[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9024-S9026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BACK TO SCHOOL AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate returns from its August
recess this week, students, teachers, and school personnel across
Wisconsin and around the country are settling in for a new school year.
Each new school year brings with it the promise of things to come.
Students will embark on new educational paths, with new subjects and
teachers and, in some instances, new classmates. Some students are
entering school for the first time, while others are beginning their
middle or high school careers. And some are embarking on their senior
years in high school and are preparing to make the transition into the
next phase of their lives. All of these students, and their parents,
are facing new challenges and new opportunities. We owe it to them to
provide the resources promised by the Federal Government to support our
States and local school districts.
Throughout our Nation's history, the education of our children has
been viewed as a largely local and State responsibility, and the
Federal Government has wisely left decisions affecting our children's
day-to-day classroom experiences up to the schools, districts, school
boards, and State education agencies that bear the responsibility for--
and most of the cost of--educating our children. Historically, when the
Federal Government has stepped in, it has been to ensure that children
receive an equal opportunity for a good education by protecting the
rights of all children and by providing additional resources for
schools and for such related activities as teacher training.
Impact Aid, which was enacted in 1950 and is one of the oldest
Federal education programs, helps local school districts to defray the
costs of educating ``federally connected'' students, such as those who
live on Federal land, which is not included in the local property tax
base that funds elementary and secondary education. The National
Defense Education Act of 1958, which was enacted in response to the
Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite, provided funding to improve
math, science, and foreign language instruction in our elementary and
secondary schools.
The landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which
the No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization,
provided funding to support the education of disadvantaged students.
That same year, Congress enacted the Higher Education Act, which has
helped to provide millions of Americans with the assistance they need
to pursue post-secondary education.
Also in 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity created ``Project
Head Start,'' the predecessor of the current Head Start program, which
is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Since
its inception, Head Start has improved opportunities for low-income
preschool children and their families by providing a comprehensive
approach to addressing the
[[Page S9025]]
educational, nutritional, psychological, and other needs of these
children and their families.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 mandates that
a free appropriate public education be provided to all children and
promises that the Federal Government will pay 40 percent of the cost of
educating children with special needs. Our public schools' efforts to
serve students with disabilities are a hallmark of our national
commitment to a free public education for all children. Since IDEA was
enacted, public schools have helped students with disabilities to
become more self-sufficient, to prepare for employment, and to learn
the skills they will need to lead productive lives. America's public
schools have led the way toward the full integration of individuals
with disabilities into our national life.
The Federal Government has a long history of supporting local and
State governments in their effort to provide a high quality public
education for each child. I support these efforts, which rightly
respect the importance of maintaining local control of education. For
that reason, I opposed the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, which the
President touts as one of his top domestic achievements.
While I think we all agree that schools should be held accountable
for results, I and many Wisconsinites oppose the testing-centered
mandates in the NCLB. I support some aspects of this law, such as
funding for reading education and after-school programs. I opposed this
legislation, however, because it takes decisions regarding the
frequency of testing out of the hands of local school districts and
states and mandates that students be tested in reading and math in
grades 3-8 beginning with the 2005-2006 school year. This top-down,
one-size-fits-all approach to testing is not good for Wisconsin
students or schools. Washington does not know best when it comes to
making decisions such as this. And it is troubling that the results of
these tests are central to determining whether a school, district, or
State is considered to be ``in need of improvement'' or ``failing''
academically.
It is also troubling that the corresponding Federal sanctions for
schools deemed to be ``in need of improvement'' or ``failing'' will
actually take badly needed money from those very schools. And these
sanctions are being imposed despite the fact that the Federal
Government has not provided the resources to help these school succeed
that were promised by the No Child Left Behind Act.
The President has called the No Child Left Behind Act ``the most
important Federal education reform in history.'' I respectfully
disagree with the President's assessment of this law, the effects of
which are beginning to reverberate throughout Wisconsin and throughout
the country. As I travel around Wisconsin each year to host listening
sessions in each of our 72 counties, I hear time and again from
frustrated teachers, administrators, parents, and others about the
negative effect that NCLB is having on education in Wisconsin.
