[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under order 106, the Senate now turns to
consideration of S. 1150. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1150) to improve learning and teaching by
providing a national framework for education reform; to
promote the research, consensus building, and systematic
changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities
and high levels of educational achievement for all American
students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all
Federal education programs; to promote the development and
adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards
and certifications, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 1356
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1356.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment will be printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be adopted and considered original text for the purposes of
amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will object at this time solely until
such time as we can determine the impact upon the amendment process. So
at this time, I would have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand and respect the objection of
my friend from Vermont. Just in terms of the understanding of the
membership, the changes between the original text and the substitute
incorporate a number of the suggestions, as my colleagues have pointed
out--the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords and also Senator
Kassebaum--in terms of additional kinds of flexibility for the States.
I understand that the principal objection is dealing with the
parliamentary situation, and so we will go ahead and have the debate on
the substance of the legislation. We are prepared to consider any of
the amendments with regards to the underlying legislation, and we will
obviously incorporate any decisions by the Senate in any vehicle that
is eventually reported out of the Senate.
And so we are ready to do business in the Senate, pending
consideration of the Members about the parliamentary situation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we in no way intend to impede the
process. I think there will be pretty close unanimity on the bill when
we complete it. However, I wish to make sure that this side of the
aisle is protected in the ability to offer second-degree amendments, et
cetera.
I thank the Chair.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew
Alexander, a member of the staff of the committee, be afforded
privileges of the floor during pendency of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today the Senate begins action on the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This legislation, designed to make
more rapid progress toward meeting the national education goals, has
strong, bipartisan support on the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
The reason for this bipartisan support is clear. Education reform is
not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is a national issue,
and all of us recognize that it is time for the Federal Government to
do more to help communities across the country improve their schools.
During the recess, I visited the Fenway School in Boston, and I met
students and teachers who brought home to me what education reform can
mean and why better and different schools are at the heart of solving
so many of our problems, not only in education, but in other areas as
well, especially crime control and welfare reform.
One of the students whom I met was Efrain Gutierrez, an 18-year-old
sophomore. He had dropped out of his old school, but now he is getting
straight A's at this small, highly personalized and completely
reorganized school. When I asked him what he had done when he was not
in school, he said, ``I don't think you want to know.''
We can authorize billions of dollars for fighting crime, but few
programs will be as successful as a school like the Fenway that gives
students a place to belong and to succeed and to enhance their own
self-esteem.
Another student, Charlene Hampton, graduated last year and is
starting nurse training at community college. At 19, Charlene has a
five-year-old child, but the Fenway School has made it possible for her
to still come to classes and get her work done. Charlene will succeed
and become an independent and productive member of our city and
society. We would need less welfare reform if we had more school
reform.
There are many stories like these, and there are many schools like
the Fenway. If they were here to talk to us, they would echo the
statement of Fenway teacher Eileen Shakespeare, who said, ``If I could
ask you to take a single message back to Washington, it would be this:
`Please have a sense of urgency about what we are doing here with
students, and help us.'''
We need that sense of urgency in the Congress. Let us act now, and
pass this legislation, an important first step in providing greater
Federal support for States and local communities to reform their
schools.
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act will enact into law the six
national education goals. It will establish a bipartisan National
Education Goals Panel to report on progress toward achieving those
goals. The goals are well-known, but they bear repeating.
First, all children in America will start school ready to learn;
Second, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90
percent;
Third, U.S. students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having
demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including
English, mathematics, science, foreign language, civics and government,
arts, history, geography, economics, and every school in the United
States will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well so
students may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning,
and productive employment in our Nation's economy;
Fourth, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and
science achievement;
Fifth, every adult American will be literate and possess the skills
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship; and
Sixth, every school in the United States will be free from drugs and
violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to
learning.
Goals 2000 incorporated in this legislation places the emphasis on
our investment in education on results; codify the national education
goals and the National Education Goals Panel which includes two House
Members and two Senators, among others. It will encourage the
development and use of high academic standards for all students, world
class standards, such as those which are used in other industrialized
countries; create an incentive grant program for States to support
comprehensive education reform--and will have an opportunity to debate
that ad nauseam.
This is a voluntary program and we are encouraging States to develop
that comprehensive education reform. Nothing is required, no
contingency on other educational programs if they do not care to
participate; provide funds for use by States for ongoing teacher
training and professional development; promote flexibility by providing
authority for the Secretary to waive certain Federal regulations to
assist States in implementing reform.
We are permitting the States and local communities and education
structures to be able to get to the waiver of certain rules and
regulations. Some important ones like the issues on civil rights and
the protections of the disabled and special needs children not so. But
in other areas, we are permitting them as part of their reform program
to get waivers by the Secretary so that they can implement their reform
and we are permitting greater flexibility for the Secretary to permit
States as an entity to be more expansive in terms of waiving certain
kinds of requirements.
We permit States to use funds granted under the act to promote public
school choice, charter schools, and magnet schools.
We will elaborate on those--encouragement for those initiatives as
well.
We create a National Education Standard and Improvement Council to
oversee development of voluntary national standards, promote parental
and community involvement in education and promote bottoms-up education
reform in every school and community.
This is a bottoms-up education reform with support from the top down.
But it is basically and essentially a bottoms-up program of school
reform.
Provide planning grants to the States to increase the use of
technology to increase student learning, create a mechanism to
establish national work force skills standards. Those are some of the
matters which we will have a chance during the course of this debate to
elaborate on.
It is equally important to emphasize what Goals 2000 does not do.
While all these provisions are important, one of the most important is
the Congress encourage the development of standards. A month or so ago,
the Washington Post published a good example of what the content
standards might look like.
Here are a few of the examples, Mr. President. These are guidelines
for science knowledge recommended by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. By the end of the second grade, all students
should know circles, squares, triangles, and other shapes, which can be
found in things in nature and in things that people build; water left
in an open container disappears, but water in a closed container does
not disappear; thermometers, magnifiers, rulers can take measurements
and are often more useful than just observing an object. We will get
into the kinds of elements that we will be talking about in terms of
the goals and in terms of the standards.
But I would hope that the Members will include this in the course of
the debate and see from this report exactly what we are attempting to
do in terms of the early grades--the second grade, 5th, 8th--and
finally 12th grade.
Besides content standards in course subjects the bill also encourages
the development of new assessments that will gauge how well the
students have mastered the content. In other words, performance
standards and the assessment schools are using right now just do not do
the job.
There is enormous innovation in terms of a number of the school
reforms in terms of how they do this kind of assessment, in terms of
oral presentation, in terms of portfolio examinations, in terms of
other kinds of reviews to determine the individual's understanding of
the material that is being discussed and needs to be comprehended.
This is a third kind of standard that this bill deals with, the
standards that are the most controversial, that is, opportunity to
learn standards. These will describe the things that are obviously
needed for a student to learn. Basically, what we are talking about is
the departure point. What you want is a departure point so that the
children that ended this whole assistance are going to have a
relatively equal kind of departure point in terms of the schools
themselves, textbooks and trained teachers and other aspects. Then we
want to have the content standards and the assessment standards. That
is what we are attempting to achieve.
Those opportunities to learn standards will describe things that are
obviously needed for a student to learn, well-trained teachers, up-to-
date materials, curriculum that makes sense, an orderly and safer
school.
Just as important as what the Goals 2000 does is what it does not do.
We do not federalize education. We do not establish a national
curriculum or the equivalent of a national school board. It requires
States adopt national standards. We do not require that the States
adopt national standards or submit State standards for Federal
Government approval. We do not create unfunded mandates. And we do not
make the receipt of any other federal funds contingent upon the
provisions of Goals 2000.
It does not dictate to the State how much to spend, how to license
teachers, or what textbooks to use. It does not establish school-based
health clinics. It does not mandate or encourage value-based or
outcomes-based education. And it is not surprising that this bill
passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan support,
307 to 118, with 57 Republicans in support.
Mr. Gunderson stated in his endorsement: Goals 2000 is the kind of
foundation for improvement of education at the State and local level
that we want. And I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to vote for this bill when we come to final passage. Now is the time
for the Senate in a similar bipartisan spirit to also act.
There has been a great deal of reform activity in the States in the
decades since the well-known report nations at risk sounded the alarm
about the decline in American education 10 years ago. But there has
been no national consensus about how the Federal Government should
respond to the national crisis. Two past Presidents and five Congresses
have been unable to come together to support legislation that would lay
out the best approval to deal with that crisis. Goals 2000 will end
that delay and make the Federal Government a full-fledged partner in
the important effort to re-create America's schools and prepare
students for the 21st century.
Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, American education has never
been short on innovation. There are examples of excellence and
innovation in schools across the country. We have all visited them and
been impressed. What we have not figured out, however, is how to create
a better overall system--how to look at the one or two good schools in
a district and make sure all the others share the best practices and
best strategies of the best schools.
We know the elements of a good school--a clear focus on well-defined
standards for all students; no tracking of students into dead-end
programs; schedules that give students personal attention; new ways to
measure student performance; opportunities for health and other social
services; increased time for core subjects; instruction that connects
subjects to each other, and is adapted to different ways of learning;
and finally, more investment in children before they fail, not after.
President Clinton and Secretary of Education Riley have committed
themselves to creating a system of schools like these. It is the kind
of system that many have advocated for many years--a system that is
based on high content and performance standards for all students, that
invests in students and teachers alike, and that coordinates Federal,
State and local efforts.
Goals 2000 is a step toward achieving all these principles. It will
create the framework and national education policy we need. Better
education is at the heart of a better future for poor children and the
Nation.
There is no magic solution, but essential steps, taken together and
implemented simultaneously by Federal, State, and local officials, can
form the basis for a more effective education system that meets the
needs of all children.
I cannot stress the word ``local'' too strongly. It is teachers who
educate children, not school boards or States or Congress. The single
greatest challenge facing American schools is to help teachers rethink
their classroom practices and break out of the habits of our ``factory
model system of education.''
That challenge cannot be met in Washington or in State capitals. It
must be met teacher by teacher, school by school, in each of the 1
million classrooms in America.
As award-winning educator Deborah Meier from Central Park East School
in Harlem has said ``It is clear that since we need a new kind of
school to do a new kind of job, we need a new kind of teacher too.''
Congress cannot legislate that teachers change their habits of mind and
the way they teach students. But we can help local districts create
conditions that make it possible for them to adopt the best and the
most effective practices.
Goals 2000 will help to create those conditions. By codifying into
law the national education goals, we will strengthen our commitment to
reach them. Having every child ready to learn, attaining a 90 percent
high school completion rate, meeting check points for having 4th, 8th,
and 12th graders master challenging material, becoming first in the
world in math and science achievement, making sure every adult American
has learned to read, and having safe and drug-free schools are daunting
goals. But our country has faced other difficult challenges, and with
leadership and dedication and participation from people from many
different parts of our society, we will succeed. They must be achieved
if we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Mr. President, I see other of my colleagues on the floor at this time
that are eager to make a statement and comments.
I will at a later time elaborate on a few additional kinds of
matters, but at the outset I first of all commend the chairman of our
Education Committee, my friend and colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell.
Senator Pell, as a chairman of the Education Committee, has as all of
us in this body know demonstrated time in and time out the strong
commitment, first of all, in education, starting at the earliest of
years as well as into higher education which bears his mark over a long
and distinguished career.
He has made many contributions to the country, but I think perhaps
his longest-standing contribution will be the work that he has done in
education. I think all of us on that committee are very much aware of
the strong effort that he always made in terms of bipartisanship in
assuring that education would not be a partisan matter.
I think as we begin this real debate today and as we have the strong
bipartisan support in that committee we acknowledge his continuing
leadership in the areas of education, and this legislation certainly
bears so much of his input and creativity, and we will look forward,
after our friend and colleague Senator Jeffords, hearing from him.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the accolades of the
chairman of the full committee for the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Education, Senator Pell, who worked for many years with my predecessor,
Senator Stafford, and accomplished so much to improve the education of
this country. I am just honored to be able to serve with him and look
forward to serving with him for the years to come.
Mr. President, as to the impression that we are leaving with the
opening statements, that this may be a love-in, and that we have a
unanimous agreement, and that once we have passed this bill the
Nation's problems will disappear, I wish that were to be the case.
But I think we will all understand when we fully understand the
dimensions of the goals and the dimensions of the problems that this is
a beginning of a prolonged effort in the sense it should have been here
years ago but what will be a prolonged effort to improve the education
of America. It does, however, represent a bipartisan compromise to
improve teaching and learning and making our schools really ready to go
into the work force in the 21st century.
My support for this bill sprouts not from a naive belief in some
theory, but from the very real experience in my home State of Vermont.
We are proud of our long history of education reform, and in a large
way the State of Vermont has provided one of the prototypes for this
legislation today. As we have learned in Vermont and across the
country, there is no mission more important that providing
opportunities for our future generations.
Right now, the educational system in this country does so much for
too few, while doing too little for so many. Goals 2000 puts us on a
path toward reversing this trend--so that we offer more opportunities
to more students in more schools across this Nation. Vermont has taken
a lead in school reform, and we have begun to see the results. The time
to act is now--this bill will help States apply reforms that work, that
give more students a better education and brighter opportunities.
Briefly, as Senator Kennedy has stated, the bill codifies the six
national education goals and adds a seventh goal acknowledging the
importance of parental involvement. It incorporates the existing
national education goals panel and creates a body to certify national
model standards and assessments. At the heart of the bill is a State
grant program to improve teaching and learning through planning through
comprehensive education reform and restructuring. Finally, it
establishes a national skill standards board to serve as a catalyst to
stimulate the development and adoption of a voluntary national system
of skill standards. S. 1150 represents a major step forward in the
effort to encourage wide-scale reform in our Nation's schools.
The provisions of this bill have a long history. This is to remember
because it has been a long time that we have been looking at the
problem but have done little or nothing, in fact probably things to
make detrimental to improvement. In 1983, the landmark report, ``A
Nation at Risk,'' brought to the public's attention what many already
knew--that we faced a rising tide of mediocrity in our schools which
threatened our very future as a nation and as a people. In no uncertain
terms, this report described the problems that were plaguing American
schools--low expectations for students, a watered-down curriculum,
minimal requirements for high school graduation, and a shortage of
high-quality, experienced teachers. The Commission found the situation
to be so serious that it made the following observation:
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America
the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we
might well have viewed it as an act of war.
As a result of these alarming findings, ``A Nation at Risk'' set out
four recommendations to make our system of education second to none in
the world. First, they recommended, we set high standards for all
students in basic subject areas such as mathematics, history, English,
and science--not just for college-bound students, but for all
students--and that we provide the necessary supports to help students
reach those standards. Second, we hold students to those high standards
by requiring their mastery as a condition for high school graduation,
college entrance, and entry into the workplace. Third, we increase the
amount of time our children spend in school by lengthening the
schoolday and school year, and by using the time students are in school
more productively. Finally, we improve the preparation of teachers and
make teaching a rewarding and respected profession.
It has been 10 years since the Commission made these recommendations
during the Reagan years. What have we done to implement them?
Well, since the beginning of the eighties overall Federal support for
education, after adjusting for inflation, has decreased by 5 percent.
Funds for elementary and secondary education declined 15 percent while
postsecondary education funds declined 24 percent. As many as 30 States
right now are in a crisis over the funding of education in their own
States and generally the States have also decreased their spending for
education. Is our educational system today second to none? Of course,
the answer is ``no.'' At best, we are no worse off than we were 10
years ago. At worst, the next generation of graduates from America's
high schools will not be prepared to meet the challenges of the next
century.
We have made some progress, however; 6 years later in 1989, then-
President Bush convened the education summit, in Charlottesville, VA.
That meeting brought the national leadership together with all 50
Governors to address education reform. As a result, our Nation's top
State policymakers along with the President produced six national goals
for our schools that are contained in this bill. It is now 4 years
later and we are getting around to try to put those goals into place.
These goals specified that by the year 2000, first, all students
would arrive at school ready to learn; second, that the graduation rate
would increase to at least 90 percent; third, that students would
master challenging content in core subject areas; fourth, that our
students would be first in the world in math and science; fifth, that
all adults would be literate and prepared for life-long learning.
Let me just remind you that right now we have about 30 million
Americans who are pretty much totally illiterate, and we have another
45 million that are functionally illiterate. That is 75 million
Americans that fall under goal 5.
Goal 6, that our schools would offer children a disciplined and drug-
free environment.
I do not have to tell anyone that this has not been reached since
1989. In fact, it is a scare to every parent in America now as to what
is going to go on in the schools the next day.
Failed attempts last year to enact legislation have
delayed legislative action on these goals until now--almost 5 years
after they were established and 10 years after ``A Nation at Risk''
brought our attention to the problem. Since that time, nearly 30
million young adults have graduated from high school, many without the
skills they will need to be productive workers. Another 40 million
children have entered kindergarten without the benefit of needed school
or preschool reform.
Some of my colleagues have asked why we need this bill. Others have
questioned whether we can afford this bill. I cannot help but ask how
can we afford not to pass this bill and do what is necessary to
accomplish the goals. Mr. President, the situation in our schools is so
serious that we must enact this bill and do much, much more. Let me
provide some statistics to illustrate how we are doing relative to our
goals.
Goal 1 states that all children should enter school ready to learn.
Yet, today we are not even close to attaining this goal. Nearly one-
half of all infants born in the United States begin life with one or
more factors that places him or her at risk for future educational
failure. Only 37 percent of 2-year-olds have complete immunizations
against major childhood diseases. And nearly half of all 3- to 5-year-
olds, especially those most at risk, receive no preschool education. We
only provide Head Start for some 30 percent of those that are eligible.
Clearly, many children are coming to school today without the
preparation they need to be successful learners. Yet despite this
demonstrated need, we still have not fully funded proven programs like
Head Start and Even Start.
The second goal states that we want the high school graduation rate
to increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000. Yet today, almost
13 percent of all 16- to 24-year-olds are high school dropouts,
including nearly 35 percent of Hispanic youths and 19 percent of
African-American youths. This issue is critical for our future economic
security. Fewer than half of recent high school dropouts had a job in
1991. Of all mothers on welfare, one-half of them failed to finish high
school. Of the more than 1.1 million persons incarcerated in 1990, 82
percent were high school dropouts. That gives you an idea of what might
be very helpful in the crime area. The average annual cost of
supporting a prisoner is $22,500. That means our annual cost of
incarceration is about $22 billion a year. And that does not include
anything done to try to bring them back into our society. But it
obviously indicates that we can save huge amounts of money if we can
decrease the dropout rates to enable those that are right now
incarcerated to be able to get employment.
