[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S955-S956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION IN AMERICA
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of the
chairman of our committee that handles education matters, Senator
Jeffords. You have talked to me a lot of times about the reforms
necessary in education. I look forward to your committee doing some
real reform work.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record something I
read today with great embarrassment and chagrin on the front page of
the Washington Post: ``U.S. High School Seniors Rank Near Bottom'' when
it comes to math and science. They are not at the bottom of the free
world when they finish the first grade and the fourth grade. They are
in good shape. However, when they graduate from high school, they are
at the bottom rung of all the countries that will be competing with us
in the next millennium for the kind of competitive industries and the
kinds of things that are necessary to keep America strong.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 25, 1998]
U.S. High School Seniors Rank Near Bottom--Europeans Score Higher in
Math, Science Test
(By Rene Sanchez)
American high school seniors have scored far below their
peers from many other countries on a rigorous new
international exam in math and science.
The test results, which were released yesterday, present a
damning assessment of American students in their last year of
mandatory schooling: In both subjects, their scores ranked
close to last among the 21 nations that participated. And
their showing was much worse than the marks that American
elementary and middle school students have earned on similar
international exams in the past two years.
Even the scores of academically elite American students--
those who take either physics or advanced math courses in
high school--were a disappointment. They also finished below
the international average and lagged behind many other
nations on the latest test.
The nation's education leaders reacted with dismay to the
poor results yesterday. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley
called the American scores ``unacceptable'' and said that too
many schools are failing to establish tough academic
standards for students and often lack qualified teachers in
math and science even when they do.
``We need to have higher expectations for our students,''
Riley said. ``Many of our students stop taking math and
science after 10th or 11th grade.''
Riley said that middle schools also may be a source of the
problem. ``Other nations begin to introduce challenging
concepts such as algebra, geometry, probability and
statistics, but we continue to focus on arithmetic, even
though our students are good at arithmetic,'' he said. ``So
we shouldn't be surprised that by the 12th grade, our
students have fallen even further behind our counterparts
abroad.''
The work of American fourth-graders is quite strong in math
and science when compared to similar students in other
countries, but from that point their scores decline in
international tests. American eighth-graders posted mediocre
marks in both subjects when their work was matched recently
against counterparts around the world.
In a speech to the National Council of Jewish Women
yesterday, President Clinton said the fact that fourth-
graders do well while eighth- and 12th-graders struggle
indicates the problem lies in instruction, not in the
abilities of students, or that the United States has more
students from disadvantaged backgrounds than other nations.
``The fourth-graders represent the same socioeconomic
diversity'' as the older students, Clinton said. ``Therefore,
there is something wrong with the system. . . . I do not
believe these kids cannot learn. I am tired of seeing
children patronized because they happen to be poor or from
different cultural backgrounds than the majority. That is not
true.''
About 10,000 seniors selected randomly from more than 200
public and private high schools across the United States took
the international exam. American high schools are often run
quite differently from secondary schools abroad. Here, most
schools are comprehensive and strive to teach all types of
students. In other countries, however, many teenagers are
instead placed into specific kinds of schools, some heavily
academic, others vocational. But test officials said they
accounted for the differing academic arrangements in other
countries by giving the test to students from varying
backgrounds and types of schools.
The 90-minute test assessed students' general knowledge of
math and science concepts through problem-solving and
multiple-choice questions.
Only 57 percent of American students, for example, chose
the correct answer to this question: ``Experts say that 25
percent of all serious bicycle accidents involve head
injuries and that, of all head injuries, 80 percent are
fatal. What percent of all serious bicycle accidents involve
fatal head injuries?'' The answer is 20 percent.
American students fared poorly in math and science even
though they expressed more enthusiasm for learning the
subjects than their peers in other nations and reported using
computers and having lab experiments and practical lessons
more often in class.
Also, none of the Asian nations that have finished at the
top of other similar tests in math and science participated
in this one. Most of the countries that excelled on the exam
are in Europe, in particular the Netherlands, Sweden and
Norway. But Canada and New Zealand also had higher marks than
the United States. American scores were comparable to those
of students from Russia, Italy and the Czech Republic.
American students outperformed students only in Cyprus and
South Africa.
``This study is a wake-up call for us to change the culture
in the classroom,'' said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of
the 53,000-member National Science Teachers Association. He
added that many science teachers say they get mixed signals
about what to teach and lack the time and resources to
achieve more in class.
A report on the test, which was supervised by the Education
Department and similar government agencies around the world,
does not give conclusive reasons for why American students
had such a dismal performance. But it offers possible clues.
