[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6515-S6518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate on 
an issue of continuing importance and consequence to families all over 
this country, and that is what is happening in the schools of our 
country and what

[[Page S6516]]

we can look forward to as we are approaching the return to school in 
late August and September.
  This has not been a good summer for many families who have children 
struggling in the high schools of this country. Not long ago, we made a 
bipartisan commitment to the children of this country. We committed 
that no child would be left behind. I think we have a continuing 
responsibility to families in this country to give them an idea about 
the progress we are making in meeting that commitment.
  When we all supported the No Child Left Behind Act, it was a 
commitment that no child would be left behind. However, we are finding 
out that because of state budget shortfalls and declining local 
revenues, school districts around the country have cancelled or 
severely cut summer school. Hundreds of thousands of students will not 
graduate, will not be promoted, or worse--will be socially promoted, 
unprepared academically, because of the cancellation of summer 
school. For example, the New York Times reported on July 4 that because 
of budget cuts, this year the number of students attending summer 
school for enrichment rather than promotion will be reduced to 60,000 
from 140,000 last year. Summer school provides students with a second 
chance to improve their reading and math. A math teacher stated, ``What 
is good about the summer school is that there are fewer kids.'' A 
reduced budget means fewer teachers and bigger classes in summer 
school. That has been true, Madam President, in schools across the 
country. And I'll include in the Record the various summer school 
reductions and cuts which have occurred since the end of the school 
year.

  On June 2, 2002, the Orlando Sentinel reported that due to state 
budget cuts, schools in Volusia, Orange and Seminole counties in 
Florida have slashed summer offerings to the bare bones. Other schools 
statewide, such as those in the Tampa Bay region, have cancelled 
traditional summer-school programs. Schools in Volusia County tapped 
federal funds to tutor struggling elementary-school students over the 
summer. This year, the district dramatically scaled back high school 
offerings due to nearly $1 million in state cuts over the past two 
years. Orange County reduced its summer-school budget by $8 million, 
scaling back high-school offerings and eliminating classes for 
struggling middle-schoolers. Seminole County cut summer school funding 
by about $600,000 this year and will hold SAT prep course classes at 
only four high schools, instead of at all high schools.
  On May 31, 2002, the Associated Press reported that state budget cuts 
in Indiana are forcing school systems to pay more for summer school 
programs or eliminate some programs. Last year, the state reimbursed 
school systems for about eighty percent of the costs of all summer 
classes. This year, they will pay no more than sixty-nine percent or 
less. School districts will now have to pick up more costs, and some 
teachers who planned on a summer job will have to look elsewhere 
because their classes have been canceled. Superintendents across the 
state were notified of the reductions in a May 15 letter from the 
Indiana Department of Education. The plan cut the summer school 
appropriation by $3.2 million, from $21.6 million to $18.4 million. 
Administrators in the Greater Clark schools in southern Indiana 
notified parents about ten days ago that no enrichment classes would be 
offered to elementary school students. The district director of 
instructional services stated, ``I know the teachers, the parents and 
the students were disappointed . . . but we just could not afford to 
offer classes without state support.''
  According to the May 29, 2002 edition of The Herald in Rock Creek, 
South Carolina, due to state budget cuts freezing thousands of dollars, 
the Rock Hill school district will have to limit enrollment in summer 
classes. On June 3rd, only 630 students began the summer sessions--220 
less than last year's 850 students. The number of instructors and the 
sites for the classes will be downsized because of fewer students. Cuts 
totaling $2.4 million will also come from teacher training stipends, 
school and department allocations and library book spending.
  On May 29, 2002, the Associated Press reported that Enid, Oklahoma 
school officials canceled a federal summer school program because of 
reductions in state funding to the district. The district will have 
problems paying the costs of the program due to a cut of $672,000 from 
the state for the 2001-02 school year. Enid's free, month-long summer 
program was scheduled to start June 3rd. 400 students would have 
received assistance, up from 366 last year. Fifty-five employees were 
to have worked in the program.

