Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the afternoon is moving along, but we are making some progress. Even as we are trying to find some areas of common ground, let me just respond specifically to the Senator from Tennessee on his provisions in this and on his statement that the criteria in this results in greater performance standards than in Title I. It is difficult to see that, because, under the provisions under Title I, the State has developed and implemented the challenging State content standard, challenging student performance standards and aligned assessments described in the Elementary/Secondary Act, and therefore it has content standards and performance standards included, while, in this legislation, Ed-Flex, it says, ``made substantial progress as determined towards development.'' So, I think we are headed in the right direction, but I don't want anyone to think we have tougher standards in this particular proposal than we do in the underlying Title I. Specifically in the managers' package, on page 3, you have findings: To achieve the State goals for the education of children in the State, the focus must be on results in raising the achievement of all students, not process. I agree. Amen. That is exactly what we want to try to use as a measurable fact. But it is only a finding, it is not part of the operative language. This is a good idea, and that is exactly what we are trying to do, to make sure that we are going to have the students' achievement and performance, as we have outlined in the earlier debate. Managers' amendment, page 6, says an ``Eligible State'' is a State that: . . . waives State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to education while holding local educational agencies or schools within the State that are affected by such waivers accountable for the performance of the students who are affected by such waivers. We want to see the whole State, not just the local communities. We are able to take what the Senator has put as a finding--and we agree and put that into language--and to make sure that the State is going to have compliance, that particular provision says that a State will hold local districts accountable for results. It does nothing to say that the State will evaluate whether they have done so. It does nothing more to ensure that the State's overall waiver plans to achieve student achievement. If we have that, we have solved at least the major problem. Look at page 9 in the managers' package, ``Local Application'' shall: . . . describe for each school year, specific, measurable, educational goals, which may include progress toward increased school and student performance, for each local educational agency or school affected by the proposed waiver. . . . We could solve at least one part of this by instead of saying ``may include'' saying ``shall include.'' ``Shall include.'' All we are trying to do is to make sure that--while giving the States and local communities flexibility--the fundamental purpose of Title I is going to be achieved for the reasons that have been illustrated in the very impressive report that has come out in the last 2 days about the successes of Title I. We want to make sure when we are providing this, that the principal criterion is going to be student achievement, and that is what we are going to do. The words are used but we do not find it applicable, in terms of the statewide program. As I say here on page 9: Local application shall describe for each school year specific measurable educational goals which may include progress toward increased school and student performance. . . . Isn't this all about the performance of the children? Isn't that what we are attempting to achieve? That is why we are spending the resources, to enhance the students' performance. That is what we are doing. As we are prepared to see greater flexibility, we are simply saying: Okay, you get the flexibility, all we are asking for is student performance and achievement. That is what the basic debate on this is. In the managers' package, on page 11 on State waiver approval, it says: A State educational agency shall not approve an application for a waiver under this paragraph unless . . . the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements as described in paragraph (1)(A) will assist the local educational agency or school in reaching its educational goals, particularly goals with respect to school and student performance. This, again, applies to the LEA rather than the States. Just to sum up, Mr. President, for those who support our particular amendment, all we are saying is, yes, we will have the flexibility, but in giving the flexibility, there is some assurance that there will be an improvement in student performance and student achievement, as measured by the State plan, not by the Federal plan, but by what Alabama wants to do or what Massachusetts wants to do or what Vermont wants to do. They are setting their plans. All we are saying is, according to your own State plan, that we are going to have measurable results in terms of the performance. That is what this amendment is really about. We have the example which we have gone over in terms of Texas where they have spelled out exactly what they are going to do. It has been enormously impressive, and the students have made very significant and important gains. And that example is being replicated by other communities. The parents understand it. The parents know what is happening in their particular schools, and they are able to make some judgments about it. Mr. President, this is what we are all working towards. I wanted to get back into reviewing, very briefly, the absolutely splendid independent evaluation that has just been released this past week on title I and their conclusions. Those will be valuable for our Education Committee as we are looking over ESEA. They have made some very, very important recommendations, and we ought to be responsive to those. One of their very key elements is to do the evaluation in terms of student performance. We have that. I will go back into it at another time, Mr. President, but I see my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, on the floor, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 32 To Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To preserve accountability for funds under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

