happen.
Our Nation has a right to expect all of our children to learn, and
this legislation will help local school districts identify their
weaknesses and address them.
Schools, for the first time, will be held to a high standard. It is
time that we stop making excuses and expect results from our schools.
There will be stumbling blocks along the way, and this bill is not
perfect, but the education of our children is too vital to delay
education reform.
There are a number of components that I am particularly pleased to
see included in the bill. The provision regarding supplemental
services, for which Senator Gregg has worked so diligently, is one of
them.
Under this legislation, in approximately 3,000 schools across the
country, parents will have an immediate option to get help for their
children through tutoring at their local Sylvan Center or afterschool
program.
[[Page S13392]]
Because of this legislation, over 200 schools in Arkansas will now
provide public school choice immediately to parents to allow them to
send their children to a higher performing public school. I am very
pleased with the provision called transferability that will allow every
school district in the country to shift up to 50 percent of Federal
funds between formula grant programs, with the exception of title I.
This will allow school districts to address priorities from year to
year as they see fit.
I am also very pleased with the rural education initiative, proposed
and championed by Senator Collins, that will allow over 100 school
districts in Arkansas to receive additional funding and flexibility
over their formula funds.
As Senator Gregg mentioned, I am particularly glad to have been
involved in the bilingual reforms that will now ensure fairness in the
distribution of dollars by turning the bilingual program into a formula
grant program. It will benefit States such as Arkansas that never did
well in the competitive grant competitions. For the first time, States
must now set objectives for students to learn English, a component that
was amazingly absent from the previous bilingual program.
I am glad to have been able to offer an amendment that allowed
professional development funds for our teachers to now be used to
reward the best teachers. That is a very commonsense and important
reform in allowing those teacher development funds to be used in
programs to reward those teachers who have the best record of
performance.
This legislation is a giant step in education reform and represents a
bipartisan agreement between Republicans, Democrats, the House, the
Senate, and the administration. I am pleased to have worked on the bill
and look forward to President Bush signing it into law. I thank him for
his vision and leadership. Education reform was a fleeting thought a
year ago. Thanks to George W. Bush, it is now a reality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry understands
that leadership in local schools makes an extraordinary difference. We
have seen constant examples of that. He has had a focus and attention
particularly on having good principals in the schools. He has
introduced a number of pieces of legislation. We have drawn on them
heavily. He is one who is deeply concerned and involved in the
education issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and
congratulating him on his extraordinary leadership in this effort. I
thank Senator Gregg also for his cooperation and leadership. Senator
Kennedy, as we all know, has been fighting for and pushing for
education reform for a long time. He has been our leading voice in the
Senate on the subject of education. His tenacity in pursuing this in
moments that even appeared to be bleak--and I thank his staff also for
that--have helped to bring us to this moment.
It gives me great pleasure to come to the Senate floor today to talk
about, and to lend my support to, the conference report for H.R. 1, the
No Child Left Behind Act. This is groundbreaking legislation that
enhances the Federal Government's commitment to our Nation's public
education system, dramatically reconfigures the federal role in public
education, and embraces many of the principles and programs that I
believe are critical to improving the public education system.
This bill represents a true coming together of Republicans and
Democrats, and both sides made important compromises in order to arrive
at this point. I have come to the floor many times over the past few
years to express my belief that we were past due to break the partisan
gridlock over education reform, and to come together around the
programs, policies, and initiatives that members of both parties could
agree are critical to improving public education. For years we spun our
wheels as we tried to reform the public education system, Republicans
calling for a diminished Federal role, Democrats calling for more
programs and greater funding levels. I was of the opinion that there
was significant room for consensus on public education reform, and last
year I worked with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce
legislation that would help break the stalemate and move beyond the
tired, partisan debates of the past. Our education proposal became the
foundation of the bill before us today. I am extraordinarily pleased
that Republicans and Democrats came together to adopt a fresh, new
approach to improving public education, one that focuses on increasing
student achievement and that provides increased resources and
flexibility in exchange for increased accountability.
The No Child Left Behind Act provides public schools with more
funding and flexibility in return for demanding accountability for
results. I am convinced that a strong accountability system is the
linchpin of this reform. For the first time, the Federal Government
will put into place an accountability system that will hold States,
schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning
of their children and closing the achievement gap between rich and poor
and between minorities and non-minorities. The accountability
provisions in this bill sharply redefine the definition of adequate
yearly progress to ensure that schools and districts are making
demonstrable gains in closing the achievement gap. This legislation
requires States, districts, and schools to set annual goals for raising
student achievement so that all students achieve proficiency in 12
years. The bill applies performance standards and consequences not only
to the title I program but to all major programs. And in addition to
requiring tough corrective actions for chronically failing schools, it
gives students in failing schools the right to either transfer to a
better public school or obtain supplemental services.
This bill puts in place a new accountability system, which is a vital
first step to improving student achievement. But implementing and
enforcing the accountability system are equally as important as
creating one. The Federal Government must follow through on its
commitment to hold schools accountable for student achievement or the
legislation that we are passing today will do little to change the
status quo. I urge the administration to vigorously implement and
enforce the provisions of this new law.
Another key component of this bill is the expansion of public school
choice and charter schools. I strongly support increasing the
educational options available to parents within the public school
framework, and in fact, expanding public school choice has been one of
my education reform priorities. I believe that choice and competition
within the public school system are vital ingredients to increasing
accountability and improving our schools. I am pleased that the No
Child Left Behind Act strengthens the Federal charter school program
and authorizes the inter-and intra-district choice initiative. The
legislation also requires states and local districts to issue detailed
report cards with data on school performance so that parents can be
better informed about the quality of their child's schools and can make
educated decisions about which school their child should attend.
This bill does an excellent job of targeting federal education funds
to public schools with large numbers of poor children. The title I
program was originally designed to compensate for spending gaps left by
state and local education funding in order to help level the playing
field for children in low-income school districts. However, despite the
goal of sending funds to those very low-income schools, over the years,
money has been directed to communities with extremely low poverty rates
and in some instances does not reach the country's poorest schools at
all. This legislation funnels new title I funding through the targeted
grant formula, which will ensure that the neediest communities receive
additional funding.
I am extremely pleased that the conference report includes my
amendments to improve school leadership and increase alternative
education opportunities, which were part of the education reform bill
that Senator Gordon
[[Page S13393]]
Smith and I introduced during the 106th Congress. Focusing on school
leadership is critical to ensuring that the ambitions reforms contain
din this legislation are successfully implemented in the schools. Many
of today's principals are reaching the age at which they could choose
to retire, and evidence has pointed to a decline in the number of
candidates for each opening. If we don't stem the flow of retirees and
buoy up the numbers of aspiring principals, we will face a crucial
school leadership crisis--one that could debilitate meaningful
education reform. A good principal can create a climate that fosters
excellence in teaching and learning, while an ineffective one can
quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers. I can tell
you unequivocally that I have never been in a blue-ribbon school that
doesn't have a blue-ribbon principal. And I'm sure that my colleagues
have noticed this, too when they have visited schools in their
respective States. Without a good leader as principal, it is difficult
to instigate or sustain any meaningful chance and schools cannot be
transformed, restructured, or reconstituted without leadership.
Our amendment addressed this critical problem in school leadership by
giving States greater flexibility in the use of their title II dollars
so that funding can be used to retain high-quality principles and to
improve principal quality. By expanding the list of authorized uses of
funds, this amendment will allow States and school districts to use
Federal dollars to ensure that principals have the instructional skills
to help teachers teach, implement alternative routes for principal
certification, or mentor new principals, and to provide principals with
high-quality professional development.
The conference agreement also includes our amendment on alternative
education opportunities. The presence of chronically disruptive
students in schools interferes with the learning opportunities for
other students. One way to ensure safe schools and manageable
classrooms has been to require the removal of disruptive and dangerous
students. While expulsion and suspensions may make schools safer and
more manageable, students' problems do not go away when they are
removed from the classroom--the problems just go somewhere else. The
consensus among educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is
that it is vital for expelled students to receive educational
counseling or other services to help modify their behavior while they
are away from school. Without such services, students generally return
to school no better disciplined and no better able to manage their
anger or peaceably resolve disputes. Our amendment enable States and
school districts to develop, establish, or improve alternative
educational opportunities for violent or drug abusing students under
the Safe and Drug Free Schools program.
This bill is a compromise, and thus, everyone can point to things
that they wish were done differently. I echo the comments made by my
colleagues, in particular Senator Jeffords, who have decried the lost
opportunity to include in this bill guaranteed full funding for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This bill fails to deliver
on the Federal Governments commitment to fully fund special education,
and it does this just as it places substantial new requirements on
schools. Perhaps most disconcerting, all of this comes at a time when
state budgets are in deficit. According to the National Governors'
Association, states are facing a $35 billion shortfall due to the
national recession, and states have already begun paring back their
education budgets. The No Child Left Behind Act contains significant,
meaningful reforms, but these reforms cannot succeed without sufficient
resources. We expect about a 20 percent increase in education funding
this year, which is a tremendous step forward. But we need to continue
to make resources a priority--we need to fully fund IDEA--we must not
thrust new requirements on schools without providing them with
sufficient resources to implement reforms.
I also have concerns about the mandatory testing provisions contained
in the bill. This legislation requires the testing of all students in
math and reading in grades 3-8. I am not opposed to testing, in fact, I
think that tests are important so that we know year to year how well
students are achieving. It is critically important to be able to
identify where gaps exists so that efforts can be focused on closing
them. When used correctly, good tests provide information that helps
teachers understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of students
and tailor instruction to respond to the needs of students with
targeted teaching and appropriate materials. My concern is that once we
know where the gaps exist, once we know how a child needs to be helped,
we will not provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students
are able to reach proficiency. It is my sincere hope that Congress and
the States will continue to recognize that reform and resources go
hand-in-hand. Resources without accountability is a waste of money, and
accountability without resources is a waste of time. The two together
are key to successful reform.
I would like to congratulate the conferees for their tremendous work
on this legislation. I am excited and encouraged by the reforms in this
bill. I believe that they will have a tremendous impact on raising
student achievement by increasing accountability, improving teacher and
principal quality, expanding flexibility, and increasing public school
choice. This groundbreaking legislation has enormous potential. I hope
that the Congress will live up to its commitment to provide states and
schools with the resources they need to make these reforms work.
We are now about to adopt a fresh new approach to improving public
education in a way that focuses on improving student achievement and
providing increased resources simultaneously. Though I will add to the
voice of my colleagues in the Senate, the resources are not what they
need to be to guarantee success.
Last year, I joined with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce
legislation that we hoped would break the stalemate, that would change
the dialog. I would like to believe that thanks to the efforts of the
Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Connecticut and others, we
have contributed in a way that has helped to shift that dialog.
We are now providing a strong accountability system which is the
linchpin of reform, together with a reconfiguration of the role that
the Federal Government plays in providing some resources and
flexibility over the use of funds to the States in exchange for that
strong accountability system. For the first time, the Federal
Government is putting into place accountability that will hold States,
schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning
of their children and closing the achievement gap between the rich and
the poor, between minorities and nonminorities.
I am also pleased that the law includes a mechanism to target
additional funding to schools with high concentrations of low-income
students. Historically, title I has always been our focus of directing
Federal funds to schools with large proportions of poor students, but
Congress has not always met that goal. It is our hope that this
increased targeting, for which I again congratulate Senator Kennedy, is
going to be an important part of our achieving that.
Another key component is the expansion of school choice in public
schools together with the charter schools. I strongly support
increasing educational options available to parents within the public
school system framework. In fact, expanding public school choice has
been one of my top education priorities. I am pleased that the No Child
Left Behind Act strengthens that Federal charter program and authorizes
the inter- and intradistrict school choice initiative.
I am also pleased that it includes several amendments that I have
proposed, one specifically to improve principals, to improve the
strength of leadership. We can have all the rules we want and all the
framework we want, but if you don't have adequate leadership in the
schools, it is often hard to achieve. We have a method in here to help
to increase that.
We also include an amendment that I have introduced to enable States
and school districts to help to develop, establish, and improve
alternative educational opportunities for violent or
[[Page S13394]]
drug offending students under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program.
That is one way to guarantee that we will ensure safe classrooms, safe
schools, manageable classrooms by removing disruptive students and
dangerous students and making sure that those who are expelled receive
educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior.
This bill, as all legislation, is a compromise. Not everything meets
everybody's eye. I do believe we have to push on to achieve the
opportunity of guaranteeing full funding for individuals with
disabilities education, and we have to guarantee the resources for this
act.
I congratulate Senator Kennedy and all those who have been part of
this effort to bring this bill to the floor.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the
Senator from Alabama who, as a member of the committee, played a
significant role. This is such a complex bill. It required a lot of
different people thinking about different parts of it. It has so many
moving parts, it really is not the handiwork of one individual. It
truly was the handiwork of a large number of Senators participating
from both sides of the aisle. The Senator from Alabama played a major
role in a variety of areas, especially in the discipline area and the
safe and drug free schools. I very much appreciate the work he did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, It is a pleasure to see this bill come
up now for what I believe will be its approval. We have worked hard on
it. I know it was a thrill to see the bill come out of committee with a
unanimous vote under the leadership of Senator Kennedy and ranking
member, Senator Gregg. I thought that showed good bipartisan support.
It languished a bit in conference with the House, and we struggled a
bit. The President had to raise the level of heat a bit, but things
have moved forward. It is exciting to see this bill move toward law.
The President campaigned on education as one of his top themes. He
talked about it constantly. He visited schools regularly. His wife was
a teacher. He has honored that commitment by continuing to press a
major education bill this year which will represent one of the largest
increases in funding for education in recent years. It also represents
a significant policy change that will allow more freedom for the school
systems, that will put more money in local schools, that will help
children who are being left behind and move them forward.
I believe we should recognize and salute the leadership of the
Secretary of Education, Rod Paige. He came here from Houston. He was
chosen to be the superintendent of the Houston school system, comprised
around 200,000 students. He believed that a 37-percent passing rate of
the Texas test in Houston was unacceptable. In 5 years, with
determination, sound policies and great leadership, he doubled the
percentage of schoolchildren passing that test.
I say that because there are some people who do not believe that
progress is possible. I have seen school systems in every State in
America. There are systems where teachers, parents, and leaders have
come together to achieve significant increases in productivity and
change. Certainly money is not the complete answer; it is also policy
change, determination, and leadership. We have too many schools where
children are locked into a failing system, and they have been falling
behind. Nobody even knows or cares that they are falling behind. They
can't go to any other school. They are required by law to attend this
dysfunctional school. And that is just not good.
The President understands this deeply. As Governor of Texas, he made
education one of his highest priorities, and he has made it his number
one domestic priority as President. He has helped us move forward to
what I think is really historic legislation. It is an honor to be a
part of it.
Testing and accountability have been a matter of some debate. I do
not believe tests are accurate reflections of a child's complete
ability to learn and what they absolutely know. But it is true that you
can determine through a test whether a child can do fundamental
mathematics, whether a child knows fundamental science, and whether a
child can read or not. It is a tragedy in America that we have been
moving children through the school system, even to graduation, who
can't read and write and they are making the lowest possible scores on
tests. We have just accepted that. That is not a good way to do it.
The President has said he is not going to leave any child behind, and
we will make sure we achieve that goal. We are going to find out if
children are falling behind. We will have a testing program in grades 3
through 8 in math and reading that will not be Federal Government-
mandated tests, but state tests, and we will begin to learn. The
newspaper editors, the business community, the teachers, the
principals, the parents, and the students will know how the kids are
doing in that school system. Some schools do better than others. We
need to find out which ones are doing best and identify those that are
not doing well. I think that is important. As Secretary Paige says, if
you love the children and you care about them and you want them to
learn so they can be successful throughout their lives, you will not
allow them to fall behind.
What we need to do is intervene early in the lives of children when
they are falling behind--as soon as possible. Then we can make some
progress. This bill says there can be supplemental services in a system
that is not working and where kids are falling behind. They can get
maybe $500 or $1,000 for outside tutoring for a child who is not
keeping up because as you get further behind, a lot of bad things
happen. Dr. Paige says that a child in the seventh, eighth, and ninth
grades, if they are really behind, that is when they drop out.
Normally, it is around the ninth grade. They can't keep up, they are
behind and discouraged, and they drop out.
We need to find out in the third grade, the fourth grade, and fifth
grade how they are doing and make sure we then intervene, when the cost
is not so great. We can increase their ability to be a functional and
good student and help them go on to success. It is a lot like business
management, frankly. It is just good supervision and having a system
that does not allow the status quo to drift, but one where we care
enough to make the tough decisions, apply tough love, to insist that
children behave in the classroom, they do their homework, and teachers
do their work. If teachers are not performing, they need to be held to
account, and we need to create accountability in the system. If we do
so, I believe we can make real progress.
As a part of the compromise that went on in the legislation, some
good language was put in to ensure that all this testing we require is
paid for by the Federal Government, so it is not an unfunded mandate.
We also have in the bill testing rules that guarantee States will not
have their curriculum set by Washington. It will guarantee that the
tests don't mandate a single type of learning in America. I think that
process worked well as we went forward.
The flexibility goal has been achieved in a number of ways. It is not
as great as I would like to see it. I have visited, in the last 15 to
18 months, 20 schools in Alabama and spent a lot of time talking with
teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members. They felt
very strongly. These are people who have given their lives to children.
They have chosen to teach and to be involved in education. They have
told me consistently that the Federal Government has too many rules and
regulations that make their lives more difficult and actually
complicate their ability to teach in a classroom. There is money, but
it is only available for what the Federal Government says, not for what
they know they need at a given time in their communities.
I think we need to continue to improve in the area of flexibility. We
have made some real progress in that, and I am happy we have made
progress in this bill. But it could have been greater. I think our
teachers and principals will like what they see. It is a step in the
right direction.
Alabama has established an exceedingly fine reading program that is
being replicated by many States. Senator Kennedy's excellent school
system in Massachusetts is always on the
[[Page S13395]]
cutting edge of things. They have appropriated $10 million to just
study this program and implement some of it in their system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I salute the leadership on this
legislation. I note that the IDEA program amendments that were passed
in the House and the Senate were not included in this, which was a
disappointment to me. But we will have an opportunity next year to
reform that, during the reauthorization of IDEA.
I believe education is one of the most important issues that faces
our Naiton today. We need to do all we can to free States and
localities from Federal regulation, assure accountability by setting
high standards, and empower parents with choices and information.
As Governor of Texas, President Bush recognized the importance of
education and made it the centerpiece of his campaign for President.
When he took office, he delivered on his promise by releasing a
comprehensive plan for reform during the first days he was in office.
I believe that President Bush's leadership has been essential to the
Congress producing the historic reform legislation that was passed by
the conference committee on December 11. Since the tragedy on September
11 the Congress and the President have understandably been focused on
the war on terrorism.
I believe it is a credit to the leadership of President Bush that he
was able to continue to make education reform a priority. He never lost
sight of protecting our greatest resource, and children. His leadership
never wavered and I believe we could not have reached the bipartisan
compromise in the education conference without his influence.
Secretary of Education Rod Paige was also essential to our efforts at
reform. Secretary Paige's real-life experiences as Superintendent of
the Houston school system were invaluable in helping us to formulate
legislation that will truly foster reform for all our children.
I would also like to recognize the leadership of Senators Gregg and
Kennedy here in the Senate and Congressmen Boehner and Miller in the
House. Even when our country was threatened and they could have
abandoned this effort, they stayed focused and were able to hammer out
their differences and come up with a good piece of legislation.
While the legislation does not contain all the provisions that I
would have liked to have seen in the bill, it does take some important
steps toward improving the educational opportunities for all our
children.
The conference report includes testing in grades 3 through 8 in math
and reading, which is the cornerstone of the President's plan. I am
glad that we have recognized the need to measure the progress of our
students. We must determine if our schools are actually teaching our
children the skills they need to succeed. The only way to measure our
students knowledge is through testing.
While some have raised concerns about reliance on testing, I believe
this legislation strikes an important balance to ensure that we bring
accountability to the system without overburdening our State and local
school systems.
The bill significantly changes accountability standards with the goal
of assuring that low income students are learning at a level that is
equal to their peers. The States are charged with developing the tests
based on their own curriculum. This is not a one-size-fits-all
approach.
The bill specifically prohibits federally sponsored national testing
or Federal control over curriculum and sets up a series of controls to
ensure that any national evaluating test such as NAEP must be fair and
objective and does not test or evaluate a child's views, opinions, or
beliefs.
In addition, the bill includes a trigger mechanism so that State-
based testing requirements are paid for by the Federal Government thus
avoiding an unfunded mandate.
In Alabama, we have already recognized the importance of testing, we
already test our students in virtually every year of school. I believe
this legislation will assist Alabama in these efforts and the new funds
will help to improve the current system.
The legislation also includes a number of major new initiatives which
give parents options when their children are trapped in failing
schools.
For the first time, parents whose child is trapped in a failing
school will be able to take a portion of the monies available under
title I for their child--approximately $500 to $1,000--and use it to
get the child outside tutorial support. These services can come from
public institutions, private providers, or faith-based educators.
For children who have fallen behind because of lack of good services
at their school, groups such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Catholic schools,
Sylvan Learning Centers, and a variety of other agencies would be able
to give these children the support they need to catch up in the areas
of math and English.
Another new opportunity provided for parents under this legislation
involves public school choice. A parent whose child is trapped in a
failing school will have the opportunity to send their child to another
public school which is not failing and have the transportation costs
paid for.
This bill does not allow parents to access private schools, but it
does provide parents the option to move their child to a better public
school where they can get an adequate education.
We believe this option will put pressure on those public schools
within a major school system that are failing and will give these
children a viable chance to succeed.
I believe one of our most important goals is to give States and local
communities more flexibility. After all, they are best suited to make
decisions regarding their own children. While the legislation does not
provide the flexibility that many of us would have liked to have seen,
it does make major improvements in freeing State and local education
agencies from burdensome Federal regulations.
