[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3676-S3679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is the ninth reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Regrettably, the 
reauthorization, as reported by Committee, is not in my view in the 
best interest of our Nation's children. Established as part of 
President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, the original bill offered 
Federal support, for the first time, to schools in low-income 
communities. It underscored the importance of ensuring that all 
American children have access to quality education.
  As the time has come to again reauthorize this important legislation 
that provides opportunity and hope to so many citizens, the 
negotiations have taken a drastically partisan turn. Members of the 
Majority have argued that, because states have paramount 
responsibilities for education, the role of the Federal Government 
should be diminished. However, that argument ignores our Nation's 
interest in ensuring an educated citizenry which is vital to the 
strength of our country, the continued health of our economy, and our 
ability to compete internationally.
  On previous occasions, we have worked together to provide the Federal 
Government's 7 percent share of elementary and secondary education 
funding to the citizens of our country. We came together, despite our 
differences, to provide for the less fortunate in society. We came 
together to make progress on strengthening and improving public schools 
in every community, while ensuring that the Federal Government retained 
its mission of targeting the neediest communities.
  The Congress and the President showed leadership in the last 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and with 
the passage of the GOALS 2000 legislation, which established a new 
benchmark in setting higher standards and moving our educational system 
in a new direction. Now, after years of tested programs and studies, 
the Majority wants to go back to the days of block grant funding to 
states and remove the Federal Government's ability to ensure that we 
have a targeted and responsible use of our citizens' tax dollars.
  At a time when the Nation is enjoying remarkable economic prosperity, 
we should be working to increase the Federal investment in education to 
help states, communities, and schools meet the demands of higher 
standards of achievement, and address the challenges of diversity, 
poverty, and the lack of technology advancements in some communities. 
We need to do all we can to target resources to the neediest 
communities so that the most disadvantaged students get a good 
education.
  During the last two years, we have been able to come together as a 
Congress and support the President's proposal to provide more teachers 
to the classrooms to lower class sizes. Over $2.5 billion has been 
provided for the purpose of recruiting, hiring, and training teachers. 
Now the Majority would have us retreat from this critical effort to 
provide more qualified teachers and reduced class sizes. And it is well 
settled that smaller class sizes enhances student achievement. Smaller 
classes enable teachers to provide greater individual attention and 
assistance to students in need. Smaller classes enable teachers to 
spend more time on instruction, and less time on discipline and 
behavior problems. In smaller classes, teachers cover material more 
effectively, and are able to work with parents more effectively to 
enhance their children's education.

  Mr. President, the Majority's centerpiece for this legislation, the 
so-called ``Straight A's program'', whether in the 50-state or the 15-
state form--abandons our commitment to help the Nation's most 
disadvantaged children receive a good education through proven and 
effective programs. The bill before

[[Page S3677]]

