[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12478-S12482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to make some comments with 
respect to the question of the allocation of resources to assist our 
State and local governments in meeting their challenge in the provision 
of education for grades K through 12.
  First, in this war of words it should not be overlooked that there 
was no disagreement last year in establishing education as a priority 
when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act. We entered into an agreement 
only one year ago with this administration where we indicated that yes, 
we agree that education is a priority for all. We have honored that 
commitment.
  Under the balanced budget agreement from last year, we agreed to 
increase spending on education by 15 percent, or $3 billion. We did 
that.
  This year in the budget resolution adopted by the Senate we agreed to 
increase education spending over the next 5 years by an amount equal to 
inflation which would result in spending increases of $6.6 billion in 
budget authority and $4.1 billion in outlays over the next 5 years. 
Almost all other discretionary programs were frozen.
  In addition, earlier this year we passed a bill--with bipartisan 
support--the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act to expand the 
education IRA which we enacted last year as part of the Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 1997.
  Under this provision the annual contribution limit for education IRAs 
would be increased from $500 under current law to $2,000 and expand the 
use of the proceeds from these accounts for elementary and secondary 
education expenses.
  Education expenses, it is important to note, under the provisions of 
the bill were broadly defined to include after school-programs, 
expenses for special needs children, computers, tutoring, uniforms--in 
sum, virtually any expense associated with improving the totality of a 
child's education.
  The benefits of this provision were large for a very small cost, and 
I would note most importantly, with no Federal interference. Mr. 
President, this one provision was anticipated to generate $5 billion 
for education over a 5-year period and $10 billion over a 10-year 
period.
  It was thought that 14 million families would utilize the savings 
benefit and 20 million school children would benefit. All at minimal 
cost and interference. The administration vetoed this good and 
important bill.

[[Page S12479]]

  As I see it where we are today is not in disagreement over the 
importance of education or the investment in education, but rather a 
very different philosophical approach in the best way to provide 
assistance. As a staunch believer in State and local control of 
education it is my firm belief that the assistance we provide to our 
State and local educational agencies must be given with the maximum 
amount of flexibility.
  Time and time again, the evidence has shown that a one size fits all 
directive from Washington is not the tonic to cure any ills within our 
educational system. I therefore believe the administration's insistence 
on their school construction and class room size reduction initiative 
is wrong, and actually may be harmful.
  A policy briefing issued in June of this year by the Progressive 
Policy Institute states it best: ``It makes little sense to dictate in 
across the board class-size reduction policy from Washington. A 
national policy can only expect average gains, which appear to be very 
small at great expense.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
policy briefing ``Improving Student Achievement--Is Reducing Class Size 
the Answer?'' be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, an additional problem with inflexible 
mandates from Washington is that it directs resources from the State 
and local level to areas which a State or local school board might not 
think is the best use of resources.
  Some schools or districts may wish to have smaller class sizes or 
devote resources to capital projects, others may feel that their school 
reform efforts can best be served by adding computers, newer textbooks, 
teacher training, or after school programs or other ideas. This is 
where I think directives become harmful.
  We do not have the solutions in Washington, We must let our State and 
local educational agencies, parents, and teachers, have the freedom to 
put their resources where they feel they will do the most good for the 
benefit of our children. An editorial from the News Journal from my 
State entitled ``Misguided Mandate: Micromanagement by Legislators Is 
Mockery of Real School Reform'' is illustrative of this point, though 
they were editorializing on an action taken by the State legislature in 
Delaware.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in full at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in conclusion, Mr. President, I would say 
that I am disappointed in the rhetorical excess surrounding the issue 
of educational excellence.
  Our focus should not be on inputs and micromanagement, but on how we 
can best deliver assistance which will result in positive outcomes 
reflected by improved student achievement. I suggest that the solution 
to this problem rests in our communities, with those closest to the 
problems at hand.

                               Exhibit 1

     Editor's Note: Silver bullet ideas for school reform come and 
     go, usually warranting little more than passing attention. 
     However, one idea seems to be taking hold among many camps: 
     class-size reduction. In light of the attention and support 
     this idea has received, the Progressive Policy Institute 
     asked University of Rochester's Eric Hanushek--a renowned 
     education scholar--to review the evidence on the impact of 
     class-size reduction policies. This is his analysis.

   Improving Student Achievement--Is Reducing Class Size the Answer?

