[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 55 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3569-S3575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senator Thomas,
again, for allowing the time to be devoted to this important subject
which we began discussing last week and hopefully will be able to
continue this week, namely, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and specifically the bill the Republican majority in the Senate has put
forth called the Educational Opportunities Act, S. 2.
It is my hope that by the end of this week we will have an
opportunity to vote on this legislation, to finally conclude our work
and move this bill forward so we can present it to the President for
his signature and actually achieve a historic reform opportunity this
year. As I said, I hope we will have that result. The reason, however,
I have some doubt is that we have seen what I fear is a trend, on the
part of
[[Page S3570]]
the Democratic minority, to continue to talk about education but in the
end not allow the Senate to vote on any meaningful piece of
legislation. I think the debate so far has vividly portrayed two very
different views of how the Federal Government should proceed with
educational reform in our country.
On the one hand, you have the majority arguing for flexibility
combined with accountability: Flexibility, so the local entities, the
school districts, the States, the schools, and the parents can have the
ability to direct the dollars from the Federal Government to do those
things they know work best in their particular area, and to have some
accountability for that by ensuring that at the end of the year they
demonstrate what they have done with this money has actually produced
results. We are talking here about academic achievement, we are talking
about meaningful results, not simply more students in a
particular program or more teachers hired or more school buildings
built. We are talking about some tangible results of those particular
actions. So it is flexibility with accountability.
Part of the way we achieve that is through greater competition, which
is driven by more parental choice, parents having the ability to decide
what is best for their kids; after all, they are the ones we presume
care the most about them, know the most about their needs, and
understand how best, therefore, to deal with those kids' needs.
On the other hand, you have the minority that has been arguing for
the same system of Federal mandates and regulations that, frankly,
after 35 years have proven to be a failure. It is the same system with
a new layer of mandates and poll-tested, Washington-run spending
programs added onto what we have right now. One of our colleagues from
the other side put it this way. He said:
The Senate has a choice. Will it pass the Republican
Educational Opportunities Act or, on the other hand, are we
going to follow the tried and tested programs that have
demonstrated results for children at the local level?
They vote for the tried and tested programs that have demonstrated
results. They have demonstrated results, all right. The problem is, not
many people I know are very happy about those results. An old farmer
friend of mine once said: If you want to get out of a hole, the first
thing you do is stop digging. We just want to keep digging the hole
deeper and deeper, it appears some of our colleagues are saying. That
is not producing the right kind of results, good results: Enhanced
achievement on test scores, enhanced ability to compete, and a real
achievement-based accountability, which is what the Republican plan is
asking for.
I have to say I am disappointed by this debate. I am disappointed
with the direction in which the legislation itself appears to be
heading because the American people have told us they want results.
They would like to see reform now. Every poll says this is the No. 1
issue of concern of the American people--to improve our educational
system.
As our colleague on the other side said, yes, the current system has
produced tried and tested results. But over 80 percent of the American
people do not like those results. They are not happy with those
results. They think we can do better. We can do better. We are spending
an awful lot of money, and we ought to get something for that money.
But more important than that, more important than the accountability to
the taxpayers, is the accountability to our children, our future.
These kids have one opportunity to get their education--right now. We
are not talking about 20 years from now. We are talking about the
children who are in our educational system today. Each year we delay is
another year our children are involved in a school system that is less
than adequate by most standards.
The American people who are demanding accountability are going to be
very disappointed if we conclude this debate with yet another year
failing to enact fundamental reforms. That is what has me concerned
because there seems to be a rather cynical strategy developing on the
other side to talk this thing to death, to set up a whole lot of
amendments on which we have to vote, some of which have nothing to do
with education, and then, in effect, put the blame on the Republican
majority until, finally, when we have to move on to other business, the
majority leader has to say: If you are not going to let us get to a
final conclusion on this, if we cannot vote for these reforms, we have
to move on. However, the blame would not be on the majority but on the
minority for its refusal to let us move on and get this legislation
passed.
I do not think it is too late to put politics aside and put our
children first, but time is running out. I call upon my colleagues:
Let's keep talking about education. Let's put the political
gamesmanship aside for just a few hours. Is it just possible, for
example, that we can conclude debate on one bill without getting bogged
down on gun control?
