[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1346-S1349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       OUR EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVE

  Mr. REED. I rise today to speak about an issue that is critical to 
our country and critical to our future, and that issue is education.
  Education has always been crucial to our country. Indeed, one of the 
greatest triumphs of our Nation has been the creation of public 
education through high school and in the postwar years the expansion of 
access to higher education.
  Our ancestors grasped a fundamental truth. Education is the engine 
that powers our economy, and it is the force that sustains our over 
200-year experiment in democracy. ``Yankee ingenuity,'' groomed in the 
schoolrooms of New England and transported across the continent, 
spurred an era of invention that catapulted America to economic 
leadership. But education is more than just economic progress. 
Education has allowed us to keep faith with the basic tenet of our 
country. At the core of American experience is the commitment to equal 
opportunity, and education is the greatest source of opportunity in a 
free society. It can transcend the circumstances of income, region, 
race, and gender to reaffirm the enduring belief that an individual 
through effort can achieve his or her fullest potential in America.
  Throughout our history, education has always been an important part 
of the American experience. Today, it is rapidly becoming the essential 
component of our national life. The combination of extraordinary 
progress in technology, particularly information technology, and the 
unprecedented growth of international commerce has made education the 
key to our leadership in the world and our prosperity here at home.
  As we pass from the industrial age to the information age, the work 
of the future demands skills which only can be obtained through 
lifetime learning. And as we move into an era of global competition, we 
find ourselves pitted against workers and students around the world. 
What might have been adequate for America in the age of the Model T in 
a more insular world is plainly inadequate in the age of the Pentium 
processor and in a world in which the boundaries of business seldom 
conform to the boundaries of nations.
  As Norman Augustine, vice chairman and CEO of Lockheed-Martin, said, 
``More and more, we see that competition in the international market 
place is in reality a battle of the classrooms.''
  The American people recognize that we can and we must do much more to 
improve the quality of education. Studies comparing American students 
with their foreign contemporaries in the ``battle of the classrooms,'' 
as referred to by Mr. Augustine, show that American students are not 
first in the world. In fact, they are only about average. The third 
international mathematics and science study, TIMSS for short, the 
largest international science and math study ever undertaken, was 
released last fall.
  The study found that U.S. eighth graders scored barely above the 
world average in science and below the world average in mathematics. 
Being ``average'' will not sustain the United States in a world where 
technology and trade demand excellence.
  Just last month, Education Week, in collaboration with the Pew 
Charitable Trust, released a report card on the condition of public 
schools in the 50 States. The report characterized public education in 
the United States as ``riddled with excellence but rife with 
mediocrity.'' With respect to the bottom line, student performance, the 
conclusion of the report is sobering. ``We did not give States a letter 
grade. If we had, all would have failed. Nationally, only 28 percent of 
4th graders tested in 1994 were able to read at or above the proficient 
level and only 21 percent of 8th graders tested in 1992 were proficient 
or better in math.''
  The American people recognize these shortcomings and the compelling 
need to enhance education in the United States. They also want the 
Federal Government to play an appropriate role in this process of 
educational reform. Last month, a survey was released by the Coalition 
for America's Children, and it found that 76 percent of those polled 
favored increases in Federal spending for education.

  However, spending alone will not reinvigorate education in the United 
States. At every level of Government--Federal, State, and local--
calling on parents, teachers, business and community leaders, the great 
civic core of America, we must all work together to make education come 
alive in the lives of our children. Our task is twofold: To improve the 
quality of public education and to enhance access to higher education.
  Now, when we consider elementary and secondary education, we 
immediately must recognize the central role played by the States. 
Historically, States have been the leaders in public education from 
grades K through 12. And when we boast of the extraordinary success of 
public education in the United States throughout our history, we are 
paying tribute to the foresight and wisdom of State and local leaders 
who invested in education. But it is not without some irony that today, 
as we talk about devolution of more and more social programs and 
policies to the States, we at the same time point to the disturbing 
signs of educational malaise. The ``devolutionists'' frequently 
prescribe the States as the all-purpose remedy for every social 
problem, forgetting that the States like the Feds are political 
institutions awash in conflicting interests and afflicted with lapses 
of political will. That is not to suggest that the role of education in 
the States has been overtaken. It should suggest, however, that States 
alone have not and cannot cut through the tangle of financial 
difficulties, political interests and emerging problems that beset 
public education as we approach the next century. There is a real 
opportunity and need for Federal leadership as a catalyst for reform.
  In confronting the challenge of public education, we cannot confine 
ourselves to just the schools. We must reach out beyond the schools to 
the children. The first goal of Goals 2000 is that all children will 
start school ready to learn. And as we discover more and more about 
childhood development, this goal becomes increasingly more important. 
It also becomes increasingly more obvious that our efforts must 
encompass the youngest children as well as those children just ready to 
enter school. Scientific evidence points to the critical years from 
birth to age 3 in the development of intellectual and emotional 
abilities. As such, child care is an essential part of any strategy for 
the long-term improvement of education. Good prenatal care, pediatric 
health care, and quality day care are all components of educational 
reform. In fact, an emphasis on early intervention may save scarce 
educational dollars in the long run. Research indicates that children 
who attend quality child care programs are less likely to be placed in 
special education or to be retained in grade.
  It is here in the area of child care that the Federal Government has 
long played an important roll. With the creation of the Head Start 
program in 1965, the Federal Government embarked on an ambitious 
attempt to reach low-income children. Over the

