[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 1768]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: INNOVATION TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF 
                                STUDENTS

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
my remarks at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee hearing yesterday be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Fixing No Child Left Behind: Innovation To Better Meet the Needs of 
                                Students

       This is the 27th hearing in the last six years about fixing 
     No Child Left Behind or a related elementary and secondary 
     education issue. I hope we are not far from a conclusion--
     from moving from hearings and discussions to marking up a 
     bill. From the beginning of our work on No Child Left Behind, 
     we concluded it would be better, rather than start from 
     scratch on a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to 
     identify the problems in the law and try to fix them. 
     Generally speaking, we agree on the problems, and on several 
     solutions we are not far from reaching consensus. We still 
     have some work to do on accountability. And by 
     accountability, I mean goals, standards, annual tests, 
     disaggregated reporting of test results, and defining success 
     or failure for teachers and schools as well as the 
     consequences of that success or failure. On some of these 
     things, we pretty much agree, like the need for a new goal. 
     On other things, we still have some work to do, like whether 
     or not to keep the 17 annual federal standardized tests.
       This morning we are holding a roundtable discussion on 
     ``Fixing No Child Left Behind: Innovation to Better Meet the 
     Needs of Students.'' We aim for this to be different than a 
     hearing. Senator Murray and I will each have a short opening 
     statement and then we will introduce our roundtable of 
     participants. Then we're going to jump right into the 
     conversation, posing two questions to help guide the 
     discussion.
       First, what is your state, district, or school doing to 
     implement innovative approaches to improve academic outcomes 
     for students, particularly low-income and at-risk students? 
     Second, how can we improve the federal law to encourage more 
     states, districts, and schools to innovate?
       And when I say law, I should also draw attention to the 
     regulations that have followed these laws. For example, every 
     state has to submit a plan to the federal government to 
     receive its share of the $14.5 billion Title I program 
     distributed to states for low-income children. That's about 
     $1,300 for every child who lives at or below the federal 
     poverty line. Those Title I applications are reviewed by the 
     Department of Education, as well as by outside experts, 
     before you can spend a dime of that money. In addition, 42 
     states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are 
     operating under waivers from the out-of-date and unworkable 
     regulations in No Child Left Behind. To receive those 
     waivers, states have to submit waiver applications. In 
     Tennessee, that waiver application was 91 pages long with 
     more than 170 pages of attachments. Since 2012, the state has 
     had to submit eight different updates or amendments to the 
     plan.
       In addition to all this, the U.S. Department of Education 
     spends another $9-10 billion or so on about 90 different 
     programs that are either authorized or funded under No Child 
     Left Behind, with separate application and program 
     requirements. These programs include Promise Neighborhoods 
     and Investing in Innovation.
       So are we spending this money in a way that makes it easier 
     or harder for you to innovate and achieve better academic 
     outcomes?
       My own view is that the government ought to be an enabler 
     and encourager, rather than a mandater, of innovation. It can 
     do this well. For example, last year Congress overwhelmingly 
     supported reauthorizing the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant program that gives grants to states that allow parents 
     to receive a voucher for the child care of their choice so 
     they can attend school or go to work.
       Seven decades ago the G.I. Bill enabled World War II 
     veterans to attend a college of their choice, helping them 
     become the greatest generation. Today, half our college 
     students have federal grants or loans that follow them to the 
     colleges of their choice, enabling them to buy the surest 
     ticket to a better life and job. About 98 percent of the 
     federal dollars that go to higher education follow the 
     student to the school they attend. In K-12, the only money 
     that follows students to the school they attend is the school 
     lunch program.
       Now, I'll turn to Ranking Member Murray for her opening 
     statement and then we'll get the conversation going.

                          ____________________