[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4901-S4913]
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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No. 
     358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
       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.
       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.
       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.
       Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise 
     provisions regarding the Reading First Program.
       Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America.
       Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit 
     the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational 
     agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of 
     America in providing equal access to school premises or 
     facilities.
       Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing 
     the sense of the Senate that there should be established a 
     joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to 
     investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the 
     country and to determine what is causing the increases.

[[Page S4902]]

       Wellstone/Feingold amendment No. 465 (to amendment No. 
     358), to improve the provisions relating to assessment 
     completion bonuses.
       Voinovich amendment No. 443 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan 
     forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the Murray amendment No. 378 
under which there will be 120 minutes equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to yield myself about 15 
minutes. It can go either way.
  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator from Tennessee wants to begin, that is 
OK. I will go after the Senator finishes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 378

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  I rise to speak to the underlying amendment about which we will be 
talking over the course of the morning and on which we will be voting 
on this afternoon shortly after 2 o'clock. It is a very important 
amendment, one which we talked about over the last several days--in 
fact, into last week--an amendment that deserves this time, that 
deserves the debate, that deserves the discussion that has been put 
forth.
  I say that because it really does strike, I believe, at a fundamental 
principle that distinguishes much of the debate around education today. 
It strikes right at the heart of an understanding of what is in the 
underlying bill as well as in the amendment which is being proposed to 
that bill.
  The principle is one of freedom, and we feel very strongly that local 
communities, local needs, must dictate what we do here in Washington, 
through our Federal legislation. We feel strongly that Washington must 
give local communities--schools, school districts--the opportunity to 
identify their particular needs or deficiencies. And, yes, it takes 
testing in many ways to identify the different types of students--that 
is in the underlying bill. But we must also identify needs such as 
number of teachers, teacher quality, classroom size, the environment in 
which the teacher-pupil relationship is cultivated and maximized so 
achievement is boosted to the largest degree possible. And it really 
does, to my mind, boil down to freedom, the freedom, the flexibility, 
the opportunity to identify those local needs and to satisfy them as 
they see fit at the local level.
  Again, it goes to the heart of much of what is in this bill because 
there are disparities all over the country, and the degree of education 
success is, in part, dependent on location. That needs to be addressed. 
And I think it is best addressed at the local level. That is what we 
would like to do, and that is what is in the underlying bill.
  In the bill--and again I encourage our colleagues to go and look at 
what is in the underlying bill--we try to allow school districts to 
have that choice, to use the resources available either for class size 
or for teacher development, professional development, again focusing on 
what goes on in that classroom between that teacher and that student.
  The goal is to boost student achievement. What is needed in Alamo, 
TN, might be different than what is needed in Manhattan, or the Bronx, 
or down in Fort Lauderdale, FL. One school might need class size 
reduction if the classes are very large in certain subjects. Another 
school might need a better and higher quality teacher in that 
classroom.
  The underlying bill takes those two components of teacher quality and 
class size, pools those resources, and says to local communities and to 
local school districts: You choose as to which of those areas you need 
to apply those resources to boost student achievement.
  I think it is very important because class size in some cases can be 
very important. We all know that. If you happen to be in a State or a 
community where class size is very large in certain subjects, I think 
it is very important that class size be reduced. Other parts of the 
country might have already reduced class size down to an appropriate 
level, in their judgement, and they prefer the freedom to use that 
class size reduction money, and teacher development money, to recruit 
teachers or attract teachers by paying them more, or by encouraging 
their professional development.
  What we want to do is give local school districts the freedom to 
spend the money in a way that they believe will best increase student 
achievement.
  School districts should have the flexibility to decide whether to use 
that money for class size or for teacher development. That is very 
simple. That is what we have heard laid out in the bill. It is very 
important for people to understand that it is that flexibility, that 
local identification of need, that principle, on which we are voting at 
2:20 today. We fundamentally believe school districts should be given 
maximum freedom and flexibility as to how they use those funds.
  Again, it is important to understand the underlying bill. Basically, 
we pool these resources from class size reduction and teacher 
development and put them together. We give that local school district 
the opportunity to use them in the best way they see fit.
  Over the last several days we have talked a lot about cost 
effectiveness of our education dollars to get the very best bang for 
the buck, the very best outcome and achievement for the dollars 
invested. When you look at it that way, in terms of cost effectiveness 
of the dollars being invested in education, that is what we are doing 
in the underlying bill. We are becoming not education spenders but 
education investors by investing in the system and investing in that 
flexibility and local control.
  For every dollar invested, it is important to look at what sort of 
outcome you achieve. If we say school districts shouldn't be forced to 
downsize classes, and recognize that some have downsized the class size 
already, then you can ask how effective is each of those dollars 
invested in terms of cost effectiveness.
  It is interesting, if you go back and look at the studies which 
examine at all sorts of different and independent variables regarding 
boosting student achievement, class size does not come at the top or 
even in the middle but further down on that list. In fact, in many of 
these studies, it is the least effective reform, but it is coupled with 
the very highest price tag. So in terms of dollars invested, the effect 
is it falls to the lower end of those scales.
  Studies have found that class size can be among the least effective 
educational investment, especially when you compare it to something 
like teacher education or teacher development--providing teachers with 
the resources they need to become better teachers, or to become better 
educated, for example, to become a real specialist in the field they 
are teaching.

  Again, I don't want to overplay this because I, for one, think class 
size is an important variable, but I think it is important to recognize 
that is addressed in the underlying bill. The resources are there. We 
are simply saying to give the local community the flexibility to use 
those dollars in a way that gives the biggest bang for the buck 
invested.
  What is the No. 1 variable in many of these studies? If you look 
outside of parental involvement, which again we encourage in the 
underlying bill, it is to have a highly qualified teacher in the 
classroom--not the size of the classroom but a highly qualified 
teacher.
  One recent study conducted at the University of Rochester examined 
more than 300 studies on the impact of class size reduction and found 
that it is the quality of the teacher which is much more important than 
the absolute class size. The National Commission on Teaching & 
America's Future found that teacher education is five times as 
effective for each dollar invested as is class size.
  All of us can remember our own teachers when we were young and the 
impact that a high-quality teacher has in the classroom. It is a 
lasting impact. A smaller classroom has an effect--a here and now 
effect--but it doesn't have the lasting effect that a highly qualified 
teacher does in the classroom.
  A study done in Tennessee found that the impact of a high-quality 
teacher continues for at least two years after the student has left 
that teacher.
  Bill Saunders, who has been quoted again and again on this floor, 
determined that the percentile difference

[[Page S4903]]

between the student who has 3 years of high-quality teaching versus 3 
years of poor quality teaching could mean the difference between a 
student that is enrolled in a remedial class versus an honors class--
again, underscoring the critical importance of not just having more 
teachers in the classroom but having high-quality teachers in the 
classroom.
  Over the last week or so we have talked a lot about the shortage of 
high-quality teachers. The fact is that more than 25 percent of new 
teachers enter our Nation's schools poorly qualified to teach.
  We talked a little bit about the studies that have shown that mastery 
in a subject area is the most tangible teacher quality. When you look 
at that measure, we are simply not doing as good a job as we should.
  Many teachers either lack a major or minor in the subject they are 
teaching. Fifty-six percent of physics and chemistry teachers lack a 
major or a minor. Thirty-four percent of English teaches lack a major 
or minor. And 34 percent of math teachers lack a major or minor.
  It is important for people to understand that compulsory class size--
focusing just on class size--can exacerbate the problem of having a 
shortage of high quality teachers.
  Over the past week, we talked about a little bit about California's 
experiment with compulsory class size. It led to many credentialed 
teachers coming into the classroom. It led to underqualified teachers, 
and an increase in teacher aides rather than teachers in the 
classroom--all providing direct instruction to students. This hit 
especially hard in the underserved areas in inner-city schools, and in 
rural schools.
  Where is the impact? I think the impact of declining teacher quality 
has been greatest in low-income schools, if you look at the studies 
altogether. That is where the percentage of qualified teachers has 
dropped nationwide--but specifically in the California studies.
  The third point that I would like to make is that there is no need 
today for compulsory class size reduction. Again, it comes back to this 
opportunity of freedom to choose class size reduction, if you want, or 
to spend those moneys on training teachers.
  I mentioned that it is important to understand what is in the 
underlying bill. In the bill we have combined professional development 
with class size money. Teacher quality and teacher recruitment varies 
from community to community. It varies from district to district. We 
want to have that right balance between class size and having a good 
high quality teacher in the room. That is why we chose to pool those 
two resources together and allow that local school and that local 
school district to choose either a combination of both of those, or one 
versus the other.
  The underlying bill permits school districts to use Federal dollars 
to recruit high-quality teachers.
  The underlying bill supports school efforts to establish incentive 
programs such as differential pay to attract, hire and keep highly 
qualified and knowledgeable teachers.
  The underlying bill contains specific provisions for recruitment. It 
supports efforts to recruit individuals who have careers outside of 
teaching but whose life experience provide a solid foundation for 
teaching.
  The underlying bill also looks at the issue of class size, support 
schools in hiring teachers, reduce class size, if they so desire it, 
and to address the teacher shortages in particular grades in subject 
areas.
  The underlying bill addresses the issue of teacher development and 
promoting teacher reforms, including mentoring and master teachers.
  The underlying bill looks at issues, such as alternative 
credentialing programs.
  The underlying bill addresses teacher opportunity payments, allowing 
funds to go directly to teachers so they can choose their own 
professional development.
  In conclusion, I want to make it very clear from at least my 
standpoint, and on our side of the aisle, that we are not opposed to 
class size reduction. Again, I for one think that an appropriate class 
size and appropriate ratios, depending on where you are in the subject 
matter, is important. I point out, many areas in many regions have 
already addressed this particular issue. Secondly, the underlying bill 
permits States and school districts to use those pooled Federal funds 
in the best way they see fit.