Goals 3 and 4 state that we want our students to demonstrate high
achievement and to be first in the world in mathematics and science.
Again, we have a long way to go to reach those goals. The ``1993
National Assessment of Educational Progress'' indicates more than 75
percent of students at all grade levels failed to achieve even the
basic level of proficiency in these areas and over 60 percent failed to
meet the proficiency level in English. In international comparisons--
and this is where it is so critical to remind ourselves that we are
entering a very, very competitive world market system in the future of
our Nation. And improving our standard of living depends entirely on
our ability to compete in those world markets.
In international comparisons, American students consistently score
below most other industrialized nations. In the ``1992 International
Assessment of Educational Progress,'' U.S. 13-year-olds scored second
to last among 15 nations in mathematics achievement.
Make no mistake about it. These disturbing statistics are not about
someone else's children and they are not someone else's problem. These
are our children, our future work force, and our future leaders. The
quality of our public schools in America is directly related to the
standard of living of each and every one of our citizens.
As badly as we need reform, we must remember that reform costs money.
In some cases, schools have funded reform efforts by cutting back on
facilities maintenance, or even some educational program activities.
Clearly, this defeats the point and is one reason that this bill is
important. Goals 2000 authorizes $400 million in fiscal year 1994 for
State and local reform efforts, planning basically.
State and local communities will develop plans, through broad-based
panels, to encourage the improvement of teaching and learning within
the State. Each State and each plan will be unique. Goals 2000 does not
prescribe how reform should occur but recognizes the rightful ownership
by local communities and State administrators.
Numerous States have already embarked on innovative and successful
programs to restructure education. My own State of Vermont is among the
States that is committed to systemic reform with high standards and
clear goals.
Educators, businesses, and community members have joined forces in
Vermont to provide every student an opportunity to master high skills.
Known as the Green Mountain Challenge, Vermont's school reform
initiative is a partnership of teachers, principals, superintendents,
school boards, employers, parents, and human services professionals. It
is reform designed to listen to and respect the concerns of teachers
and parents while simultaneously establishing clear goals and
benchmarks from the top.
Let me tell you some of the changes that you may see taking place if
you visit the classrooms of Vermont. In one school, you will walk into
a classroom where groups of elementary school students are actively
working together on a long-term project to research and build a model
rain forest in their classroom. In another school, you will find older
students tutoring their younger peers in an exercise that improves the
reading skills of both participants. In yet other schools, you will see
students of all ages and all abilities grouped together to form
learning communities.
But communities and States cannot do it alone. Federal funding and
incentives are imperative for reform. The GAO, in a recent report,
points out that in the absence of Federal actions, maintaining
commitment, and finding resources for systemwide reform may be
impossible for many districts. Federal funds must not undermine local
and State control but Federal funds are critical to technical
assistance, information dissemination, and professional development.
Last Congress President Bush introduced America 2000, a bill similar
to this bill. America 2000 passed the Senate 92 to 6, but the
conference report failed by a slim margin. I voted against conference
report because of some problems I found with it, but I am confident
that this year we can go forward with those problems being satisfied.
While this situation was unfortunate, I believe we have a new
opportunity to place our mark on education reform. Let me be very clear
to my fellow colleagues who, like me, voted against that conference
report--we have a different bill before us today. The bill is also
different from the House bill and different from the bill as originally
introduced by President Clinton and deserves our careful attention and
support.
I commend my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Pell, and Kassebaum for
their commitment to and work on this bill. The bill which came out of
committee reflects a spirit of compromise and makes a number of
important changes to what was originally introduced. Let me go over in
detail some of the important revisions made by the committee.
First of all, changes made by the committee free States and school
districts to develop school improvement plans that best meet the needs
of the children in their communities and their schools. The committee
bill removes the overly prescriptive requirements and mandates which
describe in detail how States should address the specifics of their
reform plans. At the local level, the committee changes allow for
significantly more local flexibility and remove requirements that the
local improvement plans exactly match State plans. Fortunately, the
committee recognized that in order for Goals 2000 to be successful on
the local level, parents, local educators, and community members must
be able to tailor the plan to the needs of their students and must feel
ownership over the process and have accountability for the results.
Second, the committee bill drives more of the funds to the local
level--and reserves fewer funds for national activiites--than the bill
as introduced. We know that the most important changes will occur in
schools and classrooms, and that the most successful reform will have
grassroots, bottom-up support. As a result, the percentage reserved for
national activities is reduced from 6 to 4 percent.
Third, S. 1150, as reported, removes the mandate that States develop
standards to gauge students' opportunity to learn. Although it is
critically important that States seek to provide every student with an
opportunity to learn challenging content, we felt that it was not wise
to require that States use particular strategies in order to do so. The
committee substitute requires all States to address the issue in some
fashion in their State plan, but leaves the specifics up to each
individual State.
I have heard some concern expressed that the development of model
standards at the national level would force a national curriculum and
Federal standards for school spending on to the States. This is
entirely not true. First of all, these model national standards are
completely voluntary for their adoption. The bill specifies that no
State has to adopt or implement any standards in order to receive
Federal funds under this act or any other Federal legislation. The
standards are being developed simply to provide guidance for those
States if they wish to develop standards of their own. Second, we added
provisions to the bill to clarify that these model standards must be
general enough to allow any State to use them and must not be so
specific as to restrict State or local prerogatives concerning
instructional methods. They also state that nothing in this act would
override the Department of Education Organization Act which outlines
the respective State and Federal relationships. I hope this is clear.
The committee bill supports the important role of locally determined
bodies, such as school boards and State education agencies, in
monitoring the school reform plans and does not seek to replace them
with duplicative structures. We believe that the creation of a State
panel is an essential element for planning purposes, but this panel
should not be burdened with the task of monitoring the progress of
individual schools and districts. Not only does the Goals 2000 Act take
bold steps toward widescale reform of our Nation's education system, it
also starts to erect the framework for building the necessary bridge
between the worlds of education and work. Title V of the bill
establishes a National Skill Standards Board designed to coordinate the
development of a voluntary national system of skill
standards, assessment and certification. This will be incredibly
important as we go forward, to assure that our mobile work force will
have the skills necessary to get the jobs that are available.
The intention of this title is to facilitate lifelong learning
opportunities and promote attainment of high skills for all Americans.
It focuses on workers at all stages of the work and career spectrum,
including young adults seeking a first job, unemployed or displaced
workers seeking reemployment, and experienced workers seeking better
jobs. These standards would provide workers with portable and
recognizable credentials to certify mastery of identifiable skills
required for successful performance in the work place in the modern
world.
From the outset, let me acknowledge that some have questioned the
inclusion of this title in the education reform package. They ask would
it not be more appropriate to place provisions establishing voluntary,
national, industry-recognized skill standards in comprehensive work
force preparation legislation? Since this provision was not part of the
original Goals 2000 bill, I initially shared these concerns. However, I
am now convinced that this matter is significantly related to our
educational goals and properly placed within this legislation.
Education does not end after high school. It must be a continuum from
birth to adulthood. Voluntary skill standards will help encourage the
high skills necessary for American workers to compete and succeed in
the high technology world of the 21st century.
This bill addresses the concerns that Members on this side of the
aisle have expressed to me. It further incorporates the recommendations
of distinguished education experts such as Commissioner Rick Mills from
Vermont who testified before the committee on his experience as a
leader in the area of school reform and restructuring.
Some opponents may question the necessity of spending Federal dollars
to accomplish State education reform. But, as the experience of the
1980's makes clear, even the most ardent reformers can fall short of
their goals if the tools at their disposal are not sufficient to
overcome the obstacles in their way. And obstacles there are many--
drugs, violence, single parenthood, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, and
physical abuse. Children come to school carrying more baggage than just
books.
Our schools must be able to identify these problems and deal with
them. Our schools have taken on the role of a social agency in this
regard, but we have not provided the teachers or the administrators
with any more money to assist them in caring for our children. It is
time we begin looking at what we must do to make those goals
attainable.
The state of our education system poses a clear and present danger to
this country--yet, we have failed to take the current threat seriously.
We have not understood that now is the time to commit our resources to
education, health, and social services programs in the same way we
committed ourselves to fight the cold war. We have not been willing to
admit that the threat from within is as great as that which we perceive
from without.
Enacting Goals 2000 is essential to the future of our children
and the future of our educational system. Our outdated system is no
longer adequate for our changing society. It is not producing the
highly skilled and fully literate adult population that our society
must have.
I believe Goals 2000 is the beginning of a new commitment of the
Federal Government to improve the educational opportunities of our
young people.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Kennedy
and members of the committee who have worked very hard and diligently
to provide a bill which can help us go into the next century with the
kind of confidence we will need in order to provide our Nation with the
standard of living it requires.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly support enactment of S. 1150, the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act school reform bill. President Clinton's
proposal is important and needed legislation. Far too often, American
students are not sufficiently challenged in the classroom. As a result,
they frequently place lowest in international achievement rankings.
Goals 2000 seeks to reverse that tide. It establishes clear, high
expectations for every student, school, and community. It spurs State
and local education reform efforts. And it strengthens the linkage
between school and workplace. Goals 2000 is truly a mandate for change.
It has become increasingly clear that American competitiveness is
dependent on a world-class work force, and is dependent on a world-
class educational system. Excellence without equity is recipe for
economic defeat, and equity without excellence is a hollow promise.
Goals 2000 serves both as a framework and catalyst to improve and
reform our educational system. In essence, it acknowledges that
excellence and equity in education are inextricably linked.
First, Goals 2000 codifies the National Education Goals developed by
then-Governor Clinton, President Bush, and the Nation's Governors in
1989. We have made very few modifications to the goals in committee in
order to maintain their broad bipartisan appeal. One change of note,
however, is the inclusion of civics and government as an area in which
by the year 2000, students will be expected to demonstrate competency
over challenging subject matter. I have long held that it is absolutely
critical for students to understand how our Government works, as well
as the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy.
Second, Goals 2000 provides for the development of rigorous voluntary
content standards that identify exactly what students should know and
be able to do in specific subject areas. We have also included
authority for the Secretary to support the development of model
national leadership projects to integrate standards from different
subject areas, such as English and history, into a single coherent
instructional program. Subjects need not and should not be taught in
isolation of one another.
Further, Goals 2000 establishes voluntary opportunity-to-learn
standards that define the teaching and learning conditions necessary
for all students to have a fair and equitable chance at receiving a
world-class education. Opportunity-to-learn standards will empower the
public to hold not only schools but also policymakers accountable for
the results they produce. They are essential to an education of equity
and excellence.
What pleases me most about President Clinton's initiatives is that it
also provides for the development of quality, thought-provoking
assessments. For over 25 years I have called for better assessments
tied to national standards so that we might measure students actual
knowledge of subject matter and better target our limited Federal
resources. Moreover, standards and assessments are essential if State
and local officials are to establish, as AFT President Al Shanker
recently stated:
The clear consequences for success and failure so that
students have the incentive to work hard and achieve because
they know that something important--like a high school
diploma, college entrance or access to a good job--is at
stake.
Third, and perhaps most important, Goals 2000 provides a $400 million
school improvement grant program to help spur systemwide State and
local education reform. Educators, and State and local community
leaders will receive the guidance and support they need to develop and
implement their own education reform plans. Funds will go toward
improved and ongoing teacher training, parental and community
involvement, performance-based assessments tied to challenging
curricula, and real incentives for schools and students.
I am especially pleased that the grant program contains a special
emphasis on financially distressed areas. Education reform requires
resources, particularly in our most needy areas. In Rhode Island, a
healthy proportion of the more than $1.5 million the State may receive
under the Goals 2000 program should go to such financially strapped
areas as Central Falls, Providence, Pawtucket, and Newport. Admittedly,
$1.5 million is an austere level of funding for austere times. But put
into the hands of those closest to schoolchildren, not Washington
bureaucrats, even a small amount of funding--as little as $10,000--can
lead to a process that can change an entire school.
Fourth, Goals 2000 provides schools with greater flexibility in their
use of Federal funds. Under program flexibility, educators will be able
to serve children as a whole, rather than as a collection of isolated
needs. I think it is important to note, however, that flexibility is
not our end goal. Our goal is increased achievement and opportunity for
children. And therein lies the genius of Goals 2000. The development of
high standards and quality assessment provides for a level of program
accountability to guide future decisions regarding more or less
flexibility at the local level. Without quality assessments, we would
have no way of measuring if services are delivered to the students who
need them most.
Finally, to improve the linkage between school and work, Goals 2000
creates a skills standards board to identify essential work force
skills and establishes a voluntary national system of occupational
certification. Workers, and those seeking work, will receive clear
guidance as to the skills that are necessary to enter a particular
field. Skill standards will increase worker mobility, enabling workers
to take their skills to where jobs exist. These standards are an
important first step toward a future skills training initiative.
Mr. President, we have delayed the enactment of education reform
legislation too long. I am afraid that is in large part due to the
intervention of politics. I have long believed that partisanship should
have little to do with our work in education. We may have differences
of approach and emphasis, but those differences should not be rooted in
party label. For the good of children, we ought to steer clear of
partisanship when it comes to education policy. I am pleased to say
that Goals 2000 is a change from the past. The school reform bill
before us has been developed and improved in a bipartisan fashion. We
have taken a good bill and made it better. It merits our strong support
and swift enactment.
In closing, I will comment on the fact that when I go around and make
speeches to young people, at the end of the speech period --and I have
done this many, many, many times--I ask the students if they feel they
are properly challenged, learning to the limit of their abilities. I
find that very often, usually the children will say no. You ask them to
put up their hands and maybe 95 percent of those who raised their hands
will say they have not been properly challenged. This is in spite of
the fact that the teachers are directly behind me as I ask this
question.
I think this bill is a good bill and a step down the road we should
take and should have taken some time ago.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for
S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Senate bill 1150 contains
many of the same basic elements as President Bush's America 2000
initiative and the Senate-passed version of S. 2 during the last
Congress.
For those of you who may be hearing opposition to this bill, let me
tell you at the outset that this bill does not: federalize education,
establish a national curriculum or school board; require that States
adopt national standards or submit standards for Government approval;
tie any other Federal education funds to compliance with Goals 2000
provisions; dictate to States how much they need to spend per pupil,
how to license their teachers, the proper teacher-pupil ratio, which
textbooks to use, et cetera; impose unfunded mandates on States; and
mandate or encourage values-based education or the establishment of
school-based clinics.
This legislation reflects the bipartisan consensus of the Senate that
fundamental education reform will be accomplished only by strengthening
the connection between communities and their schools and by renewing
the absolutely vital partnership among parents, teachers, and students.
This legislation stresses the need to raise our standards and
expectations for student performance. Students, I believe, are ready
and willing to rise to this challenge. The bill encourages the
strengthening of our Nation's teaching force and provides teachers and
administrators with the training and support they need.
Our vision for education may be national in scope, but responsibility
for its delivery rests squarely in hands at the local level. In fact,
my single greatest concern with the legislation as originally proposed
by the administration was that it was too bureaucratic, prescriptive,
and top-down in its approach.
Republican Senators have been instrumental in making significant
improvements to the bill both before and after its introduction. We
have worked very hard to develop a bill with few of the defects of the
conference bill, S. 2, which we opposed last year. I believe that the
committee has successfully minimized the level of Federal involvement
to that necessary to encourage higher standards without stifling local
innovation and decisionmaking.
This legislation does not seek to displace local and State control
over schools. Rather, it provides support for innovative thinking and
experimentation in the way we educate our students. We also worked to
ensure that the focus of education reform advocated in this bill
remained on educational achievement, rather than on inputs and
resources. I believe that the Goals 2000 bill making its way through
the Senate represents a true mixture of bottom-up education reform with
local, State, and Federal support and partnership.
At the heart of S. 1150 is a grant program to States, school
districts, principals, and teachers to plan and implement dramatic and
needed reforms of their schools and school systems. This program
represents 95 percent of the authorized funds. States, school
districts, and schools are encouraged to engage in education reform
designed to raise standards and expectations for all students and
improve student academic achievement.
The legislation also allows local education agencies to waive Federal
regulations which impede the ability of teachers to focus on providing
the best possible education for their students. This proposal puts
teachers back in the decision making role of determining the best ways
to teach their students.
I have heard various criticisms of this bill. Most of them have been
aimed at the House version or earlier Senate versions of this
legislation. Let me address some of these criticisms. Goals 2000 does
not establish or promote a national school board or a national
curriculum. I would not support either of those moves.
While the Goals 2000 State grant program does encourage that
participating States, school districts, and schools have high
expectations for students and hold all students to high standards of
academic achievement, those expectations and standards would be
entirely locally determined. Other decisions about whether to include
values or sex education in the curricula or whether to open school-
based clinics would remain local decisions, as they always have been.
This bill does not impose unfunded Federal mandates. In fact, the
opposite is true. Like the Bush administration, S. 1150, provides
States, school districts, and schools with an option to obtain waivers
from Federal statutes and regulations that impede education reform. In
addition, the National Governors Association, which vehemently opposes
unfunded Federal mandates, has indicated its support for the Senate
bill.
Another charge is that the bill threatens to change the focus from
school and student outcomes and achievement as measures of educational
progress back to the inputs, such as resources, upon which we have
traditionally relied to monitor our educational system. However, the
Senate committee amendment modifies the bill's language on delivery or
opportunity-to-learn standards, as these input requirements are called,
and the House bill is very different on this point.
The House bill requires the National Education Goals Panel to
identify actions that should be taken by Federal, State, and local
governments to achieve State opportunity-to-learn standards. It would
also require the Goals Panel to report on the progress of States in
meeting such standards. The Senate will does not insert the federally
funded Goals Panel into this type of monitoring role.
The House bill is also much more prescriptive and restrictive with
respect to opportunity-to-leave standards in the State grants. The
Senate bill, by comparison, only requires that States establish
strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to learn, but
States decide whether they will adopt specific standards to accomplish
this aim.
