[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15678-15681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last month several Republican Senators 
came to the floor and offered legislation to fix No Child Left Behind,

[[Page 15679]]

the legislation that was passed nearly 10 years ago to try to address 
our Nation's 100,000 public schools. In that legislation, we sought to 
fix problems with the legislation, not just to create another big 
reauthorization bill. The ideas we had were not all our ideas. They 
included many ideas from President Obama and his excellent Education 
Secretary, Secretary Duncan, as well as Democratic and Republican 
Members of Congress. They included having more realistic goals for No 
Child Left Behind. The original goal set in 2001 would, according to 
Secretary Duncan, create an unworkable situation where 80,000 of the 
100,000 schools might be identified as failing in the next few years.
  A second goal of our legislation was to move decisions about deciding 
whether schools and teachers were succeeding or failing out of 
Washington, DC, and back to State and local governments. A lot has 
happened in the last 10 years in the States--really the last 20 or 25 
but especially in the last 10 years. We have better reporting 
requirements from No Child Left Behind. We have new State common 
standards, higher academic standards. We have new State tests that have 
been created--not here but by the States to do that. And now States are 
working together to create accountability systems. So there is a much 
better chance that States and local school districts can create an 
environment where students learn what they need to know and be able to 
do.
  Our legislation encourages States to create what I think is the holy 
grail of public education; that is, principal-teacher evaluation 
related to student achievement. I know from experience that is hard to 
do. In 1983 and 1984, when I was Governor of Tennessee, we became the 
first State to pay teachers more for teaching well. It took us a year 
and a half and a huge battle with the National Education Association in 
order to put it in place, but 10,000 teachers became master teachers. 
It was a good first step. Tennessee is already doing it again.
  Here is my local newspaper: Evaluation of teachers contentious. There 
is nothing more contentious, and the last thing we need is Washington 
sticking its nose into that, other than to create an environment where 
State and local governments can use Federal money to pay for their own 
State and local programs. We propose consolidating programs, making it 
easier for school districts to transfer Federal money and expand 
choices and expand charter schools.
  Now, today, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate education 
committee--the HELP Committee, as we call it--have introduced another 
draft piece of legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. I intend to 
vote to move this bill out of committee, although it is not yet the 
kind of legislation that I would be willing to vote to send to the 
President, but it is a good place to start.
  There is a good deal of agreement in terms of what we want to do in 
our legislation from a few weeks ago and the Harkin-Enzi bill. Among 
the agreements is moving decisions about whether schools are succeeding 
or failing out of Washington. Another is to encourage principal-teacher 
evaluation without mandating, defining, and regulating it from 
Washington, DC. Another good provision is to encourage but not define 
and mandate and regulate using measures of growth of students--not just 
whether they achieved something but whether they are making rapid 
progress toward a goal. The idea is to make that in terms of whether 
schools and students are succeeding.
  There are many provisions in the Harkin-Enzi bill that have been 
suggested by both Democrats and Republicans, but there are a number of 
provisions--not in our legislation--that I don't support, and I am 
going to seek to amend them. I have indicated to Senators that I intend 
to offer seven amendments which, in my view, would take out of the 
legislation provisions that tend to create a national school board. One 
is the so-called achievement gap. One is the so-called highly qualified 
teachers provision. These are all provisions that substitute the 
judgment of people in Washington for that of mayors, local school 
boards, governors, and legislators. So I don't think we need a national 
school board, and neither do most Americans.
  Some will say: Well, then, why would you support a bill that you 
don't entirely agree with? The reason is we have a process in Congress. 
This isn't like the health care bill a few years ago when we had 40 
Republican Senators and Speaker Pelosi was in charge of the House of 
Representatives. We now have 47 Republican Senators, we have a 
Republican House of Representatives, and we need to get started fixing 
this problem. We need to do something a little different around here. 
Instead of just beating our chests, we need to find a way to put our 
heads together, head toward a reasonable result, come up with a 
solution, and offer it to the President and to the American people.
  There is no reason in the world why we can't, with the amount of 
agreement we already have, send to the President by Christmas 
legislation fixing No Child Left Behind. We should do it because if we 
don't, Congress's inaction will mean we will transform the U.S. 
Education Secretary into a waiver-granting czar for 80,000 schools in 
this country which, according to this law, will be identified as 
failing.
  Well, if we were to have an education czar, or if we were to have a 
chairman of a national education school board, Secretary Arne Duncan 
would be a good one. But I don't think we want one in the United States 
of America. So I think we should act before Christmas in order to avoid 
creating a waiver education czar, and we should act before Christmas in 
a way that does not create a national school board.
  There is one other suggestion I would make to the authors of this 
bill. In our earlier meetings with the President, Congressman George 
Miller of California, who was a key leader in developing No Child Left 
Behind, said this bill to fix No Child Left Behind ought to be a lean 
bill. I agree with Congressman Miller. The legislation Republicans 
introduced a few weeks ago totaled 221 pages in its five bills. The 
comparable section of the Harkin-Enzi draft is 517 pages. I urge us to 
follow Congressman Miller's advice in the final result and be much more 
succinct than that.
  So despite these concerns, I will vote on Wednesday or Thursday, 
whenever we finish, in favor of bringing this base bill out of the HELP 
Committee and on to the Senate floor where we can have full amendments. 
I am going to do my best to improve it in committee and on the Senate 
floor to make it more like the legislation we introduced a month ago. I 
am going to continue to do that in the conference we have with the 
House of Representatives. I think it is time we recognize the American 
people expect us to step up to major issues, to put our best ideas 
together, and come up with a result. We are part way there. There is a 
good place to start.
  I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi for the work they have done, 
as well as Representative Kline and Representative Miller, and I thank 
the President and Secretary Duncan for their attitude. I look forward 
to working with them to come to a conclusion.
  One last thing: We talk a lot about jobs around here. Every American 
knows better schools mean better jobs, and they all know schools are a 
lot like jobs. We can't create them from Washington, but we can create 
an environment in which people in their own communities, and families 
and States can create better schools and better jobs. This is a good 
place to start.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter of support which also outlines my objections to the 
legislation that was introduced today, and a copy of an article from 
the Maryville Alcoa Daily Times today which reminds us of how difficult 
it is to evaluate teachers fairly and how wise we would be if we 
satisfied ourselves with creating an environment in which that could 
happen but did not mandate it, define it, and regulate it from 
Washington, DC.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 15680]]


