[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2177-S2201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility
partnerships.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an
amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu
thereof ``Part B.''
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for
the purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 31
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an
amendment numbered 31.
[[Page S2178]]
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would
call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts
in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third
of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was
reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan
support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law.
A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of
this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the
regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area
of education.''
Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the
administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage.
The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed
it with only one dissenting vote.
The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of
Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass
Ed-Flex this year.
Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program
in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex
program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this
legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but
it was seen as modestly helpful.
It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will
revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our
limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education
delivery system.
The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley,
has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing
potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of
comprehensive school reform'' initiatives.
I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed-
Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former
Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply
committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his
home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education.
Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some
authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the
ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be
granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements.
It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal
regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety,
civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services,
equitable participation of students and professional staff in private
schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of
funds to State or local education agencies. They have no authority to
waive any of those.
The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed Flex states, three
designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5
million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations
less than 3.5 million.
These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection
process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of
Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in
Ed Flex submitted an application.
In the application, each interested state was required to describe
how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate
waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure
accountability.
The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and
my home state of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May
1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico.
Vermont has used its Ed Flex authority to improve Title One services,
particularly improving services for those students in smaller rural
areas. In addition, my home state has also used Ed Flex authority to
provide greater access to professional development, which is a very
critical area and perhaps has the greatest impact on enhancing student
performance.
The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed Flex
states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.''
In last November's GAO report on Ed Flex, several state officials
from the established Ed Flex states, said that ``Ed Flex promotes a
climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new
approaches . . .''
The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator
Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the
accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed Flex law.
S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed Flex
authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content
standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned
assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made
substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing
its Title 1 state standards.
This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student
performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must
describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding
progress toward increased school and student performance.
As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the
sole solution to improving school and student performance.
However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the
ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real
accountability.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous
amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment.
I take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist and Ron Wyden and
their staff for their hard work on this legislation.
They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their
efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex
legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for
their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan
efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous
step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools.
I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and
yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I
heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole
gauge for our commitment to better education in this country.
I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did
nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State
departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local
school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie
their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure
that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are
going to be in the best interests of the students in this country.
I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S.
Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about
welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by
which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare
regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy
between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many
differences--there are also a number of similarities.
The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was
the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed
mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led
us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare
reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands
of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives
of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity.
It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the
States the
[[Page S2179]]
flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in
welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals.
I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all,
it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing
the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are
accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an
important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go
to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal
education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend
the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point.
I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of
bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have
been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal
education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend
approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local
schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our
educational programs.
When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his
Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first
things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education
programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman
Hoekstra's committee.
Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you
estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A
rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of
Education.]
Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around
200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is
misleading is to talk about 760--
Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are?
Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it.
Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone
or is this including all other agencies?
Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200.
Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of
Education?
Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education.
Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies
and those kinds of things.
Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get
into the 760.
It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go
through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education
programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that
had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they
didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting
is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden
on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of
education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous
bureaucratic waste.
Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to
quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham
Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the
Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd
Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years,
representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step
outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education
reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in
New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went
back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is
what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in
the U.S. House as a Democrat:
While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended
on behalf of these children--
that is, children at risk--
these funds have not made much difference. Study after study
has shown that this important Federal program has failed to
narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest
girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education
reform will transform the future prospects of America's
minority and low-income children, but this cannot come
primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do
is get out of the way of States and communities that are
serious about pursuing real education reform of their own
devising.
I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the
head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk
about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can
question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said
the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe
we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex.
Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom
flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom
and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about
accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new
flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability.
Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we
don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school
superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't
trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make
those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits
all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of
America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from
Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha
County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in
our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country
are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly
diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think,
is foolish, indeed.
In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of
education in this country, we have seen, by every objective
measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those
who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo
that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington
knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings
us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today
is the crisis that exists in American education.
I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many
of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports
that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we
face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are
saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status
quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we
have been doing has clearly failed.
So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new
approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming
from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to
enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve.
The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the
NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even
attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of
8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders
in science.
I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower
grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality
was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best
measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The
TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in
grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those
students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom,
internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and
grade 12.
I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction
of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well
named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in
education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is
an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency.
As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us
from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at
the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting
are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students.
Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it
[[Page S2180]]
is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined
goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of
the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates
that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are
responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing
Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs,
which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education.
Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total
staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational
department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal
programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona
schools.
Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens
not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by
directors of education across this country.
This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction.
President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem
with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing,
and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that
is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class
size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there
is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size.
That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it
reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education
problems with Washington solutions.
In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our
colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had
to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages
during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent
of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of
Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government
accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred
and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in
length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent
of the educational spending in Ohio.
Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed-
Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states:
Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to
underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and
universities across the country.
According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston
University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the
paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were
slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the
Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the
equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a
9-pound application.
I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually
compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects
the experience of the education establishment all across this country.
I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I,
once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator
Wyden and Chairman Jeffords.
My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I
suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School
in Rogers, AR.
I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school
in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to
this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms.
Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the
fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth
grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or
college.
But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students
is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back
at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our
lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom.
Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those
disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in
junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third
grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced
that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with
their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of
education catches on in a classroom.
I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater
control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to
local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the
classroom.
I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students,
creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the
value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for
the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want
her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for
bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington.
Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the
last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once
again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed-
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on
Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is,
the importance of the bill, and where we are going.
Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature
of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the
problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which
will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of
schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next
several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding
bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of
thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months.
That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill.
It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's
Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans.
I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job
setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that
stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and
unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork
and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes
passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in
fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and
that is teach students and educate our children.
I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and
presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science
Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about
that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an
objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally,
is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common
interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to
present a better future to our children by preparing them.
Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science
Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after
digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this
chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of
information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems
we have today.
This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I
won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for
mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is
reading, science or math that is being evaluated.
[[Page S2181]]
Let's look at science.
In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas
said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at
grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are
different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative
standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus
other countries.
Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a
scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at
the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of
average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third
one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in
grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States.
So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative
to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from
Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we
fall way down.
You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates
the average for all countries.
So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other
countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other
countries.
Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we
compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the
eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the
average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By
the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands
is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand,
Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark
is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The
Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of
science.
As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and
science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really
the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a
bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and
recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium
with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the
United States is below the average of all these other countries, and
the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United
States of America.
Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to
participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator
Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion
through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task
Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that
particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago
when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on
Education.
The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a
huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do.
The Federal Government needs to take the leadership role to untie the
hands of our States, our schools, and our school districts so that they
can carry out the sort of objectives that we all generally agree to,
the sort of goals that we set in this body.
Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project
that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief
history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project
with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12
States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going
to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too
long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to
all 50 States.
Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who
may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts
is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results
there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex
waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present
some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow
on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available.
But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same
opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us
have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let
us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the
Washington redtape.
Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local
situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is
different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is
different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity.
And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have
good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and
then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good
intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which
seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields
here in Government.
Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is
waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States
participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver
program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to
obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but
free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal
regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex.
Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we
have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the
debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give
some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex
gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems
that vary from school to school, school district to school district,
and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to
specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and
innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends
that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just
do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing
programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the
things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried
it in the past and it hasn't worked.
Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student
performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say,
yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look
at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I
will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by
year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and
10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed
creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left
behind.
So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the
power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room
here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with
hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those
Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need
some flexibility.
We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and
accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex
program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25
pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they
received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their
particular needs.
In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten,
because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had
a specific need.
They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old
children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so
they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading
strategies for all students.
Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,''
people have to think, and they should
[[Page S2182]]
think, ``accountability,'' We are saying, accomplish certain goals, but
do it in a way that meets your specific needs with programs that you
believe will work at the local community level. It is critical that we
build in strong, accountability measures.
If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial
request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed-
Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the
``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12
current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and
judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to
hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you
give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no
evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and
reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system
has worked well.
Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will
give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which
I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability
provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the
program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to
remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are
two important principles behind this bipartisan bill.
Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we
have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my
colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We
have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in
the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law
there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current
law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan
to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has
less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the
GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious
and careful use of this waiver authority.
Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read
from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have
accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the
top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which
is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability
measures built in at the base, at the local level.
At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the
waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The
applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the
purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the
purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver
will be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals
written out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable
for all of that. There are additional accountability measures in the
bill, but I have summarized accountability at the local level.
At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures
because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and
``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those
content standards and performance standards, States are required to
monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which
have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of
students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those
low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the
State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical
assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the
State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate
power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate
the waiver.
At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the
pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think,
to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is
required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have
the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at
any time.
I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that
is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the
specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe
for success as we work towards educating our children and improving
those scores that have been referred to already this morning.
I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move
on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have
experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the
sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this
through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up
front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a
demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of
Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States,
it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which
I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have
said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that
child who is in the school system in his or her State.
The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to
lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just
last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or
title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified
States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole
lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who
understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put
education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first
sentence:
The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible
for creating an education system that enables all students to
achieve high standards and believe that the federal
government should support state efforts by providing
regulatory relief and greater flexibility.
Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look
back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is
Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real
power of this bill. They say:
Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student
performance, by more closely aligning state and federal
education improvement programs and by supporting state
efforts to design and implement standards-based reform.
And then just their last sentence:
Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased
incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful
standards and assessments with greater accountability.
As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year.
It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and
Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of
these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very,
very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of
thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really
should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider
this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is
unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children
today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily,
given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this
particular bill.
In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we
lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools
and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that
they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted
them to do.
Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all
of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at
moving toward that common goal that we all share.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts
is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are
looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an
opportunity to address the fundamental issue which
[[Page S2183]]
is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working
families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal
Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments
as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools--
whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and
have the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the
Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The
principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States
have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited
interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every
dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal
Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support
of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of
every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government.
So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What
we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We
are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able
to have greater flexibility at the local level.
The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level?
It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal
level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged
children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some
responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local
responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we
have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I
programs.
Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can
most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and
accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out
in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the
Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question
now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing
to do it.
During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a
number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing
now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a
few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the
afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation.
I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I
have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last
year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with
Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have
followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some
of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that.
But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate,
are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the
early grades.
We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator
from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a
commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we
were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some
6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school
districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be
a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide
that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school
districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what
the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue.
The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in
excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is
very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue.
Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have
seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the
recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to
9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find
themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves
involved in behavior which is inappropriate.
What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed--
where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being
tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in
literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically
and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time
with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than
parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and
do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator
Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the
commitment in those areas.
There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin
has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator
Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are
programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually
accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues
involving technology and other matters that will eventually be
addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we
also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to
American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues.
We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments
on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many
on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance
through today and through the remainder of the week and through the
early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome
this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our
policies are going to be.
Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates
quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every
dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to
that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal
dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we
are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue
here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest
children in this country.
And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed
the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty
areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we
have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see
what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the
resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among
the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of
resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in
addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal
programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going
to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement
if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most
recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making
noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the
almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area
of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically
an indication to show the targeting of Title I.
Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of
flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have
done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the
Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education
bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have
Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of
approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any
community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals
2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of
Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country.
So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that
have been
[[Page S2184]]
made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31
percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of
Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and
only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that
any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules
and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of
California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been
approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves.
On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver
of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance
that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically
saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the
regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy
children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have
student achievement? That is what we are asking.
And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden,
that we could add those words in three different places in the
legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at
least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of
others have as well.
We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure
has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide
changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much
appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good
start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If
not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion.
But this is where we are, Mr. President.
What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going
to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the
States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are
going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4,
5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are
interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon.
Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few
other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every
child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public
school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward
improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand
with strong accountability.
Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned,
the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork
and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's
regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an
option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of
separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach.
Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and
paperwork is not their top issue.
According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted
earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork,
are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased
flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to
school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major
financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting
Office.
It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there
would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who
were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States
themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That
has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they
have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you
granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there
are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that
are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of
beneficial result many of us would like.
I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about
reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the
regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we
have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of
the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and
rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period
of time.
In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal
bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the
flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own
regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order
to match this.
It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the
scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get
through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the
whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of
classrooms and afterschool programs.
But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases,
as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy,
that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility
that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability,
expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on
local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility.
One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be
able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which
impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That
step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school
districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not
have that capacity or willingness to do so.
Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping
hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their
communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to
improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure
that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong
accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children
are getting the education they deserve.
I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes
some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough.
Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are
used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more
flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school
reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation
is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility.
Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and
communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process.
Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must
provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the
community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make
those comments available for public review. These public comments
should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we
are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an
opportunity to address that.
I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do
that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are
going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But
the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are
not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will
have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report.
And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are
going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the
final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You
show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and
you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right
direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is
distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in
decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the
educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to
be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input.
And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary.
[[Page S2185]]
Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide
parents, educators, and other members of the community with the
opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments
available for public review. These public comments should be submitted
with State or local waiver applications.
That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public
comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications.
That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get
the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those
are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President.
We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest
students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of
achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need
to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the
poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change.
Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to achieve
the same high standards as all children. School districts must provide
realistic assistance to improve low-performing schools. Flexibility
makes sense, but not if it means losing these essential tools for
parents and communities to achieve reform and improve their schools.
There were four very important changes in the 1994 authorization:
first was a significant reduction in paperwork; second, the targeting
of the highest incidence of poverty; third, the heavy involvement of
parents in terms of the participation; and fourth, and perhaps most
importantly, high standards.
We move away from dumbing down. We establish high standards for poor
children as well as children that were coming from other communities.
Those factors have had an important positive impact. We are finally
getting there.
We must ensure that increased flexibility leads to improved student
achievement. Accountability in this context means that States must
evaluate how waivers actually improve student achievement--open-ended
waivers make no sense. Results are what counts. Student achievement is
what counts.
The Secretary of Education should be able to terminate a State's
waiver authority if the student achievement is not improving after 5
years. States must be able to terminate any waivers granted to a school
district or participating schools if student achievement is not
improving. If waivers do not lead to satisfactory progress, it makes no
sense to continue.
What I have been mentioning here is being practiced in one of the Ed-
Flex States, and is showing remarkable improvement in terms of
education. That state is Texas, where they have real student
achievement, real accountability, parental involvement, and specific
student achievement goals. That is true accountability.
If you review the different State annual reports, there is a dramatic
contrast between what has been implemented by the State of Texas in
using the greater flexibility to enhance student achievement and what
has happened in many of the other States. True accountability is what
we want to achieve if we are going to have the Federal funds.
Each of these requirements is sensible. No one wants a heavy-handed
Federal regulation of State and local education. That is not the issue.
The real issue is accountability. These important requirements are well
designed to achieve it. We should do nothing to undermine these
principles, especially when we have new evidence that they work,
particularly for the neediest students.
``The National Assessment of Title I,'' released earlier this week,
shows that student achievement is increasing and that the Federal
Government is an effective partner in that success. The glass on the
table is half full, not half empty as critics of public schools would
have you believe. This is good news for schools, good news for parents,
good news for students, and it should be convincing evidence to
Congress that many of the reforms we put in place in recent years are
working.
Since the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, a nonpartisan
Independent Review Panel, made up of 22 experts from across the
country, has overseen the program. Title I is the largest Federal
investment in improving elementary and secondary schools. Title I helps
to improve education for 11 million children in 45,000 schools with
high concentrations of poverty. It helps schools provide professional
development for teachers, improve curriculums, and extend learning time
so students meet high State standards of achievement.
Under the 1994 amendments to Title I, States were no longer allowed
to set lower standards for children in the poorest communities than
they set for students in more affluent communities. The results are
clear: even the hardest-to-reach students will do well when
expectations are set high and they are given the support they need.
Student achievement in reading and math has increased, particularly
in the achievement of the poorest students. Since 1992, reading
achievement for 9-year-olds in the highest poverty schools has
increased nationwide by a whole grade level. Between 1990 and 1996,
math scores of the poorest students rose by a grade level.
Students are meeting high State standards, too. Students in the
highest poverty elementary schools improved in five of six States
reporting 3-year data in reading, and in four out of five States in
math. Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made
progress in both subjects.
Many urban school districts report that achievement also improved in
their highest poverty schools. In 10 out of the 13 large urban
districts that report 3-year trend data, there were increases in the
number of elementary students in the highest poverty schools who met
the district or State standards of proficiency in writing or math. Six
districts, including Houston, Dade County, New York, Philadelphia, San
Antonio, and San Francisco made progress in both subjects.
Federal funds are increasingly targeted to the poorest schools. The
1994 amendments to Title I shifted funds, as I mentioned, away from
low-poverty schools into high-poverty schools. Today, 95 percent of the
high-poverty schools receive Title I funding, up from 80 percent in
1993.
The percent of schools with parent compacts--agreements between
teachers and parents about how they will work together to help the
children do better--rose from 20 percent in 1994 to 75 percent in 1998.
A substantial majority of the schools find their compacts are important
in promoting parents' involvement, especially in higher poverty
schools. Parent involvement is a key element in terms of academic
achievement, and that is why we believe their voice regarding waiving
the requirements should be heard and at least considered.
Title I funds help improve teaching and learning in the classroom.
Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to the local level; 93 percent
of those Federal dollars are spent directly on instruction, compared to
only 62 percent of all State and local education dollars that are spent
on instruction.
We are going to hear a lot as we debate education about where the
Federal money that is appropriated goes, in terms of Federal
bureaucracy and administration, State bureaucracy and how much of the
money goes to the local level. This is the most recent report that has
been done by independents. It shows that local school districts get
95.5; State administration is 4 percent, Federal administration is one-
half of 1 percent. State administration of their own programs are
considerably higher, as the chart indicates.
All of these steps are working together to improve student
achievement. The best illustrations of these successes are in local
schools. In Baltimore County, MD, all but one of the 19 Title I schools
increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The success has
come from Title I support for extended year programs, implementation of
effective programs in reading, and intensive professional development
for teachers.
At Roosevelt High School in Dallas, 80 percent of the students are
poor. Title I funds were used to increase parent involvement, train
teachers to work with parents, and make other changes to bring high
standards to every classroom. Reading scores have nearly doubled, from
the 40th percentile in 1992 to the 77th percentile in 1996.
[[Page S2186]]
During the same period, math scores soared from the 16th percentile to
the 73rd percentile, and writing scores rose from the 58th to the 84th
percentile. That is remarkable.
What happened in this area? We got the parents involved and we
enhanced the training of teachers to work more effectively with the
parents to bring the high standards into every classroom.
The Baldwin Elementary School in Boston, where 80 percent of the
students are poor, performance on the Stanford 9 test rose
substantially from 1996 to 1998 because of the increases in teacher
professional development and implementation of a reform to raise
standards and achievement for all children.
In 1996, 66 percent of third grade students scored in the lowest
levels in math. By 1998, 100 percent scored in the highest level. In
1997, 75 percent of fourth graders scored in the lowest levels in
reading. By 1998, no fourth graders were at the lowest level, and 56
percent were at the highest level.
We have seen that the National Assessment of Title I shows that high
standards and parental involvement get better results for children,
particularly the neediest children. That is what we would like to see
come through this legislation--where you get the flexibility, but you
are also going to be able to demonstrate enhanced student achievement
and parental involvement. Those are the two key requirements.
The improvements so far are gratifying, but there is no cause for
complacency. Clearly, more needs to be done. We must build on these
successes to ensure that all children have the best possible education.
Increasing flexibility without accountability will stop progress in its
tracks. But just increasing flexibility with accountability won't do
the job either.
We must provide more support for programs like Title I to make these
opportunities available to all children. We must do a better job of
supporting the States and local communities in their efforts to hire
and train teachers. The National Assessment of Title I found that too
many students in too many Title I schools--particularly those with high
concentrations of low-income children--are being taught by unqualified
teachers.
The teacher shortage forced many school districts to hire uncertified
teachers, and asked certified teachers to teach outside their areas of
expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the
classroom. One in four new teachers does not fully meet State
certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no
teacher training at all. Students in inner city schools have only a 50
percent chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher.
In Massachusetts, 30 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools do not
even have a minor degree in their field.
In addition, many schools are seriously understaffed. During the next
decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirement mean
that the Nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. Between 1995
and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students,
causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher
retirements.
We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire
100,000 new teachers, as part of our national pledge to reduce class
size. Research has documented what parents and teachers have already
known--that smaller classes enhance student achievement.
It is equally important to help communities recruit promising teacher
candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will then
help them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the
ongoing training they need to help keep up with modern technology and
new research.
Another major need is in the area of afterschool activities.
According to the National Assessment on Title I, opportunities for
children to participate afterschool and summer school programs have
grown from 10 percent of Title I schools to 41 percent in 1998. That
has made an important contribution to the enhancement of these
children's achievement. But more needs to be done. We must increase
support for afterschool programs.
In addition, children who have fallen behind in their school work
need opportunities to catch up, to meet legitimate requirements for
graduation, to master basic skills, and to meet high standards of
achievement. A high school diploma should mean something--it must be
more than a certificate of attendance. It should be a certificate of
achievement. High-quality afterschool and summer school academic
improvement activities should be available to every child in every
community in America.
Finally, we must do more to see that every child in every community
is learning in safe and modern facilities. Across the country, 14
million children in one-third of the Nation's schools are learning in
substandard buildings. Half of the schools have at least one
unsatisfactory environmental condition. It will take an estimated $100
billion to repair the existing facilities.
Too many children are struggling to learn in overcrowded schools.
This year, K through 12 enrollment reached an all-time high and will
continue to grow over the next 7 years. Communities will need to build
new public schools.
The agenda is broad, but the need is great. We are on the right
track. There is no need to make a u-turn on education. We are making
progress. We need to build on these successes and do what we can to
meet the pressing needs of schools across the Nation, so that we can
meet the high standards of achievement. When it comes to education, the
Nation's children deserve the best that we can give them.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for 30 seconds?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DODD. I want to commend the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts who, for years, along with our colleague from Vermont,
has been such a leader in these issues. I particularly thank him for
raising the issue of the after-school program. Several of us have been
talking about this. As my colleague from Massachusetts knows, I offered
an amendment last year when we considered the Ed-Flex bill in committee
to increase federal support for after-school programs. My colleague
from California is interested in the subject, as well. We would like to
bring this issue up. It is a very important one which we will talk
about later. I thank him for including that in his remarks as he gave
an overview of where we are on education issues.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. We are all mindful
that our good friend and colleague is a leader in this body in many
areas, but when it comes to children's interests, he is truly our
leader. And on the issue of afterschool programs, Senator Boxer has
been in the forefront of that effort. We look forward to having a good
debate on that issue as we move ahead as well. I thank the Senator very
much for his involvement. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to
consider that in the next day or so. That is certainly our hope because
it is a matter of enormous importance.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. First, Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Massachusetts. We have been working with him on the questions of
accountability. I am hopeful that we will reach agreement on an
amendment, which he may propose, so that we will not have issues in
that regard. I point out that the substitute amendment which I offered
today includes many improvements with respect to accountability over
the bill that we passed last year out of committee 17-1.
I will run through, very briefly, the areas where we have already
improved the accountability and are still attempting to reach agreement
with the minority.
First, the substitute amendment I offered strengthens the
accountability features already included in S. 280. It adds State
application requirements relating to the coordination of the Education
Flexibility plan with the State comprehensive reform plan, or with the
challenging standards and assessment provisions of title I of the ESEA.
This Managers Package adds emphasis that student performance is an
objective of Ed-Flex. It adds provisions regarding annual performance
reviews, by the State, of local educational agencies and schools which
have received
[[Page S2187]]
waivers, and reemphasizes the authority of the State to determine
waivers if LEAs or schools are not meeting their goals. It also adds
provisions of public notice and comment, and provisions requiring
additional reporting by the secretary regarding his rationale for
approving waiver authority and the use of that authority. We will
continue to work and, hopefully, we can reach agreement so that we will
not lengthen the time necessary for passing this important legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts has given, in my view, a very important address to the
U.S. Senate. I want to take a few minutes and try to respond to a
number of points. The Senator has made a number of points that I
certainly agree with as a Democratic sponsor of this legislation, along
with the Republican sponsor, Senator Frist. But there are a number of
areas where I think the record indicates that we ought to take another
look.
For example, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said
that, in some way, the States are being free riders here, that they are
asking the Federal Government to waive various regulations, but the
States are somehow not willing to do that. As our colleagues will see
on page 6, line 7, it is specifically required that the States are
willing to do some heavy lifting and also be part of this effort to
show that they are going to try to ratchet out of their systems some of
the foolish bureaucracy. This ought to be a two-way street and I think
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right in
insisting on that. What is thus required today, the legislation spells
out on page 6, line 7, that the States are not going to be able to be
free riders. They are going to have to waive some of these mindless
regulations as well. I think that is an important point for the U.S.
Senate to consider as we go forward.
Now, another area that has been raised is this question of smaller
class size. I think the Senator from Massachusetts again is absolutely
right in saying that we do need additional funds to reduce class size
in America. I have, on several occasions, voted for just those kinds of
measures to provide additional funds to reduce class size. But I think
it is important to note that Ed-Flex, now in 12 States, is helping us
to reduce class size using existing law. The Senator from Massachusetts
is correct; we do need additional funds to reduce class size, but let
us not pass up the opportunity to use existing law, existing Ed-Flex
opportunities to reduce class size. For our colleagues who would like
to have a good example of how Ed-Flex helps to reduce class size, we
can turn to the Phelps Luck elementary school in Howard County, MD.
There they put a special priority on reducing class size with their Ed-
Flex waiver. They were able to lower the student-teacher ratio from 25-
to-1 to 12-to-1.
As we go forward with efforts to try to get additional funding that
we need to reduce class size in America, which we know is so critical
in improving student performance, let us not pass up the opportunities
to use the Ed-Flex program to make it possible with existing dollars to
reduce class size in America.
Third, Mr. President and colleagues, there have been questions raised
about whether the dollars are going to get to the neediest children,
and particularly with respect to title I, which is one of the seven
programs that are eligible for Ed-Flex but certainly is an especially
important program to all of us.
What we have done--and we have outlined it here--is we have kept in
place every single one of the core requirements with respect to title I
protecting our neediest kids. It is off the table, folks, in terms of
waiving any of those core requirements. You can't do it; it is off the
table. And although it is hard for Members of the U.S. Senate to see
these charts, we specifically outline the requirements that cannot be
waived.