I should also mention briefly title V of the bill, which will
establish a National Skill Standards Board to assist in the development
of national, occupational skill standards. I must confess to some
skepticism as to the usefulness of these standards and the need for
such a board. Nevertheless, I am prepared to defer to the judgment of
those in the business community who support this effort. But, I
strongly believe businesses, both large and small, must be adequately
represented in the development of standards if this project is to work.
The Secretary of Labor shares this view and has agreed to a compromise
approach that I believe will provide more balanced representation on
the Skills Standards Board.
Finally, some oppose this bill because it does not include Federal
money for private school choice. As in S. 2, which passed by a vote of
92 to 6, a State or school district may use their Federal grant to
implement public school choice as part of its plan. The bill does not
prohibit private school choice, only the use of Federal dollars for
such activity.
I recognize that private schools have made substantial contributions
to the education of many children, and I believe that the existence of
a private school system provides healthy competition for public
schools. However, as a nation we have made a commitment to education by
providing free public schools and requiring that children attend. To
honor this commitment fully, all schools must be good ones.
Frankly, I would have preferred not to include Federal funding of any
school choice in this bill. I support school choice if a school
district decides that it is a feasible option and will improve
education achievement in the district's public schools. However,
choice, whether private or public, is a State and local issue, as are
decisions about how to fund it. I see no reason for a Federal role in
this decision.
Ultimately, the real solutions to improving our schools will be found
outside Washington. However, I believe that this legislation can be of
assistance in encouraging States and localities to seek improvement of
local schools and to think boldly in terms of reform. It is on that
basis that I offer my support for S. 1150.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, it is moments
such as this where I should say amen and sit down because, frankly, the
Senator from Kansas has said virtually everything I wanted to say about
this legislation, particularly in some of her last few points about the
flexibility of this bill.
My hope is--and I know this does not happen with great frequency, Mr.
President, but my hope is, because this legislation is attracting so
much attention, Members would take some time--it is not a lengthy
bill--that they might read this one. I know I may be asking a lot in
some instances but, just merely reading this legislation I think would
allay about 95 percent of the concerns that have been raised in other
forums.
The Senator from Kansas points out what this bill does not include,
and I would urge people to read her statement because she is exactly
correct. There have been a lot of statements about what is in this
bill. Read the bill and read the statement by the Senator from Kansas
and you will have a good beginning as to what is included.
I think the one central feature that is so critically important is
the notion of local flexibility, the ability for school districts and
States to be experimental, to try things that work in their communities
and their States. That has not always been the way we have crafted
legislation in the education area, but this particular product is such
an effort, to really maximize those choices.
I hope it does not need stating, but I will repeat it again. If at
any point in our history the need for having the best educated
generation this country has ever produced it is now. We just passed the
NAFTA bill which is going to open some wonderful opportunities
economically in this hemisphere.
When we have 50 percent of our high school graduates not going on to
college at all and you realize how important it is going to be to have
an educated work force, I do not think it needs to be reemphasized that
we must do everything possible to increase and improve the quality of
educational opportunity at the elementary and secondary level. I want
to underscore what the Senator from Kansas has said about parents. And
Senator Bond of Missouri deserves great credit for offering the
parents-as-first-teachers concept,
Because it is absolutely true. I have a sister who teaches young
children in Hartford, CT, from the largest inner city elementary school
in the State. She would be the first to tell you were she here. She is
a very good teacher. She works very hard. But even at the very young
age of 4, 5, 6 years of age when she receives these children as her
charges so much damage has already been done. It is almost impossible
to try to reverse some of the problems these children bring to the
classroom at that young age.
They are not yet adolescents or teenagers. These are the youngest
children.
So involving parents is so critically important if we are going to be
successful, getting parents to come to those schools, to be involved in
the total aspect of their child's lives. This bill makes an effort at
that.
President Bush deserves great credit, by the way. He authored the
conference that met in Virginia that initiated this particular
proposal, and hence underscoring the point again that the Senator from
Kansas has made about the bipartisan nature of this effort. We are not
going to agree on every aspect. Some may have particular problems of
one feature or another. But this is an opportunity for us to really put
our stamp on the educational needs of this country at a tremendously
important and critical juncture.
Again, I urge my colleagues to read the bill, read the statement by
the Senator from Kansas. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island,
Senator Pell, who has been a champion for years in education, and our
colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords as well; my colleague from
Illinois who is here, Senator Simon, who has spent years working these
areas.
I look forward, by the way--and I would end on this particular note--
to working with my colleague from Vermont. He and I have been raising
the proposal of having the Federal Government commit more of its
resources over the next decade to education. It is controversial. But
nonetheless, I think it is a wonderful opportunity for us to alleviate
some of the property tax burden that people pay in this country for
education. Two-thirds of the property taxes in Connecticut go for local
education. A lot of those dollars go to special education programs and
the like. If the Federal Government can begin to assume some of that
financial responsibility we cannot only do more, but I think also
alleviate some of the particular financial burdens that people have.
That is another issue and a time for another debate. I did not want
to miss the opportunity to let my colleagues know that the Senator from
Vermont and I intend to pursue that particular approach through other
vehicles along the way in our commitment to doing what we can to
improve the quality of our education.
So, Mr. President, I look forward to the debate over the next few
days on this issue. There will be some major issues of some
controversy.
Let me underscore as well the point on the voucher issue. Again there
has been a lot of talk about this. But frankly, this is not a matter
for us taking tax dollar revenues and subsidizing other school systems
which is exactly the wrong direction. I have great respect for the
private and parochial school systems in this country. I am a product of
them. But I also believe my parents made a choice at that time. They
did not think that making a choice excluded them or precluded them from
bearing an obligation to support education in this country. In a sense
to promote that idea because we are angry with what we see going on in
our schools today is to ask those who have the least to pay the
greatest burden in this area. I do not think we ought to do that. I do
not think we can afford to do it no matter how appealing it may be.
So my hope is our colleagues will think long and hard before deciding
to go move in that direction.
On that note, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to look at the
bill, to read it, to read the statements again, particularly that of
the Senator from Kansas today, and to ultimately support what I think
is a very good product.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Illinois. I know he has
some important comments.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Illinois, [Mr. Simon].
Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. President.
I agree with everything he said. There is all sweetness and light. It
will not be all sweetness and light when we get to these amendments.
But what we are asking is on that voluntary basis, and the Senator
from Kansas used the word voluntary and I would underscore it. That is
what this calls for, a voluntary establishment of high academic
standards. And then do something that I have heard the Senator from
Rhode Island say over and over again. In fact, I have stolen this
process from him. He says, ``When I speak to students, I ask them if
they are being challenged enough.'' And overwhelmingly they say they
are not being challenged enough. I have stolen that technique from the
Senator from Rhode Island without giving him credit, I regret to say.
But absolutely we ought to be doing more.
Parental involvement; Senator Dodd has talked about this, Senator
Hatfield has been excellent on this. The PTA has been urging us to do
more. The local school councils established by the city of Chicago did
not cost us a penny; gotten parents involved, and there is no question
that has helped the Chicago schools.
Senator Wellstone and I will be offering an amendment to strengthen
the opportunity-to-learn standards. I hope we can get something worked
out on that.
And then I would finally urge that we recognize--this is one piece of
the puzzle. This is a step forward. It is a small step forward. We need
other steps forward. I think the direct lending was one for higher
education. The school to work will be one. Then we get to a more major
issue, and that is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
One other item: The Presiding Officer who has been great in this
whole budget revenue field--and we are pleased that he is here from the
State of North Dakota. We face the fact that we passed unanimously a
Senate resolution saying let us increase 1 percent a year what we are
doing out of the budget for education. It was easy to pass that
resolution. Pretty soon, we are going to be at the budget. Then we are
going to find out whether we just gave that lip service, or whether we
are going to do it.
That is when the crunch comes. I hope we will do something.
Some of my colleagues have heard me talk before about when I was in
the fourth or fifth grade. I do not remember when it was. I was taking
that geography lesson. I learned that we were a rich nation because of
all of our natural resources. And I believed that up until, I do not
know, 15 years ago when all of a sudden I realized the nations that
were moving more rapidly economically in terms of increasing their
national income were nations that had virtually no natural resources--
Japan, Taiwan, Sweden. I realized these nations are investing in their
human resources. That is what we have to do.
This bill is one step in that direction. I applaud this step. We have
to take more steps.
I applaud Senator Pell, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kassebaum and
everyone who has played a roll in this. I am pleased to join in support
of it.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me express my respect,
especially for the prior speakers and their commitment to and concern
for education and improving education in our country.
That is I believe a universal concern, of course. I do not think it
is unique to either party. And it is something that has been outlined
by the Senator from Illinois who has made some exceptionally aggressive
efforts in this area which I greatly admire, as he has outlined. This
is critical to the future capacity to have high quality education.
Really, if you want to look at the resources of our Nation, the true
resources are the minds of our children. This is especially true as we
move into the information and communication century, which will be the
21st century.
We all recognize this. Of course, this bill is a statement by the
administration and by members of the leadership of this committee as to
how they think it should be addressed and how they feel we should
improve education throughout this country. All the speakers to date
have been high in their praise of this bill. I must demur. I think that
this piece of legislation has some very serious flaws.
I sought the goals of the bill. The goals, of course, were designed
by the Governors Conference in Charlottesville which was convened by
President Bush. I guess I am the only Member of this body who was a
member of that conference because at the time the conference was
convened I was serving as Governor of my State.
Those goals were excellent. They have been outlined by both the
chairman of the committee and the Senator from Vermont. I will not go
over them again. But they do define well what we as a nation should be
pursuing in the area of education.
The problem, however, is that this bill is not an enactment of those
goals only. This bill did not stop at just stating that these goals
were a good idea. It went well beyond that.
Had in fact the bill been a restatement or an affirmation of the
decision of the Governors at Charlottesville and acceptance of those
goals and had this bill been an attempt by the Federal Government to be
a partner in pursuing those goals and assisting the States, especially
in the area of assessment in order to determine whether or not the
goals have been obtained, then I would have no problem with this bill.
But that is not what this bill does.
This bill, although having an innocuous term, reaches well beyond
just the definition of the goals or the attempt to assist the States.
It is a significant power grab by the Federal Government for the
structure to try to obtain control--control is maybe too strong a
word--but to try to obtain a significant and dominant role in the
manner and methodology of education of our children in the elementary-
secondary school systems.
You might ask what is wrong with that? Well, because that is not the
way the American education system has worked.
Traditionally, the Federal role in education has been defined and
targeted in, laser like, in its areas of responsibility. Traditionally,
the Federal Government has picked certain arenas where it felt that the
States maybe were not doing everything they could or where it could
help the States and address those issues. Special education is probably
the most well known of that, but certainly the chapter 1 and the
Elementary and Secondary School Act assistance is part of it, too. And
that really has worked fairly well, where the Federal Government has
picked a defined and limited role to address elementary and secondary
school education and has done so in partnership with the States and
left to the States and to the local communities the dominant and
pervasive role of educating our children as they work their way through
the first 12 grades.
Why has it worked? It has worked because quality education--and this
was a conclusion which we reached at Charlottesville, and it has not
been talked about here, and I can understand why, listening to the
speakers who went before me--depends primarily, even more so than on
money, on local participation. High quality school systems in this
country, whether they are at the elementary level or at the secondary
level, wherever you find them, always have one very dominant factor,
and that is a high degree of local participation in designing the way
the school is run.
They also have a lot of other factors, of course. Some of that
involves money. A lot of it involves a first-class principal with
energy, and a good teaching staff, of course, is critical. But most
important is a commitment by the community to make sure that the
education of their children in their town is the best that can be
provided.
Local control cannot be obtained through Federal regulation. In fact,
Federal regulation is anathema to local control. In fact, probably in
the most aggressive experiment the Federal Government has taken on in
the area of education is the area of 94-142, which is the special
education area. In insisting and setting up a Federal structure on how
children shall be educated who have handicaps and disabilities, the
Federal Government's dominance in that area has become so aggressive
that it has in many instances undermined what might have been
initiatives on the local level which would have created even a better
atmosphere for that child.
That grew out of the history of the fact that many of these children
were not receiving the adequate education they needed and the Federal
Government stepped in. But I tend to think the pendulum has swung too
far in that area. We will have a chance to discuss that on later
legislation in some considerable depth.
In that area specifically, the Federal Government has created a
regulatory morass of huge proportions, and it has not even funded the
obligation that it has put on the local school systems to help educate
the disabled and handicapped child, which is an outrage in and on its
face; the fact that we passed a bill in this Congress that said that
the Federal Government was going to tell the States and the communities
how to educate these disabled kids and then said we would pay 40
percent of it and we end up paying 6 percent of it, and thus the school
systems had to scramble around and relocate resources to take care of
these children.
But the fact is that quality education cannot be driven from the top.
Quality education has to involve having the parent, the principal, the
teacher, and the local school board feel that they are empowered with
the capacity to make the decisions which make a difference in the way
education is delivered. That is what it comes down to. That is how you
develop quality education. And that is what the Governors concluded at
Charlottesville; that most of the high quality systems involve large
flexibility and a large amount of autonomy on the local and State
level.
So we have this bill come forward, which in an innocuous term is
called voluntary, and we have heard that phrase mentioned here on
innumerable occasions--this is voluntary, this is voluntary, this is
voluntary--to the point where you have to refer to a Shakesperian
phrase which I believe is ``methinks she doth protest too much.'' The
fact is this is not voluntary. It is only voluntary in words, but in
practice it is substantively a directive.
Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. The language of the bill,
to begin with. I refer you simply to the language of the bill. It does
not talk about voluntary in the operative language. It talks about
voluntary in the political language. In the operative language it uses
a word like ``shall.'' The States shall present a plan. The plan shall
comply with the opportunity-to-learn standards. I refer the Members of
this body to the bill itself and to section 306 for some of that
language and some of the other critical sections.
So the language of the bill is not voluntary. In its operative and
most effective and in the terms which create legal obligation, the
language of the bill is very definitive.
Well, then you will hear people say, well, States do not have to
participate; they do not have to put in for this $400 million, so,
therefore, it is obviously voluntary. That is a truly ironic argument.
I mean anybody who has been in the Government knows the pressure which
will be raised within the various States to obtain some of this funding
should it be appropriated. The educational communities within the
States, the parents within the States, the States themselves, the State
legislatures, if you put $400 million on the table, there is going to
be a huge, practical momentum to obtain those funds.
And that is the way human nature is, and that is the way of the body
politic.
So, as a practical matter, there is very little that is voluntary in
the State's choice to pursue this. You are not going to have the States
of Idaho or Arkansas or Mississippi not want to get a percentage of
that $400 million. Obviously, they are going to want to and they are
going to feel that, since it is their tax dollars they send here to
Washington to begin with, they ought to be able to get some of them
back.
I think it is a very reasonable approach. It is not avarice on their
part. It happens to be a reasonable desire to recover some of the tax
dollars they send to Washington.
So when the Federal Government puts $400 million on the table and
says, here we are going to divide it up to the States in the context
that it is voluntary that the States are going to participate in that,
it is absurd. The States are going to be under pressure from their
constituents. And once they opt into the plan, the language is not
voluntary. It is ``shall.'' They shall have a plan; they shall comply
with this standard and that standard.
Then, of course, I know that the mea culpas have been put out there
that this will not be used in later cases to obtain Federal funds.
States will not be tested on their applications under chapter 1 by any
standards that are stepped up under this bill. And even this bill has
language in there that says something to that effect.
But let me tell you, that is not the way it works. It is not the way
it has ever worked. Anybody who has ever dealt with the Federal
Government and has tried to participate in a program knows that once
the Federal Government sets up a standard, which they do under this
bill, once those standards are put in place, those standards become the
criteria which are either used exclusively or at least as a major
element of the decision process in obtaining other funds which are
related to that matter.
It would be like saying that, when the EPA set their standards on how
you define clean water, the State applying for a clean water grant
could ignore those standards. Of course they cannot and they are not
going to be able to ignore the standards that are set out here if they
wish to apply for other Federal grants.
Clearly, this bill and the language in this bill will create in the
area of designing and defining the methodology of teaching, the
methodology of education at the elementary and secondary school level,
the methodology of curriculum, clearly that language will be used as a
test against which to gauge other applications for other grant
programs. To say otherwise, I think, is to ignore the history of the
way the Federal Government assigns grant programs.
Voluntary? Well, it is not voluntary. I think I have pointed out
three reasons why it is not voluntary. But let me point out a fourth
reason why it is not voluntary so we can put an end to this use of this
word ``voluntary'' around this floor relative to this bill.
It is not voluntary because once the Federal Government, under this
national NESIC--which is the new sub-board of the National Goals
board--once NESIC has set up the standards which they determine to be
the best way to teach a kid in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth and through the twelfth grade, once they have set up those
standards, no matter how specific they are --and I suspect they will
begin fairly generalized in their terms but will evolve into a fair
amount of specifics fairly quickly--the opportunity-to-learn standards,
once those standards are set up, they become the benchmark for the
litigation community in this country.
Any good lawyer pursuing a case on behalf of a local group that feels
it has been affronted or feels that it is not receiving proper
attention to its concerns in education, when they bring that lawsuit
against that local school board and they are looking around for ways in
which to defend their position--let us say that they believe that
American history should be taught under one form and the local school
system is teaching it in another form, and they determine that under
the NESIC standards their form is the form that is appropriate, they
are going to use those standards in court. They are going to cite them.
You can say, ``Well, that doesn't matter. That is just some set of
standards that is brought in.''
Well, sure, it is just some set of standards brought in. It just
happens to be standards set up by the U.S. Government as the best way
to educate children. You do not think a court is going to take that
rather seriously, especially a Federal court where most of these cases
are brought; or a jury is going to be impressed by a group of standards
set up by a Federal organization on how you should teach, what math
books you should use, what curriculum you should use, how big the
classroom should be, how many books should be in the library, what type
of gym should be designed?
I can tell you they are going to take that seriously when that case
is brought, even though it may just be a group of Federal standards
sitting out there set up by a board that has no direct regulatory
authority over the local school board.
Clearly, clearly, it is going to become the anvil upon which the
hammer of activist lawsuits directed at local communities in order to
try to redirect what may have been the very appropriate political
decision of the local community school board--it is going be the anvil
upon which that hammer is struck.