Currently, Federal rules mandate that funds only be used for a
designated purpose. Under this legislation, all 50 States will be
permitted to make significant spending decisions of up to 50 percent of
their non-title I funds by being allowed to move those funds from
account to account without Federal approval.
This means that States and local communities can spend these funds
where they feel they will get the most benefit for the dollars.
Seven States will also be permitted to consolidate 100 percent of
their State activity, administrative funds, and innovative block grant
funds and use them for any activity authorized under H.R. 1. This frees
up hundreds of millions of dollars for these States to use at their
discretion. This will dramatically expand a State's flexibility of they
decided to participate in the program.
Up to 150 school districts--at least three per State--could also
apply to participate in even broader flexibility. They will be able to
apply for waivers from virtually all Federal education rules and
requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs in exchange for
agreeing to further improve academic achievement for their low-income
students.
The concept is simple, the Federal Government will give them even
greater flexibility in exchange for significant results.
The State of Alabama has instituted a major reading initiative that
has begun to make a difference in the lives of students in our state.
In fact, the Alabama Reading Initiative is becoming a model for reading
programs in other States.
Massachusetts has appropriated $10 million to begin a program based
on Alabama's efforts and Florida is beginning a pilot program in 12
school districts patterned after the Alabama Initiative.
President Bush also recognizes the importance of reading, he has
described reading as ``the new civil right.'' Early on, he stated his
goal that every child should be able to read by the third grade. One of
the cornerstones of President Bush's education plan was his Reading
First and Early Reading First initiatives.
These initiatives are meant to encourage States and local schools to
implement scientifically based reading programs and to augment programs
[[Page S13396]]
such as the Alabama Reading Initiative.
The Reading First Initiative would help to establish reading programs
for children in kindergarten through grade 3. Under this legislation,
Federal funding for reading programs will be tripled from $300 million
in 2001 to $900 million for 2002. President Bush has demonstrated his
commitment to this program by budgeting $5 billion over 5 years for the
effort.
The companion program, Early Reading First, is intended to enhance
reading readiness for children in high poverty areas and where there
are high numbers of students who are not reading at the appropriate
level. The $75 million initiative is designed to provide the critical
early identification and early reading interventions necessary to
prevent reading failure among our children.
This legislation also takes important steps to improve teacher
quality in our schools. In order to provide increased flexibility, the
agreement eliminates the class-size reduction program and now gives
school districts the option to choose whether they want to use federal
teacher dollars to recruit or retain teachers, reduce class-size or to
provide additional training to teachers already in the classroom.
States would also be able to spend Federal teacher dollars on merit
pay, tenure reform, teacher testing and alternative certification.
The point is to allow flexibility for school districts to address the
needs most important to the local community, instead of simply
dictating what should be done from Washington.
The legislation also includes the teacher liability language that
passed the Senate.
These provisions help to ensure that teachers, principals, and other
school professionals can undertake reasonable actions to maintain order
and discipline in the classroom, without the fear of being dragged into
court or subject to frivolous lawsuits simply for doing their jobs.
One issue that I am disappointed that we did not address in this
legislation are the problems with the discipline provisions in
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
While both the House and the Senate passed provisions to address this
problem, unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the conference
committee opposed both versions and neither was included in the final
conference report.
Having traveled all over Alabama and visiting a number of schools
over the past few years, I am firmly convinced that the Federal IDEA
discipline regulations cause more distress for dedicated teachers than
any other single Federal rule or mandate.
Some of my colleagues on the conference committee feel very strongly
about this issue and strongly opposed my amendment. But I want to make
my proposal clear.
My amendment was carefully tailored to allow schools to discipline
IDEA students in the same manner as non-IDEA students, when the
behavior that led to the disciplinary action is not related to the
child's disability. No child could be denied educational services for
behavior that is related to their disability.
My amendment also retains many of the procedural safeguards in
current law to ensure that IDEA children are treated fairly, but it
allows state and local educators more flexibility in their discipline
policies.
My amendment also would provide a better option for parents of
children with disabilities to move their child to a better educational
environment. While this option is available under current law, my
language would streamline this process. The parents of the child and
the school would still have to agree on this decision.
I believe this is a reasonable proposal that would allow more
students with disabilities, with the agreement of the school, to seek
special education programs that better meet their needs.
During my meetings at schools, I encouraged teachers to write to me
to share their experiences with IDEA. I received a large stack of mail.
The frustration and compassion in the letters is powerful. Real
stories from educators and students are the best evidence of the need
for change.
Two things are clear to me. First, current Federal IDEA discipline
rules cause disruption in the classroom and even threaten the safety of
students and teachers.
Second, the Federal Government needs to increase IDEA funding and
meet its commitment to providing 40 percent of the national average per
pupil expenditure.
President Bush's budget included a $1 billion increase for IDEA for
next year, the largest increase ever proposed by a President in his
budget. He is committed to increasing this funding in future years.
This new funding will be an important step in assisting schools to
meet the goals established under IDEA.
The IDEA law is filled with complex issues and problems besides
discipline. One area that Secretary Paige seeks to address is the
possible over-identification and disproportionate placement of minority
students in special education.
Secretary Paige has spoken to me about this problem and I stand ready
to work with him to address it. For example, we need to look at how to
distribute Federal special education funds without creating
inappropriate incentives regarding referral, placement or services to
children.
We shouldn't be creating an incentive for schools to place children
in special education programs that can be helped under our existing
system.
The IDEA law provides many wonderful and special benefits for
children with disabilities, but we can make it better. It is important
that we return common sense and compassion to this problem.
I am committed to working to improve the law when it comes up for
reauthorization next year. If we work together by providing more money
for IDEA and give more authority to our local school officials, we can
take a big step toward improving learning.
While I continue to believe that education is and must remain the
primary function of State and local government, I believe this
legislation will help to improve our public education system.
This legislation is far from perfect and I am sure we will have to
make adjustments in future years.
But I believe that with President Bush's leadership this legislation
presents the best opportunity in 35 years to return power and dollars
to the state and local school districts and to make academic
achievement a priority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas. First, I remind the Senate that during the debate on this
issue her amendment to increase the funding for bilingual education
passed 62 to 34, and we kept her first year mark in this bill. That
will mean that 400,000 more limited-English-speaking children will be
able to learn. It is a major achievement and accomplishment. She has
educated the Senate about the change in demographics and what is
happening in her part of the world. We welcome the opportunity to yield
her 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my
support for the education reform package that is now before the Senate.
After debating this issue for almost 3 years, I am pleased we have
reached a bi-partisan agreement on a package that puts our children's
future ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and
attention for too long. This proposal before the Senate represents an
important step in the right direction by recognizing the right of every
child to receive a high quality education.
I know many of my colleagues played a critical role in fashioning
this very important legislation. I especially want to express my
appreciation to Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their tireless
efforts on behalf of our nation's school children. As someone who has
followed the progress of this bill very closely, I think each Member of
this body owes the managers of this bill a debt of gratitude for
bringing Senators with very different points of view together to find
common ground on this critical issue. I applaud their leadership and I
congratulate your success.
I also want to say a special word of thanks to Senators Lieberman and
Bayh who demonstrated real leadership by talking about many of the
reforms we are about to ratify before those ideas were very popular.
They deserve
[[Page S13397]]
a lot of credit for the final agreement they helped draft and I was
honored to join them in crafting the original Three R's proposals that
is clearly reflected in the bill before us.
As I noted previously, I support this bipartisan compromise because
it contains many of the elements that I think are essential to foster
academic success. It provides school districts with the resources they
need to meet higher standards. It expands access in Arkansas to funding
for teacher quality, English language instruction, and after-school
programs by distributing resources through a reliable formula based on
need, not on the ability of school districts to fill out a federal
grant application. And finally, and most importantly, in exchange for
more flexibility and resources, it holds States and school districts
accountable for the academic performance of all children.
I do want to highlight one component of this legislation that I had a
direct role in shaping. During consideration of the Senate reform bill
in May, I successfully offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy and
others calling on Congress to substantially increase funding to enable
language minority students to master English and achieve high levels of
learning in all subjects. More importantly for my State of Arkansas,
under the approach I promoted, funding will now be distributed to
States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the
number of students who need help with their English proficiency.
Currently, even though Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase
in the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students during the
last decade, my state does very poorly in accessing federal funding to
meet the needs of these students because the bulk of the funding is
distributed through a maze of competitive grants.
I am pleased the conferees accepted the funding level and the reforms
I advocated. This new approach represents a dramatic improvement over
the current system and will greatly benefit schools and students in my
State.
Ultimately, I believe all of the reforms that are contained in this
bill will make an important difference in the future of our children
and our nation. So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
urge the adoption of this truly landmark legislation.
Unfortunately, I feel compelled to mention one aspect of this
legislation that dampens my excitement for its passage. Even though I
believe the bill on balance represents a major improvement over the
current federal framework, I am very disappointed that we are once
again denying the promise we made to our constituents in 1975 to pay 40
percent of the costs of serving students under IDEA.
In my opinion, our failure to live up to this promise undermines to
some extent the very reforms we seek to advance. I will continue to
work in the Senate to reverse this record of inaction which is
profoundly unfair to school districts, teachers, and the students they
serve.
I want to close, by thanking all of my colleagues who spent many
weeks and months negotiating this agreement. Even though progress has
been slow at times, the way Democrats and Republicans have worked
together on this bill is a model I hope we can repeat often in the
future.
Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his
leadership and assistance to me in being able to achieve something on
behalf of the people of Arkansas. Once again, I express my support for
the education reform package now before the Senate. We have debated
this issue for almost 3 years, and we are so pleased we have reached a
bipartisan agreement on the package that puts our children's future
ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and
attention for way too long.
The proposal before the Senate represents an important step in the
right direction by recognizing the right of every child in this great
Nation to receive a high-quality education.
I know many of my colleagues played a critical role in fashioning
this very important legislation, but there are two individuals who have
been absolutely incredible in this debate and in this negotiation. I
especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and to Senator
Gregg for their tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's
schoolchildren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee who has played a very considerable role in this legislation,
especially in the flexibility accounts, but he had input throughout the
legislation and has done an exceptional job in making this a better
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Gregg and
Senator Kennedy for their leadership in pulling together a complex
bill. This bill accomplishes the goals that many of us have been
talking about over the last 2 years, the total length of time we have
been working on this bill. Those goals included striving for more
flexibility, accountability, and local control.
The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically changed our nation. As
a result, the President is focused on combating forces unlike any other
we have faced in our history. Nonetheless, the President has remained
steadfastly committed to education reform and thanks to his efforts,
today we send to him a bill that will transform the Federal
Government's role in education.
Since 1965, Federal aid has been provided to school districts for the
education of disadvantaged children through title I. Despite spending
$125 billion on Title I over the past 25 years, the most recent results
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, tests for
fourth-grade reading confirm that our current education system has not
closed this achievement gap.
The NAEP results revealed that 37 percent of the nation's fourth
graders scored below basic. That means 37 percent of our fourth graders
cannot read.
I was disturbed to read in our Nashville newspaper, the Tennessean,
last week that only 45.5 percent of third-graders in Nashville are
reading at the national average, down almost three percentage points
from 1998. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that the Nashville metro
area failed to reduce the performance gap between poor students and
their better-off peers: it was reduced only .2 percent in the
elementary and middle-school grades, and it increased by 1 percent for
high-school students.
As President Bush has said, too many children in America are
segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a
constantly changing world that is demanding increasingly complex skills
from its workforce, children are literally being left behind.
The following programs and reforms contained in the ``No Child Left
Behind Act'' will help our schools better prepare our children for the
future:
For reading first, $975 million in funds will be authorized for
States to establish a comprehensive reading program anchored in
scientific research. States will have the option to receive Early
Reading First funds to implement research based pre-reading methods in
pre-school. Tennessee's recently awarded $27 million grant will
continue, and Tennessee will no longer have to apply for such funding.
Funding to the State will be guaranteed through this new formula grant
program.
On rural education, $300 million in authorized funding will be
available to some of Tennessee's rural school districts to help them
deal with the unique problems that confront them.
On unprecedented flexibility, all states and local school districts
will be able to shift Federal dollars earmarked for one specific
purpose to other uses that more effectively address their needs and
priorities. And 150 school districts choosing to participate would
receive a virtual waiver from Federal education requirements in
exchange for agreeing to improve student achievement. I am particularly
pleased that this latter initiative, known as Straight A's, was
included in the final form of the bill.
On empowering parents, parents will be enabled to make informed
choices about schools for their children by being given access to
school-by-school report cards on student achievement for all groups of
students. Students in persistently low-performing schools will be
provided the option of attending alternative public schooling or
receiving Federal funds for tutorial services.
[[Page S13398]]
That means that starting in September, students in more than 6,700
failing schools will have the authority to transfer to better public
schools. Students in nearly 3,000 of those schools also would be
eligible for extra academic help, such as tutoring and summer classes
paid with Federal tax money. In Tennessee alone, 303 schools will be
provided these services.
As to accountability for student performance, parents will know how
well their child is learning, and schools will be held accountable for
their effectiveness with annual state reading and math assessments in
grades 3-8. States will be provided $490 million in funding for the
assessments. Tennessee will receive approximately $53 million of these
funds over the next 5 years.
With regard to improvements to the Technology and Bilingual Education
programs, the Technology and Bilingual Education programs have been
streamlined and made more flexible. Parents must be notified that their
child is in need of English language instruction and about how such
instruction will help their child. The bill also focuses on ensuring
that schools use technology to improve student academic achievement by
targeting resources to those schools that are in the greatest need of
assistance.
On better targeting, Senator Landrieu offered an amendment to S. 1
earlier this year that required better targeting of funds to our
poorest schools. I supported that effort and am proud to say that this
bill targets funds better than ever before. Through consolidation of
programs and improved targeting of resources, we enable schools to do
so much more with the 7 percent of funds they receive from the Federal
Government.
As to resources for teachers, over $3 billion will be authorized for
teachers to be used for professional development, salary increases,
class size reduction and other teacher initiatives. Additionally,
teachers acting in their official capacity will be shielded from
Federal liability arising out of their efforts to maintain discipline
in the classroom, so long as they do not engage in reckless or criminal
misconduct. And another $450 million will be authorized for Math and
Science training for teachers, an initiative that is particularly
important to me.
I want to take a few minutes to discuss the Math and Science
Partnership program, because I am particularly concerned about the
state of Science education in our country. The most recent NAEP science
section results showed that the performance of fourth- and eighth-grade
students remained about the same since 1996, but scores for high school
seniors changed significantly: up six points for private school
students and down four for public school students, for a net national
decline of three points. A whopping 82 percent of twelfth-grade
students are not proficient in Science and the achievement gaps among
eighth-graders are appalling: Only 41 percent of white, 7 percent of
African-American and 12 percent of Hispanic students are proficient.
The disappointing overall results for seniors on the science section
of the NAEP prompted Education Secretary Rod Paige to call the decline
``morally significant.'' He warned, ``If our graduates know less about
science than their predecessors four years ago, then our hopes for a
strong 21st century workforce are dimming just when we need them
most.'' I couldn't agree with the Secretary more.
I urge the appropriators to take note of these statistics and fund
the Math and Science Program at the level it needs to make a
difference.
In this brief statement, I can only begin to list the number of
reforms within this bill. The bill:
enhances accountability and demands results;
it has unprecedented state and local flexibility;
it streamlines bureaucracy and reduces red tape;
it expands choices for parents;
it contains the President's Reading First initiative;
it promotes teacher quality and smaller classrooms;
it strives toward making schools safer;
it promotes English fluency;
And that is just a brief summary.
I want to again congratulate our President, who provided great
leadership by making education reform his top domestic priority. The
result is that our elementary and secondary schools will be
strengthened and local teachers, administrators and parents will be
better able to make sure that no child is left behind.
For the first time, Federal dollars will be linked to specific
performance goals to ensure improved results. That means schools will
be held accountable. And, by measuring student performance with annual
academic assessments, teachers and parents will have the ability to
monitor each student's progress.
I want to thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for all they have done on
this bill. Senator Gregg was forced into a new leadership role when he
suddenly became Ranking Member of the HELP Committee in the middle of
the 6 week debate of S. 1. Suddenly, he was charged with managing a
1,200 page education bill, which was the top domestic priority of the
President. I know he and his staff, particularly Denzel McGuire, have
dedicated innumerable hours to this piece of legislation and I commend
them for their efforts.
I congratulate, on my staff, Andrea Becker, whose diligence,
dedication, and hard work are reflected in this legislation. Senator
Gregg and Senator Kennedy were able to bridge some strong policy
differences throughout and work together to make sure politics did not
prevent passage of this landmark legislation. I thank them for their
leadership and congratulate them on passage of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his kind comments,
and especially for his assistance in making this bill a reality.
Could the Chair advise us as to the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 6 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Massachusetts has 23\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining for the Senator from Minnesota?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes for the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GREGG. I reserve our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut. The Senator from Connecticut has been a strong advocate in
terms of accountability in schools and also investing in those
children. So I welcome his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from
Massachusetts, who has played a pivotal role in bringing us to this
extraordinary moment of accomplishment. I rise today to join my
colleagues in voicing my enthusiastic support for this conference
report to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
help reinvigorate America's public education system.
This democracy of ours is a magnificent process, beautiful in its
freedom, although often untidy and cumbersome in its execution. We come
to one of those wonderful moments when it has worked to provide a
revolutionary change in the Federal Government's relationship to public
education in our country. This agreement marks a truly unique coming
together of parties, ideologies and people behind legislation that will
help us deliver a high-quality public education to the children of this
Nation and, in doing so, help us deliver on the promise of equal
opportunity for every American.
With this bill, we are fundamentally changing the educational
equation in our country. We are saying public education is no longer a
local responsibility, but it is now truly a national priority. We are
saying we are no longer going to tolerate failure for our children and
from the adults who are supposed to be educating them. We are saying we
believe, as a matter of faith, that every child in this country can
learn at a high level. And we are doing what has been long overdue--
refocusing our Federal policies and redoubling our national efforts to
help realize those expectations of excellence and raise academic
achievement for all of our children. refocusing our Federal policies
and redoubling our national efforts to help realize those expectations
of excellence and raise academic achievement for all of our children.
This new educational equation could be summed up in six words: Invest
in reform; insist on results.
[[Page S13399]]
We are proposing to substantially increase Federal funding to better
target those dollars to the community and students with the greatest
needs, to give States and schools far more freedom in choosing how to
spend those dollars and then, in exchange, to demand more
accountability for producing results. No longer are we in Washington
going to ask: How much are we spending and where is it going? Now we
will ask: How much are our children learning and where are they going?
This new approach, and the reforms we have developed to implement it,
reflect the best thinking of both parties in both branches of our
Government and the hard work of a lot of Members, including
particularly Senators Kennedy and Gregg in this Chamber, and
Representatives Boehner and Miller from the House. I want to express my
appreciation to them for their leadership, their vision, and their
commitment to rethinking the way we aid and support public education
and reengineering our partnership with the States and local districts.
I am very proud to have had the opportunity to participate in this
enormously constructive process as one of the negotiators of the Senate
version of the bill and as a member of the conference committee. For
that, I am grateful to Majority Leader Daschle and to Chairman Kennedy,
who solicited ideas and input from Senator Bayh and me and other New
Democrats, even though we were not members of the HELP Committee, and
broke with tradition to appoint us to the conference committee.
I am particularly proud of the role we New Democrats played in
shaping the framework and ideas behind this reform plan, which
incorporates many of the principles and programs of the comprehensive
Three R's plan that Senator Bayh and I, and several of our colleagues
in this Chamber sponsored last year. When we started out three years
ago along this road, our goal was to bring some fresh thinking to
Federal education policy and to help break the partisan impasse on this
critical matter, to offer a proposal that could bridge the gaps between
left and right and forge a new consensus for real school reform for
America's children, and to truly reinvent the Federal role in
education. With this bill, I think all of us, new and old Democrats--I
take the liberty to say new and old Republicans--can fairly say
``mission accomplished.''
We pushed not only for more funding, but to target more of those
resources to the poorest districts and to restore the traditional
Federal focus on disadvantaged children. This bill does just that. We
pushed to streamline the Federal education bureaucracy, reduce the
strings attached to funding, empower local educators and encourage
innovation. This bill does just that.
We pushed to create strong standards of accountability, to impose
real consequences for chronic failure, and to demand measurable
progress in closing the achievement gap between the haves and have-
nots. Again, this bill does just that. Last but not least, we pushed to
inject market forces deeper into our public school system, to promote
greater choice and better information for parents, and to harness the
positive pressure of competition to drive real change. This bill does
just that.
However, our work is not done. This new vision will take time and
money to succeed, and we must be vigilant in following through on the
implementation of this legislation. Simply put, these reforms will not
work if they are not matched with resources. The significant funding
levels provided in the Senate and House appropriations bills of about
$22 billion, an increase of over $4 billion, provide a substantial down
payment in realizing the necessary investment. But we must do more. We
cannot close the achievement gap on the cheap. We must make increased
investment a priority for the life of this bill, not just this year. I
think the critical factor is for all of us to continue to work together
in a bipartisan way to make sure we adequately and aggressively fund
the reforms that are part of this proposal.
In the meantime, I want to applaud President Bush for working with us
in a cooperative, constructive manner to transform a promising
blueprint for reform into what will soon be a landmark law. This was a
model of bipartisanship and a reminder of what we can accomplish when
we leave our partisan agendas at the door. I hope we will soon
duplicate it.
Mr. President, I wish to expand on my earlier comments to provide
more historical background on the development of this conference report
and explain its legislative intent.
I am extremely pleased that the bill embodies many of the legislative
intentions and key concepts that a number of my fellow New Democrats,
particularly Senator Evan Bayh, and I, proposed when we first
introduced the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and
Responsibility Act--otherwise known as the ``Three R's'' bill--in March
2000. I believe that we have achieved the same core goals in this
conference report. The following analysis outlines the long, complex
and ultimately fruitful evolution of the bill, and the concepts and
themes underpinning its key provisions.