In addition, with respect to title I--I think there is some confusion
perhaps at this point with respect to how the Ed-Flex funds can be
used--under current law, you can only put those dollars into low-income
school districts. That is the only place they can go. We keep that
requirement. So today, and under this Ed-Flex legislation that is
before the U.S. Senate, it is not possible to flex any dollars away
from a program to help low-income youngsters and send them packing to
another district that will not need them as much.
I would like to spend a little bit more time on this question of
accountability, because this is an area where the sponsors of the
legislation have been very open to trying to address the concerns of
those who have begun to look at this program and may not have been
familiar with it in the past.
But I want to say that we have made six changes in the legislation
since it came out of the Senate Labor Committee last year by a 17 to 1
margin. In addition to the public notice and opportunities for citizen
comments that the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator
Jeffords, touched on, there are requirements for specific measurable
goals, which include student performance, which Senator Kennedy is
right to focus on. There are reports that would be required for the
Congress every 2 years on how the Ed-Flex States are doing.
And then I am especially pleased that we have required now that a
State review a State content and performance standard twice: First when
it is decided that the State is eligible to participate, and again when
deciding whether or not to grant approval for the waiver. This makes it
clear that a State must be in compliance with title I. If it is not in
compliance with title I, it isn't going to get a waiver. If at any
point it has been given a waiver and it is not in compliance with title
I, the Secretary has the authority to come forward and revoke it.
So the accountability provisions have been especially important to
the sponsors of this legislation. And this idea that somehow Ed-Flex
has relaxed the standard is simply not true on the basis of the clear
language of the bill. These requirements are kept in place. We have
added six requirements for accountability since the legislation came
out of committee.
I would like to wrap up by giving the U.S. Senate an example of how I
got into this issue, because I think it is important to get beyond some
of the rhetorical arguments about this legislation and talk about real
people, real people who benefit, especially the low-income kids of our
country.
We have a high school about an hour from my hometown in Portland.
They wanted poor kids to get help with advanced computing. The problem
was that the school didn't have the instructors who could teach
advanced computing and they didn't have the equipment. So under current
law, those youngsters, low-income youngsters, wouldn't have had the
opportunity to pick up those skills to put them on the path to high-
skill, high-wage jobs.
But in this rural district an hour from my home town is a community
college just a short distance away that would make it possible, with
instructors and equipment, for those poor kids to get help with
advanced computing. So instead of students who couldn't get what they
needed without additional funds, without additional redtape and
bureaucracy, what this town did in rural Oregon was simply say we are
going to use the dollars that we aren't equipped for at the local high
school to make sure that the kids get advanced computing at a community
college just a short distance away.
That is what Ed-Flex is all about--taking this regulatory
straitjacket off some of the thousands and thousands of school
districts across the country. They can't use the money for pork barrel
projects. They can't use it to waive standards. They have to comply
with accountability. But they can teach advanced computing to poor
kids. That is why it is going to make a difference when we extend this
to 50 States.
I am looking forward to working with our friend and distinguished
colleague, Senator Kennedy, who knows so much about this issue, on his
amendment with respect to the achievement standards. My understanding
is we are getting fairly close on that. I want to make sure, in
particular, that we can incorporate what the schools call the student
performance standards, so it includes some of the things like dropout
rates and issues like that in addition to the tougher test scores. But
I think Senator Jeffords spoke for all of us a minute or so
[[Page S2188]]
ago where I think we are getting close, and I want Senator Kennedy to
know that we are going to go forward in good faith and try to work that
amendment out.
Finally, the last point I want to make deals with the parental
involvement issue. We keep in place all requirements for parental
involvement--all of it. But it seems to me, Mr. President, and
colleagues, that if we are talking about the best way to get folks
involved in a convenient, accessible kind of way, it is to have these
Ed-Flex programs that empower local communities to set up opportunities
for folks to participate.
I know that people in rural areas who are 3,000 miles away from
Washington, DC, find it a lot harder to come to one of the useful
hearings and forums that are held by the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts. I can get to them. I find them very, very useful. But I
can tell you that folks in rural Oregon would much rather be empowered
to participate at the local level than to try to say we are going to in
some way skew more of the parental involvement back to Washington, DC.
At the end of the day, what Ed-Flex is all about is a third path with
respect to Federal-State relations. We now have two camps on this
issue. There is one camp that says only the Federal Government has the
answer, that those folks at the local level can't chew gum and walk at
the same time, do not trust them, and run these programs at the Federal
level. Then there are a group of people 180 degrees the other way. They
say that everything the Federal Government touches turns into toxic
waste, just give us all the money at the local level, and we can't
possibly do any worse with those dollars than the Federal Government
does.
What Ed-Flex is all about--and in Oregon, particularly with Senator
Hatfield's leadership, we have done it in health, in welfare, with the
environment--what we have said is that Ed-Flex is a third path. And we
have told the Federal Government, in areas where we have received
waivers, that we will meet all the requirements of the Federal laws,
all of them, and the Federal Government can hold us accountable; but in
return for that commitment to comply with all of the Federal laws, give
us in Oregon the chance to tailor the approaches that we are using to
meet the individual needs of our community.
I feel very strongly that poor kids need the funds that are available
under title I. I will fight as hard as any Member of the Senate to make
sure that there is no compromise there. But I do think that in coming
up with approaches to best meet the needs of kids at the local level
with respect to title I, what works in rural Oregon is going to be
different than what works in the Bronx, and the opportunity to get away
from that one-size-fits-all approach while holding communities
accountable is what Ed-Flex is all about.
So I think this is an important debate. I said earlier most Americans
have no idea what Ed-Flex is all about. I bet a lot of people at this
point think Ed-Flex is a guy who is teaching aerobics at the local
health club. We are going to have to spend some time talking about this
issue to show why it is actually beneficial in the real world in terms
of serving poor kids and meeting the needs of the communities. I think
we can do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. It is, indeed, invigorating and
encouraging to be in the Chamber today to talk about education, talking
about an innovative proposal to try to reform education and also being
able to have a principled debate about increasing the accountability
that should be inherent in this proposal because the issue of
flexibility alone without accountability could lead simply to sending
funds to States without proper controls. And so I believe we will have
to emphasize in this debate and ultimately in this legislation
accountability as well as flexibility.
I have been working on these issues since my time in the other body
on the Education and Labor Committee and here on the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, and I have always tried to stress the notion of
accountability because, sadly, there are too many children in this
country today who are not receiving quality education, particularly in
rural areas and in central cities. And if we simply transfer funds
without some meaningful accountability, I think we will continue to
promulgate that disadvantage and continue to do disservice to those
children.
I would prefer, frankly, to look at all these issues in the context
of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
because however innovative this approach is today with Ed-Flex, it is
in my view a nod toward reform, a genuflection toward reform, but it is
not the comprehensive reform, frankly, that we should be encouraging
because that comprehensive reform requires improvement in teacher
quality, the repair and modernization of schools, reduction in class
size, strengthening parental involvement, equipping our libraries with
the modern technology and the modern media, which is so necessary. And
those are the hallmarks of real reform, and those we will encounter in
a comprehensive and systematic way in the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Act. But if we are to deal with and move
forward on the issue of flexibility, we have to do it right, and we
have to do it with respect to accountability.
I want to emphasize one other point in terms of this comprehensive
approach to education reform. I hope that in this year's
reauthorization we would take special strides to try to develop ways to
involve parents in the process. This might be one of the most difficult
issues we face, one of the most challenging issues we face, but,
ultimately, if we get it right, could be the lever that moves
significant reform and in a way which we all can afford, because I
don't think there is any person in this body who would say that we can
do less than improve the involvement of parents in the education of
their children.
The Ed-Flex bill provides flexibility to States. But, as I have
stressed before, flexibility must be a carrot for and matched up with
accountability.
One aspect of this--and the debate is ongoing now in discussions--and
I again commend the sponsors for their willingness to talk and to
discuss and negotiate these amendments, these proposed amendments--I
think we have to be very clear what we are trying to use the
flexibility to achieve.
In my view, we are trying to improve student performance. Our focal
point should be improved student performance, and this legislation
should reflect that overriding focal point. It is one thing to provide
relief from forms of regulation to make the life of a principal a
little easier, the life of school committee people a little easier, and
maybe free up a few extra dollars along the way, but if that does not
result in improved student achievement, then we have missed the boat,
we have missed the point. That should be our overarching goal, and I
believe the amendment Senator Kennedy and I are proposing is a key to
that, and I hope we are making progress to come to a principled
reconciliation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to say how much I agree with the Senator from
Rhode Island. Student achievement is measured by the individual State's
program. I think it is important that we underline that student
achievement is measured by what is happening in the States, not by some
Federal standard. That is all we are asking. The State establishes its
criteria, and all we are saying is if you are going to get the
additional flexibility and you are going to get the resources, that at
some place someone ought to know whether the students are achieving and
making progress.
Mr. REED. I think that is precisely correct. We are not talking about
a national standard, a national level of achievement. We are talking
about letting the States propose their levels of achievement and then
measuring how well this flexibility leads to the accomplishment of
their goals.
Mr. KENNEDY. This is really all we are saying. We are taking Federal
resources--resources that will go into the States and to the local
communities--and communities are going to use these resources in ways
that are going to be consistent with the overall purpose, which is
targeting the needy children, and, over 5 years at least, there will be
[[Page S2189]]
some progress in student achievement according to what the State has
established.
Would the Senator agree with me that an example which incorporates
what we are intending to do is in the State of Texas, which has set
numerical criteria that are closely tied to both schools and districts,
and the specific students affected by the waiver? Texas expects all
districts that receive waivers under Title I to make annual gains on
test scores so that in 5 years 90 percent of all the students will pass
State assessment tests in reading and mathematics. Texas districts must
make annual gains so at the end of the same 5 years, 90 percent of
African American students, 90 percent of Hispanic students, 90 percent
of white students, 90 percent of economically disadvantaged students
will pass these tests. Now, there is something specific. The State
establishes the criteria. They say we want the flexibility to be able
to do it, and we say fine. What we have found out is that they have
made great academic achievement and progress for those students.
We have another State of the 12 that says on their waiver, ``We want
a commitment to the identification and implementation of programs that
will create an environment in which all students achieve academic
potential.'' They got the waiver, they got the resources, and it will
be a bold Secretary of Education that is going to terminate or take
that away.
What we are trying to say is, as Texas has done right from the very
beginning, it has got to be very specific. The State establishes their
criteria and they have proposed measurable ways of evaluating whether
those students are going to achieve. And they have met all their goals
so far. Why do we have to spend so much time in this Chamber saying
that makes a good deal of sense? We know it is something that is
working. Why don't we try to accept it? That is all we are looking
for--for the words ``student achievement'' to be included in the
criteria.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his excellent comments.
I believe Texas is a great example of what we can do if we give
flexibility and demand accountability. As the Senator from
Massachusetts emphasized, this accountability is with respect to their
own standards, but it is measurable, it is objective, and it has
resulted in great success in the State of Texas. In fact, I suggest
most of the proponents of this legislation point to Texas as the
example of what Ed-Flex can be and should be. As the Senator from
Massachusetts pointed out, part and parcel of that is not just the
flexibility, it is rigorous accountability. I hope we can incorporate
that notion in this legislation.
I think it is also important to recognize, too, that as we debate
this Ed-Flex bill, we have yet to have the definitive results from many
of the demonstration States confirming that what they have done with
Ed-Flex has led to improvement in student performance or just overall
improvement in the educational process. The GAO has looked at this
issue. Their report certainly raises as many questions as it answers
with respect to this issue as to whether Ed-Flex is working in those 12
States that already have the flexibility to do what we are proposing to
do legislatively here.
The other thing I suggest, too, is it is a concern--and it is a
concern that was expressed by my colleague from Oregon--about whether
this may endanger funding for the neediest students. I don't think
there is anyone in this body, again, who would encourage such a
development. We recognize, particularly through title I, that these
scarce Federal dollars are going into communities that need them
desperately and, in many cases over the decades of this program, have
provided a significant makeup for local funds that are not adequate to
the purpose.
But what we are concerned about--and it is a concern that, again, I
hope is worked out through the process of this debate and amendments--
is that unwittingly we might undo some of that emphasis and effort.
Again, I would not argue it is the purpose of anyone who has proposed
this legislation, but we must be careful because, again, we are looking
at the most vulnerable population in this country in terms of
education. We are looking at a population that desperately needs the
support and assistance of every level of government.
There is another aspect I would like to conclude with, and that is
the participation of parents in this process. I mentioned initially, I
believe one of the great challenges we have this year in our
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is
finding ways to encourage more substantive, meaningful parental
involvement. In the context of this legislation, along with my
colleagues, I will propose an amendment that would allow for greater
parental involvement, allow for parental input that would be available
for public review and would be included in state or local waiver
applications.
We are not trying to hamstring local authorities. Last year I had an
amendment similar to this that had a 30-day public notice and comment
requirement. That is not in this amendment. We are just suggesting,
though, if we mean that we want to have parents involved, this is not
only a symbolic but a very real and meaningful way to get that
involvement--to encourage them to submit comments, to have those
comments publicly available, and then have those comments submitted
with the application.
