[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4471-S4498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Warner amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I would be
recognized to lay down an amendment at 2:15, and I am here to do that.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 384 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr.President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 384 to amendment No. 358.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
the BEST Act which incorporates the provisions of legislation I
introduced earlier this year, the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection
Act. This important legislation extends protections from frivolous
lawsuits to teachers, principals, administrators, and other education
professionals who take reasonable steps to maintain order in the
classroom.
The Teacher Liability Protection Act builds upon the good work
Congress began in 1997 when it enacted the Volunteer Protection Act. As
Senators may recall, the Volunteer Protection Act provides liability
protections to individuals serving their communities as volunteers.
After bringing several volunteer protection amendments to the floor
through the 1990's and introducing the Volunteer Protection Act during
the 104th Congress, I was blessed when Senator Paul Coverdell joined me
in helping to steer this measure through the 105th Congress and have it
enacted in 1997. Now, we need to extend similar liability protections
to our nation's teachers, principals, and education professionals who
are responsible for ensuring the safety of our children at school.
Everyone agrees that providing a safe, orderly environment is a
critical component of ensuring that every child can reach their full
academic potential. Teachers who are unable to maintain order in the
classroom cannot reasonably be expected to share their knowledge with
their pupils, whether it be in math, science, or literature.
Disruptive, rowdy, and sometimes violent students not only threaten the
immediate safety of their classmates, they threaten the very future of
our children by denying them the opportunity to learn. Unfortunately,
teachers, principals, and other education officials share an impediment
in their efforts to ensure that students can learn in a safe, orderly
learning environment: the fear of lawsuits. All too often, these hard-
working professionals find their reasonable actions to instill
discipline and maintain order are questioned and second guessed by
opportunistic trial lawyers.
Today's teachers will tell you that the threat of litigation is in
the back of their minds and forces them at times to act in a manner
which might not be in the best interests of their students. A 1999
survey of secondary school principals found that 25 percent of the
respondents were involved in lawsuits or out-of-court settlements in
the previous two years--an amazing 270 percent increase from only 10
years earlier. The same survey found that 20 percent of principals
spent 5 to 10 hours a week in meetings or documenting events in an
effort to avoid litigation. This is time that our educators should
spend counseling students, developing curriculum, and maintaining
order--not fending off frivolous lawsuits.
Mr. President, allow me to illustrate my point with several examples.
[[Page S4472]]
In May of 1998, representatives of the Bethlehem Area School District
learned that one of their students, Justin Swidler, had created a web
site where he solicited money to hire a hit man to kill his math
teacher, Mrs. Kathleen Fulmer. According to a local newspaper account,
the web site contained images of the principal being shot and ``a
picture of Fulmer which changed, or ``morphed'' in to a portrait of
Adolf Hitler.'' The site, which bears a name I cannot repeat on the
Senate floor, also listed reasons ``Why Fulmer Should be Fired'' and
then reasons ``Why She Should Die.'' I think that deserves repeating:
The list was not limited to the typical juvenile carping about a
teacher. It listed why she should die.
The school district, much to its credit, expelled Justin Swidler.
However, rather than encouraging young Justin to take responsibility
for his actions, the response of Justin's parents was all too
predictable--they hired a lawyer and they sued. First, they sued the
school district. Then, they sued the principal. After that, they sued
the superintendent. Finally, in the coup de gras of the litigation, the
Swidlers sued the teacher whom their son had threatened to kill. I
repeat, the Parents sued the teacher whom their son had threatened to
kill.
What reasons did the Swidlers give for their suit? they claimed,
among other things, to have suffered ``embarrassment, ridicule,
humiliation, isolation and severe emotional distress'' as well as
financial loss and ``inconvenience.'' The Swidlers wanted the school to
pay because they suffered ``embarrassment'' and ``inconvenience''
because their son threatened the life of his math teacher? That is
utterly outrageous. The boy's father, Howard Swidler, also claimed his
son had difficulty enrolling in a new school because ``teachers
wouldn't provide recommendations.'' I can imagine that. The teachers at
Nitchmann Middle School didn't want to write a letter of recommendation
for this kid who had compared a fellow teacher to Hitler and threatened
to have her killed. What nerve of those teachers not to write a
recommendation under those circumstances.
These lawsuits and countersuits drug out in the courts for more than
2\1/2\ years. During this time, good reputations were besmirched,
distinguished careers were ruined, and each party accumulated what we
can only estimate to be thousands of dollars in legal bills.
After all of this litigation, who finally won here?
The student didn't win. His expulsion was upheld and worse yet, he
learned from his parents that the appropriate way to defend
indefensible behavior is to file a lawsuit. That is what he learned.
The teacher didn't win. Upon returning to teaching, she found that
the publicity surrounding the case had irreparably damaged her
credibility in the classroom, and she was forced to leave her chosen
profession.
The principal didn't win. He found himself so thoroughly frustrated
and saddened by the toll the incident had taken on his school, he
decided to take early retirement.
Justin's classmates didn't win. The school's students were denied
resources which should have been used for their education that were
instead used to defend the school from a lawsuit.
After all of this, I think the only possible winners in this case
were the lawyers who generated 2\1/2\ years worth of billable hours,
from the Swidlers, the Fulmers, the principal, the school district,
and, yes, the students.
Let me give you another example.
Three students in Anchorage, AK, were caught accessing pornographic
material over the Internet during a computer class at school. The
school, acting within its discretion, removed the students from that
class and gave them an F for the semester. However, one of the students
had earned a grade point average which placed him at or near the top of
his class. Realizing that the F would prevent the student from being
honored at his graduation, the student's family hired a lawyer and sued
the school.
After a protracted legal battle, the school was forced to withdraw
the F in a settlement once the judge warned the school he would likely
rule against it. Is this what we want? Do we want lawyers and judges
deciding what grades a student should receive or aren't we better off
leaving this to the teachers in the classroom and principals in the
schools?
Another example: Last year, a high school cheerleading coach in
Labanon, TN, required her squad to run some laps during practice. One
of the girls objected to this assignment and referred to it as a
``piece of [blank]''. In response to the girl's insubordinate and
vulgar language defying her coach in front of her teammates and
classmates, the coach suspended her for an upcoming game against
Lebanon's arch rival, Mount Juliet High.
Those of you who have been listening closely to my remarks can guess
what the girl's family did next. Why, of course, they hired a lawyer,
and they sued the coach. What is amazing is that the cheerleader won an
injunction against the coach hours before the ball game with the court
requiring that she be given the opportunity to cheer. While this case
might cause us to chuckle, it points to a real problem. It sends a
horrible message to wayward students that school officials don't have
any real authority and students don't take any responsibility. If you
don't like a teacher's decision or a principal's decision, just hire a
lawyer and sue the teacher. Don't listen to your teacher; listen to
your lawyer.
These are but a few of the instances in which frivolous lawsuits
threaten to undermine discipline in our Nation's classrooms. While each
of these cases is troubling, what I find more disturbing are the cases
that aren't publicized at all. These are the cases where the teacher or
principal looks the other way or decides not to discipline a
misbehaving student because of the fear--the fear--of a lawsuit.
Many educational organizations recognize frivolous lawsuits as a
problem. That is why the Teacher Protection Act has the support of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National
Association of Elementary School Principals. I respectfully ask
unanimous consent that letters from these organizations be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National School Boards Association,
Alexandria, VA, Apr. 27, 2001.
Senator McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: The National School Boards
Association (NSBA) understands that you plan to introduce an
amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) regarding liability protection for school officials
who take reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline,
and an appropriate educational environment. NSBA is pleased
that the amendment extends liability protection to individual
school board members.
This provision is necessary because frequently, a student
will sue the school district (meaning school board), and then
they will sue the teacher, the principal, the superintendent,
and the board members in their individual capacities. As a
result, the school district expends time and money defending
these claims brought against school board members acting in
their individual capacity. School district budgets are
stretched too far, and unnecessary litigation results in less
money being spent on educating our nation's students.
Providing individual school board members liability
protection will reduce litigation costs in local school
districts and will also provide for the swift dismissal of
suits against individual school board members.
We recognize that this narrow exception may raise concern
that professional staff might feel they have a ``free hand''
in the discipline of students. In this regard, it should be
emphasized that with respect to school discipline,
professional educators are subject to school district
policies, court enforceable due process requirements, and in
any extreme cases, the criminal code. And when it comes to
such areas as criminal conduct and gross negligence, the
exemption of this amendment would not apply. In all cases,
the school district can still be sued. Accordingly, this
amendment retains the limits and deterrence of possible
professional error or misconduct through other legal avenues
while enabling school officials to do their jobs, without
fear of litigation, in rendering their sound judgement in the
great majority of situations involving student safety and a
sound learning environment.
NSBA supports your effort to provide liability protection
to individual school board members and looks forward to the
measure being adopted when the full Senate considers ESEA. If
you have any questions please contact Lori Meyer, director of
federal legislation, at 703-838-6208.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Resnick,
Associate Executive Director.
[[Page S4473]]
____
National Association of
Secondary School Principals,
Reston, VA, Feb. 28, 2001.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals--the preeminent
organization representing the interests of middle level and
high school principals, assistant principals, and aspiring
principals--I would like to thank you for introducing S. 316,
a bill that provides for teacher and principal liability
protection.
As a nationwide survey of principals conducted last year
indicates, schools across the nation are eliminating or
altering basic programs and activities due to the fear of
lawsuits. Twenty percent of those responding reported
spending 5-10 hours a week in meetings or documenting events
in efforts to avoid litigation and six percent put that
number at 10-20 hours a week. At a time when society is
heaping greater academic expectations on our schools, we
cannot afford to lose one minute, or one dollar, or one
school program to frivolous litigation.
There is a growing shortage of qualified candidates
applying to be principals occurring at the same time that
roughly 40 percent of practicing principals are expected to
retire from their jobs within the next five to ten years. A
study conducted last year by the Educational Research Service
on behalf of NASSP and the National Association of Elementary
Principals reflects that two of the three primary reasons
that discourage candidates from applying is because the
position is too stressful and there is too much time required
for the requisite responsibilities. There is no doubt that
frivolous lawsuits and activity related to that litigation
contributes to the level of stress experienced by principals.
While we applaud your efforts to provide liability
protection to teachers and note that the bill's definition of
``teachers'' is inclusive of principals, we believe the title
and references contained in the bill should reflect this
intent. Principals, as school leaders, are typically named on
lawsuits involving teachers.
Sincerely,
Gerald N. Tirozzi, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
____
National Association of
Elementary School Principals,
Alexandria, VA, March 13, 2001.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP),
representing more than 28,000 elementary and middle school
principals, I am writing to express our support for your
bill, the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act
of 2001. If enacted, this measure, S. 316, would be helpful
to principals, teachers, and other professional school staff.
While we welcome accountability, we are very concerned about
the proliferation of lawsuites.
Recent surveys conducted by NAESP and the American Tort
Reform Association indicate that there has been a significant
increase in lawsuits against educators. Nearly a third of the
suits were dropped, about one-quarter were settled out of
court, and the remainder were resolved in the principal's
favor. Virtually no judgments were found against principals,
a fact that leads one to conclude that many of the suits
could be described as frivolous. Each time there is a
lawsuit, valuable time must be taken away from the teaching
and learning process and devoted to legal matters. A
principal in Washington State spent more than 100 hours one
year on legal work surrounding one special education case.
This principal is responsible for a school with 500 students
and a staff of 40. Not only do lawsuits exhaust many hours;
even worse is the effect they have had on principal-student
and principal-family relationships. Principals are
increasingly cautious about the decisions they make,
including implementing changes in the way students are taught
and disciplined. This is obviously a hindrance to effective
school reform efforts. The simple act of comforting a child
in distress has also changed; no longer do school staff
members feel that they can put a hand on a child's shoulder
to calm the child down or provide an encouraging pat on the
back.
Although your bill's title refers only to teachers, its
definition of ``teachers'' clearly includes principals, and
we appreciate that. Thank you for your work to turn down the
heat, so to speak, and discourage unnecessary lawsuits.
Sincerely,
Vincent L. Ferrandino,
Executive Director.
Mr. McCONNELL. In fact, frivolous lawsuits are such a concern to
educators that many teachers unions tout liability insurance as a key
reason for joining their union. The Missouri NEA advertises on its
website that:
A $2 million educators employment liability (EEL) policy is
the cornerstone of MNEA's professional protection plan. The
coverage, automatic with membership, includes up to $2
million in damages and additional payment for legal fees for
most civil and some criminal lawsuits arising out of job-
related incidents while members are working.
In Texas, where the legislature has already adopted a comprehensive
teacher protection bill, the Texas State Teachers Association, TSTA,
touts its insurance program as a strong incentive for joining its
union:
For the times when life goes haywire and people are
reacting with emotions rather than reason, rest assured that
TSTA is watching out for you. Our $6 million liability policy
sets a new standard for professional protection and coverage
is automatic with your [union] membership.
For my Senate colleagues who question whether or not this is indeed a
serious problem, you ought to know that the Maine NEA disagrees with
you. This is what the Maine NEA says:
If something happens to a student in your class, on your
bus, or in your area of supervision, you can be sued and held
individually liable. By virtue of your employment, you could
place your home and savings at risk due to the claims of an
angry parent.
However, Maine teachers should not fear, the e-mail continues:
All MEA members are immediately protected by NEA's $1
million professional liability policy from their first day of
membership.
This legislation is structured similarly to the Volunteer Protection
Act of 1997 and is nearly identical to teacher protection legislation
introduced by Paul Coverdell, S. 1721, in the 106th Congress. Simply
put, this amendment extends a national standard to protect from
liability those teachers, principals, and education professionals who
act in a reasonable manner to maintain order in the classroom. It does
not preempt those States that have already taken action to address this
problem, and it allows any State legislature that disagrees with these
strong protections to opt out at any time. Since the legislation builds
on Senator Coverdell's fine work, my colleagues and I thought it would
be highly appropriate that it bear his name.
At the same time, it is important to note that this amendment is not
a ``carte blanche'' for that minuscule minority of school officials who
abuse their authority. The amendment does not protect those teachers
who engage in ``willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless
misconduct, or a conscious flagrant indifference to the rights or
safety'' of a student. Nor does the amendment preclude schools or local
law enforcement entities from taking criminal, civil, or administrative
actions against a teacher who acts improperly. Rather, the amendment is
simply designed to protect those teachers, principals, and educational
professionals from frivolous lawsuits.
This is not new ground for our colleagues in the Senate. In 1999, the
Senate agreed to a similar amendment offered by Senator Ashcroft.
During the second session of the 106th Congress, Senator Coverdell
successfully included a nearly identical amendment in the Senate's
version of the ESEA reauthorization bill. It was approved by this body
by an overwhelming vote of 97 to 0. Unfortunately, as we all know,
efforts to reauthorize the ESEA stalled on the Senate floor. It is now
the appropriate time for the Senate to revisit this issue, and I hope
give its full endorsement.
I look forward to working with my fellow original co-sponsors and the
rest of the Senate to see that these important protections are enacted
into law on behalf of America's hard working and dedicated teachers.
Again, Mr. President, we voted on this in the last Congress. This
amendment was approved 97-0. It is my hope that it will be accepted by
the Senate this year. It has widespread support on a bipartisan basis
and would add greatly to the underlying bill.
I have completed my opening observations on the amendment, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the amendment now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the McConnell amendment No. 384.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I don't know what the unanimous consent
request was of the Senator from Kentucky, but I ask unanimous consent
that we go back to the Murray amendment that was pending prior to the
break.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
[[Page S4474]]
Amendment No. 378 To Amendment No. 358
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Murray,
for highlighting class size and the pupil-to-teacher ratio as a key
ingredient to educational excellence.
A dramatic increase in the student population in all grades
throughout the country has presented a serious shortage of teachers.
During the past 8 years, as first lady and now as Senator, I have
traveled across Missouri visiting schools in every part of the State. I
have spoken with many dedicated educators who are frustrated by having
classes so large that individualized instruction is impossible.
Teachers do their best under the circumstances, but they are
handicapped when those in our communities and government ignore the
plight of our classrooms.
Missouri's classroom teachers know that smaller classrooms and more
individualized attention to students translates into higher achievement
scores, especially for children of low-income families.
Students in smaller classroom settings are more likely to graduate on
time and less likely to drop out, and they are more likely to enroll in
honors classes and to graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.
It is not only the number of kids in the classroom that concerns me
but the physical condition of the classroom itself. Far too many school
buildings are in need of repair. Two years ago, the U.S. Department of
Education reported that about 25,000 of the Nation's existing school
buildings had ``extensive repair or replacement needs.'' The Department
estimated that almost 12 million students were attending schools with
poor roofing. Another 12 million were in buildings with
outdated plumbing, and almost 15 million were in buildings with
inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
In Missouri's public schools, they face the daunting prospect of some
$4 billion in construction needs over the next decade. In addition,
59,000 children in Missouri study in portable classrooms. In Nixa, MO,
the Nation's second fastest growing school district, all fourth graders
at Matthews Elementary are in trailers behind the school.
Too many of our schools have a crisis of infrastructure. Allowing
this is a sad commentary on our priorities in the 21st century. Because
I believe that improved classrooms are essential to the future of our
Nation, I will vote with Senator Harkin later this week to provide a
Federal investment in school infrastructure.
True, we must demand high standards and rigorous accountability in
our schools, but reform can only come with the resources to do the job.
It must come with flexibility for States and local school districts to
meet their unique needs. Any nutritionist or mother will tell you that
it takes good food to grow strong bones and bodies. Likewise, we cannot
have strong schools if we starve the educational system.
At a time of record budget surplus, it is our moral responsibility to
do what is right for our children. We need a major new commitment to
public education. To do less is to falter in our stewardship as elected
leaders and as parents and as citizens.
The time is now and the place is here. As the poet, Gabriela Mistral,
reminded us:
Many things can wait, the child cannot. Now is the time his
bones are being formed, his blood is being made, his mind is
being developed. To him, we cannot say tomorrow, his name is
today.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, last Congress the Senate debated the
reauthorization of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Unfortunately, that debate ultimately broke down over disagreement on
the federal role in education and the course we should pursue to
improve America's schools. That debate has now resumed under a new
President and a new Congress. Today there is real bipartisan agreement
on measures we can take that will lead to a better future for America's
public schools and the fifty million students who rely on those schools
to provide them with a quality education.
The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, unanimously
supported by the Senate HELP Committee, encompasses President Bush's
emphasis on literacy and his laudable goals to improve reading skills
in the early grades and among disadvantaged students. Consensus also
exists among Republicans and Democrats alike that in order to improve
student achievement, we must also improve teacher quality. What
teachers know and can do are the single most important influences on
what students learn, according to the National Commission on Teaching
and America's Future.
And yet today in America, nearly one quarter of all newly hired
public school teachers lack the qualifications for their jobs, and
approximately the same percentage of all secondary school teachers--25
percent--do not have even a minor in their main teaching field. The
BEST bill endorses President Bush's emphasis on the importance of
improving teacher quality and his proposal for holding States
accountable for providing all students with ``effective teachers.''