The need for improving the federal role in K-12 public is well
established. Too many of our schools have for years been failing to
give low-income and minority students the education and skills they
need to thrive in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. In
addition, our nation faces a large achievement gap between higher- and
lower-income students, and between white students and most minority
students.
Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 2000
makes this clear. According to the report, 60 percent of the nation's
fourth graders in poverty were reading below the basic proficiency
level, compared to 26 percent of more affluent fourth graders. And the
gap between children of different races and ethnicities is just as
significant as the income gap; 63 percent of African-American fourth
grade children and 58 percent of Latino children were reading below the
basic proficiency level, compared with 27 percent of white children.
The same problems persist at the top of the educational ladder. On
average, of every 100 white kindergarten students, 93 will finish high
school and 29 will earn at least a bachelor's degree. However, of every
100 African-American kindergarten students, only 86 will finish high
school and only 15 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. And of
every 100 Latino kindergartners, just 61 will graduate from high school
and 10 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. The result is that
almost half of all college graduates by age 24 come from higher income
families and only 7 percent from low-income families.
These achievement gaps are unacceptable and unnecessary. Every day,
more and more schools offering low-income students high standards and
real support demonstrate that an underprivileged background does not
consign a child to academic failure. In fact, students from low-income
families can achieve at similar or higher levels than their more
affluent peers. We were convinced that with the right approach, the
federal government could help school districts and states spread these
successes across the nation.
Any reform of the federal role in education must start with the
understanding that Washington is most helpful when it empowers states
and localities to do their job more effectively, not when it micro-
manages the running of schools and districts. Though Congress helped
fuel state and local improvements through its last reauthorization of
ESEA in 1994 and through its support of charter schools and public
school choice, those proved ultimately insufficient to the size of the
challenge before the country. To support states and localities as they
worked hard to adopt better standards, improve the quality of their
teachers, and increase choice and competition in public education, the
federal role had to change more profoundly.
It was this desire to spur a more accountable, competitive and
innovative public education system, and ultimately raise academic
achievement among children of all incomes and backgrounds, that led my
colleagues and me to propose the Three R's bill.
In the winter of 1998, I began early discussions on the issue with my
former colleague, Republican Senator Slade Gorton, sharing the belief
that a broad, bipartisan education reform agenda could and should be
developed. We convened a series of meetings with
[[Page S13400]]
key think tanks and policymakers--including the Progressive Policy
Institute, the Education Trust, the Heritage Foundation, the Fordham
Foundation and Empower America--and it soon became clear that we shared
goals and approaches to reform that could serve as the basis for a
legislative blueprint.
Many of the concepts discussed in these meetings were distilled in a
white paper in April 1999 on performance-based funding prepared by
Andrew Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute in 1999, Toward
Performance-Based Federal Education Funding: Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Based on this framework, my
staff and that of Senator Bayh began working regularly with like-minded
moderate Democrats to draft a legislative proposal. Soon thereafter,
the moderate Democrats formed the Senate New Democrat Coalition, with
Senator Bob Graham as the leader, and selected education reform as the
coalition's first legislative priority, with Senator Bayh and myself
spearheading the effort.
On March 21, 2000, I joined Senator Bayh and other Senate New
Democrats, including Senators Mary Landrieu, Bob Graham, John Breaux,
Blanche Lincoln, Herb Kohl, Richard Bryan, and Charles Robb, to
introduce the Three R's Act, S. 2254, a sweeping piece of legislation
designed to fundamentally reform federal education policy to a
performance-based system focused on providing states and local school
districts with greater resources and flexibility in return for greater
accountability for increased student academic achievement. In May of
2000, Representative Cal Dooley, a leader of the New Democrats in the
House of Representatives, introduced the Three R's companion bill, H.R.
4518, which was cosponsored by Representative Adam Smith.
To correct a system that had grown too rigid, bureaucratic, and
unresponsive to the needs of parents, the Three R's Act called for
providing states and localities with more federal funding and greater
flexibility regarding how to spend those dollars. In return, educators
would be held more accountable for academic results. We argued that as
a nation, we should ultimately base success on students' real
educational outcomes--including test results and other measures--rather
than on the number of programs or the size of the federal allocation.
The Three R's Act called for streamlining the number of federal
education programs and focusing federal dollars and attention on a few
critical educational priorities, including serving disadvantaged
students, raising teacher quality, increasing English proficiency,
expanding public school choice, and stimulating innovation. Overall, it
would have increased federal investment in public education by $35
billion over the next five years, targeting most of those new dollars
to the poorest school districts in the nation.
In April 2000, in conjunction with the introduction of our Three R's
bill, the New Democrats held a forum on Capitol Hill to foster dialogue
on the need for education reform. Participants included Bob Schwartz of
ACHIEVE, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, Amy Wilkins
of The Education Trust, University of Maryland Professor Dr. Bill
Galston, and Joseph Olshefske, Superintendent of Seattle Public
Schools. Although some participants offered constructive criticism on
certain provisions in the Three R's bill, they largely cited the bill
as the building block for a broad and bipartisan consensus.
In the Spring of 2000, Republican Senators Gorton and Gregg
approached Senator Bayh and myself to discuss the possibility of
producing just such a reform package, and together we reached agreement
on a number of provisions later to appear in the Conference Report
before us today, such as the concept known as ``supplemental
services.'' Despite our inability to reach a final compromise at that
stage, these negotiations significantly furthered the framework for a
comprehensive bipartisan bill.
During the May 2000 debate over S. 2, the Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions Committee's Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization bill, my fellow Senate New Democrats and I successfully
pushed for the inclusion of provisions enhancing accountability for
educational performance in the Democratic Caucus' alternative
amendment, Amdt. 3111, to S. 2. In addition, our coalition successfully
pushed for a separate debate on our Three R's proposal, which we
offered as a substitute amendment, Amdt. 3127 to S. 2. That amendment
was one of the few to be considered on the Senate floor before the ESEA
bill was withdrawn. Though our amendment only garnered 13 votes, all
Democratic, its defeat could not obscure the fact that the basis for
bipartisan agreement was building.
Also in June of that year, I joined with Senator Landrieu in
cosponsoring her amendment, S. 3645, to the Labor-HHS-Education FY 2001
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 4577, which proposed focusing $750 million in
federal funds on serving the poorest school districts. Unfortunately,
that amendment was tabled, and thus defeated, despite bipartisan
support for improving the distribution of federal funds to better serve
all students. However, on behalf of the New Democrats, I successfully
garnered inclusion of language requesting a GAO study of the formulas
used to distribute federal education funds under Title I of the ESEA,
including an assessment of their effectiveness in meeting the needs of
the highest poverty districts. The GAO full report is expected in
January 2002.
As 2000 advanced, progress on the Three R's reform model was slowed
by special interests, partisan politics, and the Presidential campaign
of which I was a part. Congress failed to reauthorize ESEA on time for
the first time since its enactment in 1965. Nonetheless, New Democrats
and members supporting reform on the Republican side managed to take
significant steps in the 106th Congress toward furthering the framework
for the bipartisan compromise reached in the 107th Congress. Key among
our victories were building on the consensus for greater accountability
for academic results and agreeing to examine better targeting of
federal resources on our nation's most disadvantaged communities.
In August 2000, the Presidential elections went into full swing,
taking up much of my time. It was encouraging for me to see both
Presidential candidates adopting into their campaign platforms many of
the concepts in the Three R's bill. Sandy Kress, current education
advisor to President Bush and then advisor to Governor Bush, was widely
reported to be a key architect of his education blueprint. I was not
surprised to later learn that as a member of the Democratic Leadership
Council in Texas, Sandy was intrigued by many of the concepts contained
in the Progressive Policy Institute's education reform plan and our
Three R's legislation in the Senate. I am pleased that President Bush
embraced so many of these reforms in his blueprint for education
reform.
After the election, President-elect Bush invited several key
education reformers, including Senator Bayh and Representative Tim
Roemer, to Austin to discuss the reauthorization of ESEA. By including
key New Democrats at this meeting, the President-elect sent a clear
signal that to his administration, a bipartisan bill centered around a
moderate message of reform would be a top priority.
That message proved valuable in guiding us toward a compromise this
year. On February 13, 2001, early in the 107th Congress, I joined other
New Democrat cosponsors in reintroducing the Three R's bill as S. 303.
The same day, the White House released a white paper outlining the
Administration's education plan, ``No Child Left Behind,'' which shared
significant common ground with the Three R's Act. Also that winter,
Representative Tim Roemer reintroduced the Three R's companion bill,
H.R. 345, in the House of Representatives, together with 18 other New
Democrat cosponsors including Cal Dooley and Adam Smith, who had
introduced the first House bill.
Over the same period, Senate New Democrats were approached by Senator
Gregg with the backing of the White House about the introduction of a
bipartisan bill using the Three R's as a base. In late February and
March 2001, Senators Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and myself began
bipartisan negotiations with Sandy Kress of the White House and
Republican Senators Gregg, Hutchinson, Collins, and Frist.
The Senate Education Committee was simultaneously beginning work on
[[Page S13401]]
ESEA legislation, and on March 28, 2001, Senator Jeffords, Chairman of
the HELP Committee, reported out of committee an education bill, S. 1,
entitled ``Better Education for Students and Teachers Act,'' or
``BEST.''
Understanding that lasting reform requires broad bipartisan support,
Senator Bayh and I encouraged the White House and our Republican
colleagues to bring all interested parties--many of whom had the same
reform goals--together. I am appreciative of the leadership shown by
Senators Lott and Daschle in uniting these efforts and to have been
included in those negotiations.
However, the bill that emerged from the Senate was not as strong on
accountability as the Three R's Act. I was disappointed, for example,
that concerns raised by some members of Congress and many outside
groups prompted the White House and others to abandon strong
accountability tools to measure the performance of all students of all
racial groups. Nonetheless, I believe that the language ultimately
reached, while not as strong as I would have preferred, marked a
dramatic step forward in holding schools, districts and states
accountable for making annual progress in student academic achievement.
In the first week of May 2001, this bipartisan substitute bill, S. 1,
was brought to the floor. The Senate had a very lively debate on the
bill for several weeks, with hundreds of amendments introduced and
passed. The debate was interrupted periodically for other debates, most
notably the consideration of the final conference report on the budget
and tax relief bill, which itself included several education
amendments. Several New Democrats, myself included, were concerned that
insufficient funds were being provided for investments in important
priorities such as education. An amendment to support full funding of
IDEA was introduced and passed overwhelmingly by the Senate.
Immediately thereafter, Senator Jeffords changed his membership in the
Republican Party to independent status and the Senate was reorganized.
Senator Kennedy became Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and
Senator Gregg became the Ranking Member of the Committee. Fortunately,
the bipartisan working spirit was not harmed by this change, and work
on the education bill continued.
During the debate on S. 1, I cosponsored with Senator Landrieu an
amendment to restore the original purpose of Title I funding by
prohibiting the allocation of Title I funds to school districts unless
new funds were appropriated to the Targeted Grant formula, focusing
these funds on the communities and schools with the greatest need. The
amendment, S. Amdt. 475, passed by a vote of 57 to 36. We were able to
secure $1 billion in funding for these targeted grants in a subsequent
amendment, S. Admt. 2058, to the Senate Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill, S. 1536, for fiscal year 2002 which passed the
Senate on November 6, 2001. The amendment, cosponsored by Senator
Landrieu, Senator Cochran, and myself, passed the Senate by a vote of
81 to 19.
I also cosponsored, with Senators Tom Carper and Gregg, an amendment
to S. 1, S. Amdt. 518, to make public school choice a reality for
children trapped in failing schools by encouraging states and local
districts with low-performing schools to implement programs of
universal public school choice and eliminating many of the existing
barriers to charter school start-up and facility costs. Parental choice
is a crucial element of accountability, and both provisions promise to
give more and more parents a real stake in their children's education.
I am proud that both concepts are incorporated in the legislation that
we are considering today.
After several weeks of debate, the Senate passed S. l, ``BEST'' in
June 2001. Since the House of Representatives had introduced H.R. 1,
entitled ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,'' in March, a conference
was necessary to resolve the still significant differences between the
bills. In July 2001, I was very gratified to be appointed a conferee to
the conference committee of the House and the Senate, with my Three R's
cosponsor Senator Bayh. Since Senator Bayh and I are not members of the
HELP Committee, our inclusion was unprecedented; and I thank Senator
Kennedy for his keen understanding of the contribution that the New
Democrats made to this process of forging a bipartisan compromise.
We have been negotiating and working diligently on the conference
report since July, and although this Conference process was long and
difficult, I believe the hard work has been worthwhile, as we have
produced a landmark bill with the potential to vastly improve our
nation's public schools. Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Representative
Boehner, and Representative Miller all deserve praise for creatively
resolving differences between the bills.
Previously, accountability for federal education dollars had been
focused on how a state, school district, or school spent funds rather
than the results that those funds produced. The Three R's bill, and now
the new conference report bill, shifts the focus from inputs to
outcomes. This conference report embodies the performance-based
accountability model put forth in the Three R's bill for holding
states, school districts, and schools accountable for increases in
student achievement based on state assessments and state standards.
Of course, we have not solved all of the problems that confront
education in the United States, in particular, I would like to take a
moment to commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on the issue of
educating students with disabilities under the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and his dedication to ensuring that
Congress lives up to its commitment made in 1975 to provide 40 percent
of the costs associated with educating these students. His courage to
take such a strong stand on this important priority is admirable. I am
hopeful that Congress can address this issue when it takes up the
reauthorization of IDEA in 2002.
Nevertheless, this conference report represents a major step forward
in improving and reforming our education policies and programs. The
following highlights provide an overview of concepts and policy themes
that were proposed in the New Democrats' Three R's bill and had an
impact on the new legislation.
On accountability, the heart of the Three R's plan called on each
state to adopt performance standards in all federal programs, most
importantly requiring states to ensure that all students, including
those in Title I schools, would reach proficiency in math and reading
within 10 years. It required states, districts and schools to
disaggregate test results to better focus attention and resources on
the lowest performing subgroups in order to close the achievement gap
that exists in our nation between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged
students, and minority and non-minority students. It further required
states to develop annual measurable performance goals for teacher
quality and English proficiency, and held states and districts
accountable for meeting those goals. The final agreement adopts much of
this accountability structure--creating a more performance-based
approach to public education.
As to flexibility, the Three R's plan called for consolidating dozens
of federal education programs into a limited number of funding streams
that would greatly expand the ability of states and districts to
allocate federal aid to meet their specific needs. Although the final
agreement does not contain the level of consolidation envisioned in the
Three R's bill, it does significantly increase the flexibility of
states and local districts to transfer funding from many other
programs; it also creates new ``State Flex'' and ``Local Flex''
experiments to provide even more freedom to consolidate funding.
Concerning disadvantaged students, the Three R's plan would have
reformed the Title I program to hold states and districts accountable
for closing the achievement gap; strengthened the definition of what
constitutes adequate yearly progress; and required districts to first
intervene and turn around chronically failing schools, and ultimately
restructure them, convert them to charter schools, or close them down.
The final agreement builds on these reforms and adds to them, sharply
redefining adequate yearly progress so that all students must be
academically proficient within 12 years, offering students in failing
schools the right
[[Page S13402]]
to transfer to higher-performing public schools, and giving families
with children in poorly performing schools the right to use federal
funds for outside tutoring assistance.
Related to targeting, the Three R's plan not only called for
increasing federal funding for Title I and other major programs, but
for targeting those resources to the districts with the highest
concentrations of poverty. The final agreement includes a New Democrat
amendment sponsored by Senators Landrieu and myself that channels most
of the new Title I dollars to the poorest districts through a more
targeted formula. It also changes other program formulas to better
target teacher quality, English proficiency, reading, technology and
after school funding to the districts and schools with the greatest
need.
On teacher quality, the Three R's plan called for consolidating
several teacher quality grant programs into a single formula stream,
better targeting those dollars to the districts with the most teachers
teaching out of their area of specialty, and holding states and
districts accountable for ensuring that all teachers are deemed highly
qualified by a specified deadline. The final agreement meets all three
goals, requiring all teachers in a state to be qualified--not only
meeting state certification requirements but also meeting rigorous
content standards--by 2006.
As to bilingual reform, the Three R's plan called for a total
overhaul of federal bilingual education programs that would streamline
the bureaucracy, increase federal investment to meet growing
enrollment, and refocus the program's mission on helping non-native
speaking students achieve proficiency in English and other academic
subjects. The final agreement adopts almost all of these reforms,
including a requirement to annually assess students' language
proficiency and hold districts accountable for improving English
proficiency for the first time.
Regarding public school choice, the Three R's plan called for
increasing educational options for parents within the public school
framework, strengthening funding for charter schools and creating a new
initiative to promote intra- and inter-district choice programs at the
local level. The final agreement includes a New Democrat amendment
sponsored by Senator Carper that is based largely on these provisions,
as well as Three R's-related measures requiring states and districts to
expand the use of report cards to inform parents about school
performance.
I would like to turn now to a detailed discussion of some of the
major titles and parts of the conference report which have been
influenced by the provisions and intent of the Three R's bill. The
heart of the Three R's plan, especially for Part A of Title I, was a
comprehensive accountability system for closing the academic
achievement gap that held each, district, and school responsible for
improving academic performance. It called for a major investment of
federal resources under Title I and better targeting of those funds to
the highest poverty communities. Under that restructured system, states
would be required to define adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for
student academic achievement so that all students would be proficient
in reading and math within 10 years and each district and school would
be required to show measurable progress each year--not just on average,
but specifically for minority and disadvantaged subgroups. If schools
failed to meet these standards, districts would be required to
intervene and make improvements. If schools continually failed,
districts would eventually be required to take dramatic steps to
overhaul them or close them down, while providing students in those
schools with the right to transfer to another higher performing public
school.
Title I, Part A of the conference report incorporates much of the
ideas and architecture of this system as envisioned under the Three R's
bill and substantially builds on them. It authorizes $13.5 billion in
funding for fiscal year 2002 while significantly reforming the funding
formulas under Title I, Part A, subpart 2. It demands that states
develop new annual assessments in grades 3-8 to better monitor student
learning, and sharply redefines the definition of adequate yearly
progress to ensure that schools and districts are making demonstrable
gains in closing the achievement gap, and that all students are
academically proficient within 12 years. And, it demands annual
accountability for that progress by intervening in failing schools and
districts to turn them around, and imposes tough actions on those that
fail to improve over time.
Regarding standards and assessments, the Three R's bill maintained
the requirements for state content and student performance standards
and annual assessments that existed under current law, as directed
under the enactment of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Under section 1111(b)(4) of Title I, it
required that states have in place their annual assessments in English
language arts and mathematics by the 2002-2003 school year. It further
recognized the growing importance of a high quality science education
for all students, so that our nation may continue to compete in a
global and increasingly high-tech, high-skilled economy. As a result,
it expanded current law by requiring states to develop and implement
science standards and assessments by the 2006-2007 school year. States
that failed to have their 1994 required assessments, and the new
science assessments, in place by the required deadlines would not
receive any new administrative funds and would lose 20 percent of their
administrative funds in subsequent years if the failure continued.
States would be required to administer assessments annual to at least
one grade in each the elementary, middle and high school levels.
It further required in section 1111(b)(4) that states assess limited
English proficient--LEP--students in the student's native language if
such language would be more likely to yield accurate and reliable
information on what that student knows and is able to do. However, it
demanded that states require assessments in English for English
language arts for LEP students. School districts could delay this
requirement for one additional year on a case-by-case basis.
As with the Three R's, the conference report upholds the requirements
that exist under current law, as enacted under the 1994 reauthorization
of the ESEA, for standards and assessments and penalizes states that
fail to meet the requirement to have standards and assessments in place
by the 2001-2002 school year. Under the requirement, the Secretary
shall withhold 25 percent of a non-compliant State's administrative
funds. It further expands on the testing requirements called for under
current law and under the Three R's plan. It requires, in section
1111(b)(3), that States develop and implement new annual assessments
for all grades, between and including, third-eighth for mathematics,
and reading or language arts. Such assessments must be administered
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year. The Secretary may withhold
administrative funds if states fail to meet deadline for the new annual
assessments.
In addition the Act upholds the importance of a science education, as
highlighted under the Three R's bill, by requiring states under Title I
Part A section 1111(b)(1)) to establish science standards and for those
standards to be in place by the 2006-2007 school year, and as required
under section 1111(b)(3) for states to develop and begin implementation
of science assessments in at least one grade in each elementary, middle
and high school level by the 2007-2008 school year.
Title I, Part A of the Act, section 1111(3), also requires the
assessment of limited English proficient students in English in reading
or language arts in English if such student have been in the United
States for three years, but allows districts to seek a waiver from this
requirement for up to two additional years, on a case-by-case basis.
The intent of the new legislation is that these waivers be used only in
very limited circumstances, and by no means broadly applied, to protect
the integrity of the new program.
In order to assist states with the costs associated with the
development of assessments and standards, Title VI of the Three R's
bill allowed states to use funds set aside under that title for the
continue improvement and development of standards and assessments. This
new Act too will ensure that
[[Page S13403]]
states have substantial resources to use for the development and
administration of new annual assessments. Under section 1111(b)(3), the
Act authorizes $370 million in funding for fiscal year 2002 and raises
that level by an additional $10 million in subsequent fiscal years, up
to $400 million for each fiscal year 2005-2007. If appropriated federal
funds fall below the specified amount in any fiscal year, states are
allowed to cease the administration, but not the development, of new
annual assessments.
To prevent gaming of test results, section 1111(b)(2) of the Three
R's stated that in order for a school to be found meeting adequate
yearly progress, it must meet its annual measurable objectives set for
each subgroup and it must annually assess at least 90 percent of the
students in each subgroup. The conference report improves this goal by
requiring schools to assess 95 percent of the students in each
subgroup. This provision will help protect against any abuses by
schools or districts in excluding certain students from annual
assessments.