                         (By Eric A. Hanushek)

       Growing numbers of Americans are dissatisfied with our 
     nation's schools and are demanding reform. Recently, results 
     from an international study showed U.S. students trailing the 
     world in twelfth grade math and science. Faced with the 
     daunting task of reforming education, politicians in both 
     parties, including President Clinton, are seizing on a cure-
     all that appeals to interest groups and enjoys public 
     support: reducing class size.
       This is by no means a new idea; teachers' unions have 
     fought for smaller classes for decades.
       All other things being equal, smaller classes are 
     preferable to larger ones because teachers can give students 
     more individual attention. However, all things are seldom 
     equal, and other factors, such as the quality of the teacher, 
     have a much more decisive impact on student achievement. 
     Moreover, the huge expense of class-size reduction may impede 
     the ability of schools to make other important investments in 
     quality. Here lies the fundamental question: What effect do 
     broad policies of class-size reduction have on overall 
     student achievement levels?
       Supporters of broad class-size reductions generally point 
     to a few studies or a few experiences that suggest improved 
     performance with smaller classes and then rely on the 
     ``obviousness'' of the proposed policies to carry the day. To 
     be sure, there are U.S. classrooms that are overcrowded. But 
     not every school ranks reducing class size as the highest 
     priority. Some schools may prefer to invest in smaller 
     classes, but others might opt for reading tutors, after-
     school programs, computers, higher salaries for teachers, or 
     increased professional development. In fact, a thorough 
     review of the scientific evidence shows a startling finding; 
     class-size reduction may be one of the least effective 
     educational investments.
       Historical and international evidence also shows that a 
     national policy to reduce class size could displace more 
     productive investments in schooling. The United States has 
     already significantly reduced class sizes over the past 40 
     years and student performance has remained stagnant, at best. 
     The overall pupil-teacher ratio fell by 35 percent from 1950-
     95 (from about 27-to-1 to 17-to-1).\1\ Aggregate student 
     performance has shown no improvement over this period. 
     Similarly, these changes have done nothing to boost our 
     standing on international achievement tests.
       Federal policy should aim to improve teacher quality, not 
     quantity. Rather than reducing class size, a better use of 
     federal money would be to encourage states to boost teacher 
     quality by developing meaningful teacher tests and 
     alternative certification programs. Better yet, federal funds 
     could be used to encourage stronger performance incentives in 
     our schools.


               the bipartisan rush to reduce class sizes

       The widespread belief that lowering class size immediately 
     improves education has been echoed by politicians in both 
     parties during this election year. About 20 governors are 
     either proposing or actively considering class-size reduction 
     initiatives. These states are following on the heels of 
     California, which reduced K-3 class sizes under Republican 
     Governor Pete Wilson after the state generated a revenue 
     windfall in 1996. GOP proposals both in Congress and in many 
     states to shift education dollars from ``administration'' to 
     ``classrooms'' are also often promoted as enabling school 
     districts to reduce class sizes.
       Its status as the hardy perennial of teachers' union 
     proposals has further made class-size reduction popular among 
     many Democratic politicians. But this tendency was given a 
     powerful new impetus this year when President Clinton--
     previously identified with such performance-oriented reforms 
     as charter schools, high standards, and national tests--made 
     hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes in early education 
     a major feature of his State of the Union Address.


                          the clinton-proposal

       The President proposed to spend $12 billion in federal 
     funds over seven years to reduce class sizes in grades 1-3. 
     These initiatives are designed to help bring classes in the 
     early grades down to 18 students per class, an undertaking 
     estimated to require 100,000 additional teachers.
       Federal funding for class-size reduction would be 
     distributed to states on the basis of the Title I formula. 
     Within the state, each high-poverty school district would 
     receive the same share of these funds as it received under 
     ``Title I, and the remaining funds would be distributed 
     within the state based on class size. Participating school 
     districts would be required to match federal funds, on a 
     sliding scale raning from 10 percent to 50 percent.
       The initiative also emphasizes teacher certification 
     requirements, an important concern described below. Its 
     approach, however, overlooks the systemic defects of our 
     current certification practices and ignores a critical aspect 
     of teacher quality; recruitment.
       More importantly, the President's initiative represents a 
     detour from past initiatives to promote educational results 
     rather than just education spending. The classsize reduction 
     initiative uniquely promotes new educational ``inputs'' 
     (i.e., money) without a corresponding commitment to 
     educational ``outputs'' (i.e., results). All these 
     shortcomings might be overcome if it were truly clear that 
     reducing class sizes in and of itself improves education. 
     Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.