                                                 October 16, 2011.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom and Mike: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     participate in discussions about fixing the problems with No 
     Child Left Behind.
       I support your base bill (the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Reauthorization Act of 2011) as a first step in the 
     right direction that will enable our Health, Education, Labor 
     and Pensions (HELP) Committee to start working now to fix the 
     problems with No Child Left Behind. I will vote to move it 
     out of committee, although it is not yet legislation that I 
     could vote in favor of sending to the President.
       I have attached a summary of 7 amendments I will offer. 
     Most of these are intended to stop the legislation from 
     creating a national school board that would substitute its 
     judgment for that of governors, state legislatures, mayors, 
     local school board members, parents, principals and teachers. 
     Hopefully, substitute language including these amendments 
     will be the final product of our legislative work.
       Despite these misgivings, I believe the HELP Committee 
     should start now with this base bill and try to move an 
     improved bill to the Senate floor where there needs to be a 
     full and complete amendment process to further improve it and 
     send it to a conference with the House of Representatives.
       There is no reason why Congress should not be able to send 
     legislation fixing No Child Left Behind to the President by 
     Christmas. If Congress does not act now, our inaction will 
     transform the U.S. Secretary of Education into a waiver-
     granting czar over an unworkable law that has identified what 
     he says may be as many as 80,000 ``failing'' public schools, 
     a development even worse than provisions in this draft that 
     would make him a chairman of a national school board. If we 
     were to have such a czar or chairman, Arne Duncan would be a 
     good one, but I do not believe that we should have one in our 
     country.
       The strengths of the base bill are that it moves most 
     decisions about whether schools are succeeding or failing out 
     of Washington and back to states and communities. It keeps 
     the valuable reporting requirements of No Child Left Behind. 
     It should help to produce an environment in which states and 
     school districts are more likely to create principal teacher 
     evaluation systems related to student achievement. It will 
     encourage schools to recognize growth in student academic 
     achievement as well as grade-level performance. The base bill 
     further includes many good provisions suggested by Secretary 
     Duncan and congressional Republicans, as well as Democrats.
       The base bill's main weakness is that it contains 
     provisions that would transform the U.S. Secretary of 
     Education into chairman of a national school board. Chief 
     among these problems are federal mandates, definitions and 
     regulations for identifying ``achievement gap'' schools and 
     the ``continuous improvement'' of all 100,000 public schools. 
     Although the draft eliminates the concept of ``Adequate 
     Yearly Progress'' for 95% of schools, these provisions 
     attempt to reinstate it through the back door. In addition, 
     the bill retains in Washington, DC decisions about whether 
     our 3.2 million teachers are ``highly qualified'' or not. It 
     does not sufficiently consolidate programs and actually 
     creates several new ones that have no real chance of ever 
     being funded. And it does little to make it easier for local 
     school districts to transfer and use federal funds more 
     efficiently or to simplify the burdensome Peer Review process 
     for state plans that must be submitted to the U.S. Department 
     of Education.
       There is one other important flaw: the bill is wordy. It is 
     at least 860 pages. When several of us met with President 
     Obama to discuss fixing No Child Left Behind, we agreed to 
     take Congressman George Miller's advice to produce ``a lean 
     bill.'' The five bills offered last month by Senators 
     Isakson, Burr, Kirk and I, along with several other 
     Republican Senators, totaled 221 pages. The comparable 
     sections of your draft total 517 pages. We can be more 
     succinct than that.
       Despite these concerns, I will vote in favor of this base 
     bill being reported out of the HELP Committee and look 
     forward to working with you and our colleagues in the Senate 
     and House to improve the bill so that the President can sign 
     it into law this year.
           Sincerely,
     Lamar Alexander.
                                  ____