Again, I am extremely encouraged that we are talking about
educational reform. We are working together to come up with innovative
ways to do what we all want to do, which is to give every child in this
country access to an excellent education. Indeed, we hope to guarantee
every child in this country access to an excellent education.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. This legislation will
help States and local schools to pursue innovative efforts to improve
K-12 education. I commend my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator
Wyden, for bringing forth this legislation. Senator Wyden has very
effectively demolished the myths about this legislation. The fact is,
the goal of this legislation is to improve--to improve the education
that we are providing to kids all over this country. It is that simple.
The legislation would accomplish that goal by extending educational
flexibility to all 50 States.
The public schools in this country have made an immeasurable
contribution to the success of our society and our Nation. We need to
assure that future generations of Americans receive the same excellent
public education that many of us were so fortunate to receive while we
were growing up. Unfortunately, as the Federal Government has imposed
an alarming number of well-intended regulations on our public schools,
we have seen a decline in the overall achievements of our students in
our public school systems.
I am very proud of the progress that Maine schools have made in
improving the performance of our students through a challenging
curriculum. For example, Maine students rank highly in the National
Assessment of Education Progress tests. This achievement reflects the
efforts of the Maine Department of Education, our teachers, our
principals, our school boards, our State's elementary and secondary
schools, and the University of Maine, to design and use challenging
statewide learning results.
The NAEP test results show that the efforts in Maine are in fact
succeeding. They show that our K-12 education system can produce high-
achieving students when the standards, curriculum, and expectations are
supported and designed by those closest to our schools.
The process that the State of Maine used was a burdensome one. It
required seeking individual waivers from the Federal Department of
Education. It was a lengthy process. It was one that involved a great
deal of bureaucratic delay. It is that kind of process that would be
changed by this legislation.
The fact is, Maine and the rest of our Nation still have a long way
to go to improve the education of our students. America holds dear the
tradition of State and local control of education. The basic
responsibility for improving student achievement lies with the States,
not the Federal Government. Indeed, perhaps a better name for this
legislation would be ``The Return to Local Control Education Act.''
[[Page S2190]]
I believe that all of us, in all of our States, are trying to meet
the challenge of greater student achievement. But our State
administrators need help from the Federal Government. They do not need
more dictates. They do not need more regulation. The Ed-Flex bill
provides some of that help by reducing Federal intrusion into the local
control of schools.
How will this legislation help? Let's look at the role of the Federal
Government. Over the last 30 years, the Federal Government has layered
new programs on top of old ones that themselves are not meeting their
goals. This has been done with a blind commitment to the belief that
yet another program devised in Washington will somehow reverse the
decline in educational achievement.
We spend over $10 billion a year to support elementary and secondary
education. This Federal money is spent through so many different
programs that we can't even get an accurate count of how many there
are. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research
Service estimates range from 550 to 750 separate Federal education
programs. Each of these programs comes with its own objectives,
statutory requirements, and administrative regulations. Collectively,
they create a huge administrative burden on local schools. Indeed,
while the Federal Government funds only 7 percent of our public
education system, it is responsible for 50 percent of the schools'
paperwork.
By passing the Education Flexibility Act, we will allow States and
local school districts the flexibility they need to pursue creative and
innovative approaches in using Federal funds. And the Federal dollars
that they do receive will become a genuine force for education
improvement. Even more important, the bill will afford States and
communities the flexibility that they need to craft local solutions.
Instead of struggling to make programs designed in Washington fit local
needs, States and localities will have the freedom to make the changes
that they know are needed in each individual school.
Because, as the Senator from Oregon put it very well, the schools in
an urban environment may be very different in their needs from a school
in a rural community.
The Ed-Flex Act addresses the need for change within our public
schools. It will provide a way for State and local education agencies
to be freed from the multitude of Federal statutes and regulations that
prevent them from breaking out of the Federal education mold and
creating their own exciting programs. Expanding the opportunity for Ed-
Flex to every State gives our school boards, teachers, parents, and
State officials the opportunity to experiment and innovate, to chart a
new path for better schools, and to provide Congress with the
information it needs to help promote rather than hinder educational
improvement.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation. I would also like to clarify that I don't think Senator
Kennedy deliberately gave me his cold from the hearing yesterday so I
would be less effective in debating him today, despite the rumor to the
contrary.
With that, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, does the manager of the bill want to say
something?
Mr. KENNEDY. I just wanted to give the assurance to--if you will
yield 15 seconds--to the Senator from Maine, as far as I am concerned,
she is always effective, whether it is that clear voice that comes out
from the northeast part of the country, we always listen and take great
care what she says.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask, with the concurrence of the
Senator from Connecticut, that the Senator from Wyoming be recognized
for a period of not more than 5 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont for
his request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Wyoming be
allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Wyoming.
(The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 516
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman once again for the
time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Ed-Flex bill
introduced by Senators Frist and Wyden. I believe it is a responsible
way to help our nation's educators meet the challenges that we face in
preparing our nation's young people for the 21st century.
Ed-Flex gives states the authority to grant waivers of certain
Federal requirements to local school districts if such a waiver will
help that school district better meet the needs of its students. But in
exchange for this flexibility, the local school district must show
results. If the district does not show results, the waiver is revoked.
Ed-Flex gives school districts flexibility, but it also demands
accountability--and we should discuss how to make the accountability
measures even stronger.
In addition, under Ed-Flex states are limited in the kinds of
requirements they are authorized to waive. They cannot waive health and
safety requirements or civil rights requirements. And they cannot deny
districts the funds they would ordinarily receive under these Federal
programs. Furthermore, districts must prove that the waiver they
receive truly helps them accomplish the goal it is designed to meet:
helping more students learn better.
In Nebraska we have 604 public school districts. They range in size
from the small rural districts such as Tryon--which has just over 100
students, kindergarten through 12th grade--and Omaha, which has
approximately 45,000 students.
A couple of weeks ago I was visited by Bob Ridenour, principal of
North Ward and West Ward Elementary Schools in McCook, Nebraska. In
response to the question, What do you need to do a better job of
educating your kids?'' his answer was simple: More money and the
flexibility to help the kids at the lowest end of the economic scale in
the best way possible.
But Ed-Flex is not just about flexibility. It's also about better
coordination. It allows for better coordination between the variety of
local, state, and Federal education programs available to schools.
All of the principals in Nebraska would agree that the Federal
education dollars they receive are vital to well-being and success of
the school children within that district. But different districts have
different needs. And in some instances, different districts may need to
take slightly different paths to reach the common goal that all
districts share: Making sure that all students have the reading, math,
and social skills to succeed once they leave the schoolhouse door.
Right now, 12 States have Ed-Flex. And the feedback we have shows
that they are using it responsibly and that it is showing good results.
Texas has implemented Ed-Flex more extensively than any other state in
the nation. Achievement scores in Texas reveal that districts with
waivers outperformed districts without waivers in both reading and
math. And the gains for African American students were even greater.
And Ed-Flex has allowed States like Massachusetts to assure
continuity of service to schools that were eligible for title I funding
one year, ineligible the next year, but expect to be eligible in the
following year. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor waiver.
But to a child in that school, the assistance provided through title I
dollars makes a major difference.
Now let me be clear. Ed-Flex is a sound way to give local districts
the flexibility they need to do a good job of educating students. But
it's only one part of a complex puzzle.
Schools also need resources. They need to have the funds to hire and
train qualified teachers. They need to have the ability to reduce class
sizes in the lower grades. They need to be able to provide students
with real classrooms in well-equipped buildings.
And schools need to be able to provide challenging afterschool
programs
[[Page S2191]]
so that students can work on their math, science, reading, and
technology skills between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon.
Last summer we helped US West form a partnership with Project
Banneker, a program that is helping raise the math and science
achievement levels in Omaha Public Schools. Not only did students and
teachers benefit from the hands-on technology skills training, but US
West benefited because they played a role in training prospective
employees. We are looking forward to another productive summer with US
West as we work to expand the partnership.
The Federal government can't do it all--and the Federal government
should not do it all. But we should be a helpful partner in the effort
to improve our nation's schools. The Federal contribution to K-12
education is relatively small--less than 10 percent. That is why it's
important that we make sure our investments in education are wise ones,
that they complement efforts at the state and local levels, and that
the investments yield results.
We need to make sure that the most disadvantaged students have the
assistance and resources that they need to succeed in school. We need
to continue to invest in title I, and also figure out how to make it
stronger. Nebraska received $31 million year in title I funds last
year. School districts use those funds in a variety of ways. We need to
give districts the flexibility to educate those students using the best
methods available, but we also must demand accountability.
I believe that the most important way in which the Federal Government
can be a helpful partner is by making sure that when a young person
finishes twelfth grade he or she has the skills to get a decent job. It
may take a couple of years at a community college to fine-tune those
skills, but the point is that only 60% of high school graduates
nationwide go on to college, and by the time they are 25 years old,
only about 25% have a college degree.
Now we need to do more to make higher education more affordable, and
we just passed a Higher Education Act that makes significant steps
toward that goal. But we also have to make sure that those who do not
pursue a postsecondary degree have the skills to make a good living.
That's why I believe strongly in the value of vocational education.
Two weeks ago I visited the vocational education program at Grand
Island High School, in Grand Island, Nebraska. In the vocational
education program at Grand Island High, students are receiving hands-on
education that will translate into real jobs. Grand Island has formed a
partnership with area manufacturers, and the manufacturers know that
it's a good deal for them. They have said to Grand Island, You train
the students, and there will be a job waiting for them when they get
out of school.''
In one particular class students work together all year long to build
an actual house. Every part of the house, with the exception of the
foundation, is built by the students. Then, at the end of the year,
they actually sell the house, taking pride in the fact that they have
created a product that has tangible value to their community.
Mr. President, I believe we need to increase opportunities for these
students. I support the Ed-Flex bill because I believe that if it is
used wisely it can help schools accomplish important goals in educating
students. But I want to make clear that it's just the tip of the
iceberg. We also need to increase our investment in these students so
that all students have a shot at the American Dream.
Mr. President, just briefly, I thank both the Senator from Vermont
and the Senator from Massachusetts for their leadership on this as
well. I want to try to briefly declare why I like this bill and what I
think needs to be done in addition to it.
I had a recent conversation with one of the 604 school
superintendents in Nebraska. Those schools are as small as 100
students, ranging all the way up to 46,000 students, with a lot of
variation in between. I talked to a superintendent in one of the rural
school districts--in my State there is more poverty in the rural areas
than is in the urban areas among children--and asked what he wanted. He
said, immediately, ``I need, in some cases, more flexibility to
implement programs. I do not want any waivers from civil rights
requirements, no waivers from health or safety. But sometimes with a
Federal program, the State won't allow me to do what would reasonably
accomplish the objective of what the Feds want.'' This bill allows it.
He said, ``In fact, I would like to be held to even higher standards of
accountability. I want you all to hold me accountable to make certain
that we are getting the job done.'' This bill does that. It provides
both flexibility and measures for increased accountability, which is
precisely what we need.
I want to point out as well, Mr. President, that he went on to say
that the greatest challenge is not only flexibility, but increased
resources for those children of lower income working families in both
rural and urban environments. He said, ``If you are insistent upon
making certain that we have trade policies that are open, and if you
want to keep the restrictions on business to a minimum so entrepreneurs
can grow, what we are going to have to do is aggressively increase the
skills of people that leave high school and go right into the
workforce.'' The only way to get that done is to start very early. And
I hope that in this bill, Mr. President, that we will have an
opportunity to put some amendments on it that will give us some
increased funding for lowering class size, that will allow us to do
some afterschool programs.
I know the Senator from Connecticut has a bill dealing with child
care. To me, child care and education are almost interchangeable. It is
difficult to tell one from the other. A full third of my high school
students in Nebraska go immediately from high school into the
workforce, and there is an increasing amount of concern at the rural
level and at the community level for the skills of these young people.
If you do not start it early, it is impossible for us to close that
skills gap. In my judgment, with the pace of our economy and the speed
with which things are changing, there is a real urgency to get out
there with flexibility, which this bill does. I hope we will have the
opportunity to provide some additional resources so we can make sure
that, with confidence, we are saying we are doing all we can to make
sure that our young people, when they graduate from high school, are
prepared and have the skills that they are going to need in a very
competitive world economy.
Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I won't take a great deal of time. Senator
Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and others have
talked about many of the specifics of the bill before us--the Education
Flexibility Partnership Act. I just want to take a few minutes to thank
my colleagues for all their work on this bill.
I am very pleased that one of the first legislative matters we are
taking up this year is education. This is about as significant an issue
in the minds of most Americans as any. There are a lot of other
questions which are very important, but none that I think dominates the
concerns of Americans regardless of geography or economic circumstance
as education, particularly elementary and secondary education.
Later this year, we will take up the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act reauthorization, which contains the major federal
programs to assist our schools. This bill requires reauthorization
every 5 years. And this year is the year that we must reauthorize that
basic fundamental piece of legislation that deals with the elementary
and secondary education needs of America. So we will have a chance, I
suspect, even then to review some of the issues that concern people. I
had hoped that we could consider this initiative on Ed Flex as part of
that larger bill given its relationship to those programs; however, I
am still hopeful that we can include the review of this program in our
work on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Today, as we gather here, in many parts of the country students are
still in school. Fifty-three million students, more or less, went off
to elementary or secondary schools this morning, from Hawaii to Maine.
Of the 53 million, 48 million are in public schools and about
[[Page S2192]]
5 million are in private or parochial schools across the country. The
vast majority, of course, attend our public schools. And most attending
our schools today are doing well and their schools are good.