I believe that it is the intention of the language in section 1111(3)
regarding new annual assessments in mathematics and reading or language
arts, and science, that such assessments shall be interpreted by the
U.S. Department of Education to mean state developed tests that produce
valid and reliable data on student achievement that is comparable from
school to school and district to district. This conference report's
expanded and improved focus in section 1111(3) of Title I on high-
quality annual assessments will help ensure that schools and parents
have a better understanding of students' levels of knowledge and the
subject areas requiring improvement. Such regular monitoring of
achievement also will help schools and district better achieve
continuous academic progress.
Regarding English proficiency assessments, Title III of the Three R's
required states to develop annual assessments to measure English
proficiency gains. This new Act recognizes the importance of measuring
English proficiency attainment by limited English proficient students.
Under section 1111, it requires that states hold districts accountable
for annually assessing English proficiency (including in the four
recognized domains of reading, writing, speaking and listening). States
must demonstrate that, beginning no later than the 2002-2003 school
year, school districts will annual assess English proficiency of all
students with limited English proficiency. In addition, it is the
intention of the Conference that the Secretary provide assistance, if
requested, to states and districts for the development of assessments
for English language proficiency as described under section 1111(3) so
that those assessments may be of high quality and appropriately
designed to measure language proficiency, including oral, writing,
reading and comprehension proficiency. Regular and high quality
comprehensive assessment of English language proficiency will help
create a stronger mechanism for measuring proficiency gains and
ensuring progress.
In calling for reformed accountability systems in states, Section
1111(b)(2) of the Three R's required states to end the practice of
having dual accountability systems for Title I and non-Title I schools,
requiring states to establish a single, rigorous accountability plan
for all public schools. It allowed states to determine what constitutes
adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for all schools, local educational
agencies, and the state in enabling all children in schools to meet the
state's challenging student performance standards.
It also established some basic parameters on AYP, requiring it to be
defined so as to compare separately the progress of students by
subgroup--ethnicity/race, gender, limited English proficiency, and
disadvantage/non-disadvantaged; compare the proportions of students at
each standard level as compared to students in the same grade in the
previous school year; be based primarily on student assessment data but
may include other academic measures such as promotion, drop-out rates,
and completion of college preparatory courses, except that the
inclusion of such shall not reduce the number of schools or districts
that would otherwise be identified for improvement; include annual
numerical objectives for improving the performance of all groups of
students; and include a timeline for ensuring that each group of
students meets or exceeds the state's proficient level of performance
within 10 years.
Section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report defines AYP in a manner
that is consistent with the goals of the Three's. It defines AYP as a
uniform state bar or measure of progress for all students, set
separately for mathematics and reading or language arts, and is based
primarily on assessment data. The amount of progress must be sufficient
to ensure that 100 percent of all students reach the state's standard
of academic proficiency within 12 years. States are required to set a
minimum bar, or measure, based on either the level of proficiency of
the lowest performing subgroup in the state or the lowest quintile
performing schools, whichever is higher, plus some growth. States may
keep the bar at the same level for up to three years before raising it
to the next level. However, the first incremental increase shall be two
years after the starting point, and the bar shall be raised in equal
increments. Each of the four disaggregated
subgroups--disadvantage/non-disadvantaged, limited English proficient,
disabled, and race/ethnicity--must meet the state uniform bar, or
measure of progress, for both mathematics and reading or language arts
in order for a school or district to be determined meeting AYP.
However, the Conferees understand that some subgroups may make
extraordinary gains but still fall below a state's uniform bar for
progress. Therefore, section 1111(b)(2) of this conference report
contains a ``safe harbor'' provision for such cases. Schools with
subgroups that do not meet AYP, but whose subgroups make at least 10
percent of their distance to 100 percent proficiency (or reduce by 10
percent the number of students in the relevant subgroup that are not
yet proficient), and make progress on one other academic indicator,
will not be identified under section 1116 as in need of improvement.
The Conferees intend that this system of setting progress bar and
raising it in equal increments over a 12-year period will allow states
the flexibility of focusing on their lowest performing subgroups and
schools, while gradually raising academic achievement in a meaningful
manner. It will further ensure that state plans outline realistic
timelines for getting all students to proficiency, and prohibits states
from ``backloading'' their expected proficiency gains in the out years.
I believe that the Secretary in approving state plans shall give close
scrutiny to the timelines established by states so that they may be
meaningful and meet the requirements of this language--to have 100
percent of student in all subgroups reach the state's proficient
standard level within 12 years.
In order to address concerns raised over the volatility of test
scores, section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report allows states to
establish a uniform procedure for averaging of assessment data. Under
this system, states may average data from the school year for which the
determination is made under section 1116 regarding the attainment of
AYP with data from one or two school years immediately preceding that
school year. In addition, States may average data across grades in a
school, but not across subjects.
As did Three R's, the new Act recognizes that in order to maintain
high quality pubic education alternatives, charter schools must be held
accountable for meeting the accountability requirements under Title I
for academic achievement, assessments, AYP, and reporting of academic
achievement data. However, the legislation also understands the unique
relationships established under individual state charter school laws.
As a result, this conference report clarifies that charters schools are
subject to the same accountability requirements that apply to other
public schools, including sections 1111 and 1116, as established by
each state, but that the accountability provisions shall be overseen in
accordance with state charter school law. It further expresses that
authorized chartering agencies should be held accountable for carrying
out their oversight responsibilities as determined by each state
through its charter school law and other applicable state laws.
[[Page S13404]]
To aid low-performing schools so that they may make the necessary
improvements to turn themselves around, such as providing more
professional development for teachers, designing a new curriculum and
hiring more highly qualified teachers, the section 1003 of the Three
R's bill required states to set aside 2.5 percent of their Title I,
Part A funds in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 3.5 percent of funds
for fiscal years 2003-2005. States would be required to send 80 percent
of these funds directly to school districts for the purpose of turning
around failing schools and districts.
This conference report contains similar requirements, demanding that
states set aside two percent of their Title I funds received under
subpart 2 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and four percent of their
funds in fiscal years 2004-2007 to assist schools and districts
identified for improvement and corrective action under section 1116,
and to provide technical assistance under section 1117. States shall
send 95 percent of the funds reserved in each fiscal year directly to
local school districts. It further authorizes $500 million for grants
to local school districts to provide supplemental efforts by districts
to address schools identified under section 1116. I believe it is the
intention of these provisions that funds be directed first, at schools
and districts in corrective action, and second, to schools and
districts identified for improvement.
Under the Three R's, section 1116, school districts shall identify as
being in need of improvement any school that for two consecutive years
failed to make adequate yearly progress, or was in, or eligible for,
school improvement before enactment of the legislation.
Schools identified would have the opportunity to review the school
data, and if the principal believed that identification was made in
error, the identification could be contested. In addition, districts
would be required to notify parents of the school's identification and
what it means, what the school is doing to address the problems, and
how parents can become more involved in improvement efforts.
Parents of students in schools identified prior to the enactment of
the proposed legislation would be given the choice to transfer their
child to a higher performing public schools that was not identified
under section 1116. For parents of students in schools identified after
enactment, the districts would be required to provide the parents with
the option to transfer their child to a higher performing school within
12 months after the date of identification.
Schools identified for school improvement under section 1116 of the
Three R's would be required to develop and implement school improvement
plans to address the school's failure, and to devote 10 percent of
Title I, Part A funds for high quality professional development for
teachers. Although districts would be allowed to take action earlier,
the bill required districts to identify for corrective action, any
school that, after two years of being identified for school
improvement, failed to make AYP. As under improvement, schools would
have the opportunity to contest the identification for corrective
action. Districts would be required to impose corrective actions that
included implementing new curricula, reconstituting school personnel,
or making alternative governance arrangements for the school, such as
shutting it down and reopening it as a charter school. In addition,
parents with students in such schools would continue to receive the
right to transfer to another school and have transportation costs or
services provided by the district. The bill capped the amount of Title
I funds that could be spent by a district in meeting this requirement
at 10 percent.
The bill also required states to identify local educational agencies
that had failed to make AYP under a similar timeframe, requiring them
to develop and implement improvement plans, giving parents the right to
transfer their student to another school, and imposing corrective
actions for repeated failure.
The conference report embodies much of the concepts proposed in the
Three R's bill for turning around low performing schools and imposing
corrective actions on those who continually fail. It expands the
options available to parents of students in schools identified for
improvement or corrective action. And, it ensures that schools that
continually fail will face tough consequences.
Under section 1116 of Title I of the conference report, schools and
districts that have been identified for improvement or corrective
action prior to enactment would start in the same category after
enactment. It is the intention of these provisions that schools that
have been failing for years do not get to restart their clocks, and
that actions be taken immediately to address the failure in those
schools and districts.
To address concerns raised that one year's worth of data is not
enough to judge success or failure, the Act requires that schools must
fail to make AYP for two consecutive years before being identified for
improvement under section 1116. Schools identified shall develop and
implement improvement plans and receive additional technical and
financial assistance to make improvement, and must devote 10 percent of
their Title I funds to professional development activities for teachers
and principals. Parents of children in these schools will be given the
option to transfer their child to a higher performing public school
with transportation costs or services provided. The Act clarifies that,
although districts are required to provide transportation, they may
only use up to 15 percent of their Title I funds to pay for such costs
or services. The option to transfer shall only be consistent with state
law--local law or policy shall not apply--and schools receiving
transferring students must treat them in the same manner as any other
student enrolling in the school. It is the intent of these provisions
that capacity constraints not be a barrier to public school choice and
that choice be meaningful by ensuring that transportation costs or
services will be provided.
Schools that fail for three consecutive years to meet AYP shall
continue the improvement plan and other requirements from the previous
year, and shall give parents the option of receiving, and selecting,
outside tutoring assistance for their child from a state-approved list
of providers. Such providers may include private organizations, non-
profit organizations, and community-based organizations. School
districts shall only be required to reserve 20 percent of their Title I
funds under Part A, and spend up to 5 percent of their Title I funds on
providing parents with the option to transfer to another school and 5
percent to provide supplemental services, with the remaining 10 percent
of funds split between the two requirements as determined by the
district. District shall not be required to spend more than the
reserved maximum of 15 percent on providing supplemental services and
shall select students by lottery if not all eligible students may be
served.
It is the intention of these provisions that student in failing
schools have meaningful options to choose from while enabling districts
to devote the bulk of their Title I resources on making improvements in
the underlying school.
Just as the Three R's demanded that tough actions be taken with
schools that fail to improve, the conference report requires that
schools that fail to meet AYP for four years undergo at least one
corrective action. Such actions include instituting a new curriculum,
replacing the principal and some relevant staff, or reopening the
school as a charter school. Schools that fail for five consecutive
years shall continue the action from the previous year and must begin
planning for restructure. These measures are intended to ensure that
districts take actions that will result in a substantive and positive
change in the school, and that directly address the factors that led to
failure.
This conference report embodies the intent of the Three R's and
conferees that schools that continually fail to improve must, at some
point, face dramatic consequences. Section 1116 requires that Schools
that fail to meet AYP for six consecutive years shall be
completely restructured, including instituting a new governance
structure, such as a charter school or private management organization,
and replace all relevant staff. These steps shall, in effect, result in
the creation of an entirely new school.
I believe that the timelines established under this conference report
are
[[Page S13405]]
rigorous but fair and will allow for true identification of low
performing schools so that they may get the assistance and time they
need to turn around performance, but ensure that they face
comprehensive and tough penalties if they fail to make improvement.
Clarifying that identification should be based on two years worth of
data, the Act requires that schools must make AYP for two consecutive
years in order to be removed from improvement status, corrective
action, or restructure under section 1116. Districts may delay
corrective action or restructure for one year for a school that makes
AYP for one year. It is the intention of this provision that schools
that may be on the right track to better performance should not be
forced to curtail current improvement actions in order to implement a
new one. Rather, such schools should be expected to continue current
improvement activities and monitored for progress for one additional
year. If schools fail to make a second year of AYP, then they would be
forced to undergo corrective action, or restructure.
As under the Three R's, the conference report requires states to
establish a similar process for identifying and taking corrective
action on school districts that fail to meet AYP, and for providing
parents in failing districts with the option to transfer to a higher
performing school or receive supplemental services from a tutoring
provider. Just as districts shall be required to enforce improvement,
corrective action and restructure requirements, it is my belief that
this conference reports intends for states to aggressively monitor
district performance and follow the requirements established under
section 1116 regarding district improvement and corrective action. I
further believe that the Secretary shall consider non-compliant any
state that fails to take action on districts identified under section
1116, or fails to take actions on schools identified under section of
1116--in cases where districts within the state fail to uphold these
requirements.
Regarding teacher quality, the Three R's Title II required states to
have all teachers fully qualified by 2005, meaning that they must be
state certified and have demonstrated competency in the subject area in
which they are teaching by passing a rigorous content knowledge test,
or by having a bachelor's degree, or equivalent number of hours in a
subject area. The provisions were intended to ensure that all students,
particularly those in high poverty schools, were taught by educators
with expertise in their subject area. It sought to address the inequity
that exists in our public education system where disadvantaged students
are more often taught by a teacher that is out of field than their more
advantaged peers. It also defined, in section 1119 of Title I,
professional development, so that teachers and principals would receive
high quality professional development that provides educators and
school leaders with the knowledge and skills to enable students to meet
state academic performance standards; is of on-going duration; is
scientifically research based; and, in the case of teachers, is focused
on core content knowledge in the subject area taught.
To place greater emphasis on the crucial need for highly trained
teachers in our nation's poorest schools and recognizing that a
significant portion of Title I funds are used to hire teachers, the
Three R's required states under Title I section 1119, as well as under
Title II to ensure that all teachers meet the requirement to be fully
qualified by the end of 2005; to annually increase the percentage of
core classes taught by fully qualified teachers; and to annually
increase the percentage of teachers and principals receiving high
quality professional development.
Section 1119 of the Three R's also established requirements for
paraprofessionals to ensure that such individuals would be
appropriately equipped to assist teachers in the classroom and assist
in tutoring students. Paraprofessionals that provided only translation
services for non-native speaking students and families, or parent
involvement activities, would be exempted from the new requirements.
The bill also placed restrictions on the types of duties that
paraprofessional may provide in schools. The intent of these provisions
was to reduce the reliance in schools on paraprofessionals in providing
core academic instruction to students, and place a priority on ensuring
that students be taught by a highly trained teacher.
This conference report embodies much of the Three R's goals and
provisions on teacher quality, professional development and
paraprofessional quality. Section 1119 of the report requires states to
ensue that all teachers hired under Title I will be highly qualified by
the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Highly qualified is defined as
being state certified and, in the case of a newly hired teacher, having
demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or
having a bachelor's degree in the subject area taught. And, in the case
of an existing teacher, highly qualified teachers shall have
demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or
meeting a high, objective and uniform standard of evaluation developed
by the state.
I believe it is the intention of this language to ensure that content
knowledge assessments or state standards of evaluations as described in
section 1119 will provide for a rigorous, uniform, objective system
that is grade appropriate and subject appropriate, and that will
produce objective, coherent information of a teacher's knowledge of the
subject taught. Such a system is not intended to stigmatize teachers
but to ensure that all teachers have the crucial knowledge necessary to
ensure that students may meet the state's challenging academic
achievement standards in all core subjects.
In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be
given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure
that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under
Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, and under section 1119 of
this conference report, states would be required establish annual
measurable objectives for districts and schools to annually increase
the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional
development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting those
objectives. It also is why both pieces of legislation require under
Part A of Title I that districts spend five percent of their Title I
funds received under subpart 2 on professional development activities,
and require under section 1116 that schools identified devote 10
percent of their Title I funds to professional development activities
as defined under section 1119.
On report cards, The Three R's, in Title IV, section 4401, required
states, districts and schools to annually publish and widely
disseminate to parents and communities report cards on school level
performance. It required that report cards be in a manner and format
that is understandable and concise. State report cards would be
required to include information on each district and school within the
state receiving Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds, including
information disaggregated by subgroup regarding: student performance on
annual assessments in each subject area; a comparison of students at
the three state standard levels of basic, proficient and advanced in
each subject area; three-year trend data; student retention rates; the
number of students completing advanced placement courses; four-year
graduation rates; the qualifications of teaches in the aggregate,
including the percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or
provisional credentials, the percentage of classes not taught by a
fully qualified teacher, and the percentage of teachers who are fully
qualified; and information about the qualifications of
paraprofessionals.
District level report cards would be required to report on the same
type of information as well as information on the number and percentage
of schools identified for improvement, and information on how students
in schools in the district perform on assessments as compared to
students in the state as a whole. School level report cards would be
required to include similar information as that required under the
state and district report cards as well as information on whether the
school has been identified under section 1116. Parents would also have
the right to know, upon request to the school district, information
regarding the professional qualifications of their student's classroom,
and information on the level of performance of the individual student.
[[Page S13406]]
Section 1111 of Title I of the conference report contains a similar
structure for report cards and essentially the same required
information. States would be required to annually report to the public
on student performance information in the aggregate for each of the
four subgroups, in addition to migrant students and gender, including:
student performance on state assessments; a comparison of students
performing at each of the states standard levels of basic, proficient
and advanced; graduation rates; the number and names of schools
identified under section 1116; the qualification of teachers; and the
percentages of students not tested.
Districts would be required to provide similar information in their
report cards, in addition to information on the numbers and percentages
of schools identified for school improvement under section 1116, and
how long the schools have been identified. In the case of school level
information, districts shall also include whether the individual school
has been identified for improvement.
Expanding on the intent behind the Three R's to make the public,
including parents, schools, and communities more aware of how our
nation's schools are performing, the conference report further requires
that states submit annual reports to the Secretary with information,
including the disaggregated assessment results by subgroup; the numbers
and names of each school identified for improvement under section 1116
and the reasons for the identification as well as the measures taken to
address the achievement problems; the number of students and schools
that participated in the public school choice and supplemental service
programs and activities in section 1116; and information on the quality
of teachers and the percentages of classes not taught by a highly
qualified teacher. The Secretary, in turn, shall transmit a report to
Congress with data from these state reports.
This conference report carries out the intent of the Three R's to
provide the public, particularly parents, with a greater awareness of
state, districts and school performance on raising academic
achievement; the academic achievement levels of all students
disaggregated by subgroup; and the qualifications of our nation's
educators. Such information expands public understanding of the
academic achievement gap that exists between minorities and non-
minorities, and between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged students so
that the federal government, states, districts, and schools may better
target attention and resources in order to close those gaps.
As to targeting funds, the Three R's plan made a commitment not only
to boost the Federal investment in public education, but to improve the
targeting of those resources to the schools with the greatest needs. It
found in Title I, section 1001, that:
The Federal Government must better target Federal resources
on those children who are most at risk for falling behind
academically. Funds made available under this title [Title I,
Part A] have been targeted on high-poverty areas, but not to
the degree the funds should be targeted on those areas, as
demonstrated by the following: (A) although 95 percent of
schools with poverty levels of 75 percent to 100 percent
receive title I funds, 20 percent of schools with poverty
levels of 50 to 74 percent do not receive any title I funds;
[and] (B) only 64 percent of schools with poverty levels of
35 percent to 49 percent receive title I funds. Title I
funding should be significantly increased and more
effectively targeted to ensure that all economically
disadvantaged students have an opportunity to excel
academically.
The Three R's plan upheld the commitment made in the 1994 law that
all new funds under Title I, Part A would be distributed to states and
districts under the Targeted Grant formula described in section 1125.
This commitment was further codified this past June when the Senate
passed an amendment, S. Amdt. 475, to S. 1, the Senate ESEA
reauthorization bill, that would prohibit the Secretary from making
awards under Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 unless the goals of the
Targeted Grant formula were met.
This campaign to better target federal funds met with much political
resistance. But the Conference Committee decided to make this goal a
priority, and as a result, the conference report upholds and in some
cases goes beyond the call for targeting in the Three R's plan. In
particular, it includes the amendment sponsored by myself and Senator
Mary Landrieu regarding the Targeted Grant.
The conference report maintains current law formulas under subpart 2
for Basic, Concentration and the Targeted Grant formula, but applies a
hold harmless rate of 85-95 percent of the previous fiscal year
allocation to each district for each of these three formulas. However,
it also ensures that localities that fail to meet the minimum threshold
for the Concentration grant for four years shall no longer be eligible
for funds under this formula.
Crucial to the priority of targeting our federal funds, are the
provisions made under section 1125 to Targeted Grant and the Education
Finance Incentive Grant. In particular, the language prohibits the
allocation of funds under Part A, unless all new funds are distributed
through the Targeted Grant formula. It is the intent of this provision
to address the history of Federal appropriations, which have failed to
provide funding to the Targeted Grant, by requiring appropriators to
uphold the commitment that has existed in authorized law since 1994 to
better target Federal resources to our nation's highest poverty
districts via the Targeted Grant formula.
In addition, these provisions significantly modify the Education
Finance Incentive Grant Program. This program has never been funded and
previously would have been the least targeted formula for Title I, Part
A funds. The conference report changes the formula so that funding to
states would be based on the total number of poor children within the
State multiplied by the per pupil expenditure, the state's effort
factor, and the state's equity factor. Most significantly, within state
allocations would be highly targeted to the highest poverty districts
within each state. Allocations to districts would be based on the
Targeted Grant formula, with greater weighting given to higher poverty
areas depending on the state's equity factor.
I believe that these changes clarify the intent that new Title I
funds should be distributed through the Targeted Grant formula while
ensuring that Education Incentive Grant is modified to better target
resources to high poverty states and districts. These provisions will
make for some of the most important reforms in this conference report,
and will help ensure that Federal resources are targeted to our
districts and schools with the greatest need, rather than diluted
across districts with relatively low levels of poverty.
Regarding Title I, Part B--Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants,
I believe that reading is an essential building block to learning.
Title I, Part A, sections 1111 and 1116 of the New Democrats Three R's
bill put special emphasis on ensuring that all children reach the state
proficiency level in reading and mathematics within 10 years, and held
states and school districts receiving federal funds accountable for
ensuring that their students achieve at the proficient level in both
core subjects. It further called for a significant increase in funding
for Title I and under subpart 2, called for greater targeting of those
resources on our highest poverty communities so that they have the
funds necessary to ensure all students achieve higher levels of
learning in core subjects, such as reading.