This brings us to the core of President Bush's education plan and the
bipartisan BEST bill: the creation of a new accountability system which
for the first time links Federal funding to school performance. This
accountability system includes support for high standards for schools
serving disadvantaged students; annual testing in reading and math for
all students in grades 3 through 8; public dissemination of school-by-
school data on achievement; additional assistance for low-performing
schools; and consequences for schools which fail to make needed
improvements. With this emphasis on accountability comes a new emphasis
on flexibility--providing States greater freedom and choice in using
Federal funds to address their own needs and special situations.
Given these important principles of bipartisan agreement, there still
remain issues which divide this body--issues which have been discussed
forcefully and effectively by Members on both sides of the aisle: the
seminal issue of funding, the compelling need to upgrade and repair
America's public schools, the priority of class size reduction, to name
just three.
Research has repeatedly shown, for example, that class size directly
relates to the quality of education. Students in smaller classes
consistently outperform students in larger classes on tests, and are
more likely to graduate on time, stay in school, enroll in honors
classes, and graduate in the top ten percent of their class. I have
supported in the past, and will continue to do so, a national effort to
hire and train 100,000 additional qualified teachers to reduce class
sizes in the early grades. It is an investment in reducing teacher
turnover and in improving student performance.
As some Members have noted on this floor, the education bill has
evolved from the BEST bill reported out of committee. It is a work in
progress, shaped by negotiations still on-going. During debate on S. 1,
I intend to offer the provisions of my Immigrants to New Americans Act
as an amendment. Information from the 2000 census shows that the impact
from a dramatic surge in immigration is transforming the Nation.
This surge in immigration is increasingly challenging U.S. schools
and communities from Florida to Washington State. My amendment would
provide resources to these communities to help ensure that children
with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds--and their families--
are served appropriately. This amendment is based on legislation
Senator Coverdell and I introduced in the last Congress, and it would
provide funding to partnerships of local school districts and
community-based organizations for the purpose of developing model
programs with a two-fold purpose: one, to assist immigrant children
achieve success in America's schools and, two, to provide their
families with access to comprehensive community services, including
health care, child care, job training and transportation. It has
widespread support, including endorsement by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association for Bilingual Education, the League of
United Latin
[[Page S4475]]
American Citizens, and the National Council of La Raza.
At the appropriate time I will also offer an amendment that addresses
the all-important issue of teacher quality. Each school year more than
45,000 under-prepared teachers--teachers who have not even been trained
in the subjects they are teaching--enter the classroom. Astounding. We
know, too, that those students most in need of help are those who have
the least access to quality teachers and teaching. Just consider: Over
half of title I resources go into teaching assistant salaries. Yet less
than one-fifth of teaching assistants have a college degree, and only
10 percent have college degrees in the nation's poorest title I
schools. This is a formula for student failure.
Fortunately, the education bill we are debating acknowledges the
well-researched fact that the training of our Nation's teachers is the
single most important in-school influence on student learning. The
amendment I will offer allows States an additional option of providing
funds to innovative collaborations of K-12 schools and institutions of
higher learning devoted to professional preparation of teacher
candidates, faculty development, the improvement of practice, and
enhanced student learning.
The amendment I will offer now addresses the troubling issue of
violence in our Nation's public schools. No other event in recent times
has so united Americans--from Savannah to San Antonio to Sacramento--as
the student shootings in Littleton and Heritage High, and in other
schools across the country. There is a consensus in every borough, town
and city throughout the United States: Bloodshed in our schools cannot
and will not be tolerated.
Therefore, I offer an amendment to the education bill that addresses
the critical issue of safety in America's classrooms.
Amendment No. 376 to Amendment No. 358
(Purpose: To provide for school safety)
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
Murray amendment we are currently considering in order to send my
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLELAND. I send to the desk amendment No. 376 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland] proposes an
amendment numbered 376 to amendment No. 358.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is located in the Record of May 4 under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CLELAND. Although data show juvenile violent crime decreased in
the late 1990s, appearing to counter the predictions of a teenage crime
wave, criminologists and policymakers remain concerned about the
continued high level of juvenile violence. The tragic shooting at
Heritage High School in Conyers coupled with the incident in Littleton,
Colorado and the other recent senseless shootings in our Nation's
schools serve as terrible indications of the seriousness of the youth
violence problem. I have traveled throughout Georgia, speaking and
exchanging ideas with students, teachers and parents regarding this
critical issue. Although there is certainly no one answer to the
problem of youth violence, I believe that an open dialogue among
educators, students, community leaders, and law enforcement officials
is a crucial first step.
In fact, a report issued by the Department of Education in August,
1998, entitled ``Early Warning, Early Response,'' concluded that the
reduction and prevention of school violence are best achieved through
safety plans which: involve the entire community; emphasize both
prevention and intervention; train school personnel, parents, students,
and community members to recognize the early warning signs of potential
violent behavior and to share their concerns or observations with
trained personnel; establish procedures which allow rapid response and
intervention when such signs are identified; and provide adequate
support and access to services for troubled students. In addition, the
Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Department
of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics found that in
1998, ``students aged 12 through 18 were victims of more than 2.7
million total crimes at school . . . [and they] were victims of about
253,000 serious violent crimes . . .'' Amazing. While overall
indicators show declines in school crimes, students still feel unsafe
at school.
Therefore, my amendment, the school safety enhancement amendment,
which is based on legislation developed in the last Congress by Senator
Robb of Virginia, would establish a National Center for School Youth
Safety tasked with the mission of providing schools with adequate
resources to prevent incidents of violence. The National Center for
School Youth Safety would establish an emergency response system,
operate an anonymous student hotline, and conduct consultation,
information and outreach activities with respect to elementary and
secondary school safety. Under my amendment, the center would offer
emergency assistance to local communities to respond to school safety
crises, including counseling for victims, assistance to law enforcement
to address short-term security concerns, and advice on how to enhance
school safety, prevent future incidents, and respond to future
incidents.
My amendment would also establish a toll-free, nationwide hotline for
students to report criminal activity, threats of criminal activity, and
other high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, gang or cult
affiliation, depression, or other warning signs of potentially violent
behavior.
Finally, the National Center would compile information about the best
practices in school violence prevention, intervention, and crisis
management. Specifically, the center would work to ensure that local
governments, school officials, parents, students, and law enforcement
officials and agencies are aware of the resources, grants, and
expertise available to enhance school safety and prevent school crime,
giving special attention to providing outreach to rural and
impoverished communities.
My school safety enhancement amendment would require coordination
among three Federal agencies on the all-important issue of safety in
our schools. Specifically, it would authorize a total of $24 million in
grants by the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services
and the Attorney General to help communities develop community-wide
safety programs involving students, parents, educators, guidance
counselors, psychologists, law enforcement officials or agencies, civic
leaders, and other organizations serving the community. In order to
establish the National Center for School and Youth Safety the amendment
authorizes the Secretary of Education to make available $15 million
from amounts appropriated to the agency, and the Attorney General to
make available $35 million from amounts appropriated for programs
administered by the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of
Justice, for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
Organizations that support this amendment include the National
Education Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers
and the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police.
It is essential that we come together as a Nation to provide the
necessary resources to support our children at every level and that
means providing safe learning environments for all of our children.
Therefore, I urge the Senate to support school safety and our children
by adopting my amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
Amendment No. 378
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Murray amendment was set aside temporarily
for consideration of the Cleland amendment. Now the Cleland amendment
has been set aside.
Mrs. MURRAY. I assume we are on amendment No. 378, class size.
[[Page S4476]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. We are on the Murray
amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we began the discussion this morning
about the very important issue of reducing class sizes in first,
second, and third grades. To me, this is one of the most important
issues facing us as we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act: whether or not we are going to continue our commitment to first,
second, and third grade classrooms across this country to ensure
students are in a class small enough for them to learn the basic skills
that all of us want them to learn: reading, writing, and math.
I see the Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He has been a very
strong supporter of reducing class size in early grades.
I yield for him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I thank my friend and my colleague
on the Education Committee, Senator Murray from Washington, for always
being in the forefront of this battle to make sure our class sizes are
small enough so the kids can learn and teachers can teach. Truly, as I
traveled around my State and traveled around the country, visiting
different schools in different areas, Senator Murray's name has become
synonymous with the nationwide drive to get smaller class sizes for all
of our kids in elementary school. So I congratulate her for being our
champion on perhaps one of the most important steps we can take to
ensure success in school.
To hear tell from the administration and from President Bush, some
would have you believe the most important thing we could do is test,
test, test, year after year, as the most important way to assure
success in school. I strongly agree with the need to demand greater
accountability but if a teacher has 25, 28, 30 or more kids in a
classroom, I don't care how many times you test them--you can test them
every month, you can take their temperature every month--you are
cheating those kids and you are cheating the teacher because that
teacher simply cannot give the kind of hands-on instruction that the
teacher needs to give to individual students. So the most important
thing is not testing. I will say more about that later. The most
important thing is to get the kids early in life.
I know Senator Murray was a preschool teacher. It is the most
important job she has ever had in her life, I would say. It is more
important than even being a Senator, as a matter of fact. And by
serving on the school board, she brings the hands-on knowledge about
education that so many of us probably lack.
I never taught school, and I have never been on a school board, so I
put great weight and great credence on the positions taken by Senator
Murray when it comes to issues of elementary and secondary education. I
think Senator Murray has eloquently stated--not just eloquently but
backed with the data and the facts--that smaller class sizes lead to
better student performance and a healthier atmosphere in our schools.
It reduces violence in our schools. When kids are not crowded together,
when they have some space and they have that one-on-one with the
teacher, their frustration level decreases and they can better learn
and better associate with their peers.
In the debate we are going to have on elementary and secondary
education, we are all going to have important amendments. I am going to
have one on school construction, to help our schools meet that need.
But really, when you think about what we need in the earliest years--
kindergarten, first, second, third grade--this amendment, I submit, is
the single most important. You can have the most modern classrooms in
the world; you can have the best buildings; you can be wired for the
Internet; you can have all this great stuff; but if you have one
teacher teaching 30 kids, it doesn't mean a thing. So this really is
the hub around which the rest of this is all spinning.
I have seen with my own eyes what has happened in the last couple of
years in my State of Iowa with class size reduction. When you talk with
teachers who have had 25, 28 students and they now have 18--I talked to
one teacher in Iowa who had 15 students in a first grade class. She
thought she had died and gone to heaven. She said: This is why I became
a teacher. When I went through college and I got into student teaching,
I remember I was in classrooms with 28 or 30 kids. I got out of college
and I remember--the first class she told me about, I forget the exact
number but it was 25, 26, 27, 28 kids. Now she has 15. She says now she
can teach as she was taught in college. You could just see it on her
face, just how she felt about her job. You could see it in the kids'
faces, too. I will have more to say about that in a second.
This is what we are talking about. This is a picture that says it
all. It is a modern classroom. It is well lit, well structured. There
is plenty of work space. There are 18 kids. This is the Cleveland
Elementary School in Elkhart, IN. That is the kind of classroom a
teacher needs, to be able to give the kind of personal attention that a
student needs. That is what we are talking about, that kind of
classroom.
The Class Size Reduction Program has been a great success. Since 1999
when Senator Murray first started this effort, more than 29,000
teachers have been hired and more than 1.7 million children are
benefiting because they are in smaller classes. Yet the bill we have--
and I might say the budget we are going to be voting on tomorrow--will
not allow us to continue this program. This is not the time to abandon
the national commitment we have had in the past to reduce class size
across America.
As I said, we have the data. We have the research. It has confirmed
what we intuitively already knew, what students knew, what teachers
knew: smaller classes boost student achievement. They get better
grades.
We also know that minority students especially perform better than
their peers in larger classes. The news release was put out on August 6
about Project STAR, the Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio. It is a
Tennessee study. It tracked the progress of 11,600 elementary school
students and their teachers comparing those who were randomly assigned
to smaller classes--13 to 17 students for grades K-3--with those
randomly assigned to larger class sizes--22 to 25 pupils--or regular
size classes with a teacher's aide.
All the students were in regular-sized classes from the fourth grade
on. So, again, they compared the students in the smaller class sizes,
13 to 17 students, with students who were in classes that had 22 to 25
students. What they found was smaller classes have a greater effect on
African-American students than white students. While students were in
smaller classes, the black-white gap in achievement fell by 38 percent.
That is significant, 38 percent. And it remained 15 percent smaller
after the students returned to normal-sized classes after the fourth
grade.
While they were in kindergarten through third grade, the gap between
the score achievement results for students between black and white
increased by 38 percent. Even when, in fourth grade, they went into
regular size and bigger classes, it was 15-percent smaller than for
those who were never in smaller classes.
Again, what we all know is if you get to them early in life and you
give them good instruction and good teaching and good support, it
carries on. If you cheat them out of that early in life, that also
carries on.
How many times do we have to learn around here that patching, fixing,
and mending will get you a little bit, but to do it right in the first
place in kindergarten, first, second, third and, I submit, even in
preschool, means you don't have to patch and fix and mend and repair
later on, and you are much further ahead.
That is what this study shows. This was not just a small study; this
was 11,600 students. The study says that smaller pupil-teacher ratios
can account for almost all of the narrowing of the black-white gap
since 1971 as measured by the National Assessment of Educational
Progress exam.
The study says smaller classes increased the likelihood that black
students who take the ACT or the SAT college entrance exams grew from
3l.8 percent to 41.3 percent, a sharper increase than among white
students, which grew from 44.7 percent to 46.4. If all students were
assigned to a small class, the authors of the study wrote, the black-
white gap in taking a college
[[Page S4477]]
entrance exam would fall by an estimated 60 percent.
Think about that. If all students were assigned--they are
extrapolating, I know. We have the study of 11,600. If you extrapolated
that out, the black-white gap in taking college entrance exams would
close by an estimated 60 percent.
When we talk about not leaving kids behind, let's face it. What are
we talking about? Under the Bush budget that we see coming down the
pike and we will be voting on tomorrow, he says leave no kid in the
suburbs behind. Leave no kid behind who has well-heeled parents, or
parents who are Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, or CEOs of major oil
companies, or law firms. Let's face it. We have good public schools. We
are talking about the kids who have bad schools and poorly trained
teachers. Yes, we are talking mostly about minority students.
As we talk about trying to leave no kid behind, we should be talking
about not leaving behind those who are at the bottom of the economic
ladder. That is really what we are talking about. You don't leave those
at the top of the ladder behind. They are never left behind. We make a
good living here. Our kids are never left behind. The sons and
daughters of CEOs, of corporation lawyers and lawyers downtown and
college teachers are never left behind. The sons and daughters of those
who are new Americans, many of them immigrants who come to this
country, and the African Americans who have been denied the
opportunities for education in our country for as long as they have
been here on our shores--and that goes back 400 years--is what we are
really talking about, not leaving kids behind who are at the bottom
rungs of the ladder.
If that is what we are talking about, then we need smaller class
sizes because the study shows they are the ones who benefit the most.
Everyone benefits for smaller class size. Don't get me wrong. But those
who are minority students who come from the low socioeconomic strata of
America are the ones who benefit the most.
The teen birth rate for those assigned to smaller classes is one-
third less among white females and 40 percent lower for black teenage
males.
Crime: Conviction rates were 20 percent lower for black males who
were in smaller classes than their peers who were in regular size
classes.
Perhaps these aren't statistically absolute, but statistically they
show trends and what happens when you have smaller classes.
Again, we are talking about not leaving any student behind. This is
really the hub of it. There is the center of the universe. A lot of it
is spinning around out there in terms of having better schools and
better trained teachers, better equipment, wired to the Internet,
accountability, and testing. All of that is sort of spinning around out
there. But in the center of all of it is how many kids per teacher are
in these earlier classes. You can have the best trained teacher in the
world. If you put him or her in a class of 30 kids and they can't teach
well, those kids are going to be cheated.
This is really the amendment to say whether or not we really care
about leaving any children behind.
As I said earlier, I have visited many schools in my State in the
last couple of years since we started the class size reduction program.
The enthusiasm and the support among the teachers, the principals, and
parents is incalculable. Time after time they were saying, thank you;
it is about time we were doing this.
Last month I held two appropriations field hearings in Iowa. I heard
from a lot of people about all aspects of elementary and secondary
education. But I think the most poignant testimony had to do with class
size reduction.
Jolene Franken, president of the Iowa State Education Association,
has 30 years of teaching experience in Iowa elementary schools. This is
what she told me:
Try teaching 30 students versus 20 students and see how
much individual help you can give to students. . . . In order
for teachers to do their best, they must know their students'
needs, learning styles, strengths and weaknesses--these
things are impossible with large class sizes.
Sherry Brown, Cedar Falls, testified on behalf of the Iowa PTA. She
said:
The advantages of small class-sizes in the early grades on
overall academic achievement are well documented, but the
advantages also include improved parent involvement. When
teachers have fewer students, they have fewer parents with
which to communicate and are able to confer with them more
frequently.
Maybe that is something some of us haven't thought about. After what
Sherry said, I thought about it. It stands to reason that we want
parents more involved with their kids' education. A lot of that has to
do with the teacher talking to these parents and getting the parents
involved. When you have a huge class and 60 parents, it is very hard to
communicate with all of them. Cut that down by a third or more. Then
you can see what Sherry Brown was talking about. They can talk to the
parents more frequently.
During a visit to Starry Elementary School in Marion a while back, I
spoke with Reggie Long, a first grade teacher for 30 years. She told me
she really appreciated the smaller classes. She said:
It's nice because I can give individual attention to the
kids. We just give them so much academically now. If you
don't give them individual help, they can't succeed and we
can't succeed as teachers.
The superintendent of the school district said:
The key to effective teaching is getting to know the
students and parents.
William Jacobson said that it is easier when teachers have fewer
students in their classes.
Two years ago, Angie Borgmeyer, a teacher in Indianola--my home
county--had 27 students in her second grade class. I visited her last
year, and because of class size reduction, she was down to 21 students.
She thought it was still too many, but she said 27 was way too many.
She said:
It's very difficult with that many students. When you're
trying to teach them to read and give them basic arithmetic,
you need to be able to do it in a small group and give them
individual attention.
She pleaded with us to continue the program because her goal was to
get down to 18 students, where she believes she could really then
fulfill her obligation and her commitment to being the best teacher
possible.
The Class Size Reduction Program is simple. It is flexible. It is
popular. So I, for one, cannot understand why we are having a problem.
Is it budgeted? It can't be the budget. The budget has $400 billion in
some contingency fund--$400 billion--for the next 10 years. So it can't
be a budgetary matter. We have a surplus out there. We are going to
give tax breaks, they tell me, to a lot of people. People who make over
$1 million a year are going to get tax breaks. So this is not a budget
item. It is not that we do not have the money to do this. We do. It is
a matter of priorities. That is all it is, a matter of priorities: what
do we want to do?
Last week, with the help of Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator
Hagel, and others on both sides of the aisle, we adopted an amendment
that appropriated $181 billion for special education over the next 10
years to help us meet our goal of providing at least 40 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure. We did that. And there is money to do
that.
So it seems to me that, again, in our actions we could ask: Is that a
priority? Yes, it is. Certainly it is a priority.
A few minutes ago I said that perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of
smaller class sizes are our minority students. I take it back. I
misspoke. The biggest beneficiaries of smaller class sizes are our
students with disabilities--our kids who have special needs, who no
longer are warehoused and pushed into institutions but are now living
with their families and are going to their neighborhood schools with
their friends and their neighbors, but they have special needs.