So, voluntary, this is not. It is politically nice to call it
voluntary. I understand that. Because you would not want to say you
were mandating something on the States, would we? That might be truth
in packaging.
There are a lot of problems with this piece of legislation. But let
me speak specifically to a couple that we will be offering amendments
on.
First--in listening to the discussions of some of my colleagues, I
guess it is not going to be such a problem; probably will be accepted--
is that this legislation has the capacity to lead to an unfunded
mandate. But I understand from both the ranking member and the chairman
of this committee that it is not an unfunded mandate specifically
stated as such, so I presume no one will have an objection. I will
offer that and will make it clear that nothing in this bill will be
deemed an unfunded mandate.
There is language in this bill which really undercuts the capacity of
the Governors to be a player in the sense that the plan can be
delivered to the Federal education authority without the Governor's
approval, even through the education department solely. And there are
some States that are structured in a way where the education department
is independent of the Governor. The Governor does not even appoint the
commissioner of education. Therefore, we will try to correct that
problem by making sure that Governors have the final say on any plan
that is developed under this program.
There is the issue of litigation, which I just talked about. I heard
a number of people say, including the ranking member, that this is not
going to be used for purposes of litigation. Maybe it was not him, but
I know somebody said that here. So we will try to address that.
I heard a number of people say that this would not be used for
purposes of designing curriculum or controlling class size. We will
offer a series of specific amendments so that this bill cannot be used
for the purpose of teacher instruction practices, curriculum
definition, limitation on class size, national building standards for
schools, or equalizing spending per pupil.
We will make it absolutely clear within this bill that what is being
represented here--which is, this a voluntary bill and which is not
going down into the specifics of day-to-day operations of school
systems--is the way it is. And I presume those will not be too
controversial, because everybody already stood up and said the bill
does not do that to begin with.
Where I think the controversy, obviously, is going to arise is on the
issue of the opportunity-to-learn standard section of the bill. I still
do not understand why it is in here. I have listened to the
administration. I have listened to the Secretary of Education. Their
goals are obtainable. In fact, if you listen to what they say, they do
not even mention this topic. And they are very legitimate and
thoughtful goals.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Secretary of Education,
Governor Riley. If you listen to him talk, he is saying exactly what
needs to be said. He is saying we should enact the goals of the
Governor's Conference, which this bill does, and then we should design
assessment standards to make sure that those goals are reached and have
content standards within that.
He does not talk about opportunity to learn. ``Opportunity-to-
learn,'' that is a nice euphemism. What it really means is Federal
methodology for teaching. That is really the proper definition of it,
if you are going to be accurate. It is the methodology of how people
teach and what they are taught and the atmosphere in which they are
taught.
The chairman of the committee described it as the jumping-off place.
That is a pretty good term, actually, for it. Then he used terms like:
Do they arrive at school ready to learn? Do they have an atmosphere to
learn in? And what are they going to be taught from? I think that is
essentially what he was saying.
That is a good way to describe it. It is a jumping-off place. It is a
jumping-off place in which the Federal Government is going to define
the place. Where is the place? It is the school, that is the place. It
is the school. It is going to define the school under this process.
Opportunity-to-learn standards are a methodology for teaching and
education in the school.
The size of the school comes into issue. The curriculum specifically
comes into issue. I heard somebody come up and say curriculum is not
affected here. Curriculum is specifically--specifically--identified as
one of the things that, under the opportunity-to-learn standards,
people must be concerned with.
In fact, let me read the list, because I know a lot of folks do not
have time to read these bills. They are long and convoluted, and it
takes a long time. And since there is so much agreement among the
leaders of the committee, I am sure a lot of people are willing to walk
away and say it is an easy vote. But let me read the list of what is
involved here:
`` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards . . . shall address''-- it
does not say it is a voluntary opportunity to address these. It says,
``shall address.''
``the quality and availability of curricula, instructional materials,
and technologies;''
That is pretty much the whole ball of wax. That is called education
at the elementary and secondary school level.
`` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards * * * shall address the
capability of teachers to provide high-quality instruction to meet
diverse learning needs in each content area;''
That, I think, is a phrase which is meant to say: Do not try any of
this alternative certification, folks. It is not going to make it.
Those States which have been experimenting with hiring teachers from
outside the traditional teaching fields because the teachers have an
expertise in a field they feel the children should know about will, I
think, run headlong into the standard that is proposed under that one.
That is a real labor sleeper.
`` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards * * * shall address the
extent to which teachers and administrators have ready and continuing
access to professional development, including the best knowledge about
teaching, learning, and school improvement;
``the extent to which curriculum, instructional practices, and
assessments are aligned to content standards; and
``other factors--''
This is sort of a catch-all. If we did not pick up everything in
education that we want to be under our control,
``other factors that the Council deems appropriate to ensure that all
students receive a fair opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills
described in the voluntary national content standards and the voluntary
national student performance standards certified by the Council.''
It is a very sweeping and pervasive definition of what is the
methodology of teaching. It is a method, Federal methodology, a plan
for education. The way it works under this law, just so people
understand it, as I understand it--maybe I do not fully understand it,
but I think I do--is that if you wish to put in for a grant under this
bill, you are, under this law, required to have addressed the issue of
opportunity-to-learn standards.
We went through the issue of voluntary questions. That does not mean
you have to comply with what NESIC says is the opportunity-to-learn
standards. No, you do not. But your school improvement plan has to have
an opportunity-to-learn section.
I have to say, if you are applying for a grant and your opportunity-
to-learn standards, which were developed maybe at some community-based
effort and you are pretty proud of them, come up, but they are not
consistent with the opportunity-to-learn standards which were developed
by NESIC, the national school board group, your chances of being a
successful competitor for that grant I have to believe are
significantly reduced. So, as a practical matter, I think that is
another lever that is used here to force compliance with that standard.
So there will be a contentious debate. Maybe it will not be
contentious. Maybe it will be brief and to the point. In any event, it
will be a discussion, and there will be an amendment offered by myself
to eliminate the opportunity-to-learn standards, which are unnecessary
to the basic purposes of this bill and to the goals of the Secretary of
Education. In fact, if they were eliminated, this bill would be a very
tolerable one.
Those are some of the issues which we shall be raising. I will also
be raising, if the Senator from Indiana does not raise it, and I
suspect he will, the question of choice, which has already been
addressed here. As I feel, if you are going to give schools any
flexibility at all, you ought to give them a chance to have real
choice, not just public school choice. Public school choice is not
choice, of course, in New Hampshire and most States, because in most
States that do not have large urban areas, there is only one public
high school.
So as Secretary Riley was kind enough to state at one of our
hearings, there really is not any choice in a community that only has
one high school. You limit choice to public schools.
I think there is probably a large segment of this Nation which is
subject to the one high school situation, if they are just looking at
public schools. So choice should be made available to rural communities
as well as to urban communities, to suburban communities as well as to
urban communities, by expanding it, the opportunity to private school
as well as public school, if the States wish to do that. It would be up
to the States, obviously, to make that decision.
These are the reservations which I have about this bill and they come
to, really, this very simple point. You cannot correct the problems of
education in this country by having the Federal Government usurp the
authority of the parents, the principals, and the teachers, in their
capacity to develop the imaginative and creative curriculums and ideas
on teaching our children.
This bill leads logically to a system where Federal influence in the
design and methodology of teaching our children in the elementary and
secondary school system will be expanded in an exponential way. We have
never done this in this Nation. We have always allowed our local
communities to make these decisions because we have always understood
the importance of keeping the power of wielding and delivering
knowledge to our children in the hands of the parents rather than in
the hands of the bureaucratic few here in Washington.
This bill puts us on a very slippery slope which, in my opinion,
leads inevitably to a dramatic expansion in the role of the Federal
Government, in a dominant way--not in a partnership way--in the
education of our children in elementary and secondary schools.
So I will be offering a number of amendments to try to correct those
concerns and I, obviously, will appreciate the body's consideration of
those amendments.
I yield my time.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New
Hampshire--I know the Senator from Montana is going to speak, but I
would just like to ask a couple of questions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire
was not on the floor when I was speaking because I stressed the
importance of local control. Having been a school board member myself
in a rural area, a rural school district area of the State of Kansas,
and my own children going through that school district, nothing is more
important in my mind than local control; a community being able, and
parents being able to have a direct voice in the type of education that
their students are receiving.
So I would beg to differ with the Senator from New Hampshire. I do
not believe this is usurping the authority of parents, nor should
it. It is one thing that I feel strongly about.
I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire on some of the things he
said about the opportunity-to-learn language. I do not see it as being
a threat because I think it is basically sort of just fuzzy language.
It is not in any way requirements that are going to lead to control,
again, by the Federal Government.
So I do not think this is a significant power grab. I know that the
Senator from New Hampshire worries about it being the camel's nose
under the tent. That is what we all worry about frequently with
legislation, and we have to be very cognizant of that and be aware of
any consequences, if, indeed, it becomes that.
I know others want to speak, but I want to mention two things. When
the Senator from New Hampshire talked about certification and standards
that would be developed, these are like the math instructors developing
standards for math; that in the fourth grade, a student would be
required to be able to multiply certain types of mathematical
procedures. I do not even know what that would be, but these are
requirements that I think many of the teachers hope, whether it is in
science or geography or math, that students at various levels would be
able to maintain.
This is not going to be anything that nationally we are going to
prescribe to, that nationally we are going to try and set. We are not
going to set the textbooks. I just worry about that. I know there are
concerns, and I do not mean to get into it, but I do not like to take
worst case scenarios and create fears about what might be done when
really there is no language in this bill to indicate that is what would
happen.
Some of the amendments I know that the Senator from New Hampshire is
going to offer to make sure that it does not happen will probably be
ones that will be acceptable to the committee, if it provides any level
of comfort.
I just particularly wanted to address, as a former school board
member myself, my absolute dedication to local control.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield to me for an answer, I hope I
did not in any way imply that she is not committed to local control. As
a former school board member, I am sure she is, but the practical
impact of this bill--obviously, I disagree with her sense of where it
goes. I do not think it is a worst case example I am talking about.
This language is very specific.
I refer the Senator from Kansas back to section 211.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Under what title?
Mr. GREGG. Two hundred thirteen, sub 3, which outlines the power and
the directive for an opportunity-to-learn standard structure. It is
very specific. It says quality, availability of curriculum instruction,
materials and technology. That is not designing math courses. That is
saying whether or not you are going to teach Euclidean geometry or some
other type of geometry. One could come to that conclusion.
If they wanted to get to the point that the Senator from Kansas had
wanted to get to, which is to set a standard to make sure all third
graders know multiplication and all eighth graders know algebra I, if
they wanted to get to that, they could have done it without having to
go to methodology. They could have done it by assessment. But this is a
methodology bill, not an assessment bill in that section.
I must disagree with the Senator's evaluation of the impact of the
bill. Obviously, we are going to disagree on that.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to respond, if the Senator will
allow a bit more exchange here. I agree with the Senator from New
Hampshire on that. It is not language I necessarily think is necessary.
It is not mandatory language, as you know. It is only there as a
voluntary guideline.
I share the Senator's concern because I think from that it could lead
to other consequences if, indeed, it ever became mandatory.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield to me further, as a practical
matter, it is mandatory. I believe it is unquestionably going to end up
being language which is not only put in place--directives and specific
criteria on what type and how people should be taught--but that it is
going to become language which is going to become the enforcing
mechanism throughout our school systems in a very short time after its
adoption.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana
[Mr. Burns].
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we have heard this colloquy between my
friend from New Hampshire and my good friend from Kansas, I would like
to make some of the same points. There are some very good things in
this bill. There are some things that give us all a little heartburn. I
will say, ``on a voluntary basis'' is mentioned 75 times in this bill.
That sounds like overkill to me, and it also raises my curiosity about
why it should be mentioned that many times.
Education in my State is probably the No. 1 issue. We have gone
through a restructuring of our higher education. The money that is
collected on personal property taxes in Montana is a driving force in
every local Government. We are trying to do more with less.
My concern, coming out of local government, is the thing called
unfunded mandates. Those unfunded mandates may be cloaked in many
disguises. There are quite a few of them in this piece of legislation,
but as it works its way through the debate, I hope that we can deal
with some of those.
I do support the seven national education goals because I think we,
as a nation, should have something to shoot for, but it seems like
whenever you start setting a bureaucracy in place, those goals take on
a new meaning.
Let us take for instance, without this piece of legislation, our goal
is to have 90 percent or more of the children graduate from high
school. In Montana, we are at 89 percent now without this piece of
legislation. We can also say from our Department of Education on the
Federal level, we can set some goals, but I think we are going to have
to leave the flexibility to the States to decide how we attain or reach
those goals.
Students should know their subjects, including math and science.
Adults should be literate. Our schools should be safe and parents
should participate in the schools, and I think most parents do. I was a
cosponsor of Senator Hatfield's bill on the issue, and I am glad that
is incorporated in this piece of legislation. But the real question
boils down to: How do we achieve those goals? Who actually controls the
reform and the kinds of reforms that are to be undertaken? That is
where I have some problems with this bill.
Under 2000, meeting these goals requires the establishment of three
new bureaucracies and creates a new office in the Department of
Education. When are we going to learn around here that when you create
these bureaucracies, we can sometimes deal with the fiscal
responsibilities, on occasion, but we have a terrible time dealing with
the bureaucracies, because as it is set up, they are nonresponsive and
unelected faces, and they will not respond to the likings of our
people.
The National Education Goals Panel, the National Education Standards
and Improvement Council--those bureaucracies alone are going to cost
the taxpayers $6 million the first year and ``such sums as necessary''
in the next 4 years. That is before we ever send any recommendations to
the States or buy one textbook or offer any advice on how we attain
goals.
The unelected bureaucracies will be in charge of approving plans that
States develop to improve education. I have a problem with that, too.
That is saying that somebody on the banks of the Potomac is smarter
than my school board at home in Montana, and I cannot believe that. For
the folks here, I do not think they really understand the conditions
under which we have to educate our children compared to the way they
educate theirs.
In order to qualify for a piece of the $393 million in Federal money
that is being dangled in front of them--and we know how tight budgets
are everywhere else, especially in my State--States will agree to have
their reform plan approved by these bureaucracies. It does not take a
rocket scientist to figure that out.
Under this bill, States are required to include the quantity,
quality, and availability of curriculum and the instructional
technologies in line with the NESIC, whatever that council thinks is
necessary.
Also, that same Council would evaluate these plans according to other
specified factors that it deems appropriate. In other words, they have
the ability to change their standards, to sort of change the rules
without any congressional oversight or any input from the States,
whenever they start making their application for moneys.
That is just one way that the Federal Government is going to get more
involved in this business of educating your kids. In other words, where
are the decisions going to be made? Are they going to be made in
Garfield County, MT or Williams County, ND, or are those decisions
going to be made in Washington, DC.
Let me emphasize that word ``voluntary.'' It appears, like I said, 75
times in this piece of legislation--75 times. Now, that tells me
somebody is trying to sell merely by repetition and not by meaning. You
are looking at an old fellow who used to go up and down the road
selling things. If you sell things voluntarily, I probably said
voluntary every sales call. So whoever put that in there all that many
times is very wise because they will keep using it every day.
While some might say this is to emphasize the need of voluntary,
indeed I think it is mentioned many times just to lull folks into a
false sense of security.
Another area.
Let us talk about opportunity-to-learn standards. Some standards
input is needed to give all students a chance to learn. Nobody can
quarrel with that, on a generic level that is. Most would agree that
students need certain inputs: A teacher, dedicated teachers--and we
have thousands of them--classroom, all to learn. But who defines the
inputs? Who makes that definition? Is it made here or is it made at the
local level? It could be extended to a number of areas including school
building standards, spending per student, and class size.
I want this spending by student to be looked at a little bit because
I think South Dakota--I am not real sure--has the highest national SAT
scores and yet spends less per student than any other State in the
Union. Montana is not too far behind. And so we know that money is not
the answer. Spending per student could become one of those standards
dictated by the bureaucracy. So we have to look at those inputs.
I can see lawsuits being filed on this bill also. It seems like it is
every time we turn around. And we all know that complying with court
rulings is not voluntary. I would be the first to admit there is always
room for improvement. I think Montana has a fine education system,
ranks near the top of the United States in many categories. There are a
lot of caring teachers, dedicated professional people, principals and
parents who are working to prepare their young ones for learning. These
efforts are being undertaken as we speak without Federal control or
Federal interference.
As I said before, we need to trust parents and schools to work out
their solutions without the heavy hand of Government.
The bill contains some positive provisions--I have already mentioned
some of those--including parental participation as a goal. In addition,
the bill has technology provisions that are a step forward. Schools
often lag behind in bringing up-to-date technologies into the
classrooms due to budget constraints. I would venture to say we have
done a lot of work in distance learning in eastern Montana. We have
hooked schools together and they share resources through teachers who
can teach in four classrooms at the same time. They can see the
teacher. The teacher can see them. The interaction is through
television at distances of as much as 100 miles.
I serve on the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the
Commerce Committee. We are going to continue to look at the
technologies that are available and should be made available to not
only education in the rural areas but also inner city areas where they
are having an eroding tax base, where they can share resources with
teachers, not only within their own district but also outside the
district, and distance is nothing; you can have an instructor clear
across the country.
One of our most modern schools is the Cold Stream School outside of
Missoula, MT. John Goagland, a fourth grade teacher, uses multimedia
with fourth graders who are doing some wonderful things, and they did
that without Government telling them they had to do it. We have these
kinds of professional teachers in our system. They exist in every
system. And sometimes goals and rules and regulations set here hinder
that kind of imagination and ingenuity that is going to be needed to
educate our kids in the future.
Those technologies will have to be used. We will also have to look at
using these new tools with teachers. Our teachers will have to be
taught in our colleges. Teachers must learn to use new tools. New
technologies, of course, get outdated quickly but nonetheless the
update is always there. We have set up a Montana Telecommunications
Advisory Council to inventory those projects, to see how these new
tools of technology play a part in inventory and what we need to do to
prepare for the future.
I do not know how many States have a boarding school that is a public
school. Garfield County, MT, is bigger than Delaware. It only has one
high school and so all the kids have to come in, but it is a boarding
school. They come in on Mondays. They go to school. They stay there all
week. Fridays, the parents come and get them and take them home on the
weekend.
