[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20005-20006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    CONGRATULATING ANDREW ROTHERHAM

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to 
congratulate Andrew Rotherham on his new position in the White House as 
the Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy. Mr. 
Rotherham was formerly the director of the 21st Century Schools Project 
at the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the Democratic 
Leadership Council. Mr. Rotherham has in the past worked closely with 
my staff on education issues, and I want to wish him success in his new 
endeavor.
  Mr. Rotherham's appointment also may create an opportunity for the 
Administration to reform its positions on education. Recently, the 
House passed the Teacher Empowerment Act in a bipartisan fashion, 239-
185. I had the opportunity to participate in a press conference earlier 
this week at which Senator Gregg unveiled a slightly different Senate 
version of the Teacher Empowerment Act. Unfortunately, the President 
has signaled his intention to veto this legislation because it does not 
explicitly authorize his Class Size Reduction program. I recommend and 
hope that the President will learn what Mr. Rotherham has said recently 
about that proposal.
  In his position at the Progressive Policy Institute, Mr. Rotherham 
wrote Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding--
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a policy 
paper that in part touched on the merits of the President's class size 
reduction program and the issue of local control of education 
decisions. In a section of this paper entitled Teacher Quality, Class 
Size, and Student Achievement, he has this to say about the class size 
reduction program,

       Now a part of Title VI of ESEA, President Clinton's $1.2 
     billion class-size reduction initiative, passed in 1998, 
     illustrates Washington's obsession with means at the expense 
     of results and also the triumph of symbolism over sound 
     policy. The goal of raising student achievement is reasonable 
     and essential; however, mandating localities do it by 
     reducing class sizes precludes local decision-making and 
     unnecessarily involves Washington in local affairs.

  Mr. Rotherham goes on to state,

       During the debate on the Clinton class-size proposal, it 
     was correctly pointed out that research indicates that 
     teacher quality is a more important variable in student 
     achievement than class size. In fact, this crucial finding 
     was even buried in the U.S. Department of Education's own 
     literature on the issue. The Committee on the Prevention of 
     Reading Difficulty in Young Children stated, ``[Although] the 
     quantity and quality of teacher-student interactions are 
     necessarily limited by large class size, best instructional 
     practices are not guaranteed by small class size.'' In fact, 
     one study of 1000 school districts found that every dollar 
     spent on more highly qualified teachers ``netted greater 
     improvements in student achievement than did any other use of 
     school resources.'' Yet despite this, the class-size 
     initiative allows only 15 percent of the $1.2 billion 
     appropriation to be spent on professional development. 
     Instead of allowing states and localities flexibility to 
     address their own particular circumstances, Washington 
     created a one-size-fits all approach.

  Mr. Rotherham ends this section of the paper by asking the following 
insightful question,

       Considering the crucial importance of teacher quality, the 
     current shortage of qualified teachers, and the fact that 
     class-size is not a universal problem throughout the country, 
     shouldn't states and localities have the option of using more 
     than 15 percent of this funding on professional development?

  I am hopeful that Mr. Rotherham will prevail upon President Clinton 
to work with Congress to pass education reform legislation that allows 
states and local communities the flexibility they need to provide a 
quality education for all children, while ensuring that they are held 
accountable for the results of the education they provide. As Mr. 
Rotherham states, the federal government should not concentrate on ``. 
. . means at the expense of results . . .'', and should not allow ``. . 
. the triumph of symbolism over sound policy,'' which the President's 
class size reduction program represents.
  My best wishes go out to Mr. Rotherham, and it is my sincere hope 
that he will be able to have some influence with this administration 
and that he is able to convince them that Washington does not know 
best. It's time we put children first, and change the emphasis of the 
federal government from process and paperwork to kids and learning.
  I ask to print in the Record the section from Mr. Rotherham's report 
that discusses his views on the administration's class size initiative.
  The material follows:

[[Page 20006]]



Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding: Reauthorization of 
               the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

                         (By Andrew Rotherham)


          teacher quality, class size, and student achievement

       Reducing class size is obviously not a bad idea. Quite the 
     contrary, substantial research indicates it can be an 
     effective strategy to raise student achievement. As the 
     Progressive Policy Institute has pointed out, all things 
     being equal, teachers are probably more effective with fewer 
     students. However, achieving smaller class sizes is often 
     problematic. For example, as a result of a teacher shortage 
     exacerbated by a mandate to reduce class sizes, 21,000 of 
     California's 250,000 teachers are working with emergency 
     permits in the states most troubled schools.
       Now a part of Title VI of ESEA, President Clinton's $1.2 
     billion class-size reduction initiative, passed in 1998, 
     illustrates Washington's obsession with means at the expense 
     of results and also the triumph of symbolism over sound 
     policy. The goal of raising student achievement is reasonable 
     and essential; however, mandating localities do it by 
     reducing class sizes precludes local decision-making and 
     unnecessarily involves Washington in local affairs.
       During the debate on the Clinton class-size proposal, it 
     was correctly pointed out that research indicates that 
     teacher quality is a more important variable in student 
     achievement than class size. If fact, this crucial finding 
     was even buried in the U.S. Department of Education's own 
     literature on the issue. The Committee on the Prevention of 
     Reading Difficulty in Young Children stated, ``[Although] the 
     quantity and quality of teacher-student interactions are 
     necessarily limited by large class size, best instructional 
     practices are not guaranteed by small class size.'' In fact, 
     one study of 1000 school districts found that every dollar 
     spent on more highly qualified teachers ``Netted greater 
     improvements in student achievement than did any other use of 
     school resources.'' Yet despite this, the class-size 
     initiative allows only 15 percent of the $1.2 billion 
     appropriation to be spent on professional development. 
     Instead of allowing states and localities flexibility to 
     address their own particular circumstances, Washington 
     created a one-size-fits all approach. Considering the crucial 
     importance of teacher quality, the current shortage of 
     qualified teachers, and the fact that class-size is not a 
     universal problem throughout the country, shouldn't states 
     and localities have the option of using more than 15 percent 
     of this funding on professional development?

                          ____________________