[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17981-17983]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


            BACK TO SCHOOL AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate returns from its August 
recess this week, students, teachers, and school personnel across 
Wisconsin and around the country are settling in for a new school year.
  Each new school year brings with it the promise of things to come. 
Students will embark on new educational paths, with new subjects and 
teachers and, in some instances, new classmates. Some students are 
entering school for the first time, while others are beginning their 
middle or high school careers. And some are embarking on their senior 
years in high school and are preparing to make the transition into the 
next phase of their lives. All of these students, and their parents, 
are facing new challenges and new opportunities. We owe it to them to 
provide the resources promised by the Federal Government to support our 
States and local school districts.
  Throughout our Nation's history, the education of our children has 
been viewed as a largely local and State responsibility, and the 
Federal Government has wisely left decisions affecting our children's 
day-to-day classroom experiences up to the schools, districts, school 
boards, and State education agencies that bear the responsibility for--
and most of the cost of--educating our children. Historically, when the 
Federal Government has stepped in, it has been to ensure that children 
receive an equal opportunity for a good education by protecting the 
rights of all children and by providing additional resources for 
schools and for such related activities as teacher training.
  Impact Aid, which was enacted in 1950 and is one of the oldest 
Federal education programs, helps local school districts to defray the 
costs of educating ``federally connected'' students, such as those who 
live on Federal land, which is not included in the local property tax 
base that funds elementary and secondary education. The National 
Defense Education Act of 1958, which was enacted in response to the 
Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite, provided funding to improve 
math, science, and foreign language instruction in our elementary and 
secondary schools.
  The landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which 
the No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization, 
provided funding to support the education of disadvantaged students. 
That same year, Congress enacted the Higher Education Act, which has 
helped to provide millions of Americans with the assistance they need 
to pursue post-secondary education.
  Also in 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity created ``Project 
Head Start,'' the predecessor of the current Head Start program, which 
is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Since 
its inception, Head Start has improved opportunities for low-income 
preschool children and their families by providing a comprehensive 
approach to addressing the educational, nutritional, psychological, and 
other needs of these children and their families.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 mandates that 
a free appropriate public education be provided to all children and 
promises that the Federal Government will pay 40 percent of the cost of 
educating children with special needs. Our public schools' efforts to 
serve students with disabilities are a hallmark of our national 
commitment to a free public education for all children. Since IDEA was 
enacted, public schools have helped students with disabilities to 
become more self-sufficient, to prepare for employment, and to learn 
the skills they will need to lead productive lives. America's public 
schools have led the way toward the full integration of individuals 
with disabilities into our national life.
  The Federal Government has a long history of supporting local and 
State governments in their effort to provide a high quality public 
education for each child. I support these efforts, which rightly 
respect the importance of maintaining local control of education. For 
that reason, I opposed the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, which the 
President touts as one of his top domestic achievements.
  While I think we all agree that schools should be held accountable 
for results, I and many Wisconsinites oppose the testing-centered 
mandates in the NCLB. I support some aspects of this law, such as 
funding for reading education and after-school programs. I opposed this 
legislation, however, because it takes decisions regarding the 
frequency of testing out of the hands of local school districts and 
states and mandates that students be tested in reading and math in 
grades 3-8 beginning with the 2005-2006 school year. This top-down, 
one-size-fits-all approach to testing is not good for Wisconsin 
students or schools. Washington does not know best when it comes to 
making decisions such as this. And it is troubling that the results of 
these tests are central to determining whether a school, district, or 
State is considered to be ``in need of improvement'' or ``failing'' 
academically.
  It is also troubling that the corresponding Federal sanctions for 
schools deemed to be ``in need of improvement'' or ``failing'' will 
actually take badly needed money from those very schools. And these 
sanctions are being imposed despite the fact that the Federal 
Government has not provided the resources to help these school succeed 
that were promised by the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The President has called the No Child Left Behind Act ``the most 
important Federal education reform in history.'' I respectfully 
disagree with the President's assessment of this law, the effects of 
which are beginning to reverberate throughout Wisconsin and throughout 
the country. As I travel

