[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 8 (Thursday, January 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1083-S1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 22--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001
Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions:
S. Res. 22
Whereas all students, no matter where they live, should
receive the highest quality education possible, and Congress
and the President enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (Public Law 107-110) to ensure high academic standards
and the tools and resources to meet those standards;
Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 imposes many
new requirements and challenges for States, school districts,
and individual educators;
Whereas many States and school districts are struggling to
understand the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, even as additional regulations and guidance continue
to be forthcoming from the Department of Education;
Whereas the small size, remoteness, and lack of resources
of many rural schools pose potential additional problems in
implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001;
Whereas many rural schools and school districts have very
small numbers of students, such that the performance of a few
students on the assessments required by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 can determine the progress or lack of
progress of that school or school district;
Whereas the small number of students in many rural schools
can make the disaggregation of testing results difficult and
even statistically unreliable;
Whereas some of the options created for students attending
failing schools, including the choice to attend another
public school and the availability of supplemental tutoring
services, simply may not be available in rural areas or may
be prohibitively expensive due to the cost of transportation
over long distances;
Whereas many rural schools already have shortages of
teachers in key subject areas, rural teachers frequently
teach in multiple subject areas, and rural teachers tend to
be older, and lower paid than their urban counterparts;
Whereas many experienced teachers and paraprofessionals in
rural schools may not meet the definition of ``highly
qualified'' in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and rural
school districts will have difficulty competing with large
school districts in recruiting and retaining quality
teachers;
Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 imposes many
new requirements on schools and school districts, but the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 does not
provide the level of funding needed and authorized to meet
those requirements and in fact cuts funding by $90,000,000
for programs contained in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001; and
Whereas a majority of the States are being forced to cut
budgets and local governments are also struggling with
revenue shortfalls that make it difficult to provide the
increased resources necessary to implement the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 in the absence of adequate federal
funding: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Secretary of Education should provide the maximum
flexibility possible in assisting predominantly rural States
and school districts in meeting the unique challenges
presented to them by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(Public Law 107-110);
(2) the President should, in his fiscal year 2004 budget
request, request the full levels of funding authorized under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for all programs,
including the Rural Education Achievement Program (20 U.S.C.
7341 et seq.); and
(3) it is the sense of the Senate that, if the President
does not request and Congress does not provide full funding
for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in fiscal year 2004,
Congress should suspend the enforcement of the implementation
of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
until full funding is provided.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I am submitting a Sense of the
Senate Resolution that expresses my concerns about the implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act.
I supported this law when it was passed by the Senate with
overwhelming bipartisan support, and I still support it. In general, I
think it is very appropriate and important for us as a Nation to demand
very high standards of performance from our schools and to identify
those schools that
[[Page S1086]]
should be doing better and give them the assistance they need to
improve.
Having said that, I do have concerns that a lack of adequate funding
and a potential lack of flexibility in the implementation of this new
law could set out public schools up for failure, and that is wrong. All
of us have an obligation, as parents, educators, concerned citizens,
and policymakers, to get the implementation of this law right.
Nationwide, about 25 percent of public schools are rural. In North
Dakota, fully 89 percent of our public school districts are rural. The
No Child Left Behind Act imposes many new requirements that will be
challenging for all States and schools to meet. However, rural school
districts face unique challenges that are compounded by the small size,
remoteness, and lack of resources facing many rural schools.
Rural educators in my State have pointed out a number of unique
concerns facing them. For example, many rural school districts in North
Dakota have very small numbers of students. The poor performance of
just a few students on the tests required by the No Child Left Behind
Act could result in a school being identified as needing improvement,
even when most of the students are performing very well.
In addition, some of the options created under the No Child Left
Behind Act for students attending schools identified for improvement
simply may not be available in rural areas. For instance, most of the
school districts in my State only include one school, so another public
school choice is not an option. Likewise, the distance to the next
nearest school district may be impractical or the cost of
transportation may be prohibitively expensive. Similar concerns exist
with the availability of supplemental tutoring services.
Many rural schools already have shortages of teachers in key subject
areas, even though rural instructors frequently tech in multiple
subject areas. Some of the experienced teachers and paraprofessionals
in rural schools may not meet the new ``highly qualified'' requirements
of the No Child Left Behind Act, and it will be very difficult for
rural school districts to complete with large school districts in
recruiting and retaining quality teachers.
I believe the No Child Left Behind Law provides States with the
flexibility that is needed to address these and other concerns, if the
Department of Education allows States to use that flexibility and the
States take advantage of it. As President Bush himself said last week,
``One size doesn't fit all when it comes to public education.''
Of course, the other ingredient that is needed is funding. Even with
the necessary flexibility, if schools do not have the resources to make
needed reforms, they will not be able to improve.
When the Congress and the President last year reached bipartisan
agreement on the No Child Left Behind Act, we agreed on the levels of
funding that would be necessary to meet the new expectations and
requirements. That law authorizes $31 billion for the No Child Left
Behind Act in fiscal year 2003, a $9 billion increase over the fiscal
year 2002 level.