  We increase the number of high-quality teachers by promoting 
innovative teacher reforms, including alternative certification, merit 
pay, and the list I just mentioned.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Murray amendment. Again, it will 
be a very important vote that we take at 2:20 today because I think it 
does move us in the wrong direction: less choice, less freedom for our 
local communities, less flexibility, and less attention to local needs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment 
later today and look forward to participating in the debate as we go 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise, once again, to urge my 
colleagues to continue our commitment to help our schools reduce 
classroom overcrowding.
  Before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators 
be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Levin, Mikulski, and 
Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we all want to improve education. In the 
last few years we have made a lot of progress. In fact, thanks to our 
commitment at the Federal level, local schools have now hired about 
34,000 new highly qualified teachers.
  Because of our investment over the last 3 years, almost 2 million 
students are learning in less crowded classrooms today. That is because 
of the Federal commitment we have had. Those kids are learning the 
basics. They have fewer distractions and fewer discipline problems. 
Isn't that what we want for all of our kids?
  Over the last 3 years we have done the responsible thing by 
supporting what works. But the underlying bill, despite the rhetoric 
you have just heard, takes a very different approach. It breaks our 
commitment to investing in smaller classes. I can tell you as a parent, 
as a former educator, and as a former school board member, it is the 
wrong way to go. We should be building on our progress. That is why I 
am offering this amendment today.
  In just a few hours we are going to vote on this amendment. So I want 
to talk about some of the arguments we have heard throughout the debate 
last week and today and probably we will hear more of today.
  First, we have heard that smaller classes do not really make a 
difference. Let me tell you, any parent or any teacher knows better. 
The first questions parents ask their kids when they come home from 
school on the first day in September are: Who is your teacher? And how 
many kids are in your classroom? Parents know it makes a difference on 
how many kids are in that classroom as to whether their child is going 
to have a successful year or not.
  It is not just parents and it is not just teachers. Research, over 
and over again, has shown us that smaller classes help children 
succeed. The Tennessee Project STAR--Student/Teacher Achievement 
Ratio--study has consistently demonstrated that reducing class sizes in 
K-3 to 13 to 17 students significantly increases children's reading and 
mathematics scores. And the biggest gains have been found for poor and 
minority students--those children who are most in danger of being left 
behind.
  Studies have shown that the children in those smaller classes in the 
early grades were: More likely to take college entrance exams, more 
likely to finish high school, more likely to enroll in college, less 
likely to become teen parents, and less likely to go to jail.
  In the last month two new studies that have been released 
interpreting the STAR study have concluded that smaller classes produce 
significant benefits. One joint study by researchers from Tennessee 
State University and the University of Chicago found significant 
increases in ninth grade math test scores among students who had spent 
their early grades in smaller classes, with the gains even more 
pronounced among minority students.
  Robert Reichardt, a researcher with Mid-continent Research for 
Education

[[Page S4904]]

and Learning, concluded in yet another study that class size reduction 
``provides policymakers with a direct lever for influencing 
classrooms'' and is one of a few policies that ``offer such immediate 
concrete effects.''
  As in Project STAR, students participating in Wisconsin's SAGE class-
size reduction effort outperformed their counterparts in larger 
classrooms on standardized tests.
  Again, as in the other studies, these benefits were strongest among 
African American students who had larger gains than their white 
counterparts.
  So not only can smaller class size help raise student achievement 
overall, but reduced class size may be an especially effective measure 
for closing the ``achievement gap'' between black students and white 
students.
  Let me turn to a second argument we have heard. I keep hearing that 
Federal money should not be targeted for a specific purpose such as 
making classrooms less crowded.
  I remind all of my colleagues that in this underlying bill we have 
targeted money for many causes, including reading, technology, 
afterschool programs, school safety, and charter schools and magnet 
schools.
  In fact, there are more than 20 targeted funding streams in the 
underlying bill.
  If targeted funding were really the problem, and why we should vote 
against this amendment, then those who vote against my class size 
amendment ought to vote against the entire bill.
  Some have said we should just let school boards choose how to use 
this money. But that really ignores the realities local school boards 
face. I served on a local school board. I know what it is like to try 
to set aside money to hire new teachers for the foreseeable future when 
you do not even know if a school bond is going to pass next month. That 
is one of the reasons it is so hard for local schools to hire new 
teachers to reduce overcrowding on their own.
  Fortunately, because of the work we have done in the last 3 years, 
today they are not on their own. They have a Federal partner to help 
them make that critical investment. We need to continue that 
commitment.
  The truth is, the underlying bill would pit two key elements of good 
schools against one another: Small classes and good teachers. Under 
this bill, any dollar that local schools decide to spend on smaller 
classes comes at the expense of a dollar spent on teacher quality. We 
should not make our schools choose between two priorities that are 
important; we should fund both.
  This kind of ``false flexibility'' that we see in this underlying 
bill would be unacceptable in most other arenas. Do we make our 
military choose between weapons and training? Of course not. We know 
both are necessary to protect our Nation. Do we make a sick patient 
choose between food and medicine? Of course not, because we know both 
are necessary.
  Why then, in this underlying bill, are we forcing our schools to 
choose between high-quality teachers and smaller classes when we know 
both are necessary to help our children learn?
  In their zeal to assail small classes, some people have even claimed 
that a good teacher is more important than a small class size. Let me 
say this as clearly as I can: Small classes and good teachers are both 
important. The importance of funding teacher quality should not crowd 
out funding for other important reforms such as smaller classes.
  I also point out that smaller classes can help us recruit and retain 
good teachers. One of the main reasons that teachers leave the 
classroom is job dissatisfaction. The truth is, we are losing a lot of 
teachers very early in their careers. After 1 year of teaching, we lose 
11 percent of our new teachers; after 2 years, we lose 21 percent of 
them; and after 5 years, it is now up to 39 percent.
  Why are we losing teachers out of our classrooms? Studies have shown 
that one of the main reasons is job dissatisfaction. One of the main 
causes of job dissatisfaction: Overcrowded classes. Another top 
complaint: Student discipline. We know there are fewer discipline 
problems in smaller classes. We need to keep good teachers in our 
classrooms. That means we ought to invest in teacher quality. But it 
also means we should reduce overcrowding to encourage more good 
teachers to stay in our classrooms and give their students their best.
  This is not just about statistics. The other day in this Chamber I 
read an excerpt from a letter sent to me by an award-winning teacher 
from Pullman, WA. Kristi wrote to me that she is very frustrated. Every 
day she tries to give her students her best, but with large classes 
that is getting harder and harder. Kristi is a great teacher. She is a 
national award-winning teacher.
  She is asking us to help her be the kind of ``high-quality'' teacher 
we say we want for every child by giving her a class small enough for 
every child to get the attention they need.
  Dedicated teachers such as Kristi spend their lives helping our 
children to learn. We reward them with working conditions that none of 
us would tolerate.
  Fourth, some on the other side have said we should focus our reform 
efforts on testing and accountability. The truth is that this amendment 
is even more essential because of the testing and accountability 
provisions in the underlying bill. This bill could punish students for 
failing tests, but it does not give them the tools they need to pass 
those tests.
  Implying that testing is some kind of magic bullet that will somehow 
turn around low-performing schools is simplistic. The truth is far more 
complex. Testing is just one of many tools, and it is useless by 
itself. Tests can identify problems but without the support to solve 
those problems, tests have little value. Tests alone cannot improve a 
student's achievement, but give that student a smaller class and a good 
teacher, and the sky is not even a limit for his or her potential 
success.
  I want all of us to think about that. No test is going to help a 
student learn to read or learn to write or learn to add. A smaller 
class and a qualified teacher will.
  We can take a classroom of students and give them tests every day for 
10 years, and those kids won't do better unless they have a qualified 
teacher in a classroom that is not overcrowded, where they get the 
individual attention they need to learn.
  Let's make sure we give those kids the tools they need to pass the 
test, not just to take the test. Let's invest in what works. Our 
schools are facing bigger challenges than they ever have before. They 
are educating more students, and more students with special challenges 
are filling our classrooms such as children with limited English 
proficiency and disabilities. They are educating them to meet higher 
standards and succeed in an increasingly complex world.
  We know many schools need to do a better job. Schools need to be held 
accountable and teachers need to be held accountable. But in Congress, 
we must also be held accountable for meeting our responsibilities as a 
Federal partner to our schools. Believe me, if we pass this bill 
without guaranteed funding for things such as smaller classes and with 
huge unfunded testing mandates, we will be held accountable.
  Finally, I will mention something we did not hear from the other side 
but is at the heart of what is going on in the bill. We did not hear 
this new funding scheme that is in the underlying bill described as a 
block grant. That is exactly what it is. The reason it is not called a 
block grant is because parents know that block grants offer less 
accountability, less focus on things that work, and in the end less 
funding. So instead of calling it a block grant, they now call it ``a 
funding pool.''
  Parents don't want pools of funding. They want commonsense 
investments that make a difference, such as smaller classes and decent 
facilities. We have heard a lot of excuses. We have heard a lot of 
rhetoric. The only thing that will matter when this debate is done is 
how the students in Kristi's classrooms and thousands of classrooms 
across our country do next year.
  I have shown my colleagues why the arguments that have been raised 
don't hold up. I close by mentioning some of the reasons we should 
target these dollars to smaller classes.
  Parents know better than to believe the false rhetoric about smaller 
classes not helping children learn. Smaller classes result in more 
individual attention for students and better student performance on 
assessments. They

