[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4461-S4471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Craig amendment No. 372 (to amendment No. 358), to tie
funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to improved student performance.
Kennedy modified amendment No. 375 (to amendment No. 358),
to express the sense of the Senate regarding, and to
authorize appropriations for title II, part A, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with respect
to the development of high-qualified teachers.
Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No.
358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
Kennedy (for Mikulski/Kennedy) amendment No. 379 (to
amendment No. 358), to provide for the establishment of
community technology centers.
Allen/Warner amendment No. 380 (to amendment No. 358), to
provide for a sense of the Senate regarding education
opportunity tax relief to enable the purchase of technology
and tutorial services for K-12 education purposes.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program from the list of programs covered by performance
agreements.
Amendment No. 372
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the
Craig amendment.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I assume we are now proceeding on the Craig
amendment, with 1 minute for each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the
amendment I have put before the Chamber. It does not cut a program. It
does not even take out the cost of living or an annualized increase
based on that. What it says is that the Federal Government and the
Department of Education and educational programs will no longer reward
mediocrity.
In title I, over the last 30 years, we have put in $120 billion and
poor kids are still lower in achievement than middle-income kids who
are outside the program. It failed. In this education bill before us,
we are trying to change that.
All I am saying is, if you do not measure up, and if the States do
not improve the environment in which kids are learning--in other words,
if kids do not improve--and it is measured by the tests and the
standards within this bill--then no more Federal money goes out. In
other words, we will not continue to fund mediocrity. We will set a
standard and a precedence where improvement in our young people means
we will reward that improvement with the use of the Federal tax
dollars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope the Craig amendment will be
defeated. This is really putting the cart before the horse. If you
adopt the Craig amendment, you are effectively saying there will not be
any funding at all for the development of quality testing and
accountability systems.
President Bush has proposed a three-fold increase in three times the
amount of reading funding. That will not be available for children if
the Craig amendment is adopted. Effectively, this amendment undermines
what President Bush has stated are his goals in terms of trying to get
increased accountability, better testing, and increased support for
education. That will all be prohibited under the Craig amendment.
What we are trying to do is match resources to responsibility. That
is the change in this whole bill. We are matching those two concepts.
And that makes sense. But under the Craig amendment, you will be
denying the President's program in increased reading and the
President's program in terms of accountability. It puts the cart before
the horse and makes no sense. I hope it will be defeated.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support what the distinguished Senator is
trying to accomplish. I think it is about time we let the States know
they are going to have to do better; that they are going to have to
measure up. I cannot, however, coming from a poor State, summarily cut
this off. When I use the word ``summarily,'' I realize we have had 35,
36 years in which to accomplish these things. But I do think they ought
to be warned ahead of time.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. CRAIG. This Senator's amendment would not cut any program. It
would allow continued funding at that level. It does not reward by
allowing the increases in the spending. That is what is important. The
Senator from Massachusetts mentioned that nothing would go forward. He
is wrong. Everything goes forward, and the measurements are in place.
What we are saying is, we are strong and definitive in saying that if
you do not improve, you do not get the additional money.
[[Page S4462]]
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at some future time, I may support what this
amendment is trying to accomplish. I think that we should have more
accountability by the states. I also believe that we may need to
reevaluate how Title I funds are used in the states. That being said, I
do not think that this amendment is the proper way to tie funding to
achievement. I represent a low-income state where Title I funds make up
$76.5 million of the money spent on education. By threatening to freeze
funding until the schools improve, I fear we may be taking away the
very tools necessary to achieve the improvement that we all seek both
in our schools and our students. I like what the Senator is saying, but
I am going to vote against his amendment at this time. Basically, I
have not heard enough of this debate. And this is one thing that is
wrong. Let me underline that. This is one thing that is wrong with the
stacking of the amendments.
I have already stated my opposition to the stacking of the
amendments.
Sometimes there is justification for stacking votes, and sometimes I
will not object to it. But in the future, I am going to object more
than I have in the past. It is demeaning to the Senator who offers the
amendment. It is demeaning to the amendment itself to be limited to 2
minutes before we vote on it. And it is demeaning to the Senate.
When it comes to stacking votes so as to allow Senators to be away on
a Monday or be away on Fridays, I am going to be hard to get along with
in that regard. I hope that what I am saying will let every Senator
know that in the future I will frequently object to the stacking of
votes. This is a bad way to legislate.
This particular amendment ought to have more debate than it is
getting. It may have had some debate--I don't know--on Friday. I am not
sure. I had to take my wife on Friday to a pulmonary expert. I couldn't
be here. But other Senators weren't here either. It is demeaning to
come out here and offer an amendment on Friday with a shirttailful of
Senators present, maybe two, maybe three, and few press people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will have to vote against the
Senator's amendment today, but I compliment him for trying to do
something. Let's do it later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
372. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 73, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Inhofe
Kyl
Nickles
Santorum
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--73
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 372) was rejected.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how many minutes were required for that
rollcall?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and a half minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Sixteen and a half minutes on a 10-minute rollcall. We are
doing better.
Amendment No. 375, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this amendment there are 2 minutes equally
divided. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the very important features of
this legislation is upgrading the skills of unqualified teachers who
are teaching poor children and also making sure that new recruits are
going to be qualified teachers.
This legislation guarantees schools that have 50 percent poor
children will have a qualified teacher in every classroom in 4 years.
This amendment says that we should fully fund the $3 billion which is
in the authorization to make sure all the teachers who are going to be
teaching poor children are qualified. It says we ought to add $500
million each additional year, so that in the last year there will be a
total of $6 billion a year in funding, necessary to provide continued
professional development to every techer, every year in a high poverty
classroom.
There are 1,500,000 teachers who teach poor children; 750,000 are
unqualified today. This amendment will ensure that we continually
upgrade the skills of every one of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields
time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 375, as modified. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--31
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 375), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 380
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on this
pending Allen amendment No. 380.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want the Senate to know that I voted twice
on the previous vote. I was standing here by Mr. Kennedy when I raised
my hand, which I usually do. I was not behind my desk, as I usually am.
I am not complaining about anything. I am not criticizing anybody. I
just want the Senate to know that I voted. Normally, I do not hold up
the Senate.
I thank the Senate. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the pending
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 380) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank all of our Members for their presence and for
their cooperation.
We now have the Senator from Washington on an extremely important
[[Page S4463]]
amendment. We hope the Senate will give careful attention to this
amendment. This is one of the most important amendments we will have to
this legislation. I am enormously grateful to the Senator from
Washington for her leadership on smaller class size. I am sure she was
reassured again today when we read the front page of the Washington
Post and saw what was happening in Prince George's County. The test
scores show the best gains.
When the local Superintendent of schools was asked about the factors
that were most important in making progress, she quickly indicated that
smaller class size in the early grades was one of the most important
aspects leading to the children's progress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Washington Post
article be printed in the Record after Senator Murray's remarks.
Senator Warner spoke to me and would like to join me in that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Washington.
Amendment No. 378
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 378.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the regular order.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his work on
class size, too. I saw the article in the Washington Post today. It
shows that the debate we are about to have on the class size amendment
is extremely critical. We know it makes a difference in our children's
classrooms. We have had tremendous progress.
