[Pages S5811-S5821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Pending:

Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program from the list of programs covered by performance
agreements.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to
modify provisions relating to State applications and plans
and school improvement to provide for the input of the
Governor of the State involved.
Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise
provisions regarding the Reading First Program.
Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.
Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit
the use of Federal funds

[[Page S5812]]

by any State or local educational agency or school that
discriminates against the Boy Scouts of America in providing
equal access to school premises or facilities.
Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the
nature of a substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing
the sense of the Senate that there should be established a
joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to
investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the
country and to determine what is causing the increases.
Wellstone/Feingold amendment No. 465 (to amendment No.
358), to improve the provisions relating to assessment
completion bonuses.
Voinovich amendment No. 443 (to amendment No. 358), to
amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan
forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers.
Dayton modified amendment No. 622 (to amendment No. 358),
to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to
fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure
for programs under part B of such Act.
Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No.
358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the
Department of Education program to promote access of Armed
Forces recruiters to student directory information.
Bond modified amendment No. 476 (to amendment No. 358), to
strengthen early childhood parent education programs.
Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No.
358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under
subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.

Amendment No. 465

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 465.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the original cosponsor of this amendment is Senator
Feingold from Wisconsin. I thank him for his support. Other cosponsors
are Senators Kennedy and Clinton.
Mr. President, let me try to summarize this amendment.
Right now on this education bill there is a bonus incentive for
States to move forward with tests that this legislation calls for.
Remember that this legislation on the floor of the Senate is very
sweeping, for better or for worse. I think all Senators should think
very seriously about that.
Right now we are basically mandating or telling every school district
in every State in the United States of America that every child in
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be tested every year. This is not an
option. School districts don't decide. States don't decide. At the
Federal level, the Congress and the Federal Government are saying to
States: You will do this.
In the legislation, as I say, the additional bonus money is for
States that are able to move forward, and, as a matter of fact, put
this testing into effect earlier than 2005.
What this amendment would say is that it is not speed that is the
most important criteria. The most important criteria is the quality of
the test. What we want to say to States and school districts around the
country is that we will provide an additional bonus to you if you, in
fact, are designing and implementing quality tests. Again, what I mean
by that is States should not be relying on single standardized
multiple-choice tests.
There are probably some students even in the gallery as I speak
today. If they were the ones who were out here on the floor and were
going to have a chance to speak, I think the students would say: Look.
If, in fact, you are going to measure what we have learned and what we
know, if you are going to measure what education is on the basis of
single tests, standardized tests, or multiple-choice tests, the result
will be teachers teaching to those tests, and drilling to get ready to
take those tests. This is not all of what education is. In fact, I
think it can become quite educationally deadening.
The best teachers I know--I am in schools about every 2 weeks in the
State of Minnesota--are teachers who never teach to worksheets. The
best teachers I have met are teachers who engage students, who get
students to think about their lives in relation to the material, who
get students to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves
and speak for themselves.
At the very minimum, we ought to be saying to States that we do not
want States and school districts to abuse tests by relying on the sort
of off-the-shelf standardized fill-in-the-bubbles multiple-choice
tests. That is just outrageous.
By the way, these multiple-choice tests put the real world into
categories. They do not measure a student's sense of irony. They do not
measure how profoundly students are thinking. They do not measure
whether students can think creatively. There is a whole lot that these
tests don't measure.
Indeed, when the other amendment I introduced was passed, one of the
criteria was that the testing that is going to be done has to use
multiple measures, and not just one single, standardized test. We need
to encourage that type of assessment.
We also need to talk about whether the assessments are coherent. That
is to say, are they measuring what is actually taught in the
curriculum? If you have a single, standard, multiple-choice test that
is generic that just sort of measures students in relation to other
students but does not have anything to do with the curriculum and the
material and what is actually being taught, then basically you are
putting all of America in an educational straightjacket. Aren't we
going to make sure, I say to my good conservative friends, that local
school districts have some say over defining what makes for good
education?
I think we want to make sure the tests are comprehensive. We want to
make sure they are coherent.
Then the other thing we want to do is to make sure they are
continuous; that is, if we are going to say we want an assessment, then
we want to try to measure the progress of the student over a period of
time. So what this amendment says is, look, let's make sure the
assessment gives us the best picture of how students are really doing;
if we are going to be engaged in testing, let's make sure it is high-
quality testing; let's make sure we are really measuring how well
students are doing; and, for God's sake, let's not force school
districts and schools and teachers and students into some drill
education, what I would call straitjacket education.
I was really pleased that in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post,
Secretary Paige himself wrote:

A good test, the kind the President and I support, is
aligned with the curriculum so schools know whether children
are actually learning the materials that their States have
decided a child should know.

Again, that is what I mean by a test that is coherent.
Above and beyond that, let me just simply say to all of my colleagues
that the independent panel review of title I, which was mandated in the
1994 reauthorization, has issued its report in January called
``Improving the Odds.'' The report concluded that:

Many States choose assessment results from a single test,
often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests
may have an important place in State assessment systems, they
rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge captured in
State content standards.

The panel went on to make a strong recommendation:

Better assessments for instructional and accountability
purposes are urgently needed.

So I again say, with this amendment, if you want to have a bonus
system set up, if you want to provide additional moneys for States--not
to hurry up, not to just bring a test off the shelf, a test that does
not even give us a good idea of how our students are doing--have a
bonus that focuses on high-quality testing.
Frankly, I am surprised that I have to come out in this chamber and
debate this amendment. I would think this amendment would be adopted
with 100 votes. Maybe it will be before we are done.
Now, let me just quote Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve,
Incorporated, which is the nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform
movement. Here is what he said:

You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if
you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests. Tests
have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms, and
that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach
consequences to them before, in lots of places, we have
really gotten the tests right.

Mr. President, these are important words by a man whose work, whose
profession, is in the accountability field. I would like to quote the
last part of it again:

Tests have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms,
and that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach
consequences to

[[Page S5813]]

them before, in a lot of places, we have really gotten the
tests right.

That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right.
``Quality Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the
United States, concludes this way:

In too many States, the tests still focus too much on low
multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with
the standards they are designed to measure.