They may be physically disabled. They may be mentally disabled or a
combination of both. But would anyone stand in this Chamber and say it
is time to turn the clock back? That those kids should not be in the
classroom? That we ought to go back to the old days that I know a lot
of us remember, when kids with disabilities were sent across the State
to some institution, deprived of the support of their families,
deprived of their friends and their neighbors, simply because they had
one disability or another? I bet there isn't one Senator who would
stand in this Chamber and advocate that. I do not think there are too
many
[[Page S4478]]
people in this country who would advocate that.
We have come too far. We know that both the kids with the
disabilities and the kids without the disabilities benefit from this
interaction in our classrooms. We have seen it. We know it.
The kids without disabilities become more sensitized. They become
more understanding. As I have said many times in dealing with this
issue of education and disability, when you put such kids together
early on, then the fact that they are going to later associate in the
workplace with someone who has a disability is no big deal.
When we first passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, more and
more people with disabilities started getting into the workplace. I
spoke in this Chamber many times and said: I know what people are
saying. They are uncomfortable around people with disabilities. They
don't know what to do. They don't know how to act. I have always said:
Just be yourself. You'll be far ahead. But I understand that.
To break down that feeling of being uncomfortable or not being able
to associate with people who have disabilities, put all children in
school together. Let them play together. Let them grow up together.
They will find that it is no big deal. So it helps kids with
disabilities and kids without disabilities. It helps all of society.
What am I getting to in talking about this? I guess what I am getting
to is that we put all this money into special education, to help our
local school districts meet their obligations to educate kids with
disabilities, but the biggest beneficiaries of small class size, I
would submit, are those kids with disabilities.
If you have a big class, how much attention is that student with
special needs going to get? If you have a smaller class, the teacher
can pay more attention to both the minority students and the kids with
disabilities.
So I correct what I said. I think the biggest beneficiaries of
smaller class size maybe are not minority students but kids with
disabilities. It seems to me, if we want to back up what we did last
week, in providing the funds for special education, this is the
amendment with which to do it, to make sure we have smaller class size.
Maybe this isn't the time, but I am constrained, nonetheless, to talk
a little about an issue because it is going to come up--I anticipate
that it will come up--and that is the whole issue of discipline and
discipline in our schools.
It is a major issue. I am not in any way denigrating it nor saying
the problem isn't there, that it does not exist. Of course it does. Any
of us who have put kids through school know that it is an issue. But
time and time again, when I have looked at the issue of discipline,
especially when it concerns children with disabilities, who are under
an individual education program, an IEP--which qualifies them under the
IDEA program--most often, the discipline problem arises out of the
frustration that this young person with the disability has because
their special needs are not being attended.
I remember a classic case one time where we had a deaf child, a deaf
student, in a classroom and they were using visual aids, television.
The kids would watch television as part of their learning program. I
don't know whether it was ``Sesame Street'' or whatever. I am not
certain what the program was. After a few days of this, the student who
was deaf began to act up and throw things, hit other kids, became
disruptive. What was the first impulse of the teacher? Get that kid out
of class. The kid is becoming disruptive; I can't handle him.
They pointed out that the reason the kid was disruptive was because
he didn't understand what was going on on the television--they didn't
have closed captioning--because he had been deaf since birth. He had
trouble speaking. So he was acting out his frustration by being
disruptive in school. But when they fixed the problem, they put in
closed captioning, it was amazing; the discipline problem went away.
You are going to hear more about this issue of discipline. Keep in
mind how frustrated and angry some of these kids who have special needs
and disabilities got, and they are not being supported so that they can
get an appropriate education.
Again, I come back to my point. If we have smaller class size, the
teacher can pay more attention to the student with special needs. Any
way you measure it, I believe this amendment before us now is the key
to having healthier, happier, more productive students, students who
will go on to achieve more. The idea that somehow if we are going to
test later on--we are going to test from the third to the eighth
grade--we are going to test every year now, that somehow this is going
to make them better students, there is a place for testing--but not
without the support of the funding for it, though--if you don't have
smaller class size, this testing isn't going to mean a thing. That is
why we have to adopt this amendment.
I don't suppose the camera can pick these up. I had some other items
here that were sent to me. Here are some second grade kids in McKinley
School in Des Moines who made some posters for me, talking about how
they felt with smaller class size.
Here is one that said: ``There are more books and time to spend with
adults.'' That is a second grader who wrote that.
Here is another one. I like this one. These kids are all standing in
line to go into the library, and this student said: ``It takes less
time to do things.''
Smaller class size means they don't have to stand in line so long to
get their books. This is looking at it through the eyes of second
graders who have seen what it means to be in smaller classes.
I like this one. This is Chelsea. Chelsea says: ``There is more space
in my classroom.'' The kids aren't crowded together. Think what it
means to a child to have a little bit of space; they are not all
crowded together. It means a lot to us, too.
Here is another one. This is Miguel Gonzalez. He says: ``We are not
crowded.'' And you can see all the kids are happy. They all have
smiling faces.
This is from Tony. Tony says: ``More books so I can learn easier,
from the library.'' I assume he means he can get more books so he can
learn easier because it is not so crowded. He is reading a book about
space, he wrote there. That is a second grade kid.
Here is one; this is Gentrie. Gentrie says: ``I can spend more time
with the teacher.'' Here is the teacher saying, ``Hello, Gentrie.'' And
here is Gentrie saying, ``Let's talk.'' A second grade kid, through
this picture, says: ``Hello, Gentrie.'' She says, ``Let's talk.'' With
smaller class size, Gentrie can talk to her teacher.
That kind of sums it up in terms of the Murray amendment and what it
means.
We are going to have a budget conference report, I guess, tomorrow.
We put $320 billion into that budget. Senator Jeffords and others,
Senator Specter, Senator Chafee, had all voted to put more money into
education. We had over $300 billion that we put in for education over
the next 10 years. The Bush budget had $21.3 billion for 10 years. We
said that is not enough. So we boosted that to $320 billion over 10
years.
The House, interestingly enough, had passed the budget with the
President's figure of $21.3 billion in education over the next 10
years, an increase. Usually when we pass something here and they pass
something different in the House, we go to conference and compromise
somewhere between the two. We passed a $320 billion increase in
education over 10 years; the House passed a $21.3 billion increase over
10 years. You would have thought that maybe we would have a compromise
somewhere in the middle. The conference report has come back with has a
zero increase for education. They didn't even take President Bush's
$21.3 billion, as meager and penny pinching as that was. They zeroed it
out.
So the money we put in for education, the budget conference that we
will consider later this week a zero increase, zero. What they did was
they took all the money and put it in a contingency fund, $400 billion
in a contingency fund for 10 years. That pot of money can be used for
anything, as I understand it. It can be used for anything we spend
money on. So that means education is sort of put down on the level with
everything else. It is not that important. We will just put it down
with everything else. But this Senate, last week, said education was
more important; that it deserved to be increased by over $300 billion
over the next 10 years. Later in the week we will have a budget
conference report
[[Page S4479]]
that says: No, not only will we not even put in the President's $21.3
billion increase; we will put in a zero increase for 10 years.
That is why I believe it is so important for us to have a strong vote
on the Murray amendment for class size reduction. Once again, we have
to tell those budget negotiators that what they did is totally
inadequate, if we are really going to meet the needs of education over
the next 10 years.
That is why I am hopeful we can have a good, strong vote on the
Murray amendment. We know the figures. We know the facts. We have the
studies. We know what smaller class size means. If we just stop and
think to ourselves, think about our own educations and our backgrounds,
it is just common sense. We really don't need a lot of study. Sometimes
just good old-fashioned common sense tells us what we ought to do, that
a smaller class is going to mean more individual attention. As Gentrie
said, she would talk to her teacher more. Teachers can talk to parents
more. Common sense says we have to do it. We have to have smaller class
size.
I guess the second question is, Can we afford to do it? Well, when
you have $400 billion sitting in a contingency fund, nonallocated, for
10 years, I say yes, we can. We were talking about $1.6 billion last
year. This amendment is $2.4 billion. Let's see, if I am not mistaken,
that would be about one-half of 1 percent, roughly, of what is in that
contingency fund. Can we say we can't use some of that money to reduce
class size? I think we have to follow common sense around here and
recognize that, yes, we have the resources; yes, we are a rich enough
country; yes, we have the money to do this; and we ought to do what is
right.
We ought to adopt the Murray amendment and continue what we have done
for the last couple of years, which is working. We know it is working.
The parents love it, as do students and teachers. We know it is going
to benefit the kids of America. Why stop now? I think the answer is,
don't stop it now; keep it going. Keep reducing class size. Let our
teachers teach the way they want to teach and our students learn the
way they want to learn, in close relationships. We will have healthier
and better schools in the future for America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Virginia be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I will simply say the compassionate
speeches we have heard are interesting and certainly true. Earlier
today we had Senator Kennedy's amendment, which will give billions of
additional dollars to localities for teachers so that children can have
more individualized attention, or whether it is paying teachers more,
or for teacher development, or stipends. That is a very good idea to
empower local school boards to meet local needs as regards teachers.
(The remarks of Mr. Allen are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise, first, to support the amendment
by the Senator from Washington regarding class size reduction. This is
a very important amendment. It is one that will result in $13 million
of additional funds coming to my State of New Mexico in fiscal year
2001.
It is a very important initiative and one that I hope very much we
can adopt as part of this bill.
I want to also speak more generally about the legislation that is
before us and begin by complimenting Senator Jeffords, the chairman of
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the ranking
member, Senator Kennedy, as well as our staffs for the fine work that
has been done on this bill. It is an honor for me to serve on that
committee with them and to have participated in the development of this
legislation.
This legislation, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act,
contains many provisions that I support and many that I have advocated
for some period of time. I am especially pleased with the new
accountability requirements that are in title I of the bill and
throughout.
The bill also maintains several of the most important programs that
are targeted to specific problems that we see in my State of New Mexico
and many other States.
For example, the bill makes a strong commitment to reducing the very
high dropout rates that currently affect many in our schools. The bill
includes a measure to ensure that all teachers are well equipped to use
new technologies in their classrooms, to incorporate it into their
teaching to expand opportunities for students in every school.
There are also provisions in the bill to encourage more advanced
placement instructions to raise the level of academic performance in
our high schools and middle schools leading into those advanced
placement courses at the high school level.
Clearly, the centerpiece of the bill is this section related to
accountability. For the first time, States and school districts and
individual schools will be held accountable for improving the academic
performance of all students.
I am pleased the President adopted many of these accountability
measures. Senator Lugar and I introduced a bipartisan bill earlier this
year. Many of those provisions now are contained in S. 1.
Implementation of tough and mandatory accountability standards is now
a bipartisan effort. I feel very good about that. What we are
implementing in this bill is a rigorous accountability system that
demands results from all students, including those whom we have
previously classified as disadvantaged students.
I want to take a minute to summarize the key components of this new
performance-based accountability system.
The bill ensures that Federal funds will be directly tied to gains in
student performance and, most importantly, it ties these funds to
increased student achievement for all children. The accountability
system incorporated in the bill goes a long way to ensuring that a
primary goal of Federal funding is the elimination of the existing
achievement gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged groups.
The components of the accountability system include:
First, raising standards for all students and providing an objective
measure for that progress which can be effectively implemented through
a grading system for States, school districts, and schools.
Second, focusing on the progress of disadvantaged students by setting
separate goals for their achievement so schools must either show gains
for those groups or be labeled as failing to make adequate progress as
intended under the grading system.
Third, identifying schools that are failing to meet their goals in a
timely manner so they can receive the additional resources and support
to help those schools turn around; also, there are strict consequences
if that failure turns out to be chronic.
Fourth, working to ensure that every class has a qualified teacher
and that low-income and minority students are not taught by unqualified
teachers at higher rates than other students.
Fifth, providing an expanded role for parents by expanding public
school choice, establishing school report cards to inform parents about
the quality of their schools, including the right to know their
teacher's qualifications.
I do believe these strong accountability provisions in the bill are
the right thing to do. They will improve academic achievement of all
students, and I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords,
and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and the administration for
joining in promoting these tough new standards.
I also thank and acknowledge Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh for
the important role they played in supporting these strong
accountability standards.
I am also glad the committee included three other important measures
in the bill as it was reported. The first is the dropout prevention
program I mentioned earlier. The second will help train teachers in the
use of technology in the classroom. I also mentioned that. And the
third expands the opportunities for students to take advanced placement
courses while in high school. That I also mentioned.
[[Page S4480]]
All three of these measures have broad bipartisan support. All were
adopted unanimously in the committee. The dropout program makes
lowering the school dropout rate a national priority.
Parenthetically, lowering the school dropout rate was one of the
original goals former President Bush and the 50 Governors agreed upon
in Charlottesville in 1989. Including it in this legislation is
extremely important.
It is well known that the failure to acquire a high school diploma is
one of the greatest barriers to future employment, earnings, and
advancement. High school completion rates remain distressingly low in
many communities across this country and, unfortunately, in many
communities in my State of New Mexico.
The problem is disproportionately greatest among the minority and
low-income students. Over 3,000 students drop out of school each day.
Hispanic youth are nearly three times more likely to drop out of school
as their Anglo classmates.
It does not need to be this way. There is now strong evidence that
efforts that are focused on students most likely to drop out,
especially at the ninth grade level, can dramatically improve the odds
that those students will finish high school.
For example, in my State of New Mexico, Cibola High School in
Albuquerque is using just such a focused effort and a small Federal
grant to reduce its dropout rate from 9 percent to less than 2 percent
in just 4 years. Last year, 86 percent of their ninth grade students
earned all of their credits and moved on to the 10th grade.
The purpose of these dropout provisions in the bill is to try to
duplicate Cibola High School's success at schools across the Nation.
There are three parts to the dropout program that are included in the
bill. First is the creation of a national clearinghouse to get out
information on research, best practices, and available resources to
help schools implement effective dropout prevention programs.
Second, the bill establishes a national recognition program to
spotlight schools that do successfully reduce the dropout rate.
Third, the bill authorizes a grant program to help schools implement
proven approaches to reduce dropouts and put in place prevention
programs.
I do believe that dropout prevention needs to be a national priority.
The need for this program is underscored by the President's increased
emphasis on annual testing which is sure to raise concerns that dropout
rates will increase as States try to meet their academic performance
goals. This is a real danger, that students who are not doing well in
the tests will be the ones most likely to drop out. With all the
emphasis on test scores, States will not have any incentive to focus
resources on keeping these kids in school. That is why the dropout
prevention provisions in the bill are so important.
In addition, I believe it is critical that States be required to set
goals to reduce those dropout rates and report their dropout rates
along with their annual test scores.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has been a long-time champion on this
issue and has cosponsored this dropout bill provision with me. I thank
him for all his good work.
The bill also includes provisions from a bipartisan Technology for
Teachers Act, that I introduced along with Senators Cochran,
Rockefeller, and Roberts. Technology does promise to transform
education. Unfortunately, too many of our schools do not take full
advantage of this opportunity simply because the teachers have not been
properly trained to use the technology.
I am pleased this bill includes our measure to continue the
successful ``Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology'' program.
The program provides grants to consortia of schools of education and
State and local education agencies to develop teacher preparation
programs to ensure that new teachers have the tools they need to take
full advantage of new teaching technologies in their classrooms.
Another important new measure included in the bill is the Advanced
Placement Program. This bipartisan program is cosponsored by Senators
Hutchison and Collins. Advanced placement programs provide high school
students with challenging academic content. They raise the bar for
academic standards. They allow students to earn valuable college
credits. I believe it is very important that the Federal Government
support efforts to expand this program.
We have a superb example of what can be done in advanced placement
instruction in Hobbs High School in my home State. It increased the
participation rates in advanced placement instruction by 550 percent in
just 3 years in that school district. A statewide program in New Mexico
that helps low-income children pay for the cost of the tests has helped
boost participation by 74 percent for Hispanic students, 300 percent
for African Americans, and a remarkable 950 percent for Native American
students. This is an important provision and one I feel very good about
seeing in this bill.
I also believe S. 1 is a good bill and reflects a strong bipartisan
basis for fundamental reform of Federal education programs. I hope we
can maintain this spirit of bipartisanship that has been able to
prevail. I am a cosponsor of Senator Murray's class size amendment. I
strongly urge the Senate to vote to include that in the bill.
I will also be offering two amendments to deal with an issue I
believe the States are not in a position to properly address. The first
addresses the issue of school security and basic student and teacher
safety. Senator Tim Hutchinson is a cosponsor. The other amendment is
to expand a successful pilot program to create small learning
communities within larger schools, the so-called schools within
schools. Both of these have passed the Senate before. I am hopeful the
Senate will agree to include them in this BEST bill.
I would like to conclude with one final point. I do think it is
important for all Senators to remember this is an authorization bill. I
expect it will pass with bipartisan support. But the real proof of the
will and determination of this Congress to improve education will come
in the appropriations process.
On the one hand, President Bush has imposed a variety of new
requirements on the States including annual testing, but on the other
hand the administration's budget, at least so far, does not provide
significant increases for education. I support many of the proposed
reforms, but so far I have failed to see the commitment of resources
needed to make those reforms possible. I, for one, intend to be
speaking out. We need appropriate funding levels for education this
year and for each of the years covered by this 7-year authorization
bill.
I do believe that much of what we are proposing in this bill will not
be successful unless we are willing to make the full investment of
Federal funding required. What is called for now is an investment in
our children's future, an investment I believe our children deserve.
I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and Senator
Kennedy, and their staffs for their fine work. I look forward to
continuing to work with them and the other members of the committee as
this bill moves from the Senate floor and into conference. I hope we
will soon see this important legislation signed into law and
appropriately funded.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Murray's
amendment.
I make an observation at the outset. I do think this amendment
suffers in one sense. It suffers from the ``not invented here''
syndrome. That is, I have not heard anybody yet--I am hopeful to hear
it--come forward and say why smaller classes are not better and why the
United States of America and the Federal Government should not help in
accommodating most States and counties and cities change individual
classrooms to smaller sizes.
Maybe there is something of which I am unaware. I am anxious to hear
it. I have been listening back in my office to this nondebate debate
because everybody seems to be for it, based on what is going on, other
than an oblique reference that is not good from one quarter. But other
than that, I have not heard why smaller classes are not better.
[[Page S4481]]
I am amazed any Senator would come to the floor of the Senate to
argue that reducing class size is not good for children. Occasionally
we run across those things that are so obvious on their face there is
no debate about it. I do not know anybody--educator, noneducator, able
to read, not able to read, with a Ph.D., with just a high school
education--I do not know anybody who would make the argument that if
you are given the same teacher, competent or incompetent, that teacher
is more likely to get more information in the heads of the children in
his or her class if there are 2 students than if there are 5, if there
are 5 instead of 15, if there are 15 instead of 45. It just is so self-
evident.
Results from both standardized tests and from curriculum-based tests
show students in smaller classes continually outperform those same
students in larger classes. These results span urban and rural schools,
among low-income and wealthy students. In fact, when class sizes were
decreased for minority students, their achievement rates doubled--that
is right, doubled.