I hope that our colleagues will listen carefully to the debate as we
bring it forward because it is an important part of education. It is
what parents are looking for. It is what we are demanding of our
students--achievement.
I appreciate the words of the Senator from Massachusetts, and I look
forward to the debate we are about to have.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Baucus, Biden, Bingaman,
Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Reed of Rhode
Island, and Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, right now in classrooms across our
country students are gathering. Right now teachers are beginning his or
her lesson, and those students in that classroom probably do not know
the specifics of the debate that we are about to have. They probably
are not familiar with the amendment I am about to offer. But I will
promise you one thing. Those students will realize the impact of how
the Senate votes on this class size amendment.
Today, I am offering an amendment to continue the progress we have
made over the last 3 years in making classrooms across the country less
crowded and more productive. My amendment will ensure that we keep our
commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new teachers so
that students can get the time and the attention they need and deserve
in our classrooms.
We know that smaller classes help kids learn the basics with fewer
discipline problems.
Just this year we also learned that smaller classes resulted in
better scores on standardized tests and a higher likelihood of taking
college entrance exams and a lower teen pregnancy rate.
As managers of the taxpayer dollars, we should invest in ideas that
work. We know that smaller classes help our students learn.
Unfortunately, the underlying bill combines funding for class size
reduction and teacher quality into one pool. As a result, local school
districts would have to choose, under this bill, between providing
smaller classes or funding teacher quality. They shouldn't have to
choose one or the other. We should fund both. It has always been
important to invest in the things that work in the classroom. This year
it is even more important as I look at the rest of the underlying bill.
Since President Bush plans to punish schools that do not improve, we
have to make sure that schools have the proven tools they need, such as
smaller classes, to help our children learn.
Before I continue, I want to share a personal reflection about what
we are doing on education this month. As we update the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, we are creating a blueprint of how we are
going to support excellence in schools across the country.
As a parent and as a former educator, I cannot imagine smaller
classes not being a part of that blueprint. It just does not make
sense. Right now, this bill leaves behind targeted funding for smaller
classes. My amendment corrects that failure and tells students,
teachers, and parents across the country that we know they are
concerned about overcrowded classrooms, we know they want help in
hiring new teachers, and we are going to honor our responsibility to
pay for them.
I want to talk this morning about the difference that smaller classes
can make according to research and according to parents and teachers.
We know that too many classes are overcrowded with growing enrollment
and limited space. Too many students are trying to learn in classrooms
that are packed to capacity, where they have to fight just to get a
teacher's attention. And too many teachers are spending time on crowd
control instead of spending time on curriculum.
Over the years, major studies have found that smaller classes boost
student achievement. The STAR study found that students in small
classes--those with 13 to 17 students--significantly outperform other
students in math and reading. It also found that students in small
classes have better high school graduation rates, higher grade point
averages, and they are more inclined to pursue higher education.
Certainly those are goals. Every one of us in the Senate Chamber has
stated that we want that for our children in our school systems in this
country.
Another critical study, the Wisconsin SAGE study, consistently proved
that smaller classes result in significantly greater student
achievement.
Just two months ago, in March, we got more good news. Dr. Alan
Krueger of Princeton University found there are long-term social
benefits of being in a smaller classroom, including better scores on
standardized tests, a higher propensity to take college entrance exams,
a lower teen pregnancy rate, and possibly a lower crime rate for teens.
Those are the types of benefits we want for every one of our
students. But you do not need research to know that smaller classes
help. Just talk to parents or teachers or talk to the students
themselves.
I have been in classrooms where this funding has reduced
overcrowding. It makes a difference. I recently received an e-mail from
Kristi Rennebohm Franz. Kristi teaches at Sunnyside Elementary School.
I also should mention that Kristi is one of our best educators. She
received a Milken National Teacher's Award. She received the
Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Elementary Science, and
the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell Award for
Excellence in Education. Those are some of Kristi's credentials.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her entire letter be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 10 years ago, when Kristi started as a
teacher, she promised herself that she would take time each day to
listen to her students and to understand their needs. Kristi writes to
me now:
It is a promise that can only come true if we have small
enough classes with enough qualified teachers in place to
meet the individual learning needs of each child. . . .
She continues:
. . . because of the sheer numbers of children in our
classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational
conversations I need and want to have with each child to best
assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and
progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs
to go.
She says:
I can't tell you how frustrating it is to know how to teach
and not be able to do the very best teaching every moment
because it is difficult with too large a class and without
enough teachers on board as a team to meet the learning needs
of the children.
[[Page S4464]]
Mr. President, let's show Kristi and thousands of hard-working
teachers that we do support them and want them to be able to do their
best in uncrowded classrooms.
I have talked about the research, and I have shared a teacher's
perspective, but I have one more example of the importance of small
class sizes. It comes from the Houston Independent School District
where our Education Secretary, Rod Paige, served as their
superintendent.
I show my colleagues this chart. It is actually from a presentation
by the former Chief of Staff for Educational Services in the Houston
district, Susan Sclafani. By the way, she currently serves as Counselor
to Secretary Paige at the Education Department.
Part of her presentation that I am showing on this chart shows how
Houston helped turn around low-performing schools. I know we are basing
a lot of this education bill on what happened in Houston at the
directive of the President and Dr. Paige. They talk about test scores,
but they also are very clear about what made a difference in making
sure those test scores turned around and that those schools improved.
On the chart, you can see that among the seven things they have done
in the Houston school district was to make classrooms less crowded.
They made making classrooms less crowded one of the seven things to be
done to improve education. They know it works.
In fact, Houston hired 177 new teachers through the Class Size
Reduction Program that we funded at the Federal level. Houston also
used the funding to provide professional development for more than 600
teachers. That is the type of support we want all communities to have.
We know that making classes smaller works. The research shows it.
Parents know it. Teachers know it. Even Secretary Paige used smaller
classes to make improvements in the Houston school district. There was
not a miracle in Houston. There was hard work. And there was investment
in what works. Class size reduction was one of those investments.
We should invest in the things that we know work in the classroom.
Parents want to know that their Federal education dollars are making a
difference for students.
I served on a local school board. I can tell you that hiring new
teachers is difficult because you have to commit today for a new
teacher when you don't know what is going to happen 3 months down the
road.
That is one of the reasons why many school districts have had a hard
time hiring new teachers on their own. Fortunately, they are not all on
their own. Local educators have partners at the State and Federal level
who are working together to help all students succeed.
That is why in 1998, Congress began the Class Size Reduction
Initiative. This program sends Federal dollars to school districts
across the country so they can hire new, fully qualified teachers in
grades K-3.
And let me remind my colleagues that this is a voluntary program. No
school is forced to use this money. If a district wants help hiring
teachers to make classrooms less crowded, they simply apply. And there
is very little paperwork or administration. In fact, in my own State of
Washington you can apply for this class size reduction money over the
Internet on a simple, one-page form.