The Three R's bill throughout its entirety, but especially in Titles
I, called for targeting of resources to the poorest students and
schools. With the same policy goal, the conference report in Title I,
Part B, also targets resources to the poorest students. It does so by
sending ``Reading First'' awards, authorized at $900 million level in
FY02 in subpart 1 to states under a poverty-based formula that requires
states to give priority in awarding competitive grants within the state
to high poverty areas; and requires school districts to target funds to
schools with high percentages of students from families below the
poverty level, or that have a high percentage of children in grades K-3
reading below grade level and that are identified for school
improvement under Sec. 1116. Additionally, subpart 2 of Part B of
conference report provides a new competitive grant initiative
authorized at $75 million in FY02 called ``Early Reading First'' which
funds early reading intervention targeted at children in high-poverty
areas and
[[Page S13407]]
where there are high numbers of students who are not reading at grade
level.
The intention of the Reading First programs is to place a high
federal priority on reading so that students may better succeed
academically in other subjects as well. These programs seek to provide
students with the basic skills to reach proficiency in reading or
language arts in their grade level, and to better train teachers to
teach children to read. They provide the fundamental building blocks to
help ensure that states, districts and schools reach their academic
achievement goals set forth in this Title.
Teacher quality is also essential to student success, which is why
our Three R's legislation dramatically increased the national
investment in teacher professional development in its Title II, Part A,
to help ensure that all teachers are competent in their subject area,
and provided them with more opportunities for high quality professional
development. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title II, Part B of the
conference report follows this lead and calls for preparing teachers,
including special education teachers, through professional development
and other support, so the teachers can identify specific reading
barriers facing their students and so the teachers have the tools to
effectively help their students learn to read. It is the intent of the
legislation to ensure that teachers are highly qualified and trained in
the latest research and techniques to help all children learn to read
and that the Department provides technical assistance and disseminates
best practices and the latest research on reading.
Because it is important to better understand each child's level of
understanding and learning as he or she enters schools and to identify
children at risk for reading difficulties, Title I, Part A, of the
Three R's bill required states to assist and encourage districts to
conduct first grade literacy diagnostics and assessments that are both
developmentally appropriate and aligned with state content and student
performance standards and to provide districts with technical
assistance. With this same goal, the conference report in Title I, Part
B calls for states to assist school districts in selecting and
developing rigorous diagnostic reading and screening, diagnostic and
classroom-based instructional reading assessments. The intent of the
legislation is to ensure that every child receives a rigorous diagnosis
and assessment of their reading capabilities and that schools and
teachers are helped to administer and use these assessments so that
they can better determine each student's level of reading and design
strategies to ensure that child will read at grade level.
Throughout its entirety, the Three R's bill emphasized greater
accountability for results. This conference report encompasses this
results-based approach. Additionally, Title IV, Part D, of the Three
R's bill called for much more public reporting of progress so that
parents can make more informed decisions regarding their child's
education. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1,
of this new bill requires states receiving grants to provide the
Secretary with an annual report including information on the progress
the state, and school districts, are making in reducing the number of
students served under this subpart in the first and second grades who
are reading below grade level, as demonstrated by such information as
teacher reports and school evaluations of mastery of the essential
components of reading instruction. The report shall also include
evidence that they have significantly increased the number of students
reading at grade level or above, significantly increased the
percentages of students in ethnic, racial, and low-income populations
who are reading at grade level or above, and successfully implemented
the ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 of the
conference report. It is the intent of this legislation that the
Secretary hold accountable states, school districts, and schools for
making progress in increasing the numbers of students--in all major
economic racial and ethnic groups--who are reading at or above grade
level by calling upon the Secretary to review the data contained in
these reports to make a determination on continued funding for states.
I would encourage the Department, in its review, to rigorously enforce
the intended accountability for lack of performance by taking stringent
actions to ensure that recipients of federal funds demonstrate results
in reading gains for all students.
In regards to Title II--Preparing, Training and Recruiting High
Quality Teachers and Principals, the conference report will make
revolutionary changes in federal programs aimed at raising the quality
of our nation's teachers and principals. Many of these reforms were
promoted in the Three R's legislation introduced in the 106th and 107th
Congresses. Most significantly, this conference report builds on the
structural reform advocated by the New Democrats in Title II of the
Three R's bill to streamline several programs into one formula program
to states and localities to better focus Federal attention on the
critical aspects of teacher and principal quality to ensure that all
students, especially those most disadvantaged, are taught by a highly
qualified teacher. It also further enhances the call for better
targeting of our federal resources on the highest poverty states and
school districts.
Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill emphasized the importance of
every child being taught by a highly qualified teacher because research
consistently shows that teacher quality is a key component of student
achievement. It transformed the current Eisenhower Professional
Development Programs into one performance-based program that in return
for greater investments, held states and districts accountable for
having all teachers ``fully qualified'' within four years and for
providing teachers and principals with high quality professional
development. The Three R's required states to set annual measurable
objectives so that all teachers would be ``fully-qualified'' by the
school year 2005-2006, with ``fully-qualified'' defined for secondary
as being state certified, having a bachelor's degree in the area that
they teach, and passing rigorous, state-developed content tests. Title
VII of the Three R's bill further required states to meet the annual
measurable performance objectives established in each title and imposed
fiscal consequences if they did not meet their goals.
Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund
of the new bill has accountability measures similar to that of the
Three R's bill in Titles II and VII and stipulates that all teachers
must be ``highly-qualified'' by the school year 2005-2006. It further
requires states to set annual measurable objectives to meet that goal
and to ensure that teachers and principals get high quality
professional development. States must hold districts accountable for
meeting these annual objectives; districts that fail to make progress
toward meeting the objectives for two consecutive years must develop an
improvement plan that will enable the agency to meet such measurable
objectives. States must provide technical assistance to such districts
and schools within the districts. If a district fails to make progress
toward meeting the objectives for three consecutive years, the district
shall enter into an agreement with the state on the use of the
district's funds. Under this agreement, the state shall institute
professional development strategies and activities that the district
must use to meet the measurable objectives and prohibit the district
from using Title I funds received to fund paraprofessionals hired after
the date of enactment, except that the district may use Title I funds
if the district can demonstrate a significant increase in student
enrollment, or an increased need for translators or assistance with
parent involvement activities. During this stage of professional
development strategies and activities by the state, the state shall
provide funding to schools affected to enable teachers within such
schools to select high-quality professional development activities.
It is the intent of this legislation that states rigorously enforce
these accountability measures in regards to districts that fail to meet
the goals established by the state. I would encourage that the
Secretary consider as non-compliant any state that fails to take action
on districts failing these goals, and urge the Secretary to take action
to ensure that such states uphold the requirements of this language to
hold districts accountable.
[[Page S13408]]
The conference report establishes a different definition of what
constitutes a ``highly-qualified'' teacher, found in Title I, Sec.
1119, than was proposed in the Three R's definition of ``fully
qualified'' teacher, found in Title II, Part A. However this definition
still retains a strong and reasonable focus on ensuring all teachers
meet a high state standard of demonstrated content knowledge.
Specifically, the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' defines ``highly-
qualified'' teachers as teachers that are state certified and:
1. In the case of a newly hired elementary school teacher, has a
bachelor's degree and has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous state
test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing,
mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum.
2. In the case of a newly-hired secondary school teacher, has a
bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high level of competency in each
subject area taught by passing a rigorous state academic subject area
test, or completion, in the subject area(s) taught, of an academic
major, graduate degree, or equivalent course work for an undergraduate
major, or advanced certification.
3. In the case of a veteran elementary or secondary school teacher,
holds a bachelor's degree and has passed a rigorous state test, or
demonstrates competency based on a high, objective and uniform standard
of evaluation developed by the state.
As stated earlier, I believe it is the intention of this language to
ensure that content knowledge assessments or state standards of
evaluations as described in section 1119 will provide for a rigorous,
uniform, objective system that is grade appropriate and subject
appropriate, and that will produce objective, coherent information of a
teacher's knowledge of the subject taught. Such a system is not
intended to stigmatize teachers but to ensure that all teachers have
the crucial knowledge necessary to ensure that students may meet the
state's challenging academic achievement standards in all core
subjects.
In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be
given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure
that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under
Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, section 1119 of this
conference report, and this title, states would be required to
establish annual measurable objectives for districts and schools to
annually increase the percentage of teachers receiving high quality
professional development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting
those objectives. It also is Three R's and this legislation required
districts to spend a portion of their Title I funds on professional
development, and required under section 1116 that schools identified
devote 10 percent of their Title I funds to professional development
activities as defined under section 1119. In addition, I am pleased
that this title authorizes over $3 billion for the purpose of ensuring
that all students be taught by a highly-qualified teacher by providing
a major investment of federal resources to help states and districts
with the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers.
Following the intent of the Three R's bill, to target federal
education funding to meet the needs of the poorest children, schools,
and school districts, and to provide assistance to maintain and upgrade
skills of teachers, the conference report distributes funding to states
through a formula based 65 percent on poverty and 35 percent on student
population, and to school districts through a formula based 80 percent
on poverty and 20 percent on student population. This targeting formula
is the same as that proposed in S. AMDT 474 by Senator Landrieu and
adopted this summer into S.1, the Senate education bill. The conference
report further requires local school districts to provide assurances
that they will target funds to schools that have the lowest percentage
of highly qualified teachers, have the largest class sizes, or are
identified for school improvement under Title I.
Research shows that poor and minority children are more likely to be
taught by a teacher who is teaching out of field--without a major or
minor in the field they are teaching. Obviously, this is a disadvantage
to students as well as teachers. The emphasis on targeting under the
Three R's and expanded upon in this bill, will significantly help our
nation's poorest districts, who often face the greatest obstacles to
recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers.
As called for in Title II of the Three R's bill, Title II, Part A of
the conference report also consolidates teacher quality and
professional development programs into one program for the purposes of
assisting state and local educational agencies with their efforts to
increase student academic achievement through such strategies as
improving teacher and principal quality, providing high quality
professional development for teachers and principals, and recruiting
and retaining highly qualified teachers and high quality principals.
Similar to Title II of the Three R's bill, the conference report
requires districts to provide high quality professional development for
teachers, principals and administrators so that they are better
prepared to raise students' academic achievement and meet state
performance standards.
Title II, Part A, subpart 3 of the conference report also encourages
innovative training and mentioning partnerships between local school
districts and universities, non-profit groups, and corporations and
business organizations, by requiring states to reserve 2.5 percent of
the funds they receive under this subpart for competitive grants to
local partnerships involving higher education institutions and school
districts to provide high quality professional development activities
for teachers and principals and high quality leadership programs for
principals. This mirrors the educator partnerships suggested in Title
II, Part A of the Three R's bill. The intent of such partnerships is to
provide a better linkage between institutions that prepare teachers and
the need for high-quality and on-going professional development to
teachers and principals in order to reach the goal of having fully
qualified teachers in all classrooms and all core subjects.
As did Title II in the Three R's bill, the conference report gives
states and school districts significant flexibility in how they can use
federal education funds to meet the goal of having all teachers highly
qualified within four years. Such flexibility allows states to reform
teacher/principal certification; develop alternative routes to
certification for mid-career professionals; provide support to new
teachers and principals (such as mentioning); provide professional
development; promote reciprocity of teacher and principal certification
and licensing between states; encourage and support training for
teachers to integrate technology into curricula; develop merit-based
performance systems; and develop differential and bonus pay for
teachers in high-need academic subjects and teachers in high-poverty
schools/districts. This flexibility also extends to the local level,
and helps realize the goal proposed in the Three R's bill to provide
states and local with maximum flexibility to address the problem of
recruiting and retaining highly-qualified teachers and meeting the goal
of ensuring all children are taught by a qualified teacher.
Title II Part B--Mathematics and Science Partnerships responds to the
recognition of a national deficit in the number of teachers with
demonstrated content knowledge in math and science. The Three R's bill
sought to address this problem by requiring states to set aside 10
percent of the funds they received under Title II, Part A to establish
partnership grants--between states, institutions of higher education,
local educational agencies, and schools--that supported professional
development activities for mathematics and science teachers in order to
ensure that such teachers have the subject matter knowledge to
effectively teach mathematics and science. Following this same intent,
Title II Part B of the conference report provides for a
separate Mathematics and Science Partnerships program to states for the
creation of partnerships focused on improving the academic achievement
of students in math and science by: improving math and science teacher
training at institutions of higher education; providing sustained
professional development for math and science teachers; increasing the
subject matter knowledge of mathematics and
[[Page S13409]]
science teachers by bringing them together with scientists,
mathematicians and engineers; encouraging institutions of higher
education to share equipment and laboratories with local schools; and
developing more rigorous math and science curricula, and training
teachers in the effective integration of technology into the curricula.
Matching the focus on accountability for results in the Three R's
bill, Part B of Title II of the new bill emphasizes accountability and
calls for recipients to develop measurable objectives, and to report to
the Secretary on the progress of meeting the objectives of increasing
the number of math and science teachers receiving professional
development; on improved student academic achievement based on state
math and science assessments or the International Math and Science
Studies; and on other measures such as student participation in
advanced courses. The new bill calls on the Secretary to consult and
coordinate with the Director of the National Science Foundation with
respect to these programs.
The intent of this Part of the conference report is to improve the
pre-service training, recruitment, and retention of mathematics and
science teachers and to encourage partnerships with institutes of
higher education, scientists and engineers who are employed in other
sectors to ensure that teachers receive high quality professional
development in science and mathematics and with the goal to improve
academic achievement by all students in these important subjects. It
also creates a stronger focus on core subject knowledge by teachers in
mathematics and science where the problems of out-of-field teaching are
greatest.
In relation to Title II, part D--Enhancing Education Through
Technology, the Three R's bill recognized that it is necessary but not
sufficient to increase schools' access to computer hardware; to be an
effective educational tool, technology must be integrated into the core
curricula and teachers must have adequate training on how to do so. The
Three R's bill--Title VI, section 6006, New Economy Technology
Schools--provided funding for states and school districts for high-
quality professional development for teachers in the use of technology
and its integration with state content and student performance
standards; effective educational technology infrastructure; training in
the use of equipment for teachers, school library and media personnel
and administrators; and technology-enhanced curricula and instructional
materials that are aligned with state content and student performance
standards. It also required states and districts to provide high-
quality training to teachers, school library and media personnel and
administrators in the use of technology and its integration with state
content and student academic standards. These core principles were
adopted in Title II part D of the conference report, which consolidated
several technology programs into a state-based technology grant program
entitled ``Enhancing Education Through Technology.''
The purposes of part D of Title II of the new law are to provide
assistance to states and localities for the implementation and support
of a comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in
elementary and secondary schools to improve student academic
achievement; to encourage private-public partnerships to increase
access to technology; to assist states and localities in the
acquisition, maintenance and improvement of technology infrastructure
to increase access for all students, especially disadvantaged students;
to support initiatives to integrate technology into curriculum aligned
with state student academic standards; to provide professional
development of teachers, principals and administrators in teaching and
learning via electronic means; to support electronic networks and
distance learning; to use technology to promote parent and family
involvement, and most importantly to support rigorous evaluation of
programs and their impact on academic performance. These points are
comparable to Title VI Sections 6001 and 6006 of the Three R's bill.
The primary goal of the conference report's Title II, part D, as
stated in its purpose section, is to improve student academic
achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary
schools, to ensure that every child is technologically literate by the
time they finish the eighth grade regardless of their background and to
encourage the effective integration of technology and teacher training
and curriculum. The conference report requires states to develop state
technology plans which must include an outline of the long-term
strategies for improving student academic achievement and local
applications for grants must include a description of how they will use
Federal funds to improve academic achievement aligned to challenging
state academic standards. These parallel the goals under the Three R's
Title VI which emphasized that technology should be an integrated means
to higher achievement, not an end unto itself. It is our intent that
achieving this emphasis remains a key goal for state technology plans,
and that states rigorously review local applications and performance in
making any future awards.
The Findings Policy and Purpose section of Title VI of the Three R's
bill, section 6001, found that technology can produce far greater
opportunities to enable all students to meet high learning standards,
promote efficiency and effectiveness in education, and help to
immediately and dramatically reform our nation's educational system. It
also found that because most federal and state educational technology
programs have focused on acquiring educational technology hardware,
rather than emphasizing the utilization of the technologies in the
classroom and the training and infrastructure required to support the
technologies, the full potential of educational technology has rarely
been realized. It also noted that the effective use of technology in
education has been inhibited by the inability of many State educational
agencies and local educational agencies to invest in and support needed
technologies, and to obtain sufficient resources to seek expert
technical assistance in developing high-quality professional
development activities for teachers and keeping pace with rapid
technological advances. Three R's also emphasized that to remain
competitive in the global economy, our nation needs a workforce that is
comfortable with technology and able to integrate rapid technological
changes into production processes. These purposes remain fully
applicable to the implementation and goals of the new Act.
The emphasis in the new law on using technology to improve student
academic achievement in core subjects is directly related to the goals
of the Three R's bill which called for improved academic achievement
for all children. Title II part D of the conference report is closely
aligned with Title VI--High Performance and Quality Education
Initiatives of the Three R's bill. The intent of this legislation is to
make sure that technology programs are not just providing access to
hardware, but are effectively integrating technology into activities
that are part of the core curricula and to assist students in improving
academic achievement aligned with state content and performance
standards and this intent is carried over into the new law. The
Department in overseeing these provisions should be expected to place
strong emphasis in ensuring that these goals are achieved.
The Three R's emphasized targeting of resources to the poorest
children and schools. This goal was expanded upon in the new law's
Title II, Part D, as funds are allocated to the states based 100
percent on what the state received under Title I, Part A. Additionally,
of the total state funds distributed to locals, 50 percent shall be
distributed through a state formula based on Title I, Part A, and the
remaining 50 percent shall be distributed via competitive grants.
Additionally, competitive grants shall give priory to high need areas.
The intent is that states shall determine which school districts,
because of their size, receive an insufficient amount of formula funds,
to implement efficient and effective activities, and provide them with
supplemental competitive grants.
Title II, part D of the new law requires states to submit
applications for technology funds and that such applications shall
include long-range strategic technology plans. The intent of this is to
ensure that states design long-term strategies for improving student
academic achievement, including
[[Page S13410]]
technology literacy, that incorporate the effective integration of
technology in the classroom, curricula, and professional training of
teachers. Such plans shall also contain a description of: the state
goals for using advanced technology to improve student achievement
aligned to challenging state academic standards; the steps they will
take to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need school
districts have increased access to technology; the process and
accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of the integration of technology; how incentives will be
provided to teachers who are technologically literate to encourage such
teachers to remain in rural and urban areas; and how public and private
entities would participate in the implementation and support of the
plan. We intend that in administering this effort, that the Department
of Education require that states effectively integrate technology in
their classrooms and curricula, and provide adequate professional
development for their teachers, with the goal of improving student
academic achievement in core subjects.
The specific intent in the new Title II, part D is that each local
application for technology grants shall include a description of: how
the school district will use federal funds to improve the academic
achievement, including technology literacy, of all students and to
improve the capacity of all teachers to provide instruction through the
use of technology; what steps they will take to ensure that all
students and teachers in high-need School districts have increased
access to technology; how they will promote teaching strategies and
curriculum which effectively integrate technology into instruction
leading to improvements in student academic achievement as measured by
challenging state standards; how it will provide ongoing professional
development for teachers principals administrators and school library
personnel to further the effective use of technology in classrooms and
library media centers; and the accountability measures and how they
will evaluate the extent to which the technology has been integrated
into the curriculum, increasing the ability of teachers to teach and
increasing the academic achievement of students. All of these elements
are consistent with the Three R's goals that technology shall not be
introduced for technology's sake, but deeply integrated into the
curricula and teaching strategies to foster an enhanced learning
environment. We intend that the Department of Education shall
aggressively enforce the requirements that states ensure that school
districts have a comprehensive technology plan in place; that the use
of technology in the classroom foster a learning environment which will
improve academic achievement in the core subjects, and not only
increase access to technology hardware.
The Three R's emphasis on improving accountability by setting
measurable annual goals and standards for student achievement, and
evaluating and measuring progress achieved can be seen in the new Title
II part D's requirements for state and local applications. These
require states to develop: state goals for using advanced technology to
improve student achievement aligned to challenging state academic
standards; steps to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need
school districts have increased access to technology; and
accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of the integration of technology. We intend that, just as
in other areas of this Act, the Secretary of Education provide
oversight and assist states in the development of rigorous and
measurable goals and standards regarding the use of technology to raise
student academic achievement, and to develop evaluations of the impact
of technology on student academic achievement.
Additionally, one of the allowable uses under state activities in the
new Title II, Part D is the development of enhanced performance
measurement systems to determine the effectiveness of education
technology programs funded under this subpart, especially their impact
on increasing the ability of teachers to teach and enable students to
meet state academic content standards. We intend that states and school
districts develop measurable annual goals and standards to integrate
and use advanced technology to improve student achievement, and expect
that this option be exercised wherever possible by applicants and
strongly encouraged by the Department of Education.
Title II, Part D--Enhancing Education Through Technology requires
that state plans and local applications allocate 25 percent of the
funds to be reserved for high quality professional training for
teachers, principals, librarians and administrators to assist them in
integrating the technology and core curriculum. This mirrors the intent
of the Three R's Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Quality and
Professional Development, which calls for teachers to receive high
quality professional development and to be trained in the areas that
they teach, and specifically the Three R's Title VI, section 6006 which
calls for high quality professional development for teachers in the use
of technology and its integration with student performance standards.