I think too often we focus our attention on the things that do not
work. Partly it is because that is our job. And there are a lot of
gaping holes in the education reaching students across this country in
the ability to learn and the opportunity to learn. But in many, many
communities across this great country we find schools that are filled
with learning and blessed with qualified, motivated teachers, and
enriched with excellent resources from libraries to computers.
In recent years, more and more schools have joined these elite ranks.
More schools are enjoying the benefits of these wonderful technologies;
more schools have adopted strong and challenging standards-based reform
strategies; and more fine, well-educated people are entering the
teaching ranks.
But our job, as I said a moment ago, Mr. President, is not just to
point out the things that are working well. If we are to improve our
schools, we must also focus on the problems and how to encourage real
solutions to these problems. And that brings us to this bill. It will
bring us to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as well.
Let me just share some statistics with my colleagues, briefly here,
on the state of education in America.
The GAO estimates that one-third of all of the schools in the United
States are in need of basic repairs and renovations. Two-thirds are in
good shape. That is the good news. But still fully a third of them are
in poor shape and in need of repairs and renovations.
Just to give you one example, in my home State of Connecticut, Mr.
President, there was a study done on school conditions in the city of
Waterbury, CT. I live in a very affluent State, but there are pockets
of real poverty in Connecticut. It is a dichotomy of affluence and
poverty living in a relatively small piece of geography. Waterbury, CT,
has some very fine and affluent neighborhoods. But like many of our
cities, there are parts of it that are not doing as well economically.
Last year, in Waterbury, they found that 500 fire code violations
occurred in our schools over the last five years--500 fire code
violations.
Another statistic, nationwide, 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds
participated in preschool programs.
Eight percent of second graders were detained in kindergarten or the
first grade. Second Graders--it is hard to imagine why someone would be
held back at that level. One could maybe see it later in the elementary
grades, but by the second grade almost 10 percent are being held back.
Nearly 15 percent of middle and high school teachers in the United
States do not minor or major in the area of their main teaching
assignment. Again, we have 85 percent who do. But there is a growing
number, about 15 percent, who are being asked to teach at the secondary
school level in a curriculum that they have not received a significant
formal education.
We see, as well, that 86 percent of 18- through 24-year-olds have a
high school diploma. That number, again, is getting better. But is
still too high. And is way too high when one looks at some of the sub-
populations of students; over a third of Hispanic Americans are
dropping out. This is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United
States and one-third of them are dropping out of school.
At the end of the 20th century, Mr. President, we are going to have
to do better in all these indicators if we are going to compete
effectively.
So I am pleased we are turning our attention to education today. But
let's not delude ourselves. The bill that we are talking about here is
not the answer. I respect immensely the authors of this legislation. I
have a high regard for them and the motivations which caused them to
propose this legislation, particularly my good friend from Oregon, who
had a long and distinguished career in the other body, and who cares
about young people and their educational needs, and our colleague from
Tennessee, and others who are a part of this legislation. But I want to
raise some of the concerns that some of us have about this bill and am
hopeful that we can work through some of these issues in the coming
days.
Six years ago, in 1993, we enacted the Ed-Flex Demonstration program
in the hopes that it would spur school reform in our states. It was a
very tightly written program with just 6 states participating. We
quickly expanded that to 12, recognizing 6 States probably was not a
good enough laboratory to get some decent results back to determine
whether or not this new waiver authority would prove to be worthwhile.
Ed-Flex was a major departure in education policy. We were allowing,
for the first time, officials to waive Federal regulatory and statutory
requirements. That is not a minor thing. I mean, we are responsible to
see to it that the dollars, the Federal dollars that go to education,
are going to be spent well and wisely.
Now, I don't question that we can get heavyhanded, and too
bureaucratic. We are all painfully aware that can happen. But to allow
state officials to waive statutory and regulatory requirements is a
significant departure. It is one thing to modify, to amend, to drop
certain regulations, but to allow a complete waiver of statutory and
regulatory requirements was a dramatic departure from our education
policy.
We included protections in the law at the time. The Secretary would
have to approve applications for this waiver authority. Only States
with strong standards-based reforms in place were eligible, and waivers
could not override the intents and purposes of the laws or civil rights
and other certain basic protections. But the idea was for flexibility
in return for results. So we passed overwhelmingly this demonstration
program.
But it was for a demonstration program--a test. Well, the results are
not in. That is one of the difficulties here. It is not that anyone has
studied this and said they are bad, they are just not in. We do not
really know. It may be very good, or it may not--but raising the
legitimate concerns about it is not inappropriate.
Texas is the only State, the only one, by the way, out of all 12
States, that has actually been giving us some details on how they are
performing. Most others cannot produce, unfortunately, any results
about student achievement results they have achieved through school
reform and the Ed-Flex demonstration program.
The General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed Ed-Flex and
found little in the way to suggest that Ed-Flex is making a difference.
Now, it may. Again, I find myself in a situation of hoping it does. I
supported the demonstration program not because I anticipated it to
fail, but I did it because I anticipated it to work. But I feel I have
a sense of responsibility to the people of my State--that it is their
dollars, in a sense, that are going to this--that I can look them in
the eye and say why we are now going to pass legislation permanently
establishing this. But if you ask me the question, ``Do I have the
empirical evidence which draws the final conclusion that in fact this
can work?'' I have to say, no, not yet.
Now, maybe it will come in, but it is not here yet. And so I hope my
colleagues understand that those of us who are raising these questions
are doing so with a deep sense of optimism that this will work, but
also a deep sense of concern that we do not have the information yet to
make these final conclusions.
While we don t know much about results, we do know a little about how
this authority is being used. Seven of the participating 12 states have
granted 10 or fewer waivers. The vast majority of waivers requested are
about loosening title I requirements for targetting the neediest
students. But generally, the finding suggests there is little being
done with Ed-Flex that is not being done directly with the Secretary
with his own waiver authority.
We hear anecdotes from Governors about how it is promoting creativity
and spurring reform--but the evidence we have on how it has been used
really do not back this up in the most states. But I have never had a
Governor or mayor yet that wouldn't like to get all statutory and
regulatory requirements of the Federal Government eliminated; that
doesn't come as a great shock. They would like us to write a check,
give it to them, and get out of the way. That is how Governors and
mayors
[[Page S2193]]
think. I find it interesting that in States, when State legislatures or
mayors ask Governors for similar waiver authority, I usually find the
Governors are far more resistant to waiver authority at the local level
than they are in asking us for it. It is where you are in the food
chain in terms of your willingness to support waivers from regulation.
At any rate, we hear a lot of anecdotes from Governors and State
education leaders about Ed-Flex changing the mentality of their systems
and motivating school improvement efforts. I am for this. I hope it
works. But I think we need to ensure that students are served by these
changes. That is why we have the accountability amendments.
Senators Kennedy, Reed, and I will offer two simple amendments that I
believe get to the core of improving accountability. These build on the
changes that we were pleased to see the managers include the substitute
bill they offered earlier today. Our staffs have been working together
for weeks to beef up the accountability in this bill. I believe we have
made good progress, but must do more.
The first amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed and me will
ensure that accountability is resulting in student achievement.
Improving the performance of students is what this is all about. I am
rather surprised we have been forced to offer what we think is a very
common sense amendment, rather than having it just agreed to and
accepted. I understand we continue to work on this and am hopeful that
we will be able to resolve this without a vote.
The second amendment ensures involvement of one of the key players in
school reforms, parents and the larger public. The Reed amendment
ensures that parents and other local leaders can comment on
applications for waivers and that these comments are given
consideration.
Again, I would hope that parental involvement is one of the things
all of us can agree on. In Head Start, we require that parents be
involved from volunteering in classrooms to parent planning boards,
then make key decisions about their community programs. We get about 80
percent parental involvement with Head Start programs. What has been
terribly disappointing to me is that by the first grade parental
involvement drops to about 20 percent. It immediately drops, which is
terribly disturbing because there is no better way to increase a
child's performance in education than to have a parent involved--
visiting teachers, talking to them, going to the schools, learning what
the child is supposed to be learning, involved in school governance and
reform.
The requirement we would add would ensure that interested parents
could be engaged in this process. I hope our colleagues would be
supportive of that since it fits in with the growing concern among all
Democrats and Republicans that parental involvement needs to be
expanded rather than contracted. The Reed amendment does not give
parents or others veto power. That is not the point. It gives them the
power to comment knowing their comments will be considered, which is
not too much to ask. It says their comments should be available and
included in the application for waiver authority.
These are simple changes that broadly improve the accountability of
this bill.
We will also have the opportunity to consider several other important
education initiatives--not to belittle the importance some have placed
on this Ed-Flex bill, but I have never had one parent or teacher or
student raise it with me.
I have heard from many concerned about class size, districts looking
for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 teachers will reach
them. Class size is a critical issue to families all across the
country, whether in a rural school in Idaho, or urban school in
Connecticut. Parents know that class size matters--how many teachers
teach how many students, how well educated they are, and are these
buildings that these kids are supposed to be learning in, in good
shape. We also hear a great deal about the readiness of children to
learn when they enter school. We hear about aftershool.
My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has an interest in this.
My colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts will recall last July when
this specific bill was in committee, I offered an afterschool amendment
to this proposal--which I hope to be offering in this debate. My
colleague from California has an interest in this subject matter, as
well.
Eighteen years ago our former colleague from New Jersey, Senator
Bradley, and I did the initial legislation on afterschool programs in
the dropout legislation. Over the years I have been deeply involved in
trying to reduce this afterschool problem, of the difficulties that
occur with the lack of afterschool programs. This is an issue that many
people in this country would like to see us do more about.
I think most of my colleagues are aware of this, but this chart
points out when juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes. The
spike is around 2:30 or 3 o'clock. That is the peek time of violent
crimes among young people. The hours between 2:30 and 6:00 is when we
see the largest percentage of violent juvenile crime.
It is not uncommon for communities to have curfews. Invariably the
curfew suggests some time after 9 or 10 o'clock at night. In fact, 9
o'clock or 10 o'clock at night is a relatively calm period of time. It
is 2:30, 3 o'clock, 3:30, 4 o'clock--when kids are home from school,
but parents are not--which is the critical time period. We are told by
chiefs of police and others that violent crime among young people is on
the increase. Afterschool programs, putting efforts into this, is
something that we think would make a great deal of difference.
I hope to offer an amendment on my own or with Senator Boxer or
others to deal with this issue.
Mr. President, Ed-Flex may make a difference in some States. Frankly,
in my view the jury is still out for the reasons; I hope the jury comes
back with good results and good reports on this. We think the
accountability amendments will help here.
But this legislation on its own is no substitute for what our schools
need and what parents and students across this country are demanding. I
am hopeful that during these next several days we can have a real
discussion on education and improve this bill with the addition of some
critical timely initiatives.
I am happy to work with the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member and move through these issues in an orderly way. I thank both
Senators for their leadership. I commend my colleague from Tennessee
and my colleague from Oregon for their fine work on this amendment.
I appreciate, again, the motivations that have given rise to this
legislation. I think we can make it a better bill and add to it some of
the elements that we think will strengthen the educational needs of all
Americans by some of the suggestions I have made here and that others
have made this afternoon. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I'll use a few moments to take a look at
last year. What we are talking about right now is where we ended last
year as far as passing bills on education.
Let us take a look at what we did accomplish during that period of
time. This chart lists all of the bills which we passed out of our
committee, almost all of them by unanimous or close to unanimous votes.
They all became law. They were very important.
First of all, we had the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
for which we had tremendous bipartisan agreement, and we took time to
do it. It came out and passed practically unanimously by both the House
and Senate. That is what happens when we have good, bipartisan working
together.
The next one was the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of
1997. We had some important problems that came up with respect to
student loans, but were able to take care of them. This Act passed with
a very substantial vote.
Next, was the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, which
had not been reauthorized for many years. An important component of the
National Science Foundation is education; we sometimes forget that. But
a tremendous amount of funding for the important areas of education, in
[[Page S2194]]
the areas of science, comes through this bill, and that was
accomplished.
Then we had a real step forward with the Work Force Investment Act of
1998, including the Rehabilitation Act Amendments. That bill has turned
this country around in its attitude and ability to prepare people for
the workforce. Not only that, but it recognized that workforce training
is nonstop at high schools and colleges. Training goes on and on and
on. We now have the nontraditional students of the past who are
actually outnumbering the so-called traditional students on the
recommendation that a person's job is going to change many times during
a lifetime. We had close to unanimous agreement on the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998.
And for the first time in 5 years, we did a thorough review of the
Higher Education Act, taking into consideration the needs of the
Nation. Again, with very hard work and long, long hours, we were able
to complete the Higher Education Amendments. Also included were the
Education of the Deaf Act Amendments of 1998. The Higher Education
Amendments took a close look at not only higher education, but what
higher education was doing with respect to the teacher colleges. We
found we had serious problems with the teacher colleges and things had
to be changed. We also recognized that we had a huge problem trying to
get our teachers in schools the kind of retraining that is necessary in
order to bring them up to speed on the needs not only in the next
century but this century. This Act passed close to unanimously.
The work being done now in professional development--we eliminated
all the bills on professional development in there. They were useless.
We have now created a very firm foundation for professional development
in higher education institutions to assist us in our K-through-12
education.
