[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7271-7282]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Craig amendment No. 372 (to amendment No. 358), to tie 
     funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to improved student performance.
       Kennedy modified amendment No. 375 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to express the sense of the Senate regarding, and to 
     authorize appropriations for title II, part A, of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with respect 
     to the development of high-qualified teachers.
       Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No. 
     358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
       Kennedy (for Mikulski/Kennedy) amendment No. 379 (to 
     amendment No. 358), to provide for the establishment of 
     community technology centers.
       Allen/Warner amendment No. 380 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     provide for a sense of the Senate regarding education 
     opportunity tax relief to enable the purchase of technology 
     and tutorial services for K-12 education purposes.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.


                           Amendment No. 372

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Craig amendment.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I assume we are now proceeding on the Craig 
amendment, with 1 minute for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment I have put before the Chamber. It does not cut a program. It 
does not even take out the cost of living or an annualized increase 
based on that. What it says is that the Federal Government and the 
Department of Education and educational programs will no longer reward 
mediocrity.
  In title I, over the last 30 years, we have put in $120 billion and 
poor kids are still lower in achievement than middle-income kids who 
are outside the program. It failed. In this education bill before us, 
we are trying to change that.
  All I am saying is, if you do not measure up, and if the States do 
not improve the environment in which kids are learning--in other words, 
if kids do not improve--and it is measured by the tests and the 
standards within this bill--then no more Federal money goes out. In 
other words, we will not continue to fund mediocrity. We will set a 
standard and a precedence where improvement in our young people means 
we will reward that improvement with the use of the Federal tax 
dollars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope the Craig amendment will be 
defeated. This is really putting the cart before the horse. If you 
adopt the Craig amendment, you are effectively saying there will not be 
any funding at all for the development of quality testing and 
accountability systems.
  President Bush has proposed a three-fold increase in three times the 
amount of reading funding. That will not be available for children if 
the Craig amendment is adopted. Effectively, this amendment undermines 
what President Bush has stated are his goals in terms of trying to get 
increased accountability, better testing, and increased support for 
education. That will all be prohibited under the Craig amendment.

[[Page 7272]]

  What we are trying to do is match resources to responsibility. That 
is the change in this whole bill. We are matching those two concepts. 
And that makes sense. But under the Craig amendment, you will be 
denying the President's program in increased reading and the 
President's program in terms of accountability. It puts the cart before 
the horse and makes no sense. I hope it will be defeated.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support what the distinguished Senator is 
trying to accomplish. I think it is about time we let the States know 
they are going to have to do better; that they are going to have to 
measure up. I cannot, however, coming from a poor State, summarily cut 
this off. When I use the word ``summarily,'' I realize we have had 35, 
36 years in which to accomplish these things. But I do think they ought 
to be warned ahead of time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. This Senator's amendment would not cut any program. It 
would allow continued funding at that level. It does not reward by 
allowing the increases in the spending. That is what is important. The 
Senator from Massachusetts mentioned that nothing would go forward. He 
is wrong. Everything goes forward, and the measurements are in place.
  What we are saying is, we are strong and definitive in saying that if 
you do not improve, you do not get the additional money.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at some future time, I may support what this 
amendment is trying to accomplish. I think that we should have more 
accountability by the states. I also believe that we may need to 
reevaluate how Title I funds are used in the states. That being said, I 
do not think that this amendment is the proper way to tie funding to 
achievement. I represent a low-income state where Title I funds make up 
$76.5 million of the money spent on education. By threatening to freeze 
funding until the schools improve, I fear we may be taking away the 
very tools necessary to achieve the improvement that we all seek both 
in our schools and our students. I like what the Senator is saying, but 
I am going to vote against his amendment at this time. Basically, I 
have not heard enough of this debate. And this is one thing that is 
wrong. Let me underline that. This is one thing that is wrong with the 
stacking of the amendments.
  I have already stated my opposition to the stacking of the 
amendments.
  Sometimes there is justification for stacking votes, and sometimes I 
will not object to it. But in the future, I am going to object more 
than I have in the past. It is demeaning to the Senator who offers the 
amendment. It is demeaning to the amendment itself to be limited to 2 
minutes before we vote on it. And it is demeaning to the Senate.
  When it comes to stacking votes so as to allow Senators to be away on 
a Monday or be away on Fridays, I am going to be hard to get along with 
in that regard. I hope that what I am saying will let every Senator 
know that in the future I will frequently object to the stacking of 
votes. This is a bad way to legislate.
  This particular amendment ought to have more debate than it is 
getting. It may have had some debate--I don't know--on Friday. I am not 
sure. I had to take my wife on Friday to a pulmonary expert. I couldn't 
be here. But other Senators weren't here either. It is demeaning to 
come out here and offer an amendment on Friday with a shirttailful of 
Senators present, maybe two, maybe three, and few press people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will have to vote against the 
Senator's amendment today, but I compliment him for trying to do 
something. Let's do it later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
372. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--73

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 372) was rejected.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how many minutes were required for that 
rollcall?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Sixteen and a half minutes on a 10-minute rollcall. We are 
doing better.


                     Amendment No. 375, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this amendment there are 2 minutes equally 
divided. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the very important features of 
this legislation is upgrading the skills of unqualified teachers who 
are teaching poor children and also making sure that new recruits are 
going to be qualified teachers.
  This legislation guarantees schools that have 50 percent poor 
children will have a qualified teacher in every classroom in 4 years.
  This amendment says that we should fully fund the $3 billion which is 
in the authorization to make sure all the teachers who are going to be 
teaching poor children are qualified. It says we ought to add $500 
million each additional year, so that in the last year there will be a 
total of $6 billion a year in funding, necessary to provide continued 
professional development to every techer, every year in a high poverty 
classroom.
  There are 1,500,000 teachers who teach poor children; 750,000 are 
unqualified today. This amendment will ensure that we continually 
upgrade the skills of every one of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 375, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

[[Page 7273]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 375), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 380

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on this 
pending Allen amendment No. 380.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want the Senate to know that I voted twice 
on the previous vote. I was standing here by Mr. Kennedy when I raised 
my hand, which I usually do. I was not behind my desk, as I usually am.
  I am not complaining about anything. I am not criticizing anybody. I 
just want the Senate to know that I voted. Normally, I do not hold up 
the Senate.
  I thank the Senate. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the pending 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 380) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank all of our Members for their presence and for 
their cooperation.
  We now have the Senator from Washington on an extremely important 
amendment. We hope the Senate will give careful attention to this 
amendment. This is one of the most important amendments we will have to 
this legislation. I am enormously grateful to the Senator from 
Washington for her leadership on smaller class size. I am sure she was 
reassured again today when we read the front page of the Washington 
Post and saw what was happening in Prince George's County. The test 
scores show the best gains.
  When the local Superintendent of schools was asked about the factors 
that were most important in making progress, she quickly indicated that 
smaller class size in the early grades was one of the most important 
aspects leading to the children's progress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Washington Post 
article be printed in the Record after Senator Murray's remarks.
  Senator Warner spoke to me and would like to join me in that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.