So again--and I will emphasize this for maybe the 20th time this
afternoon--what we want to do is we want to make sure that if there is
going to be this testing--all in the name of accountability, all in the
name of assessing how our students are doing--then we had better make
sure we get it right. And if we are going to have a bonus system, let's
provide the bonus money to those States on the basis of their putting
together high-quality tests. That is what this amendment says: That
above and beyond timeliness, the other criterion, the criterion that is
so critically important, is that we have high-quality tests.
I say to Senators--and, by the way, I have a real question about
this; I have not decided this question in my own mind; I have not
decided what the right answer is--if we are going to mandate--I think
this is breathtaking, what we are doing here, frankly--if we are going
to mandate that every school district in every State test every kid,
then, at the very least, it is our obligation to make sure these tests
are done right so that they achieve the best effect.
Let's not give States an incentive to do low-quality tests which can
have such a damaging effect by rewarding them for rushing. What we
ought to reward States for is having high-quality tests, which means
they are comprehensive, which means they are coherent, which means we
are actually assessing the progress of students over a period of time.
I want to make it really clear that if we do not focus on high-
quality tests, we are asking for real trouble. I say to Senators,
before you vote on this amendment, if we do not provide a bonus payment
to States for high-quality tests, if we do not make that our priority,
and instead our emphasis is just on States rushing forward with any
kind of test, we will not be helping children or teachers or schools in
America; rather, we will be doing damage because if the only thing we
do, all in the name of ``reform,'' is to barrel down this path where
you have State after State after State being forced by the Federal
Government to do the testing, just taking off the shelf these
standardized tests, with no multiple measures, and not being related to
the curriculum that is taught, then we are going to have something
which amounts to what I call drill education.
Again, I am looking up at the gallery. I know there are students up
there. Students hate drill education. And they should hate drill
education. And teachers hate drill education. It is not real teaching,
and it is not real learning, to just sort of drill, drill, drill, and
have students memorize, memorize, memorize, and then have some simple
jingo standardized testing and nothing else.
I fear for where education is going to go if, at the very minimum, we
are not, in our work in the Senate, focusing on quality testing.
I also point out to my colleagues that there has been recently in the
New York Times--and, frankly, I wish the New York Times had done this 6
months ago, not just within the last several weeks--an excellent and a
very troubling series, of articles on the perils of testing.
I again mention to my colleagues that right now this legislation
encourages States to rush to develop their new annual tests so they can
receive bonuses from the Federal Government. What my amendment says is
that every State has to be on time. Not one Senator can say: Senator
Wellstone, you are trying to stop the testing. By the way, if it were
within my power, I might. I am not so sure we should be doing this. But
that is not what this amendment says. What this amendment says is that
every State is going to have to implement the testing, if we pass this
legislation, but if they do it, then they ought to receive a bonus from
the Federal Government for having high-quality tests. That is what this
amendment says.
This amendment, cosponsored by Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and
Senator Clinton, rewards those States that develop high-quality
assessments as gauged by a peer review process, rather than simply
speeding towards implementing tests with no consideration as to the
quality of these assessments.
In the New York Times articles, they point out, in a very crystal-
clear way, that quality matters. I want to just read from a couple of
these pieces in the New York Times.
I quote from a piece in the New York Times. This is on some of the
dangers of rushing:

Each customized test the State orders must be designed,
written, edited, reviewed by state educators, field-tested,
checked for validity and bias, and calibrated to previous
tests--an arduous process that requires a battery of people
trained in educational statistics and psychometrics, the
science of measuring mental function.
While the demand for such people is exploding, they are in
extremely short supply despite salaries that can reach into
the six figures, people in the industry said. ``All of us in
the business are very concerned about capacity''. . . .

What we have is people in the educational area saying: We are really
worried about whether or not we are going to be able to follow through
on this mandate. And there are all sorts of examples in different
States, from New York to Arizona to Minnesota, where either there have
been testing errors and kids have been kept back or have not graduated,
with unbelievably harsh consequences, or principals and teachers have
lost jobs, with the argument being that they were not able to teach
well when in fact, as it turns out, the tests were not reliable or
articles about teachers who were high-quality teachers who we would
want to teach in inner cities or in rural areas--the Presiding Officer
is from Maine--and who basically are now leaving the teaching
profession because they are saying, wait a minute; not only do we want
the resources but we certainly don't want to be forced to be involved
in drill education, just teaching to these simple standardized tests.
The New York Times, again, had several articles which pointed out
some of the real dangers.
The Washington Post had a piece February 10, 2001. I quote from one
of the pieces.

But 21 states test in three or fewer of the six grades,
according to the center, and under President Bush's plan
would have to at least double the number of students they
test annually.

Only seven States right now are testing every year in grades 3
through 8 in a way that is aligned with state standards; other States
do it every other year; some States, have not even met the requirements
set out in the 1994 law. What we are now going to say is every State,
every school district has to test every child every year. They are not
given any choice. Not only are we saying that, but we are also saying
there will be consequences based upon how the students do on those
tests.
There will be consequences in terms of additional money, in terms of
whether or not those schools will be sanctioned, in terms of whether or
not those schools will be told that they have to operate differently,
in which case, what my amendment is saying is: With this bonus system,
let's not provide bonuses for States for rushing, since we have example
after example after example of the abuse of testing and what can go
wrong. Let's provide bonuses to States on the basis of quality.
My definition of quality, which is based on a recent report by the
National Research Council, ``Knowing What Students Know'' and on other
sources such as the ``Professional Standards on Educational and
Psychological Testing'' is: A, the tests should be comprehensive and
not rely on just one single standardized test, B, the tests should be
coherent. The tests should test the curriculum being taught. Otherwise,
you have teachers in schools who have to teach to standardized tests
that have nothing to do with the curriculum being taught in a school
district in Maine or in Minnesota. That makes no sense whatsoever. And
C, you want to track the progress of a child over a period of time.

What this amendment says is, right now in the legislation, we have it
backwards; we are talking about providing

[[Page S5814]]