Mr. KENNEDY. I just wanted to give the assurance to--if you will yield 15 seconds--to the Senator from Maine, as far as I am concerned, she is always effective, whether it is that clear voice that comes out from the northeast part of the country, we always listen and take great care what she says.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is really all we are saying. We are taking Federal resources--resources that will go into the States and to the local communities--and communities are going to use these resources in ways that are going to be consistent with the overall purpose, which is targeting the needy children, and, over 5 years at least, there will be some progress in student achievement according to what the State has established. Would the Senator agree with me that an example which incorporates what we are intending to do is in the State of Texas, which has set numerical criteria that are closely tied to both schools and districts, and the specific students affected by the waiver? Texas expects all districts that receive waivers under Title I to make annual gains on test scores so that in 5 years 90 percent of all the students will pass State assessment tests in reading and mathematics. Texas districts must make annual gains so at the end of the same 5 years, 90 percent of African American students, 90 percent of Hispanic students, 90 percent of white students, 90 percent of economically disadvantaged students will pass these tests. Now, there is something specific. The State establishes the criteria. They say we want the flexibility to be able to do it, and we say fine. What we have found out is that they have made great academic achievement and progress for those students. We have another State of the 12 that says on their waiver, ``We want a commitment to the identification and implementation of programs that will create an environment in which all students achieve academic potential.'' They got the waiver, they got the resources, and it will be a bold Secretary of Education that is going to terminate or take that away. What we are trying to say is, as Texas has done right from the very beginning, it has got to be very specific. The State establishes their criteria and they have proposed measurable ways of evaluating whether those students are going to achieve. And they have met all their goals so far. Why do we have to spend so much time in this Chamber saying that makes a good deal of sense? We know it is something that is working. Why don't we try to accept it? That is all we are looking for--for the words ``student achievement'' to be included in the criteria. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to say how much I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island. Student achievement is measured by the individual State's program. I think it is important that we underline that student achievement is measured by what is happening in the States, not by some Federal standard. That is all we are asking. The State establishes its criteria, and all we are saying is if you are going to get the additional flexibility and you are going to get the resources, that at some place someone ought to know whether the students are achieving and making progress.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. We are all mindful that our good friend and colleague is a leader in this body in many areas, but when it comes to children's interests, he is truly our leader. And on the issue of afterschool programs, Senator Boxer has been in the forefront of that effort. We look forward to having a good debate on that issue as we move ahead as well. I thank the Senator very much for his involvement. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to consider that in the next day or so. That is certainly our hope because it is a matter of enormous importance.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an opportunity to address the fundamental issue which is on the minds of most families in this country--certainly the working families in this Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the critical issues facing our public schools-- whether our children are going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government. So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able to have greater flexibility at the local level. The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I programs. Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing to do it. During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the early grades. We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue. The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue. Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves involved in behavior which is inappropriate. What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed-- where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the commitment in those areas. There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues involving technology and other matters that will eventually be addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues. We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance through today and through the remainder of the week and through the early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our policies are going to be. Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest children in this country. And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically an indication to show the targeting of Title I. Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country. So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that have been made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find ourselves. On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have student achievement? That is what we are asking. And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, that we could add those words in three different places in the legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of others have as well. We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. But this is where we are, Mr. President. What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon. Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few other issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with strong accountability. Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and paperwork is not their top issue. According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting Office. It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of beneficial result many of us would like. I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period of time. In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order to match this. It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of classrooms and afterschool programs. But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility. One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not have that capacity or willingness to do so. Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process. Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make those comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an opportunity to address that. I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report. And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary. Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide parents, educators, and other members of the community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments available for public review. These public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President. We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change. Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to achieve the same high standards as all children. School districts must provide realistic assistance to improve low-performing schools. Flexibility makes sense, but not if it means losing these essential tools for parents and communities to achieve reform and improve their schools. There were four very important changes in the 1994 authorization: first was a significant reduction in paperwork; second, the targeting of the highest incidence of poverty; third, the heavy involvement of parents in terms of the participation; and fourth, and perhaps most importantly, high standards. We move away from dumbing down. We establish high standards for poor children as well as children that were coming from other communities. Those factors have had an important positive impact. We are finally getting there. We must ensure that increased flexibility leads to improved student achievement. Accountability in this context means that States must evaluate how waivers actually improve student achievement--open-ended waivers make no sense. Results are what counts. Student achievement is what counts. The Secretary of Education should be able to terminate a State's waiver authority if the student achievement is not improving after 5 years. States must be able to terminate any waivers granted to a school district or participating schools if student achievement is not improving. If waivers do not lead to satisfactory progress, it makes no sense to continue. What I have been mentioning here is being practiced in one of the Ed- Flex States, and is showing remarkable improvement in terms of education. That state is Texas, where they have real student achievement, real accountability, parental involvement, and specific student achievement goals. That is true accountability. If you review the different State annual reports, there is a dramatic contrast between what has been implemented by the State of Texas in using the greater flexibility to enhance student achievement and what has happened in many of the other States. True accountability is what we want to achieve if we are going to have the Federal funds. Each of these requirements is sensible. No one wants a heavy-handed Federal regulation of State and local education. That is not the issue. The real issue is accountability. These important requirements are well designed to achieve it. We should do nothing to undermine these principles, especially when we have new evidence that they work, particularly for the neediest students. ``The National Assessment of Title I,'' released earlier this week, shows that student achievement is increasing and that the Federal Government is an effective partner in that success. The glass on the table is half full, not half empty as critics of public schools would have you believe. This is good news for schools, good news for parents, good news for students, and it should be convincing evidence to Congress that many of the reforms we put in place in recent years are working. Since the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, a nonpartisan Independent Review Panel, made up of 22 experts from across the country, has overseen the program. Title I is the largest Federal investment in improving elementary and secondary schools. Title I helps to improve education for 11 million children in 45,000 schools with high concentrations of poverty. It helps schools provide professional development for teachers, improve curriculums, and extend learning time so students meet high State standards of achievement. Under the 1994 amendments to Title I, States were no longer allowed to set lower standards for children in the poorest communities than they set for students in more affluent communities. The results are clear: even the hardest-to-reach students will do well when expectations are set high and they are given the support they need. Student achievement in reading and math has increased, particularly in the achievement of the poorest students. Since 1992, reading achievement for 9-year-olds in the highest poverty schools has increased nationwide by a whole grade level. Between 1990 and 1996, math scores of the poorest students rose by a grade level. Students are meeting high State standards, too. Students in the highest poverty elementary schools improved in five of six States reporting 3-year data in reading, and in four out of five States in math. Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made progress in both subjects. Many urban school districts report that achievement also improved in their highest poverty schools. In 10 out of the 13 large urban districts that report 3-year trend data, there were increases in the number of elementary students in the highest poverty schools who met the district or State standards of proficiency in writing or math. Six districts, including Houston, Dade County, New York, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and San Francisco made progress in both subjects. Federal funds are increasingly targeted to the poorest schools. The 1994 amendments to Title I shifted funds, as I mentioned, away from low-poverty schools into high-poverty schools. Today, 95 percent of the high-poverty schools receive Title I funding, up from 80 percent in 1993. The percent of schools with parent compacts--agreements between teachers and parents about how they will work together to help the children do better--rose from 20 percent in 1994 to 75 percent in 1998. A substantial majority of the schools find their compacts are important in promoting parents' involvement, especially in higher poverty schools. Parent involvement is a key element in terms of academic achievement, and that is why we believe their voice regarding waiving the requirements should be heard and at least considered. Title I funds help improve teaching and learning in the classroom. Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to the local level; 93 percent of those Federal dollars are spent directly on instruction, compared to only 62 percent of all State and local education dollars that are spent on instruction. We are going to hear a lot as we debate education about where the Federal money that is appropriated goes, in terms of Federal bureaucracy and administration, State bureaucracy and how much of the money goes to the local level. This is the most recent report that has been done by independents. It shows that local school districts get 95.5; State administration is 4 percent, Federal administration is one- half of 1 percent. State administration of their own programs are considerably higher, as the chart indicates. All of these steps are working together to improve student achievement. The best illustrations of these successes are in local schools. In Baltimore County, MD, all but one of the 19 Title I schools increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The success has come from Title I support for extended year programs, implementation of effective programs in reading, and intensive professional development for teachers. At Roosevelt High School in Dallas, 80 percent of the students are poor. Title I funds were used to increase parent involvement, train teachers to work with parents, and make other changes to bring high standards to every classroom. Reading scores have nearly doubled, from the 40th percentile in 1992 to the 77th percentile in 1996. During the same period, math scores soared from the 16th percentile to the 73rd percentile, and writing scores rose from the 58th to the 84th percentile. That is remarkable. What happened in this area? We got the parents involved and we enhanced the training of teachers to work more effectively with the parents to bring the high standards into every classroom. The Baldwin Elementary School in Boston, where 80 percent of the students are poor, performance on the Stanford 9 test rose substantially from 1996 to 1998 because of the increases in teacher professional development and implementation of a reform to raise standards and achievement for all children. In 1996, 66 percent of third grade students scored in the lowest levels in math. By 1998, 100 percent scored in the highest level. In 1997, 75 percent of fourth graders scored in the lowest levels in reading. By 1998, no fourth graders were at the lowest level, and 56 percent were at the highest level. We have seen that the National Assessment of Title I shows that high standards and parental involvement get better results for children, particularly the neediest children. That is what we would like to see come through this legislation--where you get the flexibility, but you are also going to be able to demonstrate enhanced student achievement and parental involvement. Those are the two key requirements. The improvements so far are gratifying, but there is no cause for complacency. Clearly, more needs to be done. We must build on these successes to ensure that all children have the best possible education. Increasing flexibility without accountability will stop progress in its tracks. But just increasing flexibility with accountability won't do the job either. We must provide more support for programs like Title I to make these opportunities available to all children. We must do a better job of supporting the States and local communities in their efforts to hire and train teachers. The National Assessment of Title I found that too many students in too many Title I schools--particularly those with high concentrations of low-income children--are being taught by unqualified teachers. The teacher shortage forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers, and asked certified teachers to teach outside their areas of expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the classroom. One in four new teachers does not fully meet State certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training at all. Students in inner city schools have only a 50 percent chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. In Massachusetts, 30 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. In addition, many schools are seriously understaffed. During the next decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirement mean that the Nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. Between 1995 and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students, causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher retirements. We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire 100,000 new teachers, as part of our national pledge to reduce class size. Research has documented what parents and teachers have already known--that smaller classes enhance student achievement. It is equally important to help communities recruit promising teacher candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will then help them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the ongoing training they need to help keep up with modern technology and new research. Another major need is in the area of afterschool activities. According to the National Assessment on Title I, opportunities for children to participate afterschool and summer school programs have grown from 10 percent of Title I schools to 41 percent in 1998. That has made an important contribution to the enhancement of these children's achievement. But more needs to be done. We must increase support for afterschool programs. In addition, children who have fallen behind in their school work need opportunities to catch up, to meet legitimate requirements for graduation, to master basic skills, and to meet high standards of achievement. A high school diploma should mean something--it must be more than a certificate of attendance. It should be a certificate of achievement. High-quality afterschool and summer school academic improvement activities should be available to every child in every community in America. Finally, we must do more to see that every child in every community is learning in safe and modern facilities. Across the country, 14 million children in one-third of the Nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half of the schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. It will take an estimated $100 billion to repair the existing facilities. Too many children are struggling to learn in overcrowded schools. This year, K through 12 enrollment reached an all-time high and will continue to grow over the next 7 years. Communities will need to build new public schools. The agenda is broad, but the need is great. We are on the right track. There is no need to make a u-turn on education. We are making progress. We need to build on these successes and do what we can to meet the pressing needs of schools across the Nation, so that we can meet the high standards of achievement. When it comes to education, the Nation's children deserve the best that we can give them.

