[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21985-21988]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    QUALITY TEACHERS FOR ALL ACT AND THE TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING ACT

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the next couple of weeks, I plan 
to introduce a series of education bills for consideration in the 
context of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act (ESEA). As you know, one of the most important issues facing 
America today is improving the quality of our public school system. 
Improving the quality of education in America requires a comprehensive 
approach. I believe the basis for that approach must be raising 
standards and achieving greater accountability. This approach cannot 
focus on any one facet of our education system but must address all 
facets. The bills that I will introduce address three key areas; these 
bills raise standards and improve accountability for our teachers, for 
our schools and for our students. Today, I am pleased to introduce two 
bills, which I believe will go a long way towards raising standards for 
teaching in America's schools--the Quality Teachers for All Act and the 
Technology for Teaching Act.
  Improving teacher quality continues to be one of my top priorities in 
the Senate, because research demonstrates that teacher quality is the 
single most important factor in student achievement. The Quality 
Teachers for All Act will improve instructional quality by ensuring 
that teachers in Title I classrooms possess the subject matter 
knowledge, teaching knowledge and teaching skills necessary to work 
effectively in our nation's classrooms. The Technology for Teaching 
Act, which I introduce today on behalf of myself, Senator Patty Murray 
and Senator Cochran, will improve the quality of instruction by 
providing teachers with necessary training in the use of technology in 
the classroom.
  I am a strong supporter of the hard-working teachers in American 
classrooms. As the son of two teachers, I know that the profession is 
extremely challenging and meaningful. I also know that the vast 
majority of our teachers are dedicated, professional and competent. Far 
too many schools in America, however, allow classrooms to be led by 
teachers with insufficient training and qualifications to teach. 
Unfortunately, it is the schools and classrooms with the neediest 
children who often have the greatest number of unqualified teachers. 
During a time when we are demanding increased levels of performance for 
our schools and our children, we also must set high standards for all 
our teachers, including those instructing students who will have the 
greatest hurdles to overcome in the learning process.
  Improving teacher quality is one of the most important changes we 
need to make to our educational system--especially if we are serious 
about improving the education of low-income and minority children. Good 
teachers are so important that almost half of the achievement gap 
between minority and white students would be erased if minority 
children had access to the same quality of teachers, according to 
recent research published by the Education Trust. Parents, business 
leaders, and the public at large rank teacher quality as a top concern 
because it just makes sense that a student's teacher would have a 
dominant effect on his or her education. The need for further progress 
in improving teacher quality was recently highlighted in two 1999 
studies--one from the Secretary of Education, the other from Education 
Week.
  Over 30 percent of all math teachers are teaching outside of their 
field of academic preparation--with even higher percentages in other 
academic areas and in high-poverty schools. Almost 15 percent of the 
new teachers hired in high-minority districts lack full teaching 
credentials, which usually involve passing tests to demonstrate needed 
skills and knowledge. In my home State, during the past school year, 
1,074 people were teaching in New Mexico's schools with substandard 
licenses. Another 737 of New Mexico's teachers were teaching subjects 
they weren't certified to teach.
  The Quality Teachers for All Act addresses this problem by requiring 
that all teachers in schools receiving Title I funds be fully 
qualified. This means possessing necessary teaching skills and 
demonstrating mastery in the subjects that they teach. By ensuring

[[Page 21986]]

