[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4931-S4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that has
great significance for our country. It is about early learning. I will
give you the formal name of the amendment so we have it for the record:
Casey amendment No. 2152, the strong start for America's children
amendment, which is an amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act that
will establish a Federal-State partnership to provide access to high-
quality and public prekindergarten education for low- and moderate-
income families.
We have had a debate, especially over the last couple of days, about
our commitment to basic education, so-called elementary and secondary
education. As part of that, I think it is the time to finally, at long
last, have a debate about early learning on the floor of the U.S.
Senate. It has been a long time since that has happened.
I thank the folks who have made it possible for us to get to this
point to consider an amendment like this and to have this debate about
the larger legislation but also about this amendment, in particular.
Senator Alexander and Senator Murray were leading the effort to
consider the Every Child Achieves Act, but also, in particular, I again
salute Senator Murray for her many years, as you might call it,
laboring in the vineyards of early learning, as she has done on so many
other issues--since the first stage, she has been in the Senate working
on early learning. I thank Senator Hirono for her work on this issue as
well, in proposing legislation which has come together now after a lot
of years of work by a number of us in the Senate. We are grateful for
their contribution.
I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Booker as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, what this comes down to is something very
fundamental. The basic link between learning and earning--if children
learn more now or learn more when they are very young, they are going
to earn a lot more down the road. They are going to do better in
school. They are going to succeed in progressing in school in a way we
would hope, no matter where they live and no matter what their
circumstances, if we make the commitment to those children. Because of
that success and progress and learning, they will learn more down the
road. We know a more developed education leads to great success in
school and also leads to a better job down the road.
This isn't simply a commitment to a child. It certainly is that first
and foremost, but it is also a commitment to our long-term economic
future. If you want higher wages and you want better jobs and you want
a growing economy and you want America not only to compete in a world
economy but outcompete and have the best workforce, the best workers in
the world, we have to make sure we have the best education system. That
starts long before a child gets to first or second grade and even
starts before they get to kindergarten. That is why I refer to this as
pre-K or prekindergarten education. If they learn more now, they will
earn more later. We have to make sure we bear that in mind.
As we debate the appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure
that all students in the Nation graduate from high school prepared for
college and career, we cannot forget about this basic piece of the
puzzle that begins before that child enters kindergarten.
In the short term, students enter kindergarten more prepared and
ready for elementary school if we pass legislation like the amendment I
am proposing. Some studies have even shown high-quality early learning
can help double a child's cognitive development. High quality and early
learning can double a child's cognitive development.
In the long term, high-quality early learning--we want to emphasize
``high quality.'' I didn't say just any program or any kind of
curriculum. We will talk more about that later. High-quality early
learning contributes to, among other things, No. 1, a reduction in the
need for special education; No. 2, lower juvenile justice rates; No. 3,
improved health outcomes; No. 4, increased high school graduation and
college matriculation rates; and, No. 5, increased self-sufficiency in
productivity among families. These aren't just assertions. These are
the results of many years of study.
I will turn to the first chart for today. No. 1, high-quality early
learning means children can earn as much as 25 percent more as adults.
This is where early learning has a direct and substantial correlation
to higher wages down the road. No. 2, early learning leads to healthier
and more productive lives. There is no question about that. Some of the
best research on this has been done lately and should be part of the
discussion. No. 3, high-quality early learning also leads to children
who are less likely to commit a crime. All the data shows that over
many years now. No. 4, high-quality early learning means children are
more likely to graduate from high school.
We need to get that number up across the country. We hope that will
lead to more young people finishing high school and getting higher
education, but that doesn't always mean a 4-year degree. It might mean
a 2-year degree. It might mean a community college. It might mean a
technical school. They can't get to a community or technical school or
any kind of higher education unless they graduate from high school. We
want to make sure we have programs that do that. Kids learn more now
and earn more later. That is the first reason to do this. It has a
positive impact on that child and a substantially positive impact on
the economy.
The other way to look at this is what would happen in the absence of
this kind of commitment, which we don't have right now as a nation. I
think it is a strategic imperative that we have a commitment to early
learning. But what happens if we don't? We can spend upward of $40,000
per inmate on incarceration, thousands of dollars on drug treatment and
special education. Whatever the challenge is, those problems become
worse the longer we don't make this commitment. That is one option.
