[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8150-S8152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for families across this country who have
school-age children, they have been involved over the period of these
recent days and weeks preparing their children to attend, by and large,
the public schools of our country. Over 90 percent of the children in
this country go to the public schools. A little less than 10 percent go
to private schools.
Over these last several months, we have had, with President Bush, a
bipartisan effort which resulted in what was called the ``No Child Left
Behind Act.'' That legislation recognized that what is really needed
for the neediest children in this country is school reform. But we also
need investment, school reform and increased resources.
For a long time, the Title I program was criticized because it
provided resources without really providing the kind of accountability
that is so important. So there was a bipartisan effort to provide for
that kind of accountability.
Now as parents are seeing their children going back to school and
they are asking whether the Congress and this administration are
meeting their responsibility. Because in that legislation, we are
holding accountable the children that were going through school. We are
holding accountable the schools. We are holding accountable teachers.
I was asked over the recent month of August as I went around
Massachusetts, is: What is going to be the administration's response to
the children being left behind with the budget that the administration
recommended to the Congress for funding of No Child Left Behind? Will
politicians be accountable? There are 10.3 million children who fall
into what we call the Title I category. Over 6 million of those
children are going to be left behind under the administration's budget.
We do not expect that money in and
[[Page S8151]]
of itself to be the answer to all of the problems, but it is a pretty
good indication of the priorities of a nation and the priorities of an
administration. And this chart is a pretty clear indication of the
recent history of increased funding for education. We are talking her
about the total education budget. In 1997, a 16 percent increase; 12
percent in 1998; 12 percent in 1999; 6 percent in the year 2000; 19
percent in 2001; and 16 percent in 2002. However, it is only 2.8
percent under this administration's budget, the lowest we have seen
over the last 7 years.
Again, money is not everything, but we did make a commitment to the
parents, to the families, to the schools. There is tough criteria for
all of those groups.
We have seen, in the efforts made by Senator Harkin in the
Appropriations Committee, the recommendation that it will be higher
than this program. It will be some $4.2 billion, and it will raise this
percentage up to about 6 percent. 2.8 percent is the recommendation
that is being made by our Republican friends in the House of
Representatives. By and large, the best judgment we have is that this
will be the figure coming from the House, and we will be somewhat
above, and the conference will come out lower, certainly, than what we
have seen in recent years.
What has resulted from this--from the fact that we have not seen
adequate funding of the program? We recognize in the No Child Left
Behind Act that one of the most important necessities is a well-
qualified teacher in every classroom in the country. There is virtually
no increase in funding for teacher training. So the 18,000 teachers
that would have been trained if there had been a cost of living
increase will not receive the training.
Mr. President, 20,000 students will be cut from the college Work-
Study Program; 25,000 limited-English-proficient children cut from the
Federal bilingual program; 33,000 children cut from afterschool
programs; there is virtually no increase in the Pell grants; and there
is no increase in student loans.
What has the administration requested of the Congress? Why do I take
a few moments of the Senate time today? I want to point out what is
happening in this debate regarding funding of education because
tomorrow in the House of Representatives, they will mark up a
recommendation by this administration for $4 billion in new funding for
private school vouchers. We understand, this is for private schools, 10
percent of the education, $4 billion. Yet just 2.8 percent increase for
the public schools, where 90 percent of the children go.
There are a number of reasons we should be concerned. I think most of
us believe that we should not be taking scarce funds from the public
school children and putting them into private schools. That is in
effect what this is doing. If we had the $4 billion, we would be able
to increase the total number of poor children to be covered under the
Title I program to about two-thirds of those that are being left behind
this year. However, the administration said no; we will have $4 billion
over a 5-year period to be used for the private schools, for just 10
percent of the children.
The reason we raise this issue is in case we have these resources
again, we will have an opportunity, hopefully, to debate this, and it
ought to be directed toward the public school system.
But beyond that, some of the things that concern us is that with the
$4 billion, there is virtually no requirement that we have
accountability. The administration made a great deal about
accountability, to make sure that we know where the money is invested,
what the results will be on the standardized systems to be able to tell
if children are progressing. In my own State of Massachusetts, we have
seen important progress where we have had accountability and support,
including the recent announcement of the MCAS results in the past week,
in which we have seen continued progress in math and continued progress
made in English. Not all the problems are resolved, and there are still
painful problems in terms of disparity, but we have seen progress made
because of accountability.