[[Page S4905]]

produce long-lasting academic benefits such as lower dropout rates and 
more students taking college entrance exams and long-lasting social 
benefits such as less teen pregnancy and incarceration. Rhetoric about 
choice and flexibility will not go very far when parents ask us why 
class sizes went back up. The reasons we need a guaranteed funding 
stream for class size reduction are clear.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to invest in the things that work. 
As local schools across the country try to make progress in the face of 
growing challenges, let's give them the tools they need to succeed.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator from 
Washington yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the ranking member for the time.
  I compliment the Senator from Washington on her amendment and for the 
tremendous insight she brings, as someone who has participated on a 
school board, as a mom, who understands education from the grassroots.
  As the Senator from Washington was talking, I couldn't help but 
think, I don't get to go to the movies very much, but there was one 
movie about 2 years ago named ``October Sky'' that I saw. It was about 
a coal mining town in West Virginia and how the escape for those young 
people in school from a life of coal mining was only through the avenue 
of a dedicated teacher who ignited their little minds.
  In this particular case, they were called the rocket boys. They went 
out and built miniature rockets, won the State science fair, got the 
college scholarships, and were able to go to college. It is based on a 
true story about one of those rocket boys who went on to become a very 
accomplished NASA engineer.
  It popped into my mind because of what the Senator was saying about 
the importance of the teacher and the teacher being able to interrelate 
with the children in that classroom. If it is a classroom of 50 or 60 
children, that personal attention, that interaction just isn't going to 
occur.
  How many studies do we have to undertake to understand that when 
class size is reduced, particularly in the formative years of 
kindergarten through the third grade, it shows up in spades later on in 
life by the child's ability to accomplish and succeed.
  The Senator's amendment is so clear. This is like voting against 
motherhood. I can't imagine anybody would not be supporting this 
amendment. We have already had 2 years of experience with this program. 
It clearly has started to work. The Senator wants to extend this 
program for another 5 years for a total program of 7 years.
  If I went to my State and asked the average citizen on the street: Do 
you want to lower class size by hiring more teachers over a 7-year 
period, to have the Federal Government invest more by hiring 100,000 
teachers, I would get an almost unanimous response.
  I add my voice of appreciation to the Senator from Washington for her 
wonderful commentary and for her very insightful amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off the bill on 
the amendment.
  I commend the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for bringing this 
measure back to the Chamber, urging the Senate to support an amendment 
which will make available to school districts the additional funding 
for smaller class sizes with a particular emphasis on K-3 classrooms.
  Senator Murray brings a unique and special credibility to this issue 
as someone who has been an active school board member and also someone 
who has been a first grade school teacher. Although she didn't review 
that experience with us this morning, I think all of us who have 
listened to her make this presentation and fight for this program 
remember clearly the very compelling case that she has made.
  I think it still echoes in my ears about the schoolteachers who are 
in the classes with 30 children, trying to deal with all of their 
particular names and needs, as compared to a teacher in a smaller class 
of 15, 13 children, where she is able to spend the time to give the 
individual kind of attention to the child, and particularly that child 
who may have some very special needs on that particular day. It is 
translated into helping and assisting children in the earliest grades 
to be able to develop their interests and their awareness in terms of 
education and reflects itself in terms of an enhancement in their 
academic achievement and accomplishment.
  Now there has been some suggestion on the floor of the Senate that 
this is not effective, that the studies indicate this is not effective, 
that it is one of the least desirable reforms. I hope those who 
maintain that position will at least be good enough to illustrate what 
studies they were referring to, because I am going to give three 
practical studies that are compelling information and make a compelling 
case in support of the Murray amendment. They are overwhelming. And you 
don't have to go back years to look at the results of the studies, all 
you have to do is look at the front page of the newspapers here Tuesday 
of last week:

       Prince Georges' Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever.

  Then you read down through this:

       Prince Georges County students posted their highest gains 
     ever on a key standardized test used to gauge how local 
     children measure up to their peers nationally, according to 
     the results released.

  Then the school superintendent, when asked about what the principal 
contributors were in moving the children along in this direction:

       [She] said she hoped that county and State leaders would 
     see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about 
     improving academic achievement and that they would reward it 
     with more funding to reduce class size.

  There it is. Results. Reduce class size. We reject this idea that you 
have to make a choice between well-qualified teachers in the classroom 
and smaller class size. The Murray amendment says we can do both. That 
is our position, that we can do both.
  With all respect to our colleagues on the other side, the ones who 
have been addressing this issue voted against getting an allocation of 
resources in our committee toward having well-qualified, well-trained 
teachers with professional development and mentoring. As many of us 
tried to say, let's make sure we are going to provide that, and that 
was rejected in our committee. Now, in some kind of an attempt to 
defeat the Murray amendment, they say the No. 1 question is: Are we 
going to have a well-trained teacher in every class?
  We are for it. The Senate voted in favor of it, with a strong 
bipartisan vote to expand that last week. What we are also saying is we 
want to have a well-trained teacher in the class with professional 
development and mentoring programs, but we also want the smaller class 
size, as has been done here every time we have reviewed this amendment. 
All we have to do is look at the results.

  I think what would be useful is, rather than speculating perhaps what 
each Member believes is best in the local community, to look at what is 
happening out in the country and what the results are. Maybe we can 
benefit from what is happening when we have results. That is what we 
have.
  In the STAR program in the State of Tennessee, April 29, 1999, 
report, it says:

       The original STAR research tracked the progress of an 
     average of 6,500 students each year in 79 schools between 
     1985 and 1989 (and 11,600 students overall). It found that 
     children who attended small classes (13-17 pupils per 
     teacher) in kindergarten through grade 3 outperformed 
     students in larger class sizes (22-25 pupils) in both reading 
     and math on the Stanford Achievement Tests for elementary 
     students. The second phase of the STAR research found that 
     even after returning to larger classes in grade 4, STAR's 
     small class students continued to outperform their peers who 
     had been in larger class sizes.

  That is what we have, Mr. President. The study goes on and shows that 
students in smaller class sizes are more likely to pursue college, 
small classes lead to higher graduation rates, students in small 
classes achieve at higher levels, and the list goes on. That is 
Tennessee, 6,500 students.
  We can go to what took place from 1996 up to the year 2000 in the 
State of Wisconsin, the SAGE Program. The exact same results--30 
schools, 21 school districts. When adjusted for preexisting differences 
in academic

[[Page S4906]]

achievement, attendance, and socioeconomic status, the SAGE students 
showed significant improvement over their comparison school 
counterparts from the beginning of the first grade to the end of the 
third grade across all academic areas. The charts go through there.
  We can take the Rand study. That is not known to be a flaming liberal 
or Democratic organization--the Rand Corporation. Here they examine 
smaller class sizes in California --more than 1.8 million students. 
This is their conclusion:

       Smaller class sizes with certified teachers--

  That is what we stand for. We have the certified teachers with the 
authorizations we passed last week in a bipartisan way. But also we 
haven't got the guarantee that there will be resources in here for the 
smaller class sizes. Here is the Rand study that was just produced in 
July of last year:

       Smaller class sizes with certified teachers have the 
     greatest benefit for the neediest students.

  Why not do both? That is what the Senator from Washington is saying. 
Why don't we do both? We are doing the well-qualified teachers. Why not 
do smaller class sizes? Why be in the situation? We have to make a 
choice. We know what is working. Let's give that option to the local 
communities. That is what the Murray amendment does.
  Here it is:

       Smaller class sizes with certified teachers have the 
     greatest benefit for the neediest students. Evaluation shows 
     that those students in the most disadvantaged schools were 
     most likely to be in larger classes, or have less-qualified 
     teachers. Students in smaller classes still outperformed 
     their peers in larger classes, even with less-qualified 
     teachers. These students could be performing even better if 
     all children in these schools had fully qualified teachers 
     and smaller class sizes.

