[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1603-S1606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the last election demonstrated clearly and 
graphically the importance of education as a concern to the American 
people. It is perhaps their highest priority. They have indicated 
overwhelmingly in poll after poll that education reform and improvement 
is something they desperately want and that this Nation desperately 
needs. They have also indicated their top priority for the use of the 
Federal budget is investment in education. Indeed, 81 percent of 
individuals polled recently indicated they would approve of a bold 
national commitment to improve education similar to our commitment to 
build the Interstate Highway System and to do many other projects of 
critical importance to the American public.
  It is, indeed, fitting then that President Bush would embrace this 
notion of education reform. I commend him for his interest. I welcome 
the beginning of a very serious debate about how we can at the Federal 
level assist local communities to improve elementary and secondary 
education in the United States.
  We should begin, I believe, by recognizing that over the past 8 
years, we have made progress. We established in Goals 2000 a focus on 
educational reform. In the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act in 1994, we insisted that high standards be the 
benchmark and the measuring rod of our commitment to educational 
reform.
  We have also over the last few years passed legislation to diminish 
class size and to repair and renovate crumbling schools throughout this 
country. So we begin this process with success, but we also begin with 
the idea that we have to do much more, and we have to do it together.

[[Page S1604]]

  We recognize that historically, constitutionally, and culturally, 
educational policy is the province of State and local governments.
  The Federal Government does play a role, and we have played this role 
quite robustly since 1965. The role may be described as encouraging 
innovation at the local level and also overcoming inertia at the local 
level so that every student in America, particularly students from 
disadvantaged backgrounds, have the opportunity to seize all the 
opportunities of this great country. This has been our role since 1965.
  A characteristic of Federal participation in elementary and secondary 
education is that it is targeted, particularly with respect to low-
income students. We have an obligation to continue this support. We 
have an obligation to continue to work with the States and localities, 
in a sense as their junior partner, but as their important partner, to 
ensure that every child in this country will have the ability to 
achieve and obtain a quality public education.
  President Bush's proposal at this juncture is an outline, it is a 
prospectus, it is a vision, if you will, for some of the things he 
would like to see done to improve education. There are elements which 
we all share, including concentration and focus on high standards and 
accountability, emphasis on reading, teacher quality, and school 
safety. And there are other elements with which we disagree.

  Among the first order of these elements is the notion of vouchers. I 
am pleased to see or at least sense that the President has retreated a 
bit from his campaign discussions about vouchers, recognizing this is 
not the answer for addressing the needs of our public school system. We 
have to emphasize parental involvement, teacher preparation, resources 
to improve curriculum--things that have to be done in the context of 
public education.
  I hope if we continue to emphasize these approaches and deemphasize 
vouchers that we will make much more progress as we work on educational 
reform in this Congress.
  There is another aspect of the President's proposal that has drawn, I 
think, justifiable criticism. That is the notion of block granting all 
of the Federal funds, essentially giving the States a check and saying: 
Do what you will.
  We recognize that we are, as I said previously, the junior partners 
in this enterprise. Federal spending is roughly 7 percent of all 
spending on elementary and secondary education. Our focus has always 
been on assisting the neediest children.
  To put all of our funds into a block grant and simply hand it over to 
the States would, I think, lead to a loss of focus, and, more 
dangerously, a loss of emphasis by Federal dollars on those poor 
disadvantaged students. There are many examples of how a block grant 
has distorted what was a good program before. One which comes to mind 
is library books. Back in 1965, we specifically committed, as an aid to 
local school systems, to provide funding to acquire library books. In 
fact, many of the books on the shelves today, if you open them up, are 
stamped ``ESEA, 1965.'' It was a successful program. It put books on 
the shelves. But, more importantly, it put books in the hands of 
students throughout this country.
  Years ago, this specific program was rolled into a larger block 
grant. What we have seen is that libraries throughout this country in 
the schools in America are not what they should be. We have seen books 
on the shelves that are grossly out of date. Interestingly enough, an 
effort on my part to publicize and address the lack of appropriate 
library books through bipartisan legislation was reported in the 
Washington Times on February 20. Most interesting, though, was a 
response on February 23 by a school librarian that showed some of the 
real frustrations that school personnel face with the lack of focused 
Federal funding for specific programs.
  This school librarian, who has worked for 27 years, saw the article 
and then described the problem in her words.