Yet I predict, before this week is out, we will have colleagues from
the other side say: We cannot really deal with S. 2 unless we deal with
issues relating to gun control.
Let's talk about what is in this education bill, what is in our
proposal. It may be that some of our colleagues on the other side are
actually uncomfortable focusing the debate on education because of this
notion that the current system is working just fine. I think they are
reluctant to talk about reform, but the American people want reform. As
I said, they know we can do better.
We heard last week from members of the minority that we cannot trust
parents to do what is right for children. One of our colleagues said:
Where are the guarantees that the parents will make the right
decisions? There are no guarantees that parents will make the right
decisions, but I suppose one can ask: Who is more likely to make right
decisions for their children, the parents or some bureaucrat in
Washington, DC, or some Senator in Washington, DC?
My heart is in the right place when it comes to taking care of the
schoolkids in this country, but I certainly would not presume to set
all the policies in Washington that would fit the needs of every single
schoolchild in this country. We in Washington just do not have that
capability. There are no guarantees that every parent will make every
decision correctly, but it is a lot more likely that parents making the
decisions will result in good decisions for the most number of kids
than if those decisions are relegated to Washington, DC.
Another thing we heard was that the leaders in our States and
communities cannot be trusted to do what is right for America's young
people; again, we need guarantees. By guarantees they mean Federal
enforcement that these local officials will do the right thing and, of
course, the right thing is defined by the bureaucrats in Washington,
DC: You have to do it the way Washington wants to do it or you are not
going to get the money.
One of the things we heard was that it would be a better approach to
the Republican reform ideas to simply fine-tune the Federal regulations
that impose 50 percent of the paperwork requirements on the local
schools, and that is in exchange for only 7 percent of their funding.
In other words, the 7 percent of funding that primary and secondary
education receives from the Federal Government accounts for 50 percent
of the paperwork. It is a pretty expensive proposition, in other words,
to get the Federal funding. Schools go after that Federal funding even
though it is a very inefficient way for them to fund the education of
the children.
The point is this: How can you expect to get different results if you
keep doing things the same way? The answer is, of course, you cannot.
That is where the reforms in S. 2 come into play. One of the things
which exemplifies this debate is the issue of class size or class size
reduction.
Members of the minority have said we have to use this money for the
purpose of hiring more teachers so we can achieve a class size
reduction. The majority has said we need to let the local schools
decide if that is their top priority. If it is, then they have the
ability to use the funds for that purpose. If they have a higher
priority, who should make that judgment of how to spend the money?
Should it be those of us in Washington or should it be the people who
understand what their priorities are?
[[Page S3571]]
Almost everyone would like to see smaller class sizes. We intuitively
believe that would be better for education, but with every other area
of this debate, we do have to look at the track record. The fact is
that class sizes have fallen over the period that the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act has been in existence, but performance has not
tracked. George Will, with his wonderful characteristic dry wit, looked
at the data, and this is what he said:
Pupil-teacher ratios have been shrinking for a century. In
1955 pupil-teacher ratios in the public elementary and
secondary schools were 30.2-to-one and 20.9-to-one
respectively. In 1998 they were 18.9-to-one and 14.7-to-one.
We now know it is possible to have, simultaneously, declining
pupil-teacher ratios and declining scores on tests measuring
schools' cognitive results.
The truth is, we have declining class sizes and with it declining
test scores. We still think it would be a good idea to reduce the size
of classes; that there are other reasons why those test scores have not
improved. But under the proposal from the President, they have to spend
the money strictly on hiring teachers. They cannot use it for anything
else, as I will get to in a moment.
One of the things this money can be used for is to create more
charter schools, something that has improved the education in my own
State of Arizona. Our State superintendent of education, Lisa Graham
Keegan, has pointed out under the President's proposal, the $17 million
Arizona would receive to hire new teachers could actually start 425 new
charter schools across the State, more than enough schools to keep
class sizes relatively small, but they would not have that flexibility
under the President's plan, under the Democrats' plan. No, they have to
do it their way or no way. The only way they get the money is if they
follow precisely their guidelines. That is the way it has been all
these years. We can see the results. Again, the American people are
asking for something different.
One of the ideas embodied in our legislation is something we call the
Straight A's approach. The idea behind it is to actually look at where
the Federal Government has been successful in making major reforms and
applying that same technique to education.