  That is the Rand Corporation. If we want to try to do something to 
help children in local communities, let's take the best in terms of 
studies. Let's take the best in practical experience. Let's take the 
best in terms of our own intuition and understanding about a 
schoolteacher in a classroom where they are familiar with the children 
and can spend the time with the children versus in a larger classroom. 
That is what this is really all about.
  Finally, I want to read this. I have other examples. In Fayetteville, 
AR, there is a wonderful story about a rural school that took advantage 
of the Murray amendment, because although we are resisted on the floor 
of the Senate by our Republican friends, in the past we were able to, 
under the leadership of Senator Murray and President Clinton, have an 
effective program that is currently working, and one we want to keep.
  Let me just read a very brief letter from a student at the Richmond 
Elementary School from Narragansett, RI. I think it could have been 
from any number of children. This is from Marieke Spresser:

       If I were in a smaller class, I would do more projects. I 
     could talk more with my teacher about school. I could read 
     more in my book packets. I could have more time for centers. 
     I could have more time for snacks. I could ask more 
     questions. I could talk more with my friends. The coat room 
     would not be so messy and we would not waste the time looking 
     for something. The line would not be so long.

  My colleagues get the sense from this student. Even though there are 
references about other activities, my colleagues have an understanding, 
which the children have, that should not be lost as well. If we are 
talking about developing a legislative initiative that is going to 
present the best we possibly can to local communities, let them make 
their choice; let them make the decision. They are the ones who are 
going to ultimately make the request.
  There is nothing mandatory in here, but let us at least pass 
legislation that reflects the best of educators and practical 
experience. The Murray amendment does that in spades. It is a 
compelling case. It should be accepted, and I hope it will be.
  My colleague, the Senator from New York has arrived. The Senator from 
Washington can yield time to our colleague.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I 
rise to express my very strong support for Senator Murray's class size 
reduction amendment.
  I have been in this Chamber several times in the last weeks talking 
about class size and have shown numerous pictures of conditions in the 
classes in the schools in New York. I have listened to the 
extraordinary description of other colleagues as to what their students 
and teachers face day in and day out because of overcrowded classrooms.
  I know we will be making decisions that determine the opportunities 
for our educational achievement for our students for years to come when 
we vote on this amendment and on the bill of which I hope it will be a 
part.
  I have to reiterate several points and call on my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to look at the evidence. I do believe sometimes in 
Washington we live in an evidence-free zone. It does not matter who 
comes up with whatever scientific research or evidence. If it runs 
against any particular political point of view, it is not given the 
seriousness it deserves.
  I do not see how we can turn our backs on the evidence that we have 
from study after study that lower class size, when it comes to teaching 
children from disadvantaged backgrounds, makes all the difference.
  Sometimes my colleagues say: But there are schools that do a good job 
with more students, and I remember when I was in school and we had a 
lot of students.
  I can remember that, too. I started school when we had three 
television networks. I can remember when we had more two-parent 
families. I can remember when we did not have all of the social and 
cultural interference with raising children that we now face.

  The fact is, we have to take our kids where they are today, and many 
of them today are coming from situations where they need more 
attention, more adult time, more discipline, more guidance in order to 
be academically successful.
  We are turning our backs not only on the research which points that 
out time and again but on these children. I hope my colleagues who have 
not seen fit to support this amendment will reconsider it. It is not 
too late to cast a vote for the kinds of classrooms where teachers can 
teach and children can learn.
  If you look at our big States with big cities--and I know New York 
has obviously a special set of issues because of the size of our school 
district in New York City, but it is not unique. In Pennsylvania, for 
example, the average class size in Philadelphia is 30 children per 
class. In Pittsburgh, it is 25 children per class. In Chicago, it 
averages 28. In Georgia, it averages 32.
  This is not an issue for just Senators or teachers or school board 
members to be concerned about in debate. Much of the attention I have 
seen focused on this comes from parents who know their children are not 
getting academic assistance they need to do the best they can do.
  There is a woman in New York whom I commend who started a grassroots 
parents organization called Class Size Matters. She began to form 
networks of parents around the country who know because they have seen 
with their own eyes and their experience of their children, that class 
size matters.
  In Pennsylvania alone, this Class Size Matters network got 1,700 
parents to sign a petition in just 2 days, urging the Senate to vote in 
favor of class size reductions.
  I have heard from parents throughout New York who tell me in great 
detail how crowded their classrooms are and how they need help. This 
does not interfere with flexibility. This does not take anything away 
from the local school districts determining priorities, but it does 
give additional help and resources to those districts and those parents 
who know that unless we get those class sizes down, their children will 
not learn to the extent they should do so.
  I also regret deeply that if we do not adopt this amendment, we will 
be stopping the progress we have made.
  New York State has hired to date 2,600 teachers and has 700 more all 
ready to be hired. This will stop that hiring, and we know from the 
2,600 we have already hired what a difference it makes in the 
classrooms of New York.
  I believe that without dedicated funding for reducing class sizes, 
our

[[Page S4907]]

hardest pressed, most needy districts will not receive the dollars they 
need to reduce the classes.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to stand behind our children, our 
parents, our teachers and reduce the size of our classes and adopt 
Senator Murray's amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time does the Senator from Michigan wish?
  Ms. STABENOW. Five minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Washington 
State who has been such a stalwart on this commonsense issue. If you 
were to ask anyone in the public whether it makes sense to have smaller 
class size so that our children can receive the attention they need 
from the teacher and have the opportunity to interact in the classroom 
and maximum opportunity to learn in the classroom, everyone would look 
at you and say: Well, of course, that ought to be a priority.
  We have been able to back up the commonsense nature of this ideal 
with numerous studies that have been talked about by my colleagues 
today about what has happened around the country and the difference 
smaller class size makes.
  I want to share with my colleagues what is happening in my great 
State of Michigan. I have a colleague, a former State senate colleague, 
Senator Joe Conroy, who is the Senator Murray of Michigan. For years he 
has been speaking about the importance of lowering the number of 
children in a classroom and how critical that is to teaching. He has 
been bringing those studies to Michigan, and Michigan finally took 
action in 1996.
  For the 1996-1997 school year, thanks to Senator Conroy, Michigan 
created a pilot project in Flint, MI, to focus on grades 1-3 and to 
create a 17-student-per-teacher classroom, a ratio of 17 children to 1 
teacher in the high-risk schools.
  They found it was so successful after 3 years that the State of 
Michigan has begun to look for ways to expand that and has now expanded 
a classroom project to lower class size to 26 different districts in 
Michigan.
  That is the good news. They found in Flint that, in fact, it made a 
difference that children's performance in reading and math increased 
dramatically. They are now looking for ways to bring that to children 
all across Michigan. But the challenge is that there are over 500 
districts, and the State has been able to expand to 26 districts, but 
they need our partnership. They need this Murray amendment. Our 
children in Michigan need to know that we in Washington understand the 
critical importance of partnering with the States to lower class size 
so that our teachers can teach and our children can learn.
  We have heard the numbers. We have heard about national studies. Let 
me just add an analysis of a Texas program that used data from 800 
school districts containing more than 2.4 million children. They found 
that as the number of children in a classroom went up above 18 students 
per 1 teacher, student achievement fell dramatically. So the more 
children in the classroom, the lower the achievement.
  We have seen study after study that has shown this. We have the 
opportunity in the Senate to show that we have responded to the common 
sense and the studies that have indicated very clearly the direction in 
which we should move as we look at improving education for our 
children.
  I support having strong standards, high standards, and I commend 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for initiatives that relate to 
accountability. But if we do not also provide the opportunity for 
children to learn in small classes, if we do not also focus on 
recruiting more certified teachers, and make sure there are an 
appropriate number of classrooms and they are modernized so the tools 
are there, we are only doing half the job.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment. It has made a 
difference. It will make a difference. The efforts that we have seen in 
Flint, MI, and now expanded across Michigan, have demonstrated very 
dramatically that if a teacher is able to spend the time in a 
classroom--and the ideal number we found in Michigan is 17 to 18 
children per classroom--if you are able to do that, if that teacher has 
the opportunity to spend time with children in a small class, we know 
reading scores go up, math scores go up, and student performance goes 
up in general. We also know that classroom is more safe; there is a 
better opportunity in general for children to be in safe, quality 
schools when we focus on small class size.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 43 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire when he intends to 
use his time? Mr. President, we have 16 minutes on our side and 43 
minutes on the other side. If I could just inquire when the other side 
intends to use their time?
  Mr. GREGG. I believe the Senator from Minnesota wished to speak. We 
will proceed after the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take 3 minutes because I 
want to give the Senator from Washington as much time as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her response. I 
ask unanimous consent I be included as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Florida state 
to the Senator from Washington he appreciated her grassroots 
perspective. I do as well. I didn't serve on a school board. I wish I 
had. I keep calling on people in Minnesota to please run for the school 
board. We desperately need good leadership on our school boards. There 
is no more important issue and there is no more important public 
service.
  I certainly agree with what the Senator from Michigan has said. The 
only thing I would add to this debate is, while I didn't serve on a 
school board, I have averaged being in a school every 2 weeks for the 
last 10\1/2\ years. I love to teach. I was a college teacher. I was in 
Woodbury High School yesterday. I love being in schools. Almost every 
time now in the last year or so we have gotten into discussions about 
education, I pretty much ask students: What do you think makes for a 
good education? Where do you think the gaps are? What works well? what 
does not? Why?
  Really, over and over again the first of two things students talk 
about is good teachers. When they talk about good teachers, they never 
then define good teachers as teachers who teach to worksheets. They are 
not talking about drill education. They are talking about teachers who 
fire their imagination, get them to relate themselves personally in 
relation to the material that is being discussed. Also you hear about 
smaller class size.

