[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4525-S4544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No.
358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
Kennedy (for Mikulski/Kennedy) amendment No. 379 (to
amendment No. 358), to provide for the establishment of
community technology centers.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program from the list of programs covered by performance
agreements.
McConnell amendment No. 384 (to amendment No. 358), to
provide for teacher liability protection.
Cleland amendment No. 376 (to amendment No. 358), to
provide for school safety enhancement, including the
establishment of the National Center for School and Youth
Safety.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Specter modified amendment No. 388 (to amendment No. 378),
to provide for class size reduction.
Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to
modify provisions relating to State applications and plans
and school improvement to provide for the input of the
Governor of the State involved.
Carnahan amendment No. 374 (to amendment No. 358), to
improve the quality of education in our Nation's classrooms.
Amendment No. 379
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We have 5 minutes equally divided
on the Mikulski amendment.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the support of my
colleagues for my amendment to create 1,000 community tech-based
centers around the country.
[[Page S4526]]
The BEST Act creates a national goal to ensure that every child is
computer literate by the 8th grade regardless of race, ethnicity,
income, gender, geography, or disability.
My amendment will help make this goal a reality.
What does this amendment do? My amendment builds on the excellent
work of Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Gregg. It
expands 21st Century Learning Centers by authorizing $100 million to
create 1,000 community based technology centers around the country. The
Department of Education would provide competitive grants to community
based organizations such as a YMCA, the Urban League, or a public
library.
Up to half the funds for these centers must come from the private
sector, so we'll be helping to build public/private partnerships around
the country.
What does this mean for local communities? It means a safe haven for
children where they could learn how to use computers and use them to do
homework or surf the web. It means job training for adults who could
use the technology centers to sharpen their job skills or write their
resumes.
Why is this amendment necessary? Because even with dot coms becoming
dot bombs, we badly need high tech workers. In fact, we have a skill
shortage, not a worker shortage.
Senators Specter and Harkin have provided funds for Community
Technology Centers in Appropriations but the program has never been
authorized, so it has been skimpy. Only 90 centers were created last
year, although over 700 applied.
We need to bring technology to where kids learn, not just where we
want them to learn. They don't just learn in school, they learn in
their communities.
Not every family has a computer in their home, but every American
should have access to computers in their community.
My amendment is endorsed by: the NAACP, the American Library
Association, the National Council of La Raza, the YMCA, the American
Association of Community Colleges, and the Computer and Communications
Industry Association.
I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that no child is left out
or left behind in the technology revolution.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I regretfully rise to oppose the
amendment of my colleague, although I agree with the program she is
talking about, the community technology centers. On the other hand,
this belongs with other programs such as the community block grants,
not on the educational side.
I must say I admire what the Senator is doing. The programs
themselves can be very useful, but I don't believe it belongs in this
bill; rather, it belongs in other bills. For instance, the 21st century
schools can provide similar programs. In a sense, it is duplication.
Regretfully, I must oppose the amendment, although I think it is only
once or twice a century that I do that.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the cosponsors of my amendment are
Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Reid.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back the remaining time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment
numbered 379 to amendment No. 358.
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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--49
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Dodd
The amendment (No. 379) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair inform the Senate how long
it took for that vote to be completed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-one minutes.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Amendment No. 403 To Amendment No. 358
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 403 to amendment No. 358.
Mr. Wellstone. 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:
(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to State assessments)
On page 46, strike line 19 and replace with the following:
``sessments developed and used by national experts on
educational testing.
``(D) be used only if the State provides to the Secretary
evidence from the test publisher or other relevant sources
that the assessment used is of adequate technical quality for
each purpose for which the assessment is used, such evidence
to be made public by the Secretary upon request;''.
On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(K) enable itemized score analyses to be reported to
schools and local educational agencies in a way that parents,
teachers, schools, and local educational agencies can
interpret and address the specific academic needs of
individual students as indicated by the students' performance
on assessment items.''
On page 125, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 118A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.
Part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 1117 (20 U.S.C. 6318) the following:
``SEC. 1117A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to--
``(1) enable States (or consortia or States) and local
educational agencies (or consortia of local educational
agencies) to collaborate with institutions of higher
education, other research institutions, and other
organizations to improve the quality and fairness of State
assessment systems beyond the basic requirements for
assessment systems described in section 1111(b)(3);
``(2) characterize student achievement in terms of multiple
aspects of proficiency;
``(3) chart student progress over time;
``(4) closely track curriculum and instruction; and
``(5) monitor and improve judgments based on informed
evaluations of student performance.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
``(c) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to
award grants to States and local educational agencies to
enable the States and local educational agencies to carry out
the purpose described in subsection (a).
``(d) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this
section for any fiscal year, a State or local educational
agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(e) Authorized Use of Funds.--A State or local
educational agency having an application approved under
subsection (d) shall use the grant funds received under this
section to collaborate with institutions of higher education
or other research institutions,
[[Page S4527]]
experts on curriculum, teachers, administrators, parents, and
assessment developers for the purpose of developing enhanced
assessments that are aligned with standards and curriculum,
are valid and reliable for the purposes for which the
assessments are to be used, are grade-appropriate, include
multiple measures of student achievement from multiple
sources, and otherwise meet the requirements of section
1111(b)(3). Such assessments shall strive to better measure
higher order thinking skills, understanding, analytical
ability, and learning over time through the development of
assessment tools that include techniques such as performance,
curriculum-, and technology-based assessments.
``(f) Annual Reports.--Each State or local educational
agency receiving a grant under this section shall report to
the Secretary at the end of the fiscal year for which the
State or local educational agency received the grant on the
progress of the State or local educational agency in
improving the quality and fairness of assessments with
respect to the purpose described in subsection (a).''.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment greatly strengthens this
legislation. It focuses on an issue that we haven't really spent a lot
of time on yet. This has to do with how we make sure we have the very
highest quality of testing and how we make sure we give our States and
school districts the flexibility to do the very best job.
There has been a rush to expand testing without stepping back to
determine whether the testing system we have is working. It is only
common sense--I believe we have worked hard on this amendment, and
there will be strong support for it--to assume that if you want the
tests to be effective, they have to be of high quality.
This goes back to why we are measuring student achievement in the
first place and what our goals are if we are going to set up these
accountability systems. Are we measuring for the sake of measuring only
or are we measuring to get the best picture of how our children are
doing? That is what we are all about or should be all about.
If we want to get the best picture of how our students are doing and
how effective the schools are in teaching, we need to have the best
possible assessments. That is what this amendment seeks. These
assessments need to be aligned with standards, local curriculum, and
classroom instruction. These assessments need to be free from bias.
They need to reflect both the range and depth of student knowledge, and
they need to assess not just memorized responses but student reasoning
and understanding. They need to be used only for the purposes for which
they are valid and reliable. This is important.
Holding States and school districts and teachers accountable to the
wrong test can, in fact, be more harmful than helpful. Using low-level
national tests to measure performance within a State shows us little of
how the States, the school districts, the schools, and the students are
doing in achieving their State and local educational goals.
This amendment seeks to allow States to develop tests that are of
higher quality and better meet the localized needs of their students,
their parents, and their teachers.
I will repeat these words again. They should be important to Senators
and staff. This amendment allows States to develop tests that are of
higher quality and better meet the localized needs of their students,
teachers, and parents.
To ensure that the assessments are of high quality, this amendment
says the assessments under title I have to meet relevant national
standards developed by the American Educational Research Association,
the American Psychological Association and the National Council of
Measurement in Education. These standards are the standards from
everyone in the testing field--I say to the Senator from Vermont and
the Senator from Massachusetts, these are the standards that have been
used as guides for testmakers and test users for decades, and they are
implied but they are not specifically referenced in the current law.
Secondly, it says that States have to provide evidence to the
Secretary that the tests they use are of adequate technical quality for
each purpose for which they are used.
Third, it says that itemized score analyses should be provided to
districts and schools so the tests can meet their intended purpose,
which is to help the people on the ground, the teachers and the
parents, to know specifically what their children are struggling with
and how they can help them do better.
Finally, the amendment provides grants to States to enter into
partnerships to research and develop the highest quality assessments
possible so they can most accurately and fairly measure student
achievement.
I will go into this later on, but I say to the Senate: My background
is education. I was a teacher for 20 years. I don't want to give any
ground on rigor or accountability, but I don't want us to do this the
wrong way. I want to make sure our States and school districts can
design the kinds of tests that are comprehensive, that have multiple
measures, that are coherent, that we are actually measuring what is
being taught, and also to make sure they assess progress over time.
This is so important because we don't want to put our teachers and
school districts in a position of having to teach to tests. We don't
want to drive out our best teachers. We want to have the best teachers
in our schools. We don't want teachers to be drill sergeants. There is
a distinction between training and education.
The need for this amendment is clear. The Independent Review Panel on
title I, which was mandated in the 1994 reauthorization, issued its
report ``Improving the Odds'' this January. The report concluded:
Many States use assessment results from a single test--
often traditional multiple choice tests. Although the tests
may have an important place in state assessment systems, they
rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge reflected
in State content standards.
The panel went on to make a strong recommendation. It said:
Better assessments for instructional and accountability
purposes are urgently needed.
The link between better assessments and better accountability was
made by Robert Schwartz, president of Achieve, Inc., the nonprofit arm
of the standards-based reform movement. He recently said:
You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if
you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests . . .
Tests have taken on too prominent of a role in these reforms
and that's in part because of people rushing to attach
consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have
really gotten the tests right.
This amendment is about making sure we get the tests right. That is
what this amendment is about.
This is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. Research
shows that low-quality assessments can actually do more harm than good.
The Standards on Educational and Psychological Testing clearly indicate
this. The standards state:
The proper use of tests can result in wiser decisions about
individuals and programs than would be the case without their
use and also can provide a route to broader and more
equitable access to education and employment.
That is if it is done the right way.
The improper use of tests, however, can cause considerable
harm to test takers and other parties affected by test-based
decisions.
It is our obligation to help States and districts ensure that tests
are done right so they can achieve the best effect.
The standards go on to say:
Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to
consider any potential unintended effects that may result
from large scale testing programs. Concerns have been raised,
for instance, about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on
the objectives tested, restricting the range of instructional
approaches to correspond to testing format, increasing the
number of drop-outs among students who do not pass the test,
and encouraging other instructional or administrative
practices that may raise test scores without affecting the
quality of education. It is important for those who mandate
tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to
identify and minimize the potential of negative consequences.
With my colleagues' support, we want to make sure the testing is done
the right way, and that is what we will do if we adopt this amendment.
One of the key problems with low-quality tests and accountability
systems that rely too heavily on a single measure of student progress
is in producing very counterproductive educational effects. There is
too much teaching to the test, leading to drill instruction which does
not reflect real learning and which excludes key components of
education that are not covered by the tests. Further, the over-reliance
on tests could cause teachers to leave the profession at a time when
[[Page S4528]]
good teachers are what our country needs the most.
Again, I am going to talk about this more, but if we do not get this
right, we will rue the day that we have set up a system that basically
creates a situation where your very best teachers are going to leave
the profession, and we are not going to attract the best teachers.
The first concern has to do with teaching to the test. Let me cite
for my colleagues the Committee for Economic Development, which is a
strongly pro-testing coalition of business leaders which warns against
test-based accountability systems that ``lead to narrow test based
coaching rather than rich instruction.''
Test preparation is not necessarily bad, but if it comes at the
expense of real learning, it becomes a major problem. Many will say
that teaching to tests can be good, but if the tests are of low
quality, which too many are, then it most certainly is not for the
good.
The recent Education Week/Pew Charitable Trust study, ``Quality
Counts,'' found that nearly 70 percent of the teachers said that
instruction stresses tests ``far'' or ``somewhat'' too much. Sixty-six
percent of the teachers also said that State assessments were forcing
them to concentrate too much on what is tested to the detriment of
other report topics.
I will tell you what topics are neglected: social studies, arts,
science, technology, all of which are integral to good education.
For example, in Washington State, a recent analysis by the Rand
Corporation showed that fourth grade teachers shifted significant time
away from the arts, science, health and fitness, social studies, and
communication and listening skills because none of these areas were
measured by the tests. Is that what we want to do? We do not want to
end up undercutting the quality of education of children in this
country.
``Quality Counts'' goes on to say:
Any one test samples only a narrow range of what students
should be learning. If teachers concentrate on the test--
rather than the broader content undergirding the exams--it
could lead to a bump in test results that does not lead or
does not reflect real learning gains.
In fact, 45 percent of the teachers surveyed said they spent a great
deal of time teaching students how to take tests, doing activities such
as learning to fill in bubbles correctly.
Another recent survey of Texas teachers indicated that only 27
percent of the teachers believe that increases in the TAAS scores
reflect an increase in the quality of learning and teaching, rather
than teaching to the test.
A 1998 study of the Chicago public schools concluded that the demand
for high test scores had actually slowed down instruction as teachers
stopped introducing new material to review and practice for upcoming
exams.
The most egregious examples of teaching to the test are schools such
as the Stevenson Elementary School in Houston that pays as much as
$10,000 per year to hire the Stanley Kaplan Test Preparation Company to
teach teachers how to teach kids to take tests.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, schools in East Palo Alto,
which is one of the poorest districts in California, also paid Stanley
Kaplan $10,000 each to consult with them on test-taking strategies.
According to the same article:
Schools across California are spending thousands to buy
computer programs, hire consultants, and purchase workbooks
and materials. They're redesigning spelling tests and math
lessons, all in an effort to help students become better test
takers.