There are few successes more dramatic than our success in welfare
reform. It cannot be done, we were told, but we did it, and the results
have been dramatic. The idea was pretty simple. The Federal Government
said: We will repeal the regulations that have historically defined
this program, and we will give unprecedented flexibility to the
reformers in State government, as well as unprecedented accountability
for them. Go out and pursue reforms, we said, and if you are
successful, you will be rewarded. If you fail, then you will lose some
of your latitude.
As with welfare reform, we need to put aside the certainty that
Washington knows best and all wisdom that is formulated comes from
Washington.
I know there is no such monopoly because I have the good fortune of
coming from a State where education policy is made by people who really
have been innovative, people such as our State superintendent of
education, Lisa Graham Keegan.
I want to present some of the things she has had to say. When we
consider how to provide this flexibility to education just as we did
with welfare reform, I think we will see the same results. This is some
of what Ms. Keegan had to say:
Federal programs have tied dollars to bureaucracies and
institutions, not to students.
What that illustrates is the disorientation from Washington. We
believe if you send the money to the institution, to the organization,
automatically good things will happen. The fact is, we ought to be
focused on what some call child-centered education. We ought to figure
out how to get the money we want to educate these children as close to
those children as possible because the sad fact is, when we send it to
an institution or a bureaucracy, a significant amount of that money
gets stuck at that bureaucracy.
As with many Federal programs, it costs a lot of money to administer
the program, to comply with all of the Federal redtape and paperwork.
That is why we say that, while the Federal Government only supplies 7
percent of the primary and secondary education dollars the States
spend, the States have to spend 50 percent of their administration
costs just administering that 7 percent at the Federal level. That is
why if we can get over this business of tying dollars to the
bureaucracies and the institutions and tie it more to the students, it
will be a much more efficient expenditure of the money.
Ms. Keegan also says:
But before we ask Washington to get involved with the
education of our children, we need to think about exactly
what we're asking for. Sometimes, when we ask Washington for
help, we run a very real risk of getting it. . . . More often
than not, the government's preferred method for
alleviating a perceived problem is to create a federally
funded program with federally authored strings and
federally enforced regulations. This approach may work
fine when it comes to matters that have clearly defined
federal responsibilities, such as highways or post
offices. When it comes to education, which has always been
largely a state and local matter with no clear federal
role, such an approach tends not to work so well. . . .
. . . we still let Washington drive state and local
decision making through the lure of federal dollars tied to
programs with hazily-defined goals and well-defined
regulations.
Then here is how she concludes this point:
The problem with this approach is that the federal
government has tied its dollar to a program rather than to a
student. An at-risk student who succeeds will, more often
than not, find him or herself ineligible for more at-risk
services. When the student moves on, the federal dollar dries
up--and it won't come back until that child again slips into
the at-risk group and becomes eligible for the federal
program once more. These kinds of programs thrive on student
stagnation, even failure.
We had that same situation with the welfare program. We tended to
measure the success of the welfare program by how many people we had on
the welfare rolls, by how much money we were spending on that. Then one
day it dawned on someone that we ought to be measuring the success of
the welfare program by how few people were on the welfare rolls and by
how little we had to spend.
As a result, by giving flexibility to the local governments with
regard to welfare, we have cut the welfare rolls in half. We are not
spending near as much money on welfare. We have only half as many
people involved in the welfare program. Is that failure? No. It is a
success. And so it is with education.
If we are going to devote Federal dollars to the education of the
students, then we ought to provide those dollars to the students so
that wherever they think they can get their best education, whatever
their needs are in terms of priorities, the money will be spent for
that, not because the Federal Government makes a judgment that a
particular expenditure is necessarily the right thing.
I think it is important to reiterate our responsibility to those who
will pay the highest price if we fail to take advantage of the
opportunities that are here presented. As I said, it is not necessarily
the American taxpayer, even though we have, as stewards of those
taxpayer dollars, an obligation to see that they are efficiently spent.
No. Those that will pay the highest price, if we fail, are the
schoolchildren, the children who, this year, will not receive an
improved education because, perhaps, we will not get these reforms
passed this year. They will have to go yet one more year stuck with the
kind of bureaucratic redtape and regulations that have failed them thus
far in their careers.