an incentive, a bonus, to States for rushing. My amendment says, even
though I have concerns about this Federal mandate, it is amazing: Here
I am, a liberal Democrat from the State of Minnesota--I don't think the
Chair would refer to me as a conservative Republican--and yet I am not
sure in my own mind--I mean this; I am not trying to be gimmicky--I am
not sure the Federal Government should mandate this. I am not sure we
really have any business telling every school, every school district,
every State, you have to test every child every year, 8-, 9-,
10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds. But that is almost beside the point.
With my amendment, what we are saying right now is, if we are going to
do it, let's do it the right way.
Last week, we passed, with 50 votes, an amendment which said this
testing needs to meet professional standards and that states have to
show that their tests are of adequate technical quality for each
purpose for which they are used. That is really important. What this
amendment says is, when we do the bonuses, let's be clear to the
States--all my colleagues who believe otherwise about testing, this is
not an amendment that says we don't have testing. Every State will have
to meet the deadline. Every State will have to meet the deadline by
2005. But what this amendment says is, on the bonus payment, let's give
the bonus payments to the States and to the school districts for high-
quality testing. That should be the criterion.
It makes no sense to say we give bonus money to States solely on the
basis of who does it first. Then you have everybody rushing. When
people rush, they might not get it right. If you don't get it right,
you don't have an accurate assessment. If we are going to do it, we had
better get it right; it had better not be inaccurate. Some of this
testing around the country has been inaccurate. As I said, the New York
Times had a whole series of articles about that. It had better be
accurate.
Secondly, if you are going to do it, it had better measure real
teaching and real learning and real education. Let's not put all of the
children and all of the schools and all of the teachers in America in a
straitjacket. Let's make sure they know that we are expecting and
support multiple measures. Let's make sure they know we want it to be
coherent and measure the curriculum they are teaching. Let's make sure
we are, indeed, measuring the progress of a child. Let's make sure it
is done the right way, in which case, let's have bonus payments that
provide the money and provide the additional payment and provide the
additional bonus to those States that are engaged in high-quality
testing.
That is what the amendment says. I could go on, but I think this is a
fairly accurate summary of my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as we have just heard from our good
friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, we are back on
legislation that the Senate is considering on support for elementary
and secondary education. I welcome the fact that we are on it, and am
very hopeful we will stay on it until we conclude. We have been on this
legislation in one way or the other probably for the better part of 4
or 5 weeks, but we have only been on it for a few days at a time.
As most of you understand, the reauthorization of ESEA is an
extremely important piece of legislation. It deserves the full time and
attention of the Senate. We had a series of amendments, and over the
Memorial Day recess we had the opportunity to go through the more than
200 amendments which were initially offered. We have been able to
dispose of 33 of those amendments, and we have a number of amendments
that will be withdrawn. Others are acceptable. And there still remain a
number that are still pending a vote on the floor of the Senate. We
want to get about the business of completing our work on education. I
welcome the fact that we are back on this legislation.
I will address the amendment we have before us in a moment or two,
but I do want to let our colleagues know that earlier in the afternoon
the President called a number of members of the Senate Education
Committee and a few others to the White House to talk about the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He indicated at that time that
the legislation, as it stands, would be acceptable to him, and he
didn't need to have it enhanced or altered or changed. He urged us to
get about the business of completing the reauthorization of ESEA.
I indicated to the President that we have been working diligently on
this legislation, and have been working in a bipartisan manner. We have
had the opportunity of working with the Secretary of Education and the
President's education advisers. And now we have a very important,
significant blueprint that can make a difference in the quality of
education for children in this country by building on the standards
which have been established by 49 of the States, by using high-quality,
meaningful assessments so that we know what children are learning,
particularly in the areas of math and literacy and, eventually, in 2007
and 2008, in science, and by using data from those assessments to
identify the strengths and weaknesses of students, and provide the
needed assistance for them to succeed.
We are going to hold the schools, communities, children, and parents
accountable. The point I made to the President was that I thought we in
Washington ought to be held accountable as well by ensuring that the
benefits of this legislation should be available to all the needy
children and not, as is currently the case, to just a third of the
children.
It has been our position from the beginning that with the changes
included in this legislation, we should fund the Title I program. Now
it is funded at a third. We ought to be able to fund it at two-thirds
next year and reach two-thirds of the children. Over the 4 years of
President Bush's Presidency, we ought to have a commitment to reach the
final third so that we will have the full funding of the Title I
education program that can be flexibly used by local communities. With
the provisions included in this legislation, we can provide a very
positive learning experience for every child.
We are not there yet. The President indicated we will continue to
have ongoing discussions, particularly as the Appropriations bills are
considered. He certainly has not ruled full funding of Title I out, but
he has not ruled it in.
We indicated that our position was supported by 79 Members of the
Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. I indicated to the President
that support for mandatory, full funding of IDEA, funding that helps
local communities to fund their special needs programs for children
with disabilities, has very broad bipartisan support. We are very
hopeful that any conference committee will once and for all provide for
full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is
a position supported by more than 70 percent of the Senate, a good
share of Republicans and Democrats alike.
In any event, we had a good exchange at the White House. We welcome
the President's strong support for our legislation, and we have every
intention of working to respond to Senator Daschle's strong desire to
make this legislation the first order of business. We ought to complete
this legislation. I urge our colleagues who have amendments to bring
them to our attention so that we can dispose of them in an orderly way.
As we return to our ongoing education debate here in the Senate, I
think it appropriate to review briefly what our pending legislation
does and its sources of inspiration.
Our goal in this bipartisan legislation has been to support proven,
effective reforms. Time and again we have seen individual schools
follow a similar path and achieve successful improvements in the
quality of education. This reform bill builds on that grassroots
experience.
The bill requires every child to be tested each year in grades 3-8 so
parents and educators alike will have better information on where their
children stand and what needs to be done to help them learn more
effectively.
The bill requires that students, schools, and school districts are
held to challenging academic standards. Low-achieving children will
receive additional help. Students in failing schools

[[Page S5815]]

will be free to transfer to other public schools or take advantage of
after-school supplementary tutoring. If a failing school does not turn
around in a reasonable number of years, it will be completely
reorganized.
The bill provides high-quality assessments aligned with State
standards that measure a full range of the child's learning. Off-the-
shelf, fill-in-the-bubble tests too often compromise the quality of
instruction and undermine genuine efforts for school improvements.
I salute the very strong efforts of the Senator from Minnesota in
making sure that tests are quality tests that challenge children and
positively affect the learning process, not just measure what they have
been able to memorize in a particular class. That is enormously
important. This legislation is going to be strengthened because of the
efforts of the Senator from Minnesota.

Parents and the public deserve to know not only where their children
stand, but also how their local schools and districts measure up.
Annual report cards are required at each level. Sunshine can be a
powerful force for change.
Our bill is strict in asking more of students, teachers, and schools
and in holding them accountable for their performance. Just as
important, the bill is intended to provide the resources that we know
are necessary for all of them to have a genuine chance for success.
Our bill provides support to reach the goal of a qualified teacher in
every classroom and a qualified principal in every school. Today, 39
percent of all teachers are teaching a subject in which they have no
undergraduate major or minor degree. Clearly, that figure is
unacceptable, and Congress can help do something about it.
Our bill revises and strengthens professional development programs to
provide teachers with year-long mentors, ongoing training in their
subject matter, and the best teaching methods and practices in child
development.
It offers additional support to school districts with high
concentrations of limited-English-proficient students to teach them
English and make sure they meet the same high academic standards we
expect all children to meet.
The bill expands the successful 21st Century Learning Centers Program
that does such an excellent job of offering worthwhile after-school
activities to students. Our goal is to reach every latch-key child over
the next 7 years to provide them with supplementary learning
opportunities after school that keep them off the streets, away from
the gangs, and out of trouble.
Our bill also provides full funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Twenty-five years ago, the Federal
Government promised to pay 40 percent of these costs, but we have never
met that promise. Today the figure is still only 15 percent. It is long
past time for Congress to meet its commitment to special needs
children.
Our bill's emphasis on better results and targeted resources comes
from experience at the grassroots. Those experiences demonstrate that
all schools can do better, not just the elite few.
Hundreds of successful local schools and school districts around the
country are making impressive strides in improving student achievement.
We can turn that number into thousands by helping guide the way. Many
challenged schools are already turning themselves around as a result of
reforms that focused on increased accountability linked to higher
standards and quality testing, early intervention for children who need
additional help, and adequate investments in proven reforms, especially
in high-needed areas.
Three schools that have recently reported improvements are excellent
examples. The Ashley Elementary School in Denver, Colorado, has an
almost 100-percent minority population with a 90-percent poverty rate.
It recently reported that since 1998, the number of third graders
meeting State reading standards had soared by 280 percent--280 percent.
After years of reported failure, the school was shut down and
reopened with new teachers and a new principal. Results of the Colorado
Student Assessment Program were carefully analyzed, and the entire
staff of the school signed on to a goal of raising student literacy
skills. As a result, literacy was emphasized in every subject and in
every class. Assessments of each student are monitored bimonthly.
Students who fall behind receive extra support quickly or new methods
of instruction. Every teacher gets professional development support
every week. Ninety-minute reading blocks were created with a class size
of 12 students per teacher, compared to 25 students per teacher in
1998.