Sadly, it is the low-income schools that are affected the most. The
National Science Foundation found that teachers with more than 60
percent minority students in their classes reported more test
preparation and more test-altered instruction than those with fewer
minority students in their class. This research is confirmed by the
Harvard Civil Rights Project and several other studies.
The reason I believe the vote on this amendment will be one of the
most important votes on this bill is that this amendment speaks
directly to whether or not we are going to have the best teachers. I am
very concerned that drill education and an increasing emphasis on
scores is going to cause the best teachers to leave the profession, to
leave the schools where they are needed the most. This is tragic at the
very time we face an acute teacher shortage. We know that the single
most important factor in closing the achievement gap between students
is the quality of the teachers the students have. We will see teachers
leaving the profession.
Linda Darling Hammond, who is a renowned educator at Stanford
University, and Jonathan Kozol, who has written some of the most
powerful books about poor children and education in America, have both
addressed this issue. Jonathan Kozol said:
Hundreds of the most exciting and beautifully educated
teachers are already fleeing from inner city schools in order
to escape what one brilliant young teacher calls
``examination hell.''
It is ironic because in our quest to close the achievement gap, Kozol
finds that what we are actually doing is ``robbing urban and poor rural
children of the opportunities Senators give their own kids.''
What is going on? We already know where all the pressure is. We
already know where all the focus is on the drill education, the
teaching to the tests. It is in inner-city, rural, small towns. What
you are going to have, or what you have right now, is the teachers who
know how to teach and are not involved in worksheet education are the
very teachers who are going to leave. It is the teachers who are more
robotic and are intent to do worksheet teaching and learning, which is
educationally deadening--they are going to be the teachers who stay. We
will be making a huge mistake if we don't make sure the testing is done
in a comprehensive and coherent way.
There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times. It was written by a
fifth-grade teacher who obviously had great passion for his work.
Listen to his words:
But as I teach from day to day . . . I no longer see the
students in the way I once did--certainly not in the same
exuberant light as when I first started teaching five years
ago. Where once they were ``challenging'' or ``marginal''
students, I am now beginning to see ``liabilities.'' Where
once there was a student of ``limited promise,'' there is now
an inescapable deficit that all available efforts will only
nominally affect.
One way to avoid such negative outcomes and ensure that tests do not
inhibit real learning is to design higher quality tests that measure
how children think rather than just what they can remember. The
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing asserts, for
example, that:
If a test is intended to measure mathematical reasoning, it
becomes important to determine whether examinees are in fact
reasoning about the material given instead of following just
a standard algorithm.
Too often, today's tests are failing their mission. The Center for
Education Policy's recent study on the state of education reform
concludes:
The tests commonly used for accountability purposes don't
tell us how students reached an answer, why they are having
difficulty, or how we can help them.
We therefore need to design assessments that are more closely linked
to classroom instruction. That is what our school districts, schools,
teachers, principals, school boards, and our PTAs at the local level
are telling us. We need to reflect student learning over time so that
schools are not judged in a single shot but, rather, are judged more
deeply and comprehensively through multiple measures of achievement.
Such an approach would reward teachers who, as the Center for School
Change in Minnesota recommends, are able to actually effect and improve
children's analytic abilities and communications skills rather than
teachers who drill the best. It would reward schools and teachers who
ensure that day-to-day classroom instruction is high quality, not just
those who have learned how best to game assessments. That is what this
amendment seeks to do.
The Committee for Economic Development report urges this approach. It
says:
There is more work to do in designing assessment
instruments that can measure a rich array of knowledge and
skills embedded in rigorous and substantive standards.
Before we rush ahead, let's meet that challenge.
Beyond the effects in the classroom, higher quality tests and fairer
use of tests are needed because low-quality
[[Page S4529]]
tests can lead to inaccurate assessments, which do not serve but,
rather, subvert the efforts at true educational accountability. Nobody
put it better than the strongly protesting Committee for Economic
Development. These business leaders concluded in their report--there
should be almost unanimous support for this amendment--entitled
``Measuring What Matters'' that:
Tests that are not valid, reliable, and fair will obviously
be inaccurate indicators of the academic achievement of
students and can lead to wrong decisions being made about
students and the schools.
We want to make sure these tests are accurate, reliable, and fair. I
know the language I speak is technical, but the issue is of great
import.
Let me just simply summarize my position. There is more to say, and
perhaps we will listen to other colleagues as well, because there is
much more than I can cite as evidence.
One of the things we have to make sure of is that we have
comprehensive multiple measures that will measure schools and students.
You have to do that; otherwise, you are abusing the tests. It is very
dangerous to use a single measure to determine how well schools and
students are doing. But beyond pure error, it is important to realize
that even without technical error, tests tell only a part of the
education story. They should be accompanied by other measures to ensure
that we are getting the best picture possible of how these students and
schools are doing. That is the way we can hold the schools truly and
fairly accountable.
In his testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee,
Kurt M. Landgraf, president and CEO of the Educational Testing Service,
which is one of the largest providers of K-12 testing services in the
country, said:
Scores from large scale assessments should not be
used alone if other information will increase the validity
of the decisions being made.
Riverside Publishing, another of the major test publishers in the
country, in their Interpretive Guide For School Administrators for the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, said:
Many of the common misuses (of standardized tests) stem
from depending on a single test score to make a decision
about a student or class of students.
The National Association of State Boards of Education also did a
comprehensive study which indicated the same thing.
The study I mentioned before, ``Quality Counts,'' shows that we need
to have multiple measures. In no area is this phenomenon more evident
than in the use of a single standardized test to make a high-stakes
decision about a student, as whether or not that student will be
promoted from one grade to another or in what reading group that
student will be placed.
Nearly everybody involved in the testing field, whether it is the
groups that write the professional standards, the National Research
Council, test publishers, the business community that invested so much
in the testing movement--all agree that a single test should never be
the sole determinant in making high-stakes educational decisions about
individual students or, for that matter, about individual schools.
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing asserts that
in educational settings, a decision or characterization that will have
a major impact on a student should not be made on the basis of a single
test score. The National Research Council--we commissioned this
report--in 1999 concludes that:
No single test score can be considered a definitive measure
of a student's knowledge, and an educational decision that
will have a major impact on a test taker should not be made
solely or automatically on the basis of a single test score.
So we need multiple measures. Second, right now, too many of the
tests are not aligned with the curriculum and standards. So another
condition that has to be met, another problem that has to be met, is
that current assessments all too often are not aligned with standards,
curriculum, and instruction. That is what it has to be.
I am putting into the language what we have implied. Alignment is the
cornerstone of accountability. If we don't have tests that are aligned
with the standards and curriculum and the instruction, then we are not
going to have real accountability.
Now, the Committee for Economic Development in their report makes the
point that barriers to alignment are more serious when States use so-
called off-the-shelf commercial tests rather than developing their own.
The National Association of State Boards of Education confirms in their
study and makes the point that norm reference tests are unable to
measure the attainment of content and performance standards.
This amendment provides grants to States to better align their
assessments, as well as to ensure that the tests validly assess the
domain they are intended to measure. This is common sense, but it is so
important.
This amendment seeks not to stop using tests but to ensure fairness
and accuracy in the large-scale assessments that are used under title
I. This amendment seeks not to stop using tests. I want to make sure
this is done the right way. I want to make sure it is fair. I want to
make sure the tests are accurate. I want to make sure we have real
accountability. I want to make sure we are respectful of teachers. I
want to make sure we are respectful of school boards. I want to make
sure we are respectful of what goes on in our schools.
This call for fairness and accuracy is a call that has been made by
business leaders, by educators, by government leaders, and by the most
respected research institutes in the country. I rarely read text when I
speak on the floor of the Senate. However, there are so many
authorities and studies to cite, the evidence is irrefutable. We want
to make sure we do this the right way and we must do it the right way.
This research and this call for accurate, fair testing has crossed
party lines. I hope it will have bipartisan support in the Senate.
The most recent National Research Council report on testing,
``Knowing What Students Know,'' outlines the direction in which I think
we as policymakers need to move to make sure the testing is done fairly
and correctly. The report concludes that:
. . . policymakers are urged to recognize the limits of
current assessments and to support the development of new
systems of multiple assessments that would improve their
ability to make decisions about educational programs and
allocation of resources.
It says:
. . . needed are classroom and large-scale assessments that
help all students succeed in school by making as clearly as
possible to them, their teachers and other educational
stakeholders the nature of their accomplishments and the
progress of their learning.
We surely ought to be able to meet that condition.
Right now, the authors report:
Assessment practices need to move beyond a focus on
component skills and discrete bits of knowledge to encompass
more complex aspects of student achievement.
The authors recommended that:
Funding should be provided for a major program of research,
guided by a synthesis of cognitive and measurement
principles, that focus on the design of assessments that
yield more valid and fair inferences about student
achievement.
And key components are what? Multiple measures of student achievement
and a move to more performance-based, curriculum-embedded assessment.
Doesn't that make sense, to have multiple measures, and to make sure
what you are testing is aligned with the curriculum? The three
principles of good assessment are laid out.
I conclude on the principles: Comprehensiveness, meaning you have a
range of measurement approaches so that you have a variety of evidence
to support educational decisionmaking; coherence, meaning that the
assessment should be closely linked to curriculum and instruction; and
continuity, meaning that the assessment should measure student progress
over time.
I emphasize, this legislation, S. 1. is a major departure in public
policy in the sense we are now calling on all of the school districts
in all of the States in all of the schools in all of our States to test
children as young as age 8 to age 13 every single year. There can be a
philosophical discussion about whether we should be doing that. The
only thing I am saying is, let's do it the right way.
I have been working on this amendment, using the best studies we
have. I have been in touch with people all over
[[Page S4530]]
the country. Basically, I am saying, let's make sure there is
comprehensiveness, which means multiple measures. Make sure there is
coherence; that we actually measure the curriculum and instruction.
Otherwise the teachers teach to the tests. We don't want that. We don't
want drill education.
Finally, let's have continuity, which means that the assessment
should measure student progress over time.
Jonathan Kozol is someone I think we all respect. He writes that it
is the best teachers that hate testing agenda the most. They will not
remain in public schools if they are forced to be drill sergeants for
exams instead of being educators. Hundreds of the most exciting and
beautifully educated teachers are already fleeing from inner-city
schools in order to escape what one teacher, a graduate of Swarthmore
calls ``examination hell.'' I don't know that we have been in the
inner-city neighborhoods; I don't think we visit the inner-city
neighborhoods that Jonathan Kozol does.
The dreariest and most robotic teachers will remain, the
flowing and passionate teachers will get out as fast as they
can. They will be hired in exclusive prep schools to teach
the children of the rich under ideal circumstances.
He goes on to say: Who will you find to replace these beautiful young
teachers? This is another way of robbing the urban poor and rural
children of the opportunities that we give to our own children.
I think he is right. I have been a college teacher for 20 years. I
have been in a school almost all the time in Minnesota, about every 2
weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. I desperately believe in the value of
equal opportunity for every child. I absolutely believe education is
the foundation of opportunity. I know from my 20 years as a college
teacher that you can take a spark of learning in a child and if you
ignite that spark of learning and you can take a child from any
background to a lifetime of creativity and accomplishment. That is the
best thing about the United States of America. I also know you can pour
cold water on that spark of learning.
I have raised two objections to this piece of legislation, but I
think this legislation can be improved upon and can end up being a
good, strong, bipartisan effort. Maybe. One of those concerns is, for
God's sake, if you are going to do the testing, you better give the
children and the teachers and the schools the tools so they can do
well. That is the Federal Government living up to our commitment by way
of resources. That is holding us accountable.
The other issue I raise, which is what this amendment speaks to, is
let's just do the testing the right way. There is a reaction all over
the country about too much of a reliance on one single standardized
test. You have to have multiple measures. Let's make sure the tests
actually are connected to the curriculum and to the instruction that is
taking place, that is respectful of our teachers and our local school
districts. Let's make sure the tests assess the progress of a child
over a period of time.
I have been taking all of the best research and all of what we have
implied in this bill, language we already have in this bill, making it
explicit that we are going to do this the right way; that we are going
to make sure that States and school districts can do this the right
way.
There could not be a more important amendment. I am sorry that some
of my presentation was so technical and seemed so cut-and-dried. But if
we do this the wrong way, we will have worksheet teaching and worksheet
education. We will have drill education. It is going to be training,
but it is not really going to be education. It is not going to fire the
imagination. Then arts gets dropped and music gets dropped and social
studies gets dropped and drama gets dropped--because none of it is
tested in this drill education. My God, we do not want to do that. We
do not want to channel schools down that direction. We do not want to
force them to go in that direction.
This amendment makes sure that this testing--if this is the path we
are going down, using this definition of accountability--is done the
right way.
If my colleagues think about their own States, they will see what is
happening. A lot of the teachers and kids around the country, actually
mainly in the suburbs, are now rebelling against these standardized
tests. They hate them. Some are refusing to take them, because the
parents in the suburbs are saying we don't want one-third of the time
of the teachers who could be involved in great education wasted just
teaching to these tests. It is interesting from where the rebellion is
coming.
Again, one more time: The very school districts which are the most
underserved are the ones where you want to get the best teachers. I
have two children in public education. One is in an inner-city school,
the other isn't, but both hate this reliance on single standardized
tests. You are not going to get the teachers. I would not teach under
this kind of situation, and you would not.
If the Federal Government is going to have this mandate, for God's
sake, let's do it the right way.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. There is no
time limit, I gather, on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to discuss the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act. We can never
have too much debate on education. It is the future of our country.
This legislation achieves the simple yet powerful goal of ensuring no
child is left behind. It does this by strengthening accountability for
how Federal dollars are spent, by increasing students' access to
technology, by improving teacher quality, and by making the schools
safer for all students. It also fulfills an important commitment to
States such as Wyoming that are already heavily invested in improving
student achievement by allowing them the flexibility they need to
continue to innovate.