The other option is to spend a fraction of that $40,000 on high-
quality preschool and give children the good and smart start they need
in life. It is that old adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.
We often have the best testimony from folks in our home State. I want
to read one of those pieces of testimony. This is a letter I received.
I will not read the whole letter. I want to refer to
[[Page S4932]]
a couple of individuals from Pennsylvania. Heather is from Southwestern
Pennsylvania, and she wrote to us talking about her child. She is
talking about the fact that her daughter is enrolled in a high-quality
pre-K program. These are positive testimonials about the impact on the
child and on the family. Heather, from southwestern Pennsylvania, wrote
to us and told us that her daughter is enrolled in a high-quality pre-K
program. These letters are positive testimonials that describe the
impact this program has on a child and family.
Heather says in pertinent part:
My daughter has blossomed since starting the PA Pre-K
Counts program . . . she loves it!! She sings us songs she
learns daily and has made lots of friends daily she tells us
how much she loves her school and her teachers!
It goes on from there.
Another letter from Dorie D., also from the southwestern corner of
our State, out near Pittsburgh, says:
Our daughter has blossomed since starting the PA Pre-K
Counts program. Having this program available to us has
helped us see how our child learns best.
She goes on to say:
She is just so much more animated and open to learning now.
We get letters like these all the time about the positive impact of
early learning. This is testimony from people who are directly affected
by it.
One way to look at this is from the testimony of families. Another
way to look at it is from the data. One of the best authorities is Dr.
James Heckman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who estimates that the
return on high-quality early learning is as high as $10 for every $1 we
invest. Another study of the Perry Preschool Project in Michigan showed
a return of $17 for every $1 spent. So when you spend a buck on early
learning, you get 17 bucks in return. This study has been on the record
for many years, and unfortunately some elected officials haven't taken
it to heart.
The data of return on investment is overwhelming and indisputable. So
if we want to measure this in terms of dollars, there is all of the
evidence in the world. I think the evidence and the testimony from
parents is even more persuasive, but if we want to do a dollar
comparison, there it is--17 bucks returned on 1 buck of investment in
early learning.
The same research found that children who participated in high-
quality early learning earned approximately 25 percent more per year
than those who did not.
So study after study looking at full-day learning programs across the
country have found a positive impact on the future earnings of
participants, and in some cases the benefit just from increased wages
could be as high as 3.5 percent per year. So this does have a direct
correlation to wages. My strong start amendment would help more than 3
million American children have that opportunity for high-quality early
learning, and it would give them access to those kinds of programs.
My home State of Pennsylvania has made strides in this direction at
the State level. That is the good news. The bad news is that they have
not made anywhere near the strides we need to make. We are nowhere near
50 percent of our children in these kinds of programs. So because of
that, because of that void or that deficit, the number for Pennsylvania
in terms of benefits is high. It is estimated that 93,930 children in
the State of Pennsylvania could benefit from this amendment being
enacted into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document entitled
``Five-Year Estimates of Federal Allotments and the Number of Children
Served By Casey Strong Start Amendment'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FIVE-YEAR ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL ALLOTMENTS AND THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN
SERVED BY CASEY STRONG START AMENDMENT
(funding in dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
State Federal Allotment $ Children Served
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-.................... 429,922,966 51,804
Alaska-..................... 130,998,000 15,643
Arizona-.................... 656,508,117 80,170
Arkansas-................... 315,518,722 34,630
California-................. 3,139,171,848 356,816
Colorado-................... 366,496,715 43,250
Connecticut-................ 199,660,755 21,673
Delaware-................... 130,998,000 15,789
District of Columbia-....... 130,998,000 12,666
Florida-.................... 1,440,455,110 161,553
Georgia-.................... 917,616,106 101,756
Hawaii-..................... 130,998,000 16,099
Idaho-...................... 153,654,734 18,800
Illinois-................... 961,484,302 108,064
Indiana-.................... 530,095,397 65,147
Iowa-....................... 241,549,933 26,707
Kansas-..................... 259,275,568 30,942
Kentucky-................... 411,598,742 47,475
Louisiana-.................. 455,185,965 52,223
Maine-...................... 130,998,000 15,427
Maryland-................... 361,451,446 40,378
Massachusetts-.............. 268,510,976 30,552
Michigan-................... 704,261,046 82,020