us would give states a blank check for over $12 billion--and then turns 
its back on holding states accountable for results.
  In addition, the Majority undermines the cornerstone of our education 
reform by making Title I funds ``portable.'' Portability dilutes the 
impact that Title I funding has on individual public schools that serve 
all children. Supporters go to great lengths to avoid admitting that 
this funding could be used for private, religious, or for-profit 
services in the form of vouchers, but indeed, this is the case. 
Vouchers threaten to drain public schools of greatly needed public tax 
dollars and send the message that when public schools, which educate 90 
percent of American children, do not work, they should be abandoned 
rather than fixed.
  As we confront a world that is increasingly complex both 
technologically and economically, it is critical that we continue to 
meet the educational needs of our Nation's young people. It is in my 
view imperative that we maintain strong Federal support to ensure the 
successful continuation of education programs serving our country's 
young people. The legislation as submitted by the Majority diminishes 
the Federal role and does not provide accountability for education 
standards. This is an unfortunate departure from years of bipartisan 
support and movement towards higher achievement for all of our young 
people.
  Mr. President, I have a longstanding and deep commitment to the goal 
of ensuring a quality education for all citizens. The bill before us 
would retreat from that goal by sharply reducing the Federal role in 
education--a role, that while narrow in scope, is critical to ensuring 
reform in our schools and real improvements in student performance, 
particularly among our neediest students and in our neediest 
communities.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate's consideration of 
elementary and secondary education policy offers us an opportunity to 
begin to institute some fundamental reforms of American public 
education.
  I fervently hope that the Senate does just that. I hope we will send 
to the President promptly a bill that brings about real change.
  In the past week, we have debated several approaches and today we 
will debate another.
  First, let me say that federal education funding is only 6 percent of 
total spending for elementary and secondary education. So in terms of 
dollars, the federal role is small. Public education spending and 
policy are largely set by local and state governments and that is the 
way it should be.
  Nevertheless, federal dollars can and should leverage other dollars 
and in writing legislation to revamp federal education policy, we have 
the opportunity to stimulate some real reforms.
  Why do we need reform? The numbers tell us a sad story.
  American students lag behind their international counterparts in many 
ways. American twelfth grade math students are outperformed by students 
from 21 other countries, scoring higher than students from only two 
countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
  Three-quarters of our school children cannot compose a well-
organized, coherent essay.
  U.S. eighth graders score below the international average of 41 other 
countries in math. U.S. twelfth graders score among the lowest of 21 
countries in both math and science general knowledge.
  Three-quarters of employers say that recent high school graduates do 
not have the skills they need to succeed on the job. Forty-six percent 
of college professors say entering students do not have the skills to 
succeed in college, according to a February Public Agenda poll.
  These statistics speak for themselves. Our schools are failing many 
of our youngsters. It is not the students' fault. It is our fault.
  We need major change.
  Our changing economy, particularly in my state, poses huge challenges 
for public education. Our young people must be able to compete not just 
nationally, but in the world because the economy today is a global 
economy.
  Here are a few examples:
  Our state's economy has moved away from manufacturing toward more 