The administration has talked about accountability. But for their $4
billion, there is no accountability to any schools to ensure that they
do what all the public schools do, and that is, to have the
examinations.
There is no accountability to ensure that private schools accept all
the children. In the public school system there has to be acceptance of
all of the children, but the private schools do not have to do that.
In private schools, there is no accountability to ensure teachers
will be highly qualified teachers. We wrote in that legislation that in
a 4-year period there will be highly qualified teachers in the
classrooms. We fund a variety of programs regarding recruitment,
training, and retention, and we give maximum flexibility to local
communities to be able to do that. But there is no requirement with
that $4 billion that they use those funds for highly qualified teachers
in the classrooms. And there is no requirement to give the parents the
critical information they need and which we have insured under this
legislation.
So we are puzzled. We heard both the President and our good friends
on the other side saying accountability was the key element. We agree
that was enormously important--we are going to have accountability and
resources. However, now we have the administration coming back with $4
billion more. Instead of allocating that to the 90 percent of the
schools that will train the children of America, the public school
systems which returned to school this past week--no, they will use that
money, the $4 billion, in the private schools for vouchers. They have
basically retreated on each and every one of these principles. It seems
a very important mistake and one which we will have the opportunity,
hopefully, to debate.
With those resources, if the Bush budget took that $4 billion in new
funding for private schools over 5 years along with the cut in public
schools, had that $4 billion been available for public schools, it
would mean the upgrading of the skills of 1 million teachers across
this country. It would upgrade the skills of 1 million teachers. You
could provide 5.2 million more children with afterschool learning
opportunities.
I just point out about the after-school programs, because of all of
the Federal programs that are out there that go through the process and
are considered to be quality programs, when they get in line for the
funding, the afterschool programs are No. 1. Do we understand that?
There is a greater need, in terms of limited resources for these
programs, than for any other Federal program. People understand that if
you are going to provide afterschool programs and supplementary
services for the children who need them, this is the way to try to do
it. We are seeing the results of success academically as well as in
terms of the social progress the children have made.
This is what you would be able to do. You could provide 5.2 million
more children with afterschool learning opportunities. You could
provide a Pell Grant to 500,000 more college students--those students
who are able, gifted, talented, motivated young people whose parents
have limited resources and income. They will not go on to college
because they are not eligible for the Pell grants. With these
resources, 5,000,000 more children would receive increased college aid.
As we continue this debate and discussion about funding education, it
is enormously important that the American people understand whose side
we are on. We on this side of the aisle believe very strongly that with
scarce resources in our budget, these resources ought to be used to
provide more highly qualified teachers in every classroom, smaller
class sizes, afterschool programs, supplementary services, and
information to parents so they know what is happening in those
schools--all of those for the children in this country. We believe that
is where the needs are. That is what we ought to be doing with scarce
resources, not siphoning off $4 billion for the 10 percent of children
who are attending private schools.
We will have an opportunity, when this comes before the Senate, to
debate it further. But we want the parents of children going to public
schools, who are facing increasing pressure--as we have seen all across
this country as States have cut back in support and help to local
communities, increasing the size of their classes, reducing the
afterschool programs, cutting out a
[[Page S8152]]
number of subjects such as music programs, and cutting back on the
number of teachers' aides and teachers' assistants--to know that we
understand this is not a time to abandon our public schools. This is a
time to invest in our future.
One final point. We have had a great deal of discussion and debate
about national security and national defense. I would like to make the
point that ensuring that we are going to have well-qualified children
in schools that are going to meet standards is an essential aspect of
our national security and national defense. And we should not
shortchange that investment any more than we do our Defense Department.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last few moments I had the
opportunity to listen to the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, he
is well known for his dedication to public education in this country. I
applaud him for that.
I also want to recognize a President who has seen public education in
its current condition to be an issue on which to speak out and on which
to lead. And while the private school and the voucher may be
criticized, we are creating a dynamic, now, in the marketplace of
education, that means the public schools are going to have to compete a
little more. In that competition, they will dramatically improve.
The condition for educating young people, in my opinion--and I think
it is a growing opinion in America--will rapidly increase.
____________________