Many educators have told me that they have never seen dollars get so
quickly from Congress to the classroom. Local schools, under this, make
all the decisions about who to hire based on their unique needs. The
money is also flexible. If schools have already reduced classroom
overcrowding, they can use the money for teacher recruitment or for
professional development. Finally, and critically, these dollars are
targeted to disadvantaged students--who can make the most progress when
they are in a productive classroom.
This program has been a success story for the Congress. Since 1998,
we have helped school districts across the country hire 34,000 new
teachers. Over the past 3 years, we have made classrooms less crowded
in K-3 and more productive for almost 2 million students. It is a
program that works, and we should not abandon it now. This underlying
bill does not ensure that this overcrowding will be reduced because it
eliminates the targeted funding for class size reduction.
Some say that we should combined funding for teacher quality and
class size reduction and just let folks choose. Unfortunately, that is
a false choice, and our kids will pay the price. This bill--the
underlying bill--pits effective programs against each other and makes
educators choose. In the end, our kids will lose if they can't have
both smaller classes and qualified teachers. We should be the ones
making sure that happens.
Let me repeat that. Smaller classes and qualified teachers go hand in
hand. Educators should not have to choose between either making classes
smaller or improving teacher quality. They need both. We should fund
both. That is what this amendment would ensure.
Finally, I remind my colleagues that there are real consequences to
not providing dedicated class size funding. Without my amendment, this
bill could put schools in an unwinnable situation with very high
stakes. The underlying bill will punish schools that do not improve. At
the same time, it takes away the very tools they need to improve, and
that is just wrong.
On the one hand, we are telling students to meet high standards, and
on the other hand this bill takes away the support they need to get
there. We can do better than that. If we want our students to succeed
and we are going to punish those who don't, now is the time to increase
our investment in smaller class sizes. That is what this amendment
does.
This week we are talking about many different education issues from
accountability to testing to funding. Right now there is only one
question being asked by each of us as Senators: Do you favor targeted
funding to make classrooms less crowded or will you take that targeted
funding away from your schools? How you vote on this amendment will
affect millions of students who are trying to get a good education.
I urge our colleagues to support this amendment by voting yes.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, May 8, 2001]
Prince George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever
34% of County Schools Meet U.S. Benchmark
(By Tracey A. Reeves)
Prince George's County students posted their highest gains
ever on a key standardized test used to gauge how local
children measure up to their peers nationally, according to
results released yesterday.
Prince George's has often been criticized for its abysmal
test scores and spotty leadership, but its gains on the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills are the first significant
academic increases the county has registered since Iris T.
Metts took over as superintendent in 1999.
According to the results, 34 percent of county schools had
median test scores at or above the national average this
school year, compared with 21 percent last year.
Of the schools tested, 82, or 63 percent, registered
significant gains. Results also show a slight narrowing of
the achievement gap between black and white students and
between Hispanic and white students, an added boon for school
officials who have been struggling for years to close the
gap.
The improved scores brought a huge sigh of relief for
Metts, who acknowledged yesterday that she felt vindicated by
the results and empowered to continue her changes.
Metts said she hoped that county and state leaders would
see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about
improving academic achievement and that they would reward it
with more funding to reduce class size and repair
deteriorating buildings.
``We're not just achieving,'' an elated Metts said at a
celebratory news conference announcing the test results.
``We're achieving miraculously.''
The mood was indeed upbeat as school officials asembled in
Upper Marlboro to learn more about the results and to coax
each other on in the effort to improve the school system's
rank as the second-worst in the state, behind Baltimore. In
the hallways, school system employees flashed wide grins as
they toasted the gains with punch. Teachers and their staffs,
who had been summoned to county school headquarters for the
news conference could hardly contain their applause.
Principals hugged their teachers. High-fives were
everywhere
``This didn't happen by chance,'' said Leroy Tompkins, head
of instruction for county schools. ``We achieved this by
focusing on what we needed to do, and it's paid off.''
School Board Chairman Kenneth E. Johnson (Mitchellville),
who with the rest of the board has accused of not putting the
needs of students first, praised the superintendent for
[[Page S4465]]
the results and said the board never doubted her ability.
``The board always thought she could bring the system
along,'' Johnson said. ``All we need to do now is stay the
course.''
Even Maryland Schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said
she was encouraged by the results, though she hesitated to
classify the scores an all-out success. She is eager to see
the results of Maryland School Performance Assessment Program
exams, which students are taking this month.
``I expect to see improvements there, too,'' Grasmick said.
``But all of these results will have to be sustained over a
two-year period for us to really know what's happening
here.''
Maryland requires all public school sec-
ond-, fourth-, and sixth-graders to take the basic skills
exam, which tests ability in math, reading and language arts.
Prince George's is the first Maryland county to release its
results, in part because it is using the scores to determine
whom to recommend for a new summer program established to
bring along struggling students.
Other school systems are expected to release their test
scores in coming weeks.
The test is given annually to gauge trends in ability among
students. Unlike the MSPAP, which generally measures how well
schools are teaching children, the Comprehensive Test of
Basic Skills is viewed as more useful to parents because it
looks at how students did individually.
The basic skills test is also considered useful to teachers
because it lets them know what areas to concentrate on and
which students need more help.
Until this year, Prince George's scores have been low, flat
and far from the national norm. School officials attributed
the gains to the reforms that Metts has demanded.
For example, she has required all schools to give students
in the early grades 120 minutes of uninterrupted reading time
and 90 minutes of math a day. She has also reduced class
sizes in the lower grades, and efforts are underway to remove
disruptive students from classrooms. Metts and principals
have also put more emphasis on training teachers.
Systemwide, Prince George's scores increased at each of the
three grade levels and in every content area in the March
test. For example, the rate of students scoring above the
national average in reading rose from 24 percent last year to
36 percent. In math, it more than doubled, from 16.7 percent
to 42.4 percent.
Exhibit 2
April 30, 2001.
Dear Senator Murray: As the U.S. Congress has its focus on
educational programs, I want to take time to thank you for
your tireless efforts on behalf of quality education funding
for our public schools! As a primary classroom teacher in
Washington State, I know first hand the challenges we face in
making sure no child is left behind. While the challenges are
tremendous, it is a challenge which public school teachers
take on day after day, unwilling to give up and unwilling to
do anything less that the very best we can and know how to do
in each moment we have in the classroom. When I interviewed
for my current teaching position ten years ago, one of the
comments I made about my goals as a teacher was that it was
very, very important that I hear each child's voice at school
each day so that each child would know he/she: (1) had
multiple opportunities to be listened to and heard; (2) had
the opportunity to tell me what he/she understood and what
he/she needed help with; and (3) had multiple opportunities
to know he/she was greatly valued as a learner and person.
That is a promise that needs to be reality in order for no
child to be left behind. It is a promise that can only come
true if we have small enough classes with enough qualified
teachers in place to meet the individual learning needs of
each child and to mentor children in meeting the expectations
we share for them as teachers, parents, community, state, and
country.
Each school day, I try to live to that promise . . . and as
I come to the end of each day, I know I have come up short .