Minnesota-.................. 344,519,863 41,581
Mississippi-................ 341,868,957 42,015
Missouri-................... 448,967,945 54,565
Montana-.................... 130,998,000 16,099
Nebraska-................... 147,742,118 17,666
Nevada-..................... 252,190,201 30,808
New Hampshire-.............. 130,998,000 16,099
New Jersey-................. 448,992,376 42,744
New Mexico-................. 227,159,310 27,175
New York-................... 1,234,026,608 137,136
North Carolina-............. 872,086,515 101,598
North Dakota-............... 130,998,000 16,099
Ohio-....................... 976,595,679 118,760
Oklahoma-................... 323,544,733 34,739
Oregon-..................... 292,466,846 33,472
Pennsylvania-............... 817,003,895 93,930
Puerto Rico-................ 453,536,785 55,738
Rhode Island-............... 130,998,000 16,035
South Carolina-............. 514,947,370 61,478
South Dakota-............... 130,998,000 16,099
Tennessee-.................. 585,849,905 68,313
Texas-...................... 2,670,071,687 299,902
Utah-....................... 283,952,191 34,897
Vermont-.................... 130,998,000 15,224
Virginia-................... 461,782,685 53,967
Washington-................. 511,392,470 60,180
West Virginia-.............. 150,649,562 15,676
Wisconsin-.................. 455,857,852 50,212
Wyoming-.................... 130,998,000 16,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total-.................. 26,199,600,001 3,017,891
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Estimates
were developed using assumptions and some may not be subject to
change. Estimates of children served assume the cost of serving each
child would be $9,000 per child in every state.
Mr. CASEY. That is a list of the dollar amounts that States would
receive under this. They have to choose to participate, but if they
did, they would have not just the dollars for it but the children
served. So my amendment would benefit 3 million children across the
country and almost 94,000 children in Pennsylvania. In Ohio, 118,760
children would benefit from this program. Even a very large State that
might not have the investment we would hope, a State such as Texas, has
299,902 children--let's just round it off and call it 300,000--who
would benefit.
This chart shows the number of children who would benefit, and I
believe it is long overdue that we made this commitment to our
children.
The State would have to match, and that is why I mentioned it at the
beginning. This is a Federal and State partnership. And we know if that
happens, the full-day preschool would be available for 4-year-olds--
that is the age category we are focused on--from families earning 200
percent below the Federal poverty level. So if it is a family of four,
200 percent is a little less than $49,000 of family income.
Earlier, I mentioned quality. We don't want to just have programs set
up around the country--a Federal and State partnership and have a
program. That would be nice, but it won't advance the goal of the best
possible learning. We want high-quality programs. So we insist that the
programs be ones that have teachers with high qualifications who are
paid comparably to K-through-12 teachers. We would also insist that
there be rigorous health and safety standards for these programs, such
as small class sizes and low child-to-staff ratios, and instruction
that is evidence-based and developmentally appropriate. We don't want
to have just any curriculum; we want to have the best curriculum that
is based on evidence that it works and also evidence-based
comprehensive services for children.
This amendment acknowledges that high-quality pre-K programs should
be inclusive of services for children with disabilities as well and
recognizes the need for increased funding to specifically serve these
children in early childhood.
There are other aspects of the program I do not have time to discuss
right now, but I wanted to address an issue some people have brought to
my attention. This program is a new commitment by the United States of
America, and even folks who say this is a really good idea ask: How do
you pay for it?
Well, we have a pay-for. There is a change to the Tax Code, which I
think a lot of folks would support because of what we have seen over
the last couple of years. To pay for this, we would put limits on the
ability of American companies to invert and move their tax domicile
overseas to reduce their tax liability. That is a long way of saying we
would make it more difficult for companies to engage in this so-called
inversion strategy which allows them, through a loophole, to pay less
taxes because they move operations into a smaller company that is
foreign owned.
[[Page S4933]]
I believe we should make it more difficult for companies to do that. If
they want to do that--I don't like when they do that, and not many
people like it--we should at least make it a little more difficult. If
we make it more difficult for companies to do what we hope they
wouldn't, that will actually lead to a savings in revenue.
It would make a lot of sense for American companies that believe they
should move overseas to help us pay for early learning. I think that
makes all the sense in the world if we are committed to early learning
and if we are committed to making sure we can pay for the program. The
amendment itself is paid for by dealing with this loophole or dealing
with part of an advantage companies have.