I want to address a series of amendments we have and will be
offering. I will be concentrating on quality of teachers, but I want to
mention that yesterday we had two sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I am
not going to go into what those amendments were about, but I do want to
mention that I voted against both of them. It had nothing to do with
the content of each of the sense-of-the-Senate amendments. It was
because it was a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Sense-of-the-Senate amendments take a great deal of time, including
if there are requested rollcall votes, which we know take 30 to 45
minutes. When we are done, they get discarded because the sense of the
Senate doesn't have anything to do with the House. So they are just
making a statement, and we have a lot of different ways we can make a
statement. Since I have not seen any value to a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment since I arrived in the Senate some 5 years ago, I will be
voting against sense-of-the-Senate amendments.
Sense-of-the-Senate amendments are often agreed to. It is because of
a mixture of approaches to sense-of-the-Senate amendments. A number of
my colleagues say: They never go anywhere, they don't mean anything, so
I'll vote for them. Then I will have a good recorded vote.
Some people turn in sense-of-the-Senate amendments so they can have a
good recorded vote. I prefer to concentrate my efforts on those things
that will wind up in a final bill, in final legislation that will
affect the country, if we are going to have votes.
Today we had a technology amendment. It passed on a 50-49 vote.
Something people might not be aware of is that technology is built into
the bill, but it is built in with a great deal of flexibility. The $100
million to which we agreed pulled out money from the big technology
pool and put it into a very specific area.
Let me tell you what happens when that gets down to Wyoming. We don't
have enough money to do a project. But if it is left in the big pool
and we can utilize the technology as the school districts see fit, with
a bigger pool of money, it can make a difference to every kid in
Wyoming.
We have to be very careful in this legislation that we do not put in
little protections, because we were asked to, that destroy the
flexibility of the bill. Flexibility is the key philosophy of this bill
that allows the decisions to be made closest to the child and involve
[[Page S4531]]
the parent, the teacher, the school board, and the community. That is
where education works best.
The amendment before us now is on testing. I am not sure what all the
fuss is about having some testing required. When I was in grade school,
we had annual testing. I know the kinds of tests we had were called
into question because they were multiple choice, which doesn't allow
people their full expression. It puts some limitation on the value of
the test as it comes out. But let me tell you, my parents looked at
those results. They expected to see my results. They expected to see
how it fit in with the rest of the class and the other students in the
district who were in my grade. They used that as a comparison. I can
tell you, if everybody had been off the chart, they would not have been
pleased. They wanted to know how I was doing. That resulted in parent
involvement, which we have said is one of the big keys to education.
When I was in the Wyoming Legislature, I headed up an education task
force at one point. It was interesting to hear teacher after teacher
essentially say that the biggest problem they had in the classroom was
getting kids to show up, do their work, and behave. That is basic
education. The way it was handled when I was growing up was it was,
again, parent involvement, discipline at home. If my teacher would have
told my parents I did something wrong, the discipline would have
happened first and then the explanation of why I felt justified. The
teacher was right. I had an opportunity to appeal after the punishment
because discipline in the classroom was important.
When I was in fourth grade, I had the unique experience of being in a
class that was half fourth graders and half fifth graders. We do not
have a lot of class size problems in Wyoming. We definitely did not at
that time. To have about 15 students in the class, they combined the 2
classes. It gave those of us in the fourth grade a little added
advantage because we were always hearing the things that the
fifth graders were being taught at the point that their particular
lessons were being taught.
But I also had the unfortunate situation of living about a half block
from the school. I had this delightful teacher who said: As soon as you
finish your work, you can go out to recess. My dad happened to notice I
was out at recess a lot. I was a fast worker. So he asked to see some
of my work. When he checked it, he found out it was not correct. So we
did a little discipline at that point, too.
He found out I was writing extremely small and that made it difficult
for the teacher to check my work. I do remember him saying I would
never write small again. It embarrassed him. He could afford the paper,
and it looked as if he could not, and he was not going to put up with
that. And we moved. We moved to another school so I would not have the
same opportunity for recess.
My parents always said ``when you go to college.'' They didn't say
``if you go to college.'' Parents make a huge impact on students by
their faith in their child and their encouragement for their child.
My dad was a traveling shoe salesman most of his life, and I got to
travel with him in the summer. When we were making those trips, people
would say: Are you going to grow up and be a salesman like your dad?
Before I could answer, my dad would always jump into the conversation
and say: I don't care whether he is a doctor or a lawyer or a shoe
salesman or a ditch digger. But what I always tell him is, if he is a
ditch digger, I want that ditch to be so distinctive that anybody can
look at it and say, ``That is a Mike Enzi ditch.''
Parental encouragement, parental faith--one of the unfortunate things
for us around here is we can't legislate that. There are just some
things that should not be legislated and can't be legislated. But they
can be encouraged. Today we are talking about one of these things. We
are talking about the subject of teachers, which we can do something
about, and we are doing something about that in this bill.
Some of the most important provisions in this bill concern our
Nation's teachers. As we all know, one of our Nation's greatest
educational resources is our teachers. Quite often our teachers spend
more time with our kids than we do. I say this not only because my
daughter is a teacher but because research has found that with the
exception of the involved parent, no other factor affects a child's
academic achievement more than having knowledgeable, skillful teachers.
While I have been very interested in ongoing negotiations over some
of the provisions in this bill, there is one area that is not
negotiable, and that is ensuring that our children have high-quality
teachers, especially when it comes to reading and math.
I would like everybody to think back through their past to people who
influenced them the most. I suspect as you go through that little
exercise--I hope you will spend some time doing that--that many of the
people who will be on your list will be former teachers, ones who had
some kind of an influence on your life. I hope you will not only list
them, but I hope if there are any who are living, you will write them a
little note and mention the effect they had on your life.
At this point I have to mention a couple that were my teachers.
When I was in eighth grade I had a home room teacher who made us
concentrate on where we were going to go to college and what we would
take, and even had us follow a curriculum and write to colleges, get
their course book, and outline the exact courses we would take through
a 4-year college education in the field of our choice. I learned a
great deal about how to plan for college.
She also involved us in a lot of interesting discussions and later
served in the State legislature with me. I have to mention that she
quit teaching and became an administrator. After she retired, she ran
for the State legislature. It was a great deal of fun to be in the
State legislature with a former teacher, particularly one with a voice
that attracts people's attention, gets their attention, and drives home
a point. I always did like the way she started a speech just after I
had spoken where she said: Mike Enzi was a student of mine, and he
knows what he is talking about. Do what he says.
You just can't have that kind of backing in legislation you are doing
and with quite as much effect as she had.
I had a math teacher in eighth grade, Mr. Shovelin. He introduced us
to slide rules. Kids today don't know what slide rules are. He helped
us form a future engineers club so we would be able to compete in math.
He did anything he could do to get us excited about math. Teachers do
that.
Later I had Mr. Popovich in high school, another math teacher, who
was probably the most enthusiastic teacher I ever had. He made sure
that everybody in our math class understood each principle we covered,
and he did that by asking questions. If you got it right, he was
enthusiastic and jumped in the air. If we got it wrong, he was
enthusiastic, and he would literally climb onto the chalk tray saying,
No, that is not it, and giving another version of how it could be.
I also liked his explanation of geometry. He said that is really the
only course that you get in high school that is logic. Today, I think
there are some courses that are actually logic courses. But he pointed
out how geometry is logic, and approached it as the old Greeks did,
trying to prove verbally and through pictures very basic concepts by
starting out with the most basic and building on it.
Mrs. Embry is a lady who is about 4-foot-nothing with bright red
hair. She taught international affairs. I needed an elective, and I
didn't think I would have any interest in it. Before I left high
school, I applied for college at George Washington University and was
planning to go into international affairs. She had a tremendous effect
on my life. She also happened to be the lady who was part of the team
that decoded the messages when Pearl Harbor was being bombed.
Mrs. Sprague, an English teacher, had an impact on me. She said,
``Why don't you use more humor in what you write? You do very well with
humor.''
One little sentence such as that changes a student's perspective on
themselves and their future.
There are thousands and thousands of teachers out there who are doing
that every day.
I am pleased that title II of S. 1 addresses the issue of teacher
quality. Unlike more restrictive proposals that
[[Page S4532]]
require States and local school districts to use Federal funds
exclusively for the purpose of hiring new teachers, this legislation
provides maximum flexibility to States. It will allow them to develop
high-quality, professional development programs, provide incentives to
retain quality teachers, fund innovative teacher programs such as
teacher testing, merit-based teacher performance systems, or
alternative routes of certification, or hire additional teachers if
that is what they believe is necessary.
It would authorize a separate program to support math and science
partnerships between State education agencies, higher education math
and science departments and local school districts, and activities for
these partnerships through the development of rigorous math and science
curriculum; professional development activities specifically geared
toward math and science teachers; recruitment efforts to encourage more
college students majoring in math and science to enter the teaching
profession and summer workshops; and follow-up training in the fields
of math and science.
When I was in junior high, Russia set off Sputnik. It launched a
whole new interest in science in the United States. A group of boys,
who were my friends, and I formed a rocket explorer post. It was the
flexibility in the Boy Scout Program that allowed us to do career
investigation.
The reason I mention this is because I personally had a teacher named
Tom Allen who was the biology teacher at the high school who worked
with me on my special project. Many of us have seen the October Skies
movie of young men who were encouraged by this great Russian event, and
then the American challenge that was issued at that point. That is the
group of people with whom I worked.
This biology teacher worked with me to design a nose cone for our
rocket that would take a mouse up and safely return it. We never put a
mouse in the nose cone, but I designed space capsules for them, put
mice in the capsule, spun them on a centrifuge, and then had to
evaluate the way they came out of it.
I learned a lot of math. I learned a lot of science. I learned a lot
of biology. He was a special teacher.
There are two teachers in Gillette, who are retiring now--Nello and
Rollo Williams. They are brothers. One runs the planetarium. One of
them runs the adventurium. The adventurium is a science lab that
invites kids from all over northern Wyoming to do actual experiments
and special projects. They can see a series of events that give them a
better understanding of science. Each of them taught during the summers
for science camps, kids doing extra school work, learning through extra
special teachers.
It isn't just limited to the generation that is retiring. My daughter
is a teacher. She is part of the new generation. While she has been
teaching, she has been working on two master's degrees so that she can
be a better teacher, although one of those gets her a certificate in
administration.
I mentioned Mrs. Wright, who went to administration, Mr. Shovelin,
who went to administration, and Mr. Popovich, who went to
administration. My daughter is looking to go to administration. Part of
the reason is that that is where the money is. All of those people
liked their classroom work better and believed they made more of an
impact on the kids as a teacher.
My daughter emphasizes school-to-career. She does some of that summer
teaching. When she finishes a major assignment, she calls the parents
of the kids who did not turn in the assignment. That sounds fairly
simple. Check and see how many teachers do that. If they don't, let me
suggest to you the reason they don't. Her biggest discouragement was
the first time she did it, and then she called us in tears. She called
the parents, told them the assignment had not been turned in, and the
parents said: So, what are you going to do about it?
Not a very good parental involvement activity. But she persists in
it.
She also catches them doing things right, writes a note to their
parents, and slips it in their book or their backpack, where sooner or
later the child discovers it, and rather than delivering this missive
to their parents, they open it first to see what it is, and find out
that it is something good, and it does get delivered to the parents.
But whatever she notes that they are doing well--better than anyone--
they do the rest of the year, perhaps the rest of their life.
Teachers do have an impact. This bill will affect teachers. This bill
does allow States to pursue alternative routes of certification, to
encourage talented individuals from other fields to enter the teaching
profession. There are many qualified individuals who might be willing
to teach if it were easier to become certified.
Although the Federal Government should never dictate certification
standards to individual States, we should make it as easy as possible
for interested States to recruit midcareer professionals, and perhaps
retired members of the military, into the teaching profession. Title II
of S. 1 goes a long way toward achieving that goal.
Of course, it has some very good rural possibilities, too. I know of
one very small community in Wyoming where there was a lady who grew up
in France who had a good command of the French language. She wanted to
teach French to the very few students--fewer than 15--who were in the
school district. Sometimes certification can get in the way of that.
I think we also need to bring professionals from all careers into the
schools to help the kids understand that what they are learning will be
valuable later in their life. I do not think I have ever learned
anything that did not turn out to be valuable sometime later. Good
teachers encourage that kind of participation.
Despite all these efforts to improve teacher quality, there are some
who say: All we really need to do to improve student achievement is to
hire more teachers. I have to tell you, for small rural States such as
Wyoming, that is not the answer. While I certainly recognize that our
Nation is facing a teacher shortage in the coming years, Wyoming
currently has a declining student enrollment which is forcing some
districts to eliminate teaching positions. More money specifically
earmarked for hiring new teachers will be of little help to the schools
in those areas with declining enrollment.
In addition, rural States such as Wyoming often have difficulty
recruiting and retaining teachers, especially highly qualified
teachers. Money that is earmarked for hiring new teachers will not help
Wyoming keep our best teachers from leaving the State.
Congress must provide States and local school districts the
flexibility to pay good teachers more money or to provide them with
other incentives in order to get them to continue teaching. This bill
provides flexibility.
I think it may be helpful to provide my colleagues with some hard
data on Wyoming to illustrate that this is not simply lip service to a
particular philosophy on education. The variations in education
staffing needs across the country are real, and they are very dramatic.