                           Amendment No. 378

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 378.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the regular order.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his work on 
class size, too. I saw the article in the Washington Post today. It 
shows that the debate we are about to have on the class size amendment 
is extremely critical. We know it makes a difference in our children's 
classrooms. We have had tremendous progress.
  I hope that our colleagues will listen carefully to the debate as we 
bring it forward because it is an important part of education. It is 
what parents are looking for. It is what we are demanding of our 
students--achievement.
  I appreciate the words of the Senator from Massachusetts, and I look 
forward to the debate we are about to have.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, 
Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Reed of Rhode 
Island, and Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, right now in classrooms across our 
country students are gathering. Right now teachers are beginning his or 
her lesson, and those students in that classroom probably do not know 
the specifics of the debate that we are about to have. They probably 
are not familiar with the amendment I am about to offer. But I will 
promise you one thing. Those students will realize the impact of how 
the Senate votes on this class size amendment.
  Today, I am offering an amendment to continue the progress we have 
made over the last 3 years in making classrooms across the country less 
crowded and more productive. My amendment will ensure that we keep our 
commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new teachers so 
that students can get the time and the attention they need and deserve 
in our classrooms.
  We know that smaller classes help kids learn the basics with fewer 
discipline problems.
  Just this year we also learned that smaller classes resulted in 
better scores on standardized tests and a higher likelihood of taking 
college entrance exams and a lower teen pregnancy rate.
  As managers of the taxpayer dollars, we should invest in ideas that 
work. We know that smaller classes help our students learn.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill combines funding for class size 
reduction and teacher quality into one pool. As a result, local school 
districts would have to choose, under this bill, between providing 
smaller classes or funding teacher quality. They shouldn't have to 
choose one or the other. We should fund both. It has always been 
important to invest in the things that work in the classroom. This year 
it is even more important as I look at the rest of the underlying bill.
  Since President Bush plans to punish schools that do not improve, we 
have to make sure that schools have the proven tools they need, such as 
smaller classes, to help our children learn.
  Before I continue, I want to share a personal reflection about what 
we are doing on education this month. As we update the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, we are creating a blueprint of how we are 
going to support excellence in schools across the country.
  As a parent and as a former educator, I cannot imagine smaller 
classes not being a part of that blueprint. It just does not make 
sense. Right now, this bill leaves behind targeted funding for smaller 
classes. My amendment corrects that failure and tells students, 
teachers, and parents across the country that we know they are 
concerned about overcrowded classrooms, we know they want help in 
hiring new teachers, and we are going to honor our responsibility to 
pay for them.
  I want to talk this morning about the difference that smaller classes 
can make according to research and according to parents and teachers. 
We know that too many classes are overcrowded with growing enrollment 
and limited space. Too many students are trying to learn in classrooms 
that are packed to capacity, where they have to fight just to get a 
teacher's attention. And too many teachers are spending time on crowd 
control instead of spending time on curriculum.
  Over the years, major studies have found that smaller classes boost 
student achievement. The STAR study

[[Page 7274]]

found that students in small classes--those with 13 to 17 students--
significantly outperform other students in math and reading. It also 
found that students in small classes have better high school graduation 
rates, higher grade point averages, and they are more inclined to 
pursue higher education. Certainly those are goals. Every one of us in 
the Senate Chamber has stated that we want that for our children in our 
school systems in this country.
  Another critical study, the Wisconsin SAGE study, consistently proved 
that smaller classes result in significantly greater student 
achievement.
  Just two months ago, in March, we got more good news. Dr. Alan 
Krueger of Princeton University found there are long-term social 
benefits of being in a smaller classroom, including better scores on 
standardized tests, a higher propensity to take college entrance exams, 
a lower teen pregnancy rate, and possibly a lower crime rate for teens.
  Those are the types of benefits we want for every one of our 
students. But you do not need research to know that smaller classes 
help. Just talk to parents or teachers or talk to the students 
themselves.
  I have been in classrooms where this funding has reduced 
overcrowding. It makes a difference. I recently received an e-mail from 
Kristi Rennebohm Franz. Kristi teaches at Sunnyside Elementary School. 
I also should mention that Kristi is one of our best educators. She 
received a Milken National Teacher's Award. She received the 
Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Elementary Science, and 
the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell Award for 
Excellence in Education. Those are some of Kristi's credentials.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her entire letter be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 10 years ago, when Kristi started as a 
teacher, she promised herself that she would take time each day to 
listen to her students and to understand their needs. Kristi writes to 
me now:

       It is a promise that can only come true if we have small 
     enough classes with enough qualified teachers in place to 
     meet the individual learning needs of each child. . . .

  She continues:

       . . . because of the sheer numbers of children in our 
     classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational 
     conversations I need and want to have with each child to best 
     assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and 
     progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs 
     to go.

  She says:

       I can't tell you how frustrating it is to know how to teach 
     and not be able to do the very best teaching every moment 
     because it is difficult with too large a class and without 
     enough teachers on board as a team to meet the learning needs 
     of the children.

  Mr. President, let's show Kristi and thousands of hard-working 
teachers that we do support them and want them to be able to do their 
best in uncrowded classrooms.
  I have talked about the research, and I have shared a teacher's 
perspective, but I have one more example of the importance of small 
class sizes. It comes from the Houston Independent School District 
where our Education Secretary, Rod Paige, served as their 
superintendent.
  I show my colleagues this chart. It is actually from a presentation 
by the former Chief of Staff for Educational Services in the Houston 
district, Susan Sclafani. By the way, she currently serves as Counselor 
to Secretary Paige at the Education Department.
  Part of her presentation that I am showing on this chart shows how 
Houston helped turn around low-performing schools. I know we are basing 
a lot of this education bill on what happened in Houston at the 
directive of the President and Dr. Paige. They talk about test scores, 
but they also are very clear about what made a difference in making 
sure those test scores turned around and that those schools improved.
  On the chart, you can see that among the seven things they have done 
in the Houston school district was to make classrooms less crowded. 
They made making classrooms less crowded one of the seven things to be 
done to improve education. They know it works.
  In fact, Houston hired 177 new teachers through the Class Size 
Reduction Program that we funded at the Federal level. Houston also 
used the funding to provide professional development for more than 600 
teachers. That is the type of support we want all communities to have.
  We know that making classes smaller works. The research shows it. 
Parents know it. Teachers know it. Even Secretary Paige used smaller 
classes to make improvements in the Houston school district. There was 
not a miracle in Houston. There was hard work. And there was investment 
in what works. Class size reduction was one of those investments.
  We should invest in the things that we know work in the classroom. 
Parents want to know that their Federal education dollars are making a 
difference for students.
  I served on a local school board. I can tell you that hiring new 
teachers is difficult because you have to commit today for a new 
teacher when you don't know what is going to happen 3 months down the 
road.
  That is one of the reasons why many school districts have had a hard 
time hiring new teachers on their own. Fortunately, they are not all on 
their own. Local educators have partners at the State and Federal level 
who are working together to help all students succeed.
  That is why in 1998, Congress began the Class Size Reduction 
Initiative. This program sends Federal dollars to school districts 
across the country so they can hire new, fully qualified teachers in 
grades K-3.
  And let me remind my colleagues that this is a voluntary program. No 
school is forced to use this money. If a district wants help hiring 
teachers to make classrooms less crowded, they simply apply. And there 
is very little paperwork or administration. In fact, in my own State of 
Washington you can apply for this class size reduction money over the 
Internet on a simple, one-page form.
  Many educators have told me that they have never seen dollars get so 
quickly from Congress to the classroom. Local schools, under this, make 
all the decisions about who to hire based on their unique needs. The 
money is also flexible. If schools have already reduced classroom 
overcrowding, they can use the money for teacher recruitment or for 
professional development. Finally, and critically, these dollars are 
targeted to disadvantaged students--who can make the most progress when 
they are in a productive classroom.
  This program has been a success story for the Congress. Since 1998, 
we have helped school districts across the country hire 34,000 new 
teachers. Over the past 3 years, we have made classrooms less crowded 
in K-3 and more productive for almost 2 million students. It is a 
program that works, and we should not abandon it now. This underlying 
bill does not ensure that this overcrowding will be reduced because it 
eliminates the targeted funding for class size reduction.
  Some say that we should combine funding for teacher quality and class 
size reduction and just let folks choose. Unfortunately, that is a 
false choice, and our kids will pay the price. This bill--the 
underlying bill--pits effective programs against each other and makes 
educators choose. In the end, our kids will lose if they can't have 
both smaller classes and qualified teachers. We should be the ones 
making sure that happens.
  Let me repeat that. Smaller classes and qualified teachers go hand in 
hand. Educators should not have to choose between either making classes 
smaller or improving teacher quality. They need both. We should fund 
both. That is what this amendment would ensure.
  Finally, I remind my colleagues that there are real consequences to 
not providing dedicated class size funding. Without my amendment, this 
bill could put schools in an unwinnable situation with very high 
stakes. The underlying