         [From the Daily Times (Maryville, TN), Oct. 17, 2011]

     Growing Pains: Blount Schools Strugle With Teacher Evaluation

                          (By Matthew Stewart)

       Blount County Schools have experienced some difficulties in 
     implementing the state's teacher evaluation model, and 
     educators want state lawmakers to give them a voice in the 
     process.
       ``We don't mind accountability, but it has to be fair,'' 
     said Grady Caskey, who serves as the Blount County Education 
     Association's president. ``The system has to be based on 
     achievable expectations and goals.''
       Blount County Schools is using the Tennessee Educator 
     Acceleration Model (TEAM), which was developed by the state 
     Department of Education. Alcoa City Schools and Maryville 
     City Schools are using the Teacher Instructional Growth for 
     Effectiveness and Results (TIGER) model, which was developed 
     by the Association of Independent and Municipal Schools,
       Both Alcoa and Maryville field-tested evaluation models. 
     However, Blount County didn't field-test a model.
       Many county educators have become frustrated with TEAM's 
     implementation, Caskey said. ``People are throwing up their 
     hands and saying, ``I'm done.'' Teachers are asking more and 
     more about early retirement requirements, We have two 
     seasoned teachers who are retiring mid-year. Several more are 
     considering it. We're losing our best, most experienced 
     teachers.''
       BCEA has learned about many implementation problems, he 
     said.
       Blount County's principals haven't set uniform 
     requirements, Caskey said. ``Some are requiring lesson plans 
     for the entire school year. Others are only requiring 
     observation plans, which is what the law actually requires. I 
     recently received an email from a teacher who puts his kids 
     to bed at 8 p.m. then writes lesson plans until midnight or 1 
     a.m.''
       Educators also don't have a template for their lesson 
     plans, he said. ``They've got several different versions 
     floating around. It's causing a lot of busy work. I thought 
     the governor said this was going to be less paperwork. We're 
     drowning in it.''
       Educators need to start talking with lawmakers about the 
     evaluation process, Caskey said. ``TEAM is counterproductive. 
     I know we can identify better ways to improve teachers. 
     Legislators are going to have to change it. Politics got us 
     into this mess, and politics will get us out. Education isn't 
     a business. We're not an assembly line. We're not turning out 
     widgets but humans.''