For example, Wyoming has 48 school districts, with a total of 378
elementary and secondary schools. Here is the important part: Of those
schools, 79 have an enrollment of fewer than 50 students. I am not
talking of a classroom size of 50 students, I am talking of a total
enrollment in the school of 50 students. I am not kidding when I say,
in Wyoming 79 schools are defined as ``rural.''
Then we have what we call the ``small schools.'' Those are the
schools with an enrollment of 50 to 199 kids. There are 122 such
schools in Wyoming. There are 143 ``medium-sized'' schools, with an
enrollment ranging from 200 to 599 students. And we have a whopping 34
schools with an enrollment exceeding 500 kids for grade school and 600
kids for high school.
Districts often have to incorporate several grade schools to form a
big high school. Let me tell you, nothing gets the good people of
Wyoming more agitated than suggestions that they ought to consolidate
those small or rural schools into a medium-sized or big school. It
takes away the community. It takes away the emphasis. It takes away the
way we have done things in Wyoming.
Now let me put this in context. The total enrollment in Wyoming's 378
public schools was 91,883. That is 1999 data. In New York State, 2.8
million children were enrolled in public school. That is
[[Page S4533]]
1997 data. So both of those would have changed a little.
As for teachers in Wyoming, they are our heroes. There are 6,887 of
them. Based on aggregate teacher salary expenditures reported for the
State last year, the average salary of a teacher in Wyoming is just
under $29,000. Those teachers are underpaid.
This bill can do something about that. If we adopt the flexibility in
title II of this bill, the teacher quality provision, then schools in
Wyoming can use funds to give teachers a raise or reward outstanding
teachers or provide incentives to recruit highly qualified teachers to
our great State.
When educators from Wyoming visit me, the resounding message is
usually not: Make our schools and class sizes even smaller; it is: Help
us recruit good teachers and keep good teachers--with a lot of emphasis
on the ``keep good teachers,'' and the need for higher pay and
flexibility.
If you can believe it, there have been teachers hired in Wyoming
under the Class Size Reduction Initiative that was appropriated but
never authorized for the past 2 years. If they so choose, the schools
that hired those teachers can retain them under this bill. However, the
question I ask, on behalf of all the schools that were not eligible for
that money because they already had small school size, is: Are the
struggles they face in recruiting and retaining quality teachers any
less important in ensuring that every child receives a quality
education?
Do not forget the variations in this country, the fact that we cannot
have one-size-fits-all Government. When it comes from Washington, it is
too little, with too many regulations. We are not suggesting it ought
to be more, with more regulations.
The research shows that while a small class size may have an effect
on student performance and achievement, having a highly qualified
teacher has an even greater impact. That was shown in a study by
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain in 1998. And, according to the Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics, we still need to
invest in figuring out how to best help current and new teachers to be
highly qualified. Massachusetts provided the perfect example of that,
that assisting schools in having great teachers is as important, if not
more so, than meeting federally targeted class size goals.
I hope this background about Wyoming's uniquely rural public
education system, juxtaposed on that of ``big'' States, can help my
colleagues to appreciate why the flexibility in this bill is so
important to meeting the needs of all our children.
I will not see a bill enacted that doesn't provide as much support
for Wyoming students' success as it does for the students in big
cities. Our children are our most valuable resource, and we must
prepare them to face the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot do
this by allowing Washington politicians to implement a one-size-fits-
all approach to education.
The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act allows States to
decide how to best serve their students and teachers. I strongly
support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same,
and to maintain the flexibility that it has.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Wyoming for sharing his good judgment and observation about education
in rural areas, States with smaller populations, and about their
particular needs and the challenges they are facing in terms of
strengthening teacher quality in those communities. We are grateful for
his comments.
I add my strong support to the amendment offered by my good friend
Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, making sure the tests that are
developed under this legislation are going to be the kinds of tests
that are going to be helpful and useful in terms of advancing the
academic achievement of the children in this country.
We know tests in and of themselves are not reform. Tests don't
provide a well-qualified teacher. Tests don't provide smaller class
sizes. Tests don't provide afterschool programs. Tests, in and of
themselves, are a device and only a device.
In Lancaster, PA, we have seen tests used as frequently as every 9
weeks by teachers. The purpose of those tests is to find out how the
children are making progress in different courses. They have had a
remarkable amount of success because they are broad dimensioned. They
are challenging the thinking process of the children. It demonstrates
that when the tests are done well, not just in the kinds of tests, the
multiple choice tests, but ones that really evaluate the children's
progress and look at the thinking process of the child, and then takes
action, it is going to be supplementary services for those children in
order to enhance their academic achievement, then there is legitimacy
in terms of these kinds of evaluations.
I commend the Senator from Minnesota for bringing this measure to the
floor. This has been a matter, among others, that he has been
absolutely passionate about. It is well deserved.
What we don't want to do is pass legislation that claims we are doing
something about accountability and are relying on the slick, simple,
easy multiple choice tests which are being taught by teachers in
different communities and then think we are doing something for
children. We are not. That is something the Senator wants to address.
There are some wonderful studies that have been done in evaluating
what is working and what is not working in the States and local
communities. The statement of the Research and Policy Committee of the
Committee for Economic Development is a very interesting evaluation of
the effectiveness of evaluating students, measuring student
achievement. It reviews in great detail what is being done. They start
off by saying that tests are a means, not an end, in school reform.
Real educational improvement requires changing what goes on
in classrooms.
It continues from there.
Perhaps one of the more interesting comments came from Education
Week, which also has been doing evaluations of the testing process. I
will mention a paragraph here:
Districts must draft policies that rely on multiple
criteria, including test scores, student's academic
performance, and teacher recommendations.
That is how they think you can do the best kinds of evaluation of a
child.
``Initially I was resistant to the use of multiple criteria,''
acknowledges Gary Cook, director of the Office of Education
Accountability in the State education department. This is in the State
of Wisconsin.
I have changed my opinion. I think it really forces
districts to consider all the pieces of evidence in a
student's performance to determine whether they should
advance to the next grade or graduate. We need something more
than just whether the child is going to be able to get the
right answer or guess at the right answer. We need to
evaluate how the children get to the answer.
That is the essence of the Wellstone amendment. He has explained it
very well.
I know there are other colleagues who want to address the issue. I
commend him.
We have enough experience now to know what doesn't work and what is
an abuse of the whole testing process and what does work and can be
used in evaluating children's progress so that well-trained teachers in
classrooms that are small enough so they can teach and can use these
tests in ways to help children make progress during the year,
understanding what the needs are of those children, and so they can
continue to make progress.
That is the essence of the Senator's amendment. He is right on
target. It is one of the most important aspects of this legislation.
This is one of the most important amendments we have. Many of us have
been thinking about how to try to address it. The Senator from
Minnesota has, in his typical way, found a pathway to do it.
I commend him and thank him. This is an extraordinary addition to
what we are attempting to do with the legislation. I am grateful to him
for his bringing this to our attention. I am hopeful we will be able to
achieve it.
Let me mention one other evaluation. This is using these portfolio
assessments. Here students collect what they have done over a period of
time, not just because it is helpful to have all that material in one
place but because the process of choosing what to
[[Page S4534]]
include and deciding how long to evaluate becomes an opportunity for
them to reflect on their past learning as well as to set new goals.
As in other forms of performance assessment, they provide data far
more meaningful than what would be learned from a conventional test,
standardized or otherwise, about what the student can do and where they
still need help. This is the conclusion of an evaluation of a number of
the existing tests. It really captures in a few short words what is
being sought by the Senator from Minnesota. I again thank him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Senator
from Massachusetts for his very gracious remarks.
To summarize: What this amendment says is there is three critical
ingredients about this testing to make sure that it is reliable, to
make sure it is fair, and that it is accurate. One of those ingredients
is that it is comprehensive. You want to use multiple measures. You do
not want to use one single standardized test to evaluate how students
are doing or how schools are doing or how a school district is doing.
The second thing is, you want it to be coherent. You want the testing
to actually measure the curriculum, the subject matter that is being
taught. You want there to be a connection. You don't want, in turn,
teachers to have to teach to standardized tests that have no relation
to the subject matter.
It is critically important. This is what the Committee on Economic
Development was trying to say in their report. The final thing is that
it should be continuous and it should measure the progress of a child
over a period of time. That is terribly important to do.
I want to, one more time, say to colleagues that I guarantee you that
if we don't have this language that just makes explicit what I think
all of us are in agreement on, which is that this testing should be
based upon the very best professional standards, then what you are
going to have is teachers all over the country having to teach to
standardized tests. It is going to be drill education, educationally
deadening. It is going to be horrible for kids. It is not going to fire
their imagination. It is going to be at cross-purposes to getting
people to go into education.
A great deal is at stake. I hope to have support and I appreciate the
support of the Senator from Massachusetts. I hope I will have support
from the other side of the aisle and that we will pass this amendment.
The two concerns I have had about the legislation when we went through
committee--I say to the Senator, when we marked up the bill, this was
one question. The other is the resource question.
At the very minimum, I think it is terribly important to do this the
right way. If I could, I am speaking from this desk, and I will move to
my desk. If I may have the floor for one more second, let me just also
list a number of the organizations that are supporting this. They
are: the American Association of School Administrators, Hispanic
Education Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National
Parent Teacher Association, National Hispanic Leadership Agency
Scorecard, and the American Psychological Association.
There are a variety of organizations around the country that support
it. So I hope this amendment will engender widespread support and that
the Senate will pass this amendment. I think it will make it a much
better bill. I don't think it is the whole answer. It deals with part
of the testing legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am a big believer in the importance of
testing students. I think that testing has an essential and appropriate
role in the curriculum of any educational system. I think there is no
doubt that we have to test in order to determine whether or not
students are meeting high academic standards. It would be a delight, I
suppose, to most students who think that we are not going to test them
but, indeed, we are.
I think this debate and what the Senator from Minnesota is attempting
to bring our attention to is that there are ``tests'' and there are
``tests.'' Making sure that the tests are used for the purpose of
measuring student performance, determining what kind of additional help
a student might need, is really what we are focused on through the
Senator's amendment.
I appreciated very much Chairman Jeffords' important amendment that
we voted on last week to make sure we have Federal support, financial
support, behind the design and implementation of these tests because we
want to send a clear message to States and local districts that we
believe in accountability, but we want to put some dollars behind that
belief by saying we want you to design and implement tests that are
going to really measure what students learn.
Right now, many teachers who contact my office, or the ones I see
when I visit schools, as I did on Monday in New York City, are terribly
concerned that what might very well happen is that more and more
testing will be piled on without there being any requirement that they
be worthwhile tests and without the resources to assist the teachers--
who, after all, are on the front lines in the classrooms--in knowing
how best to address the needs of their students that are revealed by
the tests.
I was very impressed by this document put out by the Committee for
Economic Development. My colleagues know that the Committee for
Economic Development is a group of business people in our country. They
are very committed to creating the conditions that will further
economic development, and they know that one of the key conditions, if
not the most important one, is the quality of our education. Looking at
the board of trustees and the Committee for Economic Development, we
have people from the leading corporations in America who see firsthand
what their employees need when they come into the workplace, who are on
the front lines of hiring people for a job. They have put out a
publication that I really commend to my colleagues, to the
administration, and to all of us who are concerned about using testing
to improve student learning. It is called ``Measuring What Matters.''
It makes many of the same points that Senator Wellstone makes.
It might be somewhat surprising for some of the people who serve on
the board of trustees for the Committee for Economic Development to
know that they agree with Senator Wellstone, but they do. They agree
that what we need are tests that will actually improve student
learning. That certainly is what the intent of the bill that we
reported out of the Health Committee under Chairman Jeffords'
leadership was aimed at doing. How do we make it clear that tests are a
means, they are not an end, in school reform. We don't just give the
tests and pick out winners and losers. We have never done that in the
United States--one of the reasons our educational system is both unique
and successful and has been for decades despite our problems, which we
talk about endlessly. We should look at some of the reasons why we have
been successful.
I would rank near the top of that the flexibility of our educational
system. We don't give a test when a child is 11 years old and say, all
right, this group of children, you are consigned to a certain set of
occupations; this other group, you did well on the 11-year-old test, so
we are going to send you to different schools and put you on a
different path.
We don't test when children are 14 and make that conclusion. We don't
say that there are some children who can only attend certain kinds of
courses in certain schools and others are barred because of tests. We
don't have the kind of one-test determination that opens the doors or
shuts them in colleges in other parts of the world. I think that has
served us well in our country.
There are a lot of people who don't take school seriously until they
are in high school. Sometimes they graduate and maybe then find their
way to a community college. Then they really get energized; they know
what they want to learn. So we have always viewed tests not as a stop
sign for a child the system holds up and says: You are a loser; you
don't know anything. We use them to say: Look, we
[[Page S4535]]
need to help. How can we provide more support for you to be able to get
the most out of your education?
I think it is important for us to remember that tests are not an end;
they are a means. They should be a means toward lifelong learning or
improving the climate for learning or for giving individuals the tools
they need to be successful, not just in the classroom but in life.
It is also important, as the Committee for Economic Development
points out, that tests need to be valid and reliable and equitable.
There should not be any doubt that I think any good test would meet
those three criteria. First of all, validity: Are we measuring what we
intend to measure? If we spend the whole year teaching children one set
of facts or studying one set of subjects and we test on something else,
that is not a valid test. So we need to make sure that what we measure
is what we are teaching, and what we are teaching is in some way
reflective of the standards of what we expect from our educational
system.
Reliability is also a given. How consistent and dependable are the
assessment results? Are these tests that teachers and parents and
students and community leaders can depend on because they really
reflect what we want our children to know?