Strict accountability, high-quality assessments, early intervention,
professional development, and class-size reduction--these are precisely
the types of proven reforms that will be strongly supported in the
pending legislation.
Another example is Humboldt Elementary School in Portland, Oregon,
which has been turned around with a similar combination of reforms. In
1997, only 17 percent of third grade Humboldt students and 10 percent
of fifth grade students met Oregon's benchmark scoring in reading.
Twenty-five percent of third graders and only 9 percent of fifth
graders met the math benchmark.
In the face of this serious challenge, the city of Portland shut down
and reconstituted the school. Two-thirds of the staff was reassigned. A
new principal was hired. Academic and performance expectations were
raised for all students. Class size was reduced from 28 to 1, to 21 to
1. All teachers now receive weekly professional development. Individual
student assessment results are analyzed regularly and learning needs
are diagnosed to respond to quickly. Eighty percent of Humboldt
children participate in afterschool learning programs. Humboldt found
out that reform costs money. In 1998, Portland added $540,000 to
Humboldt's budget to carry out their reconstitution program.
I will later provide examples of schools, in my State of
Massachusetts, that have experienced dramatic results when given the
necessary resources to succeed. In many cases, schools reversed low-
performance using less $540,000--the amount allocated to reversing low-
performance in the Humbolt budget. The New American Schools Corporation
estimates that it costs approximately $180,000 to implement a
comprehensive school reform model in a given school--often the first
step toward turning around low-performance. We have 10,000 failing
schools at the present time, which equates to $1.8 billion to begin the
process of turning around the nation's low-performing schools. If we
are committed a quality education for all of America's students, we
will include those resources in our legislation. Those resources have
not yet been included. We think they should be.
According to the Oregon assessment in 2000, the percentage of
Humboldt students meeting the State benchmark for academic performance
increased to 67 percent among third graders and 60 percent with fifth
graders. The percentage of third graders more than doubled, to 57
percent in math, and the percentage of fifth graders meeting the math
standard soared to 70 percent.
Another impressive example of a successful school is the Jeremiah
Burke High School in Dorchester, MA. Not long ago it was thought of as
a hopeless, high-poverty school, but it is turning itself around with
precisely the types of reforms emphasized in this current bill.
The Burke High School story was featured on the front page of the
Boston Globe of May 22: ``Dorchester School Gains Acceptance.'' I ask
unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Dorchester School Gains Acceptance

(By Anand Vaishnav)

Six years after the Jeremiah E. Burke High School lost its
accreditation--symbolizing both the decay of urban Boston and
the struggles of its public schools--the Dorchester school
has reached a new milestone: All eligible seniors in the
Class of 2001 have been accepted to two- or four-year
colleges.
``Now we have proof to show people what we can do,'' said
Shannon Phillips, who will attend the University of New
Hampshire.
In 1995, despite athletic prowess and school spirit, such
proof was hard to find. Academic and physical woes, from no
librarian to no drinking water, caused the New England
Association of Schools and Colleges to strip the Burke of its
accreditation, jeopardizing students' chances to get into
college.
With an infusion of new money, an exodus of teachers which
Headmaster Steven C. Leonard was able to replace with his own

[[Page S5816]]

picks, and the billy club of shame, the Burke gained its
certification back in 1998. Leonard then embarked on another
piece of the improvement puzzle: getting more students into
college.
``We just convinced them that they couldn't graduate until
they applied to college,'' Leonard said with a smile. ``We
were bluffing. But it worked.''
Whether the acceptance rate sets a new standard or is an
aberration is open to question. A five-year school district
agreement in 1996 promising more money for teachers,
maintenance, and counselors to get the Burke back on its feet
expire this year. And Mayor Thomas M. Menino, while touting
the school, said he can't promise to maintain its financing.
``I'm not going to say that,'' Menino said. ``But we're
going to continue the progress they've made. We're not going
to let the school go backwards.''
Boston School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant said the
likely scenario is gradually adding more students--the
school's enrollment has been kept below 700--while keeping
the money and staffing the Burke has had.
``There's not as much magic in the number of students as it
is the work they've learned to do with them.'' Payzant said.
The Class of 2001 with about 200 freshmen, and 172 became
seniors, a number whittled down by transfers, moves, and
dropouts. (The Burke's dropout rate is 13 percent, down from
17 percent five years ago, but still higher than the
district's dropout rate of 8 percent.)
Of the 172 seniors, 14 are in jail or a state juvenile
facility and won't graduate, Leonard said. Another four are
illegal immigrants and will graduate but can't attend college
because of their immigration status.
That leaves 154 graduates, many of whom are headed to
local community colleges, technical colleges, or state
universities such as a University of Massachusetts campus
or Bridgewater State College. A few are headed to Berklee
College of Music or Boston College, and some who got into
college are weighing the military instead.
So how did they get there?
Three years ago, with the accreditation dilemma solved,
Leonard began thinking of ways to boost the college-
acceptance rate. Last year, he made an application to college
part of the year-end ``portfolio'' all seniors must present
to graduate.
This year, he told teachers that he wanted students to move
beyond application to acceptance to a two- or four-year
college--and he made it clear to students that it was a
condition of receiving a diploma, even though it wasn't
enforceable by law.
``We are preparing kids so that if they don't go to
college, it's got nothing to do with us,'' Leonard said.
The Burke's guidance counselors and teachers then got to
work, badgering students about financial aid forms, asking
for essays, and introducing them to colleges they hadn't
considered.
Had it not been for the personal attention, students said,
they either would not have considered college or would not
have applied to as wide a variety of schools. Senior Melanie
Silva, who will attend Hesser College in New Hampshire,
recalled how her sophomore biology teacher, Ernest Coakley,
was relentless.
``He just stuck on me: `I want to see your personal
statement, I want to see your college application,' '' Silva
said. ``He's still on me.''
The City Council is expected to consider a congratulatory
resolution for the Burke tomorrow.
Yet some worry about the intense focus on college,
especially for students who simply aren't ready. Debra
Wilson, who has a son at the Burke and one who graduated in
1998, is ``ecstatic'' about the high college acceptance rate.
But she said she is concerned that the drive to get all
students into college comes at the expense of spending time
on other activities.
``We're losing sight of the student as a person, and a
student needs to be a fully rounded person,'' Wilson said.
``Sometimes we can overwhelm our children.''
Leonard says he will live with any choice a student makes.
But when he speaks to Burke students--and he interviews every
new one--he tells them there are 18 other Boston high schools
they can attend if college isn't in their cards.
As headmaster, Leonard said he now worries about
maintaining what the school has, and his concern is rooted in
history.
The schools' most recent renaissance was in the 1980s under
headmaster Albert Holland, who got much of the same money and
attention Leonard did. In 1991, budget cuts and rising
enrollment devastated the school, coinciding with a citywide
rise in youth violence that divided the school's hallways
into gang turf.
While losing accreditation was a powerful tool for
improvement, Leonard hopes the school's recent taste of
success is a stronger catalyst to sustain achievement.
``My constant energy drain,'' he said, ``is to hold
everything together long enough so that enough people will
realize that it's possible in the inner city.''