  We have also found out that in the fall schools and universities will 
face great challenges--and I will include in the Record a series of 
articles from the last few weeks. Overall, states are being forced to 
eliminate programs and positions in public schools in order to deal 
with growing budget cuts. As school budgets are being cut back, there 
is an increase in the number of students in the classes, there's a 
reduction in the number of teachers, and a reduction in the number of 
professional development programs. All of the indicators are going the 
wrong way.
  On June 27, 2002 The Contra Costa Times reported that the West Contra 
Costa school district will cut department budgets by ten percent and 
will eliminate twenty-seven jobs and two after-school programs. The 
budget also includes $4.2 million in cutbacks, with savings found in 
the elimination of school clerks, administrators, library assistants 
and professional development workers.
  On June 25, 2002, The Kansas City Star reported that Johnson County, 
Kansas plans to vote on a quarter-cent sales tax meant to generate 
revenue for schools and cities. Across Kansas, school districts are 
facing tight budgets because of the state's $700 million budget 
shortfall. If approved, the tax would provide $45.3 million in three 
years for the county's six school districts. Educators are worried 
because the passage of the sales tax is the difference between adequate 
and excellent schools. The proposed $20 per student increased state aid 
to schools is not even guaranteed, nor would it even total costs.
  On June 19, 2002, The St. Petersburg Times reported that Pinellas 
County School Board (Florida) members are committed to raising teacher 
salaries over the next three to five years up to the national average. 
Currently, teachers in Pinellas are earning on average $39,000 a year 
compared to the national average of $45,800. Low salaries only feed the 
dwindling morale of teachers disheartened by recent budget cuts and 
increased responsibilities. Unfortunately, no one knows how salary 
increases will be funded, and the only option appears to be a tax hike 
for voters who may be unwilling to pay.
  On May 29, 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the Jordan 
School District in Utah could be forced to layoff 250 teachers if 
lawmakers force public schools to absorb half of the state's tax 
revenue shortfall. The school board has already raised the district's 
average class size to balance next year's budget following the 
Legislature's March decision to cut statewide public education funding 
by $20 million. That cut reduced sixty teaching positions in Jordan. 
Jordan and the state's other thirty-nine districts have already sliced 
their budget proposals for the 2003 fiscal year, which starts July 1. 
But, districts fear they will face additional reductions after 
lawmakers meet in July to adjust the state's budget to accommodate 
another shortfall, projected at $173 million. If public education were 
cut in proportion to its share of the state budget, it would be reduced 
by $83 million, and Jordan's share of that would be $13 million, which 
would cause at least an additional two-student increase in class size. 
Granite will drop 157 teaching positions. Davis is considering cutting 
twenty-one teachers.
  When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we said we were going to 
ensure accountability, we were going to make sure we had well-qualified 
teachers, afterschool programs, and supplementary services. And all the 
indicators are now going in the wrong direction.

  State universities are also experiencing huge budget cuts, as 
decreasing financial aid and increased tuition make college less 
affordable. According to recent reports in Illinois, college tuition is 
increasing while the state's college financial aid program is facing 
severe cutbacks. Under the state budget that took effect on July 1, 
2002, funding for the state's need-based Monetary

[[Page S6517]]

Award Program will be cut by $38 million. Just several days earlier, on 
June 27, 2002, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees decided to 
increase tuition by ten percent to fill a $90 million budget hole.
  State officials estimate that as many as 12,000 students across the 
state will not be eligible for the Monetary Award Program this year, 
and thousands more will learn that the grant aid they will receive 
under the program this year will be less than the grants that they 
received in previous years.
  Of the 12,000 fewer students receiving the grants, about 7,000 are 
fifth-year students. Those students would lose their grants altogether, 
under a plan proposed by state lawmakers and Governor George Ryan to 
save the state $20 million.
  An estimated 5,000 students at Illinois State University and another 
550 students at Illinois Wesleyan University could be forced to take 
out more loans, work extra jobs, or forego attending school. Cutbacks 
will hurt students like Kimberly Williams, 21, a Columbia College 
business management student. She said the assistance commission is 
still trying to determine if she is eligible for an award, even though 
she has received them in the past. If her award is less, ``I'll either 
drop classes or I'll take out more loans.'' She is already $10,000 in 
debt.
  In Indiana, The Indianapolis Star reported on July 4, 2002, that at 
state-supported universities this upcoming year the average tuition 
bill will jump 14.2%. Last year the tuition increased by an average of 
7.1%--still more than twice the rate of overall inflation. Tuition 
hikes were forced to make up for tighter state spending on higher 
education.
  In Florida, The Bradenton Herald reported on July 4, 2002, that 
Florida State University trustees raised tuition for the fall semester 
to reflect: five percent for in-state undergraduate students and twenty 
percent for out-of-state students. The University of Florida and 
Florida A&M University have approved similar increases. The tuition 
increase is expected to bring in $10.5 million in additional revenue 
for FSU.
  What we are also seeing is an excellent report that was released last 
week by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Aid. Its findings 
follow--they are enormously alarming.
  More children are and will be attending college. Enrollment in higher 
education institutions was over fifteen million last year, and is 
expected to increase to nearly 17.5 million by 2010. The number of high 
school students qualified to attend college is also expected to grow by 
twenty percent over the next decade, and most of that increase will be 
among low-income and minority students.
  The demand for college-educated workers has grown, and today's high-
skilled job environment demands a college degree. In 1950, eighty 
percent of jobs were classified as ``unskilled''; today eighty-five 
percent of all jobs are classified as ``skilled.''
  Financial barriers to attending college are on the rise for low- and 
moderate- income students. Too many students are being forced to borrow 
too much--and work too much--to finance the rising costs of college. 
Debt levels are sky-rocketing for low-income college students and their 
families, causing financial hardships in repaying student loans. At the 
same time, state budget crunches continue to drive up college tuition 
at public universities, forcing shut the doors of college opportunity 
for too many.