  I agree certainly with the little ones, under 4 feet tall, it is 
critically important. But I frankly think it goes all the way through 
high school. When you ask students to talk about why, it is just a no-
brainer to them.
  They say the good teachers are the teachers who get to know us, who 
can interact with us and can really support us, and they are much 
better able to do that when there is a smaller class size.
  I am a proud Jewish father. My daughter is a great teacher. Next 
year, the school in which she is teaching will have to lay off 40 
teachers for many reasons, including an awful State budget. She will 
have 50 students in her Spanish class. It is hard to get to know them 
well and give them the help they need.
  Maybe this is the best way I can support this amendment. She said she 
kept the parents around the night of the parent/teacher conference and 
had

[[Page S4908]]

them all crammed into the classroom. She sat them all down and said 
this year she has 40. She said: Next year, there will be 10 more. That 
means your child will get 1 minute.
  If you think about a class, and they were all sitting there, 
thinking: This doesn't work very well, does it?
  It does not. At the national level, the one thing we can say is there 
are certain priorities we have, and there is a certain commitment we 
make to all children wherever they live. We at the Senate say we know 
good teachers and small class size are important, so we make this 
commitment in our education legislation. Therefore, I am proud to 
support your amendment. I certainly hope it will be agreed to in the 
Senate.
  I have no doubt that at the grassroots level in all of our States, 
the people we represent, including the students who maybe cannot even 
vote, view this as a priority for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged equally to both sides. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 43 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire when they intend to 
use their time? Certainly we have several Senators coming to the floor. 
We would like to use our 11\1/2\ minutes. If the other side doesn't 
want to use their time, we would love to have some of it.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the generosity of the Senator from 
Washington. I yield to the Senator from Alabama 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and appreciate his leadership 
on all issues relating to this education bill. As a former Governor and 
a person who has been deeply involved in trying to get the best 
possible advantage from every dollar spent on education, his influence 
has been very valuable to us in this body. I think President Bush--as a 
former Governor himself who made education a high priority, who 
traveled his State and who was in schools and met with school boards 
and principals all over his State, he wrestled with those kinds of 
issues that face all educators--also is providing great leadership. I 
am pleased to be able to support legislation that he proposes.
  We deeply care about improving learning in the classroom. My wife and 
I both have taught. She taught a number of years. We care about it, 
have been active in the PTA and those kinds of things, and have tried 
to keep up with the relevant issues of importance to education.
  With regard to class size reductions, it would seem that class size 
reductions is a wonderful idea. I am sure teachers would say: Wouldn't 
it be great if I had a smaller group of students? And teacher unions 
like it; they get to hire more teachers. Polling numbers show that 
people think they like that.
  How are you going to improve education? What do you want to do? Poll? 
Reducing class size. That sounds like a good idea. It sounds like a 
good idea to me. It sounds like a good idea for politicians who want to 
please the public and do something about education. I have thought over 
the years it is a good public policy we ought to pursue.
  I do not suggest there is no benefit from reducing the size of the 
class.
  I think we need to be real serious about it. We are talking about a 
lot of money and a major commitment. We need to know whether or not 
this is the best way to achieve additional learning.
  Senator Murray's goal is a noble one. I know it comes from her heart. 
She believes in it. But her amendment is, in fact, a federal mandate 
and a $2.4 billion requirement on education for fiscal year 2002 alone. 
It is in such sums as are necessary for the next 6 years. It would 
require States to use those funds to reduce class size whether this is, 
in their mind, a local need or not.
  The bill we have under consideration would allow schools to use the 
already increased Federal funds for class size reduction, but it does 
not require them to do so. It leaves those decisions in the hands of 
the States and localities. I think they should make those 
determinations.
  In addition to that, I think we ought to be real careful in this body 
when we pass an amendment--if we were to pass this amendment--that we 
would be sending a signal that it is the considered opinion of this 
body and the Federal Government that class size reduction ought to be 
made the No. 1 priority in the schools around America. If that were the 
right thing to do, I would feel more comfortable about this.
  Reduction of class size is a highly expensive policy to place on the 
States. Many researchers have found little or no benefit in reducing 
class size.
  Some would say, Jeff, that is just skinflint talk. You are always 
frugal. You are always worried about spending money, and you know that 
we are going to have more learning if we have smaller classes. Why 
would you suggest otherwise? I thought so myself. But the more I look 
at the facts and the studies, I am less and less convinced that we 
receive any real benefit from a reduction in class size.
  Professor Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester, and 
now I believe at Stanford University, has written that class size 
reduction is best thought of as a political decision. Past evidence 
suggests that it is a very effective mechanism for gaining voter 
support, even if past evidence also suggests that it is a very 
ineffective educational policy.
  The problem is, we are dealing with a counterintuitive circumstance 
here. But we weren't thinking this way in 1988. The Department of 
Education of the United States declared that reducing class size in 
1988 was probably a waste of money.
  Then we had a series of efforts and programs around the country and 
campaigns to raise this issue. It seemed to have taken hold.
  I would like to mention a few facts that we need to consider if we 
really want to make sure the money we are spending benefits children.
  In 1961, the average class size in America was 30. In 1998, the 
average class size was 23.
  Most Americans who are thinking about reducing class size probably 
don't realize that the average class size in America is that small. I 
think we have made some very good progress in reducing class size 
already. In fact, that is almost a one-third reduction since 1960 in 
the size of classes.
  Unfortunately, we need to ask ourselves what kind of benefit have we 
received from this one-third reduction, this reducing down to 23 
students per classroom. If we look at the standardized test scores over 
that same period from 1960 to 1998, scores have fallen. They have not 
gone up.
  You say, well, a standardized test is not a perfect evaluation for a 
lot of complicated reasons. That is true. But most experts who have 
studied these numbers will tell you they believe fundamentally test 
scores have not gone up since 1960. I think most would agree they 
probably have at least declined some.

  The NAEP scores of 17-year-olds have been conducted since 1969, and 
from 1969 to 1995, class size dropped 23 percent. But NAEP scores on 
academic improvement show that math and reading were level and science 
and writing declined.
  We have a continual decline in classroom size and no improvement in 
learning scores. I think that is strong evidence when we are talking 
about these numbers.
  Make no mistake. When we reduce a class size by one-third, what have 
we done? We have required that we hire one-third more teachers. We have 
required that we build one-third more classrooms; that we will have 
one-third more insurance to pay for; one-third more maintenance; and 
one-third more upkeep and all the things that go with operating a 
school--a tremendous wealth investment in classroom size reduction.
  We have had big classroom size reductions, and I have always thought 
that was great. But we surely haven't had great test score results in 
recent years.
  The question I guess would be, if we have already had a one-third 
classroom size reduction and no benefit, why do

[[Page S4909]]