GOING TO COLLEGE
[The percentages of graduates of some area highs schools who will attend
two- or four-year colleges]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to
High school No. of college
graduates (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke (Boston).................................... 154 100
Billerica......................................... 331 84-86
Brockton.......................................... 700 76
Charlestown....................................... 192 81
Everett........................................... 338 96
St John's Prep (Danvers).......................... 268 99
Wayland........................................... 175 95
Wellesley......................................... 211 92
Westwood.......................................... 144 95
Weymouth.......................................... 395 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some percentages are approximate because data is still being
compiled.
Source: School districts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Burke High School lost its accreditation 6 years ago
because of low test scores. Only 36 percent of the senior class was
accepted into college. After doubling per pupil spending, hiring new
staff, and raising academic standards, the school regained its
accreditation in 1999.
Last year 62 percent of its seniors were accepted into college. This
year every eligible senior, 100 percent of the Class of 2001, was
accepted into a two or four year college. At Burke High School, no
child is left behind.
Burke High School is one of the most dramatic stories that has come
across our desk. I visited that school when it was facing enormous
problems. It is now doing extraordinarily well. It is a major
achievement and accomplishment.
The school's principal, Dr. Steven Leonard, attributes the turnaround
to sustained ongoing school-based professional development for
teachers. Teachers are trained outside the classroom, coached inside
the classroom, and have year-long mentors at the school. When the Burke
High School carefully analyzed its State test results, it discovered a
widespread and deep need throughout the school. Dr. Leonard then raised
more than $500,000 in 3 years from private sources to implement three
schoolwide professional development programs. Over 3 years, he was able
to spend a little over $125,000 a year for professional development for
that school.
We know what works. This legislation has the framework to make sure
that it can work for children across the country, but we also know it
takes the investment, the resources, to give life though these reforms.
The Jeremiah Burke High School is an extraordinary example. Teachers
have been trained to integrate literacy instruction throughout the
curriculum. Teachers have learned to use technology as an educational
supplement that enhances quality instruction instead of replacing it.
Each classroom is now connected to the Internet. Every teacher at Burke
participates in an ongoing professional development program that
encourages college application, including financial aid applications.
Every staff member at the school, not just guidance counselors, are
trained in the procedures for college admissions and financial aid
applications.
Last year, Dr. Leonard required a complete college application to be
a part of a year-end portfolio that all seniors must have in order to
graduate. This year, he has made college acceptance an informal
condition of graduation, and every child has measured up and met that
challenge. It is extraordinary. With the same type of skillful analysis
and hard work, every school can do the same.
In the education reform legislation before the Senate, we encourage
the same combination of high expectations, diagnostic testing, quality
teaching, high-tech classrooms, and after-school learning opportunities
that have worked at Burke High School in Massachusetts, Ashley
Elementary School in Colorado, Humboldt Elementary School in Oregon,
and scores of other schools such as these.
We authorize $11 billion in additional funding for next year alone so
new reforms can be launched in schools across the Nation and ongoing
reforms can be sustained.
This bill is solidly grounded in a vast amount of widely accepted
research and practical experience. If we continue to work together on a
bipartisan basis and enact this legislation, the real winners will be
students, schools, communities, States, and the whole Nation. Let's
finish the job we started so well.
On the Wellstone amendment, I want to indicate my strong support. I
agree we should be focusing on the use of tests that are of high
quality rather than how quickly they be developed. State assessments
are the base of new accountability system in Title I, and

[[Page S5817]]

we want assurance that the assessments are of high quality and an
accurate measure of what students know and can do.
I had the good opportunity last Friday morning to be at a conference
in Boston with 500 principals, teachers, and administrators of schools
who have been working in the whole area of academic enhancement for
children and accountability. This was a nonprofit organization that
works to promote standard-based reform. They found the States have
improved their standards in testing but they still have a way to go.
I agree with the Senator that their evaluation of what works for
children is enormously important. They have been at this for a long
period of time. There is no superior organization in this area. We
cannot afford to compromise the quality of assessment at the expense of
quickly developing the test.
The Administration has wanted to make sure we are going to create
incentives in the States to move toward accountability. That is an
admirable desire. However, we want to make sure that accountability
systems are tied to quality tests. That is what the Senator's amendment
is all about. I believe it is completely consistent with what the
objectives of this bill are. It will also provide the assessment on the
basis of the content standard more effectively than the off-the-shelf
tests, which in too many instances are being taught to. We cannot
afford to compromise the quality of assessments at the expense of
quickly developing tests.
I heard the Senator talk about the mistakes. Most of us have read the
New York Times article on the tests that were given in New York City
and the mistakes that were made and how this disadvantaged children as
well as principals as well as the school administrator and how the
company still claims they have 99.997 percent accuracy. But just that
amount of failure resulted in dramatic adverse developments for
students as well as for teachers and administrators.

In my State of Massachusetts, there are several quality control
measures in place to ensure reliability in the scoring of the MCAS
test, our State assessment. Aside from the contract on assessment
outside of the State, the results of all MCAS tests are also
independently reviewed by testing experts at the University of
Massachusetts. In addition to soliciting an additional review of the
tests from the University, Massachusetts also trains its teachers, who
are well-versed in the State standards, in the scoring of the MCAS.
Teachers in Massachusetts review at least 25% of the test questions,
including all of the written compositions in English language arts.
Teachers are trained in the rubric and scoring process for a week-long
period every July.
Massachusetts' example illustrates the points made by the Senator
from Minnesota regarding the need for ensuring quality in the test
development and administration. We cannot afford to compromise the
quality of assessment at the expense of quickly developing tests.
Developing a high-quality assessment, even in just one subject for one
grade, is a lengthy process. According to experts on test development,
there are eight basic steps in the test development process. They are
as follows:
Defining the purpose for which the test is being developed; convening
a technical committee to work with the States to write test
specifications and determine the content and form of the test;
developing and reviewing the questions and ideas on the test;
conducting pretesting to ensure fairness, reliability, and accuracy of
items on the test; data analysis and test assembly to make sure the
test is aligned with the required subject matter and skills; and test
administration and the development of accommodations for students with
special needs.
I see my friend and colleague from Maine in the chair. I know she is
very familiar with these activities because the State of Maine is one
of the States which has given an enormous amount of attention to all
these matters of testing and also with regard to special needs
children.
The steps also include developing scoring changes and cut points
associated with proficiency levels; and analysis of specifications and
readjustment and realignment of items. States should not be encouraged
to rush through this process but should take the time to develop
assessments of high quality. States should be rewarded for taking the
time to develop valid and reliable measures of what students know and
can do.
Good tests work. They provide us with information on student
performance, help educators identify the needs of individual students,
and measures our impact on working to change schools and turn around
low-performing schools. However, while 15 States have developed tests
in third through eighth grade math and reading, only seven States use
high-quality tests that are aligned with academic standards in those
subject areas. We should encourage States to use that time to develop
quality assessments rather than develop assessments quickly.
Awarding bonuses for the quality of assessment is consistent with our
commitment to help States improve the quality of their tests. The
Senate passed the Wellstone amendment to enhance the quality of test
assessments by a vote of 50-47. We should continue to encourage States
to improve the format of their tests, align the tests to standards, and
employ multiple measures so the tests are reliable measures of what
students know and can do.

I strongly support the amendment offered by my friend from Minnesota.
In this bill, we establish standards that define what we expect
children to know each year. Then, we establish assessments to provide
for the evaluation of that knowledge. High academic standards and
quality assessments go hand in hand.
We hope to avoid what is happening in too many States. That is,
curriculum is not aligned to high standards, and tests are not aligned
to high standards. When this happens, we risk compromising student's
learning. We risk having teachers teaching to tests because they don't
want to have a bad record of their students not being able to perform.
That is not what this legislation is about.
Senator Wellstone has spent a good deal of time trying to make sure
that this legislation includes high-quality assessments, and that it
accomplishes our goal of improving student learning. I thank him and
commend him for the excellent work he has done in this whole area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will just take a few minutes. I
thank the Senator from Massachusetts and thank him for being a
cosponsor of this amendment.
Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the series of articles in
the New York Times, and also a very interesting piece in the Atlanta
Journal titled ``Teachers Find Flaws in State Test's Science Part.''
I thank Senator Feingold for his support as an original cosponsor of
this amendment and Senators Kennedy and Clinton for their support as
cosponsors as well.
To remind my colleagues, since it has been a long time since this
amendment was first introduced, this amendment is very non-
controversial. It says that instead of the bill's language, which would
reward states solely based on how quickly they finish their
assessments, the Secretary should instead reward states that develop
the highest quality assessments. The awards would be granted through a
peer review system. We should not be giving states an incentive to rush
on such an important issue. We have to give more incentives to improve
the quality of the assessments.
This amendment really goes back to why we are measuring student
achievement in the first place and what are our goals in setting up the
accountability systems we have. Are we measuring for the sake of
measuring only, or are we measuring to get the best picture of how our
children are doing? If we want to get the best picture of how students
are doing, we need to have the best possible assessments. They need to
be aligned with standards. They need to be free from bias. They need to
reflect both the range and depth of student knowledge and assess not
just memorized responses, but student reasoning and understanding. This
is exactly what my amendment on the quality and fairness of State
assessments that was passed earlier in the