[[Page 7275]]

bill will punish schools that do not improve. At the same time, it 
takes away the very tools they need to improve, and that is just wrong.
  On the one hand, we are telling students to meet high standards, and 
on the other hand this bill takes away the support they need to get 
there. We can do better than that. If we want our students to succeed 
and we are going to punish those who don't, now is the time to increase 
our investment in smaller class sizes. That is what this amendment 
does.
  This week we are talking about many different education issues from 
accountability to testing to funding. Right now there is only one 
question being asked by each of us as Senators: Do you favor targeted 
funding to make classrooms less crowded or will you take that targeted 
funding away from your schools? How you vote on this amendment will 
affect millions of students who are trying to get a good education.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment by voting yes.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, May 8, 2001]

            Prince George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever


               34% of County Schools Meet U.S. Benchmark

                         (By Tracey A. Reeves)

       Prince George's County students posted their highest gains 
     ever on a key standardized test used to gauge how local 
     children measure up to their peers nationally, according to 
     results released yesterday.
       Prince George's has often been criticized for its abysmal 
     test scores and spotty leadership, but its gains on the 
     Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills are the first significant 
     academic increases the county has registered since Iris T. 
     Metts took over as superintendent in 1999.
       According to the results, 34 percent of county schools had 
     median test scores at or above the national average this 
     school year, compared with 21 percent last year.
       Of the schools tested, 82, or 63 percent, registered 
     significant gains. Results also show a slight narrowing of 
     the achievement gap between black and white students and 
     between Hispanic and white students, an added boon for school 
     officials who have been struggling for years to close the 
     gap.
       The improved scores brought a huge sigh of relief for 
     Metts, who acknowledged yesterday that she felt vindicated by 
     the results and empowered to continue her changes.
       Metts said she hoped that county and state leaders would 
     see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about 
     improving academic achievement and that they would reward it 
     with more funding to reduce class size and repair 
     deteriorating buildings.
       ``We're not just achieving,'' an elated Metts said at a 
     celebratory news conference announcing the test results. 
     ``We're achieving miraculously.''
       The mood was indeed upbeat as school officials asembled in 
     Upper Marlboro to learn more about the results and to coax 
     each other on in the effort to improve the school system's 
     rank as the second-worst in the state, behind Baltimore. In 
     the hallways, school system employees flashed wide grins as 
     they toasted the gains with punch. Teachers and their staffs, 
     who had been summoned to county school headquarters for the 
     news conference could hardly contain their applause.
       Principals hugged their teachers. High-fives were 
     everywhere
       ``This didn't happen by chance,'' said Leroy Tompkins, head 
     of instruction for county schools. ``We achieved this by 
     focusing on what we needed to do, and it's paid off.''
       School Board Chairman Kenneth E. Johnson (Mitchellville), 
     who with the rest of the board has been accused of not 
     putting the needs of students first, praised the 
     superintendent for the results and said the board never 
     doubted her ability.
       ``The board always thought she could bring the system 
     along,'' Johnson said. ``All we need to do now is stay the 
     course.''
       Even Maryland Schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said 
     she was encouraged by the results, though she hesitated to 
     classify the scores an all-out success. She is eager to see 
     the results of Maryland School Performance Assessment Program 
     exams, which students are taking this month.
       ``I expect to see improvements there, too,'' Grasmick said. 
     ``But all of these results will have to be sustained over a 
     two-year period for us to really know what's happening 
     here.''
       Maryland requires all public school sec-
     ond-, fourth-, and sixth-graders to take the basic skills 
     exam, which tests ability in math, reading and language arts.
       Prince George's is the first Maryland county to release its 
     results, in part because it is using the scores to determine 
     whom to recommend for a new summer program established to 
     bring along struggling students.
       Other school systems are expected to release their test 
     scores in coming weeks.
       The test is given annually to gauge trends in ability among 
     students. Unlike the MSPAP, which generally measures how well 
     schools are teaching children, the Comprehensive Test of 
     Basic Skills is viewed as more useful to parents because it 
     looks at how students did individually.
       The basic skills test is also considered useful to teachers 
     because it lets them know what areas to concentrate on and 
     which students need more help.
       Until this year, Prince George's scores have been low, flat 
     and far from the national norm. School officials attributed 
     the gains to the reforms that Metts has demanded.
       For example, she has required all schools to give students 
     in the early grades 120 minutes of uninterrupted reading time 
     and 90 minutes of math a day. She has also reduced class 
     sizes in the lower grades, and efforts are underway to remove 
     disruptive students from classrooms. Metts and principals 
     have also put more emphasis on training teachers.
       Systemwide, Prince George's scores increased at each of the 
     three grade levels and in every content area in the March 
     test. For example, the rate of students scoring above the 
     national average in reading rose from 24 percent last year to 
     36 percent. In math, it more than doubled, from 16.7 percent 
     to 42.4 percent.

                               Exhibit 2

                                                   April 30, 2001.
       Dear Senator Murray: As the U.S. Congress has its focus on 
     educational programs, I want to take time to thank you for 
     your tireless efforts on behalf of quality education funding 
     for our public schools! As a primary classroom teacher in 
     Washington State, I know first hand the challenges we face in 
     making sure no child is left behind. While the challenges are 
     tremendous, it is a challenge which public school teachers 
     take on day after day, unwilling to give up and unwilling to 
     do anything less that the very best we can and know how to do 
     in each moment we have in the classroom. When I interviewed 
     for my current teaching position ten years ago, one of the 
     comments I made about my goals as a teacher was that it was 
     very, very important that I hear each child's voice at school 
     each day so that each child would know he/she: (1) had 
     multiple opportunities to be listened to and heard; (2) had 
     the opportunity to tell me what he/she understood and what 
     he/she needed help with; and (3) had multiple opportunities 
     to know he/she was greatly valued as a learner and person. 
     That is a promise that needs to be reality in order for no 
     child to be left behind. It is a promise that can only come 
     true if we have small enough classes with enough qualified 
     teachers in place to meet the individual learning needs of 
     each child and to mentor children in meeting the expectations 
     we share for them as teachers, parents, community, state, and 
     country.
       Each school day, I try to live to that promise . . . and as 
     I come to the end of each day, I know I have come up short . 
     . . because of the sheer numbers of children in our 
     classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational 
     conversations I need and want to have with each child to best 
     assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and 
     progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs 
     to go. In order to best and most effectively and efficiently 
     teach primary children, I need time each day to interact with 
     them as individuals, in small groups and as a cohesive whole 
     class without distractions and interruptions. I need time to 
     build the math, literacy, science and social studies 
     concepts, problem solving and critical thinking skills they 
     need for today's complex and ever dynamically changing world. 
     When I have a large class of primary children with very 
     diverse academic, social and emotional needs and with no 
     additional adult in the classroom to assist children, the 
     importantly needed and valued time to work on learning with 
     children individually and even in small groups or as a 
     cohesive whole class can be lost.
       Presently, every classroom teacher in my building is well 
     qualified for his/her assignment and has special outstanding 
     abilities. But we can not do the job we know how to do and 
     keep learning new and better ways to teach in response to 
     changing needs and in today's schools, when: (1) the numbers 
     of students in each class makes it impossible to meet the 
     challenges each student faces; (2) the number of adults 
     needed to help provide education is too low; and (3) the 
     energy toll of the teaching day (which requires planning, 
     preparation, reflection, collaboration with colleagues and 
     parents far beyond the time our 8:00 to 3:30 contract time) 
     leaves teachers unable to engage in much needed professional 
     development beyond the needs of the daily classroom 
     instruction. We hear people say that throwing money at the 
     challenges in education won't help, but I don't know how we 
     can provide the number of qualified teachers needed to 
     provide the best education possible for each child without 
     funding those positions, without providing the funding for 
     teaching materials and for safe, healthy learning 
     environments that are needed, and without funding support for 
     teachers to keep learning and growing professionally!
       During this school year, I received a Milken National 
     Teacher's Award as well as