we think further reductions of a significant order are going to be paid 
for in increased educational return? I think that is the question with 
which we need to wrestle.
  In 1994, Professor Hanushek did a study. He examined 277 studies that 
have been conducted of the effects of classroom size in America. He 
took every one of them. He pored through their data and examined it and 
reached a number of startling conclusions. He published his study. It 
showed that in statistically significant studies 15 percent of the 
studies found some positive benefit from reducing classroom size and 13 
percent found a negative benefit from reducing classroom size--
negative, adverse consequences from reducing classroom size. Seventy-
two percent were basically neutral and didn't show any effect. If you 
took all the studies, it was 27 percent positive and 25 percent 
negative.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. To what studies are we referring? I am trying to 
understand. We had the study in Tennessee, and the STARS study. I am 
trying to find out what these studies are and who conducted them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. This is a study by Eric Hanushek, a professor at the 
University of Rochester who published his writings, and who I think is 
well known in the field and referred to by experts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I apologize to the Senator. I did not hear him.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Professor Hanushek.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Where is he from?
  Mr. SESSIONS. He is now from Stanford University, I believe. He was 
at the University of Rochester, I believe, previously.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What is the title of the study? I want to have a chance 
to review it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to get the Senator the information.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is this the only study that we are using?
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to yield and talk about it 
specifically.
  Mr. GREGG. Hanushek is a professor at Rochester. He looked at 300 
different studies on the question of class size and its effect on pupil 
performance in the classroom. He also looked at teacher performance in 
the classroom and teacher professionalism and performance in the 
classroom. Within those 300 different studies on that subject, he 
evaluated and came to the conclusions being related by the Senator from 
Alabama very precisely.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is this the only study that the Senator is using? I used 
the Tennessee study, the California study, and then the Prince George's 
results. I am wondering whether the Senator has other studies? I know 
the Senator from Tennessee referred to multiple studies that are being 
done on this. I was just trying to be able to look at the studies 
myself.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to provide the Senator his analysis of 
the existing studies he reviewed. That was his conclusion.
  He also reviewed the Tennessee STAR report in some depth and 
concluded that its methodology was dubious, that benefits, at best, 
were very small, even under the STAR report. It took an heroic endeavor 
by the writer of the STAR report, based on a single British study of 
how much more money you make, if you receive a little more education, 
to justify the expense of it.
  His conclusion was that the problem with that analysis is that it 
compares something to nothing. If you count the amount of billions of 
dollars that were spent on reducing class size, and you receive such a 
minimal benefit, perhaps it would be better spent in focusing on 
questions such as quality teachers.
  We know, for example, that good teachers benefit students 
dramatically. We have studies, that I think are not disputed, that top-
quality teachers can produce learning in a year of 1.5 year's worth of 
learning under their tutelage, whereas a poor teacher may produce an 
average of .5 year's worth of learning. In other words, an excellent 
teacher could gain for a child in learning a full year's advantage over 
a poorer teacher.
  If we are going to go out and hire one-third more teachers to reduce 
class size further down, aren't we running a risk, and isn't that 
probably why the numbers do not show the kind of improvement we desire? 
Because we are bringing in less qualified teachers, who may not be 
producing the kind of quality learning environment that excellent 
teachers would be. Which would you prefer?
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the Senator a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Did you review the Rand study? You mentioned that they 
did the STAR school study and that he questioned that. They had the 
SAGE review in Wisconsin. And they have the Rand study, which involved 
1,800,000 children last year, with very positive results. This is the 
Rand Corporation. I wonder if----
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to see the Rand study. I would just say 
this, that Michigan Professor Linda Lim has done comparative studies of 
the United States and Asian schools and found that class sizes are 50-
plus in places such as Taiwan and they have not kept those schools from 
surpassing ours.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Alabama would yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
  Mr. GREGG. The Rand study came out after Professor Hanushek completed 
his study in Rochester. The Rand study has been referred to by the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I think it is important to note that what 
the Rand study concluded was that class size might impact student 
performance but it was the most expensive way to accomplish it; that, 
in fact, you got much more benefit from the dollars spent if you 
improved the teacher quality, if you improved the resources of the 
teacher, in most instances. That was the specific conclusion of the 
Rand study.
  In fact, the average cost per pupil for reducing class size to 17 
students, under the Rand study, was found to be $450 per student in a 
high-poverty district, whereas the same academic aims could be achieved 
with the average cost of $90 per pupil by providing increased resources 
and improving the capability of the teacher to teach.
  The point, of course, of the underlying bill, which the Senator is 
trying to amend, is that we give that flexibility to the local school 
districts. We say to the local school districts: If you need to hire 
more teachers, you can. But if you think you want to improve the 
support facilities for the teachers, you can do that, or if you want to 
improve their talents, you can do that.

  We are giving that option to the State and local school districts to 
decide which is the most efficient, effective and cost-effective way to 
do this.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is precisely 
correct. It may be that a school system is in circumstances where they 
believe that class-size reduction is important. That can be done under 
this bill as it is written today. They can use the funds for class-size 
reduction.
  But I think we ought to be careful that we do not require them to 
take steps that could cost tremendous sums of money, money which could 
be better spent for bringing in a high-quality computer laboratory, a 
new science laboratory, the latest and best ways to teach mathematics, 
sending teachers to attain advanced degrees and advanced training in 
history and science and math and how to teach reading. Those kinds of 
things may be more important than simply whether the number of students 
in the classroom is 20 or 16. If you go from 20 students to 16 students 
in a classroom, that is a 20-percent increase in the number of teachers 
you have to hire. If you go from 20 students to 16 students, you have 
to have 20 percent more classrooms and 20 percent more overhead and 
cost.
  So I would just say that from Professor Hanushek's analysis, and from 
what appears to be common sense over 40 years of rapidly reduced class 
size with no academic benefit, we ought to be a little bit humble in 
this body before we start suggesting that it is the sole and best way 
for any school system in America to spend its money to enhance 
learning. That is all I am saying in opposition to this amendment.
  I have serious doubts that this is the best leadership we can give to 
American schools. If the best we can say is, don't make any changes, 
keep on with business as usual, we will just give you more money and 
more teachers and a smaller class size, that is not going to

[[Page S4910]]

guarantee that learning will improve in America. We have not seen that 
improvement. The data does not show it. Serious scientific questions 
have been raised about the importance of it.
  With regard to the highly touted Tennessee STAR experiment, that 
experiment was based on a class reduction of eight students over the 
comparative-size classroom--a very expensive proposition. If you have 
24 students in a class and you reduce the class size by 8 students, and 
go to 16 students, you have increased the number of teachers needed by 
one-third and increased the number of classrooms needed by one-third. 
That is a huge increase and huge reduction in class size. We have, at 
best, according to Professor Hanushek, something like a .2 percent 
statistical or standard deviation improvement, raising real questions 
about the validity of that.
  So the critical issue for us, it seems to me, is that we do not need 
to be pressing this mandate down on schools, requiring them or making 
them think that the only way they can get Federal money for this 
project for teachers is to go on a commitment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. May I have 30 seconds to wrap up?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator another 2 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We need to be sure we are not spending $2.4 billion a 
year in encouraging a further investment in classrooms and overhead for 
schools on a policy that sounds good--that is, to reduce class size 
even further than we have reduced it in the last 30, 40 years--when we 
may not be receiving an educational benefit from it.
  I do not know about all the studies, but I know this professor 
examined 277 of them as of 1994. He found no benefit statistically 
proven for smaller class sizes in education. Isn't that stunning? It is 
almost counterintuitive. But that is what he found. No studies that I 
have seen have shown any dramatic improvement.
  So I think we ought to allow the local school systems a choice as to 
whether they want to go to smaller class sizes, improve their science 
lab, or have better teachers, more funding for top-quality teachers, 
more training for teachers who are weak. That kind of choice would be 
better for education.
  We need to be more humble in this body about what we think we know.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven and a half minutes on the Senator's 
side and a little over 20 minutes on the other side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 7 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Murray's 
amendment to authorize class size reduction. I have been listening to 
this rather pedantic discussion of studies and analyses. We can point 
on one side to a study from Tennessee and on another side to a study 
from an eminent expert from the University of Rochester. The reality is 
much more obvious.
  Ask any parent in America if they want to have their children in a 
class of 27 or 15. The answer is always 15. Go to any prestigious 
private school in America and they are not advertising: Come to our 
school; we have 50 in a class just like Taiwan. They are saying: Come 
to our school; small class size; constant contact with teachers--the 
kind of atmosphere that provides for academic success.
  Look around. Just last week, the headline in the Washington Post 
read: ``Pr. George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever.'' What did the 
superintendent want to do with these remarkable results? The 
superintendent said she hoped that the county and State leaders would 
see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about improving 
academic achievement and that they would reward it with more funding to 
reduce class size and repair deteriorating buildings. That is not some 
scholar from Rochester or some statistician looking at Tennessee. That 
is the superintendent, a local school official, who said: We are doing 
better, but we can do better if we lower class size and repair our 
buildings.
  The other point that should be made is that this program is 
voluntary. It is not a mandate. It does not say: If you take this 
program, you cannot have any other Federal program in the realm of 
education. I have seen the results firsthand.
  In Providence, the capital city of my State, they use this program 
very flexibly, very innovatively. They sought a waiver to use class 
size funding for literacy coaches that would coteach in elementary 
schools half the time, and deliver school-based professional 
development the other half of their working time. Through this program, 
we are able to do what everyone on this floor seems to be talking 
about: reduce class size and enhance professional development.
  This is a program that we have supported over the last several years 
on a bipartisan basis. We made a downpayment to help communities hire 
100,000 teachers. That is something that every parent in this country 
wants. That is something, apparently, that school leaders such as 
Superintendent Metts of Prince George's County want. It is something 
that scientists and researchers have indicated is working in Tennessee 
and elsewhere. It is something that obviously should be done, and I 
support Senator Murray.
  I make two other points: First, class size reduction has to be tied 
to funds to increase the number of classrooms. That is another portion 
of an amendment that has been brought to the Chamber.
  In addition to that--and this is reflected in a note I received from 
Jonathan Kozol--by gearing up with an elaborate testing regime, we are 
putting the cart before the horse. We should first be reducing class 
size. We should be first increasing title I moneys. We should then go 
ahead and provide for funds to improve the physical structure of 
schools. Maybe at that point, maybe when urban children have the same 
environment, the same teacher ratios as you see in suburban 
communities, we can start testing them.
  We are going to test these children, and urban kids are going to do 
much worse than suburban kids. Why? Not because they are not capable. 
But when you are in a school that is falling down, when you are in a 
school with a large number of children, much larger than the suburban 
areas, when you have teachers who are not getting the professional 
development they need, you are not going to get the kind of results you 
get elsewhere. That is the reality.
  We can talk about tests and studies in Rochester and elsewhere, but 
the reality we know. Frankly, most of us, if we had a choice to send a 
child to school, we would look for smaller classrooms. We would look 
for buildings that are not falling down, teachers who are highly 
motivated, highly qualified, and highly prepared. That is where we 
would send our child.
  Let's give every American family that chance. The one way to do it is 
to support the Murray amendment.
  I yield back the time to Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have spoken at some length prior to this 
time on my concern for the Murray amendment. I know it is well directed 
and well intentioned, but it fails to appreciate the fact that local 
schools have a variety of needs for their teachers.
  Some schools need more teachers, so they want to hire them. Some need 
better qualified teachers, so they will want to improve the ability of 
the teachers who are in the classroom. Some may have high-quality 
teachers they want to keep in the classroom but are being attracted to 
some other private sector activity or public sector activity, so they 
need to pay the teachers more. Some classrooms just need more technical 
support to assist the teacher or teaching aids such as computers or 
some sort of monitor capability that allows the student to interface 
with the teacher in a way that the teacher can guide them.
  We don't know the answer to which one of those teacher tools are 
needed, whether it is more teachers, better teachers, better paid 
teachers, or better support for teachers. Therefore,