Regarding Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and
Recruiting Fund, the Three R's proposal called for a radical
restructuring of Federal programs serving limited English proficient,
or LEP, students. This restructuring streamlined the existing
competitive Bilingual Education Act programs and significantly
increased and concentrated federal investment for LEP students into one
formula program for districts while, in return, demanding results from
states, school districts and schools for annual gains in English
proficiency and academic achievement among non-native speaking
children. Title III of this new Act embodies much of the restructuring
and policy goals proposed in the Three R's, and creates a new, major
federal initiative aimed at ensuring LEP and immigrant children have
the English language skills and academic knowledge to successfully
participate in American society. This conference report will, for the
first time, hold recipients of federal funds accountable for annually
increasing the percentage of LEP children achieving English proficiency
as well as high levels of learning in all core subjects, and nearly
doubles the amount of federal funding provided to states and localities
for the education of LEP and immigrant students.
The Three R's bill, in Title III, section 3001, recognized that
educating limited English proficient students is an urgent and
increasing need for many local educational agencies. It found that over
the past two decades, the number of LEP children in schools in the
United States has doubled to more than 3,000,000, and will continue to
increase. One of the key goals of the Three R's bill in Title III,
section 3003, was to ensure that students with limited English
proficiency learn English and achieve high levels of learning on core
academic subjects, including reading and math. Title III of this
conference report also has the goal of assisting all LEP students to
attain English proficiency, so that those students can meet the same
challenging state content standards and challenging state student
performance standards as all students are expected to meet.
Title III, section 3001, of the Three R's noted that each year
640,000 limited English proficient students are not served by any sort
of program targeted to their unique needs. The title increased the
amount of Federal assistance to school districts serving such students
and streamlined the existing competitive Bilingual Education Act
programs into a single performance-based formula grant for state and
local educational agencies to help LEP students become proficient in
English. Title III of this new Act also consolidates the Bilingual
Education Act, as well as the Emergency Immigrant Education Program,
and authorizes $750 million for one formula program to states and
school districts once federal appropriations levels reach $650 million.
The intention behind this language to recognize that a substantial
level of federal resources are essential in order to provide funding to
districts that is meaningful. It further ensures that resources are not
diluted.
The Three R's focused resources to those most in need and allocated
funds to states based on the number of LEP students, and required
states to send 95 percent of the funds received to school districts so
that they may better assist such students. Similarly, the conference
report provides funding in Title
[[Page S13411]]
III (Part A, subpart 1) to states via a formula based 80 percent on the
number of LEP children in the state and 20 percent on the number of
immigrant children. Additionally the conference report calls for 95
percent of the funds to be used for grants to eligible entities at the
local level. Districts shall receive funds based on their number of LEP
students. However, to ensure that funds are not diluted, the Act
requires that states shall not make an award to districts if the amount
of grant would be less than $10,000.
Under the Three R's Title III, section 3109, states were required to
establish standards and annual measurable benchmarks for English
language development that are aligned with state content and student
academic achievement standards; develop high quality annual assessments
to measure English language proficiency, including proficiency in the
four recognized domains: speaking, reading, writing and comprehension;
develop annual performance objectives based on the English language
development standards set to increase the English proficiency of LEP
students; describe how the state will hold districts or schools
accountable for meeting English proficiency performance objectives, and
for meeting adequate yearly progress with respect to LEP students as
required in Title I, section 1111; describe how districts will be given
the flexibility to teach English in the scientifically research based
manner that each district determines to be the most effective; and
describe how the state will provide assistance to districts and
schools. Section 3108 further required states to certify that all
teachers in any language instruction program for LEP student were
fluent in English to help ensure that students in language instruction
programs are taught by the most qualified educators.
We intend that these requirements will ensure that states emphasize
language proficiency that ensures a comprehensive understanding of the
English language so that students have the oral, writing, listening and
comprehension skills necessary to successfully achieve high-levels of
learning in our schools and later in the American workforce.
In turn, under sections 3106 and 3107, school districts were required
to describe how they would use funds to meet the annual English
proficiency performance objectives and how the district would hold
schools accountable for meeting the performance objectives. Under Title
VII, section 7101, states that failed to meet their performance
objectives after three consecutive years would have 50 percent of their
state administrative funding withheld. And, states that failed to meet
such performance objectives after four consecutive years would have 30
percent of their Title VI programmatic funds withheld.
Title III, section 3105 of the Three R's further required the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to provide assistance to
states and districts in the development of English language standards
and English language proficiency assessments. The intent is that the
Department provide support to ensure high quality plans, performance
objectives, and English language assessments.
The conference report, contains nearly the same accountability
provisions and requirements. Title III, section 3113, requires states
to establish standards and objectives for raising the level of English
proficiency that are derived from the four recognized domains of
speaking, listening, reading and writing, and that are aligned with
achievement of the challenging state academic content and student
academic achievement standards in section 1111; to hold districts
accountable for annually assessing English proficiency as required
under Title I, section 1111; and hold districts accountable for meeting
annual measurable objectives, in section 3122, for annual increases in
the percentage of LEP students attaining proficiency in English, and
for making adequate yearly progress as required under Title I, section
1111 while they are learning English.
Section 3122(b) requires states to identify school districts that
have failed to meet their annual measurable objectives for two
consecutive years and ensure that such districts develop an improvement
plan to ensure that the district shall meet the objectives and
addresses the factors that prevented the district from achieving such
objectives. For districts that fail to meet the annual objectives for
four years, states shall ensure that districts modify their language
instruction program; determine whether to terminate program funds to
the district; and replace educational personnel relevant to the
district's failure to make progress on the annual measurable
objectives.
States shall be held accountable for meeting the annual performance
objective for Title III under Title VI, section 6161 of this Act. The
Secretary is required to, starting two years after implementation,
annually review whether states have met annual measurable objectives
established under Title III. If states have failed to meet such
objectives for two years, the Secretary may provide technical
assistance to states that is rigorous and provides constructive
feedback to each failing state. In addition, the Secretary shall submit
an annual report to the Congress listing the states that have failed to
meet the objectives under Title III.
Title III of the Three R's bill gave districts the flexibility to
determine what method of instruction to implement. This conference
report also gives districts the flexibility to design English language
instruction programs that best meet the needs of their limited English
proficient students. It further, as did the Three R's bill, eliminates
the requirement that 75 percent of funding be used to support programs
using a child's native language for instruction to give districts the
flexibility they need to meet new proficiency goals.
One of the fundamental goals of the Three R's bill was to provide
better information to parents about quality and progress of their
child's education. Title III (section 3110) of the Three R's bill
required parental notification of each student's level of English
proficiency, how it was assessed, the status of the student's academic
achievement, and the programs that are available to meet the student's
educational needs. Title III further required that states give parents
the option to remove their student from any language instruction
program. States were required to provide parents with timely
information, in manner and form understandable to the parents, about
programs under Title III and notice of opportunities to participate in
regular meetings regarding programs developed.
Similarly, the conference report, under Title I (section 1112),
requires districts to provide parents notification of their child's
placement in a language instruction program, and give parents the right
to choose among various programs if more than one type is offered, and
have the right to immediately remove their child from a language
instruction program. The Title further allows districts to develop
parent and community outreach initiatives and training so that parents
may be more active in their child's education. As with the Three R's
bill, the intent of the provision is to provide the maximum information
about performance and programs to parents, and the Department must take
steps to ensure this.
Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools of the Conference Report
was influenced by concepts in the Three R's bill. The Three R's bill
sought to more directly focus resources and activities on the
improvement of academic achievement. This conference report progresses
that goal in the Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools Program,
stressing activities that will foster a learning environment that
supports academic achievement. The conference report requires states to
describe how they will fulfill this goal in their comprehensive plan
and their application to the Secretary. Local applications must also
assure that the activities will foster a safe and drug free learning
environment that supports academic achievement. Additionally, following
another major intent of the Three R's bill (in both Titles VI and VII),
increased accountability and evaluation is called for in Title IV Part
A in the conference report. The activities shall be based on an
assessment of objective data and assessment of need. Established
performance measures will be used and the programs will be periodically
evaluated to assess their progress based on the attainment of these
performance measures. National
[[Page S13412]]
reports are required every two years by the Secretary and reports by
states and school districts are required on an annual basis. The Three
R's bill in Title II, Part A and Title VI, Sec. 6006, highlighted
increased professional training for teachers, principals, and other
staff related to academic content as well as dealing with disruptive
students and those exhibiting distress. Similarly, the conference
report contains greater awareness and support for training activities.
On academic achievement, the purposes of Title IV Part A--Safe and
Drug Free Schools in the conference report are to support programs
that: prevent violence in and around schools; prevent the illegal use
of alcohol, tobacco and drugs; involve parents and communities; and
that are coordinated with related federal, state, school and community
efforts and resources. Under the conference report, a school district
can use funds to develop, implement and evaluate comprehensive programs
and activities which are coordinated with other school and community-
based services and programs that foster a safe and drug-free learning
environment that supports academic achievement. The overall goal of the
programs in the conference report's Title IV Part A is to foster a safe
and drug-free learning environment which supports academic achievement.
This embodies similar principles in the Three R's bill in Title VI,
sections 6001 and 6006 and the general intent of the Three R's bill in
focusing all activities on the improvement of academic achievement for
all children.
Related to accountability and evaluations, Title VI of the Three R's
bill emphasizes that programs should be evaluated to determine if they
are effective in achieving the goals of improving safe learning
environments. The conference report allows up to $2 million for the
Secretary to conduct a national impact evaluation for the ``Safe and
Drug Free'' programs under Title V Part A. National reports are
required every two years by the Secretary and state and school district
reports are required on an annual basis. The conference report also
requires states to implement a Uniform Management Information and
Reporting System that would include information and statistics on
truancy rates; the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence
and drug related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsion in
elementary and secondary schools in states; the types of curricula,
programs and services provided, the incidence and prevalence, age of
onset, perception of health risk and perception of social disapproval
of drug use and violence by youth in schools and communities. Title V
part A of the conference report also requires that state and school
district applications must contain a needs assessment for drug and
violence prevention programs which is based on objective data and the
results of on-going state and local evaluation activities. They shall
also provide a statement of the performance measures for drug and
violence prevention programs that will be used in evaluations. Under
the conference report, programs in this Title will be periodically
evaluated to assess their progress based on performance measures. The
results shall be used to refine, improve and strengthen the program and
to refine the performance measures. Such evaluations shall be made
available to the public on request. These provisions follow the intent
of the Three R's bill to increase accountability and evaluation in all
major activities with the understanding that education reforms cannot
be achieved without continual, thorough evaluations of their
effectiveness and making such evaluations available to parents and the
public. The Department shall act to ensure that quality evaluations are
implemented.
The Principles of Effectiveness Activities part of the new act
requires that activities shall be based upon an assessment of objective
data regarding the incidence of violence and illegal drug use in the
elementary and secondary schools, and communities to be served,
including an objective analysis of the current conditions and
consequences regarding violence and illegal drug use, delinquency and
serious discipline problems. In addition, activities shall be based on
established performance measures aimed at ensuring that the elementary
and secondary schools and communities to be served by the program have
a drug-free, safe and orderly learning environment; be based upon
scientifically based research that provides evidence that the program
to be used will reduce violence and illegal drug use; be based on an
analysis of data reasonably available at the time of the prevalence of
risk factors and include meaningful and ongoing consultation with
parents. It is our intent that the Department act to ensure a high
quality assessment effort fully consistent with the requirements.
Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill consolidated
a number of national competitive grant programs--such as in Title VI--
into state and school district formula programs to drive more resources
to school districts and to concentrate resources in the poorest areas.
The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program in Title V Part A of the
conference report, utilizes a formula that is nearly the same as that
established under the Three R's bill, with positive improvements. Title
V, Part A distributes funds to states through a formula that is based
50 percent on school age population and 50 percent on Title I
Concentration Grants, which requires districts to have at least a 15
percent poverty level, or 6,500 low income students. Eighty percent of
the funds received by the state shall be distributed to school
districts via a formula distribution that is the same as that contained
in the Three R's bill, with 60 percent based on poverty in Title I,
Part A, subpart 2, and 40 percent on school enrollment.
The Act further allows states to reserve, not more than 20 percent of
the total amount received for competitive grants to school districts
and community-based organizations, and other entities for activities
that complement and support district safety activities. Such activities
shall especially provide assistance to areas that serve large numbers
of low-income children, or rural communities. This provision further
targets funds to areas of need and the Department is expected to adopt
guidelines for the flexible program effort that assure quality and
creativity.
On professional training, Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill also
called for increased professional training for teachers, principals and
other personnel, with the goal of providing them with more expertise to
create safer environments and to deal with disruptive students, as well
as obtain greater ability to help students reach academic achievement
goals. Specifically, Title VI, section 6006 of the Three R's allowed
localities to use funds to provide professional development programs
that provide instruction on how best to discipline children in the
classroom, how to teach character education; and provide training for
teachers, principals, mental health professionals, and guidance
counselors in order to better assist and identify students exhibiting
distress, such as exhibiting distress through substance abuse,
disruptive behavior, and suicidal behavior. With the similar goal of
having trained personnel work with children, Title VI, Part A of the
conference report allows for drug and violence prevention professional
development and community training. It further, under National Programs
under Title V Part A, provides for the development and demonstration of
innovative strategies for the training of school personnel, parents and
members of the community for drug and violence prevention activities.
Title IV, Part B--21st Century Community Learning Centers of the
conference report contains a similar focus to that of the Three R's
bill. A major intent of the Three R's bill was to ensure that all ESEA
programs, more directly focus on the academic performance of students
and that accountability for these programs be strongly linked to
increased performance toward that goal. Specifically, Title VI Sec.
6006. of the Three R's bill required localities to spend 25 percent of
the funds they received, under a new major federal program that was
focused on spurring academic achievement through innovation, on
providing high quality, academically-focused after school opportunities
to students.
This conference report furthers that principle by making improved
academic achievement a primary element of the modified 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program. Title
[[Page S13413]]
IV, Part B also enhances the aim of greater accountability as set forth
in the Three R's--Title VI Sec. 6005 and Title VII, Part A. The
legislation provides significantly increased funding for entities
providing students with opportunities for continued academic enrichment
before and after school, and during the summer. Such opportunities are
intended to help students, particularly students who attend low-
performing schools, meet state student performance standards in core
academic subjects. And, building on the focus of the Three R's bill to
demand greater results in return for greater investment, the conference
report calls for the 21st Century activities to be evaluated and
monitored for their effectiveness, and requires states to consider
those results and apply a series of fiscal sanctions if performance
does not meet performance goals. Additionally, the Act carries forth
the intent of the Three R's bill to target the funds to those most in
need. Title IV, Part B of the conference report distributes funds to
the states based on their share of Title I, Part A and requires states
to give priority for competitive grants to recipients serving low-
income communities and schools.
The purpose of 21st Century programs in Title IV, Part B of the
conference report is to provide opportunities to communities to
establish or expand activities before and after school that: provide
academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help
students, particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to
meet state and local student performance standards in core academic
subjects; offer students a wide array of additional services and
activities such as art, music, and recreation, technology education,
character education, and counseling programs that reinforce and
complement the regular academic program; offer families of students
opportunities for literacy and related educational development. These
programs should be designed and approved consistent with the intent of
the Three R's bill in Title VI Section 6006 that provided funds to
School districts and schools for innovative programs and activities
that transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities'' for students
by creating a challenging learning environment and facilitating
academic enrichment through innovative academic programs or provide for
extra learning time opportunities for students. The intent of the Three
R's bill to focus before and after school programs on learning
opportunities, especially for those most in need, is mirrored in the
intent and purpose of the conference report's 21st Century program.
Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill, in several
titles including Title I, had the intent of targeting the education
funds to the poorest communities and schools who are most in need.
Following this direction, 21st Century funds under the conference
report in Title IV Part B are allocated to the states based 100 percent
on Title I, part A subpart 2, thereby targeting these funds on a
poverty basis. Additionally, the conference report in Title IV Part B
requires states to focus competitively awarded grants on applicants
that seek to serve students who primarily attend schools eligible for
schoolwide programs in Title I, those schools with at least 40 percent
low income students, and other schools with a high percentage of low
income students;
Regarding accountability and evaluation, the Three R's bill in Title
VI Section 6007 and 6008 called for evaluating the impact of 21st
Century Opportunity programs on academic achievement. Title IV Part B
of the conference report follows this intent, by requiring states to
conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of their 21st Century
program and activities and requires that state applications describe
how the state will evaluate the effectiveness of their 21st Century
programs and activities.
Title V, Part B of the conference report contains major influences
from the Three R's bill. A primary policy goal of the Three R's bill
was to provide additional innovation and effective voluntary public
school choice options for children and parents with the belief that
market forces and choice integrated into the public framework will
result in a stronger system for students with greater incentives for
schools to raise academic performance. Title V, Part B of the
conference report follows this same intent and develops many of the
same programs.
Building directly on many of the proposals contained in the Three R's
bill, the conference report would strengthen the Federal commitment to
expanding the range of educational options available to all students
within the public school framework. Although the conference report
makes only minor changes to the current charter schools start up
program, designated as subpart 1, does contain a new initiative to help
charter schools deal with the cost of operations and facility
financing, section 5205(b), as well as a new initiative to encourage
broader choice programs at the local level, subpart 3. These provisions
are based on language from the Three R's bill--Title IV, Part C--as
well as an amendment--S. AMDT. 518--to the Senate bill, S.1, which
Senators Carper, Gregg and I cosponsored that would encourage and
expand intra-district wide or inter-district wide public school choice
programs as well as help to provide additional options for financing
charter schools. In addition, the conference report includes a program
that has been funded under appropriations, but never authorized that
provides critical funding for charter school construction under subpart
2.
Titles I and VI of the Three R's bill called for increased funding to
help finance charter schools, provide them with technical assistance,
evaluate the programs, and disseminate information on innovative
approaches, all with the purpose of helping expand the educational
choices available in the public system to parents and students. I have
been a long time advocate for charter schools and was the chief
Democratic sponsor of the Public School Redefinition Act of 1991, S.
1606, and in 1993, S. 429, which provided states with funding to
establish charter school.
I am pleased that this conference report will continue this strong
federal support for the expansion of the charter school movement, while
ensuring that those schools meet the same high accountability standards
expected of all schools under Title I, Part A. It was the intent of
conferees that charter schools shall meet the accountability
requirements in this Act, including those provisions in section 1111
and 1116, but that the mechanism for holding them accountable should be
consistent with state law. In most cases, this means that the
recognized chartering authority would be responsible for holding
charter schools accountable. It is my belief that chartering
authorities that fail to carry out their responsibilities in holding
charter schools accountable should themselves be held accountable based
on State law.
The conference report also ensures that charter schools receive their
full allotment of Title I funds by stipulating that a local educational
agency, in passing through subgrant awards to charter schools, may not
deduct funds for administrative fees unless the applicant enters
voluntarily into a mutually agreed upon arrangement for administrative
services with the relevant school district. I advocated for this
agreement in conference because of the importance of giving charter
schools fuller decision-making authority over the funds to which they
are entitled.
In addition, the conference report will help further the range of
public education options available by creating a new ``Voluntary Public
School Choice'' demonstration program under Title IV, Part B, subpart
3. This program authorizes the Secretary to award grants on a
competitive basis for the development of universal public school choice
programs. The program evolved out of the Three R's bill and an
amendment sponsored by Senator Carper to S. 1. It is the intent of this
program that the Secretary give priority to applicant providing the
widest choice and that have the potential of allowing students from
low-performing schools to attend high performing schools. I believe
that demonstrations that provide inter-district, or state wide choice
should be of highest priority. In addition, I am pleased that the
program calls for an evaluation of the success of these demonstrations
in promoting educational equity and excellence, and the effect of the
programs on academic achievement of students
[[Page S13414]]
participating and on the overall quality of participating schools and
districts.
I believe that the language under section 1116 of Title I, granting
parents the option to transfer their student out of a school identified
for improvement or corrective action to a higher performing public
school, will be meaningless unless the federal government actively
supports and encourages programs such as the Charter School Programs
and the Voluntary Public School Choice programs under Title V to expand
the creation of new alternative public education opportunities.
That is why I also am pleased that the agreement contains the Per
Pupil Facility Financing and Credit Enhancement Initiatives, which will
help charter schools facing financial burdens due to their lack of
bonding or tax raising capabilities. As a result of their inability to
raise resources, charter schools must spend more of their resources on
operating costs, and fewer dollars on educational needs, such as hiring
qualified teachers. To ensure that charter schools better spend their
own resources on academic activities, and to address the special
financial problems faced by charters, Title V, Part B, section 5205(b)
directs the Secretary to make competitive awards to states as seed
money for the development of innovative programs providing annual
financing to charters schools on a per pupil basis for operating
expenses, facility acquisition, leasing payments, and renovation. The
language authorizes $300 million for Part B, but designates $200
million for subpart 1, Charter School Programs, other than 5205(b), and
the next $100 million in funding for the purpose of meeting the Per
Pupil Facility Financing provisions in section 5205(b). Once funding
levels for Part B, subpart 1 reaches $300 million, any new funding
above that level will be equally split between 5205(b) and subpart 1,
the charter start up program.
To provide clearer understanding of this funding arrangement, I
proposed, along with Senator Gregg, the following report language:
Charter schools are public schools, yet lack the bonding
and taxing authority traditionally available to school
districts to finance their facilities. As a result, charter
schools are forced to use operating revenues that are
intended to be spent in the classroom to pay rent or to
make debt payments for facilities. States have the primary
obligation to address this inequity. But, to stimulate
state incentives, this conference report authorizes a
limited-term federal role in encouraging states to
establish or expand per pupil facilities aid programs.
Conferees support significant funding increases for the
charter school program in order to free up resources, as
quickly as possible, for the per-pupil financing program, a
program that assists charter school in meeting their
operating needs, so that charter school resources may be
better spent on academic activities.
Title V, Part B, Subpart 2 of this conference report includes
language from an amendment, S. Amdt. 518, to the Senate bill, S. 1,
which Senators Carper, Gregg, and I cosponsored to provide funding for
a competitive program awarded by the Secretary to entities that develop
innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist charter schools
with the costs of acquiring, constructing and renovating facilities.