       The money coming down for spending has been diverted by 
     administrators for technology, she says. The computers are 
     bought with book money and the administrators can brag about 
     how wired the schools are. The librarians are ordered to keep 
     the old books on the shelves and count everything, including 
     unbound periodicals and old filmstrips dating back to the 
     1940s.
       And most of all keep their mouth shut about the books--just 
     count and keep quiet. Now do you wonder why librarians keep 
     quiet?

  The point is, there is an advantage and value in Federal programs 
that have specific and explicit policy choices for localities. What we 
sometimes get in flexibility is lost in focus. We should be conscious 
and careful as we embrace educational reform to be very clear about 
those programs we believe should be supported specifically--something 
like library books--and make sure our education funding is not lumped 
into some vast category where local administrators, under severe 
pressure, can find ways to distort our intent to support a specific 
program.

  There is another aspect, too, of the issue of block grants. People 
will say: This is not about money. If you just give the States more 
flexibility, they don't need the extra money.
  It turns out that most public school reform is based not only upon 
administrative changes but increased resources for schools. That is the 
case in Texas. Preceding Governor Bush's term, in fact, going back 
several terms before that, Texas embarked on a process of 
redistributing its local school aid. In fact, today it is one of those 
States which takes resources from wealthy districts and gives them to 
poor districts. That process began before the testing regime was put in 
place in Texas.
  One can argue that as much as testing might have been a source of 
improvement, just as much or perhaps more was the fact that now for the 
first time, local school systems are getting the needed funding to 
conduct the kinds of programs--buying technology, professional 
development--that are so necessary.
  We have to be conscious, too, as we talk about the Federal role, to 
recognize if we are going to talk big, we have to have the resources to 
back it up. It is not all done simply by changing the chairs around the 
table, by talking about noneconomic reforms, nonresource reforms.
  There is another issue, too, that the President has advanced. This is 
an issue for which I commend him. It is an issue in terms of 
accountability that I fought for in 1994, along with my colleague, 
Senator Bingaman.
  I was a Member of the other body. Senator Bingaman was here. In the 
context of the debate on Goals 2000, we attempted for the first time to 
talk about not only standards that children must achieve, but the 
resources those schools must have so these children can meet those 
standards.
  During the course of this debate, we ran into significant opposition, 
principally opposition from our colleagues on the Republican side. They 
objected, sometimes in principle, to the notion we would be telling 
local school systems what to do.
  I think this debate was important because it recognized for the first 
time that Federal resources should not be committed without tough 
standards of accountability, and that these tough standards should be a 
way to move the system forward. It recognized when we have tough 
standards and adequate resources you are more likely to get the kind of 
improvement in educational quality that we all desperately want.
  After the Goals 2000 debate, we started discussions on the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 
This legislation focused on changes to title I. In the context of this 
debate, I proposed several amendments which would deal with corrective 
action, to essentially require local school districts to identify those 
schools that were failing the State standards, and then develop a plan 
of action that would bring those schools up to the State standards.
  Once again, we ran into opposition. I was successful in passing an 
amendment that exists today in law that requires the State to take 
corrective action for title I schools following several years of 
failing to meet the State educational standards. That is on the books 
today. In fact, the States are already identifying those schools that 
are not performing up to standards.
  In 1998-99, 8,800 schools were identified as needing improvement by 
the States. Now, interestingly enough, the States are not required to 
transmit specific school names to the Federal Department of Education, 
so we don't