[[Page S5818]]

consideration of this bill is all about. That is what this amendment is
about. If there is anybody who thinks that speed is more important than
quality, please, vote against this amendment. Please, come down and
debate me on it. I would be happy to.
I was happy to see that Secretary of Education Paige also agrees that
tests need to be high quality. He wrote that state assessments must be
tied to the state standards and curriculum in his Washington Post op-ed
that was published a couple of weeks ago. Secretary Paige writes: ``A
good test--the kind the president and I support--is aligned with the
curriculum so that schools know whether children are actually learning
the material that their states have decided a child should know.'' I
would like to thank the Secretary for this statement, and based on it,
I would hope that he and the administration and every Member of the
Senate would support this amendment.
Let me review quickly my statements here on the floor before the
recess about the key components of high-quality and fair assessments.
The standards used by experts in the field--as laid out in the recent
National Research Council Report ``Knowing What Students Know''--in
analyzing assessment quality are summed up in three questions:
Are the assessments comprehensive? That is, do they use multiple
measures to capture the complexity of student learning rather than rote
memorization of test content?
Are the assessments continuous? That is, do they capture student
learning across time?
Finally, are the assessments coherent? That is, do they measure what
is actually being taught in the curriculum?
So, based on Secretary Paige's comments, there now seems to be some
agreement that the new state assessments need to be high-quality and
fair. But, anyone working in the field of educational assessment will
tell you that high-quality assessments take a long time to develop.
They require a deliberative process. They should not be rushed.
It seems odd that, in this context, we would reward states simply
because they finish their assessments quickly. If in fact, seems like
an incentive for people not to spend time developing, improving and
perfecting their assessments, but rather to take the easy way out. If
they do, they can get a reward. If they do not, they get nothing.
This would be extremely problematic, because all the research
indicates that we need to move toward higher quality assessments, not
lower quality assessments. I believe that those states that invest
resources in the very expensive endeavor of developing high-quality
exams that reflect state standards should be rewarded for the value
judgment that they have made.
The Independent Review Panel on title I which was mandated in the
1994 Reauthorization issued its report ``Improving the Odds'' this
January. The report concluded that:

Many States use assessment results from a single test--
often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests
may have an important place in state assessment systems, they
rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge reflected
in state content standards.

The Panel went on to make a strong recommendation. It said:

Better assessments for instructional and accountability
purposes are urgently needed.

Further, as Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve, Inc., the
nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform movement recently said:

You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if
you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests . . .
Tests have taken on too prominent of a role in these reforms
and that's in part because of people rushing to attach
consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have
really gotten the tests right.

That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. ``Quality
Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the United
States, also concludes, ``In to many states, the tests still focus to
much on low level multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with
the standards they are designed to measure.''
Low quality assessments can actually do more harm than good. I would
like to quote from the National Standards on Educational and
Psychological Testing. The standards state:

The proper use of tests can result in wiser decisions about
individuals and programs than would be the case without their
use and also can provide a route to broader and more
equitable access to education and employment. The improper
use of tests, however, can cause considerable harm to the
test takers and other parties affected by test-based
decisions.

It is our obligation to see that tests are done right so that they
achieve the best effect. Let's not give states an incentive to do low
quality tests, which can have such a damaging effect, by offering them
an award for rushing.
The National Standards state that this is our obligation. The
Standards say:

Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to
consider any potential unintended effects that may result
from large scale testing programs. Concerns have been raised
for instance about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on
the objectives tested, restricting the range of instructional
approaches to correspond to the testing format, increasing
the number of dropouts among students who do not pass the
test, and encouraging other instructional or administrative
practices that may raise test scores without effecting the
quality of education. It is important for those who mandate
tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to
identify and minimize the potential of negative consequences.

Let's enhance our accountability systems by trying to enhance the
quality of assessments so we can avoid the negative outcomes described
in the Standards and more accurately measure what students know and can
do. This way we can more effectively use tests for their best purpose:
to diagnose students' needs and help students improve.
I urge support for this amendment, for quality and for better reform.

Amendment No. 465, As Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to send my
modified amendment to the desk. Basically what this amendment does,
Madam President, is it makes crystal clear the bonus payments will go
to States--first of all, they have to meet the deadline. I don't want
colleagues to think I am giving States any way of not meeting the
deadlines.
Second, the other requirement is that the bonus goes to States that
develop assessments that most successfully assess the range and depth
of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State performance
standards in each academic subject on which the States are required to
conduct their assessments. There will be a peer review. I send my
modified amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, (No. 465) as modified, is as follows:

On page 776, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the
following:
``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--
``(1) In general.--At the end of school year 2006-2007, the
Secretary shall make 1-time bonus payments to States that
develop State assessments by the deadline established under
1111(b)(3)(F) and as required under section 1111(b)(3)(F)
that are of particularly high quality in terms of assessing
the performance of students in grades 3 through 8. The
Secretary shall make the awards to States that develop
assessments that most successfully assess the range and depth
of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State
performance standards, in each academic subject in which the
State is required to conduct the assessments.
``(2) Peer review.--In making awards under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall use a peer review process.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I think the Senator from
Massachusetts has said it well. I will have more to say about this
overall education bill later on, but this is all in the spirit of
trying to improve this bill. I hope there will be a lot of support for
this amendment. So far no one has come out on the floor of the Senate
to debate the amendment, and we are going to have a vote actually at
5:30 or thereabouts, or we think we will. If not, we will have a vote
tomorrow.
We all have our expertise. I don't even want to say--it is a little
presumptuous. I don't know that I am the expert, but 20 years of my
adult life was education. I take it seriously. I happen to have been
someone who did not do well on some of these standardized tests. I know
the danger of relying on just one standardized test. I think the
amendment that was agreed to last week was important. We do want to
have multiple measures, and I think we do want to have a relationship
between

[[Page S5819]]