This language was included in the Appropriations agreement for FY 01,
but was never authorized under the ESEA. The program is authorized at
$150 million, and will provide critical funding for charter schools for
renovations and repairs of facilities.
It is my belief that these provisions, combined with the strong
public reporting requirements under section 1111 of Title I, will
ensure that parents have tools and the options available to make real
educational choices.
Title VI.--Flexibility and Accountability of the conference report
contained a number of similar concepts as the Three R's bill. The Three
R's plan established a clear accountability contract for Federal
assistance: the federal government would provide far more resources and
more flexibility than ever before to states and localities, and in
exchange, states would be held accountable for measurable results. The
bill significantly streamlined a wide range of Federal programs into a
limited number of priority areas, especially under Titles II, III and
VI, reduced the strings attached to those funds, and gave states and
local districts broad latitude to focus those funds on their most
pressing needs.
The conference report embraces the goal of greater flexibility and
puts it into practice, so that local educators can best utilize federal
resources to meet their specific challenges and do what is necessary to
improve academic achievement. The conference report is not as
streamlined as the Three R's plan. But it does consolidate a number of
large and small programs, especially under Titles II and III, and
provides States and local districts with additional flexibility to
transfer funds from different accounts to target local priorities. It
also creates two pilot programs to give States and local districts
broad discretion to merge and consolidate federal funding.
Regarding Three R's consolidation and transferability, Title VI--High
Performance and Quality Education Initiatives of the Three R's
consolidated several Federal programs (21st Century Community Learning
Centers, Technology programs, Innovative Programs block grant, and the
Safe and Drug Free Schools program) into one formula program to States
and local districts for the purpose of: (1) providing supplementary
assistance for ``School Improvement'' to schools and districts that
have been, or are at risk of being, identified as being in need of
improvement under section 1116 of Title I; (2) providing assistance to
local districts and schools for innovative programs and activities that
transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities for students'' by
creating challenging learning environments and providing extra learning
time; (3) providing assistance to districts, schools and communities to
strengthen existing activities or develop and implement new programs
that create ``Safe Learning Environments''; and (4) creating ``New
Economy Technology Schools'' by providing assistance for high quality
professional development, educational technology infrastructure,
technology training for teachers, and technology-enhanced curricula and
instructional materials aligned with State content and student
performance standards. Districts were required to spend 30, 25, 15 and
30 percent of funds, respectively, on the four areas.
Section 6005 required districts to ensure that programs and
activities conducted were aligned with State content and student
performance standards under section 1111; to establish annual
measurable performance goals and objectives for each program; and to
establish measures to assess progress by schools in meeting established
objectives as well as holding schools accountable for meeting the
objectives. Districts were required to annually publish and widely
disseminate to the public a report describing the use of funds in the
four purpose areas; the outcomes of local programs as well as an
assessment of their effectiveness; the districts progress toward
attaining its goals and objectives; and the extent to which such
funding uses increased student achievement.
Based on the premise that districts that are achieving academic goals
should have greater flexibility in deciding how to spend Federal
resources, the Three R's allowed districts that were meeting adequate
yearly progress--AYP--established by the State under section 1111, to
transfer up to 30 percent of their program funds among the four purpose
categories. Districts that were exceeding AYP would be allowed to
transfer up to 50 percent of their funds across the four purpose
categories.
If districts, however, failed to make AYP for two consecutive years,
they would only be allowed to transfer 25 percent of program funds from
three categories, and only into the School Improvement category. In
addition, the State would have the authority to direct how remaining
Title VI funds would be spent in the district. Districts that were
under corrective action (as described in section 1116 of Title I) would
lose all decision-making capacity over the use of Title VI funds and
States would determine how funds would be spent. The bill called for a
similar accountability structure between local districts and schools.
Regarding the conference report transferability and flexibility,
although the conference report does not call for the same level of
streamlining as called for under the Three R's, the Act does provide
States and districts with flexibility similar to that established under
the Three R's. Title VI,
[[Page S13415]]
Section 6123, allows States to transfer up to 50 percent of their State
administrative and activity funds among the following Federal programs:
Part A of Title II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II--
Technology, Part A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, Part B of
Title IV--21st Century Community Learning Centers and Part A of Title
V--Innovative Programs, Block Grants.
In addition, just as the Three R's linked the degree of flexibility
allowed to the attainment of adequate yearly progress under section
1111 of Title I, school districts that are making AYP may transfer up
to 50 percent of the following Federal program funds: Part A of Title
II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II--Technology, Part
A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Part A of Title V--
Innovative Programs, Block Grants. School districts that have been
identified under section 1116 as being in need of improvement may only
transfer 30 percent of the program funds, but shall only transfer funds
into their set aside under section 1003 for turning around low-
performing schools and into section 1116 activities. States and
districts may transfer funds into Title I, but no funds may be
transferred out of Title I. School districts in corrective action may
not transfer any funds.
In addition, the conference report creates two pilot programs for
states and districts to further expand opportunities for greater
flexibility. Subpart 3 of Title VI gives the Secretary authority to
award ``State Flexibility Demonstrations'' to up to seven states, and
allows them to consolidate their state activity and administration
funds under the following Federal programs: Part A of Title II, Part D
of Title II, Part A of Title IV, Part A of Title V, and section 1004 of
Title I. To be eligible, states must also have four to 10 local
districts within the state that agree to participate and that will also
consolidate similar funds and align them to the State Flexibility
Demonstration. At least half of these local districts must be high
poverty. Selected states would receive maximum flexibility in spending
consolidated funds on any educational purpose authorized under the Act.
States that failed to make AYP for two years would have their
demonstration terminated.
States participating a demonstration must still meet all the
accountability requirements from any of the programs from which funds
are consolidated, including meeting the requirement in section 1119 in
Title I and Title II that all teachers be highly qualified by the end
of the 2005-2006 school year. The Act creates a similar demonstration
program for localities. 150 districts (70 of which much come from the
seven State Flexibility Demonstration States) may apply for a local
flexibility demonstration from the Secretary; however, there shall only
be three districts participating in any State (except for the State
Flexibility Demonstration States). These local districts would be
allowed to consolidate funds from Part A of Title II, Part D of Title
II, Part A of Title IV, and Part A of Title V. Participating districts
would be given maximum flexibility over the use of funds for any
educational purpose under this Act. School districts that failed to
make AYP for two years would have their demonstration terminated.
Regarding state accountability, in return for substantial federal
investment and flexibility over the use of funds, the Three R's
demanded that States be held accountable for greater academic
achievement for all students. Title VII of the bill required that
States that failed to make adequate yearly progress under section 1111,
or its established annual measurable performance objectives under
titles II and III be sanctioned. Specifically, it required that, in the
case of a state that failed to meet such goals for three years, the
Secretary withhold 50 percent of that state's administrative funds from
the relevant title. In the case of a state that failed to meet such
goals for four years, the Secretary was required to withhold 30 percent
of the state's funds under Title VI.
Three R's was based on the premise that states, in addition to school
districts and schools, should be held accountable for the attainment
AYP, and other state-wide goals and objectives established in Titles II
and III. It recognized that in the history of the ESEA, no Secretary
has imposed fiscal sanctions on States for failure, and so required
that the Federal government impose tough sanctions on states that
repeatedly fail to meet their own goals.
This Act does not contain the same degree of state-level
accountability as envisioned under the Three R's bill, but does call
for meaningful initial steps to hold States accountable for progress,
and lays a solid foundation for stronger measures in the future.
Specifically, under section 6161 of Title VI, it requires the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Education to, starting two years after
implementation, annually review whether states have met their adequate
yearly progress--AYP--established under section 1111 and the annual
measurable objectives established under Title III. The Secretary must
provide technical assistance to states that fail to meet AYP for two
years, and may provide technical assistance to states, where any
district receiving funds under Title III fails to meet the annual
objectives established in such title. In addition, technical assistance
must be valid, reliable, rigorous, and provide constructive feedback to
each failing state. In order to ensure full public knowledge of a
state's failure to meet its goals, the Secretary shall submit an annual
report to the Congress containing a list of states that have failed to
meet AYP; the teacher quality reporting requirements under section
1119; and a list of states that have failed to meet the annual English
proficiency and academic achievement objectives for limited English
proficient students under Title III.
In order to clarify the intent behind this language, Conferees agreed
to conference report language that makes it clear that Congress expects
states identified by the Secretary to develop and implement improvement
strategies that address the factors that led to failure and that will
ensure the state meets AYP under Title I and its English proficiency
objectives under Title III. I believe that this process will enable the
Secretary to better follow the progress of states and take steps to
help ensure that State meet their own established goals.
In addition, the conference report states:
Conferees stress that a fundamental purpose of Title I as
established under this Act is to hold States, local
educational agencies, and schools accountable for improving
the academic achievement of all students, and for identifying
and turning around low-performing schools. As a result,
Conferees expect States to meet their definition of adequate
yearly progress to the same degree as local school districts
and schools. The Conferees further urge Congress and the
Secretary to thoroughly examine the data collected from the
State assessment systems and factor such information into
future discussions on accountability measures for States,
which should include consideration of the use of fiscal
sanctions to hold those States that continually fail to
meet their definition of adequate yearly progress and fail
to improve the academic achievement of all students
accountable.
Although I believe that more improvements could be made to better
hold State accountable for academic progress, I do believe that the
conference report contains strong requirements under sections 1111 and
1116 of Title I, Part A of Title II, and subpart 2 of Part A of Title
III, to hold districts and schools accountable for meeting the goals of
this Act. Such provisions take a new approach to accountability by
requiring districts and/or schools to meet annual goals, make
improvements after initial failure, and eventually imposing tough
penalties on those that continually fail to improve.
Furthermore, the reporting requirements for state and district report
cards in section 1111, and annual reports by States to the Secretary,
in section 1111, annual reports by the Secretary to Congress, in
section 1111 and section 6161, and the information provided under the
National Assessment of Educational Progress as outlined in section
6302, will provide an uncomparable wealth of information on academic
achievement for parents, communities and the public. This unprecedented
stream of annual information, combined with the substantial increase in
public school choice provided to parents in Title I, section 1116, and
Title V--Part B, under the Charter Schools Programs and the Voluntary
Public School Choice Programs, will provide an infusion of the market
forces of transparency, accessibility,
[[Page S13416]]
and competition into our nation's public school system. This dynamic
will create for some of the greatest accountability that can exist--
accountability by parents.
Regarding the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the
conference report builds on the basic concept in the Three R's bill to
provide parents and communities with greater awareness of the
performance of schools as compared to other schools in a local school
district, and as compared to other schools in the State. This
conference report expands that aim by requiring in section 6302 of Part
C of Title VI that States participate biennially in the National
Assessment of Educational Progress--NAEP--of fourth and eighth grade
reading and mathematics. States shall not be penalized based on their
performance on the NAEP, but it is the intent that public knowledge of
state performance will help drive states to develop more rigorous
content and student academic achievement standards and assessments.
Mr. President, I want to end by briefly thanking my fellow Conference
members and their staff for their hard work on this historic conference
report, particularly Elizabeth Fay with Senator Bayh, Danica Petroshius
with Senator Kennedy, Denzel McGuire with Senator Gregg, Sally Lovejoy
with Representative Boehner, Charles Barone with Representative Miller,
as well as all the Conference Committee staff. And, I would like to
give a special thanks to Sandy Kress of the White House for all of his
efforts in this process, and to Will Marshall and Andy Rotherham of the
Progressive Policy Institute as well as Amy Wilkins of the Education
Trust for their policy expertise. Finally, I want to thank my own staff
for their hard work, particularly Michele Stockwell, Dan Gerstein, and
Jennifer Bond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Iowa, the champion
for the disabled, the leader in our full funding for IDEA. He has also
been a leader in terms of school construction. On so many of these
issues, we have profited from his intervention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his kind words and
I thank him for his leadership. There is no doubt we need to make
education the top priority in this Nation. No one in the entire
country, let alone this Congress, has made this more of a top priority
over all of the years we have been working on this issue than the
chairman of our committee, Senator Kennedy. I commend him and I commend
Senator Gregg for their leadership and for working to bring this bill
to fruition.
There is a lot in this bill. We know kids are behind in science. We
know it has been level in the fourth and eighth grades, but we know by
the time they get to the twelfth grade they fall way behind. There is
no doubt in my mind we need to make schools accountable and we need to
make teachers and principals accountable. In order to do that we have
to have the resources for it, and that is why I commend my friend, the
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who has fought so hard and so
eloquently to keep pointing out time and time again we cannot demand
accountability unless we include resources. I am hopeful, having passed
this bill, that the Bush administration will follow through with
support for the appropriations process.
I happen to chair the appropriations subcommittee that funds
education. Now that we have the bill and we have the authorization, the
next step is to get the appropriations.
I await the Bush budget next year. I want to see the budget President
Bush is going to send down and I want to see if he is going to put the
money behind the rhetoric and leave no child behind. That is really
going to be the true test next year, the budget the President sends
down.
Lastly, I want to thank all of the Senators who have worked so hard
to try to get full funding for special education, to get it on the
mandatory side, to get it off the plate where we are pitting kids with
disabilities against other kids in our schools, to just get rid of that
once and for all and make special education a mandatory funding item.
We had that in our bill. It was supported in the Senate by both
Republicans and Democrats, and in conference, I might add. It was only
because of the intransigence of the administration, in holding the
Republicans on the House side, that we did not get full funding and we
did not get mandatory funding for special education. One of the biggest
losses in this bill is that we did not get mandatory full funding for
special education because now we are going to be right back in that
same rut again, with kids with special needs in schools fighting with
their parents saying why should they get all this money, what about our
kids in schools? And you are going to have continued problems until we
step to the plate and we provide that 40 percent of funding we promised
26 years ago.
Lastly, I thank the chairman and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg
for including two provisions which I think are extremely important. One
is the elementary and secondary school counseling program. I believe a
lot of this violence is because kids are not getting good counseling. I
thank them for keeping it in.
The second is the effort and equity formula for title I. It is
important that States put in more money and equalize their funding so
our poor kids get the money they need in the schools.
I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for keeping those two
provisions in the final bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to our friend from Michigan, Senator
Stabenow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Senator Kennedy
and Senator Gregg for their leadership and the tremendous amount of
manhours to bring this legislation to this point. I thank all my
colleagues deeply involved in this issue.
It is said that knowledge is power. We know that our country's
economic engine is fueled by a skilled workforce. It is critical we
focus on education. I know the main goal of the compromise bill is to
narrow, over a 12-year period, the educational achievement gap between
the poor, disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers, and
between minority and nonminority students. Wide achievement gaps
between these groups have been tolerated for decades at great personal
and social cost.
We need to constantly repeat the fact that accountability is not just
a test. It is parents, teachers, administrators, communities, and, yes,
it is resources. I appreciate the fact there are additional resources
designated in this bill.
However, while I intend to support this legislation, I am deeply
disturbed and disappointed that we are not taking the opportunity to
finally fulfill a 25-year promise regarding special education in this
country. Fully funding IDEA is something whose time is past due. While
it is not in this legislation, I am very concerned that we continue the
fight so next year IDEA is reauthorized and we finally get it done.
As I talk to schools in Michigan, they tell me there would have been
an additional $460 million available to children in Michigan this year
if we had just kept our promise.
Congratulations to all involved. We have more work to do and I look
forward to working together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida who took a
special interest in bringing greater targeting of funds to be used more
effectively and also for further evaluation of the students to consider
some of the challenges they are facing in their ability to learn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Kennedy for the leadership he has given
over many years which has brought us to this point today.
I am very supportive of this legislation and will vote for it with
enthusiasm. I do point out there are some areas where I think further
action will be required. As we began this debate, there was an
assumption, maybe a tacit assumption, that there was a common set of
reasons for school failures. That tacit assumption was reinforced by
the suggestion that for every
[[Page S13417]]
school failure there would be a one-size-fits-all prescription. That
was school vouchers. The Senate and the conferees have wisely not
adopted this approach.
However, there still remains the issue of an intelligent process to
determine why schools fail. The reality is, anyone who has spent time
in a variety of schools, as I know our Presiding Officer and I have had
the opportunity to do, there are a variety of reasons why a school
might be considered failing. Some of the reasons have to do with what
is happening inside the school. Some of those reasons have to do with
the neighborhood, the environment, the circumstances from which the
students come and which adverse circumstances they bring to the
schools.
For instance, it might be that an absence of effective health care
causes students to come to school with a limited ability to learn. It
may be because of nutritional restrictions. It may be because there are
not sufficient activities in the communities to support what is
happening inside the school. This legislation recognizes that and
provides for a diagnostic process in which, when a school is identified
largely based on the testing process, there will be a determination
made as to what the reasons were for that specific school failing to
educate its students.
This will put new responsibilities on a variety of institutions. It
will put responsibilities on the community to provide resources through
things such as public health services as well as nongovernmental
agencies such as the United Way, YMCA, and the Boys and Girls Club, and
on the Federal Government to bring to bear its agencies, particularly
the Health and Human Services, to provide assistance in dealing with
those out of the classroom reasons why schools are failing.
Again, I commend the conferees for their good work. I point out that
this is an important chapter, but we have more chapters yet to be
written. They will require the cooperation of all groups I have
referred to in order to see we comprehensively deal and provide the
appropriate description to why that specific school is failing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. When I think of teacher recruitment, principal
recruitment, rebuilding schools, or full funding, I think of the
Senator from New York. I yield to the Senator from New York for 2
minutes.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank our chairman for his
extraordinary work. I also appreciate the leadership of our ranking
member and indeed the entire committee that has worked so hard for
nearly a year and has finished the work in a conference that has
resulted in a bill which will in many respects increase the
opportunities that our students will have for achieving the kind of
educational levels for which every child deserves to strive.
We know this bill is far from perfect. However, we do know we have
made a step forward. I appreciate greatly the targeting of title I
funding, particularly for the highest need school districts in the
State of New York. We will receive a 25-percent increase in title I
funds and a 40-percent increase in teacher quality funds. For our
neediest communities, that means a dramatic improvement in the
resources available to focus their attention on those children for whom
this bill is intended.
I share the disappointment of many of my colleagues that we were not
able to bring about the full funding of special education. That is the
No. 1 issue in New York that I hear about, whether I am in an urban,
rural, or suburban district. I pledge to work with my colleagues in a
bipartisan manner and to work with the administration so that next year
when we reauthorize IDEA, we also fully fund it and make good on a
promise that we gave to the American people more than 25 years ago.
I also appreciate the kind words of the chairman about teacher and
principal recruitment, which was one of my highest priorities. If we do
not attract and keep quality teachers in our classroom, everything that
is in this bill will not amount to very much. We have to be sure we get
the teachers and principals we need.
I am glad we have taken this step forward. I hope my colleagues will
continue to support education for every child.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Gregg, we will try to do this again.
First of all, I thank my colleagues for their fine work. Second, it
is a little frustrating for me. There are many provisions in this bill
that I had a chance to work on and to write. I am proud of it. But I
have to say to the Senator and especially my conservative friends that
this is a stunning unfunded mandate. You are taking the essence of
grassroots political culture and school districts and telling every
school district and every school to test every child in grades 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7--not just title I but every child in every school.
I have heard discussions about national priorities. This bill now
makes education a national priority. But the only thing we have done is
have a Federal mandate that every child will be tested every year, but
we don't have a Federal mandate that every child will have the same
opportunity to do well in these tests. If they do not do well, they
will need additional help.
Colleagues, just because there is money for the administration of the
tests doesn't mean this isn't one gigantic unfunded mandate.
Look at this in the context of recession, hard times, and the
cutbacks in State budgets and cutbacks in education. Look at this in
the context of our now adding a whole new requirement and telling every
district they have to test, having high stakes and holding the schools
accountable.
My colleague from New Hampshire said: Senator Wellstone, you are
talking about the IDEA program, but that is not really ESEA, and that
is separate from title I.
That is not what I hear in Minnesota.
I thank Senator Harkin for championing this cause. What I hear at the
local level is if we had given Minnesota the $2 billion they would have
gotten if we made it mandatory on a glidepath for full funding over the
next 10 years, and $45 million this year, I was told we would put 50
percent of it into children with special needs. But then we could have
additional dollars for other programs. Right now, the Federal
Government has not lived up to its promise. We are now taking our own
money that we could be using for afterschool, for technology, for
textbooks, for teacher recruitment, and we have to spend that money;
whereas, we would have that additional money available if you would
just provide the funding for IDEA. You can't separate funding for IDEA
from any of the other educational programs.
This is not just about the children who have a constitutional right
to have the best education. That is Senator Harkin's, and it is his
soul. He has made that happen.
This is also about all the other children and support for educational
programs at the local level. Title I money has gone up. But in the
context of economic hard times and all the additional families and
children who are becoming barely eligible, I will tell you something. I
know that some Senators do not like to hear this. We are in profound
disagreement on this.
I think in our States we are going to hear from school board members
and teachers, and we are going to hear from the educational community.
They are going to say to us: What did you do to us? You gave us the
tests, and then you gave us hardly anything that you said you would
give us when it came to IDEA. You didn't provide the resources. You
made this a giant unfunded mandate. You say you are going to hold our
schools accountable, but by the same token, you haven't been
accountable because you have not lived up to your promise.
They are right. I think there is going to be a real negative reaction
from a lot of States. In my State of Minnesota, we have hard economic
times. We are cutting back on education. We are laying off teachers.
I have two children who teach in our public schools. I have been to a
school about every 2 weeks for the last 11 years. I believe I know this
issue well. We are seeing all of these cutbacks. Minnesota is going to
say: Why didn't you live up to your promise? You have given the tests
and all this rhetoric about how it is a national priority, and I don't
believe the Bush administration is going to make this a commitment next
year. I do not know that you do.
[[Page S13418]]
Frankly, they now have this education bill. This was our leverage,
which was to say we can't realize this goal of leaving no child
behind--not on a tin cup budget--not unless you make this commitment.
And there will be no education reform bill because it can't be reformed
unless we live up to our commitment of providing the resources. And we
have not.