[[Page 7276]]

     the Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Elementary 
     Science, the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell 
     Award for Excellence in Education (which was presented at the 
     U.S. Senate building with comments from Sen. Edward Kennedy 
     and Sen. Christopher Dodd), a national Blue Ribbon Classroom 
     Website Award, and just recently a grant for funding a co-
     teacher in our classroom for the remaining weeks of the 
     school year to sustain and document our innovative primary 
     curricular program where children are developing the 
     literacy, science, social studies and math skills they need 
     to meet state learning goals through local to global 
     collaborative telecommunications service learning projects. I 
     am continually learning how to teach. I often work 12 hours 
     per school day developing and sustaining our curricular 
     program as well as usually a full weekend day. I often spend 
     recess time with children as well as after school time 
     building team support for a child and communicating with 
     parents. I spend summers reviewing the past school year and 
     preparing for the next. I spend time taking the course work I 
     need to improve my teaching skills and keep my certification 
     updated. That is what it takes to even come close to a goal 
     of leaving no child behind. Yet, even with developing a 
     classroom which is being recognized as outstanding, I feel 
     that I come up short at the end of each day in providing each 
     of the children in my class the full measure of what they 
     need, deserve, and are capable of doing. If only we had been 
     able to have two teachers for this many children all school 
     year, the sky would not even be the limit for what these 
     children could be accomplishing!!! There is no substitute for 
     educational success for all children than critically needed 
     time with an adult to teach them and enable them to soar! And 
     I don't know anyway to insure that those adults are in place 
     each day with needed qualifications without funding!!! There 
     is no substitute for having the funds to prepare qualified 
     teachers and have them in classrooms in great enough numbers 
     so we can do the job of teaching that is needed for today's 
     schools.
       Almost every public school class today faces challenges of 
     helping children with behavior. Some days, the biggest 
     challenge comes down to making sure each child is safe from 
     harmful physical and verbal hurt by other peers. Large class 
     sizes greatly, exponentially exacerbate these challenges of 
     classroom management to the point of taking away from 
     valuable teaching and learning time. Additionally problems 
     are compounded by not having enough school personnel to 
     assist children facing emotional behavior needs often caused 
     by circumstances not of their fault. Primary grades are the 
     school years with the first opportunities for helpful 
     interventions for children and their families on issues of 
     academic successes and for meeting the emotional needs that 
     affect that success. We know what to do to help. We know how 
     to design learning programs to help children succeed but we 
     simply can't do it unless we have the people we need to 
     implement those programs. I can't tell you how frustrating it 
     is to know how to teach and not be able to do the very best 
     teaching every moment because it is difficult with too large 
     a class and without enough teachers on board as a team to 
     meet the learning needs of the children. People will say to 
     me, ``You are trying to do too much, Kristi, . . . your 
     expectations for what we can do in school are too high'' . . 
     . but, to me, lowering the expectations of what's possible 
     means some children will be left behind and I'm not willing 
     to accept that option. How can we ever possibly be doing too 
     much until we know every child is succeeding to the best of 
     his/her abilities? And wouldn't it be wonderful to be at that 
     place where we say, we have enough of what we need to meet 
     the challenges of educating our children and we are indeed 
     leaving no child behind? I dream of someday hearing that 
     conversation nationally . . . and, until that conversation is 
     truly there, we must do all we can and more just to insure we 
     meet our educational vision and goals for all the children in 
     our country!!!
       And how can we assess if children are meeting those 
     educational goals and we as teachers are meeting our teaching 
     vision . . .
       We can administer standardized test to a whole class to 
     measure how students are doing according to a norm and 
     against the skills a particular test identifies as 
     priorities. But, those measurements provide only one form of 
     reference on student learning and, depending on the integrity 
     and quality of a standardized assessment, the test data may 
     or may not be an accurate assessment of what students 
     understand. I can't tell you how many times, in working with 
     primary children, I have seen a child's standardized test 
     results communicate an assessment profile that does not 
     provide the full measure of what I have seen that child 
     demonstrate in the classroom learning environment lessons. 
     Performance on an isolated skill assessment with primary 
     children simply cannot document the whole of who they are as 
     learners.
       Primary children are growing along a developmental 
     continuum where many of the skills and understandings that we 
     need to see in place in these years as indicators of ongoing 
     successful learning are best demonstrated within the context 
     of active learning with the teacher rather than being only 
     demonstrated in individual performance by themselves. Rather 
     than just being able to demonstrate mastery of individual, 
     isolated skill tasks that are assessed in a standardized test 
     without support of a teacher and outside the context of 
     lesson learning . . . many, many of the skills and 
     understandings that we need to have in place in the primary 
     years for ongoing school success are in the category of: 
     Being able to engage in lessons with the teacher; being able 
     to learn when being taught during a lesson; being able to 
     actively think and talk within a teachable moment; and being 
     able to generate a product or comment when asked to 
     contribute and work with the teacher and peers on ideas and 
     work directly with curricular learning materials . . .
       While I am successfully using the standardized tests that 
     are required in our district and state to provide data on 
     student progress, if I were to rely only on those 
     standardized skills assessments to measure the success of our 
     children in our public schools, I would miss important 
     documentation of learning that is taking place but simply is 
     best revealed in the interactive teaching and learning 
     between the student with his/her teacher and peers. A 
     standardized test, while providing specifically focused 
     insights on a child's progress, is just a moment of time in a 
     child's school learning. This is especially true when 
     assessing primary children. Sometimes, a standardized 
     assessment presents a profile of student learning that shows 
     a child not succeeding when in actuality, he/she has been 
     demonstrating some successes. I have seen a standardized 
     assessment provide data that looks like the child and the 
     teaching is failing when in actuality neither is true. Often, 
     the observation of a child's behaviors when responding to the 
     challenges of an individual standardized test tell me as much 
     about that child's learning strategies and performance as the 
     actual numerical score that child receives. I often make 
     documentation notes on a child's behavior during the process 
     of administering a standardized test. This takes time for 
     individual observations and writing on my part while also 
     devoting energy and focus on the rest of the class . . . 
     which is no easy task but an important one to fully 
     understand and interpret the results of a standardized score.
       Many of the standardized assessments we are required to do 
     with our primary students require extended, individual, 
     uninterrupted time with each student. After we give the 
     initial instructions, we must time and record their 
     performance. This is especially true of reading assessments 
     as those are done while listening to, recording, timing and 
     notating each child's reading aloud performance (while also 
     keeping track of the rest of the class). Often these 
     assessments can take ten to fifteen minutes per child to 
     implement and additional time to score. While the information 
     from these assessments can be very valuable, you can well 
     imagine the time involved in a school day to do this 
     accurately and reliably with each child when you have a large 
     class of primary children without any other adult assistance 
     in the classroom. In order to do the best possible job on all 
     assessments of student progress, we need to have smaller 
     class sizes.
       Often, the best insights I have had on children's learning 
     progress have emerged in the process of having a cohesive 
     whole class, small group or individual conversation about 
     important basic skills and concepts we have been working on 
     together and sometimes it comes from listening in on 
     conversations a child is having with a peer as they work on 
     their learning with one another. Those avenues of assessment 
     tell us so much about the successes in children's learning as 
     well as direction for ongoing learning. Those conversations 
     will not happen unless we have small enough classes with 
     enough teachers to hear the voices of what children are 
     learning each school day.
           Sincerely,
                                           Kristi Rennebohm Franz.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray 
amendment and to put a little different focus on the debate.
  The issue, as I see it, on this amendment is not classroom reduction. 
The issue is not the virtue of having smaller classrooms. The issue is 
not whether that is valuable or whether that is desirable. Most would 
say, of course, a smaller class is better than a bigger class. The 
issue is whether or not those choices and those decisions ought to be 
made at the local level.
  The Senator from Washington, who is always very passionate on this 
issue, used Houston as an example. I will use Houston as an example. 
Yes, classroom reduction was part of the program. It was part of seven 
points, a package of seven reforms they emphasized as local reform that 
helped turn around the Houston school district. I emphasize that 
classroom reduction was only one

