[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5811-S5821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for 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.
       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

[[Page S5812]]

     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.
       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.
       Dayton modified amendment No. 622 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to 
     fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure 
     for programs under part B of such Act.
       Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Department of Education program to promote access of Armed 
     Forces recruiters to student directory information.
       Bond modified amendment No. 476 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     strengthen early childhood parent education programs.
       Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No. 
     358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
     subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.


                           Amendment No. 465

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 465.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the original cosponsor of this amendment is Senator 
Feingold from Wisconsin. I thank him for his support. Other cosponsors 
are Senators Kennedy and Clinton.
  Mr. President, let me try to summarize this amendment.
  Right now on this education bill there is a bonus incentive for 
States to move forward with tests that this legislation calls for. 
Remember that this legislation on the floor of the Senate is very 
sweeping, for better or for worse. I think all Senators should think 
very seriously about that.
  Right now we are basically mandating or telling every school district 
in every State in the United States of America that every child in 
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be tested every year. This is not an 
option. School districts don't decide. States don't decide. At the 
Federal level, the Congress and the Federal Government are saying to 
States: You will do this.
  In the legislation, as I say, the additional bonus money is for 
States that are able to move forward, and, as a matter of fact, put 
this testing into effect earlier than 2005.
  What this amendment would say is that it is not speed that is the 
most important criteria. The most important criteria is the quality of 
the test. What we want to say to States and school districts around the 
country is that we will provide an additional bonus to you if you, in 
fact, are designing and implementing quality tests. Again, what I mean 
by that is States should not be relying on single standardized 
multiple-choice tests.
  There are probably some students even in the gallery as I speak 
today. If they were the ones who were out here on the floor and were 
going to have a chance to speak, I think the students would say: Look. 
If, in fact, you are going to measure what we have learned and what we 
know, if you are going to measure what education is on the basis of 
single tests, standardized tests, or multiple-choice tests, the result 
will be teachers teaching to those tests, and drilling to get ready to 
take those tests. This is not all of what education is. In fact, I 
think it can become quite educationally deadening.
  The best teachers I know--I am in schools about every 2 weeks in the 
State of Minnesota--are teachers who never teach to worksheets. The 
best teachers I have met are teachers who engage students, who get 
students to think about their lives in relation to the material, who 
get students to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves 
and speak for themselves.
  At the very minimum, we ought to be saying to States that we do not 
want States and school districts to abuse tests by relying on the sort 
of off-the-shelf standardized fill-in-the-bubbles multiple-choice 
tests. That is just outrageous.
  By the way, these multiple-choice tests put the real world into 
categories. They do not measure a student's sense of irony. They do not 
measure how profoundly students are thinking. They do not measure 
whether students can think creatively. There is a whole lot that these 
tests don't measure.
  Indeed, when the other amendment I introduced was passed, one of the 
criteria was that the testing that is going to be done has to use 
multiple measures, and not just one single, standardized test. We need 
to encourage that type of assessment.
  We also need to talk about whether the assessments are coherent. That 
is to say, are they measuring what is actually taught in the 
curriculum? If you have a single, standard, multiple-choice test that 
is generic that just sort of measures students in relation to other 
students but does not have anything to do with the curriculum and the 
material and what is actually being taught, then basically you are 
putting all of America in an educational straightjacket. Aren't we 
going to make sure, I say to my good conservative friends, that local 
school districts have some say over defining what makes for good 
education?
  I think we want to make sure the tests are comprehensive. We want to 
make sure they are coherent.
  Then the other thing we want to do is to make sure they are 
continuous; that is, if we are going to say we want an assessment, then 
we want to try to measure the progress of the student over a period of 
time. So what this amendment says is, look, let's make sure the 
assessment gives us the best picture of how students are really doing; 
if we are going to be engaged in testing, let's make sure it is high-
quality testing; let's make sure we are really measuring how well 
students are doing; and, for God's sake, let's not force school 
districts and schools and teachers and students into some drill 
education, what I would call straitjacket education.
  I was really pleased that in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, 
Secretary Paige himself wrote:

       A good test, the kind the President and I support, is 
     aligned with the curriculum so schools know whether children 
     are actually learning the materials that their States have 
     decided a child should know.

  Again, that is what I mean by a test that is coherent.
  Above and beyond that, let me just simply say to all of my colleagues 
that the independent panel review of title I, which was mandated in the 
1994 reauthorization, has issued its report in January called 
``Improving the Odds.'' The report concluded that:

       Many States choose assessment results from a single test, 
     often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests 
     may have an important place in State assessment systems, they 
     rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge captured in 
     State content standards.

  The panel went on to make a strong recommendation:

       Better assessments for instructional and accountability 
     purposes are urgently needed.

  So I again say, with this amendment, if you want to have a bonus 
system set up, if you want to provide additional moneys for States--not 
to hurry up, not to just bring a test off the shelf, a test that does 
not even give us a good idea of how our students are doing--have a 
bonus that focuses on high-quality testing.
  Frankly, I am surprised that I have to come out in this chamber and 
debate this amendment. I would think this amendment would be adopted 
with 100 votes. Maybe it will be before we are done.
  Now, let me just quote Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve, 
Incorporated, which is the nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform 
movement. Here is what he said:

       You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if 
     you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests. Tests 
     have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms, and 
     that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach 
     consequences to them before, in lots of places, we have 
     really gotten the tests right.

  Mr. President, these are important words by a man whose work, whose 
profession, is in the accountability field. I would like to quote the 
last part of it again:

       Tests have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms, 
     and that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach 
     consequences to

[[Page S5813]]

     them before, in a lot of places, we have really gotten the 
     tests right.

  That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right.
  ``Quality Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the 
United States, concludes this way:

       In too many States, the tests still focus too much on low 
     multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with 
     the standards they are designed to measure.

  So again--and I will emphasize this for maybe the 20th time this 
afternoon--what we want to do is we want to make sure that if there is 
going to be this testing--all in the name of accountability, all in the 
name of assessing how our students are doing--then we had better make 
sure we get it right. And if we are going to have a bonus system, let's 
provide the bonus money to those States on the basis of their putting 
together high-quality tests. That is what this amendment says: That 
above and beyond timeliness, the other criterion, the criterion that is 
so critically important, is that we have high-quality tests.
  I say to Senators--and, by the way, I have a real question about 
this; I have not decided this question in my own mind; I have not 
decided what the right answer is--if we are going to mandate--I think 
this is breathtaking, what we are doing here, frankly--if we are going 
to mandate that every school district in every State test every kid, 
then, at the very least, it is our obligation to make sure these tests 
are done right so that they achieve the best effect.
  Let's not give States an incentive to do low-quality tests which can 
have such a damaging effect by rewarding them for rushing. What we 
ought to reward States for is having high-quality tests, which means 
they are comprehensive, which means they are coherent, which means we 
are actually assessing the progress of students over a period of time.
  I want to make it really clear that if we do not focus on high-
quality tests, we are asking for real trouble. I say to Senators, 
before you vote on this amendment, if we do not provide a bonus payment 
to States for high-quality tests, if we do not make that our priority, 
and instead our emphasis is just on States rushing forward with any 
kind of test, we will not be helping children or teachers or schools in 
America; rather, we will be doing damage because if the only thing we 
do, all in the name of ``reform,'' is to barrel down this path where 
you have State after State after State being forced by the Federal 
Government to do the testing, just taking off the shelf these 
standardized tests, with no multiple measures, and not being related to 
the curriculum that is taught, then we are going to have something 
which amounts to what I call drill education.
  Again, I am looking up at the gallery. I know there are students up 
there. Students hate drill education. And they should hate drill 
education. And teachers hate drill education. It is not real teaching, 
and it is not real learning, to just sort of drill, drill, drill, and 
have students memorize, memorize, memorize, and then have some simple 
jingo standardized testing and nothing else.
  I fear for where education is going to go if, at the very minimum, we 
are not, in our work in the Senate, focusing on quality testing.
  I also point out to my colleagues that there has been recently in the 
New York Times--and, frankly, I wish the New York Times had done this 6 
months ago, not just within the last several weeks--an excellent and a 
very troubling series, of articles on the perils of testing.
  I again mention to my colleagues that right now this legislation 
encourages States to rush to develop their new annual tests so they can 
receive bonuses from the Federal Government. What my amendment says is 
that every State has to be on time. Not one Senator can say: Senator 
Wellstone, you are trying to stop the testing. By the way, if it were 
within my power, I might. I am not so sure we should be doing this. But 
that is not what this amendment says. What this amendment says is that 
every State is going to have to implement the testing, if we pass this 
legislation, but if they do it, then they ought to receive a bonus from 
the Federal Government for having high-quality tests. That is what this 
amendment says.
  This amendment, cosponsored by Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and 
Senator Clinton, rewards those States that develop high-quality 
assessments as gauged by a peer review process, rather than simply 
speeding towards implementing tests with no consideration as to the 
quality of these assessments.
  In the New York Times articles, they point out, in a very crystal-
clear way, that quality matters. I want to just read from a couple of 
these pieces in the New York Times.
  I quote from a piece in the New York Times. This is on some of the 
dangers of rushing:

       Each customized test the State orders must be designed, 
     written, edited, reviewed by state educators, field-tested, 
     checked for validity and bias, and calibrated to previous 
     tests--an arduous process that requires a battery of people 
     trained in educational statistics and psychometrics, the 
     science of measuring mental function.
       While the demand for such people is exploding, they are in 
     extremely short supply despite salaries that can reach into 
     the six figures, people in the industry said. ``All of us in 
     the business are very concerned about capacity''. . . .

  What we have is people in the educational area saying: We are really 
worried about whether or not we are going to be able to follow through 
on this mandate. And there are all sorts of examples in different 
States, from New York to Arizona to Minnesota, where either there have 
been testing errors and kids have been kept back or have not graduated, 
with unbelievably harsh consequences, or principals and teachers have 
lost jobs, with the argument being that they were not able to teach 
well when in fact, as it turns out, the tests were not reliable or 
articles about teachers who were high-quality teachers who we would 
want to teach in inner cities or in rural areas--the Presiding Officer 
is from Maine--and who basically are now leaving the teaching 
profession because they are saying, wait a minute; not only do we want 
the resources but we certainly don't want to be forced to be involved 
in drill education, just teaching to these simple standardized tests.
  The New York Times, again, had several articles which pointed out 
some of the real dangers.
  The Washington Post had a piece February 10, 2001. I quote from one 
of the pieces.

       But 21 states test in three or fewer of the six grades, 
     according to the center, and under President Bush's plan 
     would have to at least double the number of students they 
     test annually.

  Only seven States right now are testing every year in grades 3 
through 8 in a way that is aligned with state standards; other States 
do it every other year; some States, have not even met the requirements 
set out in the 1994 law. What we are now going to say is every State, 
every school district has to test every child every year. They are not 
given any choice. Not only are we saying that, but we are also saying 
there will be consequences based upon how the students do on those 
tests.
  There will be consequences in terms of additional money, in terms of 
whether or not those schools will be sanctioned, in terms of whether or 
not those schools will be told that they have to operate differently, 
in which case, what my amendment is saying is: With this bonus system, 
let's not provide bonuses for States for rushing, since we have example 
after example after example of the abuse of testing and what can go 
wrong. Let's provide bonuses to States on the basis of quality.
  My definition of quality, which is based on a recent report by the 
National Research Council, ``Knowing What Students Know'' and on other 
sources such as the ``Professional Standards on Educational and 
Psychological Testing'' is: A, the tests should be comprehensive and 
not rely on just one single standardized test, B, the tests should be 
coherent. The tests should test the curriculum being taught. Otherwise, 
you have teachers in schools who have to teach to standardized tests 
that have nothing to do with the curriculum being taught in a school 
district in Maine or in Minnesota. That makes no sense whatsoever. And 
C, you want to track the progress of a child over a period of time.

  What this amendment says is, right now in the legislation, we have it 
backwards; we are talking about providing

[[Page S5814]]

an incentive, a bonus, to States for rushing. My amendment says, even 
though I have concerns about this Federal mandate, it is amazing: Here 
I am, a liberal Democrat from the State of Minnesota--I don't think the 
Chair would refer to me as a conservative Republican--and yet I am not 
sure in my own mind--I mean this; I am not trying to be gimmicky--I am 
not sure the Federal Government should mandate this. I am not sure we 
really have any business telling every school, every school district, 
every State, you have to test every child every year, 8-, 9-,
10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds. But that is almost beside the point. 
With my amendment, what we are saying right now is, if we are going to 
do it, let's do it the right way.
  Last week, we passed, with 50 votes, an amendment which said this 
testing needs to meet professional standards and that states have to 
show that their tests are of adequate technical quality for each 
purpose for which they are used. That is really important. What this 
amendment says is, when we do the bonuses, let's be clear to the 
States--all my colleagues who believe otherwise about testing, this is 
not an amendment that says we don't have testing. Every State will have 
to meet the deadline. Every State will have to meet the deadline by 
2005. But what this amendment says is, on the bonus payment, let's give 
the bonus payments to the States and to the school districts for high-
quality testing. That should be the criterion.
  It makes no sense to say we give bonus money to States solely on the 
basis of who does it first. Then you have everybody rushing. When 
people rush, they might not get it right. If you don't get it right, 
you don't have an accurate assessment. If we are going to do it, we had 
better get it right; it had better not be inaccurate. Some of this 
testing around the country has been inaccurate. As I said, the New York 
Times had a whole series of articles about that. It had better be 
accurate.
  Secondly, if you are going to do it, it had better measure real 
teaching and real learning and real education. Let's not put all of the 
children and all of the schools and all of the teachers in America in a 
straitjacket. Let's make sure they know that we are expecting and 
support multiple measures. Let's make sure they know we want it to be 
coherent and measure the curriculum they are teaching. Let's make sure 
we are, indeed, measuring the progress of a child. Let's make sure it 
is done the right way, in which case, let's have bonus payments that 
provide the money and provide the additional payment and provide the 
additional bonus to those States that are engaged in high-quality 
testing.
  That is what the amendment says. I could go on, but I think this is a 
fairly accurate summary of my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as we have just heard from our good 
friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, we are back on 
legislation that the Senate is considering on support for elementary 
and secondary education. I welcome the fact that we are on it, and am 
very hopeful we will stay on it until we conclude. We have been on this 
legislation in one way or the other probably for the better part of 4 
or 5 weeks, but we have only been on it for a few days at a time.
  As most of you understand, the reauthorization of ESEA is an 
extremely important piece of legislation. It deserves the full time and 
attention of the Senate. We had a series of amendments, and over the 
Memorial Day recess we had the opportunity to go through the more than 
200 amendments which were initially offered. We have been able to 
dispose of 33 of those amendments, and we have a number of amendments 
that will be withdrawn. Others are acceptable. And there still remain a 
number that are still pending a vote on the floor of the Senate. We 
want to get about the business of completing our work on education. I 
welcome the fact that we are back on this legislation.
  I will address the amendment we have before us in a moment or two, 
but I do want to let our colleagues know that earlier in the afternoon 
the President called a number of members of the Senate Education 
Committee and a few others to the White House to talk about the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He indicated at that time that 
the legislation, as it stands, would be acceptable to him, and he 
didn't need to have it enhanced or altered or changed. He urged us to 
get about the business of completing the reauthorization of ESEA.
  I indicated to the President that we have been working diligently on 
this legislation, and have been working in a bipartisan manner. We have 
had the opportunity of working with the Secretary of Education and the 
President's education advisers. And now we have a very important, 
significant blueprint that can make a difference in the quality of 
education for children in this country by building on the standards 
which have been established by 49 of the States, by using high-quality, 
meaningful assessments so that we know what children are learning, 
particularly in the areas of math and literacy and, eventually, in 2007 
and 2008, in science, and by using data from those assessments to 
identify the strengths and weaknesses of students, and provide the 
needed assistance for them to succeed.
  We are going to hold the schools, communities, children, and parents 
accountable. The point I made to the President was that I thought we in 
Washington ought to be held accountable as well by ensuring that the 
benefits of this legislation should be available to all the needy 
children and not, as is currently the case, to just a third of the 
children.
  It has been our position from the beginning that with the changes 
included in this legislation, we should fund the Title I program. Now 
it is funded at a third. We ought to be able to fund it at two-thirds 
next year and reach two-thirds of the children. Over the 4 years of 
President Bush's Presidency, we ought to have a commitment to reach the 
final third so that we will have the full funding of the Title I 
education program that can be flexibly used by local communities. With 
the provisions included in this legislation, we can provide a very 
positive learning experience for every child.
  We are not there yet. The President indicated we will continue to 
have ongoing discussions, particularly as the Appropriations bills are 
considered. He certainly has not ruled full funding of Title I out, but 
he has not ruled it in.
  We indicated that our position was supported by 79 Members of the 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. I indicated to the President 
that support for mandatory, full funding of IDEA, funding that helps 
local communities to fund their special needs programs for children 
with disabilities, has very broad bipartisan support. We are very 
hopeful that any conference committee will once and for all provide for 
full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is 
a position supported by more than 70 percent of the Senate, a good 
share of Republicans and Democrats alike.
  In any event, we had a good exchange at the White House. We welcome 
the President's strong support for our legislation, and we have every 
intention of working to respond to Senator Daschle's strong desire to 
make this legislation the first order of business. We ought to complete 
this legislation. I urge our colleagues who have amendments to bring 
them to our attention so that we can dispose of them in an orderly way.
  As we return to our ongoing education debate here in the Senate, I 
think it appropriate to review briefly what our pending legislation 
does and its sources of inspiration.
  Our goal in this bipartisan legislation has been to support proven, 
effective reforms. Time and again we have seen individual schools 
follow a similar path and achieve successful improvements in the 
quality of education. This reform bill builds on that grassroots 
experience.
  The bill requires every child to be tested each year in grades 3-8 so 
parents and educators alike will have better information on where their 
children stand and what needs to be done to help them learn more 
effectively.
  The bill requires that students, schools, and school districts are 
held to challenging academic standards. Low-achieving children will 
receive additional help. Students in failing schools