Last week, we also learned that there are those on the other side who
do not agree that choice should be available to children in failing or
unsafe schools. I always find this interesting because very frequently
people who make this argument have sent their kids to private schools.
I am a product of the public schools. That is where I received my
education, including my college and law school education. It was from
the public schools. Both of my parents were public school graduates and
public school teachers. And others in my family are or have been
teachers in public schools. So I fully appreciate the need to improve
our public schools.
I think one does that by enabling some competition between these
schools, and also with the private schools. What we find is that when
that competition is allowed to work, everyone benefits. To use a crude
example, it
[[Page S3572]]
is similar to the automobile manufacturers. If one of them finds a new
way to improve the way a car operates, it isn't long before the others
find a way to incorporate that same technique or technology into their
cars. If they do not, they are going to lose sales.
By the same token, when a school finds that something really works
well--if we give parents a choice to send their kids to that school--
the other schools are soon going to find that they will want to
incorporate that same kind of technique to keep the kids there.
That is especially the case because so much of our Federal and State
funding goes to the institutions, as we have said. If they want to
continue to get that funding, under the Republican proposal, they would
have to be able to continue to attract the kids.
In my State of Arizona, we have, in effect, open enrollment so there
can be some degree of competition among the public schools. We also
have more charter schools--almost 350 at last count--than any other
State. I think it is a third of the charter schools in the country.
These charter schools promote a lot of competition. A lot of them have
learned to attract students by doing things a little differently. Some
of the larger public schools have picked up on these techniques and
have incorporated them into their curricula, into their procedures. As
a result, they can be quite competitive with those charter schools. It
does not hurt one at the expense of another.
It is not a zero sum game. Competition is like invention. What it
does is lift all of the boats. When one begins to do something better,
the others soon follow behind and copy it in order to keep up with the
first one. When you have that kind of competition, therefore you can
have innovation. If you have flexibility, you have the ability to
experiment, and the net result is a better opportunity for more kids.
That is what we want to promote in this Federal legislation.
As I say, in my own State of Arizona we already have a significant
element of this in our public schools. But what we found last week from
those on the other side of the debate was that there is a real desire
to keep students and parents from having this additional flexibility,
this additional choice. It seems to me there is a fear of it. There is
a fear that not everyone will be able to do as well as those who do the
innovation, and somebody might actually fail or fall behind, which
would be bad.
Who is the somebody they are talking about? They are not focused on
the student. They are talking about the school, that it would not be
fair if a particular school failed. Why wouldn't it be fair if a
particular school failed if the students all had the opportunity to go
to the successful school? What is not fair is that failing schools keep
ahold of failing students. We are failing in the education of these
kids, and they will never be able to go back and get it.
Yes, we have some remedial education. But that is a very hard way to
reeducate people in our society. So it is not the schools that we ought
to be concerned about; it is the students in those schools. I remain
convinced that no American child should be trapped in a school that
cannot guarantee a good education. We have an obligation to those
students.
So whatever happens with this bill, I believe we will continue to
pursue this idea of choice, of competition, of flexibility, because it
will work. Sooner or later, this approach will provide the basis for
reform that will characterize the Federal program that provides the
Federal funding to primary and secondary education. I still believe we
can make a difference in this area.
So while it may become a disappointment that we are not able to
conclude work this year on this important bill, that we may not be able
to pass a bill that we can send to the President for his signature, I
think, in the end, the power of this idea of flexibility and
accountability and more choice--the power of that idea--will end up
defining the Federal program.
It would be better if we could do it this year because that would
mean we would not allow another year to pass with the same devastating
results for the kids who are in school right now where far too many of
them are failing. That is my hope.
I urge my colleagues this week to take this debate seriously, to try
to move on beyond extraneous issues, and in the end, to bring it to a
close so we can actually have a vote on S. 2 and get this important
reform measure to the American people where it can begin to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He obviously believes
very strongly in this issue and has defined very clearly where we are
with two very definite points of view. One is that the Federal
Government ought to make the rules, ought to set up the redtape, ought
to make the decisions here to be implemented in the country; the other
is to send the assistance from here to local schools so they can make
the kinds of decisions that are necessary to make their schools
successful.
So I say to the Senator, thank you very much.
I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alabama is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some additional thoughts
with the Members of the Senate and those watching what we can do to
improve education in America.