There are certain things I do not know why we spend so much time
debating, they are so self-evident, such as the idea that we would be
better off in this country and more likely to raise the achievement
level of all our children in direct proportion to how many children had
to compete for the teacher's attention.
Children would lose a lot if everyone had Plato as a teacher because
they would not learn to interact with other children; they wouldn't be
involved in sports; they wouldn't learn social skills. But, my Lord,
does anybody think they would not learn more information if they had
one brilliant teacher and one brilliant student, no matter how slow and
how fast?
Everybody knows this. The question is whether or not we are willing
to put our money, as a priority, on what we say is the single most
important task facing this country--education of our children.
I ask anybody within listening distance of this microphone, on
television or on radio, to ask themselves the following question--by
the way, I teach. I taught as a student teacher when I was in law
school to make money to get through law school. I now am a professor at
Wyden University Law School, teaching an advanced course in
constitutional law for two or three credits, depending on the semester,
for the last eight or so semesters.
You don't have to know rocket science to figure this out. They tell
me there are about 190 young people who try to sign up for my class
every year. Because it is a seminar, it is limited to no more than 16
or 17 students, although I might note parenthetically that the school
started putting 25 and 28 in my class. I finally went to the dean and
said: I think it is too large. He said: Well, I guess you are right.
And they decided to put fewer students in the class. They changed the
schedule to a Saturday morning, and it became inconvenient at the last
minute. So for the last two semesters I have only had five to eight
students. I promise you, as bad of a teacher as I am, when I had 5
students in my class, they learned a lot more than when I had 15, even
in a targeted seminar.
My wife has been a schoolteacher for the last 22 years. She can tell
you, as any teacher in a public or a private school--she taught in the
public school; now she teaches at a junior college--that everything
changes when you have fewer students--everything. Discipline problems
change when you have 5 students as opposed to 10; or 15 as opposed to
45. Everything changes. The student who is self-conscious, or the
student such as I when I was a kid who stutters, is much more likely to
raise his or her hand with a small class than with a big class. The kid
who raises the devil or is shy is likely to engage more in a small
class than a big class.
I don't get this. I don't understand why this is even a debate. I
really truly don't.
Some of my conservative friends believe in the devolution of power,
which is the new, as they say, paradigm for Government. It is a fancy
word of saying the Federal Government has no responsibility.
If you conclude that the Federal Government has no responsibility to
deal in any way, directly or indirectly, with elementary and secondary
education of our students in the States and localities, then I accept
your ``no'' vote as being based upon a rational principle. I disagree
with your principle, but it is rational. It is rational to say the
Federal Government should not be involved at all; ergo, I am against
100,000 teachers. I got that. I figured that out. There are some in
this body, many at the Cato Institute, and many at the Heritage
Foundation who believe that. I think many of the people, including
President Bush, may believe that. I don't know. But I understand that.
However, I do not understand anyone making the argument that the
distinguished Senator from Washington is wrong--if I am not mistaken,
she used to actually teach--when she says that it is easier to
communicate information, build confidence, and encourage involvement
when you have a smaller class than when you have a larger class.
Why do you think we pay so much money to send our kids to private
universities as opposed to public universities? I went to a public
university. I am very proud of my university, the University of
Delaware. My son went to a large law school. In our State, we don't
have a large public law school. My son went to Yale. He had five, six,
or seven in his class. The fact is, I didn't get into Yale. Thank God I
have a smart son.
But all kidding aside, why do you think we pay all this extra money?
Many of these brilliant young people sitting behind us and the ones who
advise us went to those schools. They went there because, in part, of
the teacher-pupil ratio.
Why do you think when you send your kid to a university and you get
that little book, which we all learn--there is a book that gives the
ratings of all the colleges--why do you think, in addition to telling
you the size of the library, the size of the student body, the
endowment, and how many Nobel Laureates they have, part of the rating
of whether they are a good or a bad school is based upon the teacher-
student ratio?
I get confused here. Maybe I am a little slow. But if, in fact, it
matters when you are a 22-year-old doctoral student to have a smaller
class, tell me why it doesn't matter when you are a 7-year-old first
grader? I don't get this. I think we need a little bit of truth in
packaging here.
This is not my legislation. I am a follower. But I am ready to be a
soldier. I hope someone will come to the Chamber and debate with us
about why smaller class size is not a good idea.
Good. Maybe my friend is about to do that. I would love to have that
debate.
Simply put, smaller classes can dramatically improve the quality of a
child's education, whether they are slow, or fast, or whether or not
they are the brightest candle on the table. All of them will benefit
marginally more by a smaller class.
We began this initiative under the leadership of the Senator from the
State of Washington 3 years ago in an attempt to reduce class size in
grades 1-3 to no more than 18 students. I cosponsored that amendment
with Senator Murray in her effort to continue this program in
subsequent years.
I would like to think that the 100,000 teacher initiative would be as
successful as the 100,000 cops initiative that I authored in 1994. I
don't think it is an accident that overall crime has gone down 7\1/2\
percent per year because we added 100,000 cops on the streets in
addition to other initiatives. The Federal Government has no strings
attached in terms of having any control over the cop any more than
having any control over the teacher. The State, the district, and the
locality control that teacher. But as we say, there are certain
national priorities.
No child should be left behind. One of the ways to make sure no child
is left behind is to do just what every parent does in the supermarket
or department store: Don't let go of her hand. Don't let go of his
hand. And if you have 45 students in the class, you can't hold all
their hands, figuratively speaking.
So the degree to which you want to be assured that children are left
behind, increase class size. The degree to which you want to diminish
the possibility of any child being left behind, reduce class size.
Both the cops and teachers programs focus on putting resources where
they
[[Page S4482]]
can be most effective. For cops, it was the street. For teachers, it is
the classroom.
In the first year, more than 29,000 teachers were hired. Now about
1.7 million children are directly benefiting from smaller classes.
In my home State of Delaware, a small State, our schools rely on this
program to fund 115 teachers statewide.
While that may not seem to be a lot to some of my colleagues, those
additional teachers can, and do, have a great impact in a State as
small as mine. I debated the Senator's legislation on, I believe it
was, ``Meet the Press'' about a year ago with the distinguished and
serious Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, who was making the case
that President Bush did not like this program. He pointed out--and I
will ask permission to amend this figure in the Record if I am wrong--
my recollection is there were a couple thousand teachers in
Pennsylvania or 1,800. It was a big number.
I turned to my friend on that show, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and
said: Well, then, I assume the Governor of Pennsylvania would like to
send back the money. You don't want the teachers? They don't make a
difference?
So I suggest that any Senator who is opposed to this program should
stand up and in good conscience say: By the way, we have 270 federally
funded teachers. I would like to send all the money back. I am sending
a petition to my Governor saying: Don't take the money. Fire those
teachers. Send them home. Or tell us why it isn't working in your State
to help alleviate the myriad of problems public educators face every
day. This program is working.
Now, in my humble opinion, is not the time to give it up, either by
failing to provide the necessary funds for continuation or by block-
granting them with other education programs because, do you know what
happens when you block-grant? The last people to benefit are the
teachers. The last folks who get anything in the deal are teachers.
This isn't for the teachers. This is for the students.
Again, I make an analogy to the police. Before we passed the Biden
crime bill in 1994, in the 20 largest cities in America, there was a
net increase of less than 1.5 percent in the total number of those who
were on police forces because--guess what--they did not want to hire
police, not because they did not think they needed them but because
they did not want to sign on to the commitment of year in and year out
having to pay them. They did not want to pick up the fringe benefits,
the health care, and so on.
So when you block-grant it, I promise you, they are not going to put
it in hiring more teachers. They are not going to go into your local
school districts and say: By the way, we block-granted the money. And
now we are going to give, for example, Abraham Lincoln School in such
and such a county, in such and such a State, money to hire three more
teachers.
I hope I am wrong. But I will make a bet, if you block-grant it, a
year after the block grant has been distributed, there will not be any
more teachers than the day before it was distributed.
So, folks, it is a funny thing about education: you need a teacher.
It is a strange notion.
I know of the incredible work Senator Kennedy has done. And I say to
my colleague from Vermont, and all the members of this committee--
Republican and Democrat--they have done incredible work. But I cannot
think of anything--anything at all--they have done that has the
potential to have a more immediate impact on the amount of knowledge
students in the United States of America attending public schools will
acquire than reducing their class size. Maybe there is something out
there--I do not purport to be an expert in education--but I am telling
you, I can't think of anything in this bill more important.
So I urge my colleagues to stand with the Senator from the State of
Washington, Mrs. Murray, and adopt her amendment and support the Class
Size Reduction Initiative--unless they have another idea as to how they
are going to guarantee us that the end result of our legislation will
be smaller class size in the States and localities that voluntarily
choose to participate in this program.
I thank my friend from the State of Washington for allowing me to
participate and cosponsor this amendment. I compliment her and everyone
else who supports this concept. I look forward to hearing opposing
arguments on why smaller class size is not a good idea.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Murray
amendment. I want to build on the discussion that has gone on in this
Chamber for several hours. I will focus on three particular points.
No. 1, very clearly, the goal of the underlying bill is to address
the issue of how we can best, first, diminish the achievement gap--
which has gotten worse over the last 30, 35 years, during which time
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been in effect--and, No.
2, to boost the academic achievement of everyone, to make sure we are,
indeed, preparing our young people today and those of tomorrow for
their future: To realize that American dream, to make sure they can
compete, not just adequately but in a powerful way, with their
international counterparts.
I think the amendment of my colleague from Washington focuses, in a
very important way, on a very important issue and that is the teacher-
student relationship. For one of the first times in the debate in
dealing with class size, we are focusing on the face of the child in
the classroom and on the teacher at the head of that class.
We talk about programs a lot. We talk about money a lot. But this
does take us down to the classroom, how we best accomplish the
education of the child sitting in the classroom, with the teacher at
the head of that class.
I will argue against the amendment, basically using the argument that
another Federal program, another Federal approach is not the answer. It
does not mean I believe class size is not important. That is not what I
am saying. What I am saying is we need to find out how best to achieve
what is needed in the classroom, to make the teacher and the students
have a relationship that maximizes student achievement, learning, and
to minimize and, hopefully, eliminate the achievement gap over time.
The second point I wish to address is this whole issue of looking at
the teacher and the students in the classroom and figuring out what you
can do to best take care of the needs of that class to boost student
achievement.
In my mind, if you look at all the parameters, the most important is
the quality of the teacher. We have an impending crisis in that area.
In part it is because of demographics, and in part it is because of the
attractiveness of the profession, and professional development. Much of
that is addressed in the underlying bill--something we have not talked
about very much.
The quality of that relationship--it does not mean quantity is not
important--becomes first and foremost in importance, to my mind.
Thirdly, I believe the amendment by my colleague from Washington is
unnecessary because if class size is an issue at the school level--
whether it is in Nashville, TN, or Alamo, TN, or Kingsport, TN--it can
be addressed as it is spelled out in the underlying bill itself.
I want to refer back to the bill because we have talked very little
about how that issue is addressed. A lot of people have not read the
details of the bill itself as it relates to the issue of that teacher-
pupil relationship in the classroom itself.
In the bill we allow schools to address their current classroom
needs, to give them the flexibility and the freedom, the mechanism, to
accomplish what the goal is: boosting academic achievement. It means we
do have to examine that relationship between a teacher and a student.
There are all sorts of variables. And you will hear that one is more
important than another.
A big issue is how many students are in the classroom with the
teacher. It is not quite that simple because it depends on the subject.
Is it mathematics? Is it science? Is it teaching a child to read? Is it
in a classroom where there is technology and there is a lot of
interaction going on between the teacher and the students that we might
not have had in the past?
A second issue is, how safe is that teacher-pupil environment where
the
[[Page S4483]]
teaching is occurring? The goal is to boost student achievement. It is
an issue that is addressed in the underlying bill. But the point is, in
the classroom there are all sorts of environments that have to be
addressed. How conducive is that environment to learning? Are there
disruptive students in that environment? How good is that teacher?
Earlier this week, and last week, we talked about failing to invest
in the quality of our teachers. We are failing to give them the
programs to make them more useful. Their intentions are good. They work
hard. We have to look at their qualifications, their certification,
and, lastly, what is the relationship of that teacher to technology
today.
Again, in this bill, which people are just beginning to really focus
on, there is a whole section to encourage the use of technology, to
adapt technology to the use of that classroom, again, to reduce that
achievement gap, to boost learning for everyone, and to maximize the
use of the teacher at the head of the classroom and the children.
What is important in one school in one part of Nashville may be
totally different than what is important in another school, say, in
Memphis or in Anchorage, AK, or in Manhattan or on an Indian
reservation. That decision should most appropriately be made by people
in that community. Whether it is the teacher in the classroom, the
parents looking in on that classroom, or the principal, they are the
ones who can assess how technology is most appropriately used; what is
the size of that classroom; how safe is that environment; how
disruptive are the other students; all of which is placed into this
bowl of how best to boost student achievement and maximize the teacher
interaction with that particular student.
The point is class size is one of those parameters and, indeed, in
certain situations it can be very important. But rather than have
another Federal program--because we have tried that; we have had a
litany of hundreds of Federal programs over the last 35 years--that
basically says, this is the problem and this is the way to fix it, why
don't we have a program which--and it is in the underlying bill--says:
Let's group and consolidate programs, including class size, but allow
the decision on how to use those resources to be made by the teachers,
by the principal, by the school district, the community, under the
influence of parents, under the influence of local decisionmaking and
local input.
It comes down to a fundamental difference, what the debate has been
over the last several years since I have been in the Senate, on which
we have disagreed many times in the past: Whom do you trust? Whom do
you trust to identify the needs, to respond to those needs? Is it
another Federal program or is it the teachers and the principals and
the school board members at the local level?
Our approach, very clearly--the reason why I urge defeat of the
amendment--is that, yes, we need more resources; yes, we need more
money; we need to shine the spotlight on the issue of local control,
but we want to free people up from government regulations, from another
program, to allow them the how-to in boosting the achievement with
decisions made locally.
The second issue I will discuss is when you look at the classroom
environment which we all want to maximize and make conducive to
learning, the teacher is very important. We are having an impending
crisis in the quality of teachers at the head of the class. The U.S.
Department of Education estimates that a whole wave of teacher
retirements as well as the demographics of rising enrollments will
force America's public schools to recruit over 2 million new teachers
in the next decade. It is a matter of demographics and retirement.
I argue that instead of thinking about warm bodies, as you see this
teacher and the student in the classroom, we absolutely must invest--
and the good news is, the underlying bill does--in improving that
teacher quality. Teacher quality in the classroom drives academic
success. It is the single factor most likely to boost student
achievement. Good teachers clearly make the difference. We can all name
our teachers. Both sides of the aisle have talked about teachers who
have influenced their lives and the importance of that personal
relationship in an environment which maximizes learning.
William Sanders, from Tennessee originally, has been quoted on the
floor because he has looked at all sorts of issues and has been
nationally recognized for studying the environment. Again, his
conclusions and statistics and data have been used by both sides of
this particular issue. He says:
When kids have ineffective teachers, they never recover.
Teacher shortages are going to hit a high in the year 2010. We
absolutely must begin thinking right now about how to replace what
equates to about two-thirds of our teaching population today that
simply will not be teaching at that time. The factors are many. In
large part it is demographic. We know that enrollments in public and
elementary and secondary schools are projected to rise about 4 percent
in the next decade. That, in and of itself, is going to require more
teachers to fill the increasing number of classrooms. The average
teacher today, 44 years old, means that school districts all across the
Nation will have to brace for a whole wave of retirements occurring in
the not too distant future.
Third, one-fourth of beginning teachers in my own State of Tennessee
leave the profession within 5 years. More than half are teaching
subjects in Tennessee outside their area of expertise or in subjects
they were never trained to teach.
On the issue of teacher quality, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
reported in a recent study:
College graduates with high test scores are less likely to
become teachers; licensed teachers with high test scores are
less likely to take jobs; employed teachers with high test
scores are less likely to stay, and former teachers with high
test scores are less likely to return.
When you couple the critical importance of teachers with the fact
that today America's students rank lower than their international
counterparts in the fields of math and science and in reading, the
issues we have talked about before, we clearly need to focus on quality
teachers, on attraction of those teachers, supporting those teachers,
and retention of those teachers. They are the key to motivating those
students who may fall further and further behind--again, in part
contributing to that increase in the achievement gap we all know so
well.
It is important to understand that--and class size is one of them--
the quality of the teacher is critically important to educating our
children. I mentioned a few of the statistics, but if you just go
through several about the qualifications of teachers today--again,
remember, we have identified a problem; we are making this diagnosis;
and we want to respond in an appropriate way--only one in five full-
time public school teachers feel well qualified to teach in a modern
classroom.
More than 25 percent of new teachers enter our Nation's schools
poorly qualified to teach. Twelve percent of teachers enter without any
prior classroom experience.
If we look at inner-city schools, statistics are even worse. Inner-
city students have only a 50/50 chance of being taught by a qualified
math or science teacher. New teachers in the United States receive less
on-the-job training and mentoring than do their teacher counterparts in
Japan and in Germany. I have referred to the fact that U.S. teachers
today who are in that classroom actually teaching our children lack
appropriate training and knowledge of a particular subject.
The data is as follows: Many students are taught by a teacher who
lacks either a major or a minor in the subject they are teaching.
Of the following statistics, these are people who do not have a major
or minor in the field in which they teach: That is, 18 percent of
social study teachers, 40 percent of science teachers, 31 percent of
English teachers, 34 percent of math teachers.
In schools where more than 40 percent of the students are low income,
nearly half the teachers are what is called ``out of field.''
I go into some detail about this issue of quality because the focus
is very much on what goes on in the classroom. Then the question is:
You have identified the problem. Is it being addressed in the bill?
This brings me to my last point. Is the Murray amendment necessary? To
answer that, I will
[[Page S4484]]
argue, no, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it. But it
takes an understanding of what was done in the underlying bill and what
is actually in the bill to understand why I can say with confidence
that it is unnecessary as we focus on the teacher and the student in
the classroom.
What we do in the first part of this bill is pool the funds and the
authorities that are existing in programs which we have had in the
past. We have talked about that in the last hour. The existing
Eisenhower professional development funds and the class reduction
funds, we haven't gotten rid of those. We haven't eliminated the class
size reduction effort, but what we have done is put those together,
consolidated them.
We pool those funds. And we do that with a very simple--this really
comes down to the philosophical difference of what we think works and
what will not work. We do that in order to give access to these
resources to local communities to give them the flexibility to address
their particular needs. In one school, it might be class size and they
can use those funds for that. Remember, we have not done away with the
funds themselves. We list that as one of the appropriate uses. But it
might not be and it might be that school would rather use those funds
for an afterschool program or for increasing the use of technology or
the inclusion of technology in that program.
The point is that we have taken the class size reduction funds and
the other funds and we have put them together and basically said, how
you accomplish boosting student achievement or reducing that
achievement gap is up to you at the local level. Why? Because you know
whether or not you need another teacher in the classroom, a smaller
class size, or better use of technology.
Real quickly--and I will be brief--what is in the bill? State
activities: States may use these funds for a whole range of
activities--certification of teachers, recruitment of teachers,
professional development, or support for teachers. Local activities:
Again, local decisions can be made whether or not to use these funds
for class size, professional development, recruitment, or for the
hiring of additional teachers.