quality teachers in every classroom, we will be empowering our children 
by providing one of the most important resources for academic 
achievement. Under the Quality Teachers for All Act, an elementary 
school teacher must have State certification, hold a bachelor's degree 
and demonstrate subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and 
teaching skills required to teach effectively in reading, writing, 
mathematics, social studies, science, and other elements of a liberal 
arts education. Middle school and secondary school instructional staff 
must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree, and 
demonstrate a high level of competence in all subject areas in which 
they teach. This demonstration of competence may be achieved by a high 
level of performance on a rigorous academic subject area test, 
completion of an academic major (or equal number of courses, or in the 
case of mid-career professionals, a high level of performance in 
relevant subject areas through employment experience.
  Recognizing that some areas have difficulty attracting qualified 
teachers, the Quality Teachers for All bill addresses this problem by 
allowing school districts to use funds authorized under the bill to 
provide financial incentives for fully qualified teachers, such as 
signing bonuses. In addition, the bill supports efforts to recruit new 
teachers by providing alternative means of certification for highly 
qualified individuals with college degrees, including mid-career 
professionals and former military personnel. The bill also provides 
support for State efforts to increase the portability of teachers' 
pensions, certification and years of experience so that qualified 
teachers can have greater mobility and districts can fill unmet needs 
for qualified teachers more easily. School districts also may use the 
funds to support new teachers to ensure that we retain the qualified 
teachers that start in the profession.
  The bill also empowers teachers by providing financial support for 
programs designed to assist teachers currently working in the system to 
achieve the qualifications required under the bill. The bill will 
provide grants to assist States and LEAs to provide necessary education 
and training to teachers who do not meet the necessary qualifications. 
The forms of assistance can include tuition for college or university 
course work.
  Recognizing the critical role played by parents and the need to make 
them a partner in our efforts to raise teaching standards, this bill 
requires districts and schools to provide parents with information 
regarding their child's teacher's qualifications. This effort builds on 
provisions I authored which became part of the Higher Educations Act of 
1998. Those provisions require a national report card on teacher 
training programs. By reporting this information, the public as well as 
the schools can assess the strengths and weaknesses of teacher training 
programs. Likewise, the parental right-to-know provision in the Quality 
Teachers for All Act will empower parents by informing them of the 
strengths and weaknesses of their children's teachers and help them to 
provide support for increased teacher quality efforts.
  If our educational system is going to prepare our children for the 
21st Century, we must do a better job at preparing our teachers and our 
students to use the tools of the 21st Century--technology. We also must 
use this valuable resource to improve instruction and expand access to 
learning. Therefore, efforts to raise standards for teaching also must 
include greater incorporation of technology into our teacher training 
programs and our classrooms. In response to this need, I--along with 
Senators Murray and Cochran--are proud to introduce the Technology for 
Teaching Act. If enacted, this bill will build on existing efforts to 
improve teacher training in the use of technology in the classroom and 
provide resources to develop innovative uses of technology in the 
classroom.
  Education technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways 
that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to 
develop as independent thinkers and problem-solvers. Teachers deserve 
the skills needed to bring these extraordinary resources and 
opportunities into the classroom. Without these skills, America's 
teachers will find it increasingly difficult to meet the rising 
international standards of educational excellence. We also must provide 
for research and development, as well as evaluation of existing uses of 
technology, in order to ensure that the most effective education-
related technology is in place in our nation's schools. In addition, we 
must close the digital divide by making technology available to all 
students, during the school day and outside the school day.
  The Technology for Teaching bill will provide federal support to: (1) 
provide training to teachers to assist them to integrate technology 
into their classrooms; (2) evaluate the role of technology in the 
classroom; (3) stimulate the development and use of innovative 
technologies to assist students to achieve high academic standards; and 
(4) narrow the ``digital divide'' by providing high-need communities 
and students with greater access to technology.
  Experts say that we should invest at least 30 percent of our 
technology budget in training. Nationally, we are now investing less 
than one-third that amount. Only 15 percent of teachers had 9 or more 
hours of technology instruction in 1994. Trained teachers help make 
computers useful to students, connect school to the home and community, 
and help prevent misuses of technology. Most of all, trained teachers 
can improve student achievement by applying the technology to academic 
content areas. The Technology for Teaching Act establishes two teacher 
training programs, administered by the Office of Education Technology 
in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Education, to make competitive 
grants to State Departments of Education. One program promotes the 
inclusion of education technology in the initial undergraduate 
preparation of new teachers; the other focuses on ongoing professional 
development of current teachers.
  Schools of education that train new teachers will be eligible to 
apply to State Departments of Education for grants to improve their 
programs in education technology. Grant support would require and 
enable schools of education to work in collaboration with local K-12 
school districts and the education technology private sector. Through 
these partnership activities, schools of education will improve and 
expand the ways in which they prepare future teachers to use technology 
in the classroom.
  Local K-12 Education Agencies (LEAs) will be eligible to apply to 
State Departments of Education for grants to improve their professional 
development programs in education technology. In applying for grants, 
LEAs will be required to develop consortia that include one or more 
schools of education, education technology companies, and other 
partners able to help improve their professional development programs. 
These consortia will provide LEAs and teachers with access to the 
latest education research and the most current education technology 
available. The results of these partnership activities will be new and 
innovative programs for teacher professional development.
  The question of whether education technology is an effective tool in 
the classroom is already being answered in part by solid peer-reviewed 
studies which show a significant improvement in student performance and 
attitude in all age groups and all subject areas through better use of 
technology. This research demonstrates what advocates have believed all 
along: if used correctly, technology in the classroom produces 
measurable improvement in student achievement and enthusiasm. A new $25 
million research and evaluation program at the National Science 
Foundation will provide even more insight into the positive impact of 
education technology. The need for a larger scale research and 
coordination initiative remains. The Technology for Teaching Act 
requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate existing and 
anticipated future uses of educational technology. The Secretary may 
conduct long-term controlled studies on