[[Page S1347]]

past several decades, Head Start has gained widespread and bipartisan 
support. But despite this support, the program still only serves one 
out of three eligible children. More must be done to reach a larger 
population of eligible children. Moreover, we must consciously develop 
programs that involve very young children.
  If we are serious about having all children ready to learn when they 
enter school, then we must commit ourselves to ensuring that every 
child has affordable access to quality health care and day care. We 
cannot and should not usurp the role of parents. As such, our 
strategies should be just as much about enabling parents to be better 
parents, with the time and income to do their part, as it is to reach 
out and teach the children.
  While we summon the will and the resources to prepare children for 
school, we cannot ignore the urgent need to reform our schools. The 
recent study by Education Week revealed that on average less than one-
third of fourth graders were proficient in reading and less than one-
third of eighth graders were proficient in math. In a comparison of 
cut-off points on employer tests to student scores on national 
standardized exams, researchers, Richard Murnane and Frank Levy, found 
that ``close to half of all 17-year-olds cannot read or do math at the 
level needed to get a job in a modern automobile plant.'' And 
consistent with these findings, the TIMSS report revealed that American 
students were not leading the world but were about average in a world 
economy that increasingly demands excellence, not mediocrity.
  In evaluating this lackluster performance, the TIMSS report 
surprisingly did not blame the usual suspects--too much TV, not enough 
class time, not enough homework. It turns out that American eighth 
graders spend more hours per year in math and science classes than 
their Japanese and German counterparts. American teachers assign more 
homework and spend more class time discussing it than teachers in 
Germany and Japan. And, it turns out that heavy TV watching is as 
common among Japanese eighth graders as it is among American eighth 
graders. What then is the problem? The TIMSS report strongly suggests 
that American students receive a ``less-advanced curriculum, which is 
also less focused.'' At the heart of this disappointing performance is 
the content and rigor of what is taught and the techniques used to 
teach it. In short, content and instructional standards are not 
adequate.
  We will not materially improve public education in the United States 
until we adopt challenging standards, assess the performance of 
children with regard to these standards, and hold schools accountable 
for these standards. Standards, assessment, accountability: the keys to 
reinvigorating public education.

  A few years back, there was a popular book entitled All I Really Need 
to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. I guess I was a little slow because 
I'm tempted to say I learned a great deal in the Army and that was many 
years after kindergarten. One of the great lessons of my Army 
experience is the transforming power of high quality standards, 
realistic assessments, and accountability. In the wake of the Vietnam 
war, a demoralized and publicly scorned military began to reinvent 
itself and, over the last 2 decades, has become one of the most 
effective institutions in the country. Many factors can be cited: the 
development of an all volunteer force, the leadership of an 
extraordinary group of professionals who served in Vietnam and went on 
to senior positions in the Pentagon. But, a critical, and sometimes 
overlooked, factor was the development of training doctrine that rested 
on detailed standards and realistic assessments.
  As a company grade officer, I saw the transition from unimaginative 
field manuals couched in general terms to materials that broke down 
missions into constituent tasks, stressed the mastery of these tasks, 
and, then, the careful merging of individual tasks into group effort. 
At every stage, clear standards of performance were identified and 
evaluated. Complementing these doctrinal changes was a renewed emphasis 
on ``training the trainer''. Professional development was stressed not 
only for officers but throughout the ranks, particularly non-
commissioned officers who are the backbone of the military. Finally, 
accountability, always a hallmark of the military service, could be 
refocused from the mundane, ``did the troops look good'', to the 
critical, could the unit accomplish its mission in the most realistic 
circumstances. American education, today, seems to be at a similar 
crossroads as the post-Vietnam military. And, the lesson of standards, 
assessments, and accountability seems equally compelling, for education 
today.
  American students are graded from the moment they enter school. They 
repeatedly take tests. But, seldom are they measured against agreed 
upon content standards. As such, school is less about understanding a 
core body of knowledge and using that knowledge than it is about 
attendance. For too many students, the only ``standard'' that counts is 
showing up frequently enough to get a high school diploma. Thus, it is 
no surprise that half of high school graduates would have a difficult 
time getting a job in a modern automobile plant.
  In a recent survey by a national non-profit group, Public Agenda, 
reported in the Washington Post, high school students expressed their 
criticism of school. At the top of their list was the observation that 
their classes are not challenging enough. A typical response from a 
student is revealing. `` 'I didn't do one piece of homework last year 
in math' he said. 'I just took the tests . I'd get A's on the tests, 
not do the homework, and I got a B in class. There's just lots of ways 
to get around it.''' This subering comment was found throughout this 
discussion in the report, but, the researchers were encouraged to find 
``strong support among students for having tougher standards in class. 
Three-fourths of them said they believed they would learn more, and 
school would seem more meaningful, if they were pushed harder by better 
teachers.'' As Deborah Wadsworth, the executive director of Public 
Agenda, declared, ``The students seem to be crying out for the adults 
in their lives to take a stand and inspire them to do more.''
  Standards are about excellence, but they are also about equality of 
opportunity. Diane Ravitch, a professor at Columbia and a former 
official in President Bush's education department, wrote,