[[Page 7277]]

part of the whole package. The decisions were made locally, and in 
addition to class size reduction you also had tutors, planning 
assistance, and staff development. Those decisions were made locally.
  The issue is not, do we want smaller classes? Of course, we do. The 
issue is, do we want to continue the Washington-knows-best, top-down 
approach to education, when the whole thrust of this bill is to move 
the other direction?
  The thrust of this legislation, supported on both sides of the aisle, 
negotiated by leaders on both sides of the aisle, is that the plethora 
of Federal programs has not been a productive approach and that we 
should consolidate those Federal streams of funding. And now along 
comes an amendment that says: Let's go back to the old way. Let's go 
back in the old direction. Instead of consolidation, let's pull this 
out and let's have this program prescriptive from the Federal level 
where we know best, where we are going to tell local educators what 
they should do.
  The Senator from Washington said they should not be forced to choose 
and that we should fund both. In fact, in this legislation we do fund 
both. The Teacher Quality Program is authorized at $3 billion, which is 
an increase over at what the programs are currently funded.
  So many people argue that when we create larger, more flexible 
grants, we are trying to decrease funding for these programs. That is 
just not true. The Professional Development Program received $485 
million last year, and the Class Size Reduction Program received $1.6 
billion. If my addition is correct, that is $2.05 billion in these two 
programs. We consolidate them. We combine them and increase the funding 
to $3 billion.
  Furthermore, the Kennedy amendment, which just passed and which I 
supported, reaffirmed not only the $3 billion number but then increases 
$1/2 billion a year each year. So it is not a matter of only giving 
limited resources and you must choose: Do you want class size reduction 
or do you want professional development? We are saying: Here is both, 
but you decide your priorities locally. Here is the funding for both, 
an increase by 30 percent over what the previous administration put 
into class size reduction and professional development. The President 
and this Congress have increased that authorized level by 30 percent to 
$3 billion, ensuring an additional $\1/2\ billion each year in the 
future.
  We said: Let the local schools, let the States decide the priority. 
It is not always going to be class size reduction as the highest 
priority. Sometimes it will be professional development. Sometimes it 
will be mentoring. Sometimes it will be merit pay. Sometimes it will be 
tenure reform. Many times it will be class size reduction. We ensure 
they will always have the option of spending that money as they see 
best.
  The issue is not do you want class size reduction. The issue is, do 
you want real local control? Do you really want them to have the choice 
or do you think we know best?
  There has been a growing consensus that what we have done for the 
last 35 years, with Washington creating more programs and making more 
prescriptions, has not been the right approach. There has been a 
growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to 
consolidate. This is a move in the wrong direction, the opposite 
direction, to pull this out and say: In this area, we know best; you 
must do class size reduction if you want these funds.
  Studies by Eric Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester, 
show that teacher quality is the most important factor in a child's 
instruction. So while class size is very important, even more important 
than class size is the quality of the teacher in that classroom.
  Oftentimes professional development is going to be even more valuable 
than ensuring there are fewer children in the classroom, and we should 
not make the determination of what is needed locally. This new flexible 
grant, the Teacher Quality Program, allows States and school districts 
to continue class size reduction if they choose. They are not mandated 
to do so.
  The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future found that 
class size reduction has the least impact on increasing student 
achievement and that teacher education and teacher quality had the most 
impact on increasing achievement.
  One other point: For rural States such as Arkansas, we have many 
school districts, many times very small school districts. This kind of 
Federal program simply doesn't work. If you calculate what local 
schools in Arkansas get, it is about a third of a teacher per school 
district. For many small school districts, this kind of a program just 
doesn't work. It is far better to put additional funding in a program 
with greater flexibility so local school districts will have enough 
resources so they can actually make a difference.
  While I agree many school districts and many States are going to put 
as priority No. 1 cutting the size of classes, in some areas that is 
not going to be priority No. 1. We should not make that decision for 
them and say: The only way you can access these funds is if you spend 
it in this way.
  I reluctantly oppose the Murray amendment. We are putting 
considerable new resources, a 30-percent increase, into this Teacher 
Quality Program, and that will ensure that schools are going to be able 
to make the right kind of choice and the right kind of investment to 
get the best return in academic achievement. The Teacher Quality 
Program in this bill recognizes that mandates from Washington aren't 
the way to improve teacher quality. This legislation gives more 
flexibility to States and school districts but holds them accountable 
for teacher quality and, most importantly, student achievement.
  I underscore again that this amendment is counter to the entire 
thrust of this education reform legislation. We should not make the 
mistake of returning to the past and reducing again the very important 
flexibility and decisionmaking authority that should reside at the 
local level.
  So while I know this amendment is well intended, it is really counter 
to the kind of reform that will result in greater student achievement 
and improved education across this country, and I hope my colleagues 
will join me in opposing the Murray amendment and staying consistent 
with a desire to consolidate and provide greater flexibility, with 
meaningful accountability, and thus keep our focus upon the children 
and their educational future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with a number of the 
points made by my friend from Arkansas. Clearly, what we are attempting 
to do is to put the emphasis on what works and to provide to our 
children the opportunity to have the best possible education.
  I have been very privileged over the last 20 years to know quite a 
bit about education in Arkansas, which my good friend has the privilege 
of representing, and now I know a lot about education in New York. I 
have no doubt that my friend, were he still here, would agree with me 
that our goals are the same for the children in both States. We want to 
provide the best possible educational opportunities, but we face very 
different challenges.
  What I saw and worked on for many years in improving education in 
Arkansas, which was one of the great honors of my life, is very 
different from what I now see day in and day out in New York City, 
where we have more than a million children in our school system.
  I agree with my friend that what we are crafting is an approach that 
will give to local school districts, parents, and teachers the tools to 
make the right decisions for the children whose futures they hold in 
their hands. That is why I wish my friend were still here--and I will 
seek him out later to talk with him privately about this.
  That is why I am such a strong supporter of Senator Murray's 
amendment because what Senator Murray has done is point out very 
clearly that one size does not fit all; that what we need to do is 
provide the tools that will