I believe in public education. I have taught and my wife has taught
in public schools. I say that to express how deeply I care about it. We
have been active in PTA as our kids have gone forward. We want to
improve the system. We want to make learning occur more regularly. We
want to help teachers. I believe in American teachers. They are some of
the finest in the world. They are well trained. They give their hearts
and souls to it, only to be frustrated by regulations, paperwork, and
discipline problems resulting from mandated rules passed by this
Congress.
I am going to share some thoughts today, and those in education in
any State of America will know what I am saying is true. They will have
heard these kinds of examples time and time again. But the vast
majority of Americans will not believe it; they will not believe these
things occur.
Over 25 years ago, for example, we passed a federal disabilities act.
It was designed to mandate to school systems and require that they not
shut out disabled kids from the classroom and that they be involved in
the classroom. If they have a hearing loss, or a sight loss, or if they
have difficulty moving around, in a wheelchair, or whatever, the school
system must make accommodations for them. They would be mainstreamed.
They would not be treated separately.
That was a good goal, a goal from which we should not retreat. I hope
no one interprets what I say today as a retreat from that goal. But in
the course of that time, we have created a complex system of Federal
regulations and laws that have created lawsuit after lawsuit, special
treatment for certain children, and that are a big factor in
accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all
over America. I say that very sincerely.
Teachers I have been talking to have shared stories with me. I have
been in 15 schools around Alabama this year. I have talked to them
about a lot of subjects. I ask them about this subject in every school
I go to, and I am told in every school that this is a major problem for
them. In fact, it may be the single most irritating problem for
teachers throughout America today.
It was really brought to my attention a little over a year ago when a
long-time friend, District Attorney David Whetstone, in Baldwin County,
AL, called me about a youngster in the school system classified as
having a disability. It is called ``emotional conflict.'' He was
emotionally conflicted. He could not, or would not, behave. An aide
would meet him in the morning at his home, get on the bus with him, and
go to school, sit through the class all day, and ride home on the
school bus with him. This student was known to curse principals and
teachers openly in the classroom. Because he was a disabled student, he
could not be disciplined in the normal way. The maximum 10-day
suspension rule--and 45 days is the maximum a child can be disciplined
under this Federal law and then they are back in the classroom. One
day, he attacked the school bus driver on the way home. The aide tried
to restrain him. He then attacked the
[[Page S3573]]
aide. District Attorney Whetstone told me, ``I was never more stunned
when I talked to school officials and they told me this is common in
our county.''
We have children we cannot control because of this Federal law. He
came to Washington, and we sat up in the gallery and talked about it. I
respect David Whetstone and his views. He said this cannot be. I began
to ask around, is this true? As a matter of fact, this very incident
was focused on in Time magazine. There was a full-page story about it
called ``The Meanest Kid in Alabama,'' and ``60 Minutes'' did a story
about it because it is, unfortunately, so common around the country.
What can we do about it? I began to ask leaders in education around
the State. The State superintendent: ``Absolutely, it is one of the
biggest problems we have.'' I talked to Paul Hubbard, head of the
teachers union in Alabama: ``Absolutely, it is a big problem.'' ``I am
tired,'' he said in the newspaper recently, ``of children cursing my
teachers in the classroom and nothing being done about it.''
Then we began to talk to teachers, principals, and school board
superintendents. They talked about the lawyers and the complicated
regulations with which they deal. It is really unacceptable. Teachers
who have been trained with masters' degrees in special education to
deal with these children have also overwhelmingly told me this is not a
healthy thing, that we are telling special children with physical
disabilities, or disabilities as defined by the Federal law, that they
don't have to adhere to the same standards other children do. Right in
the classroom, we create, by Federal law, two separate standards for
American citizens. You can say to one child: You can't do this, you are
out of school. But we can say to another children: You can do it, and
you are only out 10 days, or maybe 45 days, and then you are back in
the classroom. That is not defensible.
I want to share some of the letters I began to receive from teachers
who care about this problem and want me and you and the Members of this
Congress to do something about it. I believe we can. I hope it will be
part of the debate this year in our political arena. Maybe we can make
some progress with it.