                     the evidence on class size \2\

       A wide range of perspective can be taken in attempting to 
     pinpoint the effectiveness of reduced class sizes. No matter 
     what the source of evidence, the answer about effectiveness 
     is the same: broad policies of class-size reduction are very 
     expensive and have little effect on student achievement.
       1. The United States has extensive experience with class-
     size reduction and it has not worked. Between 1950-95, pupil-
     teacher ratios fell by 35 percent, from about 27-to-1 to 
     about 17-to-1 overall. These reductions have been an 
     important component of the dramatic increases in school 
     spending that have occurred over this period. Table 1 shows 
     the pattern of pupil-teacher ratios, teacher attributes, and 
     real spending per pupil since 1960. The one-third fall in 
     pupil-teacher ratios is a significant contributor to the near 
     tripling in real spending per student in average daily 
     attendance (ADA). (The table further shows that other teacher 
     attributes--i.e., advanced degrees and experience--also grew 
     significantly.)

[[Page S12480]]



                                             TABLE 1.--PUBLIC SCHOOL RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1961-91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Resource                              1960-61      1965-66      1970-71      1975-76      1980-81      1985-86      1990-91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pupil-Teacher Ratio..........................................         25.6         24.1         22.3         20.2         18.8         17.7         17.3
Percent Teachers with Master's Degree........................         23.1         23.2         27.1         37.1         49.3         50.7         52.6
Median Years Teacher Experience..............................           11            8            8            8           12           15           15
Current Expenditure/ADA (1992-93 $'s)........................       $1,903       $2,402       $3,269       $3,864       $4,116       $4,919       $5,582
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       While we lack information about student achievement for 
     this entire period, the information that we have from 1970 
     for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
     indicates that our 17-year-olds were performing roughly the 
     same in 1996 as in 1970. There are some differences by 
     subject area. For science, the average scale score of 17-
     year-olds falls 9 points between 1969-96. For math, 17-year-
     olds improve 3 points between 1973-96. For reading, they 
     improve 2 points between 1971-96. Writing performance, which 
     is only available since 1984, shows a fall of 7 points, by 
     1996. Only the fall in science (and in writing since 1984) is 
     a statistically significant difference. There have been 
     improvements at earlier ages, but they are not maintained and 
     are not reflected in the skills that students take to college 
     and to the job market. The overall picture is one of stagnant 
     performance.
       One common explanation for why the lower pupil-teacher 
     ratio hasn't resulted in increased overall performance is 
     that more students are now designated as special education 
     students, whose classes are much smaller than regular ones. 
     About 12.5 percent of students are now identified as having 
     disabilities covered under special education legislation (up 
     8 percent at the introduction of programs in the late 1970s). 
     Indeed, the federal and state mandates for the education of 
     handicapped students have placed significant requirements on 
     hiring staff and providing extensive services. On average, 
     these students cost somewhat more than twice that of those 
     undergoing regular instruction. While these programs could 
     account for as much as a *COM041*third of the increased 
     intensity of teachers over the 1980s, substantial 
     reductions in class size have been directed at regular 
     class room instruction as well.
       In sum, the proposals to reduce class sizes are nothing 
     new. We have been pursuing these policies for decades. The 
     aggregate evidence shows no improvements in student 
     performance that can be related to the overall pupil-teacher 
     ratio reductions.
       2. International comparisons suggest no relationship 
     between pupil-teacher ratios and student performance. The 
     recent results measuring the performance of U.S. students on 
     international math and science examinations have sobered 
     many. Our high school seniors performed near the bottom of 
     the rankings of the 21 nations participating in the Third 
     International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). This 
     showing has nothing to do with more selective students taking 
     the tests in other countries--our best students performed 
     badly.
       At the same time, the dramatic differences in pupil-teacher 
     ratios and in class sizes across the countries are unrelated 
     to measures of mathematics and science achievement. Of course 
     there are many differences across countries that are 
     difficult to adjust for in any analysis, but if smaller 
     classes were strongly related to high student achievement, 
     then one would expect U.S. class sizes to be much larger than 
     those in other countries. In fact, just the opposite is true. 
     Asian countries that routinely outperform the U.S. generally 
     have much larger class sizes. Ironically, the international 
     differences suggest that there is a slight positive 
     relationship between pupil-teacher ratios and student 
     achievement.
       3. Extensive econometric investigation shows no 
     relationship between class size and student performance. Over 
     the past three decades, there has been significant research 
     in deciphering what factors affect student achievement. This 
     work, employing sophisticated econometric techniques, 
     provides considerable evidence about the effects of class 
     size on performance.
       These extensive statistical investigations show almost as 
     many positive as negative estimates of the effects of 
     reducing class size. Table 2 summarizes the 277 separate 
     published estimates of the effect of pupil-teacher ratios on 
     student achievement. Only 15 percent give much confidence 
     (i.e., are statistically significant) that there is the 
     expected improvement from reducing class sizes. The bulk (85 
     percent) either suggest that achievement worsens (13 percent) 
     or gives little confidence that there is any effect at all.