[[Page 17982]]

around Wisconsin each year to host listening sessions in each of our 72 
counties, I hear time and again from frustrated teachers, 
administrators, parents, and others about the negative effect that NCLB 
is having on education in Wisconsin.
  I began to hear such comments more than three years ago when the 
President first proposed his education initiative, and this drumbeat of 
concern has increased as my constituents continue to learn first-hand 
what this new law means for them and for their students and children. 
While Wisconsinites support holding schools accountable for results, 
they are concerned about the focus on testing that is the centerpiece 
of the President's approach.
  In response to these concerns, I introduced with Senator Jeffords and 
others the Student Testing Flexibility Act, which would allow States 
and school districts that are meeting their adequate yearly progress, 
AYP, goals to waive the additional layer of testing required by NCLB, 
thus allowing them to maintain their existing testing programs. In 
addition, this bill would allow States to keep the Federal money 
allocated for developing and administering these new tests and to use 
that money to help those schools and districts that are not meeting 
their AYP goals. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a 
wide range of Wisconsin and national education groups.
  In addition, earlier this year I sent with some of my colleagues a 
letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee requesting that the committee have a 
series of hearings on how the ongoing implementation of the NCLB is 
affecting schools and districts. We asked that these hearings focus on 
issues that are being raised by our constituents, including: the unique 
circumstances of rural and smaller school districts; the long-term 
effects that meeting the one-size-fits-all AYP provisions will have on 
students, schools, and school districts; the concern and likelihood 
that nearly all public schools may not be able to meet the goal of 100 
percent proficient scores on reading and math tests by the 2013-2014 
school year, even if those schools show a steady increase in student 
achievement each year; the NCLB sanctions structure; the effect that 
Federal funding that is well below the agreed-upon authorization levels 
for crucial programs such as Title I and special education is having on 
schools' ability to meet NCLB and State standards; the need for 
additional Federal funding for professional development, recruitment 
and retention, and for additional training for paraprofessionals, so 
that States and school districts can comply with requirements for 
having highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals; the toll that 
preparation for the new federally mandated tests is having on, and will 
have on, the ability of teachers to spend time on innovative and 
exciting approaches to instruction and assessment, the instruction time 
available for non-tested subjects, such as social studies, art, music, 
and physical education, the strength of State academic standards, and 
the morale of students and educators; the ongoing efforts to align the 
NCLB and IDEA; the unique challenges that the accountability provisions 
pose for students with limited English proficiency; and the 
implementation of the supplemental services provisions, including 
implications for Federal civil rights law.
  It is critically important that we understand the practical effect of 
the NCLB on the everyday classroom experiences of students and 
teachers. I have heard from many educators who are already seeing a 
narrowing of curricula and increased teaching to the test in 
preparation for the federally mandated tests in reading and math. One 
of the purposes of public education is to ensure that students have a 
well-rounded curriculum that gives them the skills that they need to 
succeed in life. I remain concerned that the approach encapsulated in 
the NCLB will produce a generation of students who know how to take 
tests, but who don't have the skills necessary to become successful 
adults. Test-taking has a place in public education, but it should not 
be the role of the Federal Government to tell schools how and when to 
require tests.
  As an editorial that appeared earlier this week in the Appleton Post-
Crescent so correctly points out, ``the more testing schools must do, 
the more time is taken from education that doesn't involve passing a 
test. And the more testing schools have to do--in the name of no child 
being left behind--the greater the chance that your child could be left 
with a less complete education.''
  And, I am particularly disturbed that this appears to be only the tip 
of the testing iceberg. The President has said that he plans to propose 
even more federally mandated testing if he is reelected. Specifically, 
the President said, ``[a]s we make progress, we will require a rigorous 
exam before graduation.'' If this proposal were to be enacted, it would 
mean that students would be taking federally mandated tests in 8 of 
their 13 years of their elementary and secondary years.
  And that's not just 8 tests. Beginning next year, students in grades 
3-8 will take annual reading and math exams, which totals 12 tests over 
a student's career. In addition, the Federal Government requires that 
students be tested in reading and math in one high school grade, which 
is two more tests, for a total of 14. Beginning in the 2007-2008 school 
year, NCLB also requires that students be tested in science three times 
during their school careers (once in each of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-
12). That's three more tests, for a new total of 17 federally mandated 
tests. And if the President's new plan for a mandatory high school exit 
exam is enacted, you can add one more test, bringing the total to 18 
federally mandated tests over 13 years of school.
  And this total does not include testing programs already in place at 
the State level, many of which have been thrown into disarray as States 
struggle to amend their existing tests to comply with the new NCLB 
requirements. Wisconsin currently tests students in reading in grade 
three through the Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, and in reading/
language arts, math, science, and social studies in grades four, eight, 
and ten with the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations. And 
this is in addition to regular classroom tests and quizzes and tests 
given at the district level by many of the 426 school districts in my 
state. And then, for those students hoping to go to college, there is 
the pre-SAT, the SAT, the ACT, and on and on.
  The Wisconsin Legislature enacted a requirement for a high school 
graduation test in 1997. But that test, which was to be required of all 
students beginning with those in the graduating class of 2003, was 
delayed for one year due to State budget constraints, and was 
subsequently delayed for an additional 2 years for that same reason, 
pushing the requirement from the class of 2003 to the class of 2006.
  Last year, as part of the State's 2004-2005 budget, the Wisconsin 
Legislature repealed the State graduation test, which many parents and 
educators in my State opposed and vigorously fought against for many 
years. Now it appears that the President wants to reinstate this 
requirement on the students of my State--and to impose it on the other 
24 States that don't currently have such a test--over the will of the 
Wisconsin Legislature. And with States still unsure of the actual cost 
of the NCLB-mandated testing and little in the way of Federal funds to 
develop and implement it, another Federal testing requirement could 
bend the already dire budget situations in many States and school 
districts to the breaking point.
  According to a new report from the Center on Education Policy, CEP, 
20 States now require high school exit exams, and another five will 
require such tests by 2009. I support the right of State legislatures 
and local school districts to determine the frequency with which 
students are tested, including whether to require a high school exit 
exam. When I was a member of the Wisconsin legislature, I supported 
legislation that created statewide tests for the students of my State. 
But I opposed the extra layer of federally mandated tests piled onto 
students and

