[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 37 (Tuesday, April 5, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3203-S3205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 696. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 regarding the transfer of students from certain schools; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with regard to the transfer 
of students from certain schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
includes a requirement that schools not meeting adequate yearly 
progress--the AYP--for 2 consecutive years must provide transfer within 
the school district, and if no such schools exist, make efforts to 
provide transfers between school districts to the extent practical. 
This is the school choice provision. However, the current law's 
guidance on school choice does not adequately define practicality or 
feasibility, and where definitions are provided, they are overly broad.
  We have just come off the Easter break. We had an opportunity to talk 
to a lot of educators and students. We return to our work starting 
today to make some significant--maybe not significant changes, but 
little changes to No Child Left Behind to make it more practical and 
make it more common sense in States such as Montana.
  When we start looking at these maps, and as the President pro tempore 
leaves the Chamber, he understands what rural is when he looks at his 
State of Alaska. We are not nearly as big as Alaska. However, when we 
look at the State of Montana--and for those who wonder about distances 
and sizes, from the Yak, which is up in the northwest corner of the 
State, to Alzada in the southeast corner, it is farther than it is from 
Chicago to Washington, DC. So there is a pretty fair chunk of land out 
here, and we have young folks who go to school in just about every part 
of the State.
  These are the elementary schools I am going to talk about as I speak 
on No Child Left Behind and the legislation I am introducing today.
  The bottom line is No Child Left Behind is not a one-size-fits-all 
legislation. We have some of the greatest teachers there are in the 
country, and we have some of the brightest minds to teach. Accordingly, 
it is imperative that Congress continues to hear the needs and concerns 
of America's rural education communities.
  Just to give my colleagues an idea, I had a little bit to do with the 
passage

[[Page S3204]]

and the shaping of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In that bill, we 
had a piece included called broadband. Back in those days, most folks 
had not heard of the Internet, broadband, or digital. There were not 
very many of us around here who were even computer literate. We are 
getting better. We are getting a little younger.
  I can remember when we put the broadband section in the bill, 
primarily to do two things in my State: distance learning, allowing 
these smaller schools in rural areas to access the Internet and classes 
to be taught via a two-way interact from another location so that their 
curriculum could be broadened, just like a school, say, located in 
Billings, Great Falls, Missoula. Just because someone was born way out 
here and went to school in Jordan, MT, where we have a county the size 
of Rhode Island--it only has 1,800 folks and only one high school. It 
used to be a boarding school. I do not think it is anymore. But it used 
to be when you took your student to school on Monday morning, you did 
not see them until Friday night after the football game was over. So we 
deal in a little bit different kind of environment and situation.
  The Federal law must recognize the significant differences between 
urban and rural school districts with regard to student transportation, 
school spacing, and, of course, the school-of-choice options. Although 
No Child Left Behind leaves the State of Montana in control of 
determining the feasibility of transfers between different school 
districts, it is much less flexible when it comes to transfers within 
the same school district.
  My legislation would add to existing guidelines on the practicality 
and the feasibility of school choice that a school district would not 
be required to provide a student with a transfer option to another 
school if providing the option is impractical due to the distance to be 
traveled, a geographical barrier or hazard, the duration of the travel, 
or an unusually high cost of travel. However, if choice is not offered 
under the latter circumstances, students in affected schools will still 
receive valuable supplemental education services, and school districts 
will still have the option to provide students school learning choices 
through distance learning programs or virtual schools or several other 
options offered under current law.
  We are pretty sparse in eastern Montana. From Miles City to Jordan is 
about 90 miles. I was talking about Jordan a while ago up on the big 
dry creek. You heard me say I have a lot of dirt between light bulbs 
out there. Well, we have a lot of land between schools out there also, 
and school districts can be quite large. The centers of Billings, Great 
Falls, Missoula, the Flat Head, or even Bozeman are grouped pretty 
closely. In eastern Montana, however, they are far apart. We have 
elementary schools not even on paved roads, still on gravel. I know one 
that is still on a mud road. If it rains real hard or during the spring 
thaw, they cannot get a car in there or a pickup truck or even a four-
wheel drive vehicle, so they all ride horses, which is not a bad idea. 
It saves on gas, and as high as gas is, it probably isn't a bad idea at 
all. This is a map of the elementary schools to give an idea of where 
they are located way out there.
  Now, I want to take a look at the high schools. There are not as many 
of them. What are you going to do if a school in Miles City is in need 
of improvement under the current law? Where are you going to send them? 
To Broadus? I don't think so. That is another 80 or 90 miles. Pretty 
soon the miles start adding up.
  Right now the law requires the schools to pay for students to 
transfer them in the same district unless doing so is too expensive. In 
Montana, as with many rural schools in rural States, there are 
considerations greater than just cost. While the law makes sense in 
Billings, it does not work in districts where the schools are farther 
apart.
  Take the Broadus County School District in southeastern Montana as an 
example. As we can see, there is a lot of distance between schools. 
There are not very many schools out there. These are high schools. 
These are not elementary schools but high schools. Some may take up to 
2 hours one way to drive. It not only hurts the family life of the 
students, but it disrupts what they do and also has an adverse effect 
on their academic performance.
  Sometimes this type of commute may be necessary. My legislation makes 
this decision a matter for rural States to decide instead of the 
politicians here in Washington, DC, or by a rule written into a law 
that just is unworkable in my State.
  I realize No Child Left Behind had some built-in flexibilities, and I 
also realize that some States did not take advantage of some of those 
flexibilities. Now we are locked into a situation where it is almost 
impossible to change unless we change the legislation and reword it. My 
legislation simply clarifies what is feasible and practical for school 
choice transfers within school districts and gives the States, 
especially my State, the ability to treat schools in rural Broadus 
differently than it treats schools in more urbanized Billings, MT.
  I would imagine the Senator from Florida who is new to this body and 
a terrific addition to this body has some rural areas in Florida. We 
think of Florida as more urbanized, but they have some rural areas too, 
just like Montana. That does not mean there are kids out there whose 
needs should not be addressed.
  When we visit schools, we get all kinds of questions from the 
students. I was visiting a sixth-grade class the other day. They came 
up with all kinds of questions. Some of them were pretty good, some 
were not so good. I did have one that was just a little bit different. 
This young man stood up in sixth grade, and he said: Senator, what do 
you want written on your tombstone? My gosh, I never had that question 
before, and I did not know exactly how to handle it, so I just told 
him: He's not here yet. That is the only way I could answer him.
  These young people are very bright. They like their schools in these 
areas with distance learning. And we have telemedicine. We are 
delivering medical care much differently now. We are doing it with 
broadband services. We have 14 counties that do not have a doctor. It 
is done by physician assistants and many other people.
  The other day a student from our part of the country enrolled at 
Montana State University at Billings. He had taken enough courses in 
his senior year in distance learning from MSUB that he has a full 
semester completed. So when he goes away to school, he already has half 
a year done.
  This is why we have the Telecommunications Act. This is why we have 
the No Child Left Behind Act. We have to look at schools and libraries 
and some of the kinks we have to work out in that law so that these 
smaller schools and libraries can get their moneys so they can offer 
this online education. This is just another part of tweaking the No 
Child Left Behind law to make it work in rural areas.
  I urge my Senate colleagues, especially those from rural States, to 
join me in cosponsoring this bill because it is very important. If we 
are really dedicated to the program of No Child Left Behind, we cannot 
leave rural children behind either, and we have to make it work.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 696