                 TABLE 2.--PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED INFLUENCE OF TEACHER-PUPIL ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE, BY LEVEL OF SCHOOLING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Statistically        Statistically insignificant (in percent)--
                                                                                       significant (in     ---------------------------------------------
                            School level                              Number of          percent)--
                                                                      estimates  --------------------------   Positive     Negative      Unknown sign
                                                                                    Positive     Negative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Schools........................................................          277           15           13           27           25                  20
Elementary Schools.................................................          136           13           20           25           20                  23
Secondary Schools..................................................          141           17            7           28           31                  17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Because of the controversial nature of these conclusions, 
     they have been carefully scrutinized--and the policy 
     conclusions remain unaffected. The subsequent discussions 
     have clarified one important aspect of these analyses. The 
     existing studies do show that sometimes variations in class 
     size have significant influences on performance. The 
     difficulty, when thought of in terms of making policy from 
     Washington or from State capitals, is that nobody has been 
     able to identify the overall circumstances that lead to 
     beneficial effects. This finding has important policy 
     implications that are discussed below.
       These studies are important because they provide detailed 
     views of differences across classrooms--views that separate 
     the influence of schools from that of family, peers, and 
     other factors. As a group, they cover the influence of class 
     size on a variety of student outcomes, on performance at 
     different grades, and on achievement in different kinds of 
     schools and different areas of the country. In sum, they 
     provide broad and solid evidence.
       4. Project STAR in Tennessee does not support overall 
     reductions in class size except perhaps at kindergarten. Much 
     of the current enthusiasm for reductions in class size is 
     based on the results of a random-assignment experimental 
     program in the State of Tennessee in the mid-1980s. The 
     common reference to this program, Project STAR, is an 
     assertion that the positive results justify a variety of 
     overall reductions in class size. This study is the primary 
     reference in the Clinton proposal as well as Governor Pete 
     Wilson's dramatic class-size reductions in California in 
     1996.
       The study is conceptually simple, even if some questions 
     about its actual implementation remain. Students and teachers 
     in the STAR experiment were randomly assigned to small 
     classes (13-17) students) or large classes (22-25) students) 
     with or without aides. Each participating school had one of 
     each type of class. Students were kept in these small or 
     large classes from kindergarten through third grade, and 
     their achievement was measured at the end of each year.
       The STAR evidence showed that the gains made were mainly in 
     kindergarten. The STAR data are summarized by Figures 1 and 
     2. (Graphs were not reproducible in the Record.) At the end 
     of kindergarten, children in small classes score better than 
     those in large classes. They then maintain this differential 
     for the next three years.
       If smaller classes were valuable in each grade, the 
     achievement gap would widen. It does not. In fact, the gap 
     remains essentially unchanged through the sixth grade, even 
     though the experimental students from the small classes 
     return to larger classes-for the fourth through sixth grades. 
     The inescapable conclusion is that the smaller classes at 
     best matter in kindergarten and perhaps first grade. The data 
     do not suggest that improvements will result from class-size 
     reductions at later grades.
       The STAR data suggest that perhaps achievement would 
     improve if kindergarten classes were moved to sizes 
     considerably below today's average. In addition, the effects 
     were greater fro minority students during the first two 
     years. The President`s plan gives greater assistance to Title 
     I schools and targets the early grades, but not kindergarten.
       Nonetheless, the STAR evidence pertains to a one-third 
     reduction in class sizes, a reduction approximately equal to 
     the overall decline in the pupil-teacher ratio between 1950 
     and today. As we have seen, that reduction has not led to 
     overall improvement in student achievement.