       ``[n]ations that establish national standards do so to 
     insure equality of education as well as higher achievement . 
     . . they make explicit what they expect children to learn to 
     insure that all children have access to the same educational 
     opportunities.'' Until we establish effective standards and 
     evaluate children according to those standards, we will 
     continue to ignore disparities in the educational experience 
     of children throughout the United States.
  In keeping with the critical role of standards as benchmarks for 
excellence and equality of opportunity, it is exciting to note 
President Clinton's proposal to develop voluntary national assessments 
for reading at the fourth grade and math at the eighth grade. These 
assessments could truly be the bridge between standards and 
accountability; the bridge to a renewal of public education, in the 
United States.
  Recognizing the critical role that standards can play in the 
reformation of public education, Congress in 1994 adopted the Goals 
2000: Educate America Act. Goals 2000 sought to place voluntary 
national standards at the center of national debate about educational 
reform.
  As a member of the Education and Labor Committee in the other body, I 
was an active participant in the drafting of Goals 2000. I vigorously 
pressed to ensure that standards were a key component of the strategy 
for educational reform, and that there would be accountability for 
these standards. One of the persistent failures of educational reform 
is the failure to follow through. We all are aware of repeated studies 
that chronicle the problems of public education and propose credible 
reforms, but never seemed to go anylace. All of these studies seem to 
languish, gathering dust on the shelves. Even if the diagnosis is 
right, no mechanism is put in place to translate plans into results.
  As such, I thought that, along with standards, the Goals 2000 process 
should require the state and local educational authorities to answer a 
fundamental question: what will you do when a school or a school system 
fails to meet the standards established for

[[Page S1348]]

its students? Failure to answer this question and to act accordingly 
will doom meaningful educational reform.
  I was pleased that a provision encompassing this question was 
included as a requirement of the state plan pursuant to Goals 2000. In 
the spirit of the voluntary nature of Goals 2000, the Federal 
Government did not mandate any particular approach to failing schools, 
but, in the process of developing standards-based reform, it would 
prompt states to ask this fundamental question. This provision is still 
on the books. However, the overall importance of the state plan has 
been diminished. Tucked into the budget signed by President Clinton in 
April of 1996 is language that removes the requirement for these State 
plans to be submitted to the Secretary of Education.
  This unraveling of the minimal requirements of Goals 2000 does not 
bode well for ultimately tackling the tough issues of reform at the 
local level. Without the ``seriousness'' engendered by preparing a 
submission for Secretarial review, these plans might become another 
specimen on the dusty shelf of accumulated plans for educational 
reform. Moreover, despite the protests of many local elected leaders, 
many local educational leaders will concede that requirements in 
Washington frequently help them to cut through the tangle of local 
interests that impede effective local reform.
  Nevertheless, Goals 2000 is a milestone in emphasizing voluntary 
national standards and hopefully will continue to serve as a 
springboard for educational reform. Standards are critical, but without 
good teaching these standards will also languish.