[[Page S5815]]

will be free to transfer to other public schools or take advantage of 
after-school supplementary tutoring. If a failing school does not turn 
around in a reasonable number of years, it will be completely 
reorganized.
  The bill provides high-quality assessments aligned with State 
standards that measure a full range of the child's learning. Off-the-
shelf, fill-in-the-bubble tests too often compromise the quality of 
instruction and undermine genuine efforts for school improvements.
  I salute the very strong efforts of the Senator from Minnesota in 
making sure that tests are quality tests that challenge children and 
positively affect the learning process, not just measure what they have 
been able to memorize in a particular class. That is enormously 
important. This legislation is going to be strengthened because of the 
efforts of the Senator from Minnesota.

  Parents and the public deserve to know not only where their children 
stand, but also how their local schools and districts measure up. 
Annual report cards are required at each level. Sunshine can be a 
powerful force for change.
  Our bill is strict in asking more of students, teachers, and schools 
and in holding them accountable for their performance. Just as 
important, the bill is intended to provide the resources that we know 
are necessary for all of them to have a genuine chance for success.
  Our bill provides support to reach the goal of a qualified teacher in 
every classroom and a qualified principal in every school. Today, 39 
percent of all teachers are teaching a subject in which they have no 
undergraduate major or minor degree. Clearly, that figure is 
unacceptable, and Congress can help do something about it.
  Our bill revises and strengthens professional development programs to 
provide teachers with year-long mentors, ongoing training in their 
subject matter, and the best teaching methods and practices in child 
development.
  It offers additional support to school districts with high 
concentrations of limited-English-proficient students to teach them 
English and make sure they meet the same high academic standards we 
expect all children to meet.
  The bill expands the successful 21st Century Learning Centers Program 
that does such an excellent job of offering worthwhile after-school 
activities to students. Our goal is to reach every latch-key child over 
the next 7 years to provide them with supplementary learning 
opportunities after school that keep them off the streets, away from 
the gangs, and out of trouble.
  Our bill also provides full funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. Twenty-five years ago, the Federal 
Government promised to pay 40 percent of these costs, but we have never 
met that promise. Today the figure is still only 15 percent. It is long 
past time for Congress to meet its commitment to special needs 
children.
  Our bill's emphasis on better results and targeted resources comes 
from experience at the grassroots. Those experiences demonstrate that 
all schools can do better, not just the elite few.
  Hundreds of successful local schools and school districts around the 
country are making impressive strides in improving student achievement. 
We can turn that number into thousands by helping guide the way. Many 
challenged schools are already turning themselves around as a result of 
reforms that focused on increased accountability linked to higher 
standards and quality testing, early intervention for children who need 
additional help, and adequate investments in proven reforms, especially 
in high-needed areas.
  Three schools that have recently reported improvements are excellent 
examples. The Ashley Elementary School in Denver, Colorado, has an 
almost 100-percent minority population with a 90-percent poverty rate. 
It recently reported that since 1998, the number of third graders 
meeting State reading standards had soared by 280 percent--280 percent.
  After years of reported failure, the school was shut down and 
reopened with new teachers and a new principal. Results of the Colorado 
Student Assessment Program were carefully analyzed, and the entire 
staff of the school signed on to a goal of raising student literacy 
skills. As a result, literacy was emphasized in every subject and in 
every class. Assessments of each student are monitored bimonthly. 
Students who fall behind receive extra support quickly or new methods 
of instruction. Every teacher gets professional development support 
every week. Ninety-minute reading blocks were created with a class size 
of 12 students per teacher, compared to 25 students per teacher in 
1998.

  Strict accountability, high-quality assessments, early intervention, 
professional development, and class-size reduction--these are precisely 
the types of proven reforms that will be strongly supported in the 
pending legislation.
  Another example is Humboldt Elementary School in Portland, Oregon, 
which has been turned around with a similar combination of reforms. In 
1997, only 17 percent of third grade Humboldt students and 10 percent 
of fifth grade students met Oregon's benchmark scoring in reading. 
Twenty-five percent of third graders and only 9 percent of fifth 
graders met the math benchmark.
  In the face of this serious challenge, the city of Portland shut down 
and reconstituted the school. Two-thirds of the staff was reassigned. A 
new principal was hired. Academic and performance expectations were 
raised for all students. Class size was reduced from 28 to 1, to 21 to 
1. All teachers now receive weekly professional development. Individual 
student assessment results are analyzed regularly and learning needs 
are diagnosed to respond to quickly. Eighty percent of Humboldt 
children participate in afterschool learning programs. Humboldt found 
out that reform costs money. In 1998, Portland added $540,000 to 
Humboldt's budget to carry out their reconstitution program.
  I will later provide examples of schools, in my State of 
Massachusetts, that have experienced dramatic results when given the 
necessary resources to succeed. In many cases, schools reversed low-
performance using less $540,000--the amount allocated to reversing low-
performance in the Humbolt budget. The New American Schools Corporation 
estimates that it costs approximately $180,000 to implement a 
comprehensive school reform model in a given school--often the first 
step toward turning around low-performance. We have 10,000 failing 
schools at the present time, which equates to $1.8 billion to begin the 
process of turning around the nation's low-performing schools. If we 
are committed a quality education for all of America's students, we 
will include those resources in our legislation. Those resources have 
not yet been included. We think they should be.
  According to the Oregon assessment in 2000, the percentage of 
Humboldt students meeting the State benchmark for academic performance 
increased to 67 percent among third graders and 60 percent with fifth 
graders. The percentage of third graders more than doubled, to 57 
percent in math, and the percentage of fifth graders meeting the math 
standard soared to 70 percent.
  Another impressive example of a successful school is the Jeremiah 
Burke High School in Dorchester, MA. Not long ago it was thought of as 
a hopeless, high-poverty school, but it is turning itself around with 
precisely the types of reforms emphasized in this current bill.
  The Burke High School story was featured on the front page of the 
Boston Globe of May 22: ``Dorchester School Gains Acceptance.'' I ask 
unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Dorchester School Gains Acceptance