                interpreting the evidence on class size

       None of this says that smaller classes never matter. The 
     class size evidence refers to the normal ranges observed in 
     schools--roughly between 15 and 40 studens per class. A class 
     of 100 would likely produce different effects than a class of 
     five, but such a comparison is irrelevant for purposes of the

[[Page S12481]]

     broad policies currently being considered. Indeed, the micro-
     evidence, which shows instances where differences in pupil-
     teacher ratios appear important, suggests just the opposite. 
     All things being equal, teachers are probably more effective 
     with fewer students because they can devote more attention to 
     each child. But all things are not equal. Existing teachers 
     may well not adjust their classroom behavior with fewer 
     children in the classroom, and new teachers hired to staff 
     the additional smaller classes may not be as good as existing 
     teachers. There may be situations--of specific teachers, 
     specific groups of students, and specific subject matters--
     where the huge expense of smaller classes may be very 
     beneficial for student achievement. At the same time, there 
     are other situation where a large scale class-size reduction 
     policy could take away from other education priorities and 
     result in stagnant or worse student achievement.
       The complexity of the situation is that we do not know how 
     to describe a prior situation where reduced class size will 
     be beneficial. It makes little sense to dictate an across-
     the-board class-size reduction policy from Washington. A 
     national policy can only expect average gains, which appear 
     to be very small, at a great expense.
       It is also important to remember that bad implementation 
     can actually worsen achievement. When California implemented 
     its large-scale class reduction last year, the state 
     scrambled to hire thousands of new teachers; 31 percent of 
     Claifornia's new teachers are working with only emergency 
     credentials, with a disproportionate number working in urban 
     districts. Due to lack of space, some schools have resorted 
     to placing two teachers in a single classroom with forty 
     students.\3\
       Much of the case for reduced class size rests on ``common-
     sense'' arguments. With fewer students, teachers can devote 
     more attention to each child and can tailor the material to 
     the individual child's needs. But consider, for example, a 
     movement from class size of 26 to class sizes of 23. This 
     represents an increase in teacher costs alone of over ten 
     percent. It is relevant to ask whether teachers would in fact 
     notice such a change and alter their approach. The 
     observational information from Project STAR suggested no 
     noticeable changes in typical teacher behavior from the much 
     larger changes in the experiment.
       The small classes in California have 20 students in them--
     about the size of the large classes in STAR. No evidence from 
     STAR relates to the likely effects of such a policy change. 
     Indeed, the STAR study was based on previous research which 
     suggested that a class size of 15 or fewer would be needed to 
     make a significant improvement in classroom performance. The 
     Clinton Administration proposals point to class sizes of 18, 
     instead of the 20 in California, but they still do not get 
     down to the STAR levels.
       The policy issue is not defined exlusively by whether we 
     should expect positive effects from reducing class sizes. 
     Even if we were confident of positive effects, the case for 
     general policies to reduce class size would not yet be made. 
     Class-size reduction is one of the most expensive 
     propositions that can be considered. The policy experiment of 
     Project STAR involved increasing the number of classroom 
     teachers by one-third, a policy with massive spending 
     implications if implemented on a widescale basis. In 
     recognition of fiscal realities the expense of such policies 
     puts natural limits on what is feasible, leading many 
     reductions to be in the end rather marginal . Marginal 
     changes, however, are even less likely to lead to underlying 
     changes in the behavior to teachers.