Local accountability is built into the underlying bill. The
evaluation plan of a local education agency must include performance
objectives related to student achievement, relationships to teachers,
how well teachers are performing, participation in professional
teaching and development activities.
Lastly, in the bill, there is a whole series of sections that look at
activities that address leadership by teachers, advanced certification
and credentialing, supporting that activity by teachers, and
transitioning to teachers for those people who might be midcareer and
might need training to be certified to teach.
In closing, if class size is a problem in the school, under the
Kennedy-Jeffords bill it will and can be addressed. There are resources
there for that. Our approach is not another Federal program, not
admitting a program. We have tried that in the past, and we have a
litany of programs today that clearly have not been successful. We want
those decisions to be made locally by teachers, by principals, by
school boards, rather than Washington, DC. Since it is provided in the
bill, I believe there is no need to create yet another program. I urge
defeat of this amendment when we vote on it tomorrow.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15
today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Warner amendment No. 383,
with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to
move this process along, however I haven't spoken on this amendment. If
anybody else wants to speak, there might be a few minutes in the
morning. Understanding that we might be able to split that between
Senator Murray and myself, I will not object.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I also say that Senator
Kennedy has indicated that he has someone lined up to do another
amendment tonight--Senator Feinstein--if that is in keeping with what
the majority wants. We can debate that for a while tonight. I don't
know if the leadership wants a vote tonight or tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for
making the agreement, and we will move ahead with the vote shortly.
We are very hopeful of getting the process moving. There are
currently about 70 amendments. Some are in the process of being worked
through because they are under the jurisdiction of other committees.
There are also many outstanding amendments which are related to this
bill, that need to be called up. We are prepared, as we mentioned last
Friday, to work toward the continuation of debate on these measures and
final resolution. I know the Senator from Vermont said we are prepared
to stay in this evening, tomorrow evening, and Thursday evening. We are
going to have time to debate the Budget reconciliation that we will
take up sometime this week. However, we are quite prepared to deal with
these amendments. We urge colleagues to bring them up. I am absolutely
amazed, quite frankly, that Members are not prepared to bring up their
amendments. We have known this bill is going to be debated on the
floor. We are prepared to deal with this legislation.
I intend to ask our leaders on our side to request consent to
establish a deadline for submitting amendments. We welcome our
colleagues to submit amendments, and we want to try to have a full
opportunity for discussion on these measures. It is about time we had
good debate on this legislation. That is what I know my friend and
colleague from Vermont is prepared to do. I am prepared to do that.
I make the plea to my colleagues on this side of the aisle to address
these measures and do it in a timely manner. We understand the priority
that the budget has, and we have all been around here long enough to
know that unless some deadlines are established, unfortunately, we are
not going to complete our business. I will work with our side and with
the majority leader to try to establish a process where we can move in
a timely manner. I will be glad to yield for a moment, but I would like
to address this amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with the Senator 100 percent. I suggest that
all amendments that are filed--only all those filed by 5 p.m. tomorrow
be considered to be voted on, or some appropriate language that would
make that the law.
Mr. KENNEDY. That certainly is a proposal I could support. I will not
offer that at this time, though.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 386 be
called up and then set aside, just so I make sure I am in this game.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment for this consideration?
Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 386 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment
numbered 386.
The amendment reads as follows:
(Purpose: To provide resource officers in our schools)
On page 893, after line 14, add the following:
SEC. __. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROJECTS.
(a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(d) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``school officials,''
after ``enforcement officers''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison
with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies, combat school-related crime and disorder
problems, gang membership and criminal activity, firearms and
explosives-related incidents, illegal use and possession of
alcohol, and the illegal possession, use, and distribution of
drugs;''.
(b) School Resource Officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended--
[[Page S4485]]
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory
agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems
including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of
alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or
secondary school;
(2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative
justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to
and coordinate with other officers, mental health
professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for
the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within
the schools;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the
local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law
enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical
personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a
school violence prevention plan;
``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all
firearms found or taken into custody on school property and
to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for
each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms;
``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or
explosive devices found or taken into custody on school
property and report to the local office of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation
of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act which tracks the
number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon,
firearm, or explosive to school.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11)
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(C) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
school resource officer activities under sections 1701(d)(8)
and 1709(4), to remain available until expended $180,000,000
for each of fiscal year 2002 through 2007.''.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. The pending amendment is the Murray amendment; is that
correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to add my strong support for the
Murray Class Size amendment. I have listened with great interest and
always have learned from my friend and colleague from the State of
Washington when she proposes this amendment. It is a subject that is
not new to the Senate. We have voted on this, and we have seen its
implementation for a number of years and the success that it is having
in schools across the country.
I am always impressed by the fact that the Senator from Washington,
who was a member of a school board and a great teacher, understands
this issue and is able to address this issue from her personal
experiences. We are so fortunate to have a Senator with that kind of
experience proposing an amendment that can make an important difference
in the education of children. I support this amendment, as I have in
the past.
We have tried in the legislation to find various programs that
enhance the educational capabilities of children. It is true, as the
Senator from Tennessee said, that there can be a local option as to
whether schools, under the title II provisions, want to use the funds
for smaller class sizes or professional development. It is my strong
position we need both and we need a commitment in both areas.
That is what this is about. We did enhance the resources for
recruitment, enhanced training of teachers, continuing professional
development, mentoring, and the development of additional professional
skills dealing with the important areas of child growth and development
and child psychology area. These are enormously important.
If there is anything we have learned over the years, it is the power
of well-qualified teachers with a good curriculum teaching in a class
with a small number of students.
I am not going to take the time of the Senate to go through the
research base supporting reducing class size, but the studies are very
clear. Both the Star studies that have been done in the State of
Tennessee, and the Sage studies in the State of Wisconsin show that
reducing class size has positive effects on student achievement and
classroom behavior.
I have traveled to the State of Wisconsin. I visited the classrooms.
I heard the teachers. I talked with the parents. There has been
dramatic and significant progress made in moving toward smaller class
sizes.
That has been true in the State of California as well. I will read
from the California report on the results from the first 2 years of
class-size reduction:
California class-size reduction reports show that reducing
class size improves student achievement. A study of the first
3 years of class-size reduction efforts in California shows
that smaller classes have boosted student achievement in
communities across the State for the second year in a row.
It goes on:
The evaluation shows those students in the most
disadvantaged schools were most likely to be in larger
classes or taught by less qualified teachers. Students in
smaller classes outperformed their peers in larger classes
even with less qualified teachers. These students could be
performing even better if all the children in these schools
had fully qualified teachers and smaller classes.
That is what we want: smaller class size and better trained teachers.
That is absolutely essential. The Murray amendment will authorize
continued funding to create smaller classes, hire additional teachers
and provide those teachers with the professional development that they
need to help every child succeed. We will have the continued commitment
to smaller class size. With a strong bipartisan vote this morning, we
will have the resources to make sure the neediest children in this
country have well-qualified teachers in the classrooms, and those
teachers will be able to give every student the individual attention
that they deserve.
I am amazed at what the Senator from Washington was able to do with
her amendment. It requires a simple one-page application. It will be
available to any school district in the country. All they fill out is
one page. Under the formula devised in the Senator's amendment, they
will either qualify or not qualify. It does not take a lot of grant
writing. The school districts will know very quickly the amount that
they are entitled to and how many classes they are able to impact. That
will help move the process forward.
There is flexibility in the Murray amendment. If a school district
reaches the smaller class size goal, it states in the amendment that
they can use the resources for professional training for teachers. It
is enormously important.
Senator Murray has built in flexibility. If a school achieves a lower
class size in grades one through three, and they have the additional
resources, they can reduce class sizes in other grades. The flexibility
is there. If they are able to do all of them and still have resources
left, they can use them for teacher professional development.
I want to use my last moments to bring a few things to the attention
of my colleagues. First, we have the recent story on the achievement
gains by the students of the Prince Georges County Schools reported in
this morning's Washington Post. I point out the lead story: ``Pr.
George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever.'' It says:
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
the results released yesterday.
It gives the very encouraging results.
The superintendent was asked about the factors in ensuring these
kinds of results. She said:
. . . 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.
This is what they have been able to do.
Moving over to the jump page on A14, it talks about the importance of
reading. That is in the BEST bill. We are in strong support of
additional time for reading and math. We are all for that. It is in
this bill.
The superintendent also commented on the importance of reducing class
size in the lower grades and placing more emphasis on training
teachers. This is exactly what we are debating today.
How many times do we have to see the same evidence before we learn
this? We have the studies in Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California.
I have a report from the Mississippi Department of Education. I will
mention what a few of the teachers have
[[Page S4486]]
found. I will also include other comments.
This is from Suzanne Wooley:
The drop in the student/teacher ratio within the first
grade this year has been a really great tool in our ability
to help our children. Because of fewer numbers of children,
we have had practically no discipline problems. The children
are more like a team and they expect the best from each
other. This saves a great amount of our instructional time
for actual instruction. My teacher's assistant and I are also
better able to aid and instruct low-achieving students with
their individual needs. We are giving much more time to the
skills each student needs to work on. As a group, we are
covering our ``core-skill'' material much more quickly and
the children are ``catching on'' and learning the material
more thoroughly.
Kelly Blacklaw:
This is the first year that I have taught first grade.
However, I am accustomed to small groups, because I taught
Title I Reading for three years. I taught kindergarten for
one year prior to teaching Title I and had 30 students with
an assistant. Comparing this year to that particular year,
reduced class size has definitely been very beneficial for
the progress of my students. I have been able to get to know
my students better and much more quickly. I have been able to
gain a great deal of insight into their backgrounds and their
strengths and weaknesses.
Ms. Simpson:
Generally speaking, my class this year is quite low. Due to
that fact, a smaller classroom size has been greatly
appreciated. I am able to more effectively monitor the
children's progress as I teach, and have found that more time
is available to reinforce and practice important skills.
They mention there was only one child who fell behind in reading.
These go on and on. I do not know what more we have to do to convince
our colleagues. We are not placing a mandate on any local district. All
we are saying is we know this works and we hope communities will choose
to embrace the idea of reducing class size.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield
on that point for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I certainly will.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts
and ask him again, because we have heard from the other side that this
is some kind of Federal mandate for local class size would the Senator
from Massachusetts not agree with me that this is a voluntary steady
stream of money for schools that choose to use this money to reduce
class size?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly correct. It is a voluntary
program. It will be available, with the Senator's amendment, to local
communities that have crowding in their classrooms, as it has been in
my own State of Massachusetts in a number of different communities with
the same very positive results we have seen in other places.
As the Senator remembers, we made a national commitment to hire
100,000 teachers. This is the amendment the Senator from Washington
offered--100,000 teachers. We have, I believe, 37,000 of them, and some
of them have already proven to be our best.
At the time this was announced, as the Senator remembers, we had
former Speaker of the House Gingrich. ``We said the local school board
would make the decisions. No new Federal bureaucracy, no State, not a
penny in the bill that was passed goes to pay for bureaucracy; all of
it goes to pay for local school districts. . . .'' House Speaker
Gingrich, the first time we passed the Murray amendment, called it a
victory for the American people: ``There will be more teachers, and
that is good for all Americans.''
As I remember, and as I read the amendment, I believe 99 percent of
the funds go to the local district and the local district has the
control. Am I correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank he Senator from Massachusetts for answering that
question. He is absolutely correct; 99 percent of the money does go to
the local schools at their discretion to use for class size because it
is a national priority.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to point out very clearly, we need
fewer children in classrooms so that teachers can give each child the
attention necessary for that child to succeed. Teachers need the
mentoring and the professional development that we have in the
legislation. Smaller class size is a tried and tested program. It is
effective. We ought to have smaller classes and more opportunities for
teachers to get the training that they need. That is what this
amendment is really about.
We should not forget the commitment that we made. We know what works.
We know it has been effective. We believe that children are worth our
investment. We believe the Murray amendment is the best way to get this
job done.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are going to vote on the
Warner amendment at 5:15; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. Debate appears to be resolving around the amendment of the
Senator from Washington, and I did want to speak to that. Then I guess
we ought to vote.
The amendment of the Senator from Washington is an outgrowth of a
proposal that was put forward by President Clinton and was carried by
the Senator from Washington for the last couple of years. However it
fails, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons.
The first reason it fails is the basic philosophy behind the
amendment which is we in Washington know better--better than you, the
American citizens who run their school districts; you, the parents
across America; you, the principals across America; you, the school
boards across America--how to run your schools. This is a command and
control amendment. This is an amendment which says we are going to put
a certain pot of money on the table--your tax dollars, by the way, tax
dollars we took from you in Auburn, NH, or Cheyenne, WY, or Chicago,
IL. The tax dollars that we took from you, we are going to take some of
them and put them on the table. But before you can get any of those tax
dollars, you have to do exactly what we tell you to do with them.
Specifically, in this instance, you are going to have to hire more
teachers. Even if you do not need more teachers, you are going to have
to hire more teachers because we in Washington know a great deal more
about what you need in your school system than you do. That is the
basic premise of this amendment. It is one of the primary reasons I
oppose it.
The second problem with this amendment is there is no statistical
standard which shows that certain class size ratios improve education.
In fact, study after study, significant studies--in fact, 300 studies--
which have been reviewed conclude that it is the quality of the teacher
that is key to the quality of education more than the class size. That
is especially true after you hit a certain level of class size.
In the United States today, the average class size ratio is 17 to 1.
I think 44 States already meet the level of ratio that was put forward
by the President as an appropriate level, which was 18 to 1. So we are
not talking about dramatic reductions in class size in States across
the country. What we are talking about is essentially trying to work at
the fringe with some Federal money to demand that more teachers be
hired.
But the practical effect of that may be to reduce the quality of
education. Why? Because you may end up with poorer teachers being hired
because you forced on the school system the requirement that they hire
more teachers rather than that they improve the quality and the ability
of the teachers who are in the classroom, which almost every study has
concluded is the key to good education.
In fact, I hold California up as a pretty good example of how this
works. They set in place--their right, they have the right to do it--a
class size ratio proposal. As a result, they went out from 1995 and
hired a whole bunch of new teachers. What happened? The number of
certified, qualified teachers went up--this is in the K-3 area--from
1,100 to 12,000 unqualified or teachers who were of questionable
quality. They were not certified. They had not learned how to teach a
third grader or second grader or first grader or one in kindergarten.
So it is very possible that by reducing the class size, California
actually ended up putting 11,000 more teachers into the classroom who
didn't know how to teach.
A couple of other important studies proved beyond any question that
if a student is exposed to a teacher who doesn't know what they are
doing in a subject, the recovery time for that student is
extraordinary. Under a Rand
[[Page S4487]]
study, they concluded a student may never recover from a poor teacher--
which gets back to the initial point: We do not know whether teachers
are good or not.
I do not know here, standing on the floor, whether the teacher in
Epping, NH, is good or poor, whether the teacher going to be hired is a
good teacher or poor teacher. I don't know it in Cheyenne; I don't know
it in Chicago. What I do know is the principal in that school probably
does know who the good teachers are, probably does know teachers who
have weaknesses and need assistance, probably does know whether in one
class they need more teachers but in the other class they just need to
improve the teacher they have. Or maybe in another class they have such
a great teacher who is being pushed out of the school system because
they cannot afford to pay the costs because the teacher cannot afford
to live on the salary they are being paid and they need to pay that
teacher more.
I do not know the answer to those questions, but I will tell you who
does: The local principals, the school boards, the teachers in the
class know that, and the parents whose kids are in the classroom.
What does this proposal say? It says it doesn't matter; you have to
hire a new teacher. That is your option. If you want this money, you
have to hire a new teacher.
I think that was misguided. I think it was misguided when President
Clinton brought it forward earlier, and as a result we have debated
this matter on the floor a number of times. What did we do to try to
correct this? Because we do recognize, on our side of the aisle,
putting more teachers in the classroom may be the proper resolution to
a specific incident; that may be what some school systems need. We also
recognize on this side of the aisle maybe the proper resolution is
giving that teacher more tools to work with, maybe giving that teacher
more educational support, maybe giving that teacher some extra pay so
they can keep teaching or some of the other things they may need.
So we put in the bill something called the Teacher Empowerment Act.
What the Teacher Empowerment Act does is to say let's merge these
teaching funds; let's take this Eisenhower grant; let's take the class
size grant, put it into a pot of money, and then give the States and
local school districts the opportunity to use that money in four
different areas. They can hire more teachers for their classroom if
that is what they think they need. They can, if they need to, say to a
teacher who may be leaving for the private sector: You are too good. We
cannot afford to lose you. We will pay you some more money. They can,
if they have a teacher in a classroom who maybe isn't quite up to speed
on the academic issue they are teaching, say we are going to get some
outside assistance; we are going to help you get your credentials up to
speed; we are going to give you some money to help you get some more
education. Or they can give the teacher some technical support in order
to assist that teacher.
They can make those decisions. We do not make them on the floor of
the Senate. We do not tell the people who are running the local school
boards: You must do this; you must do that. We do not tell that to the
principals, the teachers, or the students that, or the parents of the
students. We would rather say: Under the Teacher Empowerment Act, here
are four uses for this pot of money. You make the decision.
Isn't that much more logical?
We are not saying that the idea of reducing the ratio in a classroom
is bad. In fact, we are saying it is a good idea in many instances. In
fact, we are saying it is one heck of a good idea if you have a good
teacher. We are, however, saying that in those classrooms where the
principal knows maybe he doesn't have the right teacher or she doesn't
have the right teacher coming in, or maybe that teacher does not know
enough about the subject of teaching, that they ought to have other
tools available to them to make those teachers more effective.
Interestingly enough, the studies have shown that by making teachers
more effective in the classroom you can teach a lot more kids a lot
better at a lot less cost than by going out and hiring unqualified
teachers or teachers who maybe aren't cutting it. It costs about $450
per student to bring a classroom into compliance with some of these
proposals that are being proposed today, but if you were to do it
through technology, it costs, I think, $90 per student. I think that
was, again, a Rand study.
We are saying on this side of the aisle, let's give the local school
board the flexibility to adjust the classroom size. If they want to go
to a ratio of 10 to 1, they can use the money to hire more teachers to
do it. If they want a ratio, however, of 17 or 18 to 1, which is the
average ratio today, if they want that teacher to learn more to be able
to teach better, they should have that option. And that option is going
to be made available under the TEA amendment, which is known as title
II of this act.
I think it also ought to be noted that the resources are committed in
this area. The President has made a major commitment in the area of
resources to teacher improvement and to class size. He has funded in
his budget to the tune of $2.6 billion the money necessary to do
teacher improvement and class size.
I see the Senator from Virginia, whose amendment is coming up which I
am not speaking to. I suspect he wants to say something about his
amendment before it gets voted on. I yield to the Senator from Virginia
so he can tell us what his amendment is about before we vote.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my colleague seeking recognition. I
am in no hurry.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Virginia wants to
speak on his amendment. If I could have 1 minute by unanimous consent
to speak.
Mr. WARNER. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from New
Hampshire who has spoken eloquently and passionately.