                          (By Anand Vaishnav)

       Six years after the Jeremiah E. Burke High School lost its 
     accreditation--symbolizing both the decay of urban Boston and 
     the struggles of its public schools--the Dorchester school 
     has reached a new milestone: All eligible seniors in the 
     Class of 2001 have been accepted to two- or four-year 
     colleges.
       ``Now we have proof to show people what we can do,'' said 
     Shannon Phillips, who will attend the University of New 
     Hampshire.
       In 1995, despite athletic prowess and school spirit, such 
     proof was hard to find. Academic and physical woes, from no 
     librarian to no drinking water, caused the New England 
     Association of Schools and Colleges to strip the Burke of its 
     accreditation, jeopardizing students' chances to get into 
     college.
       With an infusion of new money, an exodus of teachers which 
     Headmaster Steven C. Leonard was able to replace with his own

[[Page S5816]]

     picks, and the billy club of shame, the Burke gained its 
     certification back in 1998. Leonard then embarked on another 
     piece of the improvement puzzle: getting more students into 
     college.
       ``We just convinced them that they couldn't graduate until 
     they applied to college,'' Leonard said with a smile. ``We 
     were bluffing. But it worked.''
       Whether the acceptance rate sets a new standard or is an 
     aberration is open to question. A five-year school district 
     agreement in 1996 promising more money for teachers, 
     maintenance, and counselors to get the Burke back on its feet 
     expire this year. And Mayor Thomas M. Menino, while touting 
     the school, said he can't promise to maintain its financing.
       ``I'm not going to say that,'' Menino said. ``But we're 
     going to continue the progress they've made. We're not going 
     to let the school go backwards.''
       Boston School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant said the 
     likely scenario is gradually adding more students--the 
     school's enrollment has been kept below 700--while keeping 
     the money and staffing the Burke has had.
       ``There's not as much magic in the number of students as it 
     is the work they've learned to do with them.'' Payzant said.
       The Class of 2001 with about 200 freshmen, and 172 became 
     seniors, a number whittled down by transfers, moves, and 
     dropouts. (The Burke's dropout rate is 13 percent, down from 
     17 percent five years ago, but still higher than the 
     district's dropout rate of 8 percent.)
       Of the 172 seniors, 14 are in jail or a state juvenile 
     facility and won't graduate, Leonard said. Another four are 
     illegal immigrants and will graduate but can't attend college 
     because of their immigration status.
       That leaves 154 graduates, many of whom are headed to 
     local community colleges, technical colleges, or state 
     universities such as a University of Massachusetts campus 
     or Bridgewater State College. A few are headed to Berklee 
     College of Music or Boston College, and some who got into 
     college are weighing the military instead.
       So how did they get there?
       Three years ago, with the accreditation dilemma solved, 
     Leonard began thinking of ways to boost the college-
     acceptance rate. Last year, he made an application to college 
     part of the year-end ``portfolio'' all seniors must present 
     to graduate.
       This year, he told teachers that he wanted students to move 
     beyond application to acceptance to a two- or four-year 
     college--and he made it clear to students that it was a 
     condition of receiving a diploma, even though it wasn't 
     enforceable by law.
       ``We are preparing kids so that if they don't go to 
     college, it's got nothing to do with us,'' Leonard said.
       The Burke's guidance counselors and teachers then got to 
     work, badgering students about financial aid forms, asking 
     for essays, and introducing them to colleges they hadn't 
     considered.
       Had it not been for the personal attention, students said, 
     they either would not have considered college or would not 
     have applied to as wide a variety of schools. Senior Melanie 
     Silva, who will attend Hesser College in New Hampshire, 
     recalled how her sophomore biology teacher, Ernest Coakley, 
     was relentless.
       ``He just stuck on me: `I want to see your personal 
     statement, I want to see your college application,' '' Silva 
     said. ``He's still on me.''
       The City Council is expected to consider a congratulatory 
     resolution for the Burke tomorrow.
       Yet some worry about the intense focus on college, 
     especially for students who simply aren't ready. Debra 
     Wilson, who has a son at the Burke and one who graduated in 
     1998, is ``ecstatic'' about the high college acceptance rate. 
     But she said she is concerned that the drive to get all 
     students into college comes at the expense of spending time 
     on other activities.
       ``We're losing sight of the student as a person, and a 
     student needs to be a fully rounded person,'' Wilson said. 
     ``Sometimes we can overwhelm our children.''
       Leonard says he will live with any choice a student makes. 
     But when he speaks to Burke students--and he interviews every 
     new one--he tells them there are 18 other Boston high schools 
     they can attend if college isn't in their cards.
       As headmaster, Leonard said he now worries about 
     maintaining what the school has, and his concern is rooted in 
     history.
       The schools' most recent renaissance was in the 1980s under 
     headmaster Albert Holland, who got much of the same money and 
     attention Leonard did. In 1991, budget cuts and rising 
     enrollment devastated the school, coinciding with a citywide 
     rise in youth violence that divided the school's hallways 
     into gang turf.
       While losing accreditation was a powerful tool for 
     improvement, Leonard hopes the school's recent taste of 
     success is a stronger catalyst to sustain achievement.
       ``My constant energy drain,'' he said, ``is to hold 
     everything together long enough so that enough people will 
     realize that it's possible in the inner city.''