This amendment is supported by nearly 40 national organizations, from
unions, to parent education and early learning groups, disability
advocacy groups, and civil rights groups.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full list of
endorsing organizations printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
List of Organizations Endorsing Casey Amendment #2152 to S. 1177--The
Strong Start for America's Children Amendment
1. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees
2. American Federation of Teachers
3. American Federation of School Administrators
4. Bazelon Center
5. Child Care Aware America
6. Center for American Progress Action Fund
7. Center for the Collaborative Classrom
8. Children's Defense Fund
9. Center for Law and Social Policy
10. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning
11. Common Sense Kids Action
12. Easter Seals
13. Education Law Center
14. First Five Year's Fund
15. First Focus Campaign for Children
16. Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
17. Learning Disabilities Association of America
18. National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People
19. National Association for the Education of Young
Children
20. National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities
21. National Association of Elementary School Principals
22. National Association of School Psychologists
23. National Association of State Directors of Special
Education
24. National Black Child Development Institute
25. National Center for Families Learning
26. National Council of La Raza
27. National Urban League
28. National Women's Law Center
29. National Education Association
30. Nemours Children's Health System
31. Parents as Teachers
32. School Social Work Association of America
33. Service Employee International Union
34. Teach For America
35. Teaching Strategies
36. The Committee for Children
37. The National Down Syndrome Congress
38. Tourette Association of America
39. Zero to Three
Mr. CASEY. Just a couple of more points, and I will move on.
Even with these recent gains, according to one of the national groups
that track this data, the National Institute of Early Education and
Research, NIEER, shows that only 4 in 10 American 4-year-olds are
enrolled in public pre-K and fewer than 2 in 10 3-year-olds. Let's just
focus on the 4-year-olds. Four in ten 4-year-olds are in these kinds of
programs.
I don't know how we can compete and have the best workforce in the
world and develop the highest skill level in the world for our future
if we don't make a commitment to early learning. I don't know how else
we can get there over time if we are going to continue to talk a good
game about early learning. And to listen to the testimony of parents,
CEOs, and business owners who come to us year after year, in addition
to talking to us about taxation and other issues--they say: Please,
please make an investment in early learning. Some of the biggest
companies in Pennsylvania and some of the biggest companies in the
world have come to us and said that. Whether it is a CEO or a parent or
an educator, they all believe we have to finally, at long last, make a
commitment to early learning as a nation because it is a strategic
economic imperative.
Even in Pennsylvania, where I mentioned before that we made some
strides over basically the last decade or 15 years, we rank 10th in the
amount of State resources invested. That is kind of good news but not
enough. Pennsylvania is still only able to serve less than 10 percent
of all 3- and 4-year-olds in State funding for early learning.
I think that at the same time we can make the academic arguments--the
arguments by parents and educators and CEOs--we also know that the
national data and polling show it is something the American people
support as well. The American people understand the vital importance of
increasing investment in early learning.
A national poll conducted last year by the bipartisan team at Public
Opinion Strategies and Hart Research showed that 64 percent of
Americans believe we should be doing more to ensure that children start
kindergarten ready to do their best.
Here is another way to summarize it. This chart shows voters who say
we should be doing more to ensure that children start kindergarten
ready to do their best, and virtually no one else says we should do
less. Those who say we should do more to ensure our children start
kindergarten ready to learn and ready to do their best--64 percent.
Twenty-seven percent say we should do enough. We have to persuade some
of those folks in green. Only 4 percent say we should do less. I don't
know who those folks are. I hope I can meet them and talk to them. But
the overwhelming majority of Americans say we need to do more to give
children the opportunity to be prepared to learn and therefore to have
a strong start in their education and down the road to literally earn
more when they are working.
This support runs across all parties--55 percent of Republicans, 63
percent of Independents, and 73 percent of Democrats.
When asked about a similar proposal to the one in my amendment, 7 in
10 Americans, including 67 percent of Republicans, support it. So it
has overwhelming support.
I will end with the words of the folks who know the benefit of these
programs already--some of the parents who wrote to us. There are two
more letters I will cite.
The next testimonial is from Beth. She is from Washington County, PA.
She expresses gratitude for the Pennsylvania pre-K program. She says:
My daughter has learned so much. Before the start of PA
Pre-K Counts, she couldn't write any of her letters or even
recognize them. She has improved so much since the first day
of class. It has given her socialization with other kids her
age.