higher-skilled, service and technology jobs. Since 1980, employment has 
increased in California by nearly 28 percent, but growth in the 
traditional fields, such as manufacturing, has been only six percent. 
Jobs in the ``new economy,'' fields such as services and trade, have 
jumped nearly 60 percent.
  California employers say job applicants lack basic skills. High tech 
CEOs come to Washington and ask us to increase visas so they can bring 
in skilled employees from overseas because they cannot find qualified 
employees in our state.
  Nationally, over the next 10 years, computer systems analyst jobs 
will grow by 94 percent; computer support specialists, by 102 percent; 
computer engineers, 108 percent. Jobs for the non-college educated are 
stagnating.
  Our economic strength is in large part dependent on how well we 
prepare our youngsters. And today, sadly, we are not preparing them 
very well by most measures.
  California's public schools have gone from being among the best to 
some of the worst. California has 5.8 million students, more students 
in public school than 36 states have in total population! California 
has 30 percent of the nation's school-age immigrant children. We have 
41 percent (1.4 million) of the nation's students with limited English 
proficiency.
  We've gone from near the top rank in per pupil spending (we were 5th 
in the nation in 1965) to near the bottom. California ranks 46th today. 
In the 1960s California invested 20 percent above the national average 
per student in K-12 education. Today, California averages 20 percent 
below the national average.
  We have low test scores, crowded classrooms, uncredentialed teachers, 
teacher shortages, growing enrollments, decrepit buildings.
  Let's look at how California's students perform academically:
  In fourth grade math, 11 percent of students score at or above 
proficiency levels--11 percent In fourth grade reading, 20 percent.
  California ranks 32nd out of 36 states in the percent of eighth 
graders scoring at or above ``proficient'' on reading. For fourth grade 
readers, we rank 36 out of 39 states in reading.
  California ranks 34th out of 40 states in the percent of eighth 
graders scoring at or above ``proficient'' on science.
  California ranks 37th among the states in the high school graduation 
rate.
  Forty-eight percent of freshman students enrolling in the 
California's State University system need remedial math and English.
  California's students lag behind students from other states. Only 
about 40 to 45 percent of the state's students score at or above the 
national median, on the Stanford 9 reading and math tests.
  These are dismal, disappointing and disturbing statistics.
  What does this mean for California's future, when our high school 
graduates cannot read, write, multiply, divide or add, find China on a 
map, fill out an employment application or read a bus schedule? These 
are not abstract facts. These are real examples of the weaknesses in 
our education system.
  The Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy--a 
highly respected think tank--put it quite bluntly: ``Ranking in the 
bottom 20 percent of all states is simply not compatible with meeting 
the requirements of industries which will lead California in a world 
economy.''
  In addition to low academic performance, we have a virtual litany of 
other problems:
  California has one of the highest student-teacher ratios in the 
nation, even though we are reducing class sizes in the early grades.
  We will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. Currently, 11 percent or 
30,000 of our 285,000 teachers are on emergency credentials.
  We're 50th in computers per child and 43rd in schools with Internet 
access.
  We need to add about 327 new schools over the next 3 years just to 
keep pace with projected growth. We need $22 billion to build and 
repair schools and $10 billion to install instructional technology, 
according to the National Education Association report that just came 
out on May 3. Two million California children go to school today in 
86,000 portable classrooms.
  Our Head Start programs serve only 13 percent of eligible children.