[[Page 7278]]

enable each school district in each State to deal with the problems 
they face.
  So I want to be part of passing legislation, in a bipartisan way, 
that will be the best for Arkansas, the best for Washington, the best 
for Vermont, and the best for New York because we will have honestly 
looked at all the different tools we need to provide our local 
educational authorities with in order that they can do the job we are 
now asking them to do their very best in achieving.
  So I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and to stand 
with my colleague in stating my commitment to supporting the Class Size 
Reduction Initiative, both because it is voluntary and provides 
additional funding to schools that are in desperate need of such 
funding and, maybe most important, because we know it works.
  I went back and reread President Bush's blueprint for education 
called ``No Child Left Behind.'' In it, he expresses dismay that over 
the years Congress has developed programs without asking whether or not 
programs produce results or even knowing the impact on local needs. 
Later on, the President goes on to suggest that under his education 
plan, which is really the core of what we are debating in this 
education debate, he will focus on what works and ensure that Federal 
dollars will be spent on effective, research-based programs and 
practices and that the funds will be targeted to improve schools and 
enhance teacher quality. That is certainly what the committee on which 
I am proud to serve, under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, 
attempted to do in reporting out such a bill--to focus on what works 
and to target funds to improve our schools and enhance teacher quality. 
President Bush and I absolutely agree on this point.
  I have often said that I sometimes fear Washington is an evidence-
free zone where, despite whatever evidence we have, we don't follow it, 
we don't put it to work, and we spin our wheels too much. Well, I 
believe we should look at what works, what has had a positive impact in 
raising student achievement, what has helped at the local level give 
very necessary resources; there is no better example of what works than 
reducing class sizes so that teachers can teach and children can learn.
  Allow me just a moment to review the research demonstrating that 
reducing class size has proven results. Teachers who teach in classes 
of 18 students or fewer in the early grades are helping to raise 
student achievement for our most educationally disadvantaged students 
who are attending schools in high-poverty neighborhoods, where we all 
know it is harder to teach.
  Senator Murray was a teacher. She was on a school board. I don't 
think any of us should kid ourselves; there are some school districts 
and some schools where it is just hard to teach, where children come to 
school with all kinds of challenges and difficulties. We know, as we 
look at the research done, that if we focus on getting that class size 
down with a qualified teacher--this should not be an either/or; it 
should be a qualified teacher and a small enough class size--then we 
can have very positive results.
  I particularly point to the work Senator Murray and I highlighted in 
a press conference a few weeks ago that was done at Princeton 
University by an economist named Dr. Alan Krueger, who tracked the 
performance of well over 11,000 elementary school students at 79 
schools in a Tennessee pilot program known as Project STAR. This was 
done randomly. The results are scientifically provable. What he found, 
and what everyone who has studied it has found, is that smaller class 
sizes have a tremendously positive impact on student performance and, 
particularly, on African American students.
  We want to be supporting both excellence and equity. That is why I 
support accountability. I think we should know what our children know 
and what they don't know. I also believe everyone in this Chamber 
understands that we have to do more to increase the opportunity for 
excellence by focusing on the students who are most likely to be left 
behind. To me, the fact that African American students have such 
positive results from lower class size is a very strong argument for us 
renewing this commitment.
  There are other studies which have found exactly the same thing. A 
Rand study--and Rand usually studies issues such as the military and 
defense and national security--focused on cost-effectiveness of 
educational resources in raising scores on the NAEP, the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress. It is a test that is given to a 
randomly selected group of our students across the country. We use it 
to track how well we are doing as a nation.
  What Rand found in looking behind these test scores was that the 
higher scores could be traced to investments in lower class sizes in 
the early grades--plus, higher prekindergarten participation, lower 
teacher turnover, and higher levels of teacher resources. So it is that 
complement of cost-effective strategies that I think we should be 
supporting in this legislation.
  Later in the debate, I will focus on the importance of supporting 
early learning opportunities and trying to retain our teachers because 
we are losing our teachers at an alarming rate. I brought this photo of 
P.S. 19 in Jackson Heights, Queens, which is one of the magnets for 
immigration into our country. People come to Kennedy or LaGuardia 
Airports and they end up in Queens. I wish I could take every Member of 
this body to the schools I visit in Queens where bathrooms are classes, 
hallways are classes, and where children speak 40 to 100 different 
languages, where they are packed in there and where a teacher, despite 
her best efforts, can't possibly connect with all these children.
  Yesterday, I was in a school that works in Manhattan, the New 
Manhattan School. It is a wonderful school. I met for a long time with 
the teachers, the principal, and the superintendent of the district. It 
is an old building, built in 1904. It is packed to the rafters. They 
are adding teachers into classrooms so if they do not have the 
additional classrooms, at least they have more qualified teachers in 
those classes so the children get the attention of the adult 
responsible for their learning.
  It is important we understand there have to be opportunities for 
local communities to make choices. I believe having this tool is 
essential for providing good opportunities for choices to be made.
  With the funds appropriated in 2001, it is expected the Federal 
Government's Class Size Reduction Initiative will bring nearly 40,000 
qualified teachers into classrooms. Any one of us who goes into a large 
city in our country knows that if we do not have qualified teachers and 
we do not have low class sizes, we can test until the cows come home 
and we are not going to find anything other than what we already know: 
that children from high-poverty areas, from dysfunctional backgrounds 
without adequate training for academic work are not going to do well, 
but that a qualified teacher working with a small enough group of 
children, as Senator Murray knows so well, can make all the difference 
in that child's future.
  When we looked at this issue in New York City, we saw the results 
clearly. Two years ago, the program was initiated and class sizes in 
New York City were 25 percent larger than statewide. With both Federal 
and State initiatives, we were able to reduce class size for 
approximately 90,000 students in the early grades, almost 30 percent of 
the city's K-3 population.
  I want people to keep in mind, I am talking about a million children 
and 90,000 children. I know it is hard for some people who represent 
States without that many people in the State or maybe only half that 
many to understand we are dealing with huge numbers in a lot of the 
large cities. It is not just the numbers; it is the real lives behind 
those numbers.
  When we looked at the results, after 2 years of efforts, we were very 
pleased because achievement went up in those classrooms where, with 
Federal help, we were able to add a teacher.