. . because of the sheer numbers of children in our
classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational
conversations I need and want to have with each child to best
assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and
progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs
to go. In order to best and most effectively and efficiently
teach primary children, I need time each day to interact with
them as individuals, in small groups and as a cohesive whole
class without distractions and interruptions. I need time to
build the math, literacy, science and social studies
concepts, problem solving and critical thinking skills they
need for today's complex and ever dynamically changing world.
When I have a large class of primary children with very
diverse academic, social and emotional needs and with no
additional adult in the classroom to assist children, the
importantly needed and valued time to work on learning with
children individually and even in small groups or as a
cohesive whole class can be lost.
Presently, every classroom teacher in my building is well
qualified for his/her assignment and has special outstanding
abilities. But we can not do the job we know how to do and
keep learning new and better ways to teach in response to
changing needs and in today's schools, when: (1) the numbers
of students in each class makes it impossible to meet the
challenges each student faces; (2) the number of adults
needed to help provide education is too low; and (3) the
energy toll of the teaching day (which requires planning,
preparation, reflection, collaboration with colleagues and
parents far beyond the time our 8:00 to 3:30 contract time)
leaves teachers unable to engage in much needed professional
development beyond the needs of the daily classroom
instruction. We hear people say that throwing money at the
challenges in education won't help, but I don't know how
we can provide the number of qualified teachers needed to
provide the best education possible for each child without
funding those positions, without providing the funding for
teaching materials and for safe, healthy learning
environments that are needed, and without funding support
for teachers to keep learning and growing professionally!
During this school year, I received a Milken National
Teacher's Award as well as the Presidential Award for
Excellence in Teaching Elementary Science, the Peace Corps
World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell Award for Excellence in
Education (which was presented at the U.S. Senate building
with comments from Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Christopher
Dodd), a national Blue Ribbon Classroom Website Award, and
just recently a grant for funding a co-teacher in our
classroom for the remaining weeks of the school year to
sustain and document our innovative primary curricular
program where children are developing the literacy, science,
social studies and math skills they need to meet state
learning goals through local to global collaborative
telecommunications service learning projects. I am
continually learning how to teach. I often work 12 hours per
school day developing and sustaining our curricular program
as well as usually a full weekend day. I often spend recess
time with children as well as after school time building team
support for a child and communicating with parents. I spend
summers reviewing the past school year and preparing for the
next. I spend time taking the course work I need to improve
my teaching skills and keep my certification updated. That is
what it takes to even come close to a goal of leaving no
child behind. Yet, even with developing a classroom which is
being recognized as outstanding, I feel that I come up short
at the end of each day in providing each of the children in
my class the full measure of what they need, deserve, and are
capable of doing. If only we had been able to have two
teachers for this many children all school year, the sky
would not even be the limit for what these children could be
accomplishing!!! There is no substitute for educational
success for all children than critically needed time with an
adult to teach them and enable them to soar! And I don't know
anyway to insure that those adults are in place each day with
needed qualifications without funding!!! There is no
substitute for having the funds to prepare qualified teachers
and have them in classrooms in great enough numbers so we can
do the job of teaching that is needed for today's schools.
Almost every public school class today faces challenges of
helping children with behavior. Some days, the biggest
challenge comes down to making sure each child is safe from
harmful physical and verbal hurt by other peers. Large class
sizes greatly, exponentially exacerbate these challenges of
classroom management to the point of taking away from
valuable teaching and learning time. Additionally problems
are compounded by not having enough school personnel to
assist children facing emotional behavior needs often caused
by circumstances not of their fault. Primary grades are the
school years with the first opportunities for helpful
interventions for children and their families on issues of
academic successes and for meeting the emotional needs that
affect that success. We know what to do to help. We know how
to design learning programs to help children succeed but we
simply can't do it unless we have the people we need to
implement those programs. I can't tell you how frustrating it
is to know how to teach and not be able to do the very best
teaching every moment because it is difficult with too large
a class and without enough teachers on board as a team to
meet the learning needs of the children. People will say
to me, ``You are trying to do too much, Kristi, . . . your
expectations for what we can do in school are too high'' .
. . but, to me, lowering the expectations of what's
possible means some children will be left behind and I'm
not willing to accept that option. How can we ever
possibly be doing too much until we know every child is
succeeding to the best of his/her abilities? And wouldn't
it be wonderful to be at that place where we say, we have
enough of what we need to meet the challenges of educating
our children and we are indeed leaving no child behind? I
dream of someday hearing that conversation nationally . .
. and, until that conversation is truly there, we must do
all we can and more just to insure we meet our educational
vision and goals for all the children in our country!!!
And how can we assess if children are meeting those
educational goals and we as teachers are meeting our teaching
vision . . .
We can administer standardized test to a whole class to
measure how students are doing according to a norm and
against the skills a particular test identifies as
priorities. But, those measurements provide only one form of
reference on student learning and, depending on the integrity
and quality of a standardized assessment, the test data may
or may not be an accurate assessment
[[Page S4466]]
of what students understand. I can't tell you how many times,
in working with primary children, I have seen a child's
standardized test results communicate an assessment profile
that does not provide the full measure of what I have seen
that child demonstrate in the classroom learning environment
lessons. Performance on an isolated skill assessment with
primary children simply cannot document the whole of who they
are as learners.
Primary children are growing along a developmental
continuum where many of the skills and understandings that we
need to see in place in these years as indicators of ongoing
successful learning are best demonstrated within the context
of active learning with the teacher rather than being only
demonstrated in individual performance by themselves. Rather
than just being able to demonstrate mastery of individual,
isolated skill tasks that are assessed in a standardized test
without support of a teacher and outside the context of
lesson learning . . . many, many of the skills and
understandings that we need to have in place in the primary
years for ongoing school success are in the category of:
Being able to engage in lessons with the teacher; being able
to learn when being taught during a lesson; being able to
actively think and talk within a teachable moment; and being
able to generate a product or comment when asked to
contribute and work with the teacher and peers on ideas and
work directly with curricular learning materials . . .
While I am successfully using the standardized tests that
are required in our district and state to provide data on
student progress, if I were to rely only on those
standardized skills assessments to measure the success of our
children in our public schools, I would miss important
documentation of learning that is taking place but simply is
best revealed in the interactive teaching and learning
between the student with his/her teacher and peers. A
standardized test, while providing specifically focused
insights on a child's progress, is just a moment of time
in a child's school learning. This is especially true when
assessing primary children. Sometimes, a standardized
assessment presents a profile of student learning that
shows a child not succeeding when in actuality, he/she has
been demonstrating some successes. I have seen a
standardized assessment provide data that looks like the
child and the teaching is failing when in actuality
neither is true. Often, the observation of a child's
behaviors when responding to the challenges of an
individual standardized test tell me as much about that
child's learning strategies and performance as the actual
numerical score that child receives. I often make
documentation notes on a child's behavior during the
process of administering a standardized test. This takes
time for individual observations and writing on my part
while also devoting energy and focus on the rest of the
class . . . which is no easy task but an important one to
fully understand and interpret the results of a
standardized score.
