[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 8692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REFORM

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about two 
pieces of legislation that I have introduced. They are the Educational 
Accountability and State Flexibility Act and the Early Intervention for 
Graduation Success Act. I intend to speak with my colleagues about 
these bills in the coming days and weeks, but I would like to take a 
moment now to provide an overview of my thoughts.
  We have all heard from our constituents--teachers, principals, 
superintendents, school board members, and parents--about the No Child 
Left Behind Act. Clearly, the law has some good things. Americans 
deserve accountability for how their Federal tax dollars are spent, 
even when they are spent in their local schools. Parents want to know 
their local schools can help prepare their children for the future. But 
No Child Left Behind went too far. My bill, the Educational 
Accountability and State Flexibility Act, seeks to maintain reasonable 
accountability to taxpayers and parents while providing greater 
flexibility to States and schools to meet our children's needs and 
local communities' individual circumstances.
  As we know, the Senate HELP Committee has again begun to address the 
need to reform No Child Left Behind. A markup of the Strengthening 
America's Schools Act began yesterday, Tuesday, June 11, 2013. I am 
hopeful the committee can come together to reduce, not expand, the 
Federal government's role in our local schools. I know several of my 
colleagues share that hope, including Senator Alexander, who offered a 
substitute amendment to reduce the Federal mandates in the 
Strengthening America's Schools Act. I voted for that amendment and 
others like it. Since the Alexander amendment and several similar 
amendments failed, I hope my colleagues will review my Educational 
Accountability and School Flexibility Act. It is intended to offer some 
ideas for continuing the conversation.
  My bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--also 
known as No Child Left Behind--to do the following: No. 1: Eliminate 
adequate yearly progress--AYP; No. 2: Allow States to stick with an 
approved waiver plan if that is their choice; No. 3: Require States, 
not the Federal government, to determine each school's level of success 
in helping kids succeed based on broad, flexible parameters, publish 
the results, reward what schools are doing right, and help the schools 
that need help; No. 4: Require States to diagnose why a school is not 
improving to help fix what is wrong in a way that will work for that 
school and community--not implement a school turnaround model mandated 
by the Federal government; No. 6: Prohibit the Secretary from 
prioritizing or mandating any school turnaround strategy; No. 7: 
Prohibit the Secretary of Education from approving or disapproving a 
State's decisions about standards, tests, and accountability while 
making sure the public can access experts' opinions on the plans; No. 
8: Eliminate the Federal ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements and 
let States decide what makes teachers highly effective; No. 9: Continue 
to ask the low-performing schools to tutor students who are not 
succeeding in schools; No. 10: Continue to allow public school choice 
as long as a higher performing public school is available and kids 
would not have to ride long hours on dangerous roads to get there; and 
No. 11: Respect the voice and expertise of our Nation's indigenous 
first peoples regarding what helps Native children succeed in school.
  I have also reintroduced my Early Intervention for Graduation Success 
Act with a few changes from last Congress. I hope my colleagues will 
take some time to review this legislation.
  This legislation would, if enacted, amend the current school dropout 
prevention provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It 
would focus attention on identifying and helping students who are at 
risk to not graduate from high school as early as prekindergarten and 
through elementary and middle school.
  Some may ask, Why are you concentrating on toddlers and elementary 
school children when you are trying to solve the high school dropout 
crisis facing our Nation? Why not focus attention and our Nation's 
scarce resources on high school students, or even middle school 
students?
  The reason is simple. Early on is when children's troubles in school 
begin, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. High school 
and middle school students do not just wake up one day and say, I think 
I will drop out of school today. Twenty-five years of research tells us 
that dropping out is a long process of frustration, alienation, and 
even boredom--it is not a sudden decision. We know that students with 
disabilities, minority and poor children, and students whose home lives 
are, in all sorts of ways, difficult have lower graduation rates than 
their peers. The challenges children face today are all too prevalent, 
and we know the factors that make it harder for them to succeed in 
school. We know this.
  It only makes sense, then, that we rework the program intended to 
help schools increase their graduation rates so that it actually helps 
schools help children when we can make the most difference. We need to 
act before these children have fought for years just to stay afloat, 
and before they are too tired, frustrated, alienated, and angry to 
fight anymore.
  But I have also heard from some who asked that my legislation include 
a stronger focus on secondary schools, knowing that today we have 
middle and high schools that are struggling to keep their students in 
school and on a path to success. So I have done that.
  I have also heard from my State. They shared concerns with me that 
the cost to create a database combining data from multiple State 
agencies that have information that will inform schools as to students' 
risk factors for dropping out--participation in public assistance 
programs, being homeless or a foster child, having an incarcerated 
parent, etc.--would be too high. So, knowing that it still makes sense 
to help our educators better identify students who are at risk, I have 
amended my bill to just ask the State to help schools access this 
information while following FERPA and HIPAA rules for privacy of that 
data.
  We all want our schools to be successful. We all want our children to 
be successful. I am hopeful my colleagues will take a good look at both 
of these bills, and that they will help to move the conversation 
forward about how we can help reach our goals.

                          ____________________