I remind our colleagues that the class reduction bill is not a
mandate from the Federal Government. It is a Federal partnership from
the Federal Government to our classroom and to our schools that want to
reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades.
I also let our colleagues know that the California experiment which
the Senator from New Hampshire spoke of had teachers who were hired
that were unqualified. I agree that we don't want that to happen. That
is exactly why in our amendment we require fully qualified teachers to
be hired if these Federal funds are used.
I point out that a study has shown even in the California class size
reduction reform they didn't require fully qualified teachers. Test
scores are up and student achievement is improving. Test results have
been released in the last week that show student scores are up in those
classes because they reduced class size. Reducing class size does make
a difference.
We target a number of areas in this bill from reading first to
technology, to training math and science teachers. We should also
target money for class size reduction.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I might quickly conclude, as the Senator
from Virginia is not quite ready, the President's $2.6 billion for
teacher improvement and class size reduction will be available at the
option of the local community under the TEA legislation, which is a
very significant increase over last year's funding level.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be
set aside for 2 minutes to allow the Senator from Virginia to explain
his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could we
make that 5 minutes so he and I can share the time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Certainly. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 383 to Amendment No. 358, As Modified
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I found a technical deficiency in the
manner in
[[Page S4488]]
which the amendment is drawn. It is a very simple one. It does not
change in any way the thrust of the amendment. I would like to send to
the desk at this time a technical change to my amendment and ask that
it be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 383), as modified, 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 should--
(1) 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. Mr. President, first, I wish to say that the thoughts I
embrace in my amendment have been advanced in this Chamber by other
colleagues over a number years. I particularly wish to recognize the
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and Senator Kyl, who have made similar
efforts through the years. Therefore, I am very proud to have my name
on this amendment. I assure you that there are many Senators, and,
indeed, some on the other side, who have embraced this general concept
that teachers need equal recognition to the emphasis that has been put
thus far on the debate on students.
My effort on this day, which is National Teachers Day--I think we
have slowly worked through the system a resolution to that effect--is
to recognize that many, many teachers across our Nation reach into
their pockets and withdraw aftertax dollars and expend them for little
things they observe in their daily teaching of students that are needed
in the classroom. These teachers also have to constantly bring
themselves up to speed on current events in education. Many of them
have very burdensome financial commitments with student loans, and so
forth.
I think it is time the Congress recognize this profession. For so
many years nursing and teaching were the two professions that were open
to many, and now, fortunately, all the professions have been opened,
and I hope equal opportunity is being given women in so many
professions. There are now opportunities to leave teaching and seek
higher pay in these particular positions.
This is an amendment which simply says it is the sense of this
institution that in the course of our deliberation on the various tax
proposals that have come from the House and which are now beginning in
the Senate Finance Committee--of which my distinguished colleague, the
chairman is a member--that it would at some point take into
consideration this type of legislation.
I have requested $1,000, which is a pretty substantial sum. My hope
is that we can get the maximum. But I thought we would try at that
particular level.
I have discussed this with my colleague, the distinguished manager. I
know he has a few views. I would be happy to yield for his questions
and make it technically feasible for him to take the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come from a teaching family. My mother
and sister are teachers. I know of the effort they put into teaching
and buying supplies to make things go a little bit better. It is very
common and accepted in the sense that it is sort of part of the job.
But it shouldn't be.
We are at a time when our teachers' salaries are so much lower than
they ought to be. I think it is wrong to expect teachers to
continuously take money out of their pockets in doing their job, when
it should be taken care of through the school system. I think they
would appreciate and are entitled to have a tax credit of $1,000 to
take care of those expenditures. I will pursue that in the Finance
Committee for my good friend.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I presume the Senator supports Senators
voting for this measure?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. I think it is one of the best amendments we will
have.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered, am I not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Warner, in introducing this proposal. Senator Warner deserves
credit for focusing our attention on the selfless efforts of teachers,
and on the financial sacrifices they make, to improve their
instructional skills and the classrooms where they teach. As President
Bush has put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay
with their wallets.''
Our amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should
pass legislation providing teachers with tax relief in recognition of
the many out-of-pocket, unreimbursed expenses they incur to improve the
education of our children. Our amendment is targeted to support the
expenditures of teachers who strive for excellence beyond the
constraints of what their schools provide. Yet our amendment is broad
enough to embrace a number of different approaches to supporting our
teachers through the tax code.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Teacher Support Act of 2001,
which is supported by good friends, Senators Kyl, Landrieu, and
Cochran.
Our bill has two major provisions. First, it would allow teachers and
teacher's aides to take an above-the-line deduction for their
professional development expenses. Second, the bill would grant
educators a tax credit of up to $100 for books, supplies, and equipment
that they purchase for their students.
According to a study by the National Education Association, the
average public school teacher spends more than $400 annually on
classroom materials. This sacrifice is typical of the dedication of so
many teachers to their students.
So often, teachers in Maine and throughout the country spend their
own money to better the classroom experiences of their students. I
recently met with Idella Harter, president of the Maine Education
Association, who told me of the books, rewards for student behavior,
and other materials that she routinely purchased for her classroom. One
year, Idella saved all of her receipts from purchases of classroom
materials. She started adding up all the
[[Page S4489]]
receipts and was startled to discover that they totaled over $1,000!
She said that she decided she better stop counting at that point.
And Idella is not alone, Maureen Marshall, who handles education
issues in my office, taught public school for several years in Hawaii
and Virginia. In her first year as a teacher, she spent well over
$1,000 of her own money on educational software, books, pocket charts
to assist with language arts instruction, and other materials. And yet,
because of her tax situation, she could not deduct these expenses from
her taxable income.
The ultimate beneficiaries of efforts to provide financial assistance
to our teachers are our students. Other than involved parents, a well-
qualified teacher is the most important prerequisite for student
success. Educational researchers have demonstrated the close
relationship between qualified educators and successful students.
Moreover, educators themselves understand how important professional
development is to maintaining and extending their levels of competence.
When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their
need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial
support for this worthy pursuit.
I greatly admire the many educators who have voluntarily financed
additional education to improve their skills and to serve their
students better and who purchase books, supplies, equipment and other
materials that enhance their teaching. By enacting modest changes to
our tax code, we can encourage educators to continue to take formal
course work in the subject matter that they teach and to attend
conferences to give them new ideas for presenting course work in a
challenging manner.
I hope that, by adopting this amendment, which is particularly
fitting on National Teacher Day, we will pave the way for passage of
meaningful tax relief for teachers later this year. I think we should
make it a priority to reimburse educators for a small part of what they
invest in our children's future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 383, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl and
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--3
Enzi
Gregg
Nickles
NOT VOTING--2
Kohl
Wellstone
The amendment (No. 383), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are still working on both sides of the
aisle to get agreements on how we will proceed with votes later on
tonight and tomorrow. We have some items we can lock in. I ask
unanimous consent when the Senate resumes the education bill at 9:30
Wednesday, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski
amendment regarding technology centers with 5 minutes equally divided
prior to closing remarks.
I ask consent all first-degree amendments in order to S. 1 be filed
at the desk by 5 p.m. on Wednesday and any second-degree amendments be
limited to the subject matter contained in the first-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. In light of this, there are no further votes this evening.
The next vote occurs at 9:35 on Wednesday. However, I understand
Senators are ready to go with amendments or second-degree amendments.
We will continue to work on that as long as we can get Senators to
offer their amendments.
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. I think it would be helpful to reiterate what we think
the sequence would be. Is Senator Voinovich going next?
Mr. LOTT. Followed by Senator Feinstein tonight.
Mr. DASCHLE. I know Senator Carnahan has an amendment she would like
to offer and is prepared to lay aside at the moment, and then Senator
Mikulski is recognized, with that vote to occur on the Mikulski
amendment tomorrow.
Mr. LOTT. That is correct. Senator Specter has a second-degree
amendment to the underlying Murray amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. The sequence, then, is Voinovich, Feinstein, Specter,
Carnahan, and Mikulski?
Mr. LOTT. We were not making a unanimous consent request; we are just
trying to get clarification of the next four actions.
Is there a problem, though, with proceeding that way?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have already discussed with my
colleagues, Senator Voinovich, Senator Carnahan, and Senator Feinstein,
that I might have 30 seconds to lay down a second-degree amendment.
Mr. LOTT. We will proceed with the other amendments once that
happens.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 388 to Amendment No. 378
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree
amendment to the underlying amendment by Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an
amendment numbered 388 to amendment No. 378.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for class size reduction)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
``SEC. __. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.
``(a) Allotment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this law, from $1,625,000,000 of the amounts made available
to carry out part A of title II (other than subpart 5 of such
part A) for each fiscal year the Secretary--
``(1) shall make available a total of $6,000,000 to the
Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) and the outlying areas for activities under this
section; and
``(2) shall allot the remainder by providing to each State
the same percentage of that remainder as the State received
of the funds allocated to States under section 307(a)(2) of
the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1999.
``(b) Distribution to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--Each State that receives funds under
this section shall distribute 100 percent of such funds to
local educational agencies in the State, of which--
``(A) 80 percent shall be allocated to such local
educational agencies in proportion to the number of children
aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district served by
such local educational agency and are from families below the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2)
of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved for the
most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data
[[Page S4490]]
are available compared to the number of such children who
reside in the school districts served by all local
educational agencies in the State for that fiscal year; and
``(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
local educational agencies in accordance with the relative
enrollments of children aged 5 to 17, in public and private
nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the
boundaries of the school district served by such agencies.
``(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the
award to a local educational agency under this section is
less than the starting salary for a new fully qualified
teacher in that agency who is certified or licensed in the
State (which may include certification or licensure through
State or local alternative routes), has a baccalaureate
degree, and demonstrates the general knowledge, teaching
skills, and subject matter knowledge required to teach in the
teacher's content areas, then that agency may use funds
provided under this section--
``(A) to help pay the salary of a full- or part-time
teacher hired to reduce class size, which may be in
combination with other Federal, State, or local funds; or
``(B) to pay for activities described in subsection
(c)(2)(C) which may be related to teaching in smaller
classes.
``(c) Uses.--
``(1) Mandatory.--The basic purpose and intent of this
section is to reduce class size with fully qualified
teachers. Each local educational agency that receives funds
under this section shall use such funds to carry out
effective approaches to reducing class size with fully
qualified teachers who are certified or licensed to teach
within the State, including teachers certified or licensed
through State or local alternative routes, and who
demonstrate competency in the areas in which the teachers
teach, to improve educational achievement for both regular
and special needs children with particular consideration
given to reducing class size in the early elementary grades
for which some research has shown class size reduction is the
most effective.
``(2) Permissive.--Each such local educational agency may
use funds provided under this section for--
``(A) recruiting (including through the use of signing
bonuses or other financial incentives), hiring, and training
fully qualified regular and special education teachers (which
may include hiring special education teachers to team-teach
with regular teachers in classrooms that contain both
children with disabilities and nondisabled children) and
teachers of special needs children, who are certified or
licensed to teach within the State (including teachers
certified or licensed through State or local alternative
routes), have a baccalaureate degree, and demonstrate the
general knowledge required to teach in their content areas;
``(B) testing new teachers for academic content, and to
meet State certification or licensure requirements that are
consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
and
``(C) providing professional development (which may include
such activities as promoting retention and mentoring) to
teachers, including special education teachers and teachers
of special needs children, in order to meet the goal of
ensuring that all instructional staff have the subject matter
knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skills necessary
to teach effectively in the content area or areas in which
the teachers provide instruction, consistent with title II of
the Higher Education Act of 1965.
``(d) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), a
local educational agency that has designed an educational
program that is part of a local strategy for improving the
educational achievement of all students, or that already has
reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or less (or
already has reduced class size to a State or local class size
reduction goal that was in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 2000, if that State or local educational agency goal is
20 or fewer children), may use funds provided under this
section--
``(1) to make further class size reductions in kindergarten
through grade 3;
``(2) to reduce class size in other grades;
``(3) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality,
including professional development; and
``(4) to carry out other activities authorized under title
V.
``(e) Reports.--
``(1) Report to secretary.--Each State receiving funds
under this section shall report to the Secretary regarding
activities in the State that are assisted under this section,
consistent with sections 5322 (1) and (2).
``(2) Report to the public.--Each State and local
educational agency receiving funds under this section shall
publicly report to parents on its progress in reducing class
size, increasing the percentage of classes in core academic
areas that are taught by fully qualified teachers who are
certified or licensed by the State and demonstrate competency
in the content areas in which the teachers teach (as
determined by the State), on the impact that hiring
additional highly qualified teachers and reducing class size
has had, if any, on increasing student achievement (as
determined by the State) or student performance (as
determined by the State) and on the impact that the locally
defined program has had, if any, on increasing student
achievement (as determined by the State) or student
performance (as determined by the State).
``(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Each such agency shall use
funds under this section only to supplement, and not
supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of such
funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under this
section.
``(g) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency
that receives funds under this section may use not more than
3 percent of such funds for local administrative expenses.
``(h) Request for Funds.--Each local educational agency
that desires to receive funds under this section shall
include in the application submitted under section 5333 a
description of--
``(1) the agency's program to reduce class size by hiring
additional highly qualified teachers; and
``(2) the agency's proposed educational program under this
section that is part of its local strategy for improving
educational achievement for all students.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 389 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. VOINOVICH. I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr.
Bayh, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, proposes an amendment
numbered 389.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to State applications and plans
and school improvement to provide for the input of the Governor of the
State involved)
On page 7, line 21, add ``and the Governor'' after
``agency''.
On page 8, line 1, insert ``and the Governor'' after
``agency''.
On page 35, line 10, strike the end quotation mark and the
second period.
On page 35, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(c) State Plan.--Each Governor and State educational
agency shall jointly prepare a plan to carry out the
responsibilities of the State under sections 1116 and 1117,
including carrying out the State educational agency's
statewide system of technical assistance and support for
local educational agencies.''.
On page 35, line 20, insert ``, that is jointly prepared
and signed by the Governor and the chief State school
official,'' after ``a plan''.
On page 706, line 8, insert ``Governor and the'' after
``which a''.
On page 706, line 16, insert ``Governor and the'' after
``A''.
On page 707, line 2, insert ``Governor and the'' after
``A''.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered will
improve the coordination, accountability and delivery of educational
services in states all across America. I am pleased to be joined by
Senator Bayh and Senator Ben Nelson in introducing this amendment.
Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Bayh, Senator
Nelson and I served as Governors of our respective states; they served
in Indiana and Nebraska respectively, and I served as Governor of Ohio
for 8 years. As my state's chief executive, I learned that few
individuals have more of an impact on education policy in their state
than the Governor.
Yet, under federal law, governors--the men and women who are their
state's CEOs--are not able to fully participate in their state's
education planning process.
Mr. President, most federal education assistance to our states
currently flows directly to state education departments, where a large
percentage of that funding is then passed on to local schools.
State plans submitted by state education departments to the U.S.
Department of Education set the parameters that local school officials
must subsequently follow in developing and implementing their own
spending plans. However, there is no requirement that governors be
involved in this process, nor is there any requirement for coordination
between Chief State School Officers and Governors on the use or
disposition of federal education dollars.
In some states, the Chief State School Officers are appointed by
Governors and are, therefore, accountable
[[Page S4491]]
to them, while in other states, Chief State School Officers are elected
directly by the people. If these individuals share the same political
leanings, there is usually little conflict on education policy.
However, where governors and chief state school officers do not see
eye-to-eye, potential conflict can arise that could threaten the
educational needs of our children.
Regardless of how a state's top education official achieves his or
her position, in each and every state, it is the governor the public
holds accountable for the overall condition and success of public
schools. As it is currently written, the Senate's ESEA reauthorization
bill also holds governors accountable for student progress, even where
governors have no current discretion over Federal education programs
and Federal education funding.
This accountability issue is magnified under the legislation we are
considering. Under Title VI of this bill, States may lose between 30
and 75 percent of their administrative funds for formula programs if
States fail to meet specified performance requirements.
If a State budgets those administrative funds and they are lost as a
result of this bill, then the entire State budget could be impacted.
Ohio, for example, received $3.1 million in Title I administrative
funds last year. If Ohio were to lose 75 percent of these funds, that
would mean about $2.33 million would have to come from somewhere else
in the state budget.
Governors do play a leadership role in the development of State
education policy, including standards and assessments, and the
allocation of State budget resources for public education. Governors
are willing to be held accountable for Federal programs as well, but it
is imperative that the Federal Government give them the authority to
help determine reform through Federal education programs.
It doesn't make sense, that a Governor, who has to manage the State's
budget and is accountable for any shortfall, is not required to be
consulted when State educational officers set education priorities.
Our amendment hopes to change that.
What our amendment is designed to do, is very simple: it encourages
consolidation and coordination between Governors and chief State school
officers in designing State education reform plans.
Under our amendment, State education plans submitted to the U.S.
Secretary of Education for Federal programs, as well as funding for the
school improvement program, must be jointly signed by both the Governor
and the chief State school officer--both of them.
The timing of this amendment is critical, since once Congress passes
ESEA reauthorization this year, each State will finalize their
educational plans and priorities. State legislatures will consider
funding and resource issues, chief State schools officers will consult
local districts, and Governors will set out plans for educational
priorities throughout the State.
Speaking from personal experience, having the Governor and the chief
State school officer working together is absolutely critical. Having
these two individuals working independently on education policy does
not maximize our ability to achieve the educational goals the President
has set out and that this Congress has set out. I believe we need to
require both signatures.
Our amendment will also help leverage State resources. As my
colleagues know, the Federal contribution to education amounts to only
7 percent, with the State and locals funding the remaining 93 percent
of education spending in the State.
Requiring joint sign off on education plans by the Governor and the
chief State school officer enables the Governor to leverage and ensure
coordination of the much larger pot of state education funding to work
with the Federal dollars. The only way to fully leverage Federal funds
is to ensure the coordination of these funds with State efforts.
Governors are the national leaders in education reform. I remember as
Governor of Ohio, we pushed for EdFlex authority from this body so that
we could have the flexibility to combine programs and target funds
where they were needed. Governors like Bill Clinton in Arkansas,
Richard Reilly in South Carolina and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee
became well known nationally on education, not because of what they did
in Washington, but because as Governors they innovated to improve
education in their States. Our current President, George W. Bush, ran
for President partly to share with the rest of America, the successful
education plan he had implemented in Texas.
What ultimately matters--and what should drive our decisions on
education policy--is whether or not our students learn. That is really
what we are talking about in this debate. We must coordinate policies
so that there is a consensus on education in the state for the benefit
of our students. Education is too important to have our different
stakeholders working separately. Our Governors and chief State school
officers must be working together.
Our amendment will foster greater cooperation between all State
officials responsible under State law for the performance of public
schools. It will also help to ensure that state plans submitted for
approval by the Department of Education align with the implementation
of State accountability legislation. It is of vital importance that
chief State school officers and Governors work together to establish
education goals in their States.
I might add, Mr. President, this amendment is strongly supported by
the National Governors' Association.
As a former Governor who had education as one of my highest
priorities, I am offering this amendment to make sure that the highest
elected official of every State is a full partner with Congress in the
effort to implement true reform. I urge my colleagues to support our
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.