[[Page S3678]]

  We have 40 percent of the nation's immigrants. We have 41 percent of 
the nation's limited English proficient students. Some of our schools 
have 50 languages spoken.
  These challenges will be exacerbated multi-fold. California has 
nearly 34 million people today, with schools, and roads, and other 
infrastructure that were built when the population was 16 million. And 
our population is projected to increase to almost 50 million over the 
next 25 years. California's school enrollment rate between now and 2007 
will be triple the national rate.
  But California's education system cannot be fixed with just bricks, 
mortar and electrical wiring. The problems are much, much deeper than 
that. The bottom line is this: tinkering around the edges of a failing 
system is not meaningful change. Nothing short of a major restructuring 
will turn around our schools.
  The condition of public education in California troubles me greatly 
because this is an area of human endeavor that is critical to the 
future of our state. California's public school system can be turned 
around. It will be painful. It will not be easy. But it can be done. 
And we have to start.
  So the question is, what should we do. In my view, we should base our 
efforts on two key principles: performance and accountability.
  The success of our schools must be measured, not by what we put into 
our classrooms, but what comes out.
  There several core elements of education reform:
  That basic achievement levels be set for students for every grade in 
all core subjects. These standards should be phased in over a period of 
years, and measured at key levels, such as 4th, 6th, and 10th grades.
  That social promotion of students be ended. Promotion from one grade 
level to the next should be based on measured levels of achievement--
period. Intensive intervention programs must be provided for those who 
fall short and who need extra help. Extra, intervention or remedial 
programs must accompany the end of social promotion because clearly, 
retention should not replace the ending of social promotion.
  That standards be set to measure a school's achievement.
  That class size be reduced and phased in over 10 years.
  That school size be reduced. Educators tell us that elementary 
schools should be limited to 450 students.
  That the length of both the school day and the school year be 
increased, thereby increasing both instructional time for students as 
well as instructional development time for teachers.
  In most states, the school year is 180 days. In other industrialized 
nations, students spend more time in the classroom, and teachers have 
more time for instructional development each year. For example, in 
Korea the school year is 220 days. In Japan it is 220. In Israel it is 
216, and in Great Britain, 190.
  That public school choice be increased.
  And that teacher training and pay be improved, to elevate teaching to 
a respected and competitive position. I have proposed, for example, 
master teachers who mentor and coach other teachers, especially those 
in their first year in the classroom and who get salaries commensurate 
with that role.
  Today, I intend to vote for Senator Lieberman's reform proposal 
because I believe it takes a fresh approach to federal education policy 
and will bring us ``more bang'' for our education bucks by linking real 
reforms to federal dollars.
  Here is what the Lieberman amendment does. It does three things.
  First, it takes almost 50 current, disparate federal education 
programs and consolidates them into five performance-based grants:
  educating disadvantaged children;
  improving teacher quality;
  teaching English to non-English-speaking children;
  expanding pubic school choice; and
  supporting high performance initiatives.
  Second, the amendment increases authorized funding levels:
  educating disadvantaged children (Title I), a 50 percent increase, 
from $7.9 billion to $12 billion;
  teacher training, a 100 percent increase from $620 million to $1.6 
billion;
  teaching English to non-English-speaking children, a 250 percent 
increase, from $380 million to $1 billion;
  public school choice, from $145 million to $300 million;
  high performance initiatives, a new infusion of $2.7 billion.
  Third, instead of the funds just going out the door without ever 
knowing any results, the Lieberman amendment requires for each of the 
five areas, that states demonstrate improvement. How does it do that? 
Accountability. The amendment has several important elements.
  It requires states to have content and performance standards in at 
least English language arts, math and science. It requires states to 
define ``adequate yearly progress'' (AYP) and requires 90 percent of 
school districts to meet AYP, and within school districts, 90 percent 
of schools to meet AYP.
  It requires school districts to identify failing schools and after 
two years and requires those schools to develop an improvement plan. 
Every school district must have a system of corrective action for 
failing schools.
  The amendment gives states three years to implement their own 
accountability systems; requires states to sanction districts that do 
not meet their annual performance targets; cuts administrative funds if 
states do not meet objectives; authorizes funds to correct low-
performing schools.
  For Title I, each state must develop plans to ensure that all 
children are proficient in math and reading within 10 years. Each 
states must set performance goals for increasing overall academic 
achievement and for closing the gap between high- and low-income 
students, minority and non-minority students, limited English 
proficient children and non-LEP students.
  On teachers, it requires that states have all teachers fully 
qualified by 2005. It preserves the class size reduction program.
  For non- or limited English-speaking children, it requires states to 
develop standards for measuring English proficiency, to set performance 
goals and to require school districts to make adequate yearly progress 
in core academic subjects.
  On public school choice, it requires states to hold charter and non-
traditional schools accountable to the same content and performance 
standards as any other public school. It allows students in failing 
schools to transfer to another public school.
  It requires states to have annual performance goals and a plan for 
holding local districts accountable. It rewards districts that meet or 
exceed their performance goals.
  If states do not show improvement in three years, they lose 
administrative funding. States must also hold school districts 
accountable and have sanctions for low performance.
  I believe that this amendment represents a comprehensive, 
constructive approach to real school reform.
  In addition, the amendment increases authorized funding for 
elementary and secondary education by $35 billion. But it doesn't just 
add money, it better targets funds to those truly educationally 
disadvantaged children, such as poor students and limited English 
proficient students. According to tables prepared by the Congressional 
Research Service, California would see increases in Title I, in teacher 
training, in programs for limited English proficient children and 
innovative high performance grants.
  Some may see it as tough. Some may see it as a too different. But we 
have gotten to the point where we need to look at different ways. As 
doctors say about an antibiotic, it must be (1) targeted; (2) of 
sufficient duration and (3) of sufficient dose. That is what this 
amendment is.
  By clearly linking federal dollars to results, we can begin to put in 
place some real steps toward improving student achievement and making 
public education produce real results.
  My goal is not to be harsh, to ``dish out'' requirements, sanctions 
and penalties. Our schools are overwhelmed. Our teachers are 
overwhelmed. They are often asked to do the impossible.
  But our few federal dollars--6 percent of total education spending--
can and should be used to produce results.
  That is what this amendment does and that is why I support it.
  I want to thank Senator Lieberman for including in his amendment two 
of my initiatives: one is on master teachers and the other is on use of 
Title I funds.