                     teacher quality, not quantity

       Considerable evidence shows that teacher quality is one of 
     the most important factors in student achievement. Whether or 
     not large-scale reductions in class size help or hurt will 
     depend mostly on whether the new teachers are better or worse 
     than the existing teachers. Unfortunately, class-size 
     reduction proposals usually are not accompanied by plans to 
     recruit qualified teachers, and the current organization 
     of schools and incentives to hire and retain teachers do 
     little to ensure that the teacher force will improve. 
     Reducing class sizes may likely have a negative effect by 
     increasing the quantity of teachers at a time when what we 
     need most is to increase teacher quality.
       Furthermore, although there is an overall teacher surplus 
     in the United States, high poverty districts often face 
     teacher shortages. In California, this situation has been 
     exacerbated by the state's class-size reduction policy where 
     wealthier districts have raided teachers from poorer 
     districts.
       The Clinton Administration proposal call for states to 
     adopt training and certification procedures that have been 
     evaluated and tested. Simply trying to raise certification 
     standards in the current system is unlikely to raise teacher 
     quality. Indeed, certification as practiced today already 
     deters too many talented individuals from teaching, and 
     teachers are rarely held accountable for student performance. 
     Moreover, some states may actually have to lower 
     certification standards just to attract enough teachers for 
     each classroom. If we are to have a real impact on teaching, 
     we must evaluate actual teaching performance and use such 
     evaluations in school decisions. We cannot rely on 
     requirements for entry, but must switch to using actual 
     performance in the classroom.\4\


                          superior approaches

       The states and federal government are in a unique position 
     to initiate programs that promise true improvement in our 
     schools. They are not programs that mandate or push local 
     schools to adopt one-size-fits-all approaches--such as 
     lowering overall class sizes or altering the certification of 
     teachers. Instead they are programs that develop information 
     about improved incentives in schools.
       The largest impediment to any constructive change in 
     schools is that nobody in today's schools has much of an 
     incentive to improve student performance.\5\ Careers simply 
     are not made on the basis of student outcomes. The flow of 
     resources is not related positively to performance--indeed it 
     is more likely to be perversely related to performance. Let 
     us return to class size proposals for a moment. Given that 
     school incentives do not push toward better student 
     performance or toward conserving on expenditures, it is 
     little wonder that decisions about class size are made on the 
     basis of ``fairness'' and not productivity. After all, would 
     it be fair to some teachers to have to teach large classes or 
     to some students to have less attention in a larger 
     classroom? If schools were more motivated toward performance, 
     the discussion might shift to identifying those situations 
     where changing class sizes would have their largest impact. 
     For example, reducing kindergarten class sizes might be 
     important in communities that lack preschools; communities 
     that face teacher shortages might instead raise teacher 
     salaries in order to improve their applicant pools and 
     recruit more qualified teachers.
       The unfortunate fact is, however, that we have little 
     experience with alternative incentive structures. A very 
     productive use of state and federal funds would be to conduct 
     a series of planned interventions that could be used to 
     evaluate improvements. Minimally, instead of funding lowered 
     class sizes everywhere, the states and federal government 
     could team together to mandate more extensive random-
     assignment trials and evaluation of the benefits of 
     lowered class sizes, a la Tennessee.
       More usefully, they could work to develop a series of 
     experiments that investigates alternative incentive schemes--
     from merit pay to private contracting to wider choice of 
     schools. A new program of trials with altered performance 
     incentives could place an indelible positive stamp on the 
     nation's future by committing to learning about how schools 
     can be improved. Today we do not know enough to develop an 
     effective program of improvement. Nor will continuation of 
     past research programs help, because they must rely upon the 
     existing structure of schools with the existing incentives 
     (or lack of incentives).
       The issues of incentives and of devising ways to obtain 
     appropriate information is set out in more detail in Making 
     Schools Work.\6\ These are clearly complicated issues that 
     would require considerable change in focus by the federal and 
     state governments--turning from trying to dictate how schools 
     do their jobs to setting up incentives for good performance. 
     Contributors to Making Schools Work also openly admit that 
     there are many gaps in our knowledge and that improving 
     education is more likely if we attack the knowledge problems 
     directly instead of continuing policies that we know do not 
     work.