Finally, are they equitable tests? That doesn't mean there are two
standards, one for certain children who live in affluent suburbs and
one for children who live in our poorest neighborhoods. No, if we are
doing anything with this effort, it is to try to make sure we combine
both excellence and equity and we do everything possible to give the
opportunities where they are most needed.
We know we have to be very careful that our tests are fair, that they
have no sign of bias toward any group of students. We need the help the
Federal Government should provide if they are going to stand behind the
regimen of testing we are considering in this bill.
We also need to be sure, if we are going to be using tests, that we
get timely results. I offered an amendment in the committee. If tests
are going to be given, the results ought to be available in 30 days and
no more. What is the point of giving a test in April and you get the
results in June or July when the children have gone home or may not get
them until the following year?
We should have a sensible testing schedule, and we should require
that the results be provided in a timely manner to parents, students,
and especially our teachers if they are going to be used for diagnostic
purposes and to measure and grade the curriculum as well as the
children.
There are a lot of tests that are currently being administered. We
give tests for everything now. We give tests for graduation. We give
tests for promotion. We ought to be sensible about this. If the Federal
Government, through our actions in the Congress and the administration,
are going to say we want a test every year from third to eighth grade
to determine how effective our children are learning reading and
mathematics, then States have to take a hard look at what else they are
testing because it is getting so that many of our schools feel they are
spending all their time preparing for tests, administering tests, and
grading tests. We have to be sure the tests are appropriate in number
as well as content.
I also hope as we move forward on this important education debate
that we recognize that accountability for students and teachers is best
tied to school performance. I go into schools all the time that are
literally within blocks of each other. Some are very successful and
some are not. A lot of it has to do with how the school is organized
and what their priorities are. I hope the testing we are discussing to
be implemented in this bill will help us move entire schools toward
better outcomes so that we lift up the performance of a school and
create the atmosphere that will be conducive to learning and teaching.
One thing that bothers me, though, is that in our rush for tests and
in our implementation of so many tests, a lot of schools are finding it
impossible to keep the more well-rounded curriculum that has been the
hallmark of American education.
I believe music, art, physical education, extracurricular activities,
even field trips, are a part of the educational process. What I hear
from so many schools in my State is that the tests take up so much
time. The costs of the tests and all that goes with the tests mean that
a lot of other important educational objectives are being eliminated.
I hope we take a view of testing that puts it into the context of
American education generally. I take a back seat to no one in saying
education has to be a local responsibility and a national priority. I
have had experience in advocating for testing.
I believe I was the first person in the country who advocated testing
teachers, using high-stakes tests. I even recommended schools be based
on their performance in how many students they could bring up to grade
level. But I am very cautious--and I guess I am putting up a caution
light--that we not go so much toward testing as the definition of
education that we forget what the learning process is and how
unique the American education system is where people can literally wake
up in 10th grade or 12th grade or a child can be exposed to art or
music or some other part of the curriculum, such as a good science lab
in the eighth grade, and all of a sudden learning becomes real and they
are not consigned to a second-class citizenship because they did not
get into gear before that time.
We are starting to see, with our high-stakes testing in New York, a
lot of dropouts. We are worried we are beginning to see an increase in
dropouts. We have to take that seriously. Our goal is not to test
children for the sake of testing, then telling them they do not measure
up, and then holding them back for the sake of holding them back until
they become so frustrated and discouraged they leave the educational
system. I do not think that is the goal of any of us in this Chamber.
Our goal is to have an accountability system so that we actually know
what is being taught and what our children are learning, and use it for
diagnostic purposes to make every child a success.
Raising the caution lights that the amendment of the Senator from
Minnesota raises is important for us to think about. I will add one
additional caution light. I guess that is the biggest issue of all for
me, and that is the resources. I am very concerned, as I will state
when we come to this in the days ahead, about the budget. We have been
promised it will leave no child behind and will provide the resources
for extra testing, to deal with special ed, to deal with more resources
for our poorest children, to add teachers so we have lower class sizes,
to modernize classrooms. I am worried that none of that will be in the
budget.
That puts many of us in a very difficult position because we know
that accountability is necessary, but we also know that resources in
our poorest schools are an absolute necessary condition for a lot of
our kids to be successful.
I enjoyed listening to the Senator from Wyoming talk about the very
small school districts of fewer than 50 children. I have some very fond
memories of districts that small in Arkansas. I remember going to
graduating classes of three and four children. That is a very different
and wonderful educational experience. I hope we never get away from
that in our country; that we do have schools that are that small in
States from Wyoming to upstate New York.
I come from a State that has some different kinds of problems. I have
a school system with a million children. I have school systems, such as
that of Buffalo, where the school stock is so old they cannot wire them
for computers because the buildings were built like forts.
I visited a school called the Black Rock Academy that was built in
1898, last renovated in 1920. They are bewildered about what to do.
They cannot figure out how to get those computers set up. They have
wires coming up, going in a window, into a little room. They have about
30 computers, only 10 of which can be connected to the Internet. That
is the best they can do under the circumstances. Buffalo has
undertaken, using State dollars and local dollars, a tremendous school
renovation and modernization program.
Our needs in New York are different than the needs of the small
districts in Wyoming. I hope we are going to look
[[Page S4536]]
at all of our children from coast to coast and all of our local school
districts to figure out what we can do to make everybody successful.
Resources are key. It is more difficult to provide education in remote
rural areas and in very concentrated poor areas in our inner cities. We
need a bill and we need the resources in the bill that empower local
communities to make the decisions that are best for them.
There is a wonderful menu of opportunities in the bill where people
can choose professional development or technology, but we would really
be selling our children short if we do not also include lower class
size and school modernization because in the absence of some Federal
help on those two issues, much of what we want to achieve is going to
be very difficult and beyond the reach of many of our districts, even
those that are making a good-faith effort, such as Buffalo, to deal
with a very old stock of schools.
I kid some of my colleagues. We were educating people in some
communities in New York before some of the States represented in this
body were States. We were building schools before a lot of people had
to build schools because of the centuries of history in New York. We
have some of those schools that have been around a very long time.
Good education can and does occur in those schools. But the
conditions are worsening to the point where, as I said the other day,
we have concrete falling out of a ceiling, hitting a teacher on the
head. We have overcrowded classrooms. If we are going to be seeking
both excellence and equity, we have to do more to provide the resources
all districts need to do the job they want to do for their children.
This is a very important issue that goes right to the heart of this
budget. I, along with many of my colleagues, was very disturbed to
learn there was no increase for education in the budget coming back
from the House. This body voted in a bipartisan way for important
measures that were attached to the budget. This was not just about
numbers; it was about values, the value of making sure we put the
dollars into our education system and many other important priorities,
from defense to food safety.
The budget coming back does not reflect that. It does not reflect the
flexibility for the dollars that will be needed to do what we have
already voted for in the Senate.
I was very proud of the vote that said we need to fund special
education. It is about as close as we can get to a mandate. A lot of
school districts are under tremendous pressure because they cannot
afford to do what they need to do. I was proud of this body for voting
to fully fund title I. That was a values statement. It said our values
are that we will invest in our poorest children. I was proud of our
chairman's amendment that if the Federal Government puts this
requirement of testing on our districts, the Federal Government should
help to pay for the development and implementation of those tests.
This body, in a bipartisan way, made some very important values
statements about education--not that we were just going to pass a bill
that sounded good but one that could actually produce results. I am
very pleased that at least in the Senate we are crafting a bill that I
think will make a difference in the lives of our children. If we
continue on this path, it could revolutionize education across our
country. But it cannot be seen in isolation from the budget which,
after all, carries the resources that will determine whether we have
anything other than an empty promise.
I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to what we are trying to
do in this Chamber and to look for ways to work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to make sure it is real.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the comments and excellent statement.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 384
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority
wants to go to the McConnell amendment, so I call up the McConnell
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Kentucky is
offering an amendment that has merit. I do believe, however, that it
needs some improvement. I believe the amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky leaves a big void. It doesn't do anything to protect teachers.
And, most importantly, it doesn't do anything to protect students and
parents who have corporal punishment administered to them either
legally or illegally.
For example, the National Education Association, which represents
almost 3 million teachers and other educational employees, has grave
concerns about the McConnell amendment. Specifically, the National
Education Association is concerned the amendment will lead to increased
incidents of corporal punishment.
There are many instances where we have to take a look at corporal
punishment which is administered legally in many States. Take, for
example, a situation in Zwolle, LA. A story out of the New York Times a
few days ago indicates a young girl was brutally beaten--legally,
supposedly--in the school. In fact, the story states:
Laid out on the kitchen table, the snapshots of 10-year-old
Megan make a grim collage. They are not of her sweet face,
but of her bare behind. There are 12 in all, taken, her
mother says, day by day, as the doughnut-shaped bruises on
each cheek faded from a mottled purple to a dirty gray.
Megan's father, Robert, recalls that when he first saw the bruises
hours after she was paddled by her school principal for elbowing a
friend in the cafeteria, he collapsed on the floor, crying. ``It hurt
me more than it hurt Megan,'' Robert said. ``You don't hit on my
baby.''
Megan, a fourth grader, whose name appears more often on the honor
roll than on a referral slip at the principal's office, is one of
millions of public school students still subject to corporal
punishment. In March, her family joined a small but apparently growing
number to stop Megan's beating.
One of her classmates, a boy by the name of DeWayne Ebarb, is a
hyperactive child who has been paddled regularly throughout his time at
this elementary school. In the last 8 weeks, he has been paddled 17
times. This is a small town of some 2,000. People are wondering what is
going on.
I think we should be concerned in Washington what we perhaps are
laying a stamp of approval on if we allow this amendment to pass as it
is written.
Mr. President, 27 States have banned corporal punishment. The first
was New Jersey back in 1887. Then came Massachusetts, a century later,
in 1971. There was a crusade in effect started by a man name Robert
Fathman from Ohio, president of the National Coalition to Abolish
Corporal Punishment. You can't whack a prisoner, but you can whack a
kindergarten child. The state of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court
allows people who teach and train children in schools to beat them, but
prisoners cannot be touched. It seems a strange little quirk in the
law.
In some communities, the activities to allow a student to be whipped
or spanked is approved in the law.
Since Mr. Fathman started his crusade in 1984 after his own daughter
landed on the painful end of a paddle, five States have adopted bans.
One of those States is the State of Nevada which banned corporal
punishment in 1993. West Virginia acted in 1994. The number of
paddlings around the country is in the millions. In 1980, it was 1.4
million; it is now down to half a million students beaten each year. We
have to look at those children who are beaten. It seems it is quite
clear that black students are 2.5 times as likely to be struck as white
students, a reflection of what researchers have long found to be more
frequent and harsher discipline for members of minorities.
Court challenges have been largely unsuccessful, including a 1977
decision by the Supreme Court rejecting the notion that paddling is
cruel and unusual punishment. A decade later, an appeals court ruled
that a New Mexico girl held upside down and beaten had been denied due
process, signifying school officials could be held liable for severe
beatings. But this has been rare.
The vast preponderance of lawsuits challenging the use of corporal
punishment are unsuccessful, says Charles Vergone, a professor at
Youngstown State University, who has been studying this issue for 15
years.
I hope that my friend from Kentucky, the distinguished senior
Senator, will accept an amendment I will
[[Page S4537]]
offer which, in effect, basically would have corporal punishment not
apply to this amendment. This, in effect, would not give a stamp of
approval to corporal punishment.
I think the instances pointed out during the discussion I heard from
the Senator from Kentucky raise some interesting points: one case about
the cheerleader who was asked to run a lap. I don't know all the facts
of that case. From what the Senator from Kentucky outlined, it does not
seem fair that she was still allowed to cheer on the night that she was
supposed to have been reprimanded for not following the instructions of
her coach. I don't know all the facts, but from what I heard it appears
there is some validity to that.
Also, the long narrative with which the Senator from Kentucky led his
discussion, dealing with the student who actually tried to do physical
harm, maybe even kill one of his teachers, wound up going to court. I
think there is some merit to what the Senator from Kentucky outlined.
That is what I think would still be available if the amendment I will
offer in a short time were accepted.
We have teachers who talk about having been in areas where they
didn't have the right to paddle and they didn't paddle, but they say if
you have the right to paddle it becomes the punishment of choice. It
makes it easier. Emily Williams, in rural Mississippi, said when she
arrived from Williams College last year, one of the fine universities
in America, she was horrified to hear teachers striking students in the
hallways, classrooms, and cafeteria. But soon she was doing it herself.
We are told that a number of teachers, in effect, brag about the fact
that they can beat their students.
I started this discussion about 10-year-old Megan who was beaten. If
she had gone to law enforcement authorities and showed them her rear
end with all the bruises and contusions on it and said, ``This was done
by my mother or father,'' very likely the juvenile authorities would
have stepped in and been involved in the care and custody of Megan. But
because it was done by a teacher and that is legal, nothing has been
done or will be done.
If you look at corporal punishment, which a few years ago numbered
1.2 million and is now over 600,000, we recognize there is a real
problem. We need not get into Biblical references. ``Spare the rod and
spoil the child,'' that is one saying to which people always refer. One
police chief said, ``The Lord said, `Spare the rod and spoil the
child,' and I think he knows a lot more than those bleeding heart
liberals.'' I am sure that is probably true, that he does, but there is
a time and place for everything. We have to be very careful to make
sure anything we do here does not, in effect, support something that is
not good for children.
As I have indicated, the National Education Association policy
opposes the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining
students. There are no studies that have found that paddling, the most
prevalent form of corporal punishment, improves school discipline. To
the contrary, Dr. Irving Heiman of Temple University has found it is a
detriment to children learning.