Many of the standardized assessments we are required to do
with our primary students require extended, individual,
uninterrupted time with each student. After we give the
initial instructions, we must time and record their
performance. This is especially true of reading assessments
as those are done while listening to, recording, timing and
notating each child's reading aloud performance (while also
keeping track of the rest of the class). Often these
assessments can take ten to fifteen minutes per child to
implement and additional time to score. While the information
from these assessments can be very valuable, you can well
imagine the time involved in a school day to do this
accurately and reliably with each child when you have a large
class of primary children without any other adult assistance
in the classroom. In order to do the best possible job on all
assessments of student progress, we need to have smaller
class sizes.
Often, the best insights I have had on children's learning
progress have emerged in the process of having a cohesive
whole class, small group or individual conversation about
important basic skills and concepts we have been working on
together and sometimes it comes from listening in on
conversations a child is having with a peer as they work on
their learning with one another. Those avenues of assessment
tell us so much about the successes in children's learning as
well as direction for ongoing learning. Those conversations
will not happen unless we have small enough classes with
enough teachers to hear the voices of what children are
learning each school day.
Sincerely,
Kristi Rennebohm Franz.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray
amendment and to put a little different focus on the debate.
The issue, as I see it, on this amendment is not classroom reduction.
The issue is not the virtue of having smaller classrooms. The issue is
not whether that is valuable or whether that is desirable. Most would
say, of course, a smaller class is better than a bigger class. The
issue is whether or not those choices and those decisions ought to be
made at the local level.
The Senator from Washington, who is always very passionate on this
issue, used Houston as an example. I will use Houston as an example.
Yes, classroom reduction was part of the program. It was part of seven
points, a package of seven reforms they emphasized as local reform that
helped turn around the Houston school district. I emphasize that
classroom reduction was only one part of the whole package. The
decisions were made locally, and in addition to class size reduction
you also had tutors, planning assistance, and staff development. Those
decisions were made locally.
The issue is not, do we want smaller classes? Of course, we do. The
issue is, do we want to continue the Washington-knows-best, top-down
approach to education, when the whole thrust of this bill is to move
the other direction?
The thrust of this legislation, supported on both sides of the aisle,
negotiated by leaders on both sides of the aisle, is that the plethora
of Federal programs has not been a productive approach and that we
should consolidate those Federal streams of funding. And now along
comes an amendment that says: Let's go back to the old way. Let's go
back in the old direction. Instead of consolidation, let's pull this
out and let's have this program prescriptive from the Federal level
where we know best, where we are going to tell local educators what
they should do.
The Senator from Washington said they should not be forced to choose
and that we should fund both. In fact, in this legislation we do fund
both. The Teacher Quality Program is authorized at $3 billion, which is
an increase over at what the programs are currently funded.
So many people argue that when we create larger, more flexible
grants, we are trying to decrease funding for these programs. That is
just not true. The Professional Development Program received $485
million last year, and the Class Size Reduction Program received $1.6
billion. If my addition is correct, that is $2.05 billion in these two
programs. We consolidate them. We combine them and increase the funding
to $3 billion.
Furthermore, the Kennedy amendment, which just passed and which I
supported, reaffirmed not only the $3 billion number but then increases
$1/2 billion a year each year. So it is not a matter of only giving
limited resources and you must choose: Do you want class size reduction
or do you want professional development? We are saying: Here is both,
but you decide your priorities locally. Here is the funding for both,
an increase by 30 percent over what the previous administration put
into class size reduction and professional development. The President
and this Congress have increased that authorized level by 30 percent to
$3 billion, ensuring an additional $\1/2\ billion each year in the
future.
We said: Let the local schools, let the States decide the priority.
It is not always going to be class size reduction as the highest
priority. Sometimes it will be professional development. Sometimes it
will be mentoring. Sometimes it will be merit pay. Sometimes it will be
tenure reform. Many times it will be class size reduction. We ensure
they will always have the option of spending that money as they see
best.
The issue is not do you want class size reduction. The issue is, do
you want real local control? Do you really want them to have the choice
or do you think we know best?
There has been a growing consensus that what we have done for the
last 35 years, with Washington creating more programs and making more
prescriptions, has not been the right approach. There has been a
growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to
consolidate. This is a move in the wrong direction, the opposite
direction, to pull this out and say: In this area, we know best; you
must do class size reduction if you want these funds.
Studies by Eric Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester,
show that teacher quality is the most important factor in a child's
instruction. So while class size is very important, even more important
than class size is the quality of the teacher in that classroom.
Oftentimes professional development is going to be even more valuable
than ensuring there are fewer children in the classroom, and we should
not make the determination of what is needed locally. This new flexible
grant, the
[[Page S4467]]
Teacher Quality Program, allows States and school districts to continue
class size reduction if they choose. They are not mandated to do so.
The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future found that
class size reduction has the least impact on increasing student
achievement and that teacher education and teacher quality had the most
impact on increasing achievement.
One other point: For rural States such as Arkansas, we have many
school districts, many times very small school districts. This kind of
Federal program simply doesn't work. If you calculate what local
schools in Arkansas get, it is about a third of a teacher per school
district. For many small school districts, this kind of a program just
doesn't work. It is far better to put additional funding in a program
with greater flexibility so local school districts will have enough
resources so they can actually make a difference.
While I agree many school districts and many States are going to put
as priority No. 1 cutting the size of classes, in some areas that is
not going to be priority No. 1. We should not make that decision for
them and say: The only way you can access these funds is if you spend
it in this way.
I reluctantly oppose the Murray amendment. We are putting
considerable new resources, a 30-percent increase, into this Teacher
Quality Program, and that will ensure that schools are going to be able
to make the right kind of choice and the right kind of investment to
get the best return in academic achievement. The Teacher Quality
Program in this bill recognizes that mandates from Washington aren't
the way to improve teacher quality. This legislation gives more
flexibility to States and school districts but holds them accountable
for teacher quality and, most importantly, student achievement.
I underscore again that this amendment is counter to the entire
thrust of this education reform legislation. We should not make the
mistake of returning to the past and reducing again the very important
flexibility and decisionmaking authority that should reside at the
local level.
So while I know this amendment is well intended, it is really counter
to the kind of reform that will result in greater student achievement
and improved education across this country, and I hope my colleagues
will join me in opposing the Murray amendment and staying consistent
with a desire to consolidate and provide greater flexibility, with
meaningful accountability, and thus keep our focus upon the children
and their educational future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with a number of the
points made by my friend from Arkansas. Clearly, what we are attempting
to do is to put the emphasis on what works and to provide to our
children the opportunity to have the best possible education.
I have been very privileged over the last 20 years to know quite a
bit about education in Arkansas, which my good friend has the privilege
of representing, and now I know a lot about education in New York. I
have no doubt that my friend, were he still here, would agree with me
that our goals are the same for the children in both States. We want to
provide the best possible educational opportunities, but we face very
different challenges.
What I saw and worked on for many years in improving education in
Arkansas, which was one of the great honors of my life, is very
different from what I now see day in and day out in New York City,
where we have more than a million children in our school system.
I agree with my friend that what we are crafting is an approach that
will give to local school districts, parents, and teachers the tools to
make the right decisions for the children whose futures they hold in
their hands. That is why I wish my friend were still here--and I will
seek him out later to talk with him privately about this.