  Due to the cost of college, this year more than 400,000 students from 
families who make less than $50,000 a year will graduate from high 
school, qualified and prepared to attend 4-year colleges, but will not 
be able to fulfill that dream.
  Half of low- and moderate-income students who do attend college will 
have to live at home while attending school to lower the cost of 
college. Sixty-five percent of students will have to work part-time--an 
average of twenty-four hours a week--while attending college to cover 
costs. Excessive student work takes a heavy toll on academic 
performance, often delaying graduation by two years or more.
  The college attendance gap between affluent and poor students is 
widening. In 1979, the most affluent students in the nation were four 
times more likely to have a bachelor's degree than poor students. 
Today, the most affluent students are ten times more likely to have a 
degree.
  We must not sell students short. We must do all we can to increase 
aid to college students to ensure that more students can afford to go 
to college.
  I believe, as others do, that education is a national security issue. 
In many respects, it is as basic and as fundamental as the defense of 
this country. If we are not going to have well-qualified recruits, if 
we are not going to have men and women in the service who are going to 
be able to take advantage of the new technologies in terms of defending 
our country, we will not be able to preserve the values and the systems 
that we hold so dear. Education is a national security issue. That is 
why it is obviously key to our position in terms of global competition.
  From the Advisory Committee Report, we can see that looking at the 
students coming out of our high schools, we find in so many instances 
that many of these students are coming from very moderate, limited 
economic means. We find their opportunities to continue on to higher 
education and to get the skills they need are being vastly diminished.
  What do we see in the future? We see that those families--
particularly low income families--have not benefitted much from the 
economic expansion of the 1990s. They are barely holding on. Those in 
the lower income are actually falling further behind because we have 
had no increase in the minimum wage for the last six years. They have 
been falling further and further behind. Now, what is happening to 
these families?
  What has happened to the kids who are going on? We are finding 
increases in tuition for colleges and universities all across this 
country, ranging from nine percent, ten percent, twelve percent, 
fifteen percent. And looking into the future years, they will continue 
to go up.
  We find that student aid has remained absolutely the same. The 
children are working more jobs. They are working minimum wage jobs. And 
they are working longer hours with less time for their schoolwork. They 
are now forced to borrow more and more resources in order to be able to 
continue.
  One of the interesting ironies is that as they earn more money, it 
counts against their ability to get loans and grants in the future. It 
is an extraordinary circumstance. Children take one job, two jobs, and 
they get additional earnings which they will have to reflect on their 
financial statements in their ability to get additional income, which 
may very well reflect a lowering in terms of their scholarship 
assistance. It is a no-win situation. That is happening.
  We find that hundreds of thousands and millions of American children 
are being left behind. That is what this Advisory Committee report has 
stated. We have a basic and fundamental responsibility. If we are 
concerned about our national security, if we are concerned about our 
economy, if we are concerned about our democracy, then we have to 
ensure that children are going to be able to continue to develop their 
skills and academic backgrounds.
  They make a series of recommendations in terms of the enhanced Pell 
programs. Those programs have been evaluated, attested to, tried, and 
demonstrated as being effective. We shouldn't have to fight that fight 
every year in the Senate.
  There is not an American, I believe, who doesn't understand that the 
GI bill paid back anywhere from six percent to eight percent more in 
dollars to the Federal Treasury for every dollar invested in America. 
That is true in terms of education investment today.
  That is something we hear in this institution, and in terms of the 
administration refusing support. The fact that the administration has 
requested virtually zero in terms of Pell grant increases last year is 
a failure and an abdication of leadership in terms of meeting the 
responsibility for educating the children in this country.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam President.
  I see my friend and colleague on the floor. He has a resolution, on 
which I

[[Page S6518]]

am honored to join with him. I look forward to taking a moment of the 
Senate's time to address this issue, which both of us take a great 
sense of pride in doing.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank my colleague.

                          ____________________