                            GOING TO COLLEGE
[The percentages of graduates of some area highs schools who will attend
                       two- or four-year colleges]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Going to
                    High school                       No. of    college
                                                    graduates  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke (Boston)....................................        154        100
Billerica.........................................        331      84-86
Brockton..........................................        700         76
Charlestown.......................................        192         81
Everett...........................................        338         96
St John's Prep (Danvers)..........................        268         99
Wayland...........................................        175         95
Wellesley.........................................        211         92
Westwood..........................................        144         95
Weymouth..........................................        395         75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some percentages are approximate because data is still being
  compiled.
Source: School districts.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Burke High School lost its accreditation 6 years ago 
because of low test scores. Only 36 percent of the senior class was 
accepted into college. After doubling per pupil spending, hiring new 
staff, and raising academic standards, the school regained its 
accreditation in 1999.
  Last year 62 percent of its seniors were accepted into college. This 
year every eligible senior, 100 percent of the Class of 2001, was 
accepted into a two or four year college. At Burke High School, no 
child is left behind.
  Burke High School is one of the most dramatic stories that has come 
across our desk. I visited that school when it was facing enormous 
problems. It is now doing extraordinarily well. It is a major 
achievement and accomplishment.
  The school's principal, Dr. Steven Leonard, attributes the turnaround 
to sustained ongoing school-based professional development for 
teachers. Teachers are trained outside the classroom, coached inside 
the classroom, and have year-long mentors at the school. When the Burke 
High School carefully analyzed its State test results, it discovered a 
widespread and deep need throughout the school. Dr. Leonard then raised 
more than $500,000 in 3 years from private sources to implement three 
schoolwide professional development programs. Over 3 years, he was able 
to spend a little over $125,000 a year for professional development for 
that school.
  We know what works. This legislation has the framework to make sure 
that it can work for children across the country, but we also know it 
takes the investment, the resources, to give life though these reforms.
  The Jeremiah Burke High School is an extraordinary example. Teachers 
have been trained to integrate literacy instruction throughout the 
curriculum. Teachers have learned to use technology as an educational 
supplement that enhances quality instruction instead of replacing it. 
Each classroom is now connected to the Internet. Every teacher at Burke 
participates in an ongoing professional development program that 
encourages college application, including financial aid applications. 
Every staff member at the school, not just guidance counselors, are 
trained in the procedures for college admissions and financial aid 
applications.
  Last year, Dr. Leonard required a complete college application to be 
a part of a year-end portfolio that all seniors must have in order to 
graduate. This year, he has made college acceptance an informal 
condition of graduation, and every child has measured up and met that 
challenge. It is extraordinary. With the same type of skillful analysis 
and hard work, every school can do the same.
  In the education reform legislation before the Senate, we encourage 
the same combination of high expectations, diagnostic testing, quality 
teaching, high-tech classrooms, and after-school learning opportunities 
that have worked at Burke High School in Massachusetts, Ashley 
Elementary School in Colorado, Humboldt Elementary School in Oregon, 
and scores of other schools such as these.
  We authorize $11 billion in additional funding for next year alone so 
new reforms can be launched in schools across the Nation and ongoing 
reforms can be sustained.
  This bill is solidly grounded in a vast amount of widely accepted 
research and practical experience. If we continue to work together on a 
bipartisan basis and enact this legislation, the real winners will be 
students, schools, communities, States, and the whole Nation. Let's 
finish the job we started so well.
  On the Wellstone amendment, I want to indicate my strong support. I 
agree we should be focusing on the use of tests that are of high 
quality rather than how quickly they be developed. State assessments 
are the base of new accountability system in Title I, and

[[Page S5817]]

we want assurance that the assessments are of high quality and an 
accurate measure of what students know and can do.
  I had the good opportunity last Friday morning to be at a conference 
in Boston with 500 principals, teachers, and administrators of schools 
who have been working in the whole area of academic enhancement for 
children and accountability. This was a nonprofit organization that 
works to promote standard-based reform. They found the States have 
improved their standards in testing but they still have a way to go.
  I agree with the Senator that their evaluation of what works for 
children is enormously important. They have been at this for a long 
period of time. There is no superior organization in this area. We 
cannot afford to compromise the quality of assessment at the expense of 
quickly developing the test.
  The Administration has wanted to make sure we are going to create 
incentives in the States to move toward accountability. That is an 
admirable desire. However, we want to make sure that accountability 
systems are tied to quality tests. That is what the Senator's amendment 
is all about. I believe it is completely consistent with what the 
objectives of this bill are. It will also provide the assessment on the 
basis of the content standard more effectively than the off-the-shelf 
tests, which in too many instances are being taught to. We cannot 
afford to compromise the quality of assessments at the expense of 
quickly developing tests.
  I heard the Senator talk about the mistakes. Most of us have read the 
New York Times article on the tests that were given in New York City 
and the mistakes that were made and how this disadvantaged children as 
well as principals as well as the school administrator and how the 
company still claims they have 99.997 percent accuracy. But just that 
amount of failure resulted in dramatic adverse developments for 
students as well as for teachers and administrators.

  In my State of Massachusetts, there are several quality control 
measures in place to ensure reliability in the scoring of the MCAS 
test, our State assessment. Aside from the contract on assessment 
outside of the State, the results of all MCAS tests are also 
independently reviewed by testing experts at the University of 
Massachusetts. In addition to soliciting an additional review of the 
tests from the University, Massachusetts also trains its teachers, who 
are well-versed in the State standards, in the scoring of the MCAS. 
Teachers in Massachusetts review at least 25% of the test questions, 
including all of the written compositions in English language arts. 
Teachers are trained in the rubric and scoring process for a week-long 
period every July.
  Massachusetts' example illustrates the points made by the Senator 
from Minnesota regarding the need for ensuring quality in the test 
development and administration. We cannot afford to compromise the 
quality of assessment at the expense of quickly developing tests. 
Developing a high-quality assessment, even in just one subject for one 
grade, is a lengthy process. According to experts on test development, 
there are eight basic steps in the test development process. They are 
as follows:
  Defining the purpose for which the test is being developed; convening 
a technical committee to work with the States to write test 
specifications and determine the content and form of the test; 
developing and reviewing the questions and ideas on the test; 
conducting pretesting to ensure fairness, reliability, and accuracy of 
items on the test; data analysis and test assembly to make sure the 
test is aligned with the required subject matter and skills; and test 
administration and the development of accommodations for students with 
special needs.
  I see my friend and colleague from Maine in the chair. I know she is 
very familiar with these activities because the State of Maine is one 
of the States which has given an enormous amount of attention to all 
these matters of testing and also with regard to special needs 
children.
  The steps also include developing scoring changes and cut points 
associated with proficiency levels; and analysis of specifications and 
readjustment and realignment of items. States should not be encouraged 
to rush through this process but should take the time to develop 
assessments of high quality. States should be rewarded for taking the 
time to develop valid and reliable measures of what students know and 
can do.
  Good tests work. They provide us with information on student 
performance, help educators identify the needs of individual students, 
and measures our impact on working to change schools and turn around 
low-performing schools. However, while 15 States have developed tests 
in third through eighth grade math and reading, only seven States use 
high-quality tests that are aligned with academic standards in those 
subject areas. We should encourage States to use that time to develop 
quality assessments rather than develop assessments quickly.
  Awarding bonuses for the quality of assessment is consistent with our 
commitment to help States improve the quality of their tests. The 
Senate passed the Wellstone amendment to enhance the quality of test 
assessments by a vote of 50-47. We should continue to encourage States 
to improve the format of their tests, align the tests to standards, and 
employ multiple measures so the tests are reliable measures of what 
students know and can do.

  I strongly support the amendment offered by my friend from Minnesota. 
In this bill, we establish standards that define what we expect 
children to know each year. Then, we establish assessments to provide 
for the evaluation of that knowledge. High academic standards and 
quality assessments go hand in hand.
  We hope to avoid what is happening in too many States. That is, 
curriculum is not aligned to high standards, and tests are not aligned 
to high standards. When this happens, we risk compromising student's 
learning. We risk having teachers teaching to tests because they don't 
want to have a bad record of their students not being able to perform. 
That is not what this legislation is about.
  Senator Wellstone has spent a good deal of time trying to make sure 
that this legislation includes high-quality assessments, and that it 
accomplishes our goal of improving student learning. I thank him and 
commend him for the excellent work he has done in this whole area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will just take a few minutes. I 
thank the Senator from Massachusetts and thank him for being a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the series of articles in 
the New York Times, and also a very interesting piece in the Atlanta 
Journal titled ``Teachers Find Flaws in State Test's Science Part.''
  I thank Senator Feingold for his support as an original cosponsor of 
this amendment and Senators Kennedy and Clinton for their support as 
cosponsors as well.
  To remind my colleagues, since it has been a long time since this 
amendment was first introduced, this amendment is very non-
controversial. It says that instead of the bill's language, which would 
reward states solely based on how quickly they finish their 
assessments, the Secretary should instead reward states that develop 
the highest quality assessments. The awards would be granted through a 
peer review system. We should not be giving states an incentive to rush 
on such an important issue. We have to give more incentives to improve 
the quality of the assessments.
  This amendment really goes back to why we are measuring student 
achievement in the first place and what are our goals in setting up the 
accountability systems we have. Are we measuring for the sake of 
measuring only, or are we measuring to get the best picture of how our 
children are doing? If we want to get the best picture of how students 
are doing, we need to have the best possible assessments. They need to 
be aligned with standards. They need to be free from bias. They need to 
reflect both the range and depth of student knowledge and assess not 
just memorized responses, but student reasoning and understanding. This 
is exactly what my amendment on the quality and fairness of State 
assessments that was passed earlier in the