The Reading Excellence Act was unanimous here. In close cooperation
with the President, we came out with that act, and it is in law and
already having an impact upon the serious problems we have with a
number of young people graduating from high school who are presently
functionally illiterate and do not have the basic skills necessary to
warrant a diploma. We have had what is called social promotion, and the
President emphasized that we have to do away with social promotion. The
way that can be done is to try to make sure every kid can read, and the
Reading Excellence Act will be an important part of that.
In addition, we had the Charter School Expansion Act. As we go
forward, it is necessary to experiment in the kinds of institutions we
can create to have the flexibility and dedication to be able to change
the relatively low results we have been getting out of our K-through-12
educational system. Some of the charter schools are working well. We
have learned a lot. Those will be models for what we can do in the
public school system. It is an important step forward.
In addition, we had the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998.
That is Head Start and other programs for the very young, as well as
for those in special low-income areas. It was the first reauthorization
of Head Start in many years. We came out with an excellent bill, all
working together, Republicans and Democrats, and with the White House.
Finally--and this is an important act--is the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments. We had not been able to
get that amended in many years. We did a thorough review of its
application. We upgraded it and brought it into the modern day
situation.
I am pleased to say that we almost reached our goal on all the bills
that we had. However, one bill didn't make it, and it was this Ed-Flex
bill. The reason it didn't make it is not because the Members did not
agree with what we had in the bill, but it was seen to be a vehicle on
which perhaps many other ideas and thoughts about how to change
education could be amended to it.
I hope that doesn't occur this time. I hope we don't find ourselves
in the position of not taking a bill which everybody agrees is
important. The President has said that he favors it. He gave strong
words of support for it. The Governors have unanimously agreed that
they want it. I hope we will be able to get this out in the next few
days in order to be sure that we can give the flexibility to the States
that they need.
My State has had it. It has worked very well. It is not a huge
success in the sense that it is going to change that much that goes on,
but it makes it easier for States to coordinate things. You have
situations--at least in our State--where school districts are very
close to the 50 percent or the 125 percent thresholds for poverty. If
you don't quite make it, it fouls everything up. With the flexibility
we have had in Vermont as one of those six States that have been able
to use the flexibility, we have found that it has reduced the time and
effort which go into trying to work with title I. That is all we are
trying to do today.
I think we are hearing now an agreement on accountability. If we have
learned anything over the past year, it has been the tremendous lack of
accountability in this country in our educational system. If there is
any area that we need to improve upon--and I serve on the Goals 2000
panel--it is accountability. One of the most disturbing things I have
found is that we really don't know what is going on in this country. We
still can't measure performance, still can't determine--in fact, in the
report we have no evidence that there was any improvement from the date
that we got the ``Nation at Risk'' report in 1983. Fifteen years and
there is no measurable improvement in our schools. But then we found
that the data we were using to determine whether or not there was any
improvement was 1994 data, and here it was 1998.
So we have other improvements to make, and one of those is
accountability and to be able to measure what is going on in our school
system. The flexibility will help the States to be able to really
ascertain and work better with their school systems to determine
exactly what is going on, how to measure success. That is one of the
reasons. So I am hopeful that that one bill we were unable to get
passed last year in the area of education, which we knew was
appropriate and necessary--I hope we can get it done quickly this week.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will just take a few moments to expand
upon a couple of issues that have been raised over the course of the
morning and early afternoon. One has to do with accountability and the
other, parental involvement. Both of these are very important issues as
we proceed ahead in addressing both the underlying bill and the
potential amendments that are coming forward.
The Ed-Flex bill itself, again, is a bill that expands a
demonstration project, which has been very successful, from 12 States
to 50 States. What it does is simple. It allows schools and school
districts the opportunity to obtain a waiver, and that waiver would
allow them to accomplish very specific goals as set out in programs but
free of the redtape and excessive, burdensome regulations, and it also
allows them to say we are going to meet those goals and objectives and
be held accountable for those in very strict ways that identify our
particular needs. Schools have different needs; a particular school
might need access to computers and another might need to have a pre-
kindergarten program. Another school might need to have an afterschool
tutoring program. I think the point is that we don't want to tie the
hands of our local communities and our schools if they say this is what
it takes for us to increase student performance, this is how we have
identified, based on our own needs to achieve, these very specific
objectives. Again, we are not talking about a block grant. We are not
talking about changing the goals that we set out. We are saying that
given the resources that we are putting in a particular area, and given
the specific goals, we are going to give the local communities the
opportunity to have more flexibility and at the same time demanding
accountability to meet those goals.
That, very simply, is what the bill does. We have this experience
with it that historically we can look to; we can learn from it. We can
expand upon it. And that is where we are today.
[[Page S2195]]
That is what I think real leadership in education is all about. I
think it is an appropriate Federal role to give that flexibility and
demand that accountability. ``Accountability'' is tied with
``flexibility.''
That accountability needs to be carried out at the local level, for
which I have the next chart, which was spelled out earlier. We need to
have the accountability built in at the local level. We need to have
the accountability built in at the State level and at the Federal
level, all reinforcing each other in an appropriate hierarchical way
just to make sure we are holding those schools or school districts
accountable for the waiver that they have spelled out.
I have gone through the specifics earlier, but as I keep this chart
up, just so people can understand how it builds one on the other, let
me also make it clear that the type of waivers that we are allowing are
really two kinds. One is an administrative type of waiver. That is a
waiver where you unshackle the paperwork on local communities, local
schools, and school districts which say that they are bombarded with
paperwork and time requiring activities which keep them away from
accomplishing that goal. Those sorts of administrative waivers are very
important. And that is one element of the waiver system.
Another element of the waiver system about which we have talked a
great deal about today is where the schoolwide waivers take place,
again accomplishing the specific goals consistent with the intent of
the Federal law.
We have to keep in mind that not all waivers are about student
performance per se, that some waivers are about--I will describe them
first--lowering that paperwork burden on both schools and school
districts and at the State level.
I say that because we have to be careful, if we start modifying this
bill at all, so that we don't try to connect every single waiver with
an increase in student performance and use that as the judge. There are
certain areas that we cannot basically come back and link that
particular waiver that produces paperwork to the performance of
individual students in a school.
On the issue of student performance, I think it is important to point
out that Ed-Flex, as is spelled out in the underlying bill, has more
accountability that we have injected into it than the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act which is in existence today. That particular
act authorizes over $13 billion. We have injected in our bill, Ed-Flex,
more accountability than is in that Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
I mention that again so people will know how hard we have worked in
this peer approach to make sure that accountability is included.
Under current law, education programs that provide direct services to
students are not specifically required to improve student performance.
Ed-Flex has more accountability built into it than the largest single
Federal education law in the land.
That is point No. 1.
No. 2, it is important to understand that the accountability
provisions in our bill as written--I encourage my colleagues to read
that bill as written--inject more accountability than the existing 12-
State demonstration-project. It is important, because I want people to
go back and read the bill and not just look at what is in the current
Ed-Flex program and the 12-State demonstration project.
First, before a State may issue waivers, they must first provide
public notice and comment. I am going to come back to that shortly
because that will give me the opportunity to talk a little bit more
about parental involvement. But it is very clear that by having that
requirement that the community at large, including the parents, will be
very much involved as they can express their concerns if they have such
concerns about the waiver.
Second, before receiving any waiver in the State, local school and
local school districts must establish specific measurable education
goals, which may include student performance. But they have to have
very specific goals spelled out.
That is important, again, so we can demand that accountability as to
whether or not they meet those goals. As I pointed out before, those
goals, as spelled out in the bill, may very well include student
performance.
Third, every year States must monitor--this is at the State level--
and review the performance of schools and school districts that have
received those waivers. So we go from local up to the State level that
the State must monitor. In addition, the States are required to make
sure that the school and school districts that have received waivers
are, indeed, making progress toward those goals; again, including
school performance. Whatever those goals are they establish, consistent
with the Federal intent, we need to show not only that the goals have
been spelled out, but that progress on a regular basis is being met. If
a school district or a school fails to meet that progress toward
meeting the goals, the State at any time can revoke that waiver.
In addition, we have built in and spelled out here that the States
have to offer technical assistance, if progress is not being made, and
also take corrective action.
Fifth, every year the States must send a report on how Ed-Flex is
working to the Department of Education; again, an accountability
measure.
Sixth, again looking at the top of the chart at the Federal level,
the Secretary of Education has the final say. He or she can terminate a
waiver at any time.
Seventh, the Secretary must issue a report to Congress every 2 years
on the performance of students affected by the waivers.
Eighth, State waiver authority to issue waivers is thoroughly
reviewed every 5 years, and is contingent upon school performance.
Earlier today, the Senator from Oregon presented the accountability
checks in the bill. These accountability checks are critical.
The second issue that I wanted to refer to, again because it has been
talked about, is regarding the requirements that can or cannot be
waived. Again, I encourage my colleagues to go back and see what is in
the legislation, because it has been written very carefully with a huge
amount of input from a broad number of people. The requirements that
cannot be waived in Ed-Flex--again, spelled out in the bill--include
such things as: The civil rights requirements, the underlying purposes
of each program or act for which a waiver is granted.
The third one that I want to stress right now--I will not go through
the rest of these--as requirements that cannot be waived under Ed-Flex,
is parental participation and involvement. We have heard a lot about
the parents, how important it is to have the parents involved. I agree.
There is nobody that cares more about their children, about the future
of their children, than those parents.
One important thing is the whole notion of public notice. We talked a
little bit about public notice. This is one area that has been greatly
improved, I think compared to a year ago--public notice of those
waivers.
First of all, let's see what is currently being done in terms of
public notice of the waivers. Let's look at Texas. In Texas, at the
local level requests for waivers must be reviewed by campus and/or
site-based decision making committees composed of parents, teachers,
and other community representatives.
The same thing in Maryland. I won't go through the details. But, if
you look at these examples, you will see that through public notice,
comments and concerns by the parents are made known. The parents are
involved.
To take another example of public notice in current Ed-Flex States,
in Michigan, it has a waiver-referent group composed of representatives
from a number of people: Michigan Department of Education, local and
intermediate school districts, private schools--and importantly--parent
organizations.
Furthermore, if you look at the public notice, among the criteria
that the Secretary uses to evaluate a State's Ed-Flex application is,
Did the State conduct effective public hearings or provide
other means for broad-based public involvement in the
development of the Ed-Flex plan? How has the State involved
districts, schools and [very specifically] parents, community
groups and advocacy and civil rights groups in the
development of the plan?
These are the criteria that are used, which will be used as well under
extension under our bill.
[[Page S2196]]
I can just go on. The other criterion that they have to use is,
How would the State provide districts, parent
organizations, advocacy and civil rights groups and other
interested parties with notice and an opportunity to comment
on proposed waivers of Federal requirements?
Again, as you can see, parents are an integral part of this waiver
process. And there is a good reason. As has been pointed out by both
sides, we want parents involved. Nobody cares more about the education
of the children of this country than those parents.
The National Education Association, (NEA), on February 25, 1999 made
an important statement. I d like to look at how a group that is
involved in education, that is objective, that is not on one side of
the aisle here, that is not just a policymaker but is a group of people
who are in the field, who have a vested interest in education and
education policy--how do they view the direction we are going, in terms
of that overall balance? I think we can go through this first statement
on the chart. It says:
. . . the NEA believes the Ed-Flex legislation introduced
by Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Bill Frist of Tennessee
is a step in the right direction.
Remember, we are not trying to cure all of the problems in education
today. That is not our purpose in this particular bill. That is a
process underway in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee right now as we are reauthorizing the ESEA, the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. That is the appropriate forum for that.
This is a very targeted bill that can be passed to the benefit of
hundreds of thousands of children if we do it right over the next
several days.
But going back to the NEA, because again I want to stay on this issue
of parents, how do they view what we are doing from the outside with
their vested interest in education, the education establishment, and,
most important, the education of our children? I will turn to the
second quotation from their letter. They say:
The bill has been much improved through the addition of
increased accountability and coordination measures and a
public comment period that permits parents and members of the
community to participate actively in education reforms.
I think this again is critically important, because it demonstrates
objectively that we, as a body, on a bipartisan bill, have made
absolutely sure to address the accountability issue and to address the
issue of including parents.
I have to say, ``The bill has been improved. . . .'' Those are the
words of the NEA, which shows we have taken a bill that really went
through committee and passed, and have been willing to work again with
all interested parties to make sure that accountability, through the
eight steps I outlined, through the tiered approach of the pyramid,
guarantees--guarantees--that accountability.
Just so people will know, because it is always hard for people to go
back and read the bill, on the public notice and comment issue, which I
think is very important--just so people will know specifically what is
in the bill on public notice and comment, let me just read directly
from the bill, page 13. The bill has been distributed.
Public notice and comment.--Each State educational agency
granted waiver authority under this section and each local
educational agency receiving a waiver under this section
shall provide the public adequate and efficient notice of the
proposed waiver authority or waiver, consisting of a
description of the agency's application for the proposed
waiver authority or waiver in a widely read or distributed
medium, and shall provide the opportunity for all interested
members of the community to comment regarding the proposed
waiver authority or waiver.
I repeat, ``shall provide the opportunity for all interested members
of the community to comment regarding the proposed waiver authority or
waiver.''