Now, there are schools where you are going to have to use new
technologies in teaching, new tools, because those kids, those young
Americans deserve the same quality of education as any other young
American in any urbanized district that has great resources for their
schools.
So we are doing that. And not only does that system have implications
in education but it also has implications in rural health care as we
move forward. So I am pleased that the bill will help promote some
awareness in those areas and the protection for technology down the
line.
Finally, the bill does not contain strict mandatory opportunity-to-
learn standards that were included in the original bill. As many of my
colleagues know, the OTL standards in the original bill would require
States to develop OTL plans as a condition for receiving Goal 2000
funding, and the committee substitute removed this absolute mandate.
So this discussion will move along and, of course, I will have a
couple of amendments. I hope they would be accepted by my colleagues.
We are dealing with an area which may have as much impact on the
direction of this country as any other piece of legislation we will
consider this year, when you start talking about how we are going to
educate our young people. I heard a young person address their class
the other day, and he said, ``As seniors in this high school, we young
people are not 100 percent of the population of this country. But we
are 100 percent of the future.''
That is how important this issue is, and we have to do it right the
first time.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to respond to a certain extent to my two
colleagues. Certainly, I can really say nothing more than Senator
Kassebaum has already stated on the issue of voluntary. I would point
out that most of those words were added at the urging of members of the
committee who are deeply concerned that it might become mandatory.
I would also point out to the Senator from Montana, I also get
concerned when I see words mentioned so frequently, but I will point
out that our colleague from New Hampshire has six amendments that will
put in a new term which is more satisfactory to the Senator; it says it
is not mandatory. So I want the Senator to know that there may be six
more terms which are essentially voluntary.
I hope that does not disturb the Senator, because we did appreciate
his support the last time. We hope to make it much better than it was
the last time. I think we have done that.
Let me make a couple of comments in response to my good friend from
New Hampshire. I share his concern, as the Senator from Kansas pointed
out, about making sure that our school boards are not in any way
mandated on what kind of standards they will be using in the classroom.
But I would also point out that we have to remember why we are here,
because of the at-risk report which came out during the Reagan
administration that let us know some 10 years ago how we were slipping
behind with respect to our competition. As we move into the future,
this Nation has to be in the forefront of educational activities such
that we understand and know the dimensions of what is required for the
21st century. If we are not ready for that, then we are going to slip,
as we have over the last decade to a certain extent, behind in our
ability to compete. Thus we have to remember why we are here.
One of the reasons we are here is that all present indications are
that we have slipped behind and are slipping further behind in the
ability to be able to have the forces to meet the competition in the
next century and even now.
So, if the Senator is satisfied that we are going to meet the
competition when we are 13th out of 15 for our kids in the critical
subjects of math and science, or if the Senator is happy that 75
percent of our students are not qualified in those subjects, or if the
Senator is satisfied that they cannot even reach the minimum
requirement of 60 percent in English, and if he somehow feels confident
that, notwithstanding that, we are going to be capable to reach the
dimensions necessary to meet the competition, I have to differ with the
Senator.
But I have to remind us that the standards of what should be out
there, what they should be learning, may not be available to all the
schools in this Nation; that the voluntary standards are being
established to ensure that our curriculum in this country will place us
first in math and science by the year 2000. If our schools around this
country are not aware of what is necessary in their curricula, then
they ought to be made aware of what will be helpful for them to reach
that goal. That is the whole purpose here. It is not to enforce anyone
to do anything.
Finally, I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what the
function of the Federal Government is here, and we have to know what
the constitutional functions of the States are. The States have the
primary responsibility for education. I am dedicated to ensure that
does not change, and you cannot change it basically unless we change
the Constitution. So what we are here for is to help the States and to
make sure that they can meet the challenges.
And 941-42, which the Senator used as an example, came about not as a
result of a Federal mandate. It came about as a result of court
mandates in the States insisting that every child in America have an
appropriate education. As a result of that, the Congress provided a
program to establish the guidelines in order to establish what would be
considered an appropriate education.
We guaranteed at that time--at least I thought we guaranteed when I
voted for it--to provide 40 percent of it, recognizing that it would
force a burden upon the States in order to do that. However, the court
cases or the lawyers that are bringing cases are bringing it under
State law as to what is an appropriate education, not under Federal
law.
Furthermore, as to the other example, where you thought if they
establish standards, they will use it. Well, the lawyers will use any
standard they can find. If you make a leap, not a very big leap, to the
fact that lawyers are beginning to understand that a school system does
not provide the kind of education which is necessary for their child,
their student, to be able to survive in the modern world, we may have
cases coming up in the State courts which will say that the school
standards are not appropriate. I cannot guarantee that. But that will
be a State issue, not a Federal issue. The lawyers may well do that. We
may get decisions that say, unless the States improve their educational
system, use the kind of tools that are available to them, establish the
kind of curricula they should have in order for their students to be
able to meet the demands of our society in the present or the future,
you make a case.
But, again, all we are trying to do here is to provide the tools that
will be necessary to the local governments and to the States in order
to be able to assure that we meet the goals that the Senator agreed to
in Charlottesville, and the States will be in a position to better do
that through guidance and having people take a look at their plans and
be able to give them comments on it.
So I hope that the Senator will understand that there is absolutely
no intent in this bill to do anything other than to help the States for
what is a State mandate; that is, to provide appropriate education to
their students.
So I hope that anything which indicates that this is a leap to
require mandates--if the Senator looks through the language, the things
the Senator is referring to, it only refers to that in order to get the
money, you have to provide a plan. But it does not say what the plan
has to have. It says you are supposed to meet certain criteria, which
anyone would suggest is essential for anyone to have a plan. There is
no attempt in any way--
The Senator from New Hampshire was very instrumental in the committee
ensuring that these voluntary words got added. He wants to add six or
so more. We can deal with that. I do not want anyone to leave here with
any feeling on either side of the aisle that we in any way intend to
usurp the normal processes of the local schools and States of having
primary responsibility to provide education in this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me respond to my colleague and friend
from across the Connecticut River on a few points and then offer an
amendment.
Nobody is satisfied with what is happening in education. That is
unquestionably the case. We are all very concerned that as a Nation our
children are not able to compete in the international economy or the
global marketplace. We do not even know whether we can compete with our
neighboring States in many cases. But the way you would address that is
not to penalize the system. The way you address that is by giving more
autonomy to your local schools, teachers, and parents to develop and
educate the children in a manner which will reach the goals we have
outlined. You give them the assessment standards necessary to
accomplish that and to test themselves. You do not tell them how to do
the methodology of teaching. You tell them the outcome of what it
should be. I would suggest what the efforts should be to allow them to
make their own assessment whether their children are being educated
well and competitively.
But this bill does not do that. This bill does just the opposite. If
I were to characterize the response of the Senator, it is almost that
we work for the Federal Government, and we are here to help you.
We have heard that before. I think there is reason to be cynical
about that because of the traditional events.
The Senator said that lawyers have a right to sue, and then he said
these were tools for the local government.
It is not tools for the local government you are creating here. It is
tools for lawyers to sue to take away autonomy from local governments
and local school boards, in most cases elected or at least appointed by
elected officials, and reflected by the parents' concerns, usually, and
reflected by parents and teachers. It takes away the autonomy of that
school board and gives it to a court and allows lawyers to use the
standard set here in Washington --which may have absolutely good
intentions but which may be inconsistent with the decision made in
Vermont on what should be taught--allowing lawyers to take that
standard set here in Washington into the courtroom in the Federal court
Montpelier, and insist that the school board in Rutland change their
curriculum, redesign their buildings, not certify a teacher who they
have certified to teach there because it did not meet this new Federal
standard which has been created by this national school board called
NESIC.
It is not voluntary. I outlined before the four reasons why it is not
voluntary. I do not want to go over them ad nauseum. I think it worth
reminding everyone the language in here is not voluntary. It is
political language of the bill. There is $400 million on the table and
competition for that. It is not a voluntary event. It is something
every State wants to participate in, and feels it has to participate
in.
Down the road we are going to see the standard set by this NESIC
national school board used as standards for evaluating applications and
grants for other Federal programs that involve education, and we have a
lawsuit waiting in the wings for enforcement.
So I do not believe it is voluntary. Yes, I want to put language in
the bill which says specific areas will not be mandated. The reason I
have chosen to do that is not because I think more language is
necessary that is nonfunctional, such as voluntary is in this bill, but
because I think we need some functional language in this bill which
unequivocally makes it clear that, first, this is not going to create
unfunded mandates and, second, there are certain areas where there
clearly is no authority given for the purposes of designing national
methodology. And that is what the amendments go to which the Senator
referred to.
So let me begin, if it is appropriate at this time, by offering an
amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment pending the action
of the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I at this time withdraw my objection to
the adoption of the Kennedy substitute and I ask unanimous consent that
it be adopted and considered as original text.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 1356) was agreed to.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, as we begin this debate, I want to
express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and
Jeffords for their leadership in bringing the administration's Goals
2000 to this point in the legislative process.
As we begin this debate, I believe it's important that we--and the
American people--have a clear understanding of what this legislation
is--and what it is not.
Goals 2000 is not a new Federal education program.
And, despite our best efforts through amendments on the floor, Goals
2000 must not become a vehicle for each of us to promote our own
particular solution to the serious problems now facing public education
in this country.
I think of Goals 2000 as a basic set of principles for reforming
public education--something akin to the six principles the President
used to help shape the health care reform proposal that he and the
First Lady have now put before us.
In that sense, it's appropriate that we take up this proposal before
we consider reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
ESEA is a much better place to answer the ``how'' questions--at least
as they apply to Federal education programs and policies. Goals 2000
should be limited to defining the ``what.''
As we begin this debate, Mr. President, I also want to thank the
authors of this bill for their willingness to incorporate a number of
changes and improvements that I and others have suggested.
This is a different and better bill because of those changes.
For example, I want to call attention to the authority this
legislation now gives both States and local school districts to use a
portion of their Federal grants to help start innovative new public
schools, including charter schools.
The chairman knows of my strong personal interest in these
provisions. I especially appreciate his support for charter schools,
which are now a part of the education reform strategies of nine
States--including both Massachusetts and my own State of Minnesota.
Mr. President, I also strongly support the changes that have been
made in the mandate waiver section of this bill. These changes will
help test new ways of holding schools accountable for what students
actually learn.
My distinguished colleague from Oregon and I have an amendment to
offer that builds on these provisions, by demonstrating ways that
States can play a more direct role in reducing the burdens of both
Federal and State mandates.
Through those demonstrations, we hope to test ways of replacing
uniform and burdensome rules with new forms of accountability that are
based on results and that can be individually tailored to each school
and to each student.
Finally, Mr. President, I appreciate the changes that have been made
to address concerns that I and others have raised throughout this
debate about the role in education of reform of so-called opportunity
to learn standards.
This legislation now makes it clear that States will not be required
to adopt such standards or include them in their education improvement
plans.
It's also now clear that adopting or meeting opportunity to learn
standards will not be required of States, districts or schools as a
condition of participating in Federal education programs or as a
condition of receiving Federal education funds.
The chairman is aware of my strong objections to uniform and
mandatory opportunity to learn standards. But, I'm now satisfied that
the changes that have been made do adequately address my most serious
concerns.
At the same time, Mr. President, I will not hesitate to vigorously
oppose any efforts--on the floor or in conference--to change this
legislation to use opportunity to learn standards to prescribe how
school reform must be done.
Mr. President, like most Members of this body, I have received
numerous calls and letters in recent weeks from constituents who are
angry and who are deeply concerned about this bill.
They have been told that this bill creates a new national school
board that will run local schools.
They have been told that this bill prohibits home schooling or that
it imposes new, prescriptive regulations on nonpublic education.
They have been told this bill will allow social workers to
arbitrarily remove children from the care of their parents.
There are many important issues raised by this legislation, Mr.
President. And there may be some very legitimate reasons to oppose it.
But, I want to assure my constituents who are calling me based on
these kinds of fears--that I would never vote to approve this bill if
those fears had any real basis in fact.
Mr. President, the objectives of this legislation can be stated very
simply: We must produce a 21st century work force that can compete, a
work force that can assure long-term economic security for every single
American.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, we can't get to that goal with a 19th
century system of elementary and secondary education.
I want to emphasize the word ``system'' because that's what we have
to reform. We need to stop blaming the teachers and the students and
the parents.
Today, Mr. President, that system is in a serious state of distress.
But, as we try to address that reality, we're not being honest if we
believe this legislation--even if fully funded and implemented--will
result in the kind of significant improvements that a 21st century
America, will need.
I say that because this legislation depends mainly on plans and on
incremental changes in existing schools.
Real change in behavior, Mr. President, doesn't come from plans, or
by relying just on existing schools.
I do agree with the chairman that setting high standards that focus
on results can help offer concrete goals for change.
But, real improvements in what students learn will only come when
there's a reason to change. And, just like health care and a lot of
other public services, real change will only come when market forces
are present that encourage and reward success.
To get that kind of change, education must be viewed from a consumer
standpoint.
That means, Mr. President, that parents and students must have the
right to choose which schools their children attend; that teachers and
parents and communities must have the right to start and run
innovative, new schools; that schools must be as diverse as the needs
of today's increasingly diverse students; and, that new forms of
accountability must be tested that offer schools and teachers
incentives and rewards for improved results.
All over America, Mr. President, States are taking steps to both
redesign and redefine public education to implement these and other
fundamental reforms.
My own State of Minnesota has been among the leaders by lessening the
burdens of input-oriented rules and regulations; by redirecting
accountability toward improved results; by making it possible for
parents and students to choose which public schools they attend; and,
by increasing the number and diversity of public school choices that
are available.
One of the architects of Minnesota's version of education reform is
John Brandl, a professor at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at
the University of Minnesota, and a former member of the Minnesota State
Senate.
In a recent article on the Clinton-Gore plan for reinventing
government, Professor Brandl offered the following advice on how best
to achieve real change.
``To restructure government,'' Professor Brandl argues, ``is to
arrange it so that people acting in their own interest will also tend
to accomplish a greater good. Governments that aren't designed this way
will not be efficient, much less innovative.''
``Competition is one way of arranging government,'' Brandl continues,
``so that people watching out for themselves will also meet public
purposes. In the long run, a government program not characterized by
either competition or a sense of community will probably fail.''
I personally hope that John Brandl's advice will be followed, Mr.
President, as this bill goes forward in the legislative process, and as
we consider other Federal education proposals in the weeks and months
that lie ahead.
Mr. President, I would like to support this legislation because of
the improvements I've discussed and because I believe it helps
establish a framework for the kind of real reform that can--and must
now take place.
At the same time, Mr. President, I've noted those issues and
amendments that might cause me to oppose this legislation, either now,
or when it comes back from conference.
Finally, Mr. President, I believe we must realize the limitations of
this legislation, and, we must accept the reality that achieving the
goals it would make law will require the leadership of States and the
dedicated efforts of teachers, parents, and students in every community
in America.
Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original
cosponsor of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, legislation designed
to address the educational needs of our children by providing a
coherent, national framework for education reform.
I support this legislation because it is in the interest of our
Nation to maintain quality public education for everyone.
Education is not just a private benefit but a public good.
It is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
It is the means by which we prepare our children to succeed--to make
a living, to participate in the community, to enjoy the arts, and to
understand the technology that has reshaped our workplace.
Mr. President, the National Education Goals Panel recently reported
that:
Most children from poor families never attend preschool;
Eighty percent of eighth graders do not have access to
computers;
Fifty percent of 10th graders feel unsafe at school; and
Twelve percent of all students nationwide fail to complete
high school.
In fact, the National Education Goals Panel concluded that ``at no
point in a learner's life--before formal schooling, during the school
years, or as adults--are we doing as well as we should be or as well as
we can.''
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act addresses these problems by
creating a comprehensive framework for education reform founded on the
6 national education goals adopted by our Nation's Governors in 1989.
These goals state that by the year 2000:
All children will begin school ready to learn;
Ninety percent of high school students will graduate;
All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competence in English, math, science, foreign languages, civics and
government, arts, history, geography, and economics;
American students will rank first internationally in math and
science;
All American adults will be literate; and
All American schools will be free of drugs and violence.
This framework for education reform is also based on a seventh goal
which builds on the role of parents as their children's first and most
important teachers.
Mr. President, these 7 national education goals are similar to the
education goals already developed by several States across the country.
The Illinois State Board of Education, for example, has developed
eight State education goals that are also designed to promote school
readiness, adult literacy, and academic achievement.
Mr. President, Goals 2000 encourages States to meet the national
education goals by authorizing $400 million to help them develop their
own internationally competitive content and performance standards which
define what students should know and be able to do in order to compete
in the emerging global market.
Goals 2000 also encourages States to meet the national education
goals by authorizing the National Education Standards and Improvement
Council and the National Education Goals Panel to certify and approve
voluntary national content and performance standards in important
subject areas.
Although this legislation also authorizes these bodies to certify
content and performance standards submitted voluntarily by States, it
does not require American students to meet any national standards
because our public education system distinguishes itself from other
public education systems in the world by its pluralism, diversity, and
local control.
Mr. President, Goals 2000 encourages States to measure their progress
in meeting the national education goals by authorizing the National
Education Standards and Improvement Council to certify assessments,
submitted voluntarily by States, which measure the achievement of all
students.
Many administrators currently exclude students with disabilities and
students with limited-English proficiency from their assessments in
order to raise their school's overall achievement levels.
This legislation will also help States develop comprehensive systems
of assessments like the Illinois Goal Assessment Program which
currently measures the achievement of public school students in
reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies.
These systems of assessments will help States:
Evaluate the extent to which students are meeting State and national
education goals;
Chart the progress of individual schools, local school districts, and
the State over time; and
Generate information that can be used for accountability, policy-
making, and school improvement.
Mr. President, Goals 2000 recognizes the important relationship
between education and employment by establishing a National Skill
Standards Board to endorse voluntary national skill standards,
assessments, and certifications for broad clusters of occupations.
In fact, this legislation encourages all Americans--including
representatives from business, trade associations, employee
organizations, and educational institutions--to work together to define
the knowledge and skills needed to create secure economic futures for
American employees and employers alike.
Nonetheless, Goals 2000 recognizes that there are possible dangers in
assessing the achievement of students--especially economically and
socially disadvantaged students.