the tests and the curriculum being taught.
The only thing this amendment does is say: Look, let's be clear. All
States have to meet the deadline. I am sure those of my colleagues who
are all for mandatory tests would insist on that. I am not going to
disagree at all. But I am saying let's give the bonus to States for
high-quality tests. That is really what we want to reward. That is what
we are trying to push.
If we are going to do this, let's make sure we are doing an accurate
assessment of how the children are doing. If this is all being done in
the name of accountability, that is to say we want to know how children
are doing in different schools in America, then let's make sure we have
the best assessment. That is all this amendment says. Let's have a
bonus payment that goes in the direction of nurturing and promoting the
best possible assessment.
It is a good amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Collins has an amendment also
dealing with the issue of testing. When she arrives on the floor, I
will yield the floor. I want to make some additional comments regarding
funding and why I think it is so important.
At the present time, we are only reaching about a third of all the
children who are eligible. Listen to this. This is with regard to my
State of Massachusetts. I will try by the end of the week to have a
similar kind of breakdown for all the other States because I believe
they will find that their situation is very similar.
In the 1999-2000 school year, the supplemental Title I funding for
disadvantaged children went to 980 out of the 1,900 Massachusetts
elementary schools. But because of insufficient Federal funding, 624
Massachusetts schools with poverty rates in excess of 30 percent
received zero in Title I education aid.
That is part of the problem. In 600 schools, 30 percent of their
children are Title I eligible, and they receive virtually no funding
whatsoever.
This is part of our dilemma in terms of wanting to make sure there is
a range of different support services, the kinds of requirements that
are going to be necessary in terms of well-qualified teachers,
professional development and mentoring for teachers, and after-school
programs.
If we are serious about doing the job, doing it right and doing it
well, we want to try to put ourselves on a glide path to full funding
of Title I. Maybe we can't reach all of the children overnight. We
understand that. We ought to be able to move ourselves on a glide path
so we can look at all the children and, most importantly, their
parents, and say that over the life of this legislation we are going to
be able to assure those parents that their children who are ineligible
for the program are going to get the support and the help and
assistance they need.
As you well know, Madam President, this is not the beginning of the
pathway in terms of the academic achievement and accomplishment of
children. We are looking against a background where the Head Start
Program is funded at about 40 percent. We are going to find that some
children are going to be coming up with the Head Start Programs and go
into the Title I programs which are funded, and will get into
supplementary services, and to the extent that these kinds of support
elements make an important difference--and they do make an important
difference--they are going to be helped and assisted.
But we are going to find, in the same way, that a majority of
children who are otherwise eligible for Title I are not going to
benefit and then will go to school and fail to get help and assistance.
It is going to be extremely difficult to think we are making an
important difference in their lives and enhancing their ability in
reading and in math.
Almost every study and review--most recently, the Institute of
Medicine review of January of this last year--talks about the
development of the neurons in children's brains and the importance in
these first 3 years in terms of being able to sort of stimulate the
interest of the children in various kinds of activities, hoping to stir
the elements in the children's brains so they open them up in ways that
they will be more receptive to the learning experience--we know this
medically from all of these various studies.
The Carnegie Commission report has pointed these out for the last 10
years. Yet we still do not give that kind of intervention, support, and
effort that we should and that we know makes an important difference.
I think many of us are very hopeful that we can see investment in
these early years, then we have further support in terms of the Head
Start Program. We have further to go in funding the special needs
program for children with disabilities, and further to go in terms of
funding the Title I program for disadvantaged children.
As the Chair understands, we will end up actually saving resources. I
know the Chair is familiar with all of the studies that were done at
the end of World War II on the GI bill where they estimated that for
every $1 invested in education, the Federal Treasury got $8 back in
enhanced earnings by those who received those programs. Investing in
these children, in terms of savings and other social costs, is more
than predictable. It is certain. We believe we have legislation that
moves us very strongly in that direction. That is particularly why we
are so strong in terms of wanting to get the funding for these
programs.
For the benefit of the Members, we will consider the Wellstone
amendment tomorrow and probably begin the discussion. We will have an
exact unanimous consent request in a few moments.
For the benefit of the Members, as I understand it, we are coming in
at about 11:00 a.m. and will be dealing with some necessary measures
and we will then come back to the bill at approximately 11:30 a.m. We
will have 20 minutes on the Wellstone amendment and then vote. We will
follow that with consideration of the amendment of the Senator from
Maine, Ms. Collins.

Amendments Nos. 445, 453, as modified; 470, 473, 503, 506, 508, 598,
625, and 631, en bloc

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in the meantime, I have a package of
cleared amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for
these amendments to be considered en bloc and that any modifications,
where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to, and the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.
For the information of the Senate, these amendments are the DeWine
amendment No. 445; the Ensign amendment No. 453, as modified; the
Roberts amendment No. 470; the Landrieu amendment No. 473; the Bennett
amendment No. 503; the Collins amendment No. 506; the Collins amendment
No. 508; the Sessions amendment No. 598; the Wyden amendment No. 625;
and the Levin amendment No. 631.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The amendments are agreed
to, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 445, 453, as modified, 470, 473, 503, 506, 508,
598, 625, and 631) were agreed to en bloc, as follows:

amendment no. 445

(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1994 with respect to mentoring)

On page 514, line 21, insert ``, such as mentoring
programs'' before the semicolon.
On page 516, line 15, insert ``mentoring providers,'' after
``providers,''.
On page 517, line 5, insert ``and mentoring programs''
before the semicolon.
On page 537, line 10, insert ``, mentoring'' after
``services''
On page 550, line 15, insert ``mentoring,'' after
``mediation,''.
____

amendment no. 453, as modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the benefits of
music and arts education)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF MUSIC
AND ARTS EDUCATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--

[[Page S5820]]

(1) there is a growing body of scientific research
demonstrating that children who receive music instruction
perform better on spatial-temporal reasoning tests and
proportional math problems;
(2) music education grounded in rigorous academic
instruction is an important component of a well-rounded
academic program;
(3) opportunities in music and the arts have enabled
children with disabilities to participate more fully in
school and community activities;
(4) music and the arts can motive at-risk students to stay
in school and become active participants in the educational
process;
(5) according to the College Board, college-bound high
school seniors in 1998 who received music or arts instruction
scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the
Scholastic Aptitude test and 43 points higher on the math
portion of the test than college-bound seniors without any
music or arts instruction;
(6) a 1999 report by the Texas Commission on Drug and
Alcohol Abuse states that individuals who participated in
band, choir, or orchestra reported the lowest levels of
current and lifelong use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit
drugs; and
(7) comprehensive sequential music education instruction
enhances early brain development and improves cognitive and
communicative skills, self-discipline, and creativity.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) music and arts education enhances intellectual
development and enriches the academic environment for
children of all ages; and
(2) music and arts educators greatly contribute to the
artistic, intellectual, and social development of the
children of our Nation, and play a key role in helping
children to succeed in school.
____

amendment no. 470

(Purpose: Relating to mathematics and science)

On page 344, line 9, insert ``engineering,'' before
``mathematics''.
On page 344, line 17, strike ``a'' and insert ``an
engineering''.
On page 344, line 22, insert ``engineering,'' before
``mathematics''.
On page 345, line 7, insert ``or high-impact public
coalition composed of leaders from business, kindergarten
through grade 12 education, institutions of higher education,
and public policy organizations'' before the period.
On page 347, line 10, insert ``or a consortium of local
educational agencies that include a high need local education
agency'' before the period.
On page 347, line 18, strike ``an'' and insert ``the
results of a comprehensive''.
On page 347, line 22, strike the semicolon and insert: ``,
and such assessment may include, but not be limited to, data
that accurately represents--
``(A) the participation of students in advanced courses in
mathematics and science,
``(B) the percentages of secondary school classes in
mathematics and science taught by teachers with academic
majors in mathematics and science, respectively,
``(C) the number and percentage of mathematics and science
teachers who participate in content-based professional
development activities, and
``(D) the extent to which elementary teachers have the
necessary content knowledge to teach mathematics and science;
On page 349, line 6, strike the period and insert ``through
the use of--
``(A) recruiting individuals with demonstrated professional
experience in mathematics or science through the use of
signing incentives and performance incentives for mathematics
and science teachers as long as those incentives are linked
to activities proven effective in retaining teachers;
``(B) stipends to mathematics teachers and science teachers
for certification through alternative routes;
``(C) scholarships for teachers to pursue advanced course
work in mathematics or science; and
``(D) carrying out any other program that the State
believes to be effective in recruiting into and retaining
individuals with strong mathematics or science backgrounds in
the teaching field.
On page 350, line 4, insert ``engineers and'' before
``scientists''.
On page 350, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
``(9) Designing programs to identify and develop
mathematics and science master teachers in the kindergarten
through grade 8 classrooms.
``(10) Performing a statewide systemic needs assessment of
mathematics, science, and technology education, analyzing the
assessment, developing a strategic plan based on the
assessment and its analysis, and engaging in activities to
implement the strategic plan consistent with the authorized
activities in this section.
``(11) Establishing a mastery incentive system for
elementary school or secondary school mathematics or science
teachers under which--
``(A) experienced mathematics or science teachers who are
licensed or certified to teach in the State demonstrate their
mathematics or science knowledge and teaching expertise,
through objective means such as an advanced examination or
professional evaluation of teaching performance and classroom
skill including a professional video;
``(B) incentives shall be awarded to teachers making the
demonstration described in subparagraph (A);
``(C) priority for such incentives shall be provided to
teachers who teach in high need and local educational
agencies; and
``(D) the partnership shall devise a plan to ensure that
recipients of incentives under this paragraph remain in the
teaching profession.
____