Unfortuantely, barely a month after this legislation was signed into
law, the President sent to Congress a budget that no only did not fully
fund the increases in the No Child Left Behind Act, it actually cut
funding by $90 million.
One cut of particular concern to me is the President's proposal to
eliminate funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program, REAP,
which was funded in fiscal year 2002 at $162.5 million. REAP funding is
particularly important because it is targeted at small, rural districts
that do not receive large enough amounts of money through the
individual federal formula ``title programs'' to make substantive
changes or investments. In addition, because small rural districts
often lack the administrative staff to apply for competitive grants
from the State and Federal level, they receive a smaller proportion of
federal dollars then their suburban or urban counterparts.
For many rural school districts, REAP will mean an additional $20,000
to $60,000 in new funding that will help them to meet the challenges of
implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. While this may not seem like
much funding to an urban or suburban district, to a small rural
district it makes a real impact.
As Congress completes work on the fiscal year 2003 Education
appropriations bill, I hope we will provide the $31 billion authorized
in No Child Left Behind. I understand that Senator Harkin plans to
offer an amendment to bring the funding level up to the authorized
amount. Given that the No Child Left Behind Act was passed by the
Senate by an 87-10 vote, I would hope and expect that Senator Harkin's
amendment would receive similarly strong bipartisan support.
However, my Sense of the Senate resolution also calls on President
Bush to request the authorized level of funding of $34 billion in his
fiscal year 2004 budget he will send to Congress next month, and it
calls on Congress to appropriate that level of funding in fiscal year
2004.
If full funding is not provided in fiscal year 2004, my resolution
expresses the ``Sense of the Senate'' that enforcement of the No Child
Left Behind Act should be suspended. A moratorium on enforcement is not
my preference. Our children would be much better off if Congress and
the President simply lived up to their commitment to provide the level
of funding and flexibility needed to implement this law correctly. That
should be our goal.
However, without this funding, we are simply imposing an enormous
``unfunded mandate'' on states and local school districts. The reality
is that the budget crises facing just about every state and local
government make it virtually impossible for states and local
governments to make up for the lack of resources from the federal
government.
Fundamentally, this can be a good law, and I think it would be a
shame, and irresponsible to our children, if it cannot be implemented
properly because Congress did not provide the resources it said it
would.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 23--SUPPORTING A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RELATING TO THE ADMISSIONS POLICY OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Graham of Florida) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Res. 23
Whereas racial and ethnic diversity has far-reaching
benefits for all students, nonminorities and minorities
alike;
Whereas racial and ethnic diversity increases the range of
ideas and perspectives raised in the classroom, generates
complex thinking, and prepares students to become
participants in a pluralistic democratic society;
Whereas racial and ethnic diversity has a positive effect
on students' intellectual and personal development because
such diversity causes students to challenge stereotypes,
broaden perspectives, and sharpen critical thinking skills;
Whereas a study done in 2000 by the American College on
Education and the American Association of University
Professors found that students and faculty believe that
having multiracial and multiethnic student populations has a
positive effect on students' cognitive and personal
development;
Whereas in 1955, 1 year after the Supreme Court decided
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), less than 5
percent of college students in the United States were
African-American;
Whereas by 1990, because of affirmative action and other
initiatives, over 11 percent of college students in the
United States were African-American;
Whereas after the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit ruled, in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th
Cir. 1996), that the University of Texas Law School's
affirmative action program was unconstitutional, Latino and
African-American admissions to the law school plummeted by 64
percent and 88 percent, respectively;
Whereas after California's anti-affirmative action measure,
Proposition 209, took affect, law school admissions dropped
nearly 72 percent among African-American applicants and 35
percent among Latino applicants;
Whereas, even with affirmative action measures there
continues to be significant racial disparities between the
enrollment rates of minority students and white students;
Whereas in 1978, in Regents of University of California v.
Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that
campus diversity is a ``compelling governmental interest''
that justifies race and ethnicity as one of many factors that
a university may consider in developing a diverse student
body;
Whereas the admissions policy of the University of Michigan
adheres to the standards set out in the landmark Bakke
decision;
[[Page S1087]]
Whereas the University of Michigan does not have racial
quotas for admission, and instead uses many factors to select
students, including race, social and economic background,
geographic origin, athletic ability, and a relationship to
alumni, as well as test scores, grades, and essay scores;
Whereas all of those factors help the University of
Michigan select a diverse well-rounded student body that is
not just racially diverse, but economically and
geographically diverse; and
Whereas the University of Michigan's admissions policy so
far has been upheld as constitutional by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of
Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002): Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate--
(1) strongly supports the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of
Grutter v. Bollinger; and
(2) authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel to
appear as amicus curiae in that case, in the name of the
Senate, to defend the constitutionality of the University of
Michigan's admissions policy to ensure a diverse student
body.
____________________