                          investing in schools

       There are powerful reasons to expand and improve investment 
     in human capital. Educational investments are in fact very 
     important for the U.S. economy, which has been built on a 
     skilled labor force and has capitalized on the presence of 
     skills, making human capital investments very important to 
     the economy. Moreover, many authors show that the labor 
     market value of the increased skills, as measured by 
     schooling level, has increased dramatically in recent years. 
     This valuation demonstrates that the economy continues to 
     need an evermore skilled labor force. Economists have 
     recently spent considerable time and effort trying to 
     understand why some countries grow faster than others, and 
     the majority opinion is that a nation's stock of human 
     capital is an important component of differential growth 
     rates. In addition, Americans have long thought of education 
     as a primary ingredient in providing equality of opportunity 
     to society--as a way of cutting down or breaking 
     intergenerational correlations of income and of trying to 
     provide opportunity to all of society. Taken together, these 
     provide important and relatively uncontroversial reasons for 
     us to continue our attention to education.
       Acknowledging the need for investment does not, however, 
     lead to unqualified support for any policies labeled 
     ``investment in our youth'' or ``school improvement.'' Recent 
     policy discussions have been laced with programs that 
     fundamentally involve haphazard and ineffective spending on 
     schools and that offer little hope for gains in achievement. 
     The current set of class size proposals falls into this 
     category. President Clinton should leave class size policy to 
     schools and districts, and remain faithful to his greatest 
     achievement in education policy: redefining the goal of 
     school reform as results, not merely spending.


                                endnotes

     \1\ Pupil-teacher ratios differ from class size for a variety 
     of reasons including the provision of specialized instruction 
     (as with special education), the use of teachers in 
     supervisory and administrative roles,

[[Page S12482]]

     and the contractual classroom obligations of teachers. 
     Nonetheless, even though we have little longitudinal data for 
     class sizes, average class size will tend to move with pupil-
     teacher ratios.
     \2\ A more detailed discussion of the evidence along with 
     citations for the relevant work can be found in Eric A. 
     Hanushek, The Evidence on Class Size, Occasional Paper No. 
     98-1, W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy, 
     University of Rochester, February 1998. The complete text is 
     also available at http://petty.econ.rochester.edu.
 \3\ Edward Wexler, et al. California's Class-size reduction: 
     Implications for Equity, Practice & Implementation. WestEd 
     and PACE, March 1998.
     \4\ See Dale Ballou and Stephanie Soler: Addressing the 
     Looming Teacher Crunch: The Issue is Quality. Washington, DC: 
     Progressive Policy Institute, February 1998.
     \5\ A full discussion of the issues of incentives and of 
     experimentation is found in Eric A. Hanushek with others. 
     Making Schools Work: Improving Performance and Controlling 
     Costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1994.
     \6\ Ibid.

                 [From the News Journal, Sept. 4, 1998]

                               Exhibit 2

    Micromanagement by Legislators is Mockery of Real School Reform

       Reducing the size of classes is popular with parents and, 
     in some cases, teachers. It offers politicians a way to make 
     headlines that please constituents.
       But most respected academic research suggests that reducing 
     classes by one or two students has virtually no impact on the 
     quality of instruction.
       Nonetheless, this year the General Assembly mandated that 
     Delaware's public school classrooms be limited to 22 
     students. The idea was pushed by Rep. Timothy Boulden, R-
     Newark, who no doubt thought he was doing the right thing. He 
     wasn't. He was pandering to parents who don't understand the 
     issue any more than he does. Research suggests that a home 
     environment that encourages learning is the most important 
     factor in success in school. But the government can't do much 
     about that.
       Next comes teachers. It's no surprise that a highly 
     qualified teacher has enormous impact on students. And that's 
     a factor state government can do something about. But 
     legislators and other reformers have refused to deal with it 
     in any meaningful way this year.
       There is discussion about increasing qualifications for 
     teacher certificates, regular recertification thereafter and 
     continuing professional development.
       Teachers' salaries also must be part of improving this 
     standard. Delaware pays its teachers too little. We're losing 
     some of the best and brightest to neighboring states. This, 
     too, is something the General Assembly can do something 
     about--but doesn't.
       Instead, it micromanages school systems with bills like 
     Rep. Boulden's class-size measure. It's quick, easy, 
     relatively inexpensive and popular. But smaller classes 
     aren't significant unless the numbers go down to 15 or fewer 
     students. That would cost hundreds of millions of dollars 
     (The current 22-student mandate cost $6.5 million.)
       Most school districts are having difficulty meeting that 
     mandate as it is, in part because it came well after they had 
     planned the 1998-1999 school year. Many more classrooms are 
     required in some districts, and others have had to shift art, 
     music and physical education. Others might have to dismiss 
     librarians and counselors.
       It's ridiculous. The General Assembly does the most harm 
     when it micromanages state agencies. It should set broad 
     goals and high standards, and then give the professionals the 
     tools they need to achieve them.

  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak up to 12 
minutes, to be followed by Senator DeWine for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized to speak for up 
to 12 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________