The National Education Association believes there are better ways to
establish and maintain control, including reducing class sizes. Of
course, we are going to debate that, as we have. The debate has not
been completed.
There is an amendment pending by Senator Murray to deal with reducing
class size. I think everyone acknowledges that would be a sensible
thing to do, to make discipline better. Smaller classes enable teachers
to give students more individualized attention and to better control
classroom activities. Recent studies have documented reductions in
classroom disruptions as a result of class size reduction. I don't
think we need a study to show us that if we have smaller classes, there
are going to be fewer disruptions.
I hope we will take a positive look at the amendment I will offer
shortly. The Teacher Liability Protection Act which is the name of the
act, which now, to my understanding, is in the form of an amendment,
would immunize negligent teachers, principals, and administrators when
their misconduct injures students. Not only would this measure make
teachers unaccountable to parents, it would preempt the laws of all 50
States with little or no justification for such a sweeping exercise of
Federal control.
I do not think there is any need to create a special Washington-
knows-best immunity for principals, teachers, and administrators. The
States, which for more than two centuries have had dominion over tort
law, already have ample protections in place for teachers and
administrators. Washington should not dictate policy to State courts
and administrators, and it should not dictate policy to the local
school boards.
As I said, I don't know all the facts dealing with the cheerleader
case that was mentioned by the Senator from Kentucky, but even though I
may disagree with the decision made by the court--I would still like to
know the facts--I also say the court had the right to make that
judgment.
In the State of Nevada, judges are looked at very closely, the reason
being judges in Nevada run for election. They cannot, in effect, thumb
their nose at public opinion. As a result of that, I think judges in
Nevada generally do an excellent job of determining what the law should
be. But they are totally aware of what is going on in the public, and I
would say the same applies to the cheerleader case where she refused to
run laps. We need to know all those facts.
The American Federation of Teachers indicates there is no crisis. In
effect, the American Federation of Teachers challenges whether legal
immunity is really needed. I don't think the fear of lawsuits is
keeping teachers from doing their jobs.
As I said, I think there is some merit to the amendment of the
Senator from Kentucky. That is why I think the best thing to do is
offer a second-degree amendment to that, to take away from that, in
effect, the approval of corporal punishment, which is in keeping with
many States in the United States.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right
to the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. I do not seek to have the Senator lose his right to
the floor, but just to make certain the Senator understands my
amendment neither promotes nor condones corporal punishment. I don't
know what second-degree amendment the Senator plans to offer. If he
would be willing to discuss it prior to sending it forward, it may be
we could agree to it. As I will make clear when I regain the floor
after the Senator finishes speaking, my amendment has nothing to do
with corporal punishment. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada may have
interpreted it otherwise. I think I can make it clear to his
satisfaction that it is wholly unrelated to that subject. And I might
well be interested in supporting the second-degree if I can take a look
at it.
The purpose of this amendment is to leave that matter strictly up to
the States. The Federal Government would not either support or oppose
corporal punishment.
Mr. REID. The problem with that--I will be happy to share the
amendment with the Senator, and I am confident and hopeful he will
approve it--is the fact that the amendment offered by the Senator from
Kentucky, as I understand it, said basically that teachers and
administrators will not be sued for basic, simple negligence, but they
can be sued for gross negligence.
Is that the underlying import of the Senator's amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. I think pursuant to State law. What we are seeking not
to do is to replace State law on this subject.
Mr. REID. I appreciate that. That is my point and my problem. If a
teacher spanks, beats--whatever the term we want to use--a student, he
is doing that under the confines, and under the direction of the State
law, in effect. What we want to say is that any acts of teachers that
are negligent that do not apply to their administering corporal
punishment, we agree with the Senator from Kentucky. I don't think
there is any hindrance on our part of State law. If the State has
corporal punishment, fine. The State of Nevada outlawed corporal
punishment in 1993. But that was up to the State legislature. I didn't
do that.
Amendment No. 421 To Amendment No. 384
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
[[Page S4538]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 421 to amendment No. 384.
Mr. REID. 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:
(Purpose: To limit the teacher liability protections in this bill for
teachers who strike a child to those situations in which such action is
necessary to maintain order and in which a parent or guardian has
provided recent written consent to such actions)
On page 4, line 23, insert a comma after (b), strike
``and'' and insert ``and (d)'' after (c).
On page 6, line 6, insert a new subsection (c), as follows,
and renumber accordingly:
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply
to any action of a teacher that involves the striking of a
child, including, but not limited to paddling, whipping,
spanking, slapping, kicking, hitting, or punching of a child,
unless such action is necessary to control discipline or
maintain order in the classroom or school and unless a parent
or legal guardian of that child has given written consent to
the teacher prior to the striking of the child and during the
school year in which the striking incident occurs.''
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. To move the process along, will the Senator object if we
are able to dispose of the Wellstone amendment while the Senators are
talking, with the recognition that the Senator from Kentucky would be
next on the matter after the conclusion of the Wellstone amendment?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would appreciate it if we would withhold on that.
Mr. KENNEDY. There has been a special reservation of that proceeding.
Mr. REID. I say to my friends from Massachusetts and Kentucky that I
would be happy to do that. We want to move to another amendment. I
wanted to confer with the Senator from Kentucky, but we were told that
is what the majority wanted. That is why I called up the amendment
without the opportunity of giving it to the Senator. I submitted the
amendment. I have other things to say. I could do that at a later time.
I simply ask my friend from Kentucky and the majority manager of the
bill to take a look at this amendment. If there are problems with it,
tell us. We will talk some more about it on both sides.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I guess the understanding is that we
would move forward on Wellstone, and then come back to the McConnell
amendment in the second degree by agreement. Is that what we are
talking about?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that earlier there
was an agreement that the Wellstone amendment would be accepted. I
guess that is no longer the case. We are now on the amendment of the
Senator from Kentucky. I ask if the Senator would consider a quorum
call for a few minutes. The McConnell amendment is the business before
the Senate now. We can go to anything else without unanimous consent.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it would be my preference that we stay
on the McConnell amendment in the second degree by Senator Reid, and,
if it is all right with the manager, go into a quorum call to be able
to work this out and go forward. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has offered an
alternative that I think is in keeping with what we have tried to
accomplish. I think it is something that would make his amendment
better. It is something named after Senator Coverdell; something
Senator Coverdell would appreciate, especially in the fashion that it
was done.
Paul Coverdell, as you know, was a great conciliator, was great at
mediating problems. I expect perhaps the spirit of Paul Coverdell was
involved in this because I think it is a good settlement for everybody.
Amendment No. 421, Withdrawn
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my second-degree
amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Kentucky, at the appropriate time, will
offer a modification to his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 384, As Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Pursuant to the agreement that Senator Reid and I have
come to, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask
unanimous consent that my amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 384), as modified, is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE __--TEACHER PROTECTION
SEC. __1. TEACHER PROTECTION.
The Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``TITLE __--TEACHER PROTECTION
``SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.
``This title may be cited as the `Paul D. Coverdell Teacher
Protection Act of 2001'.
``SEC. __2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) The ability of teachers, principals and other school
professionals to teach, inspire and shape the intellect of
our Nation's elementary and secondary school students is
deterred and hindered by frivolous lawsuits and litigation.
``(2) Each year more and more teachers, principals and
other school professionals face lawsuits for actions
undertaken as part of their duties to provide millions of
school children quality educational opportunities.
``(3) Too many teachers, principals and other school
professionals face increasingly severe and random acts of
violence in the classroom and in schools.
``(4) Providing teachers, principals and other school
professionals a safe and secure environment is an important
part of the effort to improve and expand educational
opportunities, which are critical for the continued economic
development of the United States.
``(5) Frivolous lawsuits against teachers maintaining order
in the classroom impose significant financial burdens on
local educational agencies, and deprive the agencies of funds
that would best be used for educating students.
``(6) Clarifying and limiting the liability of teachers,
principals and other school professionals who undertake
reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an
appropriate educational environment is an appropriate subject
of Federal legislation because--
``(A) the scope of the problems created by the legitimate
fears of teachers, principals and other school professionals
about frivolous, arbitrary or capricious lawsuits against
teachers is of national importance; and
``(B) millions of children and their families across the
Nation depend on teachers, principals and other school
professionals for the intellectual development of children.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide
teachers, principals and other school professionals the tools
they need to undertake reasonable actions to maintain order,
discipline, and an appropriate educational environment.
``SEC. __3. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE
NONAPPLICABILITY.
``(a) Preemption.--This title preempts the laws of any
State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this
title, except that this title shall not preempt any State law
that provides additional protection from liability relating
to teachers.
``(b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This
title shall not apply to any civil action in a State court
against a teacher with respect to claims arising within that
State if such State enacts a statute in accordance with State
requirements for enacting legislation--
``(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
``(2) declaring the election of such State that this title
shall not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action
in the State; and
``(3) containing no other provisions.
``SEC. __4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR TEACHERS.
``(a) Liability Protection for Teachers.--Except as
provided in subsections (b) through (d), no teacher in a
school shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission
of the teacher on behalf of the school if--
``(1) the teacher was acting within the scope of the
teacher's employment or responsibilities related to providing
educational services;
``(2) the actions of the teacher were carried out in
conformity with local, State, and Federal laws (including
rules and regulations) in furtherance of efforts to control,
discipline, expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or
control in the classroom or school;
``(3) if appropriate or required, the teacher was properly
licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate
authorities for the
[[Page S4539]]
activities or practice in the State in which the harm
occurred, where the activities were or practice was
undertaken within the scope of the teacher's
responsibilities;
``(4) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal
misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of
the individual harmed by the teacher; and
``(5) the harm was not caused by the teacher operating a
motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which
the State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle,
craft, or vessel to--
``(A) possess an operator's license; or
``(B) maintain insurance.
``(b) Concerning Responsibility of Teachers to Schools and
Governmental Entities.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any civil action brought by any school or
any governmental entity against any teacher of such school.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any State or local law (including a
rule or regulation) or policy pertaining to the use of
corporal punishment.
``(d) Exceptions to Teacher Liability Protection.--If the
laws of a State limit teacher liability subject to 1 or more
of the following conditions, such conditions shall not be
construed as inconsistent with this section:
``(1) A State law that requires a school or governmental
entity to adhere to risk management procedures, including
mandatory training of teachers.
``(2) A State law that makes the school or governmental
entity liable for the acts or omissions of its teachers to
the same extent as an employer is liable for the acts or
omissions of its employees.
``(3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability
inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of
a State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
``(e) Limitation on Punitive Damages Based on the Actions
of Teachers.--
``(1) General rule.--Punitive damages may not be awarded
against a teacher in an action brought for harm based on the
action or omission of a teacher acting within the scope of
the teacher's responsibilities to a school or governmental
entity unless the claimant establishes by clear and
convincing evidence that the harm was proximately caused by
an action or omission of such teacher which constitutes
willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant
indifference to the rights or safety of the individual
harmed.
``(2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) does not create a cause
of action for punitive damages and does not preempt or
supersede any Federal or State law to the extent that such
law would further limit the award of punitive damages.
``(f) Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--
``(1) In general.--The limitations on the liability of a
teacher under this title shall not apply to any misconduct
that--
``(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) for which the
defendant has been convicted in any court;
``(B) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court;
``(C) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law;
or
``(D) where the defendant was under the influence (as
determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating
alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
``(2) Hiring.--The limitations on the liability of a
teacher under this title shall not apply to misconduct during
background investigations, or during other actions, involved
in the hiring of a teacher.
``SEC. __5. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.
``(a) General Rule.--In any civil action against a teacher,
based on an action or omission of a teacher acting within the
scope of the teacher's responsibilities to a school or
governmental entity, the liability of the teacher for
noneconomic loss shall be determined in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Amount of Liability.--
``(1) In general.--Each defendant who is a teacher, shall
be liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated
to that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance
with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect
to which that defendant is liable. The court shall render a
separate judgment against each defendant in an amount
determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.
``(2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of
determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a
defendant who is a teacher under this section, the trier of
fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of each
person responsible for the claimant's harm, whether or not
such person is a party to the action.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to preempt or supersede any Federal or State law
that further limits the application of joint liability in a
civil action described in subsection (a), beyond the
limitations established in this section.
``SEC. __6. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title:
``(1) Economic loss.--The term `economic loss' means any
pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of
earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical
expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death,
burial costs, and loss of business or employment
opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is
allowed under applicable State law.
``(2) Harm.--The term `harm' includes physical,
nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
``(3) Noneconomic losses.--The term `noneconomic losses'
means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation and
all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
``(4) School.--The term `school' means a public or private
kindergarten, a public or private elementary school or
secondary school (as defined in section 14101, or a home
school.
``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession
of the United States, or any political subdivision of any
such State, territory, or possession.
``(6) Teacher.--The term `teacher' means a teacher,
instructor, principal, administrator, other educational
professional that works in a school, or an individual member
of a school board (as distinct from the board itself).
``SEC. __7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
``(a) In General.--This title shall take effect 90 days
after the date of the enactment of the Paul D. Coverdell
Teacher Protection Act of 2001.
``(b) Application.--This title applies to any claim for
harm caused by an act or omission of a teacher if that claim
is filed on or after the effective date of the Paul D.
Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, without regard to
whether the harm that is the subject of the claim or the
conduct that caused the harm occurred before such effective
date.''.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill, are we
ready to move forward with a vote after some closing observations?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think we will have to wait until about
12:40. That is my understanding. Some people may not be available, but
I am sure the vote will take a little while anyway. So if it is OK,
could we have the vote start at 12:40?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor. Is
that the unanimous consent request, that the vote begin at 12:40?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the McConnell amendment begin at 12:40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote on my amendment,
the Paul D. Coverdell teacher protection amendment. This important
legislation extends important protections from frivolous lawsuits to
teachers, principals, administrators, and other education professionals
who take reasonable steps to maintain order in the classroom.