[[Page S3679]]

  In Title II of the bill, the title providing funds to strengthen 
teacher training, Senator Lieberman has added a master teacher section 
so that school districts can use these funds to establish master 
teacher programs. Under the language, a master teacher would be an 
experienced teacher, one who has been teaching at least five years, and 
who assists other (particularly new) teachers in improving their 
skills.
  I have proposed creating master teacher programs because I believe 
these ``senior teachers'' could enhance the profession of teaching and 
encourage people to stay in the classroom, as well as help the newer 
teachers ``learn the ropes.'' School districts could use these funds 
to, for example, increase teachers' salaries and that too could keep 
them in the classroom instead of moving to an administrative job or to 
private industry.
  In California, teachers' salaries average $44,585 which is $4,000 
higher than the U.S. average. But the schools cannot compete with 
private industry without some help. I believe starting master teachers 
should earn at least $65,000 a year so that we can begin to reward 
excellence and dedication and keep our teachers in the classroom. These 
programs have proven to work in Rochester and Cincinnati and I believe 
other areas should be given the resources to try them too.
  I am also grateful that Senator Lieberman has included language I 
suggested to clarify and refine how Title I funds can be used. The goal 
of this amendment is to better focus Title I on improving students' 
academic achievement. Under current law, there is little direction and 
no restrictions on how Title I funds can be used. Under this amendment, 
Title I funds would have to be used for services directly related to 
instruction, including extending instruction beyond the normal school 
day and year; purchasing books and other materials; and instructional 
interventions to improve student achievement. Funds could not be used, 
for example, for paying utility bills, janitorial services, 
constructing facilities, and buying food and refreshments.
  This amendment is needed because when my staff checked with a number 
of California schools, we learned that Title I funds have been used for 
virtually everything, from clerical assistants to payroll 
administration, from college counseling to coaching, from school yard 
duty personnel to school psychologists. Alan Bersin, Superintendent of 
the San Diego Public Schools, found that Title I funds have been used 
to pay for everything from playground supervisors and field trips to 
nurses and counselors.
  Many of these are no doubt worthy expenditures. But we have to 
realize that Title I cannot do everything. With limited federal 
dollars, I believe we should focus those dollars on what counts--
helping students learn and helping teachers teach. Activities unrelated 
to instruction will have to be funded from other sources.

  This debate is about the future of our nation. We must ask some 
fundamental questions about our schools.
  Seventeen years ago, the nation's attention was jolted by a report 
titled A Nation at Risk. In April 1983, the Reagan Administration's 
Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, told the nation that we faced a 
fundamental crisis in the quality of American elementary and secondary 
education. The report said:

       Our nation is at risk. If an unfriendly foreign power had 
     attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational 
     performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it 
     as an act of war.

  The report cited declines in student achievement and called for 
strengthening graduation requirements, teacher preparation and 
establishing standards and accountability.
  Today, we still face mediocrity in our schools. While there are 
always exceptions and clearly there are many excellent teachers and 
many outstanding schools, we can do better. To those who say we cannot 
afford to spend more on education, I say we cannot afford to fail our 
children. Our children do not choose to be illiterate or uneducated. It 
is our responsibility and we must face up to it.
  If we have failed, it is because as a society we have become 
complacent and have had low expectations. So we do whatever it takes, 
no matter how painful, to fix a system that is not only failing our 
children, but hurting our children.
  If we are not willing to make the commitment to provide our children 
a first-class education, we are failing as a society. What can be more 
important that giving our children a strong start, a knowledge base and 
a set of skills that make them happy, productive and fulfilled 
citizens?
  I truly believe, if we expect our children to achieve, we must make 
it clear that we expect and support achievement in every way. That is 
why I support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for the next 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________