amendment no. 473

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning a freeze in the
existing postal rates charged with respect to educational materials
sent to schools, libraries, literacy programs, and early childhood
development programs)

On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING POSTAL RATES FOR
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the President and Congress both agree that education is
of the highest domestic priority;
(2) access to education is a basic right for all Americans
regardless of age, race, economic status or geographic
boundary;
(3) reading is the foundation of all educational pursuits;
(4) the objective of schools, libraries, literacy programs,
and early childhood development programs is to promote
reading skills and prepare individuals for a productive role
in our society;
(5) individuals involved in the activities described in
paragraph (4) are less likely to be drawn into negative
social behavior such as alcohol and drug abuse and criminal
activity;
(6) a highly educated workforce in America is directly tied
to a strong economy and our national security;
(7) the increase in postal rates by the United States
Postal Service in the year 2000 for such reading materials
sent for these purposes was substantially more than the
increase for any other class of mail and threatens the
affordability and future distribution of such materials;
(8) failure to provide affordable access to reading
materials would seriously limit the fair and universal
distribution of books and classroom publications to schools,
libraries, literacy programs and early childhood development
programs; and
(9) the Postal Service has the discretionary authority to
set postal rates.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that, since educational materials sent to schools, libraries,
literacy programs, and early childhood development programs
received the highest postal rate increase in the year 2000
rate case, the United States Postal Service should freeze the
rates for those materials.
____

amendment no. 503

(Purpose: To amend the eligibility requirements for the rural education
initiative to account for geographic isolation)

On page 649, line 4, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(1)(A)''.
On page 649, line 6, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
On page 649, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(B) each county in which a school served by the local
educational agency is located has a total population density
of less than 10 persons per square mile; and''.
On page 651, line 3, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(1)(A)''.
On page 651, line 5, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
On page 651, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
``(B) each county in which a school served by the local
educational agency is located has a total population density
of less than 10 persons per square mile; and''.
____

amendment no. 506

(Purpose: To provide that funds for teacher quality activities may be
used to encourage men to become elementary school teachers)

On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(12) Funding projects and carrying out programs to
encourage men to become elementary school teachers.
____

amendment no. 508

(Purpose: To amend the Small, Rural School Achievement Program to allow
funds to be used for local innovative education programs)

On page 648, line 18, strike ``or 4116'' and insert ``4116,
or 5331(b)''.
On page 650, line 25, strike ``or 4116'' and insert ``4116,
or 5331(b)''.
____

amendment no. 598

(Purpose: To encourage the study of the Declaration of Independence,
United States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers)

At the appropriate place insert the following:

``SEC. . THE STUDY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS.

``It is the sense of Congress that--
``(1) State and local governments and local educational
agencies are encouraged to dedicate at least 1 day of
learning to the study

[[Page S5821]]

and understanding of the significance of the Declaration of
Independence, the United States Constitution, and the
Federalist Papers; and
``(2) State and local governments and local educational
agencies are encouraged to include a requirement that, before
receiving a certificate or diploma of graduation from
secondary school, students be tested on their competency in
understanding the Declaration of Independence, the United
States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.''
____

amendment no. 625

(Purpose: To provide a technical correction)

On page 648, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the
following:
``(1) to carry out chapter 1--
``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years; and ``(2) to carry out chapter 2--
``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years.''.
____

amendment no. 631

(Purpose: To allow literacy grant funds to be used for humanities-based
family literacy programs)

On page 189, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
``(6) Prime time family reading time.--A State that
receives a grant under this section may expend funds provided
under the grant for a humanities-based family literacy
program which bonds families around the acts of reading and
using public libraries.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment to the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act that will make a minor
but important technical change to the Rural Education Initiative,
located in Title V of the bill. The Rural Education Initiative directs
funds to school districts that lack the personnel and resources needed
to compete for Federal competitive grants and often receive formula
allocations in amounts too small to be effective in meeting their
intended purposes.
As the bill is currently drafted, districts must meet two
requirements to qualify for grants under this program. One of these
requirements is that the district must have less than 600 students.
This requirement poses a problem for many States that have
geographically large districts. For instance, in my home State of Utah,
there are only 40 school districts. Compare this to States of similar
or smaller geographic size, some of which have more than 500 districts.
The result is that many districts in States like Utah have more than
600 students and therefore fail to qualify for rural assistance,
despite the fact that these districts may be in the most rural parts of
the State. I have been to these districts. If the members of this body
were to travel with me to Beaver School District in Beaver, Utah, they
would find it hard to dispute the fact that Beaver is a rural district.
But the students in Beaver School District will not receive any
assistance under the Rural Education Initiative as it is currently
written.
I do not wish to argue the merits of large districts versus small
districts. The way a State chooses to run its educational system is
rightly left up to State and local education authorities. However,
Congress should not be in the business of penalizing States based on
their educational systems.
My amendment alters the Rural Education Initiative to include an
either/or provision that will allow districts to qualify in one of two
ways: a district must have less than 600 students or must have a total
population density of less than ten people per square mile. This minor
change will allow a handful of school districts that do not currently
qualify to become eligible for funding under this provision. It is
important to note that no school district currently qualifying under
the Rural Education Initiative will be disqualified by my amendment.
However, this change will have a serious impact on places like Beaver,
Utah, and on many other rural school districts around the country.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank colleagues for their cooperation.
We are going to continue to work closely with our Members to try to
move this process forward, and to do it in a timely way that will
permit our colleagues, obviously, to speak to these measures where
necessary and permit us to dispose of the amendments where necessary.
But we do want to move ahead. I have every expectation we will have an
opportunity to clear additional amendments tomorrow as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding, therefore, that for the balance of
the evening we will simply participate in general debate on the bill
and that tonight no more amendments will be offered to the bill.
Tomorrow, as the Senator from Massachusetts has represented, there will
be 20 minutes of debate equally divided when we go back to the bill, at
which time there will be a vote on the Wellstone amendment, followed by
the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a unanimous consent request?
Mr. GREGG. That is not a unanimous consent request. That is just a
summary of where we are. We are waiting for the formal written document
to make it clear that I did not make any mistakes, and pending that, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes consideration of the education bill on Wednesday, there
be 20 minutes of debate on the Wellstone amendment equally divided with
no amendments in order to the amendment. I further ask unanimous
consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate
proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment. I further ask
unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate then begin
consideration of the Collins amendment No. 509.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________