[[Page 7279]]

  That does not mean the local communities do not have to continue 
doing their part, and it does not mean the State does not have to do 
its part, but we have gotten behind in what we need to do for our 
children. We need all hands on deck. We need everybody pulling 
together. Education is a local responsibility in our country, but we 
all know it has to be a national priority.
  Let us make sure we focus on both teacher quality and lower class 
size. That is why this amendment, which Senator Murray has championed 
and has been successful in persuading a bipartisan group of Senators to 
support in the past, is a critical component of this legislation.
  If we can make it possible for class sizes to remain small in the 
early grades, we improve the chances dramatically of producing a 
productive, functioning citizen who can find his or her way in this 
complicated society and global economy that awaits them in the 21st 
century.
  Yesterday, when I was in this wonderful school that was filled to the 
brim, they took me into a bathroom that had been turned into a guidance 
counselor's office. They did not have any other space. We went into the 
gym and children were doing their physical activity which I believe in 
strongly. We have to keep children's bodies active as well as their 
minds.
  There was a partitioned area in which there were more offices. They 
were making the best of a very difficult situation. They had just been 
told a school down the block, a little elementary school, had been 
condemned. We will get to that later in this debate, too. This school 
had been condemned. It is unsafe for our children and teachers.
  There is a school in Mechanicsville, NY, where a piece of concrete 
fell on a teacher's head while teaching in the classroom.
  There is a condemned school a few blocks from where I was yesterday. 
They are already packed. The school I visited will be taking in the 
children from that condemned school.
  This is a critical component of the commitment to excellence and 
equity, accountability, and resources that the President has called for 
which so many in this Chamber have championed for many years. We have 
the money to do this. We just have to determine whether we have the 
will.
  I call on my colleagues, and echo the very eloquent call of the 
Senator from Washington, that we recognize that continuing this 
initiative does help local communities meet the needs they see right in 
front of them and let us make sure we do everything possible to make 
every child believe he or she is important so that at the end of this 
debate the bill we pass truly will leave no child behind.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The role that teachers play in the efforts to improve educational 
opportunities for young people is perhaps the most important next to 
the role of parents.
  The bill before us includes significant changes related to the 
critical job of providing teachers the quality professional development 
activities they deserve. Supporting our Nation's teachers is a key 
element of education reform. A 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of 
Education, pertaining to the preparation and qualifications of public 
school teachers, reported that continued learning in the teaching 
profession is essential to ``building educators' capacity for effective 
teaching, particularly in a profession where the demands are changing 
and expanding.'' Over the last decade, States have been developing 
standards that are directly tied to academic achievement and 
performance. S. 1 builds on that movement.
  Having a highly qualified teaching force is a major factor in getting 
students to meet and exceed the standards. While there is near total 
agreement that strong, capable teachers are very important to a 
successful educational system, we have done little to help our teachers 
be at the top of their profession. There are still too many educators 
teaching outside their field of their expertise. Too often, teachers 
are offered one-shot, one-day workshops for professional development 
that do little to improve teaching and learning in the classroom. 
Professional development activities often lack the connection to the 
everyday challenges that teachers face in their classrooms. A recent 
evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development program notes 
that ``the need for high quality professional development that focuses 
on subject matter content and how students learn that content is all 
the more pressing in light of the many teachers who teach outside their 
areas of specialization.''
  Title II of this bill addresses these serious professional 
development deficiencies. S. 1 draws on the strongest elements of the 
Eisenhower program while including authority for other initiatives that 
have an impact on teacher quality. The bill provides flexibility to 
school districts to address the specific needs of individual schools 
through activities such as recruitment and hiring initiatives; teacher 
mentoring; retention; and other long-term professional development 
efforts. S. 1 prohibits Federal dollars from being used for ``one-
shot'' workshops that have been criticized for being relatively 
ineffective because they are usually short term and lack continuity. In 
addition, these one-day workshops are often isolated from classrooms 
and schools which serve as the professional development laboratories.
  S. 1 authorizes a major investment of funds, $3 billion, which will 
be used by school districts to improve the quality of teaching in the 
classroom. The funding level of the teacher quality section of this 
bill represents the combining of funds and authorities from the current 
Eisenhower program and the class size reduction program. The purpose of 
combining the funding streams is to give school districts the 
flexibility they need to make the investments that will lead to having 
a highly qualified teacher in every classroom--ether by using the funds 
to hire teachers or providing first rate professional development or 
both. This bill clearly states that Federal funds must be used for 
activities that will improve teaching and learning in the classroom, 
including the hiring of highly qualified teachers if that hiring will 
improve student performance. The decision as to how the Federal funds 
will be used will be made by the local school district.
  My home State of Vermont serves as a good example of success through 
local decisionmaking. Vermont strongly supports funding for class size 
reduction. Yet, since the first dollar was appropriated for class size 
reduction, Vermont sought greater flexibility to use most of the money 
for professional development activities that would improve the quality 
of the teacher in the classroom. Because Vermont already had small 
classes that met the Federal mandated level of 18, a large portion of 
Vermont's share of the class size reduction monies has been used for 
professional development.
  I want other States to do what Vermont has done if that is what is in 
the best interest of its students. Reducing class size is important. 
Having a dynamic, highly qualified teacher at the head of the classroom 
is of equal or perhaps, even greater importance. Title II of this bill 
supports both efforts and does so in a manner that allows school 
districts to come up with their own recipe for improving student 
achievement and performance. I am opposed to the class size reduction 
amendment because I believe that local schools are in a better position 
than we are to determine how best to distrbute funds in regard to 
professional development and teacher hiring. S. 1 as passed by the 
committee gives local school districts the opportunity to make the 
decision about the expenditure of dollars for the purpose of improving 
their teaching force which will, in turn, lead to overall student 
improvement.
  I see the hour of 12:30 p.m. has arrived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess----

[[Page 7280]]


  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recess be 
deferred for about 6 minutes so I can address the Senate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just make a 1-minute wrapup 
before we turn to the Senator from Virginia, I would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me state we will have more time, 
obviously, this afternoon to debate the class size amendment. I 
appreciate the comments from the chair of the HELP Committee in this 
regard.
  I agree with him. Professional development is extremely critical. 
That is why my amendment to separate the professional development funds 
from class size funds is extremely important. We want our schools to 
have professional development but not at the expense of reducing class 
size, which we know works. That makes sure Federal tax dollars are 
spent wisely at the local level--and which is a local decision, I say 
to the Senator from Arkansas, who spoke earlier.
  If a school district doesn't want to participate, they certainly do 
not have to do so. But for the many schools out there, for 2 million 
students who have benefited, let's not take it away now. Let's make 
sure they are in a class size in K-3 that allows them to learn math, 
science, basic reading, and they are able to succeed in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues for 
their indulgence.
  I was greatly taken by the distinguished manager of the bill, 
Chairman Jeffords, and his recognition of teachers. I have here the 
President's really wonderful message on education entitled ``No Child 
Left Behind.'' I am sure the chairman agrees with me, if we do not 
accord equal assistance to teachers, we cannot hope to achieve the goal 
that no child will be left behind.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I certainly agree with the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of our Nation's teachers and 
to say thank you to the over 3,000,000 teachers in this Nation for all 
of the hard work and personal sacrifices they make to educate our 
youth.
  This week is ``Teacher Appreciation Week'' and today, May 8, 2001, is 
``National Teacher Day.'' Today, I will be introducing a resolution in 
the Senate where the Senate will make the appropriate designations to 
honor our teachers with this appreciation week and day.
  This resolution already has as original cosponsors Senators Allen, 
Brownback, Cochran, Jeffords, Craig, Thurmond, Crapo, and Enzi. Mr. 
Coverdell, who unfortunately was taken from us some time ago, 
introduced a similar resolution in 1999.
  How appropriate it is that Teacher Appreciation Week and National 
Teacher day are upon us as we in the Senate are considering legislation 
to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The legislation that is before us today, the Better Education for 
Students and Teachers Act--the ``BEST'' Act--is based on a principle 
put forth by President Bush entitled, ``No Child Left Behind.''
  As we move towards education reforms to achieve the goal of ``Leaving 
No Child Behind,'' we must keep in mind the other component in our 
education system--the teachers. If we fail to accord equal recognition 
to our teachers in this debate, our children will be left behind.
  All of us know that individuals do not pursue a career in the 
teaching profession for the salary. People go into the teaching 
profession for different personal commitments--to educate the next 
generation, to strengthen America.
  While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers 
spend their careers building lives.
  Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever.
  How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember 
at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our 
lives.
  Even though we are all well aware of the important role our teachers 
play, it goes without saying that our teachers are underpaid, 
overworked, and all too often, under-appreciated.
  In addition to these factors, our teachers also expend significant 
money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. 
Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket 
on three types of expenses:
  1. Education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, 
supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment;
  2. Professional development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, 
and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even 
better instructors; and
  3. Interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher 
education loans.
  These out of pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our 
teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. 
Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
  Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009 
because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student 
enrollment.
  While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the 
federal government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate 
the nation's teaching shortage.
  Here is an example of such help. On a federal level, we can encourage 
individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching 
profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily 
incur as part of the profession. This incentive will help financially 
strapped urban and rural school systems as they recruit new teachers 
and struggle to keep those teachers that are currently in the system.
  With these premises in mind, I introduced, ``The Teacher Tax 
Credit.'' This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible 
teachers for qualified education expenses, qualified professional 
development expenses and interest paid by the teacher during the 
taxable year on any qualified education loan.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of my tax bill printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