That is why I am such a strong supporter of Senator Murray's
amendment because what Senator Murray has done is point out very
clearly that one size does not fit all; that what we need to do is
provide the tools that will enable each school district in each State
to deal with the problems they face.
So I want to be part of passing legislation, in a bipartisan way,
that will be the best for Arkansas, the best for Washington, the best
for Vermont, and the best for New York because we will have honestly
looked at all the different tools we need to provide our local
educational authorities with in order that they can do the job we are
now asking them to do their very best in achieving.
So I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and to stand
with my colleague in stating my commitment to supporting the Class Size
Reduction Initiative, both because it is voluntary and provides
additional funding to schools that are in desperate need of such
funding and, maybe most important, because we know it works.
I went back and reread President Bush's blueprint for education
called ``No Child Left Behind.'' In it, he expresses dismay that over
the years Congress has developed programs without asking whether or not
programs produce results or even knowing the impact on local needs.
Later on, the President goes on to suggest that under his education
plan, which is really the core of what we are debating in this
education debate, he will focus on what works and ensure that Federal
dollars will be spent on effective, research-based programs and
practices and that the funds will be targeted to improve schools and
enhance teacher quality. That is certainly what the committee on which
I am proud to serve, under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont,
attempted to do in reporting out such a bill--to focus on what works
and to target funds to improve our schools and enhance teacher quality.
President Bush and I absolutely agree on this point.
I have often said that I sometimes fear Washington is an evidence-
free zone where, despite whatever evidence we have, we don't follow it,
we don't put it to work, and we spin our wheels too much. Well, I
believe we should look at what works, what has had a positive impact in
raising student achievement, what has helped at the local level give
very necessary resources; there is no better example of what works than
reducing class sizes so that teachers can teach and children can learn.
Allow me just a moment to review the research demonstrating that
reducing class size has proven results. Teachers who teach in classes
of 18 students or fewer in the early grades are helping to raise
student achievement for our most educationally disadvantaged students
who are attending schools in high-poverty neighborhoods, where we all
know it is harder to teach.
Senator Murray was a teacher. She was on a school board. I don't
think any of us should kid ourselves; there are some school districts
and some schools where it is just hard to teach, where children come to
school with all kinds of challenges and difficulties. We know, as we
look at the research done, that if we focus on getting that class size
down with a qualified teacher--this should not be an either/or; it
should be a qualified teacher and a small enough class size--then we
can have very positive results.
I particularly point to the work Senator Murray and I highlighted in
a press conference a few weeks ago that was done at Princeton
University by an economist named Dr. Alan Krueger, who tracked the
performance of well over 11,000 elementary school students at 79
schools in a Tennessee pilot program known as Project STAR. This was
done randomly. The results are scientifically provable. What he found,
and what everyone who has studied it has found, is that smaller class
sizes have a tremendously positive impact on student performance and,
particularly, on African American students.
We want to be supporting both excellence and equity. That is why I
support accountability. I think we should know what our children know
and what they don't know. I also believe everyone in this Chamber
understands that we have to do more to increase the opportunity for
excellence by focusing on the students who are most likely to be left
behind. To me, the fact that African American students have such
positive results from lower class size is a very strong argument for us
renewing this commitment.
[[Page S4468]]
There are other studies which have found exactly the same thing. A
Rand study--and Rand usually studies issues such as the military and
defense and national security--focused on cost-effectiveness of
educational resources in raising scores on the NAEP, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. It is a test that is given to a
randomly selected group of our students across the country. We use it
to track how well we are doing as a nation.
What Rand found in looking behind these test scores was that the
higher scores could be traced to investments in lower class sizes in
the early grades--plus, higher prekindergarten participation, lower
teacher turnover, and higher levels of teacher resources. So it is that
complement of cost-effective strategies that I think we should be
supporting in this legislation.
Later in the debate, I will focus on the importance of supporting
early learning opportunities and trying to retain our teachers because
we are losing our teachers at an alarming rate. I brought this photo of
P.S. 19 in Jackson Heights, Queens, which is one of the magnets for
immigration into our country. People come to Kennedy or LaGuardia
Airports and they end up in Queens. I wish I could take every Member of
this body to the schools I visit in Queens where bathrooms are classes,
hallways are classes, and where children speak 40 to 100 different
languages, where they are packed in there and where a teacher, despite
her best efforts, can't possibly connect with all these children.
Yesterday, I was in a school that works in Manhattan, the New
Manhattan School. It is a wonderful school. I met for a long time with
the teachers, the principal, and the superintendent of the district. It
is an old building, built in 1904. It is packed to the rafters. They
are adding teachers into classrooms so if they do not have the
additional classrooms, at least they have more qualified teachers in
those classes so the children get the attention of the adult
responsible for their learning.
It is important we understand there have to be opportunities for
local communities to make choices. I believe having this tool is
essential for providing good opportunities for choices to be made.
With the funds appropriated in 2001, it is expected the Federal
Government's Class Size Reduction Initiative will bring nearly 40,000
qualified teachers into classrooms. Any one of us who goes into a large
city in our country knows that if we do not have qualified teachers and
we do not have low class sizes, we can test until the cows come home
and we are not going to find anything other than what we already know:
that children from high-poverty areas, from dysfunctional backgrounds
without adequate training for academic work are not going to do well,
but that a qualified teacher working with a small enough group of
children, as Senator Murray knows so well, can make all the difference
in that child's future.
When we looked at this issue in New York City, we saw the results
clearly. Two years ago, the program was initiated and class sizes in
New York City were 25 percent larger than statewide. With both Federal
and State initiatives, we were able to reduce class size for
approximately 90,000 students in the early grades, almost 30 percent of
the city's K-3 population.
I want people to keep in mind, I am talking about a million children
and 90,000 children. I know it is hard for some people who represent
States without that many people in the State or maybe only half that
many to understand we are dealing with huge numbers in a lot of the
large cities. It is not just the numbers; it is the real lives behind
those numbers.
When we looked at the results, after 2 years of efforts, we were very
pleased because achievement went up in those classrooms where, with
Federal help, we were able to add a teacher.
That does not mean the local communities do not have to continue
doing their part, and it does not mean the State does not have to do
its part, but we have gotten behind in what we need to do for our
children. We need all hands on deck. We need everybody pulling
together. Education is a local responsibility in our country, but we
all know it has to be a national priority.
Let us make sure we focus on both teacher quality and lower class
size. That is why this amendment, which Senator Murray has championed
and has been successful in persuading a bipartisan group of Senators to
support in the past, is a critical component of this legislation.
If we can make it possible for class sizes to remain small in the
early grades, we improve the chances dramatically of producing a
productive, functioning citizen who can find his or her way in this
complicated society and global economy that awaits them in the 21st
century.
Yesterday, when I was in this wonderful school that was filled to the
brim, they took me into a bathroom that had been turned into a guidance
counselor's office. They did not have any other space. We went into the
gym and children were doing their physical activity which I believe in
strongly. We have to keep children's bodies active as well as their
minds.