As Stephen Jay Gould highlights in his book ``The Mismeasure of
Man,'' intelligence and achievement tests have been misused throughout
history to ``rank people in a single series of worthiness, to find that
oppressed people and disadvantaged groups--races, classes, or sexes--
are invariably inferior and deserve their status.''
Goals 2000 limits these dangers in two important ways.
First, it increases the Federal Government's share of public
education, which dropped from 9.8 percent in 1980 to just over 6
percent in 1992, while targeting 65 percent of State grants and 50
percent of local grants to schools with large numbers of economically
and socially disadvantaged students.
Goals 2000 also limits the possible negative effects of assessments
by authorizing the National Education Standards and Improvement Council
to certify voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards.
These standards will define the teaching and learning conditions
students need in order to have a fair opportunity to achieve the
knowledge and skills described in the voluntary national content and
performance standards.
More specifically, this legislation requires the National Education
Standards and Improvement Council to certify voluntary national
opportunity-to-learn standards which address:
The quality and availability of curricula, instructional materials,
and technologies;
The capability of teachers to provide high-quality instruction to
meet diverse learning needs in each content area;
The extent to which teachers and administrators have ready and
continuing access to professional development; and
The extent to which curriculum, instructional practices, and
assessments are aligned to content standards.
Mr. President, while I firmly believe that these educational inputs
must be addressed when certifying voluntary national opportunity-to-
learn standards, I am convinced that emerging education reforms are
doomed unless we house them in adequate school facilities.
I will be introducing an amendment which would require the National
Education Standards and Improvement Council to certify national
voluntary opportunity-to-learn standards that address ``the extent to
which school facilities provide a safe and secure environment for
learning and instruction and have the requisite libraries,
laboratories, and other resources necessary to provide an opportunity-
to-learn''.
I will also be introducing separate legislation in the very near
future which will help local school districts meet State performance
standards and the National Education Goals through the repair,
renovation, alteration, and construction of public elementary and
secondary schools.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my
colleagues to support the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and by
reminding them that passing this legislation is only the first step in
reforming our Nation's system of public education.
After we develop standards and assessments to measure the educational
needs of our children, we have a responsibility as public servants to
see to it that they are met.
I firmly agree with statements made by Shirley Malcolm in a recent
Office of Technology Assessment report that: ``If we are prepared to do
more, once we know more, perhaps the dangers of inequity possible in
new assessments are worth the risk. But absent the resolve to
intervene, one could argue that assessment becomes little more than
voyeurism''.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have the full text of
my remarks included at this point in the Record.
amendment no. 1358
(Purpose: To establish a limitation on unfunded Federal mandates)
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 1358.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. . ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
the funds provided under this Act cannot be utilized by the
Federal Government to contribute to an unfunded Federal
mandate.
(b) Requirements.--Subject to subsection (c) and
notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no
provision of Federal law shall require a State, in order to
receive funds under this Act, to comply with any Federal
requirement, other than a requirement of this Act as in
effect on the effective date of this Act.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Any provision of Federal
statutory or regulatory law, in effect on or after the
effective date of this Act, shall be subject to subsection
(b) unless such law explicitly excludes the application of
subsection (b) by reference to this section.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire
for his cooperation in addressing some of the concerns that he has.
He has submitted a series of amendments. I believe there are about 12
in all. I think we are making very good headway towards accepting some
and working with him on some of the language to see if they cannot be
accommodated. We will describe in greater detail the reasons for the
acceptance of those particular measures and we will attempt to work
with him on language clarifications on the others.
But I think we are making good progress and responding to some of the
questions he has which we believe basically implicitly is in the
legislation, but we would accommodate him in a number of those areas
explicitly as to what the understanding would be.
So we are in the process of working those through. It is our
intention to consider those as the first amendments that we would
adopt.
But what I would like to indicate to our other colleagues is that we
are prepared to deal with other amendments that have been submitted to
the Senate and which we have reviewed and are prepared to debate and,
to the extent possible, if they are consistent with the thrust of the
legislation, would be accepted. If not, we would be glad to debate them
and have the Senate make a judgment on those.
So I hope, for those Senators who do have some amendments, that we
will be able to address those at the earliest possible time.
I note that the hour now is 2:30. I know later on this afternoon,
there will be those who will wonder whether we are going to finish
action on this legislation. Now is the time that we can dispose of
these measures.
We are quite prepared to debate them. There are a number of those
that have been at least proposed, and we are quite prepared to move
ahead on those amendments.
So we will have a quorum now, awaiting other amendments. But we want
to urge our colleagues to come to the floor and to offer those
amendments, because we are prepared to accept them. The majority leader
has indicated that we plan to stay in this evening. If we are able to
make good progress, like we have been making earlier, I think we have a
good opportunity to move this legislation right along for acceptance in
the not-too-distant future.
So we will have a short quorum call. We have some noncontroversial,
bipartisan amendments. As I understand, there are some school choice
amendments; there are a number of amendments on what we call social
issues; there are a number on Federal control. I think we will be
addressing those measures.
Then there is a series of other amendments, as well, probably about
15 other amendments, some of which we have, as I look down the list,
been able to work out. Although they have not been submitted, they have
been worked out.
So I urge my colleagues who do have amendments and want to have a
debate on those amendments to come to the floor so that we can get
started on those measures.
At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to speak
for a few moments about Goals 2000 and about the importance of this
legislation and why we must expeditiously get this bill through the
Senate, work it out with the House and get it to the President for
signature.
I know a lot of attention is focused this year on health care, and
that is going to be important in changing our health care system in
this country. I realize that is important, but I believe that what we
are about right now is more important for the future of this country
and whether we will be economically competitive in the year 2000 and
beyond than any other piece of legislation to come before us this year.
We all know that education is vital to the economic well-being of our
country. In order to succeed in the increasingly competitive
international marketplace, we must have the best educated and
healthiest, best skilled workers in the world.
This bill we have now before us, Goals 2000: Educate America Act,
will make this happen.
I would, at the outset, like to commend the distinguished chairman of
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, for his great
and dynamic leadership on this issue. I want to also pay a great deal
of thanks, highest respect to the Secretary of Education, Richard
Riley, again, for making this such a high priority of his and for
focusing our attention on Goals 2000. He has been tireless in his
endeavors to get this measure before us and to bring the American
people along to where I think they now understand more fully just what
Goals 2000 is all about.
I also want to thank Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, again for all
of his help, all of them for their outstanding leadership in developing
this legislation. This administration is strongly committed to
improving American education, and this bill reflects that commitment.
The bill before us makes a number of reforms. It sets very important
education goals, establishes voluntary academic and occupational
standards to make U.S. workers competitive. It provides grants to
States and school districts to implement systemic reform. Finally, the
legislation also recognizes that not all schools are created equal, and
it calls for the adoption of voluntary opportunity-to-learn standards.
Again, I want to reemphasize, as the chairman has and others will as
we go through this debate, that the standards in this bill are
voluntary and nothing in this legislation will undermine local controls
of schools. We all know what the goals are. I will not go through those
six goals again. The goals were adopted, as you know, at the
Charlottesville Education Summit in 1990. I believe we have all pretty
much signed off on these goals, regardless of political affiliation.
The legislation, however, before us will add two more goals that
appropriately recognize the vital role of parents and classroom
teachers. Goal seven calls for development of partnerships to increase
parental involvement in our Nation's schools, a most worthy goal. And
goal eight calls for ensuring that the Nation's teaching force has
access to the professional development programs that they need.
Reaching these goals will certainly not be easy. They are very
ambitious and challenging. Reaching them, as I said, will not be easy,
but this legislation sends a clear and unequivocal message that these
goals must be accomplished to ensure the future of our Nation.
As I have pondered these goals since 1990, and as I serve on the
Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have come to feel that there is
probably one goal still missing. Not that I am going to offer an
amendment to add another goal. We can all keep adding goals to this
thing. There will be an amendment, I believe, offered by Senator Simon,
and others, dealing with the opportunities-to-learn act that will touch
on what I consider to be a lack of a goal that should be in here. And
that has to do with what I feel is that every child ought to have
access to quality facilities, quality educational facilities.
I recommend to you and to anyone else, Mr. President, a book that
they ought to read if they want to find out about education in America.
It is one book by Jonathan Kozol. It is called ``Savage Inequalities.''
Read that book and you will find out why our education system in this
country is in dire condition.
I have pointed that out a lot of times by referring to the local
situation we have here. And 12 miles from this very Capitol where I
live, in Fairfax County, VA, we have some of the finest schools in the
country. Both of my kids go to public schools. They are great public
schools. They have great teachers, the finest facilities and labs--
language labs and science labs--and everything else from grade school
right through high school. It is a high-income area. A lot of people
live out there, make pretty good money, and they pay high property
taxes. They have a great school system 12 miles from the Capitol.
Also, 4 blocks from here, you have dilapidated, rundown schools that
are not only an eyesore but it sends a strong message to the kids that
go to school that this is what we care about, this is all we care about
your education; that we send you to these facilities everyday where the
roofs are leaking, toilets do not work, they smell, they have no good
facilities and, obviously, they cannot attract good teachers.
And these kids go to these rundown facilities every day. Why? Well,
because the people who live in that area do not have a very high income
and pay insufficient property taxes to provide quality facilities.
Jonathan Kozol, in Savage Inequalities, points this out time after
time across this country, inequalities between the haves and have-nots
in terms of the educational facilities that are there for kids. Unless
and until we have some other system of funding for facilities, this
will continue in this country. So that is why I believe there is one
goal that is missing, and that is every child ought to have access to a
quality facility in education.
The only way we are going to do it is by having a different source of
funding for those facilities. I believe it is part of the
infrastructure of this country, and I think all of us ought to be
investing in those facilities. I will have more to say about that later
when Senator Simon calls up his amendment, but at the outset I wanted
to say, Mr. President, that while I fully support these goals and the
other two goals that are being added, which are very important, I
believe we ought to also pay attention to the lack of facilities,
quality facilities, in so many areas of our country.
Mr. President, I do want to, however, right now focus on what I
believe to be the cornerstone of any efforts we make to improve not
only education but the quality of life for our kids and future
generations to improve the competitive edge that we have in the world
today. I believe the cornerstone of that is goal No. 1, the first goal:
That by the year 2000 all children will start school ready to learn.
When we look at all the goals, I believe that is the most important,
the single most important. I am pleased that the bill includes
additional language suggested by Senator Dodd and myself which stresses
the importance of this goal. I wish to thank Senator Kennedy for his
support in making these changes. Early intervention and prevention must
be a top priority. We must recognize that the ability of a child to
succeed in school is directly related to the health and well-being of
that child from day one.
About 4 years ago, the Committee on Economic Development issued a
report which called on us to rethink the way we approach education.
Now, this committee was made up not of social scientists, nor those
who have dedicated their lives to education per se. The Committee on
Economic Development was made up of some of the captains of American
industry, CEO's, and others, of some of the larger and more powerful
corporations in America. They had a subcommittee set up to look at
education. When they issued their report, here is what they said:
We must rethink education in America, that education begins
at birth and preparation for education begins before birth.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement made by the Committee on
Economic Development over 4 years ago. We must focus on prevention
rather than remediation. We have become very good in our country at
patching and fixing and mending--it costs us a lot of money and it
never does the job very well--rather than fixing the structure right in
the first place.
So early intervention programs, such as thinking that education
begins at birth and preparation begins before birth, if we think in
terms of education in the long run, are going to save us money.
We know all the figures: A dollar invested in comprehensive preschool
education like Head Start saves $3 later on. A dollar invested in
immunizations saves $10 in later medical costs. A dollar invested in
comprehensive prenatal care saves about $4 in later health costs. One
dollar invested in the WIC programs for pregnant women saves an
additional $3 in Medicaid costs. These are investments that up front
save us money and make our lives better.
I recall the first hearing held by the Labor and Human Resources
Committee on this piece of legislation. For the first time ever, two
Cabinet Secretaries sat down at a committee hearing and testified
together, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education. I
remember saying that we were missing the third leg of that stool
because HHS Secretary Donna Shalala was not present. The chairman
assured me she would have been, but there was a scheduling problem and
she could not be there.
I know that we have the understanding of this administration on the
importance of early childhood health and education, and the crucial
roles they play in making sure that all children start school ready to
learn. Later this year, we will take another important step when we
reauthorize the Head Start Program, and I look forward to working on
that legislation.
This legislation, Goals 2000, authorizes funding for States and local
schools, as we note, to implement systemic reform. All of our States, I
am sure, are involved in that. But again I wish to repeat, for
emphasis' sake, that we can have all of the systems reform we want in
elementary education, secondary education, and beyond, but unless and
until we take the admonition of the Committee on Economic Development
and we focus on prenatal care and postnatal care and early childhood
intervention and development programs, all of this is just going to be
patching and fixing and mending one more time.
We know scientifically and medically that much of a child's brain
capacity is developed long before they begin elementary school. Those
of us who are parents, which includes most of us, I am sure, at one
time or another, remember when our children were 2 years old, 3 years
old, and how rapidly they learned. Every day, new words, new concepts;
the brain was developing very rapidly.
Children who do not have any kind of intellectual stimulation or who
lack nutrition, who lack the kind of support and challenge they need at
those ages, are going to fall behind.
So again I say that the first goal in Goals 2000 is the most
important. Unless we do that, forget about the rest of them; they are
just words on paper and we are just paddling upstream.
So we must focus on early childhood education. We have to break down
whatever barriers exist legislatively and conceptually to enable us to
address this on a national level, to reach down, and to make sure that
we have the resources available at the local level for a comprehensive
Head Start.
Most people think that Head Start is only for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-
olds. Well, right now it is only for 4- and 5-year-olds. We are trying
to get 3-year-olds in it, but people think that is all it is for. The
legislation establishing Head Start does not stipulate that you have to
wait until age 3. We can go right down to age 1. It is only a lack of
will and a lack of commitment that we have not done that. If you really
want to have an effective Head Start Program, let us get these kids
right after birth and start a Head Start Program right then, and not
wait until they are 4 years old.
So I just wanted to make those points, because in all of this debate,
I know we are going to have a lot of amendments that deal with a lot of
things like vouchers, I am sure, and various and sundry types of items
dealing with sex education, and I suppose we will have amendments on
condoms in schools and everything else. I am sure we will have a lot of
heated debate about this. Prayer in school may even come up, and we
will debate these things. I am sure the cameras will roll, and it will
probably be on the evening news.
But those are the things that should not deter us from our focus on
early childhood education. Let us have the debates on these amendments.
I am sure that people feel very strongly about them. But they should
not take away our focus on what is most important, and what is most
important is making sure that goal one is realized.
Mr. President, I would just add one other thing in that regard. Last
month, I visited Moulton Elementary School in Des Moines with Secretary
Riley to learn about an innovative elementary school counseling program
called Smoother Sailing.
It is based on a simple premise, intervene before the crisis instead
of trying to pick up the pieces after one occurs, and a recognition
that many children in our society today face enormous challenges. Not
all of our children are privileged to live in secure two-parent
families that have decent incomes, clothing, shelter, and all the
amenities of life. A lot of our kids live in very rough circumstances.
They live in homes maybe with a single parent suffering from the trauma
of a divorce, some who are victims of physical or sexual or mental
abuse. These kids need our help.
We have not in the past had any kind of counseling in elementary
schools for these kids. A program started in Des Moines actually
started with a private sector grant to the schools of Des Moines to
test an idea. The idea was if we could get one qualified counselor--I
do not mean a counselor about what you have to take in school. I mean a
counselor that is qualified in counseling to counsel kids in terms of
the social problems they have; the problems they may have at home, the
problems they may have interacting with other people.
If you could reduce that down to one counselor for say 250 kids,
could they see a marked decrease in the incidence of school violence,
absenteeism, and a corresponding increase in the grades of these at-
risk kids? They tried this experiment.
They hired more counselors. They put these counselors in these grade
schools. These are professional counselors, well trained. These are not
just someone that you say, OK, now you are a counsel, now go counsel.
They have been doing this for several years now, and lo and behold, it
has worked.
The attendance is up. Classroom disruptions and violence among kids
is down, and the test scores have improved. By any yardstick of
measurement it has been a resounding success.
Again, this is another indication of where early intervention works
when you get the kids early.
Goals 2000 will promote the development of innovative programs like
this and others that systematically change our Nation's schools rather
than mandating exactly what we do. Goals 2000 says here is our goal,
you and the local school figure out how best you want to attain those
goals. I believe the Des Moines school district with the implementation
of Smoother Sailing has already been ahead of the curve on that.
Lastly, Mr. President, I chair the Subcommittee on Disability Policy.
I want to just take a few moments to discuss Goals 2000, and how it
relates to students with disabilities.
In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed into law. It
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Furthermore, part
B of IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, extends to
all students the right to a free and public education based upon the
unique needs of the child.
I want to say that Goals 2000 is fully consistent with the Americans
With Disabilities Act and it is consistent with and compliments part B
of IDEA and section 504 of the Rehab Act of 1973.
This legislation will promote reform in our schools. It will set
standards of excellence for all students, and most certainly includes
students with disabilities.
As I reflect upon this legislation, I am reminded of a challenge
issued to us over 30 years ago when President John Kennedy declared
that the United States was sending men to the Moon. This is what he
said at Rice University in Houston, TX, in September 1962:
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and to do other
things, not because they are easy but because they are hard,
because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best
of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one
which we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one that we intend to win.
Mr. President, I want to compliment the distinguished chairman of our
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kennedy, for carrying
on his brother's legacy in this regard. We are establishing these
national education goals, not because they are easy but because they
are hard, and reaching them is a challenge that we are willing to
accept, one that we cannot postpone.
We must dedicate our energies and skills to reaching them, and we
fully intend to do so because our future depends on it.
So I am hopeful again that, in all of the debate on these amendments
that will be coming up, we keep in mind what the ultimate goal of this
legislation is.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Leave of Absence
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to rule 6, paragraph 2, I ask
leave of the Senate to be absent from the votes of the Senate for the
remainder of the day. Because I must proceed with a medical test this
afternoon, I will not be able to return to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I am a cosponsor and a
strong supporter of Goals 2000 because I believe that, on the whole,
our schools are going to benefit from the creation and dissemination of
a national framework of some standards. However, I think it should be
clear to everyone who has looked at the bill and understands the
current academic performance of our youth that the creation of national
standards and Goals 2000 will not be sufficient alone, nor will they
necessarily improve the success of students in our Nation's public
education system, unless other things are done as well.