[[Page S1605]]

know specifically what schools are failing, but we know there are at 
least 8,800 schools throughout the country that are not meeting State 
standards.
  Unfortunately, because of the time to work through the process of 
evaluation and corrective action, it is not yet clear whether or not 
the States have taken effective corrective action. But this notion of 
accountability, this notion of making sure the States look at their 
schools, evaluate their schools, propose corrective action and follow 
through is not a new idea. It exists today for the title I schools. I 
hope in the process of this debate and reauthorization we can expand 
the concept of accountability to all schools, that we can put in place 
real accountability standards, and that these standards will move 
forward dramatically the educational achievement of our children 
throughout the United States.
  Again, another aspect of the President's proposal related to 
accountability is his insistence to date that we mandate States to 
require testing of each student from grades 3 to 8 in order to receive 
Federal education funding. We all recognize that testing is an 
essential part of education, but I hope we all recognize that testing 
alone is not sufficient to improve our schools. Once again we have to 
have the resources and once again we have to have the commitment to 
ensure that the resources go to those schools that are most in need.
  Tests should be an indicator of how well a school is doing, but they 
should not be a high-risk evaluation of an individual child, in my 
view. They are diagnostic tools. We can use them to see generally how 
well a school is doing. But, as we have been cautioned by the National 
Research Council, ``no single test score can be considered a definitive 
measure of a student's knowledge,'' and that ``an educational decision 
that would have a major impact on a test taker should not be based 
solely or automatically on a single test score.''
  As we approach this issue of testing, let me be clear: If we are 
evaluating how a school or school system is doing as a way to provide 
additional resources or additional corrective action, these tests can 
be valuable. But if we allow these tests on a one-time basis to 
determine the future of students, we will be making a very significant 
mistake.
  Also, we should understand the science of testing is a difficult one 
indeed, and there are many consequences, both intended and unintended, 
from the application of testing in schools. Again, I think it is 
appropriate to look at the example of Texas since it is so much in the 
forefront of our discussions these days. The Texas Assessment of 
Academic Skills, the TAAS, the test that is used in Texas, has been 
promoted as almost miraculous in its ability to generate significant 
gains in educational improvement. But there is evidence that indeed the 
success reflected in TAAS is not also shown when other tests are 
applied to roughly the same group of students in Texas. The National 
Assessment of Educational Progress is a well recognized test, and 
studies have shown significant differences between the success rates of 
students in Texas on that test versus the success rate touted by Texas 
officials using their own tests.
  We have to be very careful about State tests because there is both 
the technical difficulty of developing those tests and also the 
political pressure to make tests that everyone will succeed in passing 
because it helps avoid tough choices about helping schools and tough 
actions about ensuring that schools that do not work are adequately 
addressed.
  So we have a situation where we have to be careful about the test. We 
also have to be careful about the effect on students. One other 
statistic from Texas is that students who are leaving high school short 
of a diploma and taking a GED instead has increased in Texas 
significantly from approximately 47,000 in 1989 to 74,000 in 1996. That 
is an increase of 57 percent. The increase nationally was only 26 
percent. So we have to ask ourselves, were people dropping out or being 
subtly or not so subtly encouraged to leave because of the testing 
regime that was in place in Texas?
  There is another aspect that I alluded to: Not just those who choose 
to take the GED but those who choose to leave school entirely, forfeit 
the opportunity to improve their education, at least temporarily, and 
seek other means, either working or simply just leaving school. Once 
again, if you look at the cohort class of 1991, the year TAAS was 
implemented, the percentage of students who progressed from grade 6 to 
graduation dropped from 65 percent to 55 percent for black and Hispanic 
students and from 75 percent to 68 percent for white students. Once 
again you have to ask yourself: Is this testing causing unintended 
consequences: Dropouts and alternate approaches to educational 
attainment, like the GED? We have to be careful as we go forward.

