[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20534-20536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            BACK TO SCHOOL AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, students, teachers, and school personnel 
across Wisconsin and around the country are settling in for a new 
school year. Regrettably, thousands of students and teachers in the 
hurricane-ravaged gulf coast region have no schools to which they can 
return. According to the Louisiana Department of Education, schools in 
six parishes have been destroyed or are too damaged to reopen, and more 
than 240,000 students from that State alone have been displaced as a 
result. The Federal Department of Education estimates that a total of 
more than 370,000 students across the region have been displaced, and 
many of them will have to spend the entire school year attending a 
different school.
  I commend the school districts around the region and around the 
county, including in Wisconsin, that have opened their doors to 
students who have been displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina and 
the ongoing devastation left in her wake. While the start of the school 
year usually means getting new school supplies, renewing

[[Page 20535]]

friendships that may have lapsed over the summer months, and embarking 
on new courses of study, for the students displaced by Katrina, 
starting school may be the first step in restoring a sense of routine 
and a small measure of normalcy. Many of these students are separated 
from family members and friends and from familiar teachers, counselors, 
coaches, and other school personnel as they begin classes in another 
district or in another State. We should make every effort to assist the 
schools that are welcoming them with open arms as they work to make 
this transition as smooth as possible.
  For these reasons, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of 
Education, which I am pleased was cosigned by the senior Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, asking that the administration request dedicated 
education funding for schools in the affected areas and for the States 
and school districts that are enrolling these displaced students. Our 
letter also requested that the Secretary use her statutory authority to 
waive for 1 year the accountability provisions in the No Child Left 
Behind Act for the schools in the affected areas and for the school 
districts that are enrolling the displaced students.
  Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath also remind us of the importance 
of the availability of school counselors, psychologists, and social 
workers. These personnel work with teachers, administrators, and 
parents to ensure that students have the resources and tools they need 
to meet the challenges of the classroom and of everyday life. In times 
of great stress or disaster, such as a hurricane, these professionals 
are even more important as they help students cope with the tragedy 
that they and their loved ones and friends--or family members or 
friends who lived in the affected area--are experiencing.
  This natural disaster underscores the need to provide adequate 
resources to ensure that schools have the ability to recruit and retain 
school counselors, psychologists, and social workers in numbers that 
are appropriate to meet the needs of their students. I share the 
concern expressed by so many around my State that tight budget 
constraints and new Federal mandates are forcing school districts to 
make the difficult decision to cut some of these important positions. 
And many of those districts that are able to maintain these positions 
are unable to hire enough counselors, psychologists, and social workers 
to meet the recommended student to professional ratios for those 
positions. I will talk more about the importance of providing promised 
Federal funding for education programs later in my statement, but I 
just wanted to touch on this issue here.
  As we witness the concerted effort by so many local school districts 
and States to provide education for students displaced by Hurricane 
Katrina, we are reminded that 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.
  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. And we have such an opportunity now to 
support local efforts by providing funding to the states and school 
districts that have been affected by Hurricane Katrina. I support such 
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, going so far as to call it ``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 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. And the people of 
Wisconsin are not alone in their concern about the consequences of this 
law. A recent article in the St. Petersburg Times notes that ``[i]t's 
not unusual for states to chafe at federal rules. But the state revolt 
against the federal law that filled America's classrooms with 
standardized tests is unprecedented. Forty-seven states are 
questioning, opposing, or rebelling against the most sweeping education 
reform in a generation.''
  In Utah, for example, the State legislature passed and the Governor 
signed into law a bill that clarifies that State education policy has 
precedence over Federal education laws. Colorado is allowing individual 
school districts to ``opt out'' of NCLB. And the State of Connecticut 
recently filed a lawsuit in Federal court that argues that the law is 
illegal because it constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate on States 
and school districts. The National Education Association had previously 
joined with a number of local affiliates and school districts from 
around the country in filing a similar lawsuit.
  It is important to note that the Department of Education has made 
some effort to provide flexibility on some areas of this law in 
response to a flood of requests from States and school districts around 
the country. But this flexibility has been narrow in scope and has 
largely ignored the central concerns of States and school districts, 
including insufficient Federal resources to help schools comply with 
the law and the likelihood that no State or district--now matter how 
great their efforts or their educational progress--will be able to keep 
up with the law's ambitious accountability provisions, including the 
well-intentioned yet almost wholly unachievable requirement that all 
students be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school 
year.
  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 
increased funding for title I and for afterschool programs. I opposed 
this legislation, however, because it takes decisions regarding the 
frequency of testing out of the hands of local school districts. As 
educators, students, and parents across the country know all too well, 
this law mandates that students be tested in reading and math in grades 
3-8 beginning during this, the 2005-2006 school year. Further, the law 
mandates that students be tested in science at least once in grades 3-
5, 6-9, and 10-12 beginning in the 2007-2008 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 states and school districts 
are rightly concerned about the effect that this additional layer of 
testing will have on classroom education.
  Connecticut, for example, has requested and has been repeatedly 
denied permission from the Department of Education to continue to test 
its students every other year instead of every year as is mandated by 
NCLB.
  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 
as part of NCLB. I am deeply concerned that the President's budget 
requests for each of the fiscal years since NCLB was enacted have not 
provided the funding levels promised by

[[Page 20536]]

that law, and have, in fact, provided no funding for a number of 
important programs included in that law.
  I began to hear concerns from Wisconsinites more than 4 years ago 
when the President first proposed his education initiative, and these 
concerns have only increased as my constituents continue to learn first 
hand what this law means for them and for their students and children. 
While Wisconsinites support holding schools accountable for results, 
they are rightly troubled by the focus on testing that is the 
centerpiece of the President's approach.
  In response to these concerns, in past years I introduced with 
Senator Jeffords and others the Student Testing Flexibility Act, which 
would have allowed 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 have allowed 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. While we have not reintroduced 
the bill this year, we remain committed to restoring to States and 
local school districts the decisions over the frequency and magnitude 
of testing.
  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 nontested 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 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; 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 
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 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.
  I am particularly disturbed that this appears to be only the tip of 
the testing iceberg. In his fiscal year 2006 budget request, the 
President proposed expanding this testing program to additional high 
school grades. We should not expand the NCLB testing mandates through 
the budget and appropriations process, and I am pleased that neither 
the House-passed nor the Senate reported Labor-Health and Human 
Services-Education appropriations bill includes this funding.
  Students, teachers, and schools are more than a test score, and 
education should be a well-rounded experience that is not narrowly 
focused on ensuring that students pass a test to help their schools 
avoid being sanctioned by the Federal Government. Standardized tests 
measure performance on a particular day under particular circumstances. 
These tests do not make allowances for outside factors such as test 
anxiety, illness, worry about a troubled home situation, or even 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. And to compare the test scores of this year's 
third graders to those of next year's third graders does not provide an 
accurate picture of educational progress.
  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.

                          ____________________