       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 TEACHER-Tax Credit Act''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER 
                   EDUCATION LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
                   EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL 
                   TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible 
     teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax 
     imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(1) the qualified education expenses paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer during the taxable year,
       ``(2) the qualified professional development expenses paid 
     or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year, and
       ``(3) interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year 
     on any qualified education loan.
       ``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     for the taxable year shall not exceed $1,000.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means 
     an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 
     classroom teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal 
     in a public elementary or secondary school on a full-time 
     basis for an academic year ending during a taxable year.

[[Page 7281]]

       ``(2) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms 
     `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     respective meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as in effect 
     of the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) Qualified education expenses.--The term `qualified 
     education expenses' means expenses for books, supplies (other 
     than nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in 
     health or physical education), computer equipment (including 
     related software and services) and other equipment, and 
     supplementary materials used by an eligible teacher in the 
     classroom.
       ``(4) Qualified professional development expenses--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional 
     development expenses' means expenses--
       ``(i) for tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment 
     required for the enrollment or attendance of an individual in 
     a qualified course of instruction, and
       ``(ii) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under 
     section 162 (determined without regard to this section).
       ``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified 
     course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
       ``(i) directly relates to the curriculum and academic 
     subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction,
       ``(ii) is designed to enhance the ability of an eligible 
     teacher to understand and use State standards for the 
     academic subjects in which such teacher provides instruction,
       ``(iii) provides instruction in how to teach children with 
     different learning styles, particularly children with 
     disabilities and children with special learning needs 
     (including children who are gifted and talented),
       ``(iv) provides instruction in how best to discipline 
     children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate 
     interventions to help children described in clause (iii) 
     learn, or
       ``(v) is tied to strategies and programs that demonstrate 
     effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement and 
     student performance, or substantially increasing the 
     knowledge and teaching skills of the eligible teacher.
       ``(5) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified 
     education loan' has the meaning given such term by section 
     221(e)(1), but only with respect to qualified higher 
     education expenses of the taxpayer.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--
       ``(1) In general.--No deduction or other credit shall be 
     allowed under this chapter for any amount taken into account 
     for which credit is allowed under this section.
       ``(2) Coordination with exclusions.--A credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) for qualified professional 
     development expenses only to the extent the amount of such 
     expenses exceeds the amount excludable under section 135, 
     529(c)(1), or 530(d)(2) for the taxable year.
       ``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may 
     elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 25A the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Teaching expenses, professional development expenses, and 
              interest on higher education loans of public elementary 
              and secondary school teachers.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this legislation, S. 225, is cosponsored 
by Senators Mikulski, Allen, DeWine, Cochran, Harkin, and Ensign. The 
National Education Association also has endorsed this legislation.
  I am not introducing The Teacher Tax Credit Act as an amendment to 
the education bill before the Senate because, procedurally, it would 
stop this bill because of the ``blue slip'' taxation procedures in the 
House of Representatives.
  I do propose today a Sense of the Senate amendment on the importance 
of providing additional tax relief for our Nation's teachers.
  This amendment simply states that it is the Sense of the Senate that 
during the 107th Congress, the Senate should pass legislation providing 
elementary and secondary level educators with additional tax relief in 
recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses they incur 
to improve the education of our Nation's students.
  I note that President Bush agrees that teachers should receive tax 
relief to help defray the costs associated with classroom expense and 
professional development costs.
  The President's education blueprint to the Congress contained a 
specific reference on page 13. I will read it:

       Provide tax deductions for teachers: Teachers will be able 
     to make tax deductions up to $400 to help defray the costs 
     associated with out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as 
     books, supplies, professional enrichment programs and other 
     training.

  The concept is in the President's blueprint. Frankly, with all due 
respect to President Bush, I want to go a step further and make it 
stronger, not just a deduction you have to work with and hope you get 
the money back, but an absolute tax credit on that tax return to take 
right away off the bottom line. Frankly, I think the $400 falls a 
little short and I would like to see more.
  I also note that Senators Collins, Kyl, and Hatch have worked 
diligently on legislation providing tax relief to teachers.
  On National Teachers Day, and during Teacher Appreciation Week, I 
urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment that will 
put the Senate on record in support of tax relief legislation for our 
Nation's teachers.
  I thank the Chair and my chairman for allowing me to participate at 
this time in this debate.
  I send the amendment to the desk, a sense of the Senate, and I await 
comments from the Chair. Then I will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am aware of your amendment. I also said on the 
Finance Committee, not only can I assure you it will get notice here, I 
assure you I will communicate your wishes to the chairman of the 
Finance Committee and support you.


                 Amendment No. 383 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. At the appropriate time, subject to the leadership of the 
Senate and management, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number 
first.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 383 to amendment No. 358.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading is dispensed 
with.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: to provide a Sense of the Senate regarding tax relief for 
               elementary and secondary level educators)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATORS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The average salary for an elementary and secondary 
     school teacher in the United States with a Master's degree 
     and 16 years of experience is approximately $40,582.
       (2) The average starting salary for teachers in the United 
     States is $26,000.
       (3) Our educators make many personal and financial 
     sacrifices to educate our youth.
       (4) Teachers spend on average $408 a year, out of their own 
     money, to bring educational supplies into their classrooms.
       (5) Educators spend significant money out of their own 
     pocket every year on professional development expenses so 
     they can better educate our youth.
       (6) Many educators accrue significant higher education 
     student loans that must be repaid and whereas these loans are 
     accrued by educators in order for them to obtain degrees 
     necessary to become qualified to serve in our nation's 
     schools.
       (7) As a result of these numerous out of pocket expenses 
     that our teachers spend every year, and other factors, 6% of 
     the nation's teaching force leaves the profession every year, 
     and 20% of all new hires leave the teaching profession within 
     three years.
       (8) This country is in the midst of a teacher shortage, 
     with estimates that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed 
     by 2009 because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement, and 
     increased student enrollment.
       (9) The federal government can and should play a role to 
     help alleviate the nation's teaching shortage.

[[Page 7282]]

       (10) The current tax code provides little recognition of 
     the fact that our educators spend significant money out of 
     their own pocket to better the education of our children.
       (11) President Bush has recognized the importance of 
     providing teachers with additional tax relief, in recognition 
     of the many financial sacrifices our teachers make.
       (b) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress and the President should--
       (1) should pass legislation providing elementary and 
     secondary level educators with additional tax relief in 
     recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses 
     educators incur to improve the education of our Nation's 
     students.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at the 
moment.
  Mr. WARNER. At the moment.
  Perhaps I could engage the attention of my two colleagues. I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                          ____________________