She goes on to tell how much that means to her family and how much
that means to her daughter.
Finally, Megan, who is from the other end of the State, southeastern
Pennsylvania in Montgomery County, says in part that her son ``came
into this program shy and with very little verbal communication. He now
talks nonstop and loves learning!''
I have only read brief excerpts from letters we have received.
Here is the point: If a child enters a program and by the end of that
is curious about learning, that is a huge success. If a child enters a
program not knowing her letters and by the end of that she is learning
and achieving, that is something we can all be positive about.
The first letter I read talked about the way one mother's child was
singing songs that she learns daily. Whatever it is, whether it is
singing or learning letters or reading, these children are learning
because of a good program. It didn't just happen by accident. It
happened because they are in a high-quality program. It happened
because in some communities they made the decision to invest in the
future of that child and the future of our economy.
So let's take a step with this amendment to allow children to learn
more now so they can earn more later and help us move into the future
in a very positive direction for our children, for our families, and
for our economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of an
amendment to this underlying bill that addresses resource equity in our
Nation's schools. I am proud to have
[[Page S4934]]
worked across party lines to join my colleagues in supporting this
bipartisan amendment, particularly to have worked with Senators Kirk,
Reed of Rhode Island, and Brown on this measure. It is an improvement
to the long-overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act that we have been debating over the course of this week.
The Every Child Achieves Act importantly focuses on ensuring that
those students most in need have access to a high-quality education. It
continues to ensure that title I funds flow to school districts where
Federal support can make the greatest impact and the most difference.
It requires States to report key information that will help us identify
disparities such as per-pupil expenditures, school discipline, and
teacher and educator quality. But I believe we must further strengthen
those reporting requirements in order to fully ensure that the range of
critical school resources--from quality teachers, to rigorous course
work, to well-conditioned and equipped school facilities--is being
equitably distributed among school districts in a given State. And we
must require States to demonstrate how they will act to address
disparities among schools.
Despite the advances we have seen since President Johnson signed the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law 50 years ago,
significant gaps in achievement and opportunity still exist. The U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights recently published
data from a comprehensive survey of schools across the Nation that
illustrated the magnitude of the problem. For example, the report
describes how Black, Latino, American Indian, and Native Alaskan
students and English learners attend schools with higher concentrations
of inexperienced teachers.
Furthermore, nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school
counselor, and between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the
Nation do not offer more than one of the core courses in the typical
sequence of high school math and science.
In my home State of Wisconsin, higher poverty and higher minority
school districts remain more likely to have inexperienced teachers. The
Department of Education has data that shows that, for example, in
Milwaukee, where there are the most high-poverty and high-minority
schools in our State, 8 percent of teachers are in their first year of
teaching and 19 percent of teachers lack State certification. The State
average is 5.6 percent for first-year teachers and 0.3 percent for
those who lack certification.
As with the Nation, achievement gaps follow these disparities.
According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics,
there are startling differences in student proficiency and graduation
rates both in Wisconsin and nationally. For example, the average math
proficiency in low-performing schools in my home State is 12 percent.
The average in all other schools in the State is 51 percent. That is a
huge gap; it is a 40-percent gap. There is also a 37-percent gap for
reading and language arts proficiency and a 31-percent gap in
graduation rates.
We cannot close those achievement gaps if we do not provide all
students with equal access to core educational resources. That is why I
am pleased to join Senators Kirk, Reed, and Brown in offering this
opportunity dashboard of core resources amendment. This amendment
requires each State to report what key educational resources are
currently available in districts with the highest concentrations of
minority students and students in poverty. Then it requires them to
develop a plan to address the disparities that are shown to exist. It
gives States flexibility to develop those plans and lay out a timetable
with annual benchmarks for taking action, and it protects a parent's
right to know about the critical educational resources that are
available to his or her child.
As we work to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
in its 50th year, we have yet to see its promise of equal access to
educational opportunity fulfilled for all of America's students. As we
look to the next half-century of supporting public education, it is
critical that we take steps to ensure that all children have access to
the educational resources that will help them succeed, regardless of
race, ethnicity, or family income.
I understand there may be a vote on this amendment early next week. I
certainly hope so. I urge my colleagues to support this very important
bipartisan effort.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________