First, I want to mention that when Congress passed the IDEA--
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--in 1975, we committed to
pay the States, whom we were requiring to do it--we require these
States to meet these standards. We agreed to pay 40 percent of the
cost. We have never paid more than 15 percent of the cost. It has been
below 10 percent in most years. We had testimony in the Health,
Education, and Labor Committee, of which I am a member, from a
superintendent in Vermont who testified to our committee that 20
percent of the cost of the school system in his county is for special
education children. This is a major factor in education today. Let me
share some stories with you about this.
An experienced educator in Alabama shared these thoughts with me in a
letter:
We have a student who is classified emotionally conflicted,
learning disabled, and who has attention deficit disorder.
While this student has been enrolled, students, teachers, and
staff have been verbally threatened with physical harm. Fits
of anger, fighting, and outbursts of verbal abuse have been
commonplace. Parents and students have expressed concern over
the safety of their children due to the behavior of this
young man. Teachers have also become extremely apprehensive
toward the presence of the student due to his explosive
behavior. His misbehavior has escalated to the point that the
instructional process of the entire school has been
jeopardized.
Here is another one:
I have taught for 25 years. I plan to continue teaching,
but the problems with discipline are getting out of hand. We
are not allowed to discipline certain students. Any student
labeled as ``special needs'' must be accommodated, not
disciplined. A student recently brought a gun to my school.
He made threats to students and teachers which he claims were
jokes. I was one of those teachers. This student has been
disruptive and belligerent since I first encountered him in
the ninth grade. Now, he is a senior. After bringing a gun to
school, he was given another ``second chance.'' He should
have been expelled. What is his handicap? He has a problem
with mathematics. While this may be an extreme situation, it
is not isolated.
Still reading from the letter:
Teachers are told to handle discipline in the classroom.
The Government has taken most of the teachers' rights away;
our hands are tied.
This is a letter from a young teacher in a small town of about 25,000
in Alabama. This is a story by which I think anybody would be moved:
As a special educator of six years, I consider myself ``on
the front lines'' of the ongoing battles that take place on a
daily basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that
part of the ``ammunition'' that fuels these struggles are
the ``right'' guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA
'97. The law, though well intentioned, has become one of
the single greatest obstacles that educators face in our
fight to provide all of our children with a quality
education delivered in a safe environment. There are many
examples that I can offer first hand. However, let me
reiterate that I am a special educator. I have dedicated
my life to helping children with special needs. It is my
job to study and know the abilities and limitations of
such children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, a
masters degree in special education and a Ph.D. in good
old common sense. No where in my educational process have
I been taught a certain few ``disabled'' students should
have a ``right'' to endanger the right to an education of
all other disabled and non-disabled children. It's non-
sense; it's wrong; it's dangerous; and it must be stopped.
There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost
by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an
increasingly competitive global society it is no wonder
American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to
remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours
that can never be replaced.
There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need
to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it
possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on
a daily basis to certain individuals there is no doubt we
would have a better educated students.
It is even more frustrating when it is a special education
child who knows and boasts ``they can't do anything to me''
and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day
after day, week after week.
It is clear that IDEA '97 not only undermines the
educational process it also undermines the authority of
educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon
to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources
our credibility is being stripped from us.
I am sure you have heard the saying: The teachers are
scared of the principals, the principals are scared of the
superintendents, the superintendents are scared of the
parents, the parents are scared of the children, and the
children are scared of no one. And why should they be?
I have experienced the ramifications of the ``new and
improved'' law first hand. I had one child attempt to assault
me--he had been successful with two other teachers. He was
suspended for one day. I had another child make sexual
gestures to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact
that every child in my class and a majority of the children
in the school knew of it, I was told by my assistant
principal that nothing could be done because ``these special
ed kids have rights.''
I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my
financial obligations to my family and my moral
responsibilities to the children I had in my class kept me
there.
The particular child I spoke about frequently made vulgar
comments and threats to my girls in my class on every
opportunity he had when there was no adult present.
Fortunately, the girls, also special ed, could talk to me
about it. Unfortunately, they had to put up with it because
``nothing could be done.''
I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a
fight. The learning disabled child and her parents then
attempted to sue the school system because the child was
burned when she grabbed a coffee pot to break it over the
other child's head. I know of another specific incident where
three children brought firearms to school. The two
``regular'' children where expelled. The special education
student was back to school the following week.