                           IMPROVED TEACHING

  Challenging content standards must be matched by effective teachers. 
Continuous professional development is no longer a luxury and can no 
longer be incidental to teaching. The exponential growth in knowledge 
and constantly changing insights on teaching techniques require 
continual reeducation of teachers. Regrettably, such constant 
professional development is the exception today. Resources for 
professional development at the local, State, and Federal levels are 
constrained. But, more than resources are necessary. There must be a 
renewed commitment by all concerned parties. In particular, teachers 
and their unions must be at the forefront of this effort for 
professional development.
  Teacher unions are powerful forces. They must become powerful forces 
to raise the capability and expertise of their members. Too often, 
teacher unions are perceived as interested only in the benefits of 
their members and not the in improvement of education. I do not believe 
this to be the case, but this perception is widely held and must be 
reversed. Teacher unions should be seen as champions for raising the 
quality of teaching in the United States. That means challenging their 
members to be better teachers, helping them to meet that important 
challenge and, in the small number of cases where individual teachers 
are not up to the challenge, working with local authorities to remove 
that teacher from the classroom. It also means being full partners in 
local reform efforts and viewing this reform effort in terms of what it 
adds to the quality of education rather than what it may subtract from 
the current status quo. This mission should not be viewed as something 
extra that the union does as a courtesy to the public. It must be at 
the very core of their activities and increasingly the dominant 
rationale for their existence.
  At the Federal level, we must encourage this renewal of teaching. I 
am delighted with President Clinton's efforts to support enhanced 
teaching. Under the President's budget, 100,000 more teachers will be 
able to seek certification from the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards. The National Board has worked hard to establish 
nationally accepted credentials for excellence in teachers. Their 
certification of ``master teacher,'' akin to the board certification of 
physician specialist, raises the standards for teachers and creates a 
pool of mentors who can assist other teachers to excel. President 
Clinton has increased funding for other professional development 
programs like the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the 
National Science Foundation's Teacher Enhancement Program. The 
President has proposed a series of technology initiatives which will 
also assist teachers. The President's Technology Challenge Grant 
Program supports private-public sector partnerships to develop models 
for using technology in education, such as providing electronic field 
trips for new teachers to learn from expert teachers and mentors around 
the country. The President's technology literacy challenge Fund will 
leverage public funds to target school districts and schools committed 
to helping teachers integrate technology into the classroom. Finally, 
the administration's 21st century teachers initiative will recruit 
thousands of technologically literate teachers to upgrade their 
knowledge and help at least five of their colleagues to master the use 
of technology in the classroom.
  We have talked about elementary and secondary education. But, 
frankly, excellent public education at the elementary and secondary 
grades today is simply a prelude to lifetime learning. As we work to 
provide students with the skills necessary to achieve and compete in 
this information age, it is essential that we also expand access to 
postsecondary education.
  Indeed, according to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, 60 
percent of all new jobs created between 1992 and the year 2005 will 
require education beyond high school. A college education is also the 
key to higher wages, as college graduates, on average, earn 50 percent 
more than high school graduates.
  For too many families, however, a college education for their 
children is growing increasingly out of reach. College costs rose by 
126 percent between 1980 and 1990, while family income increased by 
only 73 percent. This situation has been coupled with a shift in the 
source of Federal aid also. In 1975, 80 percent of student aid came in 
the form of grants and 20 percent in the form of loans. Now the 
opposite is true. As a result, students and families are going deeper 
into debt as they attempt to pay for the costs of a college education. 
The average student loan debt burden is expected to reach $21,000 by 
next year.
  Steps must be taken to make college more accessible and affordable in 
order to address these trends. I am pleased by the President's many 
proposals in this area. His call to provide assistance to middle-class 
families in the form of a $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years of 
college will cover the costs of most community colleges and provide a 
significant downpayment for a 4-year college. It would certainly be a 
tremendous development in our history if for the first time we can 
guarantee at least 2 years of postsecondary education as we now 
guarantee 12 years of elementary and secondary education.
  Families would also be able to choose a $10,000 tax deduction for 
college, for graduate school, community college, and certified training 
programs. These proposals are a common sense approach to help students 
enter and remain in college, lessen their reliance on loans, and 
provide an avenue for lifelong learning.
  Our efforts to increase access to college cannot include tax relief 
alone. We must also provide a boost to the Pell grants created and 
named after my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell. The Pell grant is 
the foundation of student financial aid for low- to moderate-income 
families.
  Over the past 20 years, however, we have witnessed the steady decline 
of the purchasing power of the maximum Pell grant. According to a 1996 
college board report, the Pell grant covers only one-third of the cost 
at public universities, down from one-half in the mid-1980's, and about 
10 percent of the cost at private institutions, down from about 20 
percent in the mid-1980's.
  The task before us is to restore the purchasing power of the Pell 
grant. The President has recognized this fact by seeking to increase 
the maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,000. This is a good start. But 
I believe more should be done so we can fulfill the Pell grant's 
promise of providing a substantial and consistent grant to low-income 
students.
  America's future is being forged today in America's classrooms. It is 
our task to ensure that this great work of education is built on the 
solid foundation of challenging standards, realistic assessments, and 
thorough accountability. It is also our task to ensure that education 
is a life-long process and that affordable higher education must be 
available to all.

[[Page S1349]]

  Our economy demands educated workers. Our democracy requires informed 
and responsible citizens. As we renew public education and open the 
doors to higher education, we will propel America into the next century 
powered by knowledge, tempered by experience, and committed to justice. 
We can do no less.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________