There was a partitioned area in which there were more offices. They
were making the best of a very difficult situation. They had just been
told a school down the block, a little elementary school, had been
condemned. We will get to that later in this debate, too. This school
had been condemned. It is unsafe for our children and teachers.
There is a school in Mechanicsville, NY, where a piece of concrete
fell on a teacher's head while teaching in the classroom.
There is a condemned school a few blocks from where I was yesterday.
They are already packed. The school I visited will be taking in the
children from that condemned school.
This is a critical component of the commitment to excellence and
equity, accountability, and resources that the President has called for
which so many in this Chamber have championed for many years. We have
the money to do this. We just have to determine whether we have the
will.
I call on my colleagues, and echo the very eloquent call of the
Senator from Washington, that we recognize that continuing this
initiative does help local communities meet the needs they see right in
front of them and let us make sure we do everything possible to make
every child believe he or she is important so that at the end of this
debate the bill we pass truly will leave no child behind.
I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The role that teachers play in the efforts to improve educational
opportunities for young people is perhaps the most important next to
the role of parents.
The bill before us includes significant changes related to the
critical job of providing teachers the quality professional development
activities they deserve. Supporting our Nation's teachers is a key
element of education reform. A 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of
Education, pertaining to the preparation and qualifications of public
school teachers, reported that continued learning in the teaching
profession is essential to ``building educators' capacity for effective
teaching, particularly in a profession where the demands are changing
and expanding.'' Over the last decade, States have been developing
standards that are directly tied to academic achievement and
performance. S. 1 builds on that movement.
Having a highly qualified teaching force is a major factor in getting
students to meet and exceed the standards. While there is near total
agreement that strong, capable teachers are very important to a
successful educational system, we have done little to help our teachers
be at the top of their profession. There are still too many educators
teaching outside their field of their expertise. Too often, teachers
are offered one-shot, one-day workshops for professional development
that do little to improve teaching and learning in the classroom.
Professional development activities often lack the connection to the
everyday challenges that teachers face in their classrooms. A recent
evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development program notes
that ``the need for high quality professional development that focuses
on subject matter content and how students learn that content is all
the more
[[Page S4469]]
pressing in light of the many teachers who teach outside their areas of
specialization.''
Title II of this bill addresses these serious professional
development deficiencies. S. 1 draws on the strongest elements of the
Eisenhower program while including authority for other initiatives that
have an impact on teacher quality. The bill provides flexibility to
school districts to address the specific needs of individual schools
through activities such as recruitment and hiring initiatives; teacher
mentoring; retention; and other long-term professional development
efforts. S. 1 prohibits Federal dollars from being used for ``one-
shot'' workshops that have been criticized for being relatively
ineffective because they are usually short term and lack continuity. In
addition, these one-day workshops are often isolated from classrooms
and schools which serve as the professional development laboratories.
S. 1 authorizes a major investment of funds, $3 billion, which will
be used by school districts to improve the quality of teaching in the
classroom. The funding level of the teacher quality section of this
bill represents the combining of funds and authorities from the current
Eisenhower program and the class size reduction program. The purpose of
combining the funding streams is to give school districts the
flexibility they need to make the investments that will lead to having
a highly qualified teacher in every classroom--ether by using the funds
to hire teachers or providing first rate professional development or
both. This bill clearly states that Federal funds must be used for
activities that will improve teaching and learning in the classroom,
including the hiring of highly qualified teachers if that hiring will
improve student performance. The decision as to how the Federal funds
will be used will be made by the local school district.
My home State of Vermont serves as a good example of success through
local decisionmaking. Vermont strongly supports funding for class size
reduction. Yet, since the first dollar was appropriated for class size
reduction, Vermont sought greater flexibility to use most of the money
for professional development activities that would improve the quality
of the teacher in the classroom. Because Vermont already had small
classes that met the Federal mandated level of 18, a large portion of
Vermont's share of the class size reduction monies has been used for
professional development.
I want other States to do what Vermont has done if that is what is in
the best interest of its students. Reducing class size is important.
Having a dynamic, highly qualified teacher at the head of the classroom
is of equal or perhaps, even greater importance. Title II of this bill
supports both efforts and does so in a manner that allows school
districts to come up with their own recipe for improving student
achievement and performance. I am opposed to the class size reduction
amendment because I believe that local schools are in a better position
than we are to determine how best to distrbute funds in regard to
professional development and teacher hiring. S. 1 as passed by the
committee gives local school districts the opportunity to make the
decision about the expenditure of dollars for the purpose of improving
their teaching force which will, in turn, lead to overall student
improvement.
I see the hour of 12:30 p.m. has arrived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recess be
deferred for about 6 minutes so I can address the Senate.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just make a 1-minute wrapup
before we turn to the Senator from Virginia, I would appreciate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me state we will have more time,
obviously, this afternoon to debate the class size amendment. I
appreciate the comments from the chair of the HELP Committee in this
regard.
I agree with him. Professional development is extremely critical.
That is why my amendment to separate the professional development funds
from class size funds is extremely important. We want our schools to
have professional development but not at the expense of reducing class
size, which we know works. That makes sure Federal tax dollars are
spent wisely at the local level--and which is a local decision, I say
to the Senator from Arkansas, who spoke earlier.
If a school district doesn't want to participate, they certainly do
not have to do so. But for the many schools out there, for 2 million
students who have benefited, let's not take it away now. Let's make
sure they are in a class size in K-3 that allows them to learn math,
science, basic reading, and they are able to succeed in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues for
their indulgence.
I was greatly taken by the distinguished manager of the bill,
Chairman Jeffords, and his recognition of teachers. I have here the
President's really wonderful message on education entitled ``No Child
Left Behind.'' I am sure the chairman agrees with me, if we do not
accord equal assistance to teachers, we cannot hope to achieve the goal
that no child will be left behind.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I certainly agree with the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of our Nation's teachers and
to say thank you to the over 3,000,000 teachers in this Nation for all
of the hard work and personal sacrifices they make to educate our
youth.
This week is ``Teacher Appreciation Week'' and today, May 8, 2001, is
``National Teacher Day.'' Today, I will be introducing a resolution in
the Senate where the Senate will make the appropriate designations to
honor our teachers with this appreciation week and day.
This resolution already has as original cosponsors Senators Allen,
Brownback, Cochran, Jeffords, Craig, Thurmond, Crapo, and Enzi. Mr.
Coverdell, who unfortunately was taken from us some time ago,
introduced a similar resolution in 1999.
How appropriate it is that Teacher Appreciation Week and National
Teacher day are upon us as we in the Senate are considering legislation
to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The legislation that is before us today, the Better Education for
Students and Teachers Act--the ``BEST'' Act--is based on a principle
put forth by President Bush entitled, ``No Child Left Behind.''
As we move towards education reforms to achieve the goal of ``Leaving
No Child Behind,'' we must keep in mind the other component in our
education system--the teachers. If we fail to accord equal recognition
to our teachers in this debate, our children will be left behind.
All of us know that individuals do not pursue a career in the
teaching profession for the salary. People go into the teaching
profession for different personal commitments--to educate the next
generation, to strengthen America.
While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers
spend their careers building lives.
Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever.
How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember
at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our
lives.
