[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.

                          ____________________