I began to hear such comments more than three years ago when the
President first proposed his education initiative, and this drumbeat of
concern has increased as my constituents continue to learn first-hand
what this new law means for them and for their students and children.
While Wisconsinites support holding schools accountable for results,
they are concerned about the focus on testing that is the centerpiece
of the President's approach.
In response to these concerns, I introduced with Senator Jeffords and
others the Student Testing Flexibility Act, which would allow States
and school districts that are meeting their adequate yearly progress,
AYP, goals to waive the additional layer of testing required by NCLB,
thus allowing them to maintain their existing testing programs. In
addition, this bill would allow States to keep the Federal money
allocated for developing and administering these new tests and to use
that money to help those schools and districts that are not meeting
their AYP goals. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a
wide range of Wisconsin and national education groups.
In addition, earlier this year I sent with some of my colleagues a
letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee requesting that the committee have a
series of hearings on how the ongoing implementation of the NCLB is
affecting schools and districts. We asked that these hearings focus on
issues that are being raised by our constituents, including: the unique
circumstances of rural and smaller school districts; the long-term
effects that meeting the one-size-fits-all AYP provisions will have on
students, schools, and school districts; the concern and likelihood
that nearly all public schools may not be able to meet the goal of 100
percent proficient scores on reading and math tests by the 2013-2014
school year, even if those schools show a steady increase in student
achievement each year; the NCLB sanctions structure; the effect that
Federal funding that is well below the agreed-upon authorization levels
for crucial programs such as Title I and special education is having on
schools' ability to meet NCLB and State standards; the need for
additional Federal funding for professional development, recruitment
and retention, and for additional training for paraprofessionals, so
that States and school districts can comply with requirements for
having highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals; the toll that
preparation for the new federally mandated tests is having on, and will
have on, the ability of teachers to spend time on innovative and
exciting approaches to instruction and assessment, the instruction time
available for non-tested subjects, such as social studies, art, music,
and physical education, the strength of State academic standards, and
the morale of students and educators; the ongoing efforts to align the
NCLB and IDEA; the unique challenges that the accountability provisions
pose for students with limited English proficiency; and the
implementation of the supplemental services provisions, including
implications for Federal civil rights law.
It is critically important that we understand the practical effect of
the NCLB on the everyday classroom experiences of students and
teachers. I have heard from many educators who are already seeing a
narrowing of curricula and increased teaching to the test in
preparation for the federally mandated tests in reading and math. One
of the purposes of public education is to ensure that students have a
well-rounded curriculum that gives them the skills that they need to
succeed in life. I remain concerned that the approach encapsulated in
the NCLB will produce a generation of students who know how to take
tests, but who don't have the skills necessary to become successful
adults. Test-taking has a place in public education, but it should not
be the role of the Federal Government to tell schools how and when to
require tests.
As an editorial that appeared earlier this week in the Appleton Post-
Crescent so correctly points out, ``the more testing schools must do,
the more time is taken from education that doesn't involve passing a
test. And the more testing schools have to do--in the name of no child
being left behind--the greater the chance that your child could be left
with a less complete education.''
And, I am particularly disturbed that this appears to be only the tip
of the testing iceberg. The President has said that he plans to propose
even more federally mandated testing if he is reelected. Specifically,
the President said, ``[a]s we make progress, we will require a rigorous
exam before graduation.'' If this proposal were to be enacted, it would
mean that students would be taking federally mandated tests in 8 of
their 13 years of their elementary and secondary years.
And that's not just 8 tests. Beginning next year, students in grades
3-8 will take annual reading and math exams, which totals 12 tests over
a student's career. In addition, the Federal Government requires that
students be tested in reading and math in one high school grade, which
is two more tests, for a total of 14. Beginning in the 2007-2008 school
year, NCLB also requires that students be tested in science three times
during their school careers (once in each of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-
12). That's three more tests, for a new total of 17 federally mandated
tests. And if the President's new plan for a mandatory high school exit
exam is enacted,
[[Page S9026]]
you can add one more test, bringing the total to 18 federally mandated
tests over 13 years of school.