There are a number of other issues. I wanted, again, to come back to
the accountability issue and parental involvement, both issues that
have been addressed. People who read the bill will find the
accountability and parental involvement issues very, very strongly
enumerated, supported, and substantiated in the bill, again with the
input of the Department of Education, from whom we solicited direct
input on how to assure that accountability, and many, many other
interested parties.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the afternoon is moving along, but
we are making some progress. Even as we are trying to find some areas
of common ground, let me just respond specifically to the Senator from
Tennessee on his provisions in this and on his statement that the
criteria in this results in greater performance standards than in Title
I. It is difficult to see that, because, under the provisions under
Title I, the State has developed and implemented the challenging State
content standard, challenging student performance standards and aligned
assessments described in the Elementary/Secondary Act, and therefore it
has content standards and performance standards included, while, in
this legislation, Ed-Flex, it says, ``made substantial progress as
determined towards development.'' So, I think we are headed in the
right direction, but I don't want anyone to think we have tougher
standards in this particular proposal than we do in the underlying
Title I.
Specifically in the managers' package, on page 3, you have findings:
To achieve the State goals for the education of children in
the State, the focus must be on results in raising the
achievement of all students, not process.
I agree. Amen. That is exactly what we want to try to use as a
measurable fact. But it is only a finding, it is not part of the
operative language. This is a good idea, and that is exactly what we
are trying to do, to make sure that we are going to have the students'
achievement and performance, as we have outlined in the earlier debate.
Managers' amendment, page 6, says an ``Eligible State'' is a State
that:
. . . waives State statutory or regulatory requirements
relating to education while holding local educational
agencies or schools within the State that are affected by
such waivers accountable for the performance of the students
who are affected by such waivers.
We want to see the whole State, not just the local communities. We
are able to take what the Senator has put as a finding--and we agree
and put that into language--and to make sure that the State is going to
have compliance, that particular provision says that a State will hold
local districts accountable for results. It does nothing to say that
the State will evaluate whether they have done so. It does nothing more
to ensure that the State's overall waiver plans to achieve student
achievement. If we have that, we have solved at least the major
problem.
Look at page 9 in the managers' package, ``Local Application'' shall:
. . . describe for each school year, specific, measurable,
educational goals, which may include progress toward
increased school and student performance, for each local
educational agency or school affected by the proposed waiver.
. . .
We could solve at least one part of this by instead of saying ``may
include'' saying ``shall include.'' ``Shall include.'' All we are
trying to do is to make sure that--while giving the States and local
communities flexibility--the fundamental purpose of Title I is going to
be achieved for the reasons that have been illustrated in the very
impressive report that has come out in the last 2 days about the
successes of Title I. We want to make sure when we are providing this,
that the principal criterion is going to be student achievement, and
that is what we are going to do. The words are used but we do not find
it applicable, in terms of the statewide program.
As I say here on page 9:
Local application shall describe for each school year
specific measurable educational goals which may include
progress toward increased school and student performance. . .
.
Isn't this all about the performance of the children? Isn't that what
we are attempting to achieve? That is why we are spending the
resources, to enhance the students' performance. That is what we are
doing. As we are prepared to see greater flexibility, we are simply
saying: Okay, you get the flexibility, all we are asking for is student
performance and achievement. That is what the basic debate on this is.
In the managers' package, on page 11 on State waiver approval, it
says:
A State educational agency shall not approve an application
for a waiver under this paragraph unless . . . the waiver of
Federal statutory or regulatory requirements as described in
paragraph (1)(A) will assist the local educational agency or
school in reaching its educational goals, particularly goals
[[Page S2197]]
with respect to school and student performance.
This, again, applies to the LEA rather than the States.
Just to sum up, Mr. President, for those who support our particular
amendment, all we are saying is, yes, we will have the flexibility, but
in giving the flexibility, there is some assurance that there will be
an improvement in student performance and student achievement, as
measured by the State plan, not by the Federal plan, but by what
Alabama wants to do or what Massachusetts wants to do or what Vermont
wants to do. They are setting their plans. All we are saying is,
according to your own State plan, that we are going to have measurable
results in terms of the performance. That is what this amendment is
really about.
We have the example which we have gone over in terms of Texas where
they have spelled out exactly what they are going to do. It has been
enormously impressive, and the students have made very significant and
important gains. And that example is being replicated by other
communities. The parents understand it. The parents know what is
happening in their particular schools, and they are able to make some
judgments about it. Mr. President, this is what we are all working
towards.
I wanted to get back into reviewing, very briefly, the absolutely
splendid independent evaluation that has just been released this past
week on title I and their conclusions. Those will be valuable for our
Education Committee as we are looking over ESEA. They have made some
very, very important recommendations, and we ought to be responsive to
those.
One of their very key elements is to do the evaluation in terms of
student performance. We have that. I will go back into it at another
time, Mr. President, but I see my good friend and colleague, the
Senator from Minnesota, on the floor, and I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 32 To Amendment No. 31
(Purpose: To preserve accountability for funds under title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 32 to amendment
No. 31.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I object. I prefer to have it read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will read the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 8, line 4, after ``determines'' insert ``that the
State educational agency is carrying out satisfactorily all
of the State educational agency's statutory obligations under
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
to secure comprehensive school reform and''.
On page 12, line 22, after ``hearing,'' insert ``that such
agency is not carrying out satisfactorily all of the agency's
statutory obligations under title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to secure comprehensive
school reform or''
On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(F) standards, assessments, components of schoolwide or
targeted assistance programs, accountability, or corrective
action, under title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as the requirement relates to local
educational agencies and schools;
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Pennsylvania have 5 minutes as in morning business.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry for a moment.
Certainly that is fine with me. The pending business is the amendment
that I have on the floor; is that correct?
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That remains the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Is there objection to the request? If not, the Senator from
Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my
distinguished colleague from Vermont.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 528
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Louisiana be allowed to speak in debate only for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Vermont.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 280, the Education
Flexibility Partnership Act, which we have spent most of the afternoon
speaking about today, for several reasons.
First, this Ed-Flex bill, as we have come to call it, represents a
very solid bipartisan effort to provide greater flexibility in our
public schools and, hopefully, improvement. Passage now at this early
stage in this Congress sends a very positive message, I think, to the
American people that we want to put first things first; we want
education to be a priority. We are willing now, with the ordeal of the
trial behind us, to work together across party lines for the things
that are important to people back home.
Second, expanding the Ed-Flex program gives every State and school a
chance to temporarily waive sometimes very restrictive specific Federal
regulations to help them better meet their new standards and to help
them to better utilize the tax dollars that we send to them and that
they generate on their own.
Thirdly, for its timeliness, I am happy to join this debate because,
next Monday, it will be my honor to host Secretary Riley in Louisiana
for the first yearly conference on educational excellence in our State,
as we reach out to develop stronger Federal-State partnership for
reforms in education. As you know, Mr. President, it takes more than
just the Federal Government's actions, but it takes our actions, with
the States and local governments, to make real these kinds of reforms
for the children in our schools. The conference this week in Louisiana
and this bill will move us closer to that goal.
I also support Ed-Flex because it has proven to be effective over the
last 4 years. As my colleague from Oregon has so eloquently pointed
out, these pilot programs have worked, and that is why the bill is
before us today. We know it works. States and local school districts
under Ed-Flex have received waivers for several Federal education
programs. These waivers will free States and school districts from
unnecessary regulations that stifle innovation in education, while
still ensuring the core principles that have been outlined so clearly;
specifically, the civil rights principles will be honored with this
bill.
At the same time, Ed-Flex is voluntary. No State, no school, no
district has to apply for these waivers, but they will be available
should a school or a district choose to apply. And for accountability's
sake, waivers can be revoked under the current draft of the bill, if
the Secretary of the Department of Education determines that these
waivers granted have not improved significantly the performance of the
students in that school or that district.
We know that the data resulting from certain demonstration States is
very encouraging. For instance, in Texas, where this has seen its
greatest use, students with Ed-Flex waivers outperform those in
districts without the waivers in the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills in reading and math. In Maryland, the Ed-Flex waiver provided
the opportunity for that State to provide for one-on-one tutoring in
early grades in reading and math, in grades 1 through 5, and in
lowering the student-teacher ratio from 25 to 1, to 21 to 1. Mr.
President, with a 6-year-old who is in first grade now, let me tell you
that those student-teacher ratios at that level are crucial as our
young boys and girls, sons and daughters, learn the skills necessary in
reading.
[[Page S2198]]
That is something I will speak about in a moment. But that is a
flexibility that this waiver will provide.
Oregon has used the waiver authority to simplify its planning and
application structure to allow districts to develop one consolidated
plan that meets all State and Federal requirements.
Let me thank the distinguished authors of this bill for including
language also that is already presented in the bill as drafted that
will increase the accountability. Some people are worried that if you
grant more freedom, we know that then comes more responsibility, and as
more responsibility comes, obviously there is more accountability. We
want this bill to hold us all accountable, and through the language
that we were able to submit earlier, I think with an additional
amendment that may be acceptable to both sides, that accountability
piece will be made clear.
Let me be quick to say, as I conclude my remarks, that while Ed-Flex
is a move in the right direction, much more must be done to improve
education. We need to be very clear about this bill. It is a good step
in the right direction. It tries to reduce bureaucracy, reduce
regulation, give greater flexibility; but it is only one step. We need
to do other things.
I urge this Congress, my colleagues on both sides, to support
initiatives to decrease class size, particularly in the early grades.
Let me share with you an alarming statistic from Louisiana that my
acting superintendent and staff shared with me earlier. In the recent
test of third graders in Orleans Parish in the basic reading test, 72
percent of the students failed their basic proficiency in reading at
that level. In a parish outside of Orleans, a more suburban parish that
is still struggling and growing, it was 14 percent. I think 14 percent
is too high; I think 72 percent is tragic. We need to do everything we
can to reduce class size in those early years--kindergarten, first,
second and third grade--so we can prevent scores like this from being a
reality.
So I urge that we pass additional amendments to decrease class size
and modernize our school buildings so that our children believe what we
say when we say they are important. We want them in an atmosphere to
learn and not in buildings that are falling down around them, with
roofs that are leaking and situations that are unsafe. I think the
Federal Government has an obligation to help spend some of our dollars
in that regard, in cost-effective ways.
We, as a Nation, face hundreds of issues that affect millions of
lives every day, but no single issue is as important to our Nation's
future as education and the challenges that our children face in the
next century.
I was, as you were, Mr. President, a proud author of our pay raise
increase for the military. We have a real problem, as the Senator
knows, with our readiness in the military forces because the economy is
so good. It is hard for us to maintain this voluntary, well-qualified
active force. Why? Because the private sector competes.
Let me say, in Louisiana a beginning teacher makes $14,000, and in
some of our parishes up to $24,000. That is bad enough, but even after
teaching 15 or 20 years, with a good record, the salaries are not that
much higher, unfortunately. Our State is doing what it can in that
regard, but if we can come together and pass $10 billion additionally
for the military, in terms of getting our troops ready for the new
threats of the future, we most certainly can put our money where our
mouth is and pass Ed-Flex and look forward to school construction and
class size reduction, so that we can prepare our children for the
threats that face them if they are not technologically literate, if
they don't read well and communicate well. Our whole Nation will be at
risk.
I am proud to join my colleagues in support of this important piece
of legislation. I urge my colleagues to consider that this is a step in
the right direction, but we need to do so much more. I hope we can make
good progress in this Congress on these important issues. Thank you,
Mr. President.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that I might speak about the
amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. This is
for debate only.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, the Senator is correct.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Then the Senator would be recognized for debate only.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know whether we are going to
reach agreement on this amendment or not. If we do, that is great. If
we don't, then I will come back to these points again and debate it. I
would like colleagues to know what is at issue here because I think
this amendment goes to the very essence of accountability.
Mr. President, I have a couple of letters and talking points from the
leadership conference on civil rights that I want to briefly mention to
colleagues. Let me just start out and read a little bit here.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has made the
continuation of the standards-based reform adopted in title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a top priority
in the 106th Congress. In order to protect these reforms, we
urge you to support amendments offered by Senators Kennedy,
Reed, Dodd and Wellstone to the Ed-Flexibility Partnership
Act that are urgently needed to protect the opportunities of
economically disadvantaged children, children of color,
children with disabilities, and other children who need the
law's protection.
Next paragraph:
While the stated purposes of S. 280 are to advance the
efforts to achieve comprehensive school reform, the bill as
reported by committee does not assure that States will
qualify for waivers only if they can demonstrate that they
have complied with a strong record of reform in the 5 years
since Congress with strong bipartisan majorities adopted
standards-based reform as national policy in title I of the
ESEA, nor does S. 280 assure that States once having achieved
Ex-Flex status will not excuse local school authorities from
fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high
quality teaching staffs and offering afterschool and summer
programs for children who need them.
That is it. That is what this amendment says. This amendment is
really simple, and my colleagues have stated in spirit that they
support it. This amendment simply says that we take the core
requirements, and we make sure that the core requirements, the
fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality
teaching staffs, or offering afterschool and summer programs for
children who need them, that no local school authority can be excused
from meeting these standards.
Let me again just mention what we are talking about. The requirement
that title I students be taught by highly qualified professional
staff--who can be opposed to that? The requirement that LEAs hold
schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward
getting all students, particularly low-income and limited-English-
proficient students, to meet the high standards. Who can be opposed to
that? The requirement that schools provide timely and effective
individual assistance for students who are farthest behind; and,
finally--this is it--the requirement that funded vocational programs
provide broad educational and work experience rather than narrow job
training. That also applies.