[[Page S4911]]

this bill addresses the issue by giving the local school districts the 
option of choosing, of taking the teacher money and the Eisenhower 
grant money, merging it and saying to local schools: You make the 
decision on teachers, if the money must be spent on teachers. You make 
the decision as to how you can best improve your classrooms. You, the 
principal, the family, the parents who participate in the PTA, or the 
school boards, the actual teachers make the decisions, rather than 
creating an arbitrary program which says every school in America needs 
to have more teachers, when that is not necessarily the case.
  In fact, 48 to 46 States--something like that--44 States already have 
teacher ratios of 18 to 1 on average in their States. As a practical 
matter, a lot of States already meet the criteria for which the 
original concept of this bill was set up. What those States need is 
better teachers, better trained teachers, maybe teachers who are better 
paid, and keeping teachers in the classroom.
  There was one thing said by the Senator from Rhode Island with which 
I agree. He said most parents are going to choose a school that has 
better teachers or smaller class size or better facilities. 
Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle isn't interested in allowing 
choice in the classroom. They have been resisting choice since the 
debate started.
  There will be an opportunity to set up a demonstration program which 
will allow 3 States and 10 school districts to apply to use choice as 
an option so that parents can choose as to whether or not they want to 
stay in that school that is working or maybe a school that is failing, 
but in any event, whether they want to stay in a school or whether they 
want to move to another school.
  We have in this bill something called supplemental services which 
says to parents, if your child is in a failed school, after 3 years you 
can go out and get tutorial support for your student. But if your child 
is in a failed school and that school has failed for 3 years, you 
should have some other choice--if you want to be able to take your 
child and move them to another school, a private school, if that is 
what you want as your option. That is what happens in Philadelphia. It 
is what is happening in Arizona and Florida. It is what is happening in 
a number of areas across the country where schools are consistently 
poor, consistently failing, which are not educating the children, where 
when you send your child off to school in the morning, you don't know 
whether they are going to be beaten up or subjected to some sort of 
exposure to drug sales or whether they are going to learn anything. A 
parent should not be put in that position.

  Remember, it is interesting what we are talking about now. We are not 
talking about wealthy parents or even moderate-income parents. In those 
instances, most of those parents, if they have decided to choose--and 
many of them have by physically living in a different area than they 
otherwise might, than in an urban area, for example--those parents will 
make the choice. We are talking basically about low-income parents in 
urban areas and specifically single moms with children.
  Those are the people we have trapped in schools that fail year after 
year after year. We say to that parent: I am sorry; your kid is never 
going to be given a chance in America because we are never going to 
educate your child. We are never going to give your child an 
opportunity to be educated. We are always going to send them to a class 
where we know that class is not working, a school that we know has 
failed for 3, 4, 5 years. We are not going to give you any options or 
any opportunities for choice.
  I was interested to see that the Washington Post, which isn't 
necessarily a conservative newspaper, has come out very strongly in two 
editorials in the last 2 weeks saying: Let's at least try a 
demonstration program on the issue of choice, on the issue of 
portability. Let's pick a few districts across the country where people 
are locked into schools that are failing, especially low-income 
parents, and give those parents some other opportunities.
  When the Senator from Rhode Island talks about giving choices, yes, I 
am for choice. I am for saying to schools that have for 2, 3, 4 years 
not met the grade and their children are locked in those schools on a 
path which means they cannot participate in the American dream because 
they are not learning: You have to straighten up. You have to do a 
better job or else the parents or the kids are going to get some 
options that are real. They are going to be able to take their kids and 
put them in schools where they are actually learning something. That is 
a big issue.
  Back on the issue of class size, this bill as it is presently 
structured addresses that issue. It addresses it with flexibility. It 
makes a decision on whether or not a new teacher should be hired to the 
local school district. But it gives the local school district the 
discretion that if it does not need new teachers but, rather, needs to 
pay teachers more or improve the quality of teachers or give teachers 
technical support, they can do that instead.

  I just don't understand the philosophy of a Government that says we 
in Washington know how to run the local schools. I don't understand 
that. That is essentially what this amendment does. It says if you want 
the money, you are going to have to hire more teachers; we in 
Washington know you have to have more teachers.
  A lot of school districts in the country don't need more teachers; 
they need better teachers. By adding more teachers, you end up with 
worse teachers. The California experience is exactly that. They 
dramatically increased the number of teachers. They went from 1,000 
unaccredited teachers to 12,000 unaccredited teachers, which meant 
12,000 teachers who may not know how to teach because they were not 
accredited and who may not even know the subject matter they are 
teaching were added to the classrooms.
  So reducing class size didn't help those kids. All it did was mean 
fewer kids got poorer teachers. Good teachers in the classroom is the 
key--a quality teacher, not necessarily class size. That has been shown 
in study after study.
  As a practical matter, this is too much a one-size-fits-all 
amendment. This is that stovepipe approach that says we in Washington 
know how to run you, the local school district, versus saying to the 
local district: If you need more teachers, you can hire them--which is 
what our bill says--and if you need better teachers, you can try to 
improve teachers' ability. If you need to pay your best teachers more, 
you can do that. If you need to support teachers, use the money that 
way. It is a much more logical and flexible approach which addresses 
the needs of school districts in a much more practical way rather than 
simply command and control from here in Washington.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Washington 
and then 2\1/2\ to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from my home State 
for yielding me time on this amendment.
  I applaud Senator Murray for her consistent and passionate support 
for education throughout her political career. Her advocacy for 
education has deep roots dating back to her early experience as a 
legislator working for more funding for schools in her own special 
experience in volunteering and schoolteaching children in the Shoreline 
area.
  This amendment is very important for the reasons some of my 
colleagues have said. It will provide the type of flexibility our 
school systems need. It is something that has been proven to work, and 
this is a program that works. Over the last 2 years, when we say a 
program has worked, we can show success. Thanks to this program, 1.7 
million children across the country and over 23,000 schools are 
benefiting from smaller class size, primarily in the early grades when 
children most need personal attention from their teachers.
  As we have heard from other speakers, smaller class size not only has 
demonstrated an impact on increasing educational performance but also 
has helped to limit disciplinary problems,

[[Page S4912]]

and, importantly, small class size has helped encourage greater 
parental participation in their children's education.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will 
lead to better student achievement, fewer discipline problems, more 
individual attention, better parent-teacher communication, and dramatic 
results for poor and minority students. This program does provide 
flexibility. Up to 25 percent of these funds can be used for other 
things. This is a program we cannot afford to cut but we need to 
continue because it is working.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I certainly thank the chairman, the 
sponsor of this amendment. I want to ask her if she would be kind 
enough to yield for a question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have listened carefully to the Republican opposition to 
this amendment to reduce class size in America. I am stunned at the 
suggestion that putting fewer kids in classrooms does not create a 
better learning experience. Every parent knows that. I can recall 
raising one child, then two, then three, and how the challenge grew 
geometrically as the number of children grew. I can't imagine facing a 
room full of 30 kids and saying it is just as easy to teach there as it 
is in a room of 13 or 18 children.
  The thing that is said repeatedly by one of our colleagues is that 
``this is a mandate.'' I ask the Senator from Washington to say once 
and for all, are we mandating school to districts that they have to 
reduce class size with this amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. Let me make it 
very clear, this is not a mandate. This is funds that are available to 
school districts to use to decrease class size. School districts that 
need those funds dramatically can apply for them with a simple 
application. The funds go directly to them. They are able to use them. 
It is not a mandate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  The difference here is that most of us come to this debate as former 
students and parents. Senator Murray comes as a former teacher--one of 
the few in this body. She has stood in front of classrooms of children 
and taught them. The rest of us here have been pupils sitting at desks 
or parents wondering how our kids are doing. She comes here saying 
lower class size gives teachers a better chance to reach children. It 
is not just her opinion; studies show it.