  We also have to consider another characteristic, and that is whether 
or not all the students taking the test are being counted in the test 
results. Another statistic in Texas is the increase in those students 
who are being classified as ``in special education,'' who are then not 
counted in a school's accountability ratings.
  Again, we have to be very careful as we go forward on this testing 
issue to ensure that these tests are benchmarks of school performance 
and are not unfairly marking students on a one-time basis for success 
or failure, or driving students away from school when in fact school 
could be more beneficial.
  The other factor, too, and something we have to be very much 
concerned about, is that these testing regimes cost money. It has been 
estimated that in my State of Rhode Island, if we were to adopt the 
President's proposal, each year we would have to spend $3.2 million 
simply for test development. On top of that, funding would be needed to 
implement and administer the tests. That is a significant amount of 
money in a very small State to devote just to testing, because we also 
want to do many other things: We want to improve professional 
development, we want to improve parental involvement, and we want a 
host of other things that cost money. If all the extra resources, new 
resources at the local level, are tied up in testing, that is going to 
take us away from other important initiatives.
  As a result, I believe if we are going to embark on any form of 
mandated Federal testing, the Federal Government should provide this 
testing money, which is an additional cost that has not yet been 
recognized by the President's proposal. This brings us, of course, to 
the notion of how much money will there be for educational reform in 
this administration.
  Everyone wants education reform. We are about to embark on a process 
of debate and deliberation that will lead, I believe, rather quickly, 
to a new reauthorization. But whatever we do depends upon how much we 
are willing to support this legislation with real resources. The 
President last week announced he is proposing a $4.6 billion increase 
in education spending which, by his calculation, will be an 11.5-
percent increase in educational spending in our budget.
  Let's look a little more closely at those numbers. First, the 
President's proposal disregards the fact that we have already advanced 
funded $2.1 billion in last year's appropriation for the coming year. 
So you have to, I think, fairly, subtract that $2.1 billion we have 
already committed in terms of evaluating how much extra money is going 
to education. When you do that, you find out the increase is not 11.5 
percent but it is 5.7 percent, about $2.4 billion extra.
  You also have to put this in context. That is a 5.7-percent increase, 
which would be less than what we have done in the last 4 out of 5 
years. So one can ask, where is all this extra money? Where is this 
massive commitment, this bold innovation to fix American education? 
Where is it? Indeed, if you look back over the last 5 years, we have 
been averaging up to 13-percent increases in educational spending. We 
need the money as well as the rhetoric. I hope whatever we do 
legislatively in terms of authorization we match with robust 
appropriations.
  There is another aspect of the budget with respect to education. This 
educational increase is not solely devoted to elementary and secondary 
education, because we also have a significant support system for higher 
education. When you look at that, the money available just for 
elementary

[[Page S1606]]

and secondary education in the President's proposal is about $1.6 
billion. Again, that is not the robust, huge sums that we need to start 
an educational revolution in conjunction with the States.
  If you look at the President's proposal, his commitment to Reading 
First, which is his literacy program, is $900 million. That is far 
above what we are spending for literacy now. If that commitment is 
made, then less than $1 billion would be available for all the other 
programs, including title I, new testing provisions, teacher quality, 
safe schools, and afterschool programs.
  So we really have to ask ourselves, is there anything beyond the 
rhetoric, beyond the rhetoric?
  Are there resources that are going to go into this educational 
reform? If we don't commit the money, then this will be an exercise 
that will be ineffective in addressing the reality of the public 
education problem in this country.
  I believe we have to have real education reform. I believe we can do 
it. We should build on the success of the past. We should recognize 
that we already have in place accountability provisions of title I 
schools upon which we can build. But we also have to do other things 
such as reinvigorate our direct support of library materials. We have 
to ensure that there is effective parental involvement. We have to 
provide teachers with sustained, effective, and intensive mentoring and 
professional development, as well as provide principals with effective 
leadership training. We have to help schools and communities work 
together to address not just the educational challenges of children but 
some of the health care and social challenges that detract from their 
education. We can do this, and we should do this.
  I hope over the next several weeks and months, throughout the 
deliberations on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will 
come together on an elementary and secondary education development plan 
that will be significant and meaningful, that will be built on our past 
success, and that will assist States and localities, and that we will 
find the funds necessary to translate our words into deeds. By doing 
so, we will realize educational improvement in America and ensure well-
educated young people who can not only man the increasingly complex 
positions in our economy but continue to be citizens who will sustain 
and move the country forth.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Member from the State of 
Wyoming, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. 
Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________