[[Page 17983]]

teachers with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I will 
oppose any proposal for a federally mandated high school exit exam.
  Students, teachers, and schools are more than a test score, and 
education should be a well-rounded experience that is not narrowly 
focused on students passing a test to help their schools avoid being 
sanctioned by the Federal Government. Standardized tests measure where 
a particular student is at a particular day and time. These tests do 
not make allowances for outside factors such as test anxiety, illness, 
worry about a troubled home situation, or the fact that the child 
taking the test may not have eaten that day. To measure the performance 
of a school and its teachers and students on two test scores per grade 
does a disservice to these same students, teachers, and schools.
  I will continue to monitor the effect of the No Child Left Behind Act 
on Wisconsin students, and I hope that the debate on this law, both in 
my State and nationally, will result in meaningful changes to this 
deeply flawed law that will ensure that each child is given the 
opportunity to succeed and that each school has the resources necessary 
to give these students that opportunity.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced editorial in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Appleton Post-Crescent, Sept. 8, 2004]

                Too Many Tests Mean Diminished Education

       A quarter-million kids in Wisconsin will spend part of this 
     school year studying for and taking standardized tests.
       In the next school year, that number will nearly double, as 
     tests mandated by state government--pushed by the federal No 
     Child Left Behind Act--expand to include more grade levels 
     and more subjects.
       There will be more time needed to take tests, and to 
     prepare students to take the tests. And it's all being done 
     to test . . . the schools.
       Sure, the kids are the ones taking the tests, but 
     ultimately it's the schools' performance that's being graded. 
     No school wants to be deficient in its test results because, 
     under No Child Left Behind, there may be consequences.
       But with more testing on the way--and more classroom time 
     devoted to the tests--what's going to happen to our kids' 
     education? What won't our kids be learning because they'll be 
     studying for more tests?
       This year, third-graders have reading tests and fourth-, 
     eighth- and 10th-graders have reading, language arts, math, 
     science and social studies tests. Next year, those tests will 
     remain, but third-graders will add a math test and fifth-, 
     sixth- and seventh-graders will have reading and math tests.
       It can be argued that standardized tests show our children 
     are learning. But what are they learning? How to pass one 
     particular test, which tests one particular subject and is 
     geared toward one particular style of learning?
       It also can be argued that schools must be accountable and 
     standardized tests are the best way--if flawed--to ensure 
     accountability. But, the more testing schools must do, the 
     more time is taken from education that doesn't involve 
     passing a test.
       And the more testing schools have to do--in the name of no 
     child being left behind--the greater the chance that your 
     child could be left with a less complete education.

                          ____________________