[[Page S5818]]

consideration of this bill is all about. That is what this amendment is 
about. If there is anybody who thinks that speed is more important than 
quality, please, vote against this amendment. Please, come down and 
debate me on it. I would be happy to.
  I was happy to see that Secretary of Education Paige also agrees that 
tests need to be high quality. He wrote that state assessments must be 
tied to the state standards and curriculum in his Washington Post op-ed 
that was published a couple of weeks ago. Secretary Paige writes: ``A 
good test--the kind the president and I support--is aligned with the 
curriculum so that schools know whether children are actually learning 
the material that their states have decided a child should know.'' I 
would like to thank the Secretary for this statement, and based on it, 
I would hope that he and the administration and every Member of the 
Senate would support this amendment.
  Let me review quickly my statements here on the floor before the 
recess about the key components of high-quality and fair assessments. 
The standards used by experts in the field--as laid out in the recent 
National Research Council Report ``Knowing What Students Know''--in 
analyzing assessment quality are summed up in three questions:
  Are the assessments comprehensive? That is, do they use multiple 
measures to capture the complexity of student learning rather than rote 
memorization of test content?
  Are the assessments continuous? That is, do they capture student 
learning across time?
  Finally, are the assessments coherent? That is, do they measure what 
is actually being taught in the curriculum?
  So, based on Secretary Paige's comments, there now seems to be some 
agreement that the new state assessments need to be high-quality and 
fair. But, anyone working in the field of educational assessment will 
tell you that high-quality assessments take a long time to develop. 
They require a deliberative process. They should not be rushed.
  It seems odd that, in this context, we would reward states simply 
because they finish their assessments quickly. If in fact, seems like 
an incentive for people not to spend time developing, improving and 
perfecting their assessments, but rather to take the easy way out. If 
they do, they can get a reward. If they do not, they get nothing.
  This would be extremely problematic, because all the research 
indicates that we need to move toward higher quality assessments, not 
lower quality assessments. I believe that those states that invest 
resources in the very expensive endeavor of developing high-quality 
exams that reflect state standards should be rewarded for the value 
judgment that they have made.
  The Independent Review Panel on title I which was mandated in the 
1994 Reauthorization issued its report ``Improving the Odds'' this 
January. The report concluded that:

       Many States use assessment results from a single test--
     often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests 
     may have an important place in state assessment systems, they 
     rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge reflected 
     in state content standards.

  The Panel went on to make a strong recommendation. It said:

       Better assessments for instructional and accountability 
     purposes are urgently needed.

  Further, as Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve, Inc., the 
nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform movement recently said:

       You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if 
     you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests . . . 
     Tests have taken on too prominent of a role in these reforms 
     and that's in part because of people rushing to attach 
     consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have 
     really gotten the tests right.

  That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. ``Quality 
Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the United 
States, also concludes, ``In to many states, the tests still focus to 
much on low level multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with 
the standards they are designed to measure.''
  Low quality assessments can actually do more harm than good. I would 
like to quote from the National Standards on Educational and 
Psychological Testing. The standards state:

       The proper use of tests can result in wiser decisions about 
     individuals and programs than would be the case without their 
     use and also can provide a route to broader and more 
     equitable access to education and employment. The improper 
     use of tests, however, can cause considerable harm to the 
     test takers and other parties affected by test-based 
     decisions.

  It is our obligation to see that tests are done right so that they 
achieve the best effect. Let's not give states an incentive to do low 
quality tests, which can have such a damaging effect, by offering them 
an award for rushing.
  The National Standards state that this is our obligation. The 
Standards say:

       Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to 
     consider any potential unintended effects that may result 
     from large scale testing programs. Concerns have been raised 
     for instance about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on 
     the objectives tested, restricting the range of instructional 
     approaches to correspond to the testing format, increasing 
     the number of dropouts among students who do not pass the 
     test, and encouraging other instructional or administrative 
     practices that may raise test scores without effecting the 
     quality of education. It is important for those who mandate 
     tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to 
     identify and minimize the potential of negative consequences.

  Let's enhance our accountability systems by trying to enhance the 
quality of assessments so we can avoid the negative outcomes described 
in the Standards and more accurately measure what students know and can 
do. This way we can more effectively use tests for their best purpose: 
to diagnose students' needs and help students improve.
  I urge support for this amendment, for quality and for better reform.


                     Amendment No. 465, As Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to send my 
modified amendment to the desk. Basically what this amendment does, 
Madam President, is it makes crystal clear the bonus payments will go 
to States--first of all, they have to meet the deadline. I don't want 
colleagues to think I am giving States any way of not meeting the 
deadlines.
  Second, the other requirement is that the bonus goes to States that 
develop assessments that most successfully assess the range and depth 
of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State performance 
standards in each academic subject on which the States are required to 
conduct their assessments. There will be a peer review. I send my 
modified amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, (No. 465) as modified, is as follows:

       On page 776, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the end of school year 2006-2007, the 
     Secretary shall make 1-time bonus payments to States that 
     develop State assessments by the deadline established under 
     1111(b)(3)(F) and as required under section 1111(b)(3)(F) 
     that are of particularly high quality in terms of assessing 
     the performance of students in grades 3 through 8. The 
     Secretary shall make the awards to States that develop 
     assessments that most successfully assess the range and depth 
     of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State 
     performance standards, in each academic subject in which the 
     State is required to conduct the assessments.
       ``(2) Peer review.--In making awards under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall use a peer review process.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I think the Senator from 
Massachusetts has said it well. I will have more to say about this 
overall education bill later on, but this is all in the spirit of 
trying to improve this bill. I hope there will be a lot of support for 
this amendment. So far no one has come out on the floor of the Senate 
to debate the amendment, and we are going to have a vote actually at 
5:30 or thereabouts, or we think we will. If not, we will have a vote 
tomorrow.
  We all have our expertise. I don't even want to say--it is a little 
presumptuous. I don't know that I am the expert, but 20 years of my 
adult life was education. I take it seriously. I happen to have been 
someone who did not do well on some of these standardized tests. I know 
the danger of relying on just one standardized test. I think the 
amendment that was agreed to last week was important. We do want to 
have multiple measures, and I think we do want to have a relationship 
between

[[Page S5819]]