First, researchers said that school curricula seem stronger
in other nations than in the United States. The percentage of
high school seniors taking math and science courses also is
lower here than in most other nations. American students
spend fewer hours on homework than most of their
international peers. And many more American high school
seniors work. More than half of them who took the test said
they spend three hours a day at a paid job. Only about one-
fifth of high school students from other nations had to
balance a daily job with their class work. American students
reported watching roughly the same amount of television
weekly as students abroad.
To some educators, the test results starkly reveal how far
the nation's high schools are from the goal state governors
set at the start of the decade: to make American students
``first in the world'' in math and science.
Many states and school districts have begun the difficult
task of revamping what they teach in those vital subjects,
and there are signs that strides are being made. On another
highly regarded exam, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, student scores in math and science have risen in
recent years.
But some of the nation's top business leaders, worried
about American competitiveness in the global economy, have
been pressuring schools to show more academic progress.
``These results are very disappointing,'' said Susan Traiman,
who directs education initiatives for the Business
Roundtable, a national group of executives from large
corporations. ``It looks like reforms are taking hold in the
early grades, but one we get beyond the basics, it's clear
that our curriculum is still not demanding.''
Other educators, however, contend that drawing profound
conclusions from an international test is risky, even
dubious, because the educational systems of other nations are
so different from those in the United States, where schools
are run locally and often have extraordinarily diverse
student enrollments. Of the 21 nations that took part in the
latest test, for example, half had a strict national
curriculum, a notion that much of the American public views
either with suspicion or hostility.
Riley said the poor test results offer compelling evidence
for why states and Congress
[[Page S956]]
should support Clinton's call for voluntary national tests
for eighth-graders in math. Only a small sample of students
now take national tests, and many educators say Clinton's
plan--which Congress has delayed--could prompt schools to
demand more from students. But critics say the testing
Clinton wants could create too much federal involvement in
schools and lead to a national curriculum.
The latest test results are the third and final part of an
international study that began three years ago. It is the
most comprehensive attempt ever made to compare the academic
work of students around the world. Some skeptics of other
similar efforts say this one is more credible because
students from all types of high schools were tested.
One bright spot on the test for the United States was that,
unlike in many other nations, the scores of male and female
students in math and science were roughly the same.
Mr. DOMENICI. While I am here and while the chairman of the committee
is here, let me suggest that it is time we at the national level stop
looking at proliferating programs on behalf of education. We don't need
any more programs on behalf of education. Let me say what I think we
ought to do. Let me state for the Record the General Accounting Office,
assisting the Budget Committee, has found the following: We have 86
teacher training programs in 9 agencies and offices of the Government.
I repeat, 86 teacher training programs. At-risk and delinquent youth,
the Federal Government has 127 at-risk and delinquent programs in 15
agencies and departments. Some of them you don't even have jurisdiction
over because they are in Interior and all kinds of departments. Young
children, the Federal Government has over 90 early childhood programs
in 11 agencies and 20 offices.
It is time we square with the American people and say we have just
been duplicating, adding programs on programs because there is a
problem out there. Yet today we wake up and read the article in the
paper this morning. One wonders whether we have any idea with all this
proliferation of programs that I just read.
Frankly, Mr. President, if we ask the GAO to take another five areas
they will find a proliferation just as large and significant as
previously mentioned. When you wake up today and read this article--
let's take another look and try to do it. It doesn't mean more. It
means go to the problem and try to solve the problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Kansas is recognized for
up to 10 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you, very much.
(The remarks of Mr. Brownback and Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1673 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Faircloth pertaining to the introduction of S.
1674 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending situation in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is conducting morning business
until 11:30 a.m., at which time there will be 2 hours of debate on the
veto message to accompany H.R. 2631.
Mr. BYRD. Do I have any time under a previous order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia had 20 minutes
reserved. Since we only have 10 minutes left in morning business, the
Senator would be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
recognized for the 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Would the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be happy to.
Mr. GRAMM. Would the distinguished Senator amend his unanimous
consent request to include that I might have 5 minutes at the
conclusion of his remarks?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that under
the order that was entered into with respect to the line-item veto
debate, I had 5 minutes, did I not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia will control 30
minutes.
Mr. BYRD. In that debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In that debate.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may control
20 minutes in that debate and have 10 minutes now for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out
of order. I yield--how much time does the Senator wish?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think 5 minutes would be sufficient.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. I will listen to the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia. At the conclusion of his speech--would he like me to go ahead
and speak?
Mr. BYRD. I prefer that the Senator would go ahead first, if he will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
____________________