Even though we are all well aware of the important role our teachers
play, it goes without saying that our teachers are underpaid,
overworked, and all too often, under-appreciated.
In addition to these factors, our teachers also expend significant
money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children.
Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket
on three types of expenses:
1. Education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books,
supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment;
2. Professional development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books,
and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even
better instructors; and
3. Interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher
education loans.
[[Page S4470]]
These out of pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our
teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession.
Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009
because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student
enrollment.
While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the
federal government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate
the nation's teaching shortage.
Here is an example of such help. On a federal level, we can encourage
individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching
profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily
incur as part of the profession. This incentive will help financially
strapped urban and rural school systems as they recruit new teachers
and struggle to keep those teachers that are currently in the system.
With these premises in mind, I introduced, ``The Teacher Tax
Credit.'' This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible
teachers for qualified education expenses, qualified professional
development expenses and interest paid by the teacher during the
taxable year on any qualified education loan.
I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of my tax bill printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 225
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as ``The TEACHER-Tax Credit Act''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER
EDUCATION LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following new section:
``SEC. 25B. TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION
LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal
to the sum of--
``(1) the qualified education expenses paid or incurred by
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(2) the qualified professional development expenses paid
or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year, and
``(3) interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year
on any qualified education loan.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for the taxable year shall not exceed $1,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means
an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12
classroom teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal
in a public elementary or secondary school on a full-time
basis for an academic year ending during a taxable year.
``(2) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms
`elementary school' and `secondary school' have the
respective meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as in effect
of the date of enactment of this section.
``(3) Qualified education expenses.--The term `qualified
education expenses' means expenses for books, supplies (other
than nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in
health or physical education), computer equipment (including
related software and services) and other equipment, and
supplementary materials used by an eligible teacher in the
classroom.
``(4) Qualified professional development expenses--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional
development expenses' means expenses--
``(i) for tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment
required for the enrollment or attendance of an individual in
a qualified course of instruction, and
``(ii) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under
section 162 (determined without regard to this section).
``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified
course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
``(i) directly relates to the curriculum and academic
subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction,
``(ii) is designed to enhance the ability of an eligible
teacher to understand and use State standards for the
academic subjects in which such teacher provides instruction,
``(iii) provides instruction in how to teach children with
different learning styles, particularly children with
disabilities and children with special learning needs
(including children who are gifted and talented),
``(iv) provides instruction in how best to discipline
children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate
interventions to help children described in clause (iii)
learn, or
``(v) is tied to strategies and programs that demonstrate
effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement and
student performance, or substantially increasing the
knowledge and teaching skills of the eligible teacher.
``(5) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified
education loan' has the meaning given such term by section
221(e)(1), but only with respect to qualified higher
education expenses of the taxpayer.
``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--
``(1) In general.--No deduction or other credit shall be
allowed under this chapter for any amount taken into account
for which credit is allowed under this section.
``(2) Coordination with exclusions.--A credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for qualified professional
development expenses only to the extent the amount of such
expenses exceeds the amount excludable under section 135,
529(c)(1), or 530(d)(2) for the taxable year.
``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 25A the following new item:
``Sec. 25B. Teaching expenses, professional development expenses, and
interest on higher education loans of public elementary
and secondary school teachers.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this legislation, S. 225, is cosponsored
by Senators Mikulski, Allen, DeWine, Cochran, Harkin, and Ensign. The
National Education Association also has endorsed this legislation.
I am not introducing The Teacher Tax Credit Act as an amendment to
the education bill before the Senate because, procedurally, it would
stop this bill because of the ``blue slip'' taxation procedures in the
House of Representatives.
I do propose today a Sense of the Senate amendment on the importance
of providing additional tax relief for our Nation's teachers.
This amendment simply states that it is the Sense of the Senate that
during the 107th Congress, the Senate should pass legislation providing
elementary and secondary level educators with additional tax relief in
recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses they incur
to improve the education of our Nation's students.
I note that President Bush agrees that teachers should receive tax
relief to help defray the costs associated with classroom expense and
professional development costs.
The President's education blueprint to the Congress contained a
specific reference on page 13. I will read it:
Provide tax deductions for teachers: Teachers will be able
to make tax deductions up to $400 to help defray the costs
associated with out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as
books, supplies, professional enrichment programs and other
training.
The concept is in the President's blueprint. Frankly, with all due
respect to President Bush, I want to go a step further and make it
stronger, not just a deduction you have to work with and hope you get
the money back, but an absolute tax credit on that tax return to take
right away off the bottom line. Frankly, I think the $400 falls a
little short and I would like to see more.
I also note that Senators Collins, Kyl, and Hatch have worked
diligently on legislation providing tax relief to teachers.
On National Teachers Day, and during Teacher Appreciation Week, I
urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment that will
put the Senate on record in support of tax relief legislation for our
Nation's teachers.
I thank the Chair and my chairman for allowing me to participate at
this time in this debate.
[[Page S4471]]
I send the amendment to the desk, a sense of the Senate, and I await
comments from the Chair. Then I will ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am aware of your amendment. I also said on the
Finance Committee, not only can I assure you it will get notice here, I
assure you I will communicate your wishes to the chairman of the
Finance Committee and support you.
Amendment No. 383 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. At the appropriate time, subject to the leadership of the
Senate and management, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number
first.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 383 to amendment No. 358.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading is dispensed
with.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: to provide a Sense of the Senate regarding tax relief for
elementary and secondary level educators)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX RELIEF FOR
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATORS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The average salary for an elementary and secondary
school teacher in the United States with a Master's degree
and 16 years of experience is approximately $40,582.
(2) The average starting salary for teachers in the United
States is $26,000.
(3) Our educators make many personal and financial
sacrifices to educate our youth.
(4) Teachers spend on average $408 a year, out of their own
money, to bring educational supplies into their classrooms.
(5) Educators spend significant money out of their own
pocket every year on professional development expenses so
they can better educate our youth.
(6) Many educators accrue significant higher education
student loans that must be repaid and whereas these loans are
accrued by educators in order for them to obtain degrees
necessary to become qualified to serve in our nation's
schools.
(7) As a result of these numerous out of pocket expenses
that our teachers spend every year, and other factors, 6% of
the nation's teaching force leaves the profession every year,
and 20% of all new hires leave the teaching profession within
three years.
(8) This country is in the midst of a teacher shortage,
with estimates that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed
by 2009 because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement, and
increased student enrollment.
(9) The federal government can and should play a role to
help alleviate the nation's teaching shortage.
(10) The current tax code provides little recognition of
the fact that our educators spend significant money out of
their own pocket to better the education of our children.
(11) President Bush has recognized the importance of
providing teachers with additional tax relief, in recognition
of the many financial sacrifices our teachers make.
(b) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress and the President should--
(1) should pass legislation providing elementary and
secondary level educators with additional tax relief in
recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses
educators incur to improve the education of our Nation's
students.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at the
moment.
Mr. WARNER. At the moment.
Perhaps I could engage the attention of my two colleagues. I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be. There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
____________________