What I have found in California is that the standards of our schools
and the standards of our learning fluctuate widely. Some schools
perform effectively; some not so well; most are mediocre. I am
particularly concerned by the widespread practice of what is called
social promotion, by which students are passed along from grade to
grade regardless of whether they pass their courses successfully. This
is done in hopes that if they do not learn one year, they will learn
the next year.
But what I see happening is that as students reach the fifth, sixth,
seventh and eighth grade, and they have not learned their fundamentals,
they drop out mentally, and then they drop out physically. They become
the truants, they become the discipline problems, and increasingly
their opportunities to find a worthwhile life diminish. We see schools
that graduate youngsters that cannot read or write, multiply, divide,
or add, recognize China on a map, fill out an employment application,
or count the change in their pockets. That actually happens in many of
the schools in my State.
I believe that the practice of social promotion is a key part of the
current problem in education. As a result of this practice, classroom
standards deteriorate, the credibility of the entire education system
diminishes, and too many students graduate from high school without
possessing the necessary skills to continue their education or even to
successfully enter into the job market. They have a certificate of
graduation, but it means nothing.
Now, as long as children are simply passed along from grade to grade,
schools will never be able to produce the quality, the learning
climate, and the discipline that is necessary for children to achieve
high academic standards.
While Goals 2000 will certainly lead to the adoption of new
educational standards by many schools, it does not specify how
participating schools should implement these standards in a meaningful
way. The mere act of establishing goals which are voluntary does little
to ensure their achievement. Will these goals actually be translated or
implemented into real action in a meaningful way?
Schools need more than just goals. They need more flexibility. They
need more accountability. They need more funds for our most
disadvantaged children.
I believe very strongly--and I am a product of a decentralized public
education system, so perhaps I am somewhat biased--but I believe that
centralized public education--the huge educational bureaucracies, huge
administrative bureaucracies--is ineffective and inefficient.
I would like to see our system decentralized. I would like to see the
large administrative bureaucracies eliminated, the money put into
principals, teachers, parents; I would like to see that schools are run
by principals who know what the standards are and then they have the
obligation to enforce these standards and to see that they work in the
schools. I believe in that way you can have a student that has
completed grade 4 and knows what the expectation of learning is when
you complete grade 4; the same for grade 5; the same for grade 6, 7, 8,
and on.
The lack of student and school accountability in Goals 2000 concerns
me, particularly because I know the Nation is looking at Goals 2000 and
expecting real educational change from its enactment.
I have been trying to work with my colleagues and the Department of
Education to explore ways of including more accountability in this and
future education legislation. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague''
letter. I have tried to see how many are willing to make standards of
achievement mandatory--and there is very little response. To propose
that if schools buy into this program, if they take the Federal money,
that the standards should be mandatory is not yet an idea whose time
has come. But I believe it will be one day.
I believe as experiments with chartered schools and other
developments flourish, we will develop the kind of competition within
our school system that is necessary. With that progress, I think will
come some precision in academic standards.
When I went to public school, you were held back if you did not reach
the course level. That is no longer the case. You get promoted even if
you are getting failing grades. I am one that believes that social
promotion gives a false sense of accomplishment to a youngster, and
they get a very rude awakening when they cannot fill out that
employment application.
I believe there are a variety of ways we could make sure that
academic standards are implemented in a meaningful way.
For example, I believe we should move toward making standards
mandatory. Schools should phase out the widespread practice of social
promotion; and schools should be required to provide the necessary
remedial help for students who are struggling.
I also believe that asking schools to do more than just passing
students along from year to year is not asking them to do too much.
Many schools have found effective ways to make sure that all students
succeed academically before they are promoted to the next grade: Before
and after school programs, use of instructional aids, peer tutoring
arrangements, parent involvement initiatives, and multiage groupings
are but some.
In taking the position in favor of accountability and high standards
linked to specific school policies, I am not targeting public school
educators or attempting to punish children who are struggling to
succeed academically. Moreover, I understand the need to make the
standards in Goals 2000 voluntary and to avoid taking authority from
the State and local education agencies that are closest to the needs of
their students.
But at the same time I must say I do not see them taking the
necessary actions to assure accountability and to assure achievement
levels in each of the grades. I feel compelled to begin to speak out
about the need to achieve real educational reform.
I think our society must do right by our children. We owe them a
challenging curriculum, excellent teaching, and academic policies that
encourage and enable them to obtain further success. Schools need to
equip our children for the future, not just hand them off.
In California, the State industry is moving toward a high-skilled
workplace. You will not be able to get a factory job in California in
20 years without some college education. You will not be able to get a
job without good basic skills, some knowledge of the world around us,
and the ability to think and learn.
I will never forget when the semiconductor industry told me that they
wanted to hire foreign nationals for certain jobs because our students
did not have the required skills available and did not know how to
think. We must teach our students how to think. We must teach them how
to reason. And we must recognize that the classroom, more than any
other program, is the ticket to a job. It, in effect, is the golden key
to opportunity in our future.
My decentralized public school learning was what gave me the ability
to get into Stanford University. I had strict teachers, strict
accountability, and that students were held back if they did not learn;
we were counseled, we were kept after school and, in a less complicated
day, I will admit, in a less diverse world, I will admit, we did learn.
But there is no lack of youngsters wanting to learn today. Our
classrooms are complicated. Some of our schools have as many as 50
languages in them. That is an enormous task for teachers.
I hope that this Goals 2000 program is going to be a first step. I
know there is sensitivity among legislators about local control, about
big brother not dictating what must happen in schools. But I also know
that if there is no motion from the States to achieve accountability in
education, to achieve promotion on the basis of merit and achievement,
then our youngsters' future is going to be doomed.
I look forward to working with the leadership--Senator Pell, Senator
Kennedy, and others--to craft legislation which might be placed on
later educational initiatives.
We know how much basic arithmetic a youngster must learn, what the
standards should be for each of the grades. What is necessary is that
we apply it, and that we insist on it.
With that in mind, I am pleased to support Goals 2000, not because it
is going to be Nirvana for public education, but simply because it is a
first step toward a national structure which aims at saying there are
certain goals that we as a nation seek to achieve for our youngsters.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I just want to say a word in support of the
amendment of the Senator from California. She knows I thought it was a
very good one. But when we tried to circulate it a little bit, there
was no universal support for it. But I will be glad to help any way I
can and I look forward to working with her.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his support.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 1358, as modified
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his
amendment.
Mr. GREGG. This modification replaces the amendment that is pending
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
This amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 115, at the end of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. . PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, AND
CONTROL.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an
officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate,
direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or
school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of
State or local resources or mandate a State or any
subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not
paid for under this Act.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1358, As Further Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have talked with the Senator from New
Hampshire on his modification. We have over the period of time been
addressing this issue. I am wondering on the modification on line 7,
instead of the word ``require'' could we substitute the word
``mandate''? I think that was agreeable to the Senator.
Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator would like to address
the Senate on this issue. We are prepared to accept this amendment, and
then we are prepared to accept a series of amendments, the Gregg
amendments, and we still have perhaps one other on which we are in the
process of working out language. We then expect there will be debate on
the opportunities-to-learn program, the views of the Senator from New
Hampshire. I see the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from
Illinois. So we would proceed on that measure.
Then I am very hopeful we will have the Senator from Indiana. [Mr.
Coats] here to debate the issues on school choice, and we could get
started on that in terms of the very late, late afternoon.
Then hopefully we might get into some of the other issues that are
here. We have actually had some of what is called the general social
issues, that those are going to be matters which are going to be
raised. There are a series of amendments on those, and we would like to
address them in the early part of the evening.
We have worked out a number of different amendments which will be
discussed further and are being incorporated into this legislation or
into other education legislation. I know the Senate has been extremely
patient with the floor managers, but we have been making important
progress.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. I wish to thank the chairman of the
committee and the manager of the bill on the Republican side for their
cooperation and courtesy, and staff on both the Republican and
Democratic sides, for their assistance in working out some of these
amendments.
As I understand it, we now have agreement on eight amendments. The
amendment that is pending at the desk is agreed to. The purpose of the
amendment pending at the desk is to assure that this bill will not
become an unfunded mandate. I think we all appreciate the burdens being
put on the States and local communities as a result of Federal mandates
which are not funded. This is a very significant concern, I know, in my
State. It is a concern I think throughout this body. There are a number
of Members of this body who have dedicated a considerable amount of
energy to this issue.
At least as it relates to this bill, we will have very specific and
very, I believe, effective language in it to make it clear that if the
Federal Government tells the State to do something or tells the local
community to do something, the Federal Government will have to pay for
the costs of that mandate.
The other amendments which I believe have been worked out deal with
making it specific in the bill that certain activities that have been
traditionally locally controlled will not be overwhelmed by the nature
of this goals panel or the activities of NISEC, and they include the
language that makes it clear that there is no mandate in this bill that
would affect teacher instructional practices, teacher certification
systems, limitations on class size, curriculum content, national school
building standards, or equalized spending per student.
Obviously, all of these issues are very sensitive issues which should
remain in the domain of the local school boards and with States, and
this language makes it clear that they do in the context of this bill.
The final amendment which I understand has been agreed to involves
the litigation issue which I raised in my opening statement, and
attempts, although I do not think it can ever guarantee it, knowing the
imagination of members of the bar, at least to limit the usage of this
bill as an anvil upon which the hammer of litigation can be used to
drive the activities of local school boards and to affect local school
policy by requiring that it comply with the standards that are set out
by any Secretary under this bill.
I very much appreciate, again, the cooperation of the leadership of
the committee in addressing these issues and I look forward to the
adoption of these amendments and yield back my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just very briefly, it was never our
intent to establish in this legislation an unfunded mandate or to
require that as a result of this legislation, we would be requiring of
the States expenditures that the States did not desire. We have been
working with legal counsel about how that particular language will
reflect that position. I believe Senator Jeffords and myself are in
accord with what the Senator from New Hampshire is desirous of, and
that is that the Federal Government is not going to mandate to the
States additional kinds of funding on the basis of this legislation in
which the States themselves are not going to be involved.
That is clearly our intention. The Senator's amendment I think
captures that. We have agreed to accept this language. We will work
very closely with the Senator, obviously, in the conference. But we are
strongly committed to that concept and to that principle. If there are
better ways we can work that in terms of language, we are open to it.
But we have no difference in supporting the Senator's principle.
I urge the Senate to accept the amendment as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I echo the words of Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts,
and also my good friend across the border in New Hampshire. I certainly
believe the last thing we want to do is mandate additional expenditures
at State levels with all of the crises they are having now in funding.
Certainly, I agree that is not what we intend here, and therefore I
certainly, speaking for myself as the manager from our side, would
agree with the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on amendment 1358,
as modified?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1358), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1359
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate limitations on class size for a
State, local educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1360
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate a Federal teacher certification
system for a State, local educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1361
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate teacher instructional practices for a
State, local educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1362
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a
State, local educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1363
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate national building standards for a
State, local educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1364
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act shall be construed to mandate curriculum content for a State, local
educational agency or school)
Amendment No. 1365
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments which have
all been proposed by Senator Gregg. These seven amendments are offered
en bloc on behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr.
Gregg, proposes amendments numbered 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362,
1363, 1364, and 1365, en bloc.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 1359
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate limitations or class size for a State, local
educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1360
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate a Federal teacher certification system for a
State, local educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1361
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate teacher instructional practices for a State,
local educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1362
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State,
local educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1363
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate national school building standards for a
State, local educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1364
On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) to mandate curriculum content for a State, local
educational agency or school.
____
amendment no. 1365
Strike line 24 on page 44 and everything that follows
through line 2 on page 45, and inserting in lieu thereof:
``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to--
``(1) require any State to have standards certified
pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) in order to participate in
any Federal program; or
``(2) create a legally enforceable right for any person
against a State, local educational agency, or school based on
a standard or assessment certified by the Council or the
criteria developed by the Council for such certification.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Over the period of these last several hours, we have
addressed these issues about the Federal Government not imposing
mandates on per pupil spending, mandating curriculum, instructional
practices, teacher certification, on class size, and on school
buildings. Those are incorporated in the Senator's amendments.
We support the Senator's amendments that would make explicit that
intention.
The Senator had what they called the unfunded mandates, which the
Senate has accepted, and the Senator has an additional amendment
dealing with litigation, and we will, after we dispose of this, dispose
of that. And then we understand there is one additional amendment that
the Senator will offer with regard to the role of the Governor and the
approval of State plans. I think that is at least our understanding of
it.
I will urge at the appropriate time, after my colleague from Vermont
and the Senator from New Hampshire make what comments they would like,
that we move ahead and incorporate these amendments.
If I could, Mr. President, also include then at this time the
amendment dealing with the nonenforceability of standards by
litigation, and ask that that be made a part of the amendments en bloc,
as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I echo the comments again of the manager
of the bill, and also the Senator from New Hampshire. I concur in those
amendments and believe they will be helpful in making more clear the
understanding that we have on these issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Again, I wish to thank the managers of the bill and the
chairman for accepting these amendments. I do have a couple of other
amendments which we are still discussing with the Governor, one
obviously on opportunity to learn, and maybe one more. But I greatly
appreciate the assistance in these amendments and would urge they be
considered approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, and 1365)
were agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
Amendment No. 1366
(Purpose: To amend the State improvement plan regarding opportunity-to-
learn standards)
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself
and the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota
[Mr. Wellstone].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr.
Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 1366.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 79, strike all beginning with line 6, through page
79, line 14, and insert the following:
(d) Opportunity-To-Learn Standards.--Each State improvement
plan shall establish a strategy and timetable for--
(1) adopting or establishing opportunity-to-learn standards
that address the needs of all students;
(2) achieving the State's opportunity-to-learn standards in
every school in the State; and
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the things that we ask for in this
bill is that the States voluntarily move towards seeing that we really
do guarantee opportunity to all young people. And this amendment does
not change that.
What we have done is to move away from the original compromise
reached in the language of the committee. We restore that original
language and we say, for example, ``adopting or establishing
comprehensive''--that is put back in--``opportunities-to-learn
standards that address the needs of all students achieving.'' Then we
have in here, we restore ``establishing a timetable for demonstrating
progress toward reading, comprehensive State opportunity-to-learn
standards in every school in the State.''
We are not saying what the timetable is. If they want to come back
and say, by the year 2050, we are going to establish standards, under
the amendment that Senator Wellstone and I are offering, that complies
with our amendment. Frankly, our amendment is probably weaker than it
should be. But it is stronger than the, frankly, anemic language that
we have in the bill.
When I visit in the State of Illinois and go from school district to
school district, and I find one school district that is rich in
assessed valuation, rich in industry, and then I go to the neighboring
district where the people in those industries work, a district that is
poor in industry but rich in children, and I find those children do not
have anywhere near the kind of resources of the neighboring school
district, clearly we ought to do something.
We are not saying the Federal Government is going to mandate
anything, though I have to say I favor that. What we are saying is the
States ought to establish a timetable.
I recognize that my distinguished colleague from Vermont may have
some difficulties with our amendment. I have discussed with the Senator
from Minnesota the possibility of our offering this amendment and
discussing it, and then setting it aside to see if we cannot work out
some practical compromise that is stronger than what we have right now.
I, frankly, think the amendment that we offer is not strong. It can
be criticized for being too weak. But at least it says to the States
you establish a timetable and then live up to that timetable. That
seems to me to be not too much.
I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont standing, whose
leadership in this area of education I applaud. I am sure he is rising
to say he is enthusiastically for our amendment. I cannot imagine him
saying anything else.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I hate to destroy the enthusiasm
oozing from the comments. But as manager of the bill and a member of
the committee, we worked very hard to work out a compromise on this
very important language. We also will be receiving an amendment which
will be going in the other direction from this side of the aisle.
So I would suggest that, hopefully, if we can get the Senator from
Illinois to offer the other amendment, maybe three or four of us can
get together and work something out. I would be most willing to try to
do that.
I agree with the Senator that the question of the opportunity to
learn, the ability for our young people to have an opportunity to
learn, requires, I think, much more than we are doing at this time. But
at this particular moment, as far as the amendment goes, I would have
to say that I cannot accept it.
Mr. SIMON. I understand the situation in which he is. I am certainly
willing to sit down with him and with other colleagues to try to work
something out. I hope we can work something out.
Let me also, before I yield the floor, mention that my colleague from
Minnesota who has been really great in this matter of trying to achieve
some equity in our schools--when he was presiding I went up and I saw
that he had Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities,'' which just
tells what is wrong. One of the schools that he cites in that book is
the East St. Louis School District in the State of Illinois, a school
district that is desperate.
One of the ironies--then I will yield the floor to my colleague--is
the school districts with the greatest needs get the least funding in
our system. It is very interesting that in Sweden with nowhere near the
inequities in income that we have, Sweden has a system where the
economically poorest areas get as much as two to three times as much in
student aid as the other districts, recognizing that they need added
input there.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, thank you.
First of all, let me thank my colleague, Senator Simon. I am proud to
introduce this amendment with him, and I appreciate the remarks of the
Senator from Vermont.
Madam President, I have to say at the beginning it is going to take
me a little time to marshal our evidence behind this amendment, and not
because I do not think the amendment is compelling, but because I think
sometimes when we come out to the floor at 4:10 in the afternoon and
speak on the floor, it is kind of sleepy. It becomes an abstraction. We
forget that we really are talking about people's lives.
What we are saying in this amendment is that if we want to, as we
have done in Goals 2000--I commend Senator Kennedy. I talked to the
Secretary of Education today, Secretary Riley. I commend him. I think
it is important to have goals. I think we should have high
expectations. I think there is a considerable amount of evidence that
shows that when we have higher expectations for young people and for
our students, they have a better chance of reaching those expectations
than when we have low expectations which can become a self-fulfilling
prophecy: Low expectations, low results.
But at the same time, I do not think that you cannot have high
standards without spelling out the very reasonable idea that each
State--and States really define this, Madam President. We do not
mandate anything. We just simply say as States reach these standards
each State should set out a plan and should talk about how it should
achieve its plan to make sure that each and every student has the same
opportunity to reach these goals. That is all we say. We leave it
entirely up to the States how to do it.