I was in a school yesterday--the Phalen Lake School. I loved being
there. It is on the east side of St. Paul. I don't think one of the
students comes from a family with an income of over $15,000, or maybe
$10,000 a year. It is just a rainbow of children with all kinds of
culture and history. They are low-income children in the inner city.
Do you know why I went. They raised money to help the children in
Afghanistan. The President asked them to do so. They are all beautiful.
I loved being there. But do you want to know something. I know what
those children need because there are teachers who tell me what they
need. They need the resources for more good teachers and to retain
those teachers. They need to come to kindergarten ready to learn
without being so far behind.
Where is our commitment to affordable child care? We have $2 trillion
in tax cuts, and $35 billion or $40 billion in the energy bill as tax
cuts for producers. Where is the commitment to developmental child care
from this Congress?
I know what they need. They need more afterschool programs. They need
a lot more title I money--not just 33 percent or 34 percent of these
children but many more children, and more help for reading and smaller
class size. They need all of that. We could have provided them a lot
more, and we didn't.
I will vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 48 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Kennedy and all the
members of our staffs. I went over that in some length, and I
specifically thanked our staff yesterday. I want to renew my thanks for
their efforts. It has been extraordinary.
I also thank other members of the committee who worked with me from
both sides of the aisle, and also the White House for its assistance.
I think it is important to note as we go into the final moments of
this debate that we would not have gotten to this point unless we had
the President, who understood how to lead on an issue of national
importance.
The fact is that President Bush understands almost in a visceral
sense--it totally absorbs him and his wife--that children are being
left behind because our educational system is not working, and that we
need fundamental reform of that system in order to try to improve it.
He came into office and was willing to lay out a very clear path for
us as a Congress and as a Government to follow in trying to assist in
the Federal role in elementary and secondary education. Because he was
willing to lay out that path, we were able to pass a bill which takes
major strides down the road to try to improve education in this
country.
We all understand this is neither the end nor the beginning of the
issue. We all understand that the Federal role in education is the tail
of the dog.
We also understand, however, that the Federal role in education is
not working, that we had 35 years of effort, that we had spent $130
billion, and that we still have low-income children falling further and
further behind and that something has to be done to try to address
that. He has readjusted the whole approach. He has set up a program
which is, No. 1, child-centered rather than bureaucracy-centered; that
empowers parents and gives parents, especially of low-income children,
an opportunity to do something when their children are locked into
failing schools, gives them choices; gives the local communities much
more flexibility over the dollars they are going to get from the
Federal Government. But in exchange for that flexibility, we are going
to expect academic achievement, and we are going to have accountability
standards that show us whether or not the academic achievement is being
obtained.
In the end, what we are doing with this bill essentially is creating
opportunities for local school districts, States, and especially
parents to take advantage of using their Federal dollars in a more
effective way to educate the low-income child, and hopefully have that
child be competitive with his or her peers.
In the end, we also understand that it will be the responsibility of
the parents, of the schoolteacher, of the principal, and of the school
system that is locally based to make the tough decisions and do the
work that is necessary to produce the results and have the children
compete.
At least that is the Federal role. We are now setting up a framework
which will greatly assist parents, schools, and teachers in
accomplishing that goal of making the low-income child competitive in
America so they can participate in the American dream.
I especially want to thank the chairman of the committee for his
efforts and for his courtesy during the markup of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 26 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes of the leader's
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had a very good discussion and
debate today and yesterday. I expect we will have an overwhelming vote
in support of the conference report by Senators from all different
parts of the country who have varying views on educational issues. We
recognize this is an important step forward.
I want to acknowledge, as I have on other occasions, the strong
leadership of President Bush. This was a unique undertaking on his
part. I can remember, as I am sure the Senator from New Hampshire can,
being in this Chamber 2\1/2\ years ago when we had 3 weeks of debate in
the Chamber and were unable to come to any kind of common position. We
were facing the fact that the program that reaches out to the neediest
of children was effectively going to be awash at sea.
That has changed. The President deserves great credit for that.
Credit also goes to the able chairman of our conference, Congressman
Boehner, our leader over in the House on education issues. There are
many who contributed to this conference report, but George Miller
brings a special commitment to education, as does my friend and
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg.
The reason this issue is so important is that it affects every family
in this country; it is one that goes back to the earliest times of our
Nation. Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of educating the
whole of the public. It isn't just an accident that the first public
schools were developed in this country. It was a really fundamental
commitment that all the children were going to be educated. Virtually
all the constitutions of our States are committed to the States
ensuring a quality education for all the children of this Nation. That
has not always been the case.
We have seen the great social movements that have taken place in this
Nation. We understand the strong drive of parents for a quality
education. It was at the heart of the women's movement. It was not only
the right to vote, but the women's movement understood that young
ladies, young girls ought to be able to receive a quality education. It
took a long time, and now it would be unthinkable if we said we were
going to educate everyone but women in our society.
Then it became the principal civil rights issue in the 1950s. Long
before Dr. King and others spoke about civil rights, the principal
civil rights issue was, were minorities going to be able to gain an
education by opening up the doors of education? It became the principal
civil rights issue.
We can understand why we have seen the progress we have made for the
disabled in recent times. We have heard the statements by the Senator
from Iowa, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from Vermont
about trying to assure a quality education for those students, which
really follows a national concern and commitment that has been part of
our tradition. We have
[[Page S13419]]
not always reached that commitment. But I think, when history examines
where we have been and where we are going, those who have followed this
issue will believe this is a historic piece of legislation and one that
deserves the support of all of the Members of this body.
The legislation before us today is a blueprint for progress in all of
the Nation's schools. It proclaims that every child matters--every
child, in every school, in every community in this country. That is why
this legislation is so important. School improvement and school reform
are not optional; they are mandatory for us to achieve if we are going
to meet our responsibilities to the next generation. When we fail our
students, we fail our country. We cannot expect the next generation of
Americans to carry the banner of progress and opportunity if they are
not well prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.
This is a defining issue about the future of our Nation and about the
future of democracy, the future of liberty, and the future of the
United States in leading the free world. No piece of legislation will
have a greater impact or influence on that.
In conclusion, what are we really trying to do? Now that we have put
this issue into some kind of framework, we are assuring American
families this is what this legislation is really all about: Greater
opportunity for all of our students to achieve high standards. Extra
help will be there for students in need. We are committed to high-
quality teachers. We are committed to extra help in mastering the
basics. We are committed to reducing the dropout rate. We are committed
to providing guidance counselors. We are committed to assist young
children who need mental health counseling. We are committed as well to
the advanced placement in foreign language, American history, civics,
economics, the arts, physical education, and the gifted and talented,
and character education.
We have the pathways to American excellence. We are saying to
families: If your child is doing well, with this legislation your child
will do even better; if your child is failing in the public schools,
with this legislation they will get the help they need.
This is the challenge for the schools: Reform in our American
schools, having high standards, high expectations. We are going to
insist on teacher training and mentoring, high-quality teachers in
every classroom, smaller class size, early reading support, violence
and drug prevention programs, more classroom technology, afterschool
opportunities, high-quality bilingual instruction, new books for school
libraries, and greater parental involvement.
This is the third and the important final dimension. This is the
power we are going to be giving parents in States and local schools all
across this country so that they will know what the achievement is for
all the students, not only their own but the other children who are in
the classes, including children with disabilities and those with
limited English proficiency, and minority and poor children. They will
be able to find out what their graduation rates are, what the quality
is of the teachers in those classrooms in high-poverty and low-poverty
schools, and the percentage of highly qualified teachers.
This is our commitment. We are challenging the children in this
Nation. We are challenging the schools in this Nation. And we are
challenging the parents in this Nation. As has been pointed out in the
course of the debate, finally, we are going to challenge ourselves. Are
we in this Congress going to make this kind of an opportunity realized
for all children in America, not just a third, but for all children to
move along? That is a battle that is going to be fought on this Senate
floor day in and day out over the years in the future. Are we going to
expect that the States are going to meet their responsibilities in
fulfilling this kind of a promise?
Those are the kinds of challenges we welcome. But we are giving the
assurance to the American families that help is on its way.
This legislation deserves our support. I hope we will have an
overwhelming vote on its adoption.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of this vote, the staff be entitled to be make technical
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, soon we will vote on passing H.R. 1--the
Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. As everyone
knows, President Bush campaigned last year with a promise to do all
that he could in the realm of education so that we as a nation would
``Leave No Child Behind.''
The Republican majorities in the Senate and the House responded to
the President's focus on comprehensive education reform by putting it
at the top of the agenda in both chambers. The first bills introduced
in both the Senate and the House--S. 1 and H.R. 1--were both named the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. It is the conference
report to that legislation that we are about to vote on, pass, and send
to the President for him to sign into law as he promised.
President Bush recognizes that with almost 70 percent of our fourth
graders who are unable to read at even a basic level, our children were
and are at risk of being unable to compete in an increasingly complex
job market. We all recognize that the ability to read the English
language with fluency and comprehension is essential if individuals,
old and young, are to reach their full potential in any field of
endeavor. As the saying goes: Reading Is Fundamental. And again, as
President Bush has said, none of our children should be left behind
because they can't read.
In reforming education, Republicans have always sought to maximize
local control and flexibility over both education policy and federal
funding while requiring schools to be accountable for the ultimate
performance of their students. School accountability means schools must
respect the rights of parents to know about their child's performance
as well as the quality of a child's instructors and learning
environment.
That is why the most significant change under the new law is that
parents are empowered with new options. For the first time, parents
whose children are trapped in failing public schools will be able to
demand that a local school district give them a portion of the money
available for their child under the Title I Disadvantaged Children
program--approximately $500 to $1,000--so the parents can use it to get
their child outside private tutorial support. Such tutorial support can
come from public institutions, private providers or faith-based
educators. Groups such as the Sylvan Learning Center, Catholic schools,
the Boys & Girls Club, and a variety of other agencies will be able to
help these children come up to speed in the areas of math and English.
This provision has the potential to fundamentally impact the way low-
income children are educated in America.
Not only will parents have the right to demand money for tutorial
assistance for their children, but whenever their children are trapped
in failing public schools they will also be able to demand that their
child be able to attend another public school which is not failing--and
to have their child's transportation costs to the new school paid for
by the local school district. This ensures parents are able to access
better performing schools for their children.
So, while the bill does not allow parents to access private schools
as some have proposed, it does allow a parent to get their child out of
a failing public school and move them to a public school where they can
get adequate education. The effect of this strong public school choice
provision will be to put pressure on those public schools within a
major school system that are failing to improve or find itself without
any students. But fundamentally, this provision gives parents a viable
option for giving their child a chance to succeed not just in school,
but in life.
Groups of concerned parents and educators will also have enhanced
rights under the BEST Act. The bill creates a major new expansion of
self-governing Charter Schools. Charter Schools enable parents,
educators, and interested community leaders to create schools
[[Page S13420]]
outside the normal bureaucratic structure of moribund educational
establishments and much of the red tape contained in local, state, and
federal regulations. This legislation will significantly expand the
opportunity for parents, foundations, and other groups to create
Charter Schools and help them succeed without interference from
education bureaucrats and politicians who are hostile to Charter
Schools.
One of our primary goals in this bill as Republicans was to give
states and local communities significantly more flexibility over the
management of Federal dollars they receive, and to pared down the
amount of red tape that comes with the Federal dollars. While not as
strong as we would have liked, there are a series of initiatives in
this bill that offer significant help in this regard.
State and local governments, and local school districts, will be able
to move up to 50 percent of their non-title I funds from one account to
another without Federal approval. This means funding for teacher
quality, technology innovation programs, safe and drug-free schools,
and other programs would all be open to movement of Federal funds from
account to account depending on where a State or local community, and
not Washington, DC, feels that it can get the most benefit from the
dollars.
In addition, 150 school districts--at least three per State--would be
able to apply for waivers from virtually all Federal education rules
and requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, in
exchange for agreeing to obtain higher than required levels of
achievement for their low-income students. This provision gives local
communities dramatic new flexibility in running their schools.
Seven whole States, if they volunteer, may participate in a
demonstration program which would allow Federal funds--other than title
I funds--to be used by the State for any educational activity
authorized by H.R. 1. Therefore, States would have greater control over
such funds as the innovative block grant program, State administration
component of title I, State administration/State activities components
of title I, Part B and other Federal funds.
Another significant accomplishment of this bill is the streamlining
and consolidation of the number of Federal education programs, which
often led to confusion and duplication of efforts. Under current law
there are 55 Federal education programs for elementary and secondary
schools. This bill makes a down payment on further consolidation by
reducing the total number of programs to 45, despite creating several
new programs in the bill. This consolidation, although not as dramatic
as one would like, is a significant improvement.
The bill also includes reforms to improve teacher quality and
training. It includes the Teacher Empowerment Act which takes numerous
existing professional development programs for Teachers and the current
Class Size Program and merges them into one flexible program which
allows local districts to use the funds as they see best for the
purposes of hiring teachers, improving teacher professional
development, or providing merit pay or other innovative ways to reward
and retain high quality teachers.
The bill continues the initiative in current law called the Troops to
Teachers program that encourages retired members of the Armed Services
to become teachers. The bill also directs that 95 percent of the
Federal funds targeted for teacher quality go directly to local school
districts. And while the bill provides funds to be used for the
recruitment of hiring qualified teachers, it explicitly prohibits funds
from being used to plan, develop, implement or administer any mandatory
national teacher or professional test or certification. In other words,
Federal funds cannot be used to create a national teacher certification
system.
Teachers are also given legal protection under the Teacher Liability
Act contained within the bill which will shield teachers, principals
and other school professionals from frivolous lawsuits. It is a major
piece of lawsuit reform that will help ensure that teachers and other
school professionals have the ability to maintain discipline, order,
and a proper learning environment in the classroom without having to
fear losing their home or their life savings.
H.R. 1, the BEST Act, also reorganizes bilingual education
initiatives so that the emphasis is now on teaching English rather than
separating children who do not speak English and putting them into an
atmosphere where they never actually learn English. It also gives the
parents of bilingual children the right to demand information about the
classes and instructional programs their children are placed in. Most
importantly, they are given the right to object to their children's
placement or classes to ensure that their children do not end up being
locked in a limited-English situation. This is one of the bill's most
significant achievements as it involves much needed reforms to a
program critical to the success of students with limited English
proficiency. It provides accountability to a program which has been
misdirected for too long.
The final major accomplishment of H.R. 1 is that it imposes stringent
accountability standards on schools and their performance with the goal
of assuring that low income students are learning at a level that is
equal to their peers. In accomplishing this goal, the bill specifically
prohibits federally sponsored national testing or Federal control over
curriculum. It sets up a series of tests to ensure that any national
test, such as NAEP, which is used for evaluation purposes is fair and
objective, and does not test or evaluate a child's views, opinions, or
beliefs.
The bill also includes a trigger mechanism so that State based
testing requirements are paid for by the Federal Government, not states
or local school districts, thus avoiding an unfunded mandate.
Finally, the bill contains several provisions which are important to
ensure that Federal funds are used appropriately and objectively
without bias. The bill denies Federal funds to any school district that
prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally-
protected voluntary school prayer. Funding is also denied any public
school or educational agency that discriminates against or denies equal
access to any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America. It
requires that the Nation's Armed Forces recruiters have the same access
to high school students as college recruiters and job recruiters have.
Schools will also be required to transfer student disciplinary records
from local school districts to a student's new private or public school
so discipline and safety issues are fully appreciated and anticipated
by administrators, teachers, parents, and, of course, new classmates at
their new school.
President Bush's agenda for education reform as embodied in this bill
serves as a framework for common action, encouraging all of us,
Democrat, Republican, and Independent, to work in concert to strengthen
our elementary and secondary schools to, as the President says, ``build
the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every
part of America.''
Madam President, I do want to say, since we are about to begin the
vote, how much I appreciate the outstanding leadership and work that
has been done by Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy. Without their
indomitable spirit, it would not have happened. We are indebted to
them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it has been said that free schools
preserve us as a free Nation. I believe that this education bill will
strengthen our schools, and strengthen our Nation long into the future.
Much has happened since we began work on this bill to update Federal
elementary and secondary education programs.
We were well on our way to reaching a bipartisan consensus on this
bill last spring when control of this institution changed.
That unprecedented shift could have thrown this effort into the limbo
of partisan gridlock. But we continued to move forward and in June, we
passed a strong, bipartisan bill.
Then came the terrible events of September 11 and, a month after
that, the anthrax attacks.
Even as we focused on urgent national security concerns, from
strengthening airline security to making sure our military has what it
needs to dismantle the terrorists' networks, members of the education
conference
[[Page S13421]]
committee continued to work together and iron out differences between
the Senate and House versions of this bill.
No one deserves more credit for getting this bill done this year than
Ted Kennedy, a man who has spent the last 40 years of his life working
to make sure that every child in America has the opportunity to go to a
good public school.
I want to commend Chairman Kennedy, and all the members of the
conference committee who worked long and hard on this bill, and kept
their eyes on the prize, even during the turmoil of the last three
months.
President Bush also deserves credit for helping to put education
first, and convincing the doubters in his party that the Federal
Government must be a partner in the effort to strengthen America's
public schools for all children.
The last time we authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, there were those in the President's party who advocated abolishing
the Federal role in education. Instead, President Bush came to us with
a serious proposal and a serious commitment to make progress for our
children.
He built his proposal around the principle that all children must be
given the chance to succeed in school. He agreed that we must have high
standards for success in every classroom in every school in every
community.
He recognized that reading is, indeed, the foundation of all
learning. Without reading, the job manuals and newspapers stay closed,
the Internet is a dark screen, the world of discovery is worlds away,
and the promise of America is, simply a closed book.
He said we have to measure results, so parents and communities can
know what is working, and what isn't.
We were pleased that the President was willing to support several
measures Democrats have long advocated.
This new law sets high standards for all teachers. It also provides
communities with help, if they need it, to recruit, hire and train new
teachers so that every classroom can be led by a qualified, effective
teacher.
Under this law, low-performing schools will get the help they need to
turn around, and face consequences if they fail.
Immigrant and bilingual children who need extra help to succeed in
school and learn English will get that help.
And communities that require help meeting the needs of their most
disadvantaged students will get it.
I am pleased that the conferees stripped provisions that many of us
thought would ultimately be damaging to public schools. The bill does
not allow limited Federal resources to be siphoned off to private
schools through ill-advised voucher schemes. It also does not give
States blank checks with no accountability, as had been proposed by
supporters of the Straight As block grant program.
I am disappointed, however, that this bill does not provide full
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Senator Jeffords is right: we made a commitment more than 25 years ago
to provide 40 percent of the cost of this program; so far, we have
failed in that commitment. We need to do better.
Though we finish this bill today, the work of improving our
children's schools does not end. This bill lays out a blueprint for
reform. But we know that real reform cannot occur without real
resources.
Our schools face real challenges: the generation now passing through
our schools has surpassed the Baby Boom in size, and school enrollments
are expected to rise for the next decade; a large part of the teaching
corps is getting ready to retire. Schools will have to hire more than 2
million new teachers over the next decade; diversity in the classroom
is increasing, bringing new languages, cultures, and challenges;
technology is revolutionizing the workplace and our society as a whole.
Schools must keep up with the pace of change, by helping students gain
important skills in technology, and by taking advantage of
technological capabilities to advance learning for all children.
The first test of whether we are serious about meeting those
challenges and keeping the commitments this bill makes will occur this
week, when we take up the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
The details of that bill are still being finalized, but we expect it
will provide communities with an additional $4 billion to meet their
new responsibilities under these programs. We must make sure that money
is there not only next year, but every year.
This bill meets many of our greatest education challenges in word. I
hope that this and future Congresses will ensure the resources are
there to meet them in deed.
That is the only way that we can strengthen our schools and move our
Nation closer to becoming a land of opportunity for every child.
It is with the understanding that we still have work ahead of us, I
give this bill my strong support, and I urge my colleagues to do so as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 3 minutes
remaining.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, actually, I think I have said what I
wanted to say. I feel as though I was speaking for a lot of people in
Minnesota and around the country.
My colleagues, I have figures I will leave everyone in terms of our
national commitment.
In 1979, close to 12 percent of the Federal budget was devoted to
education. It is now down to 7 percent.
If we just were where we were in 1979, 30 some years ago, we would be
allocating an additional $21 billion to education today. I have heard
colleagues say that this is all about equal opportunity for every
child. There is nothing I believe in more. I know Senators can agree to
disagree.
If I had one vision, one hope, one dream that I cared more about for
Minnesota and the country than any other, it would be that every child,
starting with the littlest of the children, regardless of color of
skin, urban/rural, income, gender, every child would have the same
chance to reach her or his full potential. That is the goodness of our
country.
When I was in Phalen Lake school yesterday, that was the goodness of
that school, those teachers and what they were trying to do under
incredibly difficult circumstances. I wish I could believe that this
bill lived up to that promise. When I look at the resources, it
doesn't.
Make no mistake about it, a test every year doesn't give our schools
the resources to either recruit or to retain more teachers. A test
every year does not lead to smaller class size. It doesn't lead to
better lab facilities. It doesn't lead to more reading help for
children who need the help. It doesn't lead to better technology. It
doesn't lead to more books. It doesn't lead to making sure the children
are prepared when they come to kindergarten. Many of them are so far
behind. It doesn't mean we will have afterschool programs. It doesn't
mean any of that.
I am all for accountability. I am all for testing and accountability
to see how the reform is doing. I am not for the argument that the
actual testing represents the reform.
We have done one piece, the accountability. We haven't given our
children and our schools and our teachers the resources they need.
One final time, I have shouted it from the mountaintop 1,000 times on
the floor: Mr. President, you cannot realize the goal of leaving no
child behind, the mission of the Children's Defense Fund, on a tin cup
budget. That is what you have given us.
I vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:
[[Page S13422]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--10
Bennett
Dayton
Feingold
Hagel
Hollings
Jeffords
Leahy
Nelson (NE)
Voinovich
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
Akaka
Helms
Murkowski
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to
lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________