[[Page 21987]]

the effectiveness of the use of educational technology; convene experts 
to identify uses of technology that hold the greatest promise for 
improving teaching and learning and to identify barriers to the 
commercial development of effective, high-quality, cost-competitive 
educational technology and software.
  We also must continue to support research and development efforts to 
explore new uses for technology to improve instruction. The bill 
provides for grants to stimulate the development of innovative 
technology applications. The Secretary awards competitive grants to 
consortia of public and private entities developing innovative models 
of effective use of educational technology, including the development 
of distance learning networks, software (including software deliverable 
through the Internet), and online learning resources. For example, 
grants could be awarded to projects seeking to develop web-based 
instruction to provide access to challenging content such as Advanced 
Placement courses.
  Reduces inequities in access to computers and the Internet must 
continue to be a main function of federal education technology 
programs. Education technology can engage students, provide much-needed 
employment skills, and open up a world of learning and experiences. But 
like well-trained teachers and new school buildings, these resources 
tend to flow to wealthier school districts. If we believe that no child 
should be too poor to have a quality teacher, a safe classroom or 
textbook, the same should hold true for access to computer technology. 
The federal government ha always been the great equalizer between the 
haves and have-nots. Therefore its main mission with respect to 
education technology should be to do what it does best--level the 
playing field so all students can acquire the computer skills to 
function in today's world. the bill targets existing technology grants 
and the new grant funds authorized by this bill to high-poverty, low-
performing schools. The bill also supports the development and 
expansion of community technology centers to serve disadvantaged 
residents of high-poverty communities. The centers provide access to 
technology and training for community members of all ages.
  By ensuring high-quality, well-prepared teachers in our classrooms, 
we empower our educational system and our nation to meet the challenges 
of an increasingly complex and challenging world. I know that most, if 
not all, of my colleagues agree that a critical first step in improving 
our nation's schools is to support efforts to raise standards for 
teaching in our poorest and most challenged schools and to prepare our 
teachers and our children in the use of technology, while also 
capitalizing on the benefits of technology as an educational tool. We 
made great progress in our efforts to improve the quality of 
instruction by raising standards for teacher quality in the higher 
Education Act last year and through existing program supporting the use 
of education technology in schools. I urge my colleagues to continue to 
support these efforts by supporting passage of the Quality Teachers for 
All Act and the Technology for Teaching Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I hope our colleagues pay careful attention to the 
excellent presentation that has been made by my friend and colleague 
from New Mexico. I think all Members who are fortunate enough to serve 
on the Education Committee know Senator Bingaman has been tireless in 
addressing the issue of enhancing the quality of education for the 
children of this country. This afternoon he outlined very important, 
thoughtful steps that I think ought to draw strong bipartisan support. 
He has certainly urged our colleagues to try to find ways in which we 
can work together in support of those proposals. I join with him in 
urging our colleagues to do so.
  For the number of years I have been in the Senate, the issue of 
education has never been a partisan issue. I think for the first 15 
years I was in the Senate on the Education Committee, we never had a 
single vote that divided Republicans and Democrats on issues of 
education--not that we always got it right, but we always attempted to 
find ways of working closely together.
  We recognize there are limited resources we can provide for 
education, probably 7 cents out of every $1, but what the American 
people are looking for is a partnership to try to find ways we can 
enhance educational opportunities to children.
  I rise somewhat reluctantly to draw attention to the fact that we are 
in a very desperate situation as we come to the end of this session in 
regards to addressing the issues of education. I think many of us 
remember the early January speeches by our Republican leader. Senator 
Lott said, ``Education is going to be a central issue this year. The 
Democrats say it's important and it should be a high priority. 
Republicans say it's a high priority.'' Many were hoping this was the 
clarion call for all to come together and work together. We had similar 
statements by our good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici, who said, ``I'm going to recommend the Republicans 
say it's time to quit playing around the edges and dramatically 
increase the amount of money that we put in public education.'' This 
was enormously encouraging.
  At the outset, I will say just allocating resources is not always the 
answer to the challenges we are facing in education. It is a pretty 
clear indication of what our Nation's priorities are. We heard from the 
leadership in the Senate the rhetoric that this was going to be the 
education Congress and the education year.
  It is appropriate that we look back over this past year and over the 
past few years to find out exactly what our record has been under this 
leadership in the areas of education. I can remember right after the 
1994 elections with the new leadership elected in the House and the 
Senate of the United States Congress, one of the first things we had 
was not an appropriation of additional funding in the areas of 
education, but we had a recision.
  What does a recision mean? It means it is the judgment of the House, 
the Senate, and the President to allocate certain resources in the 
education programs. In my hand I have the conference report, the 1995 
recisions: $1.7 billion in the House of Representatives. Those were 
programs, for example, such as the Title I program to help some of the 
neediest children; it was cut back almost a third; the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Programs, which enhance teacher qualities for 
math and science in our high schools, cut $100 million; the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools, cut $472 million.
  We air a great deal of rhetoric on the floor of the Senate about how 
we will make our schools more safe and secure. Going back to 1995, we 
find the attempted recisions in the areas of education. Then in 1996--I 
have the report on the appropriations, the request from the House 
appropriations which is $3.9 billion below the 1995 figures. That is 
under the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives--$3.9 
billion below.
  Does this sound as if it is beginning to be a pattern?
  Wait just a moment, and we will find out what happened in 1997. I 
have the committee report on appropriations for 1997. This was $3.1 
billion below the President's request.
  Now we have 1995, we have 1996, we have 1997; we have 1998, $200 
million below the President's total; and now, 1999, $2 billion below 
the President's request.
  That is a fearsome record in terms of the allocation of scarce 
education resources. Now we see this happening again this year. That is 
why Democrats are so concerned.
  We have seen under the Republican leadership a recommendation of a 17 
percent cut in education that would be represented by a $15 billion cut 
this year in the education programs on an appropriation that we cannot 
even