the tests and the curriculum being taught.
  The only thing this amendment does is say: Look, let's be clear. All 
States have to meet the deadline. I am sure those of my colleagues who 
are all for mandatory tests would insist on that. I am not going to 
disagree at all. But I am saying let's give the bonus to States for 
high-quality tests. That is really what we want to reward. That is what 
we are trying to push.
  If we are going to do this, let's make sure we are doing an accurate 
assessment of how the children are doing. If this is all being done in 
the name of accountability, that is to say we want to know how children 
are doing in different schools in America, then let's make sure we have 
the best assessment. That is all this amendment says. Let's have a 
bonus payment that goes in the direction of nurturing and promoting the 
best possible assessment.
  It is a good amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Collins has an amendment also 
dealing with the issue of testing. When she arrives on the floor, I 
will yield the floor. I want to make some additional comments regarding 
funding and why I think it is so important.
  At the present time, we are only reaching about a third of all the 
children who are eligible. Listen to this. This is with regard to my 
State of Massachusetts. I will try by the end of the week to have a 
similar kind of breakdown for all the other States because I believe 
they will find that their situation is very similar.
  In the 1999-2000 school year, the supplemental Title I funding for 
disadvantaged children went to 980 out of the 1,900 Massachusetts 
elementary schools. But because of insufficient Federal funding, 624 
Massachusetts schools with poverty rates in excess of 30 percent 
received zero in Title I education aid.
  That is part of the problem. In 600 schools, 30 percent of their 
children are Title I eligible, and they receive virtually no funding 
whatsoever.
  This is part of our dilemma in terms of wanting to make sure there is 
a range of different support services, the kinds of requirements that 
are going to be necessary in terms of well-qualified teachers, 
professional development and mentoring for teachers, and after-school 
programs.
  If we are serious about doing the job, doing it right and doing it 
well, we want to try to put ourselves on a glide path to full funding 
of Title I. Maybe we can't reach all of the children overnight. We 
understand that. We ought to be able to move ourselves on a glide path 
so we can look at all the children and, most importantly, their 
parents, and say that over the life of this legislation we are going to 
be able to assure those parents that their children who are ineligible 
for the program are going to get the support and the help and 
assistance they need.
  As you well know, Madam President, this is not the beginning of the 
pathway in terms of the academic achievement and accomplishment of 
children. We are looking against a background where the Head Start 
Program is funded at about 40 percent. We are going to find that some 
children are going to be coming up with the Head Start Programs and go 
into the Title I programs which are funded, and will get into 
supplementary services, and to the extent that these kinds of support 
elements make an important difference--and they do make an important 
difference--they are going to be helped and assisted.
  But we are going to find, in the same way, that a majority of 
children who are otherwise eligible for Title I are not going to 
benefit and then will go to school and fail to get help and assistance. 
It is going to be extremely difficult to think we are making an 
important difference in their lives and enhancing their ability in 
reading and in math.
  Almost every study and review--most recently, the Institute of 
Medicine review of January of this last year--talks about the 
development of the neurons in children's brains and the importance in 
these first 3 years in terms of being able to sort of stimulate the 
interest of the children in various kinds of activities, hoping to stir 
the elements in the children's brains so they open them up in ways that 
they will be more receptive to the learning experience--we know this 
medically from all of these various studies.
  The Carnegie Commission report has pointed these out for the last 10 
years. Yet we still do not give that kind of intervention, support, and 
effort that we should and that we know makes an important difference.
  I think many of us are very hopeful that we can see investment in 
these early years, then we have further support in terms of the Head 
Start Program. We have further to go in funding the special needs 
program for children with disabilities, and further to go in terms of 
funding the Title I program for disadvantaged children.
  As the Chair understands, we will end up actually saving resources. I 
know the Chair is familiar with all of the studies that were done at 
the end of World War II on the GI bill where they estimated that for 
every $1 invested in education, the Federal Treasury got $8 back in 
enhanced earnings by those who received those programs. Investing in 
these children, in terms of savings and other social costs, is more 
than predictable. It is certain. We believe we have legislation that 
moves us very strongly in that direction. That is particularly why we 
are so strong in terms of wanting to get the funding for these 
programs.
  For the benefit of the Members, we will consider the Wellstone 
amendment tomorrow and probably begin the discussion. We will have an 
exact unanimous consent request in a few moments.
  For the benefit of the Members, as I understand it, we are coming in 
at about 11:00 a.m. and will be dealing with some necessary measures 
and we will then come back to the bill at approximately 11:30 a.m. We 
will have 20 minutes on the Wellstone amendment and then vote. We will 
follow that with consideration of the amendment of the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Collins.


 Amendments Nos. 445, 453, as modified; 470, 473, 503, 506, 508, 598, 
                         625, and 631, en bloc

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in the meantime, I have a package of 
cleared amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for 
these amendments to be considered en bloc and that any modifications, 
where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.
  For the information of the Senate, these amendments are the DeWine 
amendment No. 445; the Ensign amendment No. 453, as modified; the 
Roberts amendment No. 470; the Landrieu amendment No. 473; the Bennett 
amendment No. 503; the Collins amendment No. 506; the Collins amendment 
No. 508; the Sessions amendment No. 598; the Wyden amendment No. 625; 
and the Levin amendment No. 631.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The amendments are agreed 
to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 445, 453, as modified, 470, 473, 503, 506, 508, 
598, 625, and 631) were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 445

   (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to the Safe and Drug-Free 
     Schools and Communities Act of 1994 with respect to mentoring)

       On page 514, line 21, insert ``, such as mentoring 
     programs'' before the semicolon.
       On page 516, line 15, insert ``mentoring providers,'' after 
     ``providers,''.
       On page 517, line 5, insert ``and mentoring programs'' 
     before the semicolon.
       On page 537, line 10, insert ``, mentoring'' after 
     ``services''
       On page 550, line 15, insert ``mentoring,'' after 
     ``mediation,''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 453, as modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the benefits of 
                       music and arts education)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF MUSIC 
                   AND ARTS EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--

[[Page S5820]]

       (1) there is a growing body of scientific research 
     demonstrating that children who receive music instruction 
     perform better on spatial-temporal reasoning tests and 
     proportional math problems;
       (2) music education grounded in rigorous academic 
     instruction is an important component of a well-rounded 
     academic program;
       (3) opportunities in music and the arts have enabled 
     children with disabilities to participate more fully in 
     school and community activities;
       (4) music and the arts can motive at-risk students to stay 
     in school and become active participants in the educational 
     process;
       (5) according to the College Board, college-bound high 
     school seniors in 1998 who received music or arts instruction 
     scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the 
     Scholastic Aptitude test and 43 points higher on the math 
     portion of the test than college-bound seniors without any 
     music or arts instruction;
       (6) a 1999 report by the Texas Commission on Drug and 
     Alcohol Abuse states that individuals who participated in 
     band, choir, or orchestra reported the lowest levels of 
     current and lifelong use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit 
     drugs; and
       (7) comprehensive sequential music education instruction 
     enhances early brain development and improves cognitive and 
     communicative skills, self-discipline, and creativity.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) music and arts education enhances intellectual 
     development and enriches the academic environment for 
     children of all ages; and
       (2) music and arts educators greatly contribute to the 
     artistic, intellectual, and social development of the 
     children of our Nation, and play a key role in helping 
     children to succeed in school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 470

             (Purpose: Relating to mathematics and science)

       On page 344, line 9, insert ``engineering,'' before 
     ``mathematics''.
       On page 344, line 17, strike ``a'' and insert ``an 
     engineering''.
       On page 344, line 22, insert ``engineering,'' before 
     ``mathematics''.
       On page 345, line 7, insert ``or high-impact public 
     coalition composed of leaders from business, kindergarten 
     through grade 12 education, institutions of higher education, 
     and public policy organizations'' before the period.
       On page 347, line 10, insert ``or a consortium of local 
     educational agencies that include a high need local education 
     agency'' before the period.
       On page 347, line 18, strike ``an'' and insert ``the 
     results of a comprehensive''.
       On page 347, line 22, strike the semicolon and insert: ``, 
     and such assessment may include, but not be limited to, data 
     that accurately represents--
       ``(A) the participation of students in advanced courses in 
     mathematics and science,
       ``(B) the percentages of secondary school classes in 
     mathematics and science taught by teachers with academic 
     majors in mathematics and science, respectively,
       ``(C) the number and percentage of mathematics and science 
     teachers who participate in content-based professional 
     development activities, and
       ``(D) the extent to which elementary teachers have the 
     necessary content knowledge to teach mathematics and science;
       On page 349, line 6, strike the period and insert ``through 
     the use of--
       ``(A) recruiting individuals with demonstrated professional 
     experience in mathematics or science through the use of 
     signing incentives and performance incentives for mathematics 
     and science teachers as long as those incentives are linked 
     to activities proven effective in retaining teachers;
       ``(B) stipends to mathematics teachers and science teachers 
     for certification through alternative routes;
       ``(C) scholarships for teachers to pursue advanced course 
     work in mathematics or science; and
       ``(D) carrying out any other program that the State 
     believes to be effective in recruiting into and retaining 
     individuals with strong mathematics or science backgrounds in 
     the teaching field.
       On page 350, line 4, insert ``engineers and'' before 
     ``scientists''.
       On page 350, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       ``(9) Designing programs to identify and develop 
     mathematics and science master teachers in the kindergarten 
     through grade 8 classrooms.
       ``(10) Performing a statewide systemic needs assessment of 
     mathematics, science, and technology education, analyzing the 
     assessment, developing a strategic plan based on the 
     assessment and its analysis, and engaging in activities to 
     implement the strategic plan consistent with the authorized 
     activities in this section.
       ``(11) Establishing a mastery incentive system for 
     elementary school or secondary school mathematics or science 
     teachers under which--
       ``(A) experienced mathematics or science teachers who are 
     licensed or certified to teach in the State demonstrate their 
     mathematics or science knowledge and teaching expertise, 
     through objective means such as an advanced examination or 
     professional evaluation of teaching performance and classroom 
     skill including a professional video;
       ``(B) incentives shall be awarded to teachers making the 
     demonstration described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) priority for such incentives shall be provided to 
     teachers who teach in high need and local educational 
     agencies; and
       ``(D) the partnership shall devise a plan to ensure that 
     recipients of incentives under this paragraph remain in the 
     teaching profession.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 473