I agree with the Senator from Illinois. In many ways this amendment
is all too weak. But what concerns me is that when I talk with teachers
that are down in the trenches with a lot of the young people and they
look at this Goals 2000 they really say, ``We feel like there is a huge
contradiction here,'' and sometimes they view it as kind of just a
bunch of highfalutin language Goals 2000. And they say, ``At the very
minimum, why don't you make it clear that it is completely inconsistent
to talk about reaching goals that is all voluntary without having some
language that makes it clear also at the State level. Please, each
State come up with a plan as to how you want to assure that each
student has the same opportunity to learn.'' That is exactly what this
amendment does.
Now, I think for the purposes of my colleagues I might want to just
spell out what the differences are here. The purpose of S. 1150 is to
set high academic standards for students, and we agree. What we simply
say is that States, with total flexibility and discretion, design the
content of the standards. They talk about a strategy for meeting
opportunity-to-learn standards and a timetable to do so.
There are no Federal mandates, and again since this is within the
context of something that is voluntary, it is voluntary, but there is a
reason for this amendment. We do need to do it on the floor of the
Senate if we are to be intellectually honest and if we are to have a
debate, and I hope there will be a debate, a debate on education as it
connects with lives of children in this country, we have to talk about
the issue of inequities in our education system.
The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. Jonathan Kozol's book
should be required reading for every Senator. I heard Senator Harkin
from Iowa say that earlier.
Let me first of all go back to 1983, a report that received much
national coverage, a Nation at Risk. If the Nation was at risk in 1983,
and I will just quote the beginning of this report, notice it said ``a
Nation at risk''. When Senators say wait a minute, when we are talking
about education, this is not really Federal; we are talking about
national security. We are talking about a nation at risk.
If our young people do not have full opportunity to be economically
productive, if they do not have the full opportunity to be able to
think on their own two feet in a way that you have to in a democracy,
and if there are huge disparities of resources between districts so
that some districts do not have the money for the new technologies or
facilities or whatever else or cannot recruit or cannot retain
teachers, then this really is a nation at risk.
I quote:
We report to the American people that while we can take
justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have
historically accomplished and contributed to the United
States and the well-being of its people, the educational
foundations to our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a
Nation and as a people.
Madam President, then this report goes on to lay out the academic
achievement or lack of academic achievement of our young people, and we
have not improved all that much since 1983. But now what we are talking
about----
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, will my colleague yield for one point?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly.
Mr. SIMON. My colleague cited the 1983 report and that strong
language. I assume that must have come in some radical liberal
Democratic administration. Am I correct in that assumption? Or what
administration made this report on this 1983 language.
Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague raises an interesting question and makes
a good point. What was so important about that report then and I think
still is important about its conclusion today is we are talking about
the Reagan administration, President Reagan. We are talking about the
initiation of this report as part of its administration, and I think we
all agree that this should be a nonpartisan issue. So that was the
political context of those times.
Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if we are to say that it is a nation
at risk, and I just would add to that 1983 report that was over 10
years ago, is it no wonder that people get a little bit cynical and
they say, is this the same moving picture shown over and over again? Is
this just symbolic politics?
Now what we read about is the violence in the schools. Now what we
read about is the worsening of conditions in many of the neighborhoods,
within many of our cities. But let us not just be urban. I will later
on cite a lot of statistics about small-town rural America that are
having the same problem in terms of our young people not having the
same opportunities to learn.
What Senator Simon and I are saying in this amendment to our
colleagues is the goals are important. Let us decentralize it. Let us
give the States creativity. It is all voluntary, but it is
intellectually honest and rigorous and it is consistent for us to say
at the same time that there should be goals and our young people should
meet the goals and also we ought to have some standards that set out in
a timetable a strategy to make sure each and every young person has the
same opportunity to reach those goals.
Otherwise, what you end up doing--and I will give some evidence for
that in a moment--is you set up goals that many young people cannot
reach, and you fail them again. It strikes me, therefore, you add
nothing to what I think we are about in our country.
Today's Nation at Risk should be viewed as a crisis; 1.8 percent of
our Federal budget goes to the Department of Education; 6 cents of
every education dollar in the States comes from the Federal Government.
Now, Madam President, let me go on and let me talk a little bit about
some hearings that we had. Senator Kennedy was extremely cooperative
and helpful.
Madam President, the interesting thing is that usually these hearings
take place and then they are written up and that is about it. But let
us talk a little bit about some of the hearings that we held on equity
financing and other problems.
This is the prepared statement of Linda Trentham, a professor at
Auburn University. She is talking about Mt. Brook, AL. In terms of
State and local revenues for one recent year, schools in Mt. Brook, AL,
received $4,820 per student per year, the highest rate in Alabama. At
the other extreme in Roanoke City, State and local revenues paid $2,371
per year. These differences accounted for a disparity of $61,225 a year
for a class of 25. These discrepancies do not appear in just the
wealthiest and poorest of systems in Alabama but are widespread and
systemic. Federal funds which are generally earmarked do not close this
gap in basic educational programs. Disparities have been present for at
least 20 years. So there is probably a cumulative effect. The funding
gap is not closing but in the last 6 years has gotten more pronounced.
Some Lowell schools lack adequate textbooks and other support
materials. For instance, in some schools students must share textbooks
and are not allowed to take books home to study. In at least one school
library the newest encyclopedia was 1975.
Why do we have people come and testify before our committees if we do
not take to heart what they have said and if we do not try and build on
the information they presented us?
But even in some new school buildings chemistry labs have virtually
no chemicals or other equipment with which students can work. One
science teacher had to show students a picture of a microscope because
she had none for them to use.
There is testimony before the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee.
And I could go on and on. There is testimony from Joseph Fernandez.
My name is Joseph Fernandez, and I am president of the
Council of the Great City Schools and former chairman of the
New York City public schools and former superintendent of
Dade County public schools. Thank you for your opportunity to
testify.'' Mr. Fernandez then said that the vast majority of
our students have not successfully completed an introductory
course in algebra by the end of the 10th grade. Only a third
of the Hispanic and Asian-American youths score above the
national norms on the standardized reading and math tests. We
have a significant shortage of preschool, math and science
and minority teachers, as well as teachers for the
disabled and limited English proficient.
And he goes on and on.
Now, Madam President, I would like to, if I could, refer to Jonathan
Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities.''
Looking around some of the inner city schools, where filth
and disrepair were worse than anything I'd seen in 1964, I
often wondered why we would agree to let our children go to
school in places where no politician, school board president,
or business CEO would dream of working.
Jonathan Kozol went around the country and looked at the different
educational opportunities for our students to find some answers.
And I just go from place to place in this book.
To find some answers, I spent several days in Camden (N.J.)
in the early spring of 1990. Because the city has no hotel,
teachers in Camden arranged for me to stay nearby in Cherry
Hill, a beautiful suburban area of handsome stores and costly
homes. The drive from Cherry Hill to Camden take about five
minutes. It is like a journey between different worlds.
On a stretch of land beside the Delaware River in the
northern part of Camden, in a neighborhood of factories and
many abandoned homes, roughly equidistant from a paper plant,
a gelatin factory and an illegal dumpsite, stands a school
called Pyne Point Junior High.
In the evening, when I drive into the neighborhood to find
the school, the air at Pyne Point bears the smell of burning
trash. When I return the next day I am hit with a strong
smell of ether, or some kind of glue, that seems to be
emitted by the paper factory.
The school is a two-story building, yellow brick, its
windows covered with metal grates, the flag on its flagpole
motionless above the lawn that has no grass. Some 650
children, 98 percent of whom are black or Latino, are
enrolled here.
The school nurse, who walks me through the building while
the principal is on the phone, speaks of the emergencies and
illnesses that she contends with. ``Children come into school
with rotting teeth,'' she says. ``They sit in class, leaning
on their elbows, in discomfort.
And on and on and on.
And the Senator is right. He talks about a school, as I remember, in
East St. Louis called Martin Luther King, Jr., talking to a young
woman. And she says,
This gives lie to Martin Luther King, Jr. We don't have the
same opportunities at this school.
He talks about the differences right here in Washington, DC. If you
look in one direction in Bethesda, you could see a financial base from
an appropriate tax system, for good schools, good facilities. Teachers
can be recruited, good salaries. That is the way it should be.
If you look to Anacostia, which is probably not more than a 1\1/2\ or
2 miles from the Chamber, the exact opposite situation--much less of a
base to draw from, inadequate lab facilities, the sharing of textbooks.
Madam President, I have to say--and I believe that the Senator from
Illinois may be focusing on this later on--that when we send our
children into decrepit school buildings--mainly this is a function of
the wealth of the community--and there are holes in the ceiling and
they are not warm, and there are old textbooks and inadequate lab
facilities, it strikes me that we send precisely the wrong kind of
message.
How can we expect our children to be excited about learning and how
can they believe all of our fine rhetoric about goals and everybody is
going to achieve those goals when they know that they do not have the
same opportunities as so many other children have within our country?
Madam President, I would like to have printed in the Record, because
I would be interested in some discussion with my colleagues, a whole
set of examples of some of the struggles of schools in my State of
Minnesota, especially in what we call greater Minnesota; that is to
say, in the small towns and the rural parts of our State.
I ask unanimous consent to have some examples printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Minnesota
office memorandum
Department: State Fire Marshal Division.
Date: January 31, 1994.
To: Len Nachman, Minnesota Department of Education.
From: Jon Nisja-Supervisor, Deputy State Fire Marshal.
Phone: (612) 643-3096.
Subject: Schools with Unique and/or Difficult Fire Safety
Problems.
As per your request I have compiled a list of some of the
school districts in which we have seen some unique and often
difficult fire safety problems. Many of the schools where we
encounter these types of problems are located in smaller,
rural communities. Some of these problems have evolved or
developed because of a lack of code enforcement in these
areas. The following is a brief list of some of the schools
and a summary of the problems noted:
CASS LAKE AREA LEARNING CENTER-Cass Lake, MN
Problems: Combustible construction; lack of fire alarm and
detection; vertical separation problems; exiting problems
(insufficient number, only had one).
HIBBING HIGH SCHOOL-Hibbing, MN
Problems: Vertical separation problems; exiting problems-
insufficient number (only one from upper floors), travel
distance problems, confusing, dead end corridors.
ATWATER-GROVE CITY SCHOOLS-Atwater and Grove City, MN
Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation;
combustible interior finish; exiting problems-insufficient
number, dead end corridors.
BARRETT-HOFFMAN-ELBOW LAKE SCHOOLS-Barrett, Hoffman, and Elbow Lake, MN
Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation;
exiting problems-insufficient number and capacity; students
in basement (poor exiting)
ROLLINGSTONE SCHOOL-Rollingstone, MN
Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation;
structural deficiencies due to long-term water leakage
problems.
BRAHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL-Braham, MN
Problems: Combustible construction; structural
deficiencies, exiting problems-confusing, dead-end corridors.
____
School Facilities in Minnesota
memoranda
To: Josh Syrvamaki, Senator Paul Wellstone's office.
From: Len Nachman, Facilities Team, MN Dept. of Education.
Subject: Request for information.
Date: January 31, 1994.
School Facilities Conditions for the State of Minnesota
If you want more examples or pictures, please let me know.
Len Nachman 612/296-5032.
special school district no. 1, Minneapolis
Approximately $400 million is needed to meet Minneapolis
schools health, safety, accessibility and deferred
maintenance needs.
The district is gaining 1000 students per year (2-3%).
There is a need to replace many old and tired buildings.
There is a need to get out of leased space that is not
educationally adequate.
They are currently under-funded to fix up facilities and to
maintain what can be fixed up.
Without necessary maintenance, the buildings will
completely deteriorate.
District needs a program of ongoing funding to maintain
buildings.
The $400 million does not include enhancing the schools
educational programs.
independent school district 625, st. paul
The St. Paul Public Schools has over $110 million in needs
over the next ten years to address critical deferred
maintenance environmental health and safety and handicap
accessibility (ADA) problems. With school buildings that are
old (approximately 47% of the district buildings have
original construction that is 50 years or more old), it is
critical that the deferred maintenance needs to protect
buildings' structures and infrastructure be addressed.
Roofing, painting, tuckpointing, window replacement,
mechanical and electrical system renovations and
replacements and plumbing replacements are among the
district's major areas of deferred maintenance needs.
Building improvements and modifications to address ADA
requirements alone total more than $8 million. New codes
and mandates affecting life safety, hazardous substances,
and environmental health and safety annually result in
major capital improvement needs. In addition, capital
improvement needs currently funded at $9 million annually
for the next three years funds only a fraction of the
capital improvement needs of the districts' 65+
facilities. Changing populations and increased enrollments
have created space needs in the district both at the
elementary and secondary levels. These needs must be met
through new property acquisitions, building additions, and
lease of outside space. Two new high schools at a total
estimated cost of $80 million are needed. Recently,
elementary space shortages have been again experienced
which will require funding (estimates currently being
developed).
Independent School District 709, Duluth
School district needs approximately $90 million to repair
schools. The district has recently spent $20 million.
This year the five worst buildings had to be abandoned
because they were not economically or educationally advisable
to fix up.
Nine existing facilities were upgraded ($20 million).
The $90 million does not include funds for educational
improvements or technology improvements.
Independent School District 698, Floodwood
Nearest neighboring district is 19 miles away and cannot
accommodate the students.
It has a student enrollment of 360 students.
This is a low-income district with limited taxing ability.
The original building was built in 1911 with additions in
1926, 1938, 1958, 1965, and 1976.
$250,000 is necessary for minimal five code violations.
There is no budget for educational improvements or ADA code
corrections.
The Fire Marshal has indicated he will close the 1911,
1926, 1938, sections of the building.
Independent School District 526, Twin Valley
The nearest neighboring district is 12 miles away.
Total Need.--The Minnesota Department of Education
estimates that it needs $2 billion for the repair,
renovation, alteration, and construction of public elementary
and secondary schools.
Number of School Buildings.--Minnesota has 392 school
districts with 1,536 buildings.
Age of School Buildings.--16% of Minnesota school buildings
are over 70 years old while 38% are over 50 years old and 63%
are over 30 years old.
Assessments.--Minnesota does not conduct an annual
assessment of its school buildings.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the quality of the education that a
young person receives should not be based on where that young person
lives. If we want to be competitive as a nation, if we want to focus on
our greatest resource, if we want to understand that there is not going
to be any real national security until we invest in the health and
skills and intellect and character of our young people, then I suggest
that as we pass this Goals 2000 legislation, we should at the very
minimum be clear that, as each and every State sets out these goals
that we have established and talks about meeting those goals, that we
are consistent, that we are honest, and we just include in this
amendment the most moderate language which says that there should also
be an opportunity-to-learn standard where each State says this is going
to be how we make sure that every one of our youngsters has the same
opportunity to achieve these goals.
This amendment has the support of the National Education Association,
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, the Council of the Great
City Schools, and the National Parent-Teacher Association, the PTA.
Madam President, I believe that the reason for the importance of this
legislation--and I once again thank Senator Kennedy for his work--is
that we really do send a message that we care about goals, we care
about education, and we care about raising expectations.
But I think the teachers down in the trenches and I think the parents
down in the trenches--and I hear this from Minnesota over and over
again, it saddens me--they are also saying as long as you are going to
have this language, you cannot have this contradiction. At least, say
you want to make sure that each and every child has the same
opportunity to learn.
Why is that so unreasonable? Why can we not get some language that is
firm on that point? Why can we not have a part of that as Goals 2000?
Why can we not say that part of what Goals 2000 is, is to make sure
that each and every youngster has the same chance at all he or she can
be.
That is what this amendment says. I think it is an extremely
important amendment. I hope that we will have the full support of our
colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1367 to Amendment No. 1366
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1367 to amendment No. 1366.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the pending amendment strike all after: ``(d)
Opportunity To Learn'' and insert the following:
Strategies.--Each State improvement plan shall establish
strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to
learn, such as--
(1) adopting or establishing comprehensive State
opportunity-to-learn standards:
(2) establishing a timetable for demonstrating progress
toward meeting comprehensive State opportunity-to-learn
standards in every school in the State; and
(3) periodically reporting to the public on the extent of
the State's improvement in achieving such standards.
(e) Technical and Other Assistance Regarding School Finance
Equity.--
(1) Technical assistance.--(A) the Secretary is authorized
to make grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements with, State educational agencies and other public
and private agencies, institutions, and organizations to
provide technical assistance to State and local educational
agencies to assist such agencies in achieving a greater
degree of equity in the distribution of financial resources
for education among local educational agencies in the State.
(B) A grant, contract or cooperative agreement under this
subsection may support technical assistance activities, such
as--
(i) the establishment and operation of a center or centers
for the provision of technical assistance to State and local
educational agencies;
(ii) the convening of conferences on equalization of
resources within local educational agencies, within States,
and among States; and
(iii) obtaining advice from experts in the field of school
finance equalization.
(2) Research.--(A) The Secretary is authorized to carry out
applied research and analysis designed to further knowledge
and understanding of methods to achieve greater equity in the
distribution of financial resources among local educational
agencies.
(B) The Secretary may carry out research under this
paragraph directly or through grants to, or contracts or
cooperative agreements with, any public or private
organization.
(C) In carrying out this paragraph, the Secretary is
authorized to--
(i) support research on the equity of existing State school
funding systems;
(ii) train individuals in such research;
(iii) promote the coordination of such research;
(iv) collect and analyze data related to school finance
equity in the United States and other nations; and
(v) report periodically on the progress of States in
achieving school finance equity.
(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
activities under this subsection with activities carried out
by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(4) Data.--Each State educational agency or local
educational agency receiving assistance under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall provide such data
and information on school finance as the Secretary may
require to carry out this subsection.
(5) Models.--The Secretary is authorized, directly or
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to
develop and disseminate models and materials useful to States
in planning and implementing revisions of the school finance
systems of such States.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995
through 1998 to carry out this section.
Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from New York is here. I wanted to
respond to the points that have been made by Senator Wellstone and
Senator Simon, but I would be glad to permit the Senator to make
whatever comment he desires.
Mr. D'AMATO. I will take about 10 to 11 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
____________________