Mr. SESSIONS. Has an order for speaking time been reached?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no such order reached.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the Chair, I think when the leaders
asked, there was a recognition that in order to move the process
forward, Senator Voinovich, Senator Specter--I see the leader is here--
there was a recognition that Senator Feinstein was to speak briefly,
Senator Mikulski--we have agreed to consider her amendment--and Senator
Carnahan. I don't know whether consent was agreed to, but I think that
was generally the thought.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I could generally have the opportunity to speak
after the last speaker, I will appreciate it.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is being very gracious. There, correctly,
was not a consent agreement, but I think there was sort of a
gentleperson's agreement to try to move the scheduling along. I think I
will be here when the Senator speaks.
Mr. SESSIONS. I understand. That will be acceptable? Do we have an
understanding of the time the Senators will use?
Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Carnahan, as I understand, would like to address
the Chair and introduce her amendment and set it aside. Am I correct?
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent she be recognized for that purpose. Then
the Senator from California intends to introduce her amendment and
speak briefly. After that, the Senator from Maryland, for whatever time
she might use. After that, the Senator from Alabama.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If I might respond to the Democratic Chair of the
Education Committee, I intend to speak no more than 10 minutes and
probably even less.
Mr. KENNEDY. If we could ask unanimous consent to that order, and
then I ask if I can be recognized after the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that is the order in which
Senators will speak.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment pending right now is the
Voinovich amendment. The Senator will have to ask that it be set aside.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes, I ask unanimous consent the pending business be
set aside.
[[Page S4492]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 374 to Amendment No. 358
Mrs. CARNAHAN. I call up amendment No. 374.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan] proposes an
amendment numbered 374 to amendment No. 358.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the quality of education in our Nation's
classrooms)
On page 319, line 4, insert ``, including teaching
specialists in core academic subjects'' after ``principals''.
On page 326, line 1, insert ``, including strategies to
implement a year-round school schedule that will allow the
local educational agency to increase pay for veteran teachers
and reduce the agency's need to hire additional teachers or
construct new facilities'' after ``performance''.
On page 327, line 2, insert ``as well as teaching
specialists in core academic subjects who will provide
increased individualized instruction to students served by
the local educational agency participating in the eligible
partnership'' after ``qualified''.
On page 517, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 517, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 517, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
``(I) alternative programs for the education and discipline
of chronically violent and disruptive students.
On page 528, line 11, strike ``and''.
On page 528, line 14, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 528, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(16) alternative programs for the education and
discipline of chronically violent and disruptive students.
On page 539, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 539, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(E) alternative programs for the education and discipline
of chronically violent and disruptive students; and''.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, it has been suggested that families and
communities give us roots, but our schools give us wings--the wings of
opportunity that come with a solid educational background.
I commend President Bush for putting education at the top of the
national agenda. His goal to ``leave no child behind'' is one that all
of us in the Congress should support. Indeed, education is a cause that
all Americans can rally behind. For it is in the common interest to
prepare our children for success. If we are interested in increased
prosperity, higher productivity, safer streets, lower welfare rolls,
and reduced need for government services, the place to start is in our
public schools.
The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act that we are
debating today is an important first step. It is the product of arduous
and painstaking negotiations on the part of my colleagues and the Bush
administration. It represents bipartisan consensus. I applaud all those
involved, who have put our children ahead of politics.
The legislation will bring greater accountability to our school
system. It will mean increased testing, targeted support for failing
schools, and new options for parents. The core principle behind the act
is that we can identify low-performing schools through rigorous testing
and then give them the resources they need to turn themselves around.
The bill is based on successful models that have been developed at
the state level.
In Missouri, we have a comprehensive accountability system in place
called the Missouri Assessment Program, or MAP.
These tests measure student progress in math, reading, science, and
social studies to see if kids are meeting what we like to call the
``Show-Me Standards.''
Now I am not one who feels that increased spending automatically
translates into improved results. But I do believe a key element of the
reform effort is to provide troubled schools with the resources they
need to improve performance.
The first piece of legislation I introduced--the Quality classrooms
Act--is designed to fit in the context of this overall education reform
effort.
The Quality classrooms Act calls for a new investment in our schools,
yet offers flexibility at the local level.
It provides school districts with the option of using funds on any of
five proven programs: hiring new teachers; building more classrooms;
hiring teaching specialists in core subjects such as reading, math, and
science; creating alternative discipline programs; and instituting
year-round school schedules.
These are commonsense provisions that meet basic needs. And I am
pleased that the first two ideas--class size reduction and school
construction--are already part of the education debate.
Today, I am introducing an amendment to accomplish the other three
elements of the Quality Classrooms Act: specialists for core subjects;
alternative discipline programs; and year round school programs.
This amendment is about flexibility, not mandates. Like the Quality
Classrooms Act, this amendment recognizes that local districts area
best suited to make decisions about their needs.
The amendment proposes more teaching specialists because studies show
that reducing class size is more cost effective when focused on certain
subjects.
A good example of this is ``Success for All'' a program which enlists
retired teachers and other part-timers as reading instructors. The
instructors are carefully trained and focus on small groups of
children.
More than 700 schools have participated in this program, and have
achieved impressive results. Students enjoy learning more, are more
engaged, and develop closer bonds with their teachers.
I point out, too, that this amendment will allow funds to be used for
alternative programs for violent and disruptive students.
Ask any teacher, and they will tell you that one or two chronically
disruptive students can destroy the learning environment for the entire
class.
Schools need the flexibility and authority to provide safe and
effective classrooms for all.
At the same time, we must make sure that districts can provide
appropriate educational resources for disruptive students.
Under Missouri law, a teenager who carries a gun to school can be
expelled and prohibited from returning to the traditional public
school.
In some areas of the state, there is simply no alternative program
available to this student.
Turning disruptive and potentially violent students out onto the
streets without an education is a recipe for disaster.
However, in some parts of the state, districts have been able to
create very effective programs for these students, relying on
alternative education grants under Missouri's Safe Schools Act. Often,
the alternative programs provide students with their last chance to
receive an education.
In the Kirkwood School District, an alternative school has helped
students improve their grades, behavior and attendance.
Those participating in the program have a different learning plan
tailored to their needs.
Alternative programs open the door for creativity in working with
disruptive students. The Kirkwood program, for example, collaborates
with the juvenile court system. police officers meet with students and
lead discussions on controlling anger, on drugs and alcohol abuse, and
on decision-making.
As a result, discipline problems dropped dramatically. A total of 166
referrals to school administrators were made for students in the school
year before they started in the alternative program. The following
year, this number dropped to 73. School officials noted that fewer
referrals saved the school ``at least 90 hours of administrative
time.''
Mr. President, the goal of my amendment is to recognize, reward, and
encourage that kind of innovation and success.
And finally, the amendment will help school districts implement a
year-round school schedule where it might be appropriate.
Studies have shown that a year-round school schedule increases
student achievement. Teachers in traditional nine-month schools often
spend
[[Page S4493]]
three to six weeks in the fall reviewing material that was taught
during the previous year.
A year-round program can work well for at-risk or learning disabled
students who may be struggling to grasp and retain information.
In addition, year-round schools can be a way to use facilities more
efficiently. Some overcrowded schools stagger student attendance, so
that one group is on vacation during each grading period.
In one district that grows by 1,500 kids a year, the district
implemented a staggered, year-round schedule. This allows them to serve
2,000 additional children in a given academic year.
Of course, a year-round approach may not be right for some districts.
For example, in rural areas, students often play a key role on family
farms during the summer months. That is why this amendment allows each
district to make the choice for itself.
There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach for our schools. Our
schools and local districts need flexibility so they can make
appropriate choices. My amendment will add to the flexibility that the
bill already provides. I look forward to working with the manager and
hope the amendment will receive widespread support.
This debate has given us an unique opportunity to improve education
in America. Major progress is within our grasp. Our support for these
innovative reforms will give our children the wings of opportunity
needed for success.
Let us seize this opportunity and do what is right for our children.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 392 to Amendment No. 358
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 392 to amendment No. 358.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 327, after line 10, add the following:
(7) Carrying out programs and activities related to Master
Teachers.
(2) Master teacher.--The term ``master teacher'' means a
teacher who--
(A) is licensed or credentialed under State law in the
subject or grade in which the teacher teaches;
(B) has been teaching for at least 5 years in a public or
private school or institution of higher education;
(C) is selected upon application, is judged to be an
excellent teacher, and is recommended by administrators and
other teachers who are knowledgeable of the individual's
performance;
(D) at the time of submission of such application, is
teaching and based in a public school;
(E) assists other teachers in improving instructional
strategies, improves the skills of other teachers, performs
mentoring, develops curriculum, and offers other professional
development; and
(F) enters into a contract with the local educational
agency to continue to teach and serve as a master teacher for
at least 5 additional years.
A contract described in subparagraph (F) shall include
stipends, employee benefits, a description of duties and work
schedule, and other terms of employment.
(e) Study and Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2005, the Secretary
shall conduct a study and transmit a report to Congress
pertaining to the utilization of funds under section 2123 for
Master Teachers.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include an
analysis of:
(A)(i) the recruitment and retention of experienced
teachers;
(ii) the effect of master teachers on teaching by less
experienced teachers;
(iii) the impact of mentoring new teachers by master
teachers;
(iv) the impact of master teachers on student achievement;
and
(v) the reduction in the rate of attrition of beginning
teachers; and
(B) recommendations regarding establishing activities to
expand the project to additional local educational agencies
and school districts.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing an amendment to
authorize school districts to use teacher training funds authorized
under the bill to create master teachers.
The bill before us authorizes $3 billion for FY 2002 Title II,
teacher training. Under this amendment, school districts could use some
of these funds to create master teacher positions.
If, for example, $200 million were spent on master teachers, 6,600
master teacher positions could be created if each master teacher were
paid $30,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary.
What is this all about? Why am I doing it? One of the things I have
discovered is it is difficult to keep good teachers in the classroom.
The Senator from Vermont is in the Chamber. I can't tell him how many
times I have given an award to a teacher of the year, or a teacher of
the month, and they accept it and say they are leaving the classroom. I
ask: Why are you leaving the classroom? Because I got a better job in
Silicon Valley; or I am going to become an administrator.
When you ask why they are going to become an administrator, it is
because of more money. The average teacher's salary is about $40,000 a
year. In California, it is $45,000 a year. So you can work 10 or 15
years for that amount of money, but you can become an administrator at
$65,000 or $70,000 a year and support your family.
So the idea occurred to me, what if we were to have a master teacher
program and allow teachers who have taught in the classrooms for 5
years--if they have certain credentials--to become a master teacher and
receive the salary equal to that of an administrator?
What would the criteria be? Under this amendment, the teacher would
be credentialed, have at least 5 years of teaching experience, and be
adjudged to be an excellent teacher by administrators and teachers who
are knowledgeable about this teacher's performance. The teacher would
have to be currently teaching and willing to enter into a contract to
teach for another 5 years.
The master teacher, then, would become a mentor teacher, would help
other teachers in improving instruction and strengthening teacher
skills, would mentor less-experienced teachers, help develop
curriculum, and provide other professional development.
What is interesting is that 25 percent of beginning teachers do not
teach more than 2 years. Nearly 40 percent leave in the first 5 years.
For my State, this is a huge problem. We have 284,030 teachers
currently, and in the next 10 years we have to hire an additional
300,000 teachers.
California's rate of student enrollment is three times the national
average. Therefore, we have to hire 26,000 new teachers every year.
If they teach 2 years, and we lose them because they can get a better
job elsewhere, or we lose a good teacher who has taught 6 or 7 or 8 or
10 years because that teacher wants to become an administrator to make
a higher salary, we lose teaching skills in the classroom.
So I thought we could try to see if these excellent teachers would
work in the classrooms for an additional 5 years, be willing to mentor
other teachers, be credentialed teachers, and stay in the classrooms
and become master teachers to help other teachers.
There are some existing mentoring programs. I worked earlier with
Adam Urbanski, a teacher in Rochester, NY, who pointed out to me very
clearly how mentoring programs keep teachers in the classroom. It
occurred to me that master teachers could produce very good dividends.
One of the key things about all of this is that we expect so much
from our teachers and we pay them so little. I think California is one
of the highest cost-of-living areas in the Nation. Yet teachers earn
$45,000. Their salary is limited.
I would like to say to the chairman of the committee, who is in this
Chamber, it is my understanding that the amendment is acceptable on
both sides. I am very pleased. I intend to follow this closely. I hope
we have a whole series of master teachers one day that burgeon
throughout the Nation, that lead the way in keeping good teachers in
the classroom, to increase teachers' salaries, and to increase the
performance of the average classroom teacher.
[[Page S4494]]
I thank very much the chairman of the committee for his indulgence.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe we can accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Is there any objection to the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 392) was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Voinovich amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 379
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 379.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is
very straightforward. It is a great public investment in getting our
children ready for their future.
What this amendment does is provide for the establishment of
community technology centers in the United States under the provisions
of th Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would authorize $100
million to create 1,000 community-based tech centers around the
country. These centers would be created and run by community-based
groups, such as the YMCA, the Urban League, or even a public library.
The Federal Government would provide competitive grants to these
community-based groups. By the third year of funding at least half of
the funds come from the private sector. In year one, 30 percent comes
from private sector and in year two, 40 percent must come from the
private sector. Again, by year three the funding would be 50-50; 50
percent from the Federal Government and 50 percent from the community-
based groups. This is truly an excellent example of a public private-
partnership and maximization of federal funds.
By funding community technology centers, we will be helping to build
public-private partnerships around the country. I want to stress that
the private, nonprofit sector is eager to form these partnerships.
Why do we need this amendment? First of all, in the President's
education bill there is no provision for community technology centers.
The President's budget indicates he would make it a permissible use
under HUD to be taken out of community development block grant money.
So why do we want this in ESEA? We want it in ESEA because essentially
it takes technology education to where people learn in their
communities.
What would this mean for local communities? It would mean a safe
haven for children where they could learn how to use computers--use
them to do homework--use them to access the Internet. It means job
training for adults who could use the technology centers to either get
new skills and new tools to enter the new economy or to upgrade their
skills.
Also, these centers would serve all regions, races, and ethnic
groups. They will be where they are needed, where there is often
limited access to technology. They will be in urban, rural, and
suburban areas. They will be in Appalachia and Native American
reservations, and urban centers.
Why do we need those? First of all, I want to acknowledge the
fantastic work that Senator Jeffords has done in advocating something
called the 21st century learning centers. He has, indeed, been a great
advocate of that, along with his colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. They
really have been excellent in establishing these learning centers.
They are excellent programs, but they are primarily in schools. Most
of them are only for children. And most of them operate during very
specific hours. Some are open just a few hours a day; most do not
necessarily focus on technology. I want to acknowledge that the one in
Vermont is open weekends and even in the summer. So Vermont is really
doing a great job.
But why do we need these community tech centers in the community? In
some places schools are either too worn out or too dated to be wired
for the future. We have school facilities in desperate need of
modernization. And the poorer the community, usually the poorer the
physical condition of the school. Community Technology Centers would
ensure that technology is in the community.
Second, it is multigenerational. This means it could be used during
the day for adults and seniors and in the afternoons for structured
afterschool activities for children, bringing them to technology. It
also could be open at night and on weekends. Also, it removes barriers
to learning.
In many of our communities, new immigrants are shy about coming into
schools, particularly adults. There is the need to reach out to men who
very often want to upgrade their skills, to be able to come into a new
workforce. Certainly, in my own community of Baltimore we see that. But
they can sometimes feel awkward at age 28, 38, or 48 walking into a
school building. But they would walk into a community tech center. This
is why we believe that in addition to the 21st century learning
centers, these community technology centers are needed.
Let me cite a few examples. The Baltimore Urban League received a
grant to create a community tech center. They created a computer
clubhouse, an afterschool computer center for teenagers. The young
people were taught computer skills. They also then teach other young
people. They are engaging in desktop publishing. During the day, it is
used for career development, focused on Welfare-to-Work.
In rural Odem, TX, we have another example of a community tech center
that both worked with the people in the community but was also a source
for distance learning. In a school district in Arizona, it helped young
Native Americans enter the high-tech workforce.
I could go on with example after example. Let me tell my colleagues
this: Thanks to the leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter, and
Labor-HHS, they funded community tech centers through appropriations.
Be aware that they were never authorized. Essentially, Harkin and
Specter just went ahead and did it. God bless them for doing it. But
they could only, because of the lack of authorization, fund very few of
these programs. In 1999, over 750 community organizations applied for
community technology center money. Under the great leadership of
Harkin-Specter, there was only enough money to give grants to 40 of
these community organizations.
There is so much pent-up need, it points to why my legislation is
needed. I believe we do not have a worker shortage in the United
States--we have a skills shortage. Even with dot-coms now dot-bombing,
there still is a great need for technology workers. In fact, in
practically every field technology literacy is needed. Manufacturing in
my own State has gone from smokestack to cyberstack. We must have
people with the skills who are ready. We don't have a worker shortage
in this country; we have a skill shortage in this country. In addition
to schools and libraries, to have 1,000 community technology centers
would be a welcome addition into these communities and neighborhoods
for people to have the opportunity to truly enter this new world.
My legislation is endorsed by groups such as the National Council of
La Raza, the NAACP headquartered in my own State, the American Library
Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, and also
the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S4495]]
American Association of
Community Colleges,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2001.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: The American Association of
Community Colleges (AACC) endorses your amendment to the
``Better Education for Students and Teachers Act,'' to set
the authorization of funding for Community Technology Centers
at $100 million. AACC represents over 1,100 community
colleges across the country.
This program has allowed community colleges to become
stronger partners with their communities and has allowed them
to help provide access to computers, the Internet, and
technology to maximize participation in the digital economy.
Some of the community college projects currently funded
provided basic computer skills instruction, video
conferencing links, after-school programs, welfare-to-work
programs and educational counseling services. The programs
offered at community colleges serve everyone from pre-school
children to adults seeking lifelong learning opportunities.
This is a valuable program because it helps communities to
jointly address their challenges. The coalitions funded
through these programs secure non-federal matching
contributions and also work extensively with each other to
develop programs to help overcome the digital divide. The
federal funds provided, which cannot exceed fifty percent of
total project funds, provide critical seed money that will
establish firm foundations for project activities. Community
technology centers should be permanently authorized and
funded at levels to provide technological opportunity to
those who need it.
The American Association of Community colleges urges all
Senators to support your amendment to this critical
legislation. We thank you for spearheading this initiative.
Sincerely,
George R. Boggs,
President and CEO.
____
National Council of La Raza,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2000.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: The National Council of La Raza
(NCLR) thanks you for your effort to bring the promise of
computer technology to communities that currently do not have
equitable access to this important educational tool. In
particular, we would like to express our support for your
amendment to authorize the Computer Technology Centers (CTC)
program.
The transition from an industrial economy to one based on
information and technology presents numerous possibilities
and challenges. For Hispanics, the advent of the information
superhighway provides new educational opportunities. However,
it also may further widen existing educational achievement
gaps between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.
Studies have shown that the use of computers at home helps
improve academic achievement. Yet, Hispanic students have
less access to a computer with Internet access at home as
compared to White students. In fact, White households are
almost twice as likely (46 percent) to own a computer than
Hispanic (25 percent) households.