The amendment, I hasten to add, does not protect those teachers who
engage in ``willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or a
conscious flagrant indifference to the rights and safety'' of a
student.
This is not new ground for the Senate. I remind all of my colleagues
that last year we approved this virtually identical amendment by a vote
of 97-0. It is now the appropriate time for the Senate to revisit this
issue and give its full endorsement. Mr. President, 97-0 is about as
strong as it gets in the Senate. I hope we will have a similar vote
when the vote commences at 12:40.
I know Senator Coverdell would obviously be grateful to see that his
legislation may well be on the way to becoming law this year. I urge
all of my colleagues to support the amendment, as they did the last
time it was offered.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote in about 7 or 8
[[Page S4540]]
minutes. During this period of time, unless somebody else wishes to
speak on the amendment, I would like to address the issue of teacher
quality. This reflects upon one of the underlying amendments we are
discussing--which is, class size--with an emphasis on the relationship
that exists between a teacher and a child where we know much of that
learning experience takes place, kindergarten through the 12th grade.
It is that relationship and a number of factors.
We start with having a very good, highly qualified teacher in a
classroom, an effective teacher in the classroom so that we really can
say that every child has an opportunity to have achievement boosted, to
have the achievement gap, which has gotten worse in the last 35 years,
be diminished over time.
The argument we have made again and again on this side of the aisle
has been that while class size is important, the absolute size should
not to be dictated by Washington but determined by local schools, local
school districts, local communities. Whether it be Nashville TN,
Anchorage, AK, New York, NY, the decision should be made by people, not
by Washington, DC.
Thus, what we have done in the underlying bill--and it is important
that people understand what is in the bill;--is combine that program,
with other programs so that we have the necessary resources we need--up
to $3 billion, I should add. And these can be distributed, used,
prioritized, locally rather than here in Washington, DC. So that in any
particular classroom, a decision can be made whether or not to use that
money for smaller class size, for more computers, for better reading
materials, for more technology,--that they have the flexibility to
prioritize rather than having a Government program for each and every
issue.
Yesterday I spent some time underlining what we have in the bill for
teacher quality, teacher development. It is quite extensive, in terms
of State activities, where States very specifically may use these funds
for things such as teacher certification, teacher recruitment,
professional development, and other ways of teacher support. Examples
of such activities include reforming teacher certification or licensing
requirements, addressing alternative routes to State certification of
teachers, recruiting teachers and principals, providing professional
development activities, looking at issues such as reform of tenure
systems for teachers.
Local educational systems may use these funds for professional
development, teacher development, teacher recruitment or hiring
teachers. Again, these decisions are made locally with the funds
provided through the Federal system--as I said, $3 billion.
It moves on down to local accountability because we do want to make
sure, if these funds have been pooled and these resources are available
locally for teacher development, for improving the quality of teachers,
for attracting new teachers to the classroom, that the system is held
accountable, and there are extensive accountability provisions in the
underlying bill, already in the bill, that include, such things as
performance objectives. Those performance objectives are related to
student achievement, to reducing that achievement gap over time, to the
ability to retain teachers, to the ability of taking teachers who may
be certified in one field but haven't been certified in another.
A particular area I hope we will be able to address later this week
or next week is this whole specific area of math and science teachers.
Again and again I have come to this floor citing the third
international mathematics and science study, beginning in 1995 but even
since that point in time, which shows that 4th grade students in the
United States are among the top scorers from the 41 nations tested. But
then both the TIMMS study and the TIMMS repeat study in 1999 show that
by the 8th grade, U.S. students tested, not at the top, but in the
middle. By the 12th grade, we see that U.S. students are scoring near
the very bottom in math and science of all of the countries tested.
In today's global economy this means that if we are not preparing
people in the 12th grade in terms of math and science, we are going to
see jobs move overseas because Americans, especially for the high tech
jobs of the future are going to be very ill equipped to compete with
our neighbors globally in job creation, in math and science, in
technology, and broadly.
Teacher educational development has to be a continuing process. It
has to be done in a collaborative partnership with those people,
including at local teacher training, local universities, local high
schools, and local elementary schools. It has to be done in a
partnership way. Again, this is spelled out in the bill.
In closing, this bill--we call it the BEST Act--authorizes $500
million in fiscal year 2002 for the establishment of math and science
partnerships, linking the math and science departments of institutions
of higher education with States and local school districts. That is
very positive. There is a lot more we can do in terms of clarification
of how moneys can be used, in authorizing the States to use funding in
certain areas to recruit and retain teachers and, finally, in looking
at math and science funding for a master teacher program.
I am very excited about this amendment, which will be filed later
today or later in the week. It will build on what is in the underlying
bill, and puts the focus on the quality of teachers, not just the
quantity of teachers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. The question is now on
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. The yeas and
nays have not been ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS--98
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
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Thompson
NOT VOTING--1
Dodd
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
Amendment No. 425 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. REED. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone,
Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Durbin, and
Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 425.
Mr. REED. 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:
[[Page S4541]]
(Purpose: To make amendments regarding the Reading First Program)
On page 32, line 11, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert
``$1,400,000,000''.
On page 201, line 19, strike ``and''.
On page 201, line 21, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 201, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
``(3) shall reserve $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and
each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years to carry out section
1228 (relating to school libraries).
On page 203, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
``SEC. 1228. IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section
1225(3) for a fiscal year that are not reserved under
subsection (h), the Secretary shall allot to each State
educational agency having an application approved under
subsection (c)(1) an amount that bears the same relation to
the funds as the amount the State educational agency received
under part A for the preceding fiscal year bears to the
amount all such State educational agencies received under
part A for the preceding fiscal year, to increase literacy
and reading skills by improving school libraries.
``(b) Within-State Allocations.--Each State educational
agency receiving an allotment under subsection (a) for a
fiscal year--
``(1) may reserve not more than 3 percent to provide
technical assistance, disseminate information about school
library media programs that are effective and based on
scientifically based research, and pay administrative costs,
related to activities under this section; and
``(2) shall allocate the allotted funds that remain after
making the reservation under paragraph (1) to each local
educational agency in the State having an application
approved under subsection (c)(2) (for activities described in
subsection (e)) in an amount that bears the same relation to
such remainder as the amount the local educational agency
received under part A for the fiscal year bears to the amount
received by all such local educational agencies in the State
for the fiscal year.
``(c) Applications.--
``(1) State educational agency.--Each State educational
agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to
the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary shall
require. The application shall contain a description of--
``(A) how the State educational agency will assist local
educational agencies in meeting the requirements of this
section and in using scientifically based research to
implement effective school library media programs; and
``(B) the standards and techniques the State educational
agency will use to evaluate the quality and impact of
activities carried out under this section by local
educational agencies to determine the need for technical
assistance and whether to continue funding the agencies under
this section.
``(2) Local educational agency.--Each local educational
agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to
the State educational agency an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the State
educational agency shall require. The application shall
contain a description of--
``(A) a needs assessment relating to the need for school
library media improvement, based on the age and condition of
school library media resources, including book collections,
access of school library media centers to advanced
technology, and the availability of well-trained,
professionally certified school library media specialists, in
schools served by the local educational agency;
``(B) how the local educational agency will extensively
involve school library media specialists, teachers,
administrators, and parents in the activities assisted under
this section, and the manner in which the local educational
agency will carry out the activities described in subsection
(e) using programs and materials that are grounded in
scientifically based research;
``(C) the manner in which the local educational agency will
effectively coordinate the funds and activities provided
under this section with Federal, State, and local funds and
activities under this subpart and other literacy, library,
technology, and professional development funds and
activities; and
``(D) a description of the manner in which the local
educational agency will collect and analyze data on the
quality and impact of activities carried out under this
section by schools served by the local educational agency.
``(d) Within-LEA Distribution.--Each local educational
agency receiving funds under this section shall distribute--
``(1) 50 percent of the funds to schools served by the
local educational agency that are in the top quartile in
terms of percentage of students enrolled from families with
incomes below the poverty line; and
``(2) 50 percent of the funds to schools that have the
greatest need for school library media improvement based on
the needs assessment described in subsection (c)(2)(A).
``(e) Local Activities.--Funds under this section may be
used to--
``(1) acquire up-to-date school library media resources,
including books;
``(2) acquire and utilize advanced technology, incorporated
into the curricula of the school, to develop and enhance the
information literacy, information retrieval, and critical
thinking skills of students;
``(3) facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing
networks among schools and school library media centers, and
public and academic libraries, where possible;
``(4) provide professional development described in
1222(c)(7)(D) for school library media specialists, and
activities that foster increased collaboration between school
library media specialists, teachers, and administrators; and
``(5) provide students with access to school libraries
during nonschool hours, including the hours before and after
school, during weekends, and during summer vacation periods.
``(f) Accountability and Continuation of Funds.--Each local
educational agency that receives funding under this section
for a fiscal year shall be eligible to continue to receive
the funding for a third or subsequent fiscal year only if the
local educational agency demonstrates to the State
educational agency that the local educational agency has
increased--
``(1) the availability of, and the access to, up-to-date
school library media resources in the elementary schools and
secondary schools served by the local educational agency; and
``(2) the number of well-trained, professionally certified
school library media specialists in those schools.
``(g) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local funds expended to carry out
activities relating to library, technology, or professional
development activities.
``(h) National Activities.--From the total amount made
available under section 1225(3) for each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve not more than 1 percent for annual,
independent, national evaluations of the activities assisted
under this section. The evaluations shall be conducted not
later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act, and each year
thereafter.
On page 203, line 21, strike ``1228'' and insert ``1229''.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment on my
behalf and of Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Dayton.
This amendment is a bipartisan attempt to ensure that the President's
Reading First initiative is a success. Let me commend the President for
emphasizing literacy as a very important part of education reform. His
proposal would recognize the importance of literacy and increase and
support the training of teachers, but it would not reach another
important aspect of achieving literacy, and that is a well-equipped
school library. My amendment would help students achieve literacy by
authorizing funds so schools could acquire new library books, new
library material.
Funding school libraries has been part of the educational
authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its
beginning in 1965. The very first ESEA authorized the purchase of
library materials.
One of the sad commentaries about school libraries today is that much
of that material is still on the shelves, with copyright dates of 1967,
1968, 1969, and 1970. Clearly, the world has moved a great deal from
those days. We have landed on the Moon. We have created the Internet
and done lots of other interesting things. Many other aspects of life
have changed since the mid-1960s and early 1970s.
My proposal would provide resources, based upon a targeted formula,
so the poorest schools would have access to these funds, so we could,
in fact, replenish library collections throughout the United States.
Last week the Senate uniformly voted for Senator Collins' Reading
First amendment, where she incorporated additional provisions into the
President's proposal for Reading First. I support this effort by
Senator Collins, but I believe there is a deficiency within this
initiative. It fails to include an essential component that would
ensure students learn to read. We have to fund school libraries so
students have the necessary books, technology, and materials, which is
an integral part of our effort to improve reading in our schools.
What we are finding is the gap between the highest and lowest
achieving students is widening. But what we are also finding, when we
look at data, is that in those schools that have first-
[[Page S4542]]
rate libraries and trained library personnel, achievement goes up
consistently. That is a factor I believe we cannot ignore. It is one of
those factors that provide additional support for my proposal today.
Again, the President's underlying proposal authorizes $900 million
for the Reading First Initiative. It has been enhanced and improved by
Senator Collins' amendment. This proposal, which I and my colleagues
have offered, would provide further enhancement to this worthwhile goal
of ensuring every child in America reads, and reads well.
Let me also acknowledge the great work of Senator Jeffords and
Senator Kennedy who have brought us this far. But even though they have
brought us this far, even though we have, with the President's
direction, emphasized literacy, we still have this gap in achieving
literacy. We have to provide funds for school libraries so they can buy
the material and books necessary to support the scientifically based
reading programs the President has made the centerpiece of his Reading
First Initiative.
School libraries are really the places where we reinforce those
reading skills. They are, in one sense, the laboratories where children
explore their ability to read and explore a great world beyond the
confines of their classroom or their community. You can go into a
library and, figuratively, travel around the world, even reduce
yourself to the size of a microbe, and travel, coursing through the
veins of the body. That is what is remarkable about reading and so
fundamentally important about reading. It is also something that has to
be a lifelong pursuit.
Frankly, even though we can instruct children with respect to
literacy, unless we provide them with stimulating books and expose them
to the library as students, it is not that likely that they will
appreciate reading or continue the habit of reading, this habit of
self-improvement. Children leave schools, but we hope they will not
leave the library. That is one of the great lessons they will take from
their schooling--not just the mechanics of reading but a love of
reading so they will leave the school but never leave the library, they
will be patrons of public libraries, they will be patrons of books. The
library is the foundation for independent learning, and I cannot think
of a more worthwhile goal in this reauthorization than creating that
type of spirit and that type of ability within the students of America.
As I mentioned before, as we look at high levels of literacy, we find
a very strong correlation between these high literacy levels and good
school library programs. In one study, this was the case for every
school and in every grade level tested, regardless of social and
economic factors in the community, and in very dissimilar States:
Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. These findings echo earlier studies
which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and
professional library specialists performed better on achievement tests
for reading.
Again, we understand one major focus of this legislation is testing
students to standards, bringing those standards up and bringing every
child up to those standards. Without the support of good public
libraries in the community but, more particularly, good school library
programs, we are not going to be able to give these children the tools
to reach the standards, to pass the tests we are prescribing now for a
vast section of American students.