  The STAR project in Tennessee, which has been followed for years, 
showed significant gains in smaller class size. In Chicago last week, 
Larry Hedges at the University of Chicago and Barbara Nye of the 
University of Tennessee produced a study that found that smaller class 
size in the early grades produced better math scores not only in the 
third grade but all the way into high school--a full 6 years after the 
student was in a small elementary school class.
  It stands to reason. Think about how discouraging it must be for a 
child who has a special need or a problem to be ignored day after day 
after day, until they have lost all interest and fall behind. In a 
smaller class a teacher can reach out and pick out a child who needs 
special attention. This is not a mandate; it is an option that makes 
sense.
  We have decided in this bill to focus on the needs for reading--and I 
support that--and the needs for technology--and I support that, too. 
Just because President Clinton came up with this idea doesn't mean it 
is a bad one. It has worked. It has reduced the size of classes across 
America and has given kids a better chance. I don't think that 
President Bush, who has called for bipartisanship, should have a 
negative attitude just because this idea came about on someone else's 
watch. Aren't there some good ideas on both the Democratic side and the 
Republican side that we might put into this bill?
  Sadly, unfortunately, that is the part of the debate we have 
overlooked. More than 29,000 teachers were hired with Class Size 
Reduction Program funds in 1999, benefitting approximately 1.7 million 
young students. This bill eliminates that program. To do that is to 
turn your back on basic human experience: A teacher with a smaller 
number of students is going to be a better teacher and the students 
will have a better chance.
  I support the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes 50 seconds on the 
Senator's side and 1 minute on the other side.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to restate the significance of the 
vote that we will have in about 2 hours--exactly 2 hours, as a matter 
of fact. It is a vote that will reflect the underlying principles of 
freedom--freedom to identify local needs and respond to those needs in 
a way that is specific to the problem, to the challenge, to the need in 
the community, or in a school, and address the principle of who best 
decides how to accomplish the goal we all agree to, and that is 
boosting student achievement. Is it Washington, DC, the Federal 
Government, or is it parents, local communities, local schools, 
principals--the very people who can identify what the needs might be?
  The legislation captures it all in many ways, and therefore I think 
that we, our colleagues, and the American people should follow closely 
how the votes go because the bill captures that principle of 
flexibility and local control versus sort of a one-size-fits-all 
programmatic approach, a categorical approach that has so characterized 
our efforts over the last 35 years.
  In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. Since 
that time, there has been, literally, a litany of programs, not 10, 20, 
30, or 40, but 50, 60, 70--up in the hundreds by some counts--of well-
intended programs based on the idea that if there is a problem it can 
be fixed by Washington. For example, if there are too many students in 
classrooms in one part of the country; let's try to fix it in 
Washington by telling the local communities how to spend their 
education dollars.
  Mr. President, this is about freedom, the freedom of local 
communities to use federal resources--resources that come from the 
taxpayers, the people back home, wherever our homes may be--as they see 
fit. Those resources, those dollars, begin with the taxpayer, then come 
to Washington, DC, where they are distributed through huge 
bureaucracies in these categorical programs--all well intended--but all 
of which have been layered one after another, like this amendment, over 
the last 35 years and essentially accomplishes nothing when measured 
against student achievement, or the goal, which President Bush has 
spelled out so beautifully and demonstrated such true leadership, of 
reducing over time the achievement gap that exists between the served 
and the underserved.
  If that is truly the goal, we clearly need to do something different, 
and that something different, as outlined by President Bush, and as 
incorporated in the underlying bill, is to maximize accountability 
through assessments and testing, and to provide local communities with 
the flexibility they need to identify needs and use the resources we 
make available to address those needs.
  As was spelled out today, as well as earlier this week and last week, 
we have emphasized, in the underlying bill, which is a bipartisan bill 
supported by both sides, the relationship between teacher and child. 
Close your eyes and see it: There is a teacher, students, books, 
technology, computers, but what really ends up having the most value is 
that relationship between teacher and child. There are many other 
variable, the number of students in the classroom, how disruptive the 
students are, how safe the classroom is.

  But if we put all those variables in there, we know that at the end 
of the day, if you have a bad teacher or a poor-quality teacher at the 
head of the class, nothing else matters very much. It is the quality of 
the teacher--not just the number of teachers, not just warm bodies in 
the room--but the quality of that teacher matters. That, as indicated 
by the studies I cited earlier today, is what determines how well that 
individual child learns.

[[Page S4913]]

  What is good about the underlying bill, and why I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Murray amendment, is that we do not make that 
decision. The data is there. We do not force or encourage or 
incentivize the system to go one way or the other in terms of higher 
quality teachers, better recruitment, or professional development 
versus hiring another teacher and reducing class size.
  We basically say: No, you decide. If you are in Nashville, TN, in a 
disadvantaged part of Nashville, TN, or in rural Tennessee, you decide 
how you can best use that education dollar based on your local needs. 
The pooling of resources, the discretion we give to local communities 
about how to use that dollar we feel is so important, we believe that 
school districts should have the flexibility to decide whether to use 
the money we have made available for reduced class size, for teacher 
training, for technology in the classroom, or some other means to 
reduce the student achievement gap.
  There is some data, as I mentioned--again, I am one who thinks class 
size is, indeed, an important issue. I just think it needs to be 
determined by a particular school or a particular district rather than 
by Washington, DC.
  There are studies that have prioritized the importance of class size. 
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that, if 
your goal is student achievement, then teacher quality is five times 
more important than class size per se. Class-size reduction is 
important, but in a relative sense it is less important than having a 
good quality teacher.
  The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies found student 
grades were not linked to class size. Smaller classes did not lead to 
better test scores, and that there was no difference in the achievement 
of students from small classrooms versus those from large classrooms.
  In Dallas, researchers confirmed that one of the studies that was 
done at the University of Tennessee found that not only did high-
quality teachers have an enormous impact on student achievement, but 
that low-quality teachers actually stunted the academic performance of 
their students.
  We have a shortage of high-quality teachers. People who say class 
size is the answer need to recognize--again, it has been spelled out 
over the course of the morning and last week--that there is a shortage 
of high-quality teachers.
  We do need to invest--remember, the purpose of this bill is to invest 
in education because the role of the Federal Government is no longer 
spender but investor. We know this because after about $120 billion 
over 35 years, we are still not accomplishing our goal. So, it's not 
just a matter of money but a matter of investment. If you are a prudent 
investor, you need to make sure that the outcome is delivered, and in 
education the outcome is student achievement.

  If we have compulsory class size reduction, basically we are putting 
more teachers in the classroom. But if we have a shortage of high-
quality teachers, by definition it means we are going to be taking 
lower quality teachers.
  The data outlined is clear: You actually hurt children rather than 
help children if you are putting poor quality teachers in a classroom 
today and, therefore, it is very important that you weigh the relative 
importance of putting just bodies at the head of that class, 
interacting with your children, against putting high quality people at 
the head of the class.
  The point is, we give the school, the school district, the parents, 
the opportunity to make that choice based on the needs they identify--
it could be through assessments, it could be identification of that 
local need in any way that school district or that school sees fit.
  Our underlying bill is very different from the Murray amendment which 
overrides the school district priorities, and overriding the school 
district priorities in many ways restricts that choice, that freedom. 
That is why I urge defeat of the Murray amendment and hope my 
colleagues will join me in defeating that amendment.
  Again, as has been outlined in the underlying bill, we stress 
professional development, as well as class size, but it must be a local 
choice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in my last 1 minute, I will address two 
quick points. Our colleagues keep referring to local control. How can 
one define a bill against an amendment that it should be local control 
when this underlying bill itself requires Federally mandated testing, 
requires funding streams for reading, for technology, for 20 other 
programs? That is fundamentally a flawed argument against this.
  Our argument is about local control. Local schools decide whether 
they want to reduce class size knowing they have a Federal partner if 
they want to make that happen.
  Second, I keep hearing the Hanushek study referred to.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the Hanushek study is based on study 
of pupil-teacher ratio which includes all of the certified people in 
the building which is today almost everybody. Hanushek is fundamentally 
flawed because he does not look at class size. All of the studies that 
we have shown from Wisconsin, Tennessee, the RAND study, and the 
California study dramatically show that reducing class size increases 
student performance.
  How tragic it will be if this Senate does not approve this amendment 
and keep the commitment to reducing class size that we began 3 years 
ago.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on Senator 
Murray's amendment regarding class-size reduction. Yesterday, I 
withdrew my second degree amendment, amendment No. 388, which would 
have accomplished what I sought to do last year on the appropriations 
bill covering the Department of Education. I would have preferred to 
give class-size reduction in hiring new teachers a presumption among 
the various items which the Federal funds could be spent for on 
teachers. If a school district would make a determination that other 
issues--such as training teachers to improve the education of students 
with disabilities or those with limited english proficiency--are more 
important, then I believe Federal funds should be available for those 
purposes as they may be decided at the local level.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible 
for funding critical labor, health and education programs, I have 
sought to strike a balance between providing States and localities the 
flexibility they need to implement programs designed to improve the 
academic achievement of all students--thereby relieving them of 
Washington's straightjacket--and placing the highest priority on those 
issues that we deem critical to the success of America's 
schoolchildren.
  I believe that we must weight carefully the flexibility our States 
and school districts need to improve student achievement with priority 
programs such as class-size reduction. The underlying bill will permit 
the Federal funds to be used for class-size reduction by hiring more 
teachers although it lacks the impetus which a presumption would have 
given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________