All this amendment says is that we will make it crystal clear by
making sure that we will have flexibility with accountability, that no
State will provide a waiver to a school district from the core
requirements of title I.
My colleague, Senator Wyden, has said to me that he agrees with that.
I am hoping that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, will agree.
That is the reason for this letter by the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights. The reason that I have been out here on the floor for
hours is twofold. One, I think we ought to be focusing on what we can
really do for children that will make a real difference. This piece of
legislation won't. But the second is
[[Page S2199]]
I don't want to turn the clock backwards. I don't want to go back to
pre-title I, 35 years of good history. I don't want us to essentially
say that we as a Federal Government, we as a national community are
going to abandon poor children, that we are going to now say for the
first time that we are going to allow a State to allow a school
district to exempt itself from the core requirements of good teachers,
high standards, and measurement of results.
My colleagues want to argue that there is already language in the
bill that says this. I don't think so. The people who I think have been
involved with this, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for
years, have put a lot of sweat and tears into making sure that there
are educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, low-income
children, children of color. They are very worried about the lack of
accountability. This amendment is specific. It says let's make sure
that we keep this accountability.
Mr. President, I am hopeful that the amendment will be accepted. I
guess that we will wait and see. I will have other supporting evidence,
if we go into a debate. I guess we are now negotiating on this
amendment. But it is really, I mean, simple. There are a couple of
things. The States have to be in compliance with title I. Who could
argue that we would be interested in giving States flexibility,
exemptions and all the rest, if they are not in compliance with title
I?
The second thing the amendment says is no State should be able to
provide a waiver to a local school authority from these basic core
values, the core mission of title I. And what are these requirements?
That these students be taught by highly qualified professional staff,
that schools be held accountable to making annual progress toward
helping students, including students with limited English proficiency,
that the schools provide timely assistance to those kids who need it
the most. How can anybody oppose this?
If you do not want to have accountability, and you basically want to
gut part of what title I has been all about for all of these years, a
program that, as Senator Kennedy has said, worked very well, go ahead
and do it. Otherwise, this amendment should be accepted.
I will wait, for we will continue to talk, and I hope that there will
be support for this.
Mr. President, I have had a chance to speak a long time today. So I
yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes in
order prior to the motion to table the pending amendment, No. 32, with
5 minutes under the control of Senator Jeffords, myself, and 10 minutes
under the control of Senator Wellstone, and that no amendments be in
order prior to the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I further ask that following that vote, if the
amendment is tabled, the only remaining amendments in order this
evening be an amendment by Senator Wellstone regarding 75 percent and
an amendment by Senator Kennedy regarding accountability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous agreement, the Senator from Minnesota now has up
to 10 minutes for debate, the Senator from Vermont has 5 minutes for
debate under his control.
Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague, I assume he
would want me to take my time and then finish up; is that correct? Is
that the way he would like to do it?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would just as soon speak now.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will take my 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an amendment by Senator
Wellstone. I will give you a little history. This bill was voted out of
committee earlier this year. It was basically the same amendment which
was passed out of the committee unanimously last year--I am sorry, with
one objection last year. It is generally agreed to. However, there are
some areas that some Members wanted to address. I rise in opposition
and I will move to table the pending Wellstone amendment.
This issue was addressed in the managers' amendment package by
including the eligibility of the State as a condition for approval and
consideration. Also, under the eligibility requirement, States must
have the very standards and assessments as laid out in title I. SEAs
are prohibited from waiving statewide requirements for local school
districts. And, finally, the States are required to implement
corrective action pursuant to title I.
Therefore, we believe it is redundant and unnecessary. At the
appropriate time I will move to table.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has yielded back all
the remainder of his time. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all let me say I very much
hope that there will be strong support for this amendment I have
introduced along with Senator Kennedy. If I could just make this
request of my colleagues--and I will return to the letter from the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in a moment--I don't know why in
the world we don't just get away from the paper and the words, and why
we do not accept an amendment that basically says we will do what we
say we will do. What in the world can be the basis of the opposition to
this amendment?
This is an amendment that is strongly supported by the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights. This is an amendment that speaks to,
really, their central fear about this legislation in its present form.
This is an amendment that makes it crystal clear, once again, that the
mission of title I, an important mission, which is the improvement of
educational opportunities for poor children, will not be weakened.
This is an amendment which says that when it comes to the core
requirements of title I, when it comes to the essence of what this
program is about, when it comes to the essence of accountability, no
State will be allowed to exempt any school district from these core
requirements.
We want to make sure that, in every school district in this country,
title I students will be taught by highly qualified professional staff.
We want to make sure that schools are accountable for making
substantial annual progress. We want to make sure that students, low-
income students and students with limited English proficiency, meet
these standards. We want to make sure that schools provide timely and
effective individual instruction for students who are farthest behind.
We want to make sure there is specific language. This is the request of
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. This is the request of
people who have given their lives to title I in this legislation, that
we have specific language that makes it clear that no State will allow
any school district to be exempt from these core requirements, the core
components of title I.
You say you want to do this but you don't want to support an
amendment that makes it clear that we will do this. My question is, Why
not? In all due respect, I may be the only vote against this
legislation. I know I won't be the only vote for this amendment. I
think there will be a strong vote for this amendment. But in all due
respect, if you are not willing to support this amendment which goes to
the core of accountability, then you are doing some serious damage to
title I, to the title I mission. This piece of legislation will go too
long a way towards abandoning a national commitment to poor children.
Now, for the first time ever, we are saying it will be possible for a
State to
[[Page S2200]]
give a school district an exemption from the basic core requirements of
title I--from the basic core requirements. And this amendment just asks
you to support what it is you say you are for.
If you want to go toward block grants, and if you want to go toward
moving us away from this mission, and you want to go toward weakening
accountability, then go ahead and vote to table this amendment. But I
certainly hope a majority of Senators will not do so.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question or yield
time to my colleague.
Mr. KENNEDY. What we are effectively doing under the existing
proposal in Ed-Flex is focusing attention on needy children, but there
are some specific guarantees under title I; for example, well-qualified
teachers to ensure that we are going to seek the academic enhancement
and achievement of the children. That is one example. There are a
series of those. As I understand the Senator's amendment, without the
Senator's amendment, they will be able to waive those as well.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. This really has nothing to do with paperwork at all. We
have already decided that there are going to be other kinds of
safeguards to make sure that the funding is focused in terms of the
needy students, but there are some specific guarantees that have been
written in there, the ones that I have said. The purpose of the
Wellstone amendment is to give assurance that those particular
guarantees will not be waived for the neediest children, as I
understand it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Massachusetts is absolutely correct,
and I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I will list these other
core requirements. One of them has to do with title I students, that
they be taught by highly qualified professional staff.
Another one is that the LEAs hold schools accountable for making
substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly
low-income students and limited-English-proficient students, to meet
the same high standards, and the requirement that schools provide
timely and effective individual assistance for students who are
farthest behind.
I say to my colleague, the reason that the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights feels so strongly about this amendment and the reason my
colleague from Massachusetts does, is we know this goes to the very
mission of title I. Why in the world would we not want to have this
accountability built into this legislation?
Mr. KENNEDY. This is entirely different than what we talked about in
the general Ed-Flex where we had requirements that, for example, you
could have a studentwide utilization of resources if it was 50 percent
poor, and then if it went down to 45, we said, OK; 40, maybe yes. Those
were the general kinds of waivers. But the point that the Senator from
Minnesota is trying to say is those specific criteria which have been
found by educators who have really spent their lifetime focusing on the
needs of the neediest children, such as qualified teachers and some
commonsense protections, effectively could be waived if the Senator's
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2 minutes 30
seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is
absolutely correct, and this is why I speak with some indignation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one more brief comment? I
don't want to interrupt the thought line, but I have just been informed
by the Administration that they support the Wellstone amendment and
believe it is consistent with the Statement of Administration Policy. I
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the
Administration in support of the Wellstone amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
s. 280--education flexibility partnership Act of 1999
The Administration has long supported the concept of
expanding ed-flex demonstration authority to permit all
States to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements
of Federal education programs in a manner that will promote
high standards and accountability for results, coupled with
increased flexibility for States and local school districts
to achieve those results. The Administration supports
amendments designed to: 1) ensure that State waivers of
Federal requirements result in improved student achievement;
and 2) enhance parental involvement.
In order to ensure consistency between ed-flex authority
and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), which will be undergoing reauthorization this year,
the Administration urges Congress to sunset this legislation
upon enactment of the ESEA.
The Administration strongly supports an amendment that is
expected to be offered to S. 280 that would implement the
President's proposal for a long-term extension of the one-
year authority to help school districts reduce class size in
the early grades, which the Congress approved last year on a
bipartisan basis. In order to hire qualified teachers,
arrange for additional classrooms, and take other steps that
are necessary to reduce class size, school districts need to
know, as soon as possible, that the Congress intends to
support this initiative for more than one year.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from
Massachusetts.
Mr. President, this is not on the whole question of funds and,
frankly, I have been worried about the dilution of funds. I have an
amendment that will be accepted tonight that says schools with over 75
percent low-income children have first priority to funds. And I say
this to my colleague from Vermont, I really speak now with some sadness
because he is going to move to table this because this goes to not
technical issues, not formula, this goes to the very essence of what
title I is about. This goes to the core requirements, the core mission,
the core accountability, and you now have a piece of legislation that
tosses that overboard.
You are overturning 35 years of important history. You are
overturning 35 years of history of a commitment on the part of our
National Government to poor children in America. You are overturning
the hard work of many women and men who have written a title I program
with accountability that has really worked well for children. That is
why the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is so strongly in favor
of this amendment.
I hope my colleagues will vote against this motion to table this
amendment. This is the central accountability amendment. If this
amendment does not pass, we do not have the accountability that has
been so important to the success of title I.
I yield back the rest of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on both sides.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is
absent attending a family funeral.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (HN)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
[[Page S2201]]
NAYS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Byrd
Torricelli
The motion to lay on the table amendment No. 32 was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The pending business is the
substitute of the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding that two amendments would be in
order, if offered--the Kennedy amendment and a Wellstone amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Those are the two
pending amendments that will be agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 33 to Amendment No. 31
(Purpose: To prohibit waivers with respect to serving eligible school
attendance areas in rank order)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 33 to amendment No. 31.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(F) serving eligible school attendance areas in rank order
under section 1113(a)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment simply requires that
schools with over a 75-percent low-income student population must
receive funds first, as a matter of priority--first, in terms of the
allocation of the title I money--and that those neediest schools with a
population of low-income students over 75 percent would have first
priority in receiving those funds.
It is accepted by both sides. I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Jeffords, Senator Wyden, and Senator Frist, as well.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. HAGEL. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment (No. 33) was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 to Amendment No. 31
(Purpose: To ensure that increased flexibility leads to improved
student achievement)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment
numbered 34 to amendment No. 31.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 7, line 21, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 7, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
On page 7, after line 24, insert the following:
(v) a description of how the State educational agency will
evaluate (consistent with the requirements of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), the
performance of students in the schools and local educational
agencies affected by the waivers.
On page 9, line 22, strike ``which may include progress
toward'' increased school and student performance.
On page 11, line 17, insert ``in accordance with the
evaluation requirement described in paragraph (3)(A)(v),''
before ``and shall''.
On page 12, line 14, before the period insert ``, and has
improved student performance''.
On page 16, line 9, insert ``and goals'' after ``desired
results''.
On page 16, lines 10 and 11, strike ``subsection
(a)(4)(A)(ii)'' and insert ``clauses (ii) and (iii) of
subsection (a)(4)(A), respectively''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment of the Senate's
time. We had a good opportunity during the course of the afternoon to
talk about the student performance. We have worked out language which I
think responds certainly to my concerns and, hopefully, is consistent
with what Senator Frist and Senator Jeffords were doing. Now the States
will be able to receive Ed-Flex, but they will also--in the
application, there will be an indication about what their expectation
in the State is in terms of the students' performance, consistent with
what the overall State plan is to enhance academic achievement. It also
will take in student performance after 5 years, should there be the
request for the continuation of this legislation.
I thank my colleagues and friends. I think we really have the best of
all worlds here. I am grateful to Senator Jeffords and Senator Frist
for working this through.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think the amendment is a helpful
addition to the bill. We appreciate the efforts of Senator Kennedy and
are happy to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment (No. 34) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under the Wellstone and Kennedy amendments,
would Michigan be able to continue their current Ed-Flex authority?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Michigan would be able to continue its current Ed-
Flex plans.
Mr. LEVIN. In January, 1998, Michigan moved to lower the poverty
threshold statewide from the 50 percent poverty level in title I to 35
percent. Would either the Wellstone or Kennedy amendment prohibit
Michigan from continuing to allow these waivers under Ed-Flex that is
improving reform in the affected schools?
Mr. KENNEDY. No.
Mr. President, we have made some progress today. We are looking
forward to having some debate on the Bingaman amendments tomorrow,
followed by my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry. We will indicate to
the membership that we will tentatively get started sometime around 11,
and we will let the floor managers know at least in what order we will
want to offer our amendments.
Obviously, they have their own rights. But we will try to keep them
as fully informed as possible so that we can all be as prepared on
these amendments as possible.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and Senator from
Massachusetts. I deeply appreciate the cooperation we have had today.
We moved along well. We are well on our way. I look forward to seeing
the wonderful cooperation that we will have as we proceed on this bill.
I look forward to seeing you all again in the morning.
____________________