And this total does not include testing programs already in place at
the State level, many of which have been thrown into disarray as States
struggle to amend their existing tests to comply with the new NCLB
requirements. Wisconsin currently tests students in reading in grade
three through the Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, and in reading/
language arts, math, science, and social studies in grades four, eight,
and ten with the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations. And
this is in addition to regular classroom tests and quizzes and tests
given at the district level by many of the 426 school districts in my
state. And then, for those students hoping to go to college, there is
the pre-SAT, the SAT, the ACT, and on and on.
The Wisconsin Legislature enacted a requirement for a high school
graduation test in 1997. But that test, which was to be required of all
students beginning with those in the graduating class of 2003, was
delayed for one year due to State budget constraints, and was
subsequently delayed for an additional 2 years for that same reason,
pushing the requirement from the class of 2003 to the class of 2006.
Last year, as part of the State's 2004-2005 budget, the Wisconsin
Legislature repealed the State graduation test, which many parents and
educators in my State opposed and vigorously fought against for many
years. Now it appears that the President wants to reinstate this
requirement on the students of my State--and to impose it on the other
24 States that don't currently have such a test--over the will of the
Wisconsin Legislature. And with States still unsure of the actual cost
of the NCLB-mandated testing and little in the way of Federal funds to
develop and implement it, another Federal testing requirement could
bend the already dire budget situations in many States and school
districts to the breaking point.
According to a new report from the Center on Education Policy, CEP,
20 States now require high school exit exams, and another five will
require such tests by 2009. I support the right of State legislatures
and local school districts to determine the frequency with which
students are tested, including whether to require a high school exit
exam. When I was a member of the Wisconsin legislature, I supported
legislation that created statewide tests for the students of my State.
But I opposed the extra layer of federally mandated tests piled onto
students and teachers with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind
Act, and I will oppose any proposal for a federally mandated high
school exit exam.
Students, teachers, and schools are more than a test score, and
education should be a well-rounded experience that is not narrowly
focused on students passing a test to help their schools avoid being
sanctioned by the Federal Government. Standardized tests measure where
a particular student is at a particular day and time. These tests do
not make allowances for outside factors such as test anxiety, illness,
worry about a troubled home situation, or the fact that the child
taking the test may not have eaten that day. To measure the performance
of a school and its teachers and students on two test scores per grade
does a disservice to these same students, teachers, and schools.
I will continue to monitor the effect of the No Child Left Behind Act
on Wisconsin students, and I hope that the debate on this law, both in
my State and nationally, will result in meaningful changes to this
deeply flawed law that will ensure that each child is given the
opportunity to succeed and that each school has the resources necessary
to give these students that opportunity.
I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced editorial in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Appleton Post-Crescent, Sept. 8, 2004]
Too Many Tests Mean Diminished Education
A quarter-million kids in Wisconsin will spend part of this
school year studying for and taking standardized tests.
In the next school year, that number will nearly double, as
tests mandated by state government--pushed by the federal No
Child Left Behind Act--expand to include more grade levels
and more subjects.
There will be more time needed to take tests, and to
prepare students to take the tests. And it's all being done
to test . . . the schools.
Sure, the kids are the ones taking the tests, but
ultimately it's the schools' performance that's being graded.
No school wants to be deficient in its test results because,
under No Child Left Behind, there may be consequences.
But with more testing on the way--and more classroom time
devoted to the tests--what's going to happen to our kids'
education? What won't our kids be learning because they'll be
studying for more tests?
This year, third-graders have reading tests and fourth-,
eighth- and 10th-graders have reading, language arts, math,
science and social studies tests. Next year, those tests will
remain, but third-graders will add a math test and fifth-,
sixth- and seventh-graders will have reading and math tests.
It can be argued that standardized tests show our children
are learning. But what are they learning? How to pass one
particular test, which tests one particular subject and is
geared toward one particular style of learning?
It also can be argued that schools must be accountable and
standardized tests are the best way--if flawed--to ensure
accountability. But, the more testing schools must do, the
more time is taken from education that doesn't involve
passing a test.
And the more testing schools have to do--in the name of no
child being left behind--the greater the chance that your
child could be left with a less complete education.
____________________