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Schools Geography 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There are significant differences between urban and 
     rural school districts with regard to student transportation, 
     distances between schools and school districts, and school of 
     choice options. Local educational agencies (LEAs) in rural 
     areas often have only 1 school servicing a particular grade-
     level, and the distance between these schools is often much 
     greater than in urban areas. These differences are not 
     addressed by existing guidelines under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (2) In 2000, rural schools (those in communities with 
     populations below 2,500) taught 32 percent of the children in 
     the United States, but rural schools accounted for 
     $5,670,000,000 of the Nation's spending on school 
     transportation, or nearly half of such spending.
       (3) Rural transportation costs, per-pupil, are double that 
     of urban transportation

[[Page S3205]]

     costs. As a percentage of total spending, rural areas spend 
     77 percent more than urban areas for education 
     transportation.
       (4) Commutes in rural areas are much more likely to be on 
     rougher, unpaved roads. This not only undermines the physical 
     health of the students, but makes transportation during poor 
     weather much more difficult or impossible. Students with 
     longer commutes are more likely to miss school because of 
     inclement weather. School attendance is an important factor 
     in school performance.
       (5) School students who have long commutes actively avoid 
     advanced and high-level courses because they do not have time 
     for the extra homework. This self-imposed restriction retards 
     maximization of educational potential.
       (6) Students with long commutes are less likely to engage 
     in in-home and out-of-home activities, such as family 
     dinners, after-school jobs, and athletic or musical 
     extracurricular activities. Participation in these activities 
     benefits overall educational progress.
       (7) Section 1116(b)(10)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 instructs that the lowest achieving 
     children be given priority for out-of-district 
     transportation. Thus, the negative impacts of long commutes 
     disproportionately affect the very students who need the most 
     help.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 
                   ACT OF 1965.

       Section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Geography Limits.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) 
     and (c), a local educational agency shall not be required to 
     provide a student the option to transfer to another school 
     pursuant to this section if providing the option is 
     impractical due to the distance to be traveled, a 
     geographical barrier or hazard, the duration of the travel, 
     or an unusually high cost of travel.''.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary of Education, not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as the Secretary determines necessary to 
     implement this Act.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 3 shall take effect on the 
     first July 1 that occurs after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______