[[Page 21988]]

have sent here to the Senate. We find that somewhat distressing and 
disturbing.
  What has happened in the past when the Republican leadership had 
responsibilities? The education proposal in 1995 came in 7 months after 
the end of the fiscal year. In 1997, the final agreement was not passed 
until the final day of the old fiscal year, September 30, 1996. In 
1998, it was passed 1 week after the end of the fiscal year. In 1999, 
it was passed 3 weeks after the end of the fiscal year.
  There is a pattern here--cutting back on education resources and 
doing it at the very end, the last business for the Congress.
  If a political party wants to put education at the top of the 
American agenda, it doesn't come last, it comes first. It doesn't come 
with the greatest kinds of cuts we have seen in any appropriations bill 
in recent times; it comes after due deliberation of these very needs 
and requirements and then the support for those programs. That is the 
way we deal with it.
  That is what we find as we come into the last weeks--the enormous 
frustration of many in this body who believe very deeply, as the 
American public does, that if we are going to meet our responsibilities 
in education, we ought to have the opportunity to debate these issues 
in a timely way and not have the efforts that have been made on 17 
different occasions when we tried to bring up various amendments, to 
have those amendments either immediately tabled or immediately 
effectively ignored, virtually denying Members the opportunity of 
having a full and complete debate on what are our fundamental and basic 
responsibilities for a national Congress and a President of the United 
States in education.
  So I believe the Republican leadership bear grave responsibilities in 
this area. We will over these next few days point this out in very 
careful detail, about what these particular cuts and programs are, and 
how they have really affected and adversely impacted the opportunities 
for children to move ahead. That is the record. It is one of great 
discouragement, and it is one I hope our Republican friends will be 
willing to address.

                          ____________________