While there has been some success in infusing education
technology in America's schools, Hispanics continue to lag
behind their non-Hispanic peers in this area. Contrary to the
national statistics, schools and communities serving low-
income and minority students, including Hispanics, are still
very far behind their peers in gaining access.
Schools with a high number of low-income or minority
students have less access to computers and the Internet than
do affluent schools. For example, in 1998, schools with more
than 71 percent of its students receiving free or reduced-
price lunches had only 39 percent of the instructional rooms
connected to the internet. In comparison, schools with 11 to
30 percent of such students had Internet connections in 53
percent of their instructional rooms.
There are many programs designed to help schools to obtain
computers, Internet access, and teacher training.
Unfortunately, few are designed specifically to include
community-based organizations (CBOs). Lacking community-
controlled colleges and universities or a system of Hispanic
churches, CBOs are the lifeline of the Hispanic community.
They are in a more advantageous position to assess the needs
of Hispanic children and families, and have proven track
records in providing successful services to community
members. The CTCs program creates opportunities for CBOs to
participate as partners in bringing this technology to their
communities and, therefore, should be supported.
NCLR believes that your amendment to authorize and
sufficiently fund the CTCs can have a significant, positive
impact on the lives of many low-income Hispanic families.
That is why we strongly support your legislation and
encourage the entire Congress to do the same.
Sincerely,
Raul Yzaguirre,
President.
____
NAACP,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.
Members,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), I am writing to inform
you of our strong support for the amendment being offered by
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD to S.1, the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Specifically, the
Mikulski amendment would authorize $100 million for fiscal
year 2002 and each of the following six years to create 1000
new Community Technology Centers. These centers would provide
disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban and
rural communities with access to information technology and
related training. NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume has
personally met with Senator Mikulski to discuss this issue,
and has made enactment of her legislation an NAACP
legislative priority.
Access to computer technology is one of, if not the most
single important keys to success in the 21st century. A 1998
report by the independent Benton Institute estimated that by
the year 2000, 60% of all jobs in the United States would
require some computer skills. Too many Americans, either
because of their geographical location, or their lack of
economic resources, or both, are being left out of the
computer age. This ``digital divide'' currently affects whole
communities and, in the end, threatens the continued
prosperity of our nation. The digital divide is resulting in
an increased concentration of poverty and a deconcentration
of opportunity.
According to one recent study while 46% of white families
have computers in their homes, only 23% of African Americans
can make the same claim, and only 25% of Hispanic American
homes are currently equipped with computers. If allowed to
continue, this disparity will only increase disadvantages
faced by low income Americans and Americans of color as they
try to enter the work force and improve themselves and their
communities. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the
numerous studies that have been done about the digital divide
is that they all seem to agree that the disparities are
growing.
Community Technology Centers, as proposed by the Mikulski
amendment, are an important step in addressing the current
technological inequities. While each center is different, and
tailored to the community it serves, the primary goal by
definition is to make computers, the Internet and various
software packages available to children and adults who might
otherwise be on the losing side of the digital divide.
Community Technology Centers typically offer both classes as
well as opportunities for individuals to take personal time
to hone their technology skills. Classes vary from preschool
and family programs to after school activities, adult
education and courses in career development and job
preparation.
Put simply, Community Technology Centers provide
individuals and communities with the resources to help
themselves and to improve their chances at becoming educated,
productive Americans. I hope that you agree with me and the
more than 600,000 card-carrying members of the NAACP that
Community Technology Centers are a smart and much-needed
investment in the future, and that you will support the
Mikulski amendment. Should you have any questions, I hope you
will not hesitate to contact me at the NAACP Washington
Bureau, at (202) 638-2269 or Kimberly Ross in Senator
Mikulski's office at (202) 224-4654 about this important
amendment. Thank you in advance for your attention to this
matter, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and
this and other matters that will benefit our nation as a
whole.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director,
NAACP Washington Bureau.
____
American Library Association,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2001.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the American Library
Association, I convey our support for your Community
Technology Centers amendment to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act reauthorization. This amendment would enlarge
the scope of possibilities for these centers, increasing
their numbers and enabling libraries to continue to do their
part in trying to bridge the ``digital divide.''
In Maryland, the Wicomico County Free Library has begun a
very successful outreach project to build bridges across the
digital divide in that very rural county. The library
currently has four centers operating in a variety of
community areas that are free, staffed by volunteers and,
with library supervision, provide technology training and
other services to members of the community. This outreach is
beginning to make a real difference and your legislation
could enlarge community efforts like this and allow other
libraries in rural parts of all states to bring access to
technology to their communities.
Thank you for your efforts to enlarge the abilities of
libraries and other community groups to serve the public by
providing access to technology tools, increased skills and
information,
Sincerely,
Nancy C. Kranich,
President.
[[Page S4496]]
____
Computer and Communications
Industry Association,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2001.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the Computer and
Communications Industry Association (CCIA), I am pleased to
offer our support for your legislation to provide Federal
finding for Community Technology Centers. This proposal would
benefit not only those whom it would serve in economically
distressed communities, but also the information technology
industry.
Your legislation recognizes the critical need for
policymakers and industry to address the growing ``digital
divide'' in our country between those with ready access to
computers and the Internet, and those for whom the promise of
technology is beyond their grasp. Our members believe that
technology can have a great leveling effect between the
wealthy and the disadvantaged by providing access to
information and services that have previously been
unavailable to many Americans.
In addition, our industry faces a critical shortage of
workers to sustain the incredible economic growth and
innovation that we have experienced over recent years.
Particularly by exposing disadvantaged children and young
people to technology and teaching them basic technological
skills, we believe that the Community Technology Centers
would greatly influence these students to pursue the academic
disciplines that will prepare them for high-tech careers. We
recognize that only by reaching out to all Americans will we
be able to fulfill our shared goals as a country and promote
our general welfare.
We commend you for introducing this excellent proposal and
look forward to working with you to achieve its enactment.
Sincerely,
Jason M. Mahler,
Vice President and
General Counsel.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I could elaborate on this, but I know the Senator from
Alabama is waiting to speak. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Perhaps after we hear from the distinguished chairman, who has really
been a leader in new ways to teach and educate children, I will
subsequently ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I think the Senator should ask for them now.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alabama is recognized.
Amendment No. 378
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or two to
raise some concerns I have about the Murray amendment which would
require schools to use Title II funding to reduce class size and would
cost $2.4 billion.
Mandating class size reduction is a matter that we have to be very
careful about. It may sound good, and it may seem that reducing class
size is the right thing to do in America. And I suppose it polls well.
I know President Clinton pushed class size reduction very hard during
his administration.
I took some time to look at the numbers and to see how this would
work. I visited a lot of schools in Alabama, talked to teachers and
principals. I don't hear them telling me their No. 1 goal is to reduce
class size.
The serious question is, Is this a public policy that we ought to
mandate on the schools? We know we have reduced class size
significantly in the last decade or so and have gone from an average
class size of 30 in 1961 to an average class size of 23 in 1998. During
the period of time that we reduced class size, there was no improvement
in standardized test scores.
We also know that schools in South Korea and in Taiwan have class
sizes that are nearly twice ours and they have test scores better than
ours.
Another factor we must consider when talking about class size
reduction is the cost. Schools would have to hire more teachers. I have
supported money for teachers today. But if we hire more teachers, are
we really getting a bang for our buck? And if we do, where are they
going to teach? They can't teach out under the shade tree. They have to
have a classroom. That classroom has to be heated and cooled. It has to
have a roof over it. You have to have insurance and upkeep and
maintenance. That costs money.
If you require schools to reduce their class sizes by 25 percent, you
have to have 25 percent more teachers. Not only that, you have to have
25 percent more classrooms, 25 percent more equipment, 25 percent more
insurance, 25 percent more maintenance. It is tremendously expensive.
All I am saying is, I reviewed an article in ``Education Week'' of
September 1999. It suggested that mandating class size reduction is a
bad idea. In fact, the Education Department, as late as 1988 said
reducing class size would have little or no positive results and would,
in effect, be a waste of money. In fact, it would be a waste of a lot
of money.
The numbers I have seen do not indicate that class size is a critical
factor in student education. In fact, as many studies show, smaller
class size seems to correspond more with lower test scores more than
showing an increase. One reason is that a good teacher is critical to
learning. If you are bringing on more teachers, you are more likely to
bring on less qualified teachers than you have had and you could
actually show a decline in learning.
I won't go on about that tonight. I know there is a strong feeling
that this is the right direction in which to go, but I would be very
reluctant--and I think the Senate should be reluctant--to mandate at
the Federal level State school systems to undertake major class size
reduction when we can't say with any certainty that it is worth that
expense, that it is going to get the kind of bang for our buck that we
want to get.
I believe that there are other things schools can do with this $2.4
billion that and could produce more of an improvement in education. We
should leave that decision to the schools and not mandate a
``Washington-Knows-Best'' fix.
I urge my colleagues to be cautious about a commitment to requiring
schools to reduce class size, because we do not need to require our
constituents and our school systems to expend extraordinary sums of
money if we can't be certain that it is going to receive a benefit
commensurate with that cost.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues for
remaining on the floor tonight and presenting their amendments. I think
these are amendments that strengthen the legislation.
I might mention, first of all, Senator Feinstein's amendment, which
has been accepted. I think it adds an additional dimension to making
sure the mentoring system would work well between senior teachers and
newer teachers and will help all teachers be more effective in the
classroom. The mentoring system has been enormously important, not only
in enhancing education for children, but also in terms of retaining
teachers. In many instances, the youngest, least experienced teachers
teach in the most challenging classrooms, and 50% of those teachers
leave teaching in the first five years.
What we have also seen--and the statistics demonstrate--that when
teachers have a mentor--pairing new teachers with a more senior
teacher--those younger teachers develop teaching skills. They become
better teachers. They feel more confident about their teaching, and
their interest in staying in teaching is enhanced, and the students are
the beneficiaries. That is certainly something that we want to
encourage in this legislation, and I think the Feinstein amendment
strengthens that particular proposal.
I know when Senator Carnahan talked with us earlier about the
amendment on professional development and about year-round schools and
providing teaching specialists in reading in more schools, we saw--and
I have referenced this earlier during the discussion and debate--the
value of improved reading instruction in enhancing academic
achievement. Today in the Washington Post, we read about the Prince
Georges County Schools where the young children are reading for close
to 90 minutes to 2 hours, and then spending a concentrated period of
additional time on math. There is no question that spending more time
reading has had a very positive impact.
I have seen it in a number of other situations myself, and I think
the Carnahan amendment gives important options on how to use resources
in terms of hiring specialists in reading, and enhancing professional
development.
[[Page S4497]]
Then, there is also some allowable use in terms of the year-round
schools. Experiments in year-round schools are being conducted in a
number of different communities. Again, this legislation provides
additional flexibility in the use of funds, while adding more
accountability. I think Senator Carnahan has increased that kind of
flexibility but still maintained the focus in terms of professional
development. I think that is a very worthwhile use.
Finally, I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the Mikulski
amendment. I have admired Senator Mikulski as the leader in the Senate
on the issue of the digital divide. I think all of us are very
mindful--it is one of the reasons that we are here--about the digital
divide in our country. Senator Mikulski, from the beginning, has
identified new technology as being as significant as an education tool,
in terms of the numbers of opportunities that it opens up, or the
numbers of opportunities that are closed down if children are not
exposed to the Internet and to newer technologies.
She has developed a very effective concept of these technology
centers, which she has outlined. I visited the Computer Clubhouse in
Boston last fall, which is one of the community technology centers in
Boston. I met high school students who had attended the center for 3
years. They told me that coming to the Clubhouse had changed their
lives. Because they had the positive experiences at the Center, they
are planning to go to college and study math, science, or engineering.
With the very small investment this amendment would provide, we could
begin to put a technology center in every needy community in this
country.
Information technology is changing how we learn at an incredible
rate. New resources are added to the Internet every day. Web pages are
as common as fax machines and cell phones. We cannot wait for needy
individuals to find their own way to get access to modern resources. We
have a responsibility to get the necessary tools to the high poverty
urban and rural communities, and community technology centers are one
way to fulfill that responsibility. So I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Finally, Massachusetts was, just several years ago, 48th out of 50 in
terms of the Internet accessibility. It was really extraordinary, Mr.
President. We have responded to the concept of a fellow named John Gage
from Sun Systems in California, who developed this idea of ``Net
Days''--that is, to challenge the new industries to donate computers to
schools and challenge labor to put wire down in these areas and in
schools.
We did a number of these in my State on four different Net Days. On
Net Day, we would announce the progress made in the last 6 months. We
went from 48th to the top 20 percent of states with Internet access in
the country. Boston is the first urban center that had complete
Internet accessing and training of teachers--it is very impressive.
I must say the generosity of the high-tech community was incredibly
impressive to me. They were enormously responsive. So many of these
companies are headed by young professionals and it was the first time
they had been asked to do something. They welcomed the opportunity to
be involved in their communities.
Then we challenged labor. In the city of Boston, on a voluntary
basis, we got 350 miles of cable laid by the IBEW in Boston. Many of
their children are going to these schools. It was an incredible sight
to see so many different workers volunteering on Saturdays to wire the
schools. It was an incredible coming together, and there was a great
sense of pride in the achievement.
So, Mr. President, I think the Mikulski amendment will be an enormous
force in helping to make sure that the access to the Internet, the
technology, the curriculum, and the training of professional personnel
will be effective. I know the Senator well; she will pursue this to
make sure no child is left behind in the technology area. She is
serious about closing the digital divide.
I thank our colleagues here today. We have made some important
progress. We are strongly committed to starting early tomorrow and
working late tomorrow night. We want to have a full opportunity to
address education issues, but we want to try to also move this process
forward. I am very grateful for the patience and courtesy of our
colleagues today in helping us to move the legislation forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
We are working really well together on both sides. I praise all our
Members. We are beginning to make real progress on this bill and,
hopefully, we will have it finished well within the time allotted to
us.
Amendment No. 388, As Modified
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Specter's second-degree amendment be modified with the changes that are
at the desk, and I state that this is just a drafting change and makes
no substantive changes in the language.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 388), as modified, reads as follows:
Strike all after the 1st word and insert the following:
. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.
``(a) Allotment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this law, from $1,625,000,000 of the amounts made available
to carry out part A of title II (other than subpart 5 of such
part A) for each fiscal year the Secretary--
``(1) shall make available a total of $6,000,000 to the
Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) and the outlying areas for activities under this
section; and
``(2) shall allot the remainder by providing to each State
the same percentage of that remainder as the State received
of the funds allocated to States under section 307(a)(2) of
the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1999.
``(b) Distribution to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--Each State that receives funds under
this section shall distribute 100 percent of such funds to
local educational agencies in the State, of which--
``(A) 80 percent shall be allocated to such local
educational agencies in proportion to the number of children
aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district served by
such local educational agency and are from families below the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2)
of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved for the
most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data are
available compared to the number of such children who reside
in the school districts served by all local educational
agencies in the State for that fiscal year; and
``(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
local educational agencies in accordance with the relative
enrollments of children aged 5 to 17, in public and private
nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the
boundaries of the school district served by such agencies.
``(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the
award to a local educational agency under this section is
less than the starting salary for a new fully qualified
teacher in that agency who is certified or licensed in the
State (which may include certification or licensure through
State or local alternative routes), has a baccalaureate
degree, and demonstrates the general knowledge, teaching
skills, and subject matter knowledge required to teach in the
teacher's content areas, then that agency may use funds
provided under this section--
``(A) to help pay the salary of a full- or part-time
teacher hired to reduce class size, which may be in
combination with other Federal, State, or local funds; or
``(B) to pay for activities described in subsection
(c)(2)(C) which may be related to teaching in smaller
classes.
``(c) Uses.--
``(1) Mandatory.--The basic purpose and intent of this
section is to reduce class size with fully qualified
teachers. Each local educational agency that receives funds
under this section shall use such funds to carry out
effective approaches to reducing class size with fully
qualified teachers who are certified or licensed to teach
within the State, including teachers certified or licensed
through State or local alternative routes, and who
demonstrate competency in the areas in which the teachers
teach, to improve educational achievement for both regular
and special needs children with particular consideration
given to reducing class size in the early elementary grades
for which some research has shown class size reduction is the
most effective.
``(2) Permissive.--Each such local educational agency may
use funds provided under this section for--
``(A) recruiting (including through the use of signing
bonuses or other financial incentives), hiring, and training
fully qualified regular and special education teachers (which
may include hiring special education teachers to team-teach
with regular teachers in classrooms that contain both
children with disabilities and nondisabled children) and
teachers of special needs children, who are certified or
licensed to teach within the
[[Page S4498]]
State (including teachers certified or licensed through State
or local alternative routes), have a baccalaureate degree,
and demonstrate the general knowledge required to teach in
their content areas;
``(B) testing new teachers for academic content, and to
meet State certification or licensure requirements that are
consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
and
``(C) providing professional development (which may include
such activities as promoting retention and mentoring) to
teachers, including special education teachers and teachers
of special needs children, in order to meet the goal of
ensuring that all instructional staff have the subject matter
knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skills necessary
to teach effectively in the content area or areas in which
the teachers provide instruction, consistent with title II of
the Higher Education Act of 1965.
``(d) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), a
local educational agency that has designed an educational
program that is part of a local strategy for improving the
educational achievement of all students, or that already has
reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or less (or
already has reduced class size to a State or local class size
reduction goal that was in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 2000, if that State or local educational agency goal is
20 or fewer children), may use funds provided under this
section--
``(1) to make further class size reductions in kindergarten
through grade 3;
``(2) to reduce class size in other grades;
``(3) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality,
including professional development; and
``(4) to carry out other activities authorized under title
V.
``(e) Reports.--
``(1) Report to secretary.--Each State receiving funds
under this section shall report to the Secretary regarding
activities in the State that are assisted under this section,
consistent with sections 5322 (1) and (2).
``(2) Report to the public.--Each State and local
educational agency receiving funds under this section shall
publicly report to parents on its progress in reducing class
size, increasing the percentage of classes in core academic
areas that are taught by fully qualified teachers who are
certified or licensed by the State and demonstrate competency
in the content areas in which the teachers teach (as
determined by the State), on the impact that hiring
additional highly qualified teachers and reducing class size
has had, if any, on increasing student achievement (as
determined by the State) or student performance (as
determined by the State) and on the impact that the locally
defined program has had, if any, on increasing student
achievement (as determined by the State) or student
performance (as determined by the State).
``(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Each such agency shall use
funds under this section only to supplement, and not
supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of such
funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under this
section.
``(g) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency
that receives funds under this section may use not more than
3 percent of such funds for local administrative expenses.
``(h) Request for Funds.--Each local educational agency
that desires to receive funds under this section shall
include in the application submitted under section 5333 a
description of--
``(1) the agency's program to reduce class size by hiring
additional highly qualified teachers; and
``(2) the agency's proposed educational program under this
section that is part of its local strategy for improving
educational achievement for all students.
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during the
vote on the Warner amendment regarding tax relief for teachers. The
amendment was No. 383 to S. 1, the elementary and secondary education
bill. I would like the Record to show that if present I would have
voted aye.
____________________