I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington
will do what it takes to take our schools back from this
small group of children who feel it is their right to
endanger the education of every other child in school. As my
grandmother said, ``right is right and wrong is wrong'' and
to enable this to continue is just wrong.
She does have a right to expect Members of this Congress to confront
this issue and not allow it to continue.
This is a letter from a town in Alabama with a population of 20,000,
or so, from another special education teacher.
As a special educator teacher for 27 years, may I applaud
your efforts to make special education students as
accountable as any other student for any behavior they
exhibit while in school. I fully support the idea that just
because they are students in need of special education
services that it in no way diminishes their ability to tell
right from wrong. When teachers and administrators cannot
provide some type of appropriate
[[Page S3574]]
punishment, then the students are taught that their behavior
has no consequences. Just the other day, we had a student,
who had been offered detention to avoid mission school time,
he responded that they could just go ahead and suspend him
because he was not going to come to school on Saturday and
that it was not going to hurt his grades because ``he'' was
allowed to make up all the work. When students find out about
this ``loophole'' then they often feel they have free reign
to do or say whatever they feel and that there is nothing
that anyone can do.
He is correct about that. This is a Federal law. We provide 7 percent
of the cost of education in America. But we don't hesitate to mandate
these kinds of rules in every school system in the country.
There federal rules often make teaching very difficult and
it penalizes the students who come to school to try and
improve themselves.
He is teaching a class of special education students, and wants all
of them to learn. Many of them are there trying to learn, and they find
it more difficult because of these rules.
I feel that for the best interest of the students and of
the entire education population, changes in this policy must
take place.
Mr. President. I don't want to disrupt the system. But I have some
more comments that I am prepared to make.
This is a letter from a small town in Alabama.
Due to the federal rules and the situation they create, I
cannot spend time in my class discussing a lesson. I do not
do something to tantalize the students, they become
disruptive. I can no longer simply explain a concept. I now
must spend over half my time disciplining the disruptive
students. I am no longer a teacher, I am a threatened and
battered baby-sitter who is not allowed to do her job. Give
us back our classrooms and our schools. Give the teacher the
right to have these disruptive students removed. Please help
us.
This is a letter from an assistant principal.
I am an assistant principal in Alabama. I taught middle
school before taking this administrative position. As a
teacher I saw a ``small picture'' of the problem, as an
administrator I see a much ``larger picture''. You have
chosen a much needed, but difficult battle. Most of the
special education students are wonderful (emphasis added)
unfortunately, a few are literally destroying the public
education process in our country. We are teaching them that
they have excuses not to follow rules or obey laws, then we
act shocked when violence occurs. Now, perhaps more than ever
in our history, we need to teach our children right from
wrong and that there will be consequences for their actions.
Instead we develop more and more excuses for unacceptable,
sometimes criminal behavior. Thank you for anything you can
do to help save our children, as well as our country's
future.
I have a letter from a student in a good school system in Alabama.
I would like to let you know I agree with changing the
section on IDEA law. I am in high school and I know how
difficult it is for you to learn if there is disruption in
the classroom. I think if there is a student who does not
want to learn, they should be put in an alternative school or
separate class.
Amen, young student. I agree.
Another student from an average town in Alabama.
I'm seeing more and more teachers getting out of education
because of the ridiculous lawsuits by special education
students.
We are losing good teachers today in America. If you check around,
one of the biggest reasons is frustration over their inability to
maintain discipline in the classroom. Talk to them about it. In most
schools, that is a real problem. It is hurting public education. These
laws don't apply to private schools. Teachers in private schools don't
have these problems and are able to be more effective in creating a
learning atmosphere. In a way, it hurts our ability to maintain public
education as a competitive enterprise. We need to make sure what we do
in Congress does not make it more difficult for our teachers to teach.
First, do no harm.
The letter continues,
We have been told to give the parents whatever they want.
They have individual education plans for each student. A lot of
times, that is very helpful. But they have become almost contracts with
the parents, and schools have to obey them to the letter of the law.
There are frequently lawsuits over whether the school is following the
IEP, the individual education plan. It is sad.
We have been told if they sue us we are going to lose.
Because of this, special education students are suffering and
so are those students around them. They can disrupt class at
will and take away from the education of the majority of the
students. Often they do less, and even no work, and we are
told to pass them anyway.