                           students in limbo

       Many educators are also worried about the evaluation model.
       ``TEAM has some good points,'' said Rebecca Dickenson, who 
     is Eagleton Elementary School's librarian. ``However, it was 
     implemented in a huge hurry without enough explanation for 
     teachers and principals.''
       ``It's left teachers in limbo with their kids,'' said Mark 
     Williamson, who teaches social studies at William Blount High 
     School. ``Principals are trying their best, but things are 
     constantly changing.''
       Williamson, a former BCEA president who currently serves on 
     the executive board, thinks the evaluation model has affected 
     his students academically. ``I spent 15 hours working on a 
     lesson plan for my first evaluation. At the end of the day, 
     it took 15 hours away from my kids. I couldn't plan ahead, 
     find updated information or seek out current events such as 
     the Arab Spring, I was trying to do what I needed to do 
     according to the lesson plan.''
       Teacher morale has been impacted as well, he said.
       ``I haven't seen my principal as much,'' said Dickenson, 
     who also serves as BCEA's vice president. ``I'm used to her 
     walking through the library and getting the opportunity to 
     see what I'm doing in class. However, she's been inundated 
     with evaluations this year.''
       Lawmakers need to lessen the workload for observers, she 
     said.


                           resolving problems

       School officials are working to address teacher concerns, 
     said Director of Schools Rob Britt. ``It hasn't been 
     implemented consistently across the state. So, you're going 
     to see these things in every system. We're personally 
     experiencing a lot of growing pains.''
       Britt and Dr. Jane Morton, supervisor of instruction for 
     grades 6-12, organized two forums with teachers before fall 
     break. They gathered input and created a list of nearly 35 
     concerns.
       School officials are seeking answers from the state 
     Department of Education, Britt said. ``I know teachers are 
     concerned about TEAM, and I am as well. We're making efforts 
     to try to get answers for teachers and get more direction for 
     principals. We're very sensitive to teacher concerns. It's 
     high stakes, and we're performing our due diligence for 
     them.''
       School officials are also working to create supports for 
     teachers, he said. ``We want to keep our teachers. We want to 
     support them and help them grow. We're committed as 
     administrators to making it as palatable as possible.''
       The school district's observers will require more training, 
     Britt said. ``Most are implementing the way that they were 
     trained. The state didn't provide exhaustive training. It was 
     more surface-level, which was a good beginning. However, it 
     wasn't thorough. We need more follow-up in a timely manner.''


                              future plans

       The state Department of Education is currently evaluating 
     TEAM.
       State officials are committed to gathering feedback that 
     will help determine where the

[[Page 15681]]

     evaluation model needs revision, and stakeholders are 
     providing input through several channels.
       The Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation and 
     Development (TN CRED) is launching a statewide survey in 
     spring 2012 and conducting focus groups throughout the year, 
     State officials are also traveling across the state to meet 
     with stakeholders.
       The state Department of Education's Advisory Group will 
     bring revision recommendations to Education Commissioner 
     Kevin Huffman, Based on the proposed revisions, the 
     recommendations might need to be brought before the State 
     Board of Education.

  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I asked for unanimous consent to be 
recognized following the remarks by the Senator from Tennessee. It has 
been called to my attention that the Senator from Virginia would like 
to have the floor at this time, so I renew my unanimous consent request 
that I be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator 
from Virginia.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________