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning a freeze in the 
  existing postal rates charged with respect to educational materials 
  sent to schools, libraries, literacy programs, and early childhood 
                         development programs)

       On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING POSTAL RATES FOR 
                   EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the President and Congress both agree that education is 
     of the highest domestic priority;
       (2) access to education is a basic right for all Americans 
     regardless of age, race, economic status or geographic 
     boundary;
       (3) reading is the foundation of all educational pursuits;
       (4) the objective of schools, libraries, literacy programs, 
     and early childhood development programs is to promote 
     reading skills and prepare individuals for a productive role 
     in our society;
       (5) individuals involved in the activities described in 
     paragraph (4) are less likely to be drawn into negative 
     social behavior such as alcohol and drug abuse and criminal 
     activity;
       (6) a highly educated workforce in America is directly tied 
     to a strong economy and our national security;
       (7) the increase in postal rates by the United States 
     Postal Service in the year 2000 for such reading materials 
     sent for these purposes was substantially more than the 
     increase for any other class of mail and threatens the 
     affordability and future distribution of such materials;
       (8) failure to provide affordable access to reading 
     materials would seriously limit the fair and universal 
     distribution of books and classroom publications to schools, 
     libraries, literacy programs and early childhood development 
     programs; and
       (9) the Postal Service has the discretionary authority to 
     set postal rates.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that, since educational materials sent to schools, libraries, 
     literacy programs, and early childhood development programs 
     received the highest postal rate increase in the year 2000 
     rate case, the United States Postal Service should freeze the 
     rates for those materials.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 503

(Purpose: To amend the eligibility requirements for the rural education 
            initiative to account for geographic isolation)

       On page 649, line 4, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(1)(A)''.
       On page 649, line 6, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 649, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(B) each county in which a school served by the local 
     educational agency is located has a total population density 
     of less than 10 persons per square mile; and''.
       On page 651, line 3, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(1)(A)''.
       On page 651, line 5, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 651, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       ``(B) each county in which a school served by the local 
     educational agency is located has a total population density 
     of less than 10 persons per square mile; and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 506

 (Purpose: To provide that funds for teacher quality activities may be 
      used to encourage men to become elementary school teachers)

       On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(12) Funding projects and carrying out programs to 
     encourage men to become elementary school teachers.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 508

(Purpose: To amend the Small, Rural School Achievement Program to allow 
       funds to be used for local innovative education programs)

       On page 648, line 18, strike ``or 4116'' and insert ``4116, 
     or 5331(b)''.
       On page 650, line 25, strike ``or 4116'' and insert ``4116, 
     or 5331(b)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 598

 (Purpose: To encourage the study of the Declaration of Independence, 
         United States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . THE STUDY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 
                   UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THE FEDERALIST 
                   PAPERS.

       ``It is the sense of Congress that--
       ``(1) State and local governments and local educational 
     agencies are encouraged to dedicate at least 1 day of 
     learning to the study

[[Page S5821]]

     and understanding of the significance of the Declaration of 
     Independence, the United States Constitution, and the 
     Federalist Papers; and
       ``(2) State and local governments and local educational 
     agencies are encouraged to include a requirement that, before 
     receiving a certificate or diploma of graduation from 
     secondary school, students be tested on their competency in 
     understanding the Declaration of Independence, the United 
     States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 625

              (Purpose: To provide a technical correction)

       On page 648, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) to carry out chapter 1--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years; and ``(2) to carry out chapter 2--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 631

(Purpose: To allow literacy grant funds to be used for humanities-based 
                       family literacy programs)

       On page 189, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       ``(6) Prime time family reading time.--A State that 
     receives a grant under this section may expend funds provided 
     under the grant for a humanities-based family literacy 
     program which bonds families around the acts of reading and 
     using public libraries.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment to the 
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act that will make a minor 
but important technical change to the Rural Education Initiative, 
located in Title V of the bill. The Rural Education Initiative directs 
funds to school districts that lack the personnel and resources needed 
to compete for Federal competitive grants and often receive formula 
allocations in amounts too small to be effective in meeting their 
intended purposes.
  As the bill is currently drafted, districts must meet two 
requirements to qualify for grants under this program. One of these 
requirements is that the district must have less than 600 students. 
This requirement poses a problem for many States that have 
geographically large districts. For instance, in my home State of Utah, 
there are only 40 school districts. Compare this to States of similar 
or smaller geographic size, some of which have more than 500 districts. 
The result is that many districts in States like Utah have more than 
600 students and therefore fail to qualify for rural assistance, 
despite the fact that these districts may be in the most rural parts of 
the State. I have been to these districts. If the members of this body 
were to travel with me to Beaver School District in Beaver, Utah, they 
would find it hard to dispute the fact that Beaver is a rural district. 
But the students in Beaver School District will not receive any 
assistance under the Rural Education Initiative as it is currently 
written.
  I do not wish to argue the merits of large districts versus small 
districts. The way a State chooses to run its educational system is 
rightly left up to State and local education authorities. However, 
Congress should not be in the business of penalizing States based on 
their educational systems.
  My amendment alters the Rural Education Initiative to include an 
either/or provision that will allow districts to qualify in one of two 
ways: a district must have less than 600 students or must have a total 
population density of less than ten people per square mile. This minor 
change will allow a handful of school districts that do not currently 
qualify to become eligible for funding under this provision. It is 
important to note that no school district currently qualifying under 
the Rural Education Initiative will be disqualified by my amendment. 
However, this change will have a serious impact on places like Beaver, 
Utah, and on many other rural school districts around the country.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank colleagues for their cooperation.
  We are going to continue to work closely with our Members to try to 
move this process forward, and to do it in a timely way that will 
permit our colleagues, obviously, to speak to these measures where 
necessary and permit us to dispose of the amendments where necessary. 
But we do want to move ahead. I have every expectation we will have an 
opportunity to clear additional amendments tomorrow as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding, therefore, that for the balance of 
the evening we will simply participate in general debate on the bill 
and that tonight no more amendments will be offered to the bill. 
Tomorrow, as the Senator from Massachusetts has represented, there will 
be 20 minutes of debate equally divided when we go back to the bill, at 
which time there will be a vote on the Wellstone amendment, followed by 
the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GREGG. That is not a unanimous consent request. That is just a 
summary of where we are. We are waiting for the formal written document 
to make it clear that I did not make any mistakes, and pending that, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the education bill on Wednesday, there 
be 20 minutes of debate on the Wellstone amendment equally divided with 
no amendments in order to the amendment. I further ask unanimous 
consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment. I further ask 
unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate then begin 
consideration of the Collins amendment No. 509.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________