Then he makes an interesting point:
When these students leave school and enter the real world,
they will not have things given to them as they do in school.
They will not be prepared to function as a regular citizen
should be. As a parent, I fear for my son's safety in school.
He has already had one confrontation with a special needs
child. The disabled student assaulted my child. In self-
defense, my son hit the student back. The student was known
to get into fights. My son was hauled off to the police
station. His grades suffered. The special ed student could go
on repeatedly assaulting, with very little consequence. As
you can see, this is both an emotional and professional issue
for me. I am glad you are aware of the large problem our
educational system is having. I hope something can be done
before it gets worse. We will see the repercussions for years
to come if we don't change this system.
Another letter from a teacher:
I have over 30 years experience as a teacher, principal,
Federal program coordinator, and school superintendent. I am
greatly concerned about the future of public education in
this country. IDEA has given local superintendents grief
beyond description. First, in 1975, the law was first passed,
Congress promised to pick up 40 percent of the cost to
operate the program, and according to figures I have seen, 10
percent has been the norm since then. Second, this has made
every system fair game, with litigation costs consuming more
than education dollars. While our system is small, we have
had to deal with a number of weapons cases in the last few
years. Two of the cases students were caught with weapons
they admit they accidentally left in their vehicles coming to
school grounds from target shooting. The first boy was
expelled 1 year. He never returned to school to graduate.
According to him, the situation was just too embarrassing.
Although the second boy was in the exact same position as
the first, having accidentally left the weapon in his car,
instantly we were told he was a special education student
and has an IEP. He was then assigned to an alternative
school for 45 days and is now back in our school. Both of
these young men were not troublemakers at school. Senator,
it is impossible to explain to the family of the first
student that their son was deserving of more punishment.
Think about that.
This family is now bitter toward me and toward the American
system because they, in grave error, believe that all
Americans have the same legal right and they were unaware
that Congress now decides what rights we are entitled to hold
as American citizens. As said in ``Animal Farm'': All are
equal, but some are more equal than others.
The second student's handicap does not prevent him from
knowing right from wrong. I'm sorry that I'm old fashioned
and believe we should be teaching all students to be
responsible for their behavior. We should be helping them
develop good decisionmaking skills, not telling them that you
are not responsible for your behavior and that there will be
no consequences, or minimal consequences, regardless of your
behavior.
I became a teacher in 1965 and I do not remember hearing of
gun shootings prior to 1975 when Congress began telling ten
percent of our students you are not responsible.
I think these teachers make a point. It is a matter we need to give
careful consideration to, not overreact, not undermine the great
principles of the Disabilities Act Program. But at the same time, we
need to say that a child is not allowed to commit crimes, to disrupt
classroom, to curse teachers, principals and students, and abuse them
and do so with impunity.
I thank the Chair for the time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has until 3 o'clock.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for the
great job of expressing the feelings the teachers and students have
with respect to what we are doing.
We have had an interesting week of debate. A number of things, of
course, have helped define where we are and the direction we will take.
One of the quotes from the other side of the aisle is the reason we
have title I is because we decided in 1965 the needs of disadvantaged
children were not being addressed.
Madam President, 35 years later, we find once again, the needs of
poor kids are not being addressed--this time, by those who defend the
status quo, the means of trapping another generation.
A Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that this is an effort to
restrict the States from making the decisions. Again, one of the
comments made
[[Page S3575]]
about it was the GOP plan allows a blank check for Governors who will
see to it that the neediest and the poorest children will not benefit
from the money.
This defines rather well where we are in this debate. Some of the
facts seem to be different than what is being talked about. So $120
billion later, poor kids still lag behind in reading. The percentage of
those reading below basic level at the 12th grade is still 40 percent.
The percentage of those writing below basic level in title I is 38
percent in the 12th grade after $120 billion and 35 years of
expenditures under this program.
We are talking about returning some of the decisionmaking to parents,
to local leaders, sending dollars to the classroom rather than having
them spent here, giving families greater educational choices,
supporting and encouraging exceptional teachers, focusing on basic
academics.
I think, if nothing more, we have defined very clearly where our
priorities lie in terms of this body. I think we have a great
opportunity to make some changes to bring about the results in
education that all Members seek.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I might have
4 minutes to speak about Mike Epstein, who passed away on Saturday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Minnesota?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________