As I indicated, there is an array of scientific evidence, research
evidence, that demonstrates this fundamental point. A 1993 review of
research, ``Power of Reading'' by education professor Stephen Krashen
of the University of Southern California, demonstrated that higher test
scores result when there is a greater investment in better qualified
school library staff and more diverse school library collections.
A 1994 Department of Education report on the impact of school library
media centers noted that the highest achieving students tend to come
from schools with strong libraries and library programs. So I believe
this evidence is further proof that we can improve reading by making a
wise and efficient investment by enhancing our school libraries.
We also understand that we have today on our shelves, in our
libraries, books that are simply out of date and inaccurate. I have
made something of a cottage industry of bringing my favorite anomalous
books to committee hearings, such as a book that talks about what is it
like to be a flight attendant; only they use an incorrect term
``stewardess.''
If you look through this book, if you look through these pages, you
get a distinctly different impression of what it is like to be a flight
attendant. First of all, they are all women. We know that is not the
case today. Second, there are very few minorities. We know that is not
the case today. Third, they talk about the rule that you must leave if
you want to get married, because they all have to be single. They have
pictures of flight attendants doing sit-ups and describe that as their
homework.
These are images that are totally out of sync with today's times. But
yet this book was on the shelves of the school library. Ask yourself.
If a young man is interested in that profession and takes that book off
the shelf, what impression will he get? Obviously, it is not going to
open up the possibility of a career for him as a flight attendant.
That is just one example. There are examples of books on the shelves
of today's schools that say things like some day we will get to the
Moon.
I received a book from a librarian in Arizona that has the title,
``Asbestos, The Magic Mineral,'' suggesting a book that was not written
recently.
One of my favorite selections that was sent to me is the story of the
U.S. Constitution, and an analysis of the Constitution, with a foreword
by President Calvin Coolidge--a little bit out of date but still on the
shelves of a school library.
We can do more than provide our children with outdated sources of
information. We also now know that we are in a situation where books
are not the only way we are communicating information to children.
Libraries need sophisticated, computer-based media. They need the
technology of the computer.
Yet what you find at the local level is a situation where despite the
best intentions of school committee men and women and the best
intentions of Governors and mayors, school library collections are the
first casualties of unexpected expenses.
It is not a surprise. Here is typically what happens across this
country day in and day out. A school superintendent has worked hard all
year. She reserved $50,000 for a new library, new books, and new media.
Then she gets a call. Their unexpected expenses have gone up $75,000.
Where do you get that kind of money for an unexpected expense? We will
do the library improvement next year. Next year becomes the following
year, and the following year. As a result, we have a crisis at school
libraries. Some shelves are near empty and the books are out of date.
They are not opening up new, modern vistas to students. In some cases
they are giving them erroneous stereotypes about the world at a very
impressionable age.
Let me suggest, as I said before, some of the books that we find on
the shelves of our libraries.
There is one called ``Rockets Into Space,'' copyright 1959. This
book, by the way, has been checked out of a Los Angeles school library
13 times since 1995.
It informs the student that there is a way to get to the Moon.
Obviously, it was written before there was the successful voyage to the
Moon by man. It states that it will take two stages to get to the Moon,
first to a space station, and then to the moon. Essentially, that is
not what we did. But the book has been checked out numerous times
within the last decade.
There is another book which I found interesting. This was from a
school library in Richmond, VA, entitled ``What A United States Senator
Does,'' copyright 1975. It notes that the Vice President of the United
States and the President of the Senate is Nelson Rockefeller, and that
there are two Senate office buildings, the Old Senate Office Building
and the New Senate Office Building, which we now call the Dirksen
Building.
There is a book from a library in Tarzana, CA, entitled ``Women At
Work,'' copyright 1959, which informs
[[Page S4543]]
the reader that there are seven occupations open to young woman:
librarian, ballet dancer, airline stewardess, practical nurse, piano
teacher, beautician, and author.
These are not positions open exclusively to women and are certainly
not the only professions open to women today.
Here is one from a Pennsylvania library entitled, ``The First Book
Atlas,'' copyright 1968, which states that the five most populated
cities in the world are New York City; Tokyo, Japan; Paris, France;
London, England; and Shanghai, China.
That might have been correct in 1968. But, for the record, the five
most populated cities in the world today are Seoul, South Korea; Sao
Paolo, Brazil; Bombay, India; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Moscow, Russia.
In a rapidly changing world when we expect our students to be
internationally adept and not just locally competent, we are providing
them with information that is woefully out of date.
I am sure there are atlases and maps throughout most schools and in
school libraries that do not have all the present sovereign nations of
the world. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, we know there has
been quite a few new nations emerging into the world. But this is what
we find consistently.
I believe if we do not provide better materials for our libraries, we
are not going to fully complement the President's initiative and
Senator Collins' amendment. It is one thing to be literate and to have
the mechanics of reading, but there is something else. A child must
have material to read which provides accurate information and that is
not full of stereotypes and misinformation. If you don't provide access
through school libraries, students will not acquire the skills and love
for reading necessary to boost scores on reading tests.
That is what my legislation will do. It will give the school
libraries the opportunity to become up to date, to entreat children
with the idea of reading so that in their lifelong pursuits they will
know that libraries are the place to go to find knowledge and
information that is accurate.
Let me also talk about the situation from the perspective of low-
income students because typically this is where you find the most
chronic absence of a good school library for the reasons I talked to
previously--budget pressures that are so compelling and constraining on
municipalities, and the idea that next year we will fix the library.
Next year never comes. Jonathan Kozol, who has been referred to many
times on this floor, and who is a passionate advocate for students
everywhere but who has a particular passion for those disadvantaged
students that he works with on a daily basis, wrote in May in a school
library article, entitled ``An Unequal Education,'' that a fiscal
crisis in the 1970s reduced school libraries and the poorest
neighborhoods in New York City to: ``little more than poorly stocked
collections of torn, tired-looking, or outdated books. As student
populations grew and school construction was postponed by scarcity of
funds, libraries themselves were soon co-opted to be used as classroom
space. Librarians were fired or, more diplomatically, `retired'--and,
as they retired, were not replaced. Books were frequently consigned to
spaces scarcely larger than coat closets.''
He continues:
Few forms of theft are quite so damaging to inner-city
children as the theft of stimulation, cognitive excitement,
and aesthetic provocation by municipal denial of those
literacy treasures known to white and middle-class Americans
for generations.
The reason for this sad state of affairs is the loss of targeted
national funding for libraries, which we had provided in the 1965 ESEA
authorization.
I would challenge all of my colleagues to go to their States and go
to a school library. It won't take too long until you find a book that
has a copyright of 1967, and maybe with a stamp, as they do in the
Philadelphia school system, that says, ``ESEA 1965.''
About 20 years ago, however, a decision was made to roll this
dedicated funding into a block grant competing with other programs, and
the funding for libraries declined. Schools have not been able to
replace outdated books. At the same time funds have diminished, as
everything else, the price of quality school library books goes up.
The average school library book costs $16. But the average spending
per student for books in elementary schools throughout this country is
approximately $6.75, $7.30 in middle schools, and $6.25 in high
schools. You can't buy lots of high-quality books at those types of
prices.
Earlier in this session, I introduced bipartisan legislation
addressing the need for adequate library books, which is the
predecessor of this amendment. On February 20, 2001, there was note of
that introduction in the Washington Times. Then there was a response on
February 23 from a school librarian who described the real frustrations
we are talking about, and that I have tried to suggest.
She has worked for 27 years, and she saw the article and took it upon
herself to write the newspaper. Here is what she said:
The money coming down for spending has been diverted by
administrators for technology. The computers are bought with
book money and the administrators can brag about how wired
the schools are. The librarians are ordered to keep the old
books on the shelves and count everything, including unbound
periodicals and old filmstrips dating back to 1940s.
And most of all keep their mouth shut about the books--just
count and keep quiet. Now do you wonder why librarians keep
quiet?
Well they are not keeping quiet anymore. They have taken a very
strong position with respect to this amendment. Coincidentally, they
have come to Washington, and I believe they have visited most of my
colleagues' offices, to talk about the need, not some esoteric
hypothetical pie-in-the-sky need, but the real need for investments in
school libraries.
What happens is that we have a situation where schools face this
Hobson's choice: with declining resources, and other demands, do we
remove all of the outdated books, leaving only bare shelves or keep
outdated books on the shelves, hoping that students wont be confused or
turned off by reading? The result is too many of our students don't
have the tools they need to learn to read and achieve.
Too often schools sacrifice improvement in libraries. We can help
change that dynamic. We can pass this legislation. We can give them
flexibility at the local level, although targeted to low-income
schools, to go out and buy library materials, to fulfill an important
part of our national purpose today to improve the literacy of all
American children.
Now I believe that we should, and we must, complement the President's
Reading First Initiative. He has, quite rightly, identified the
problem. He has very astutely suggested we need to train teachers in
the latest scientific methods, that we need to have classroom material,
that we need to do many other things. But one aspect is still lacking;
and that is books - books to practice the skills they learn in class
and books to foster a love for reading which is the key to success in
school and beyond. This amendment addresses that need.
My amendment specifically would add $500 million in funding reserved
to support school libraries. It would not take away any resources that
have been already identified for the President's Reading First
Initiative pursuant to Senator Collins' amendment. It targets funding
to schools with the highest levels of poverty.
Recall now the comments of Jonathan Kozol: the diminishment of the
educational experience by a lack of access to materials which in
suburban schools are taken for granted.
If we can get this spirit of inquiry, this excitement about reading,
if we can infuse that into every child in every public school,
particularly in our disadvantaged schools, we will accomplish a great
deal with this reauthorization.
This amendment also provides the districts and the schools with the
flexibility to use the funding to meet local school library needs. Who
better than a local school system and local librarians to decide what
they need? A new atlas, new materials for the younger readers, a better
library media that can be used by all the students--all of that will be
decided by local individuals.
It also includes language that would help enhance the training of
library specialists. There is a misconception sometimes that all you
need to do is
[[Page S4544]]
have the teacher just take the children into the library and say: Pick
a book. That overlooks the huge contribution a well-trained librarian
can make to the education of young children. A well trained librarian
is essential to helping students read. It is also important to have
librarians with particular skills to be able to show children different
means of research, different techniques, to be able to answer their
questions, to find material for them, and to show them how to find
material. That is not done simply by walking the children into the
library, and saying: Pick a book. You need to try to get a sense of
their interests and you need to try to lead them from one interest to
another interest.
This might be the most fundamental aspect of education, and yet if
you do not have the trained professionals to do it, you will not get
the kind of high-level achievement we seek in this legislation.
The amendment would also allow establishing resource sharing
initiatives. In my home State of Rhode Island, and in Ohio, the school
librarians have set up a wonderful network with other school libraries,
with public libraries, with academic libraries, so they can multiply
the resources at their disposal. That would provide the kind of support
that I believe is not only necessary but long overdue with respect to
school libraries.
This amendment allocates funding on a formula basis to school
districts, so that all needy districts and schools get the assistance
they need to improve school libraries, rather than authorizing a very
limited, competitive grant program which would only help certain
districts that have a knack for grant writing.
This amendment is built upon the initial legislation I introduced
along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Snowe, Chafee, Daschle, and
others. The amendment, as I indicated, has broad support.
This bipartisan amendment I offer today, along with Senators Snowe,
Kennedy, Chafee, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Clinton, Sarbanes,
Johnson, Baucus, Levin, Reid, Rockefeller, Durbin, and Dayton, is a
modified version of that legislation because, rather than being a
separate, stand-alone portion of the ESEA, this amendment includes
support for books as part of the Reading First initiative.
In conclusion, since I have talked about what the amendment does, I
would like to briefly talk about some of things the amendment does not
do.
First of all, this is not a new program. This amendment would
incorporate school library funding into the Reading First Initiative,
the President's reading initiative. Unanimously, last week, we embraced
Senator Collins' amendment, so I assume, without contradiction, we are
all for Reading First, we are all for literacy. This would be
incorporated into that. This is not a new program.
The second point I make is that this is not, as I said before, a
novel Federal intervention into school policy. In 1965, we authorized
funds to buy library materials. It worked. Those materials are still on
the shelves. It is something that has been long associated with our
Federal effort to help local schools.
Now we all want to consolidate programs. I think that makes a great
deal of sense. As you look across the board, some programs could be
more efficient. But here is an effort to present, within the context of
the Reading First Initiative, a comprehensive reading program: training
teachers to teach reading based on scientific principles, classroom
materials, and then, if you will, the laboratory for reading, which is
the school library and the books to read.
If we are serious--and I know we are--that we want to see every child
succeed, if we want to see every child meet challenging standards, and
in a very real sense pass the test, then we have to invest more in our
school libraries. It is not simply enough to just prescribe the test
and hope for the best. We have to give children books to read, the
tools to master these techniques and, hopefully, I think in a broader
sense, to acquire a passion for reading that will carry them far beyond
their schooldays into their adult days. That truly, in my view, is the
sign of an educated person.
Let me conclude my initial remarks by citing the Department of
Education's guide for parents entitled ``A Guide For Parents: How Do I
Know a Good Early Reading Program When I See One?'' In that guide they
say that a good early reading program has: ``a school library [which]
is used often and has many books.''
We must take this opportunity to dispense with inaccurate, out-of-
date books that line the shelves of our school libraries. We have an
opportunity to complement the President's proposal and provide the
funding that is critical to making the program work so it can actually
improve the reading and literacy skills of our nation's students. I
hope we will seize this opportunity and urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 849 are
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and
Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Wisconsin.
____________________