Mr. KENNEDY. No. Mr. President, we have made some progress today. We are looking forward to having some debate on the Bingaman amendments tomorrow, followed by my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry. We will indicate to the membership that we will tentatively get started sometime around 11, and we will let the floor managers know at least in what order we will want to offer our amendments. Obviously, they have their own rights. But we will try to keep them as fully informed as possible so that we can all be as prepared on these amendments as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Michigan would be able to continue its current Ed- Flex plans.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment of the Senate's time. We had a good opportunity during the course of the afternoon to talk about the student performance. We have worked out language which I think responds certainly to my concerns and, hopefully, is consistent with what Senator Frist and Senator Jeffords were doing. Now the States will be able to receive Ed-Flex, but they will also--in the application, there will be an indication about what their expectation in the State is in terms of the students' performance, consistent with what the overall State plan is to enhance academic achievement. It also will take in student performance after 5 years, should there be the request for the continuation of this legislation. I thank my colleagues and friends. I think we really have the best of all worlds here. I am grateful to Senator Jeffords and Senator Frist for working this through.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 34 to Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To ensure that increased flexibility leads to improved student achievement)

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one more brief comment? I don't want to interrupt the thought line, but I have just been informed by the Administration that they support the Wellstone amendment and believe it is consistent with the Statement of Administration Policy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the Administration in support of the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is entirely different than what we talked about in the general Ed-Flex where we had requirements that, for example, you could have a studentwide utilization of resources if it was 50 percent poor, and then if it went down to 45, we said, OK; 40, maybe yes. Those were the general kinds of waivers. But the point that the Senator from Minnesota is trying to say is those specific criteria which have been found by educators who have really spent their lifetime focusing on the needs of the neediest children, such as qualified teachers and some commonsense protections, effectively could be waived if the Senator's amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. This really has nothing to do with paperwork at all. We have already decided that there are going to be other kinds of safeguards to make sure that the funding is focused in terms of the needy students, but there are some specific guarantees that have been written in there, the ones that I have said. The purpose of the Wellstone amendment is to give assurance that those particular guarantees will not be waived for the neediest children, as I understand it.

Mr. KENNEDY. What we are effectively doing under the existing proposal in Ed-Flex is focusing attention on needy children, but there are some specific guarantees under title I; for example, well-qualified teachers to ensure that we are going to seek the academic enhancement and achievement of the children. That is one example. There are a series of those. As I understand the Senator's amendment, without the Senator's amendment, they will be able to waive those as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I welcome the opportunity that the Senate of the United States now in this early part of March will be considering various education policy questions because I believe, like other Members of this body, that the issues of education are of central concern to families all over America. I firmly believe that what families all over America are looking for is some form of partnership between the local community, the State, and the Federal Government, working in harmony to try to enhance the academic achievement and accomplishment for the young people in this country. I think all of us are very much aware that enhancing education achievement is a complex issue, and therefore we have a variety of different kinds of ideas about how best that can be achieved. I think all of us understand that the Federal role has been a limited role. It has been a limited role in identifying where, as a matter of national policy, we want to give focus and attention to children in this country. Historically, that has been the focus and attention in terms of the neediest, the disadvantaged children in this country. There have been other areas. For example, those that have some special needs. We have also been helpful in providing help and assistance to schools in terms of nutrition programs, breakfast and lunch programs. There has been a program in terms of the bilingual, help and assistance in Goals 2000 under President Clinton to try and help and assist local communities to move ahead in terms of education reform, and a number of other very important areas. Tomorrow we will begin the debate on education policy. The issue that is going to be before the Senate will be whether we are going to provide additional kinds of flexibility to the States and the school districts in their use of a number of the Federal programs that reach out into the communities. In 1994, we had reauthorization of the title 1 program. I joined in the initiative with Senator Hatfield. It was his initiative in providing a test program where we permitted a number of States to effectively waive the regulations on the title I programs with the assurance that the objective of the title I programs would be maintained and that the resources could be targeted to needy children. We have seen over a period of time a number of States take advantage of this flexibility. There have been other school districts which have had the opportunity to make application--some of them have, but not many. What is before the Senate now is the consideration to effectively permit greater flexibility in the States and local communities for the using of title I funds. Ninety percent of the waivers that have been considered to date have been on the title I programs. There are other programs that can be waivers, but those have been the title I programs. By and large, it is for reasons that have been best established within the local community. There have been waivers granted when they have not been able to reach a 50-percent standard of poor and needy children. It might be 48 or 45 or in some instances 40-percent poverty children. Without that waiver, there would not be the kinds of additional resources that would be available to that school to help and assist the needy children. Now we are embarked on a more extensive kind of a consideration of a waiver program. What I think we understand is if we are going to get into providing additional waivers, we need to have important accountability about how these resources that are going to be expended are going to be used to help and assist the academic achievement of the targeted group, which are the neediest children. Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to go over that particular issue with Senator Frist and others after we have an opportunity to move toward the bill. Mr. President, I think, quite frankly, I would have agreed that there is a certain logic in considering the waiver provisions when we reauthorize the total bill. I don't have an objection to the consideration of this legislation. It may be a valuable tool in terms of a local community if we are going to be assured that these scarce resources that we have available that today are targeted on the neediest children, are going to go to the neediest children; that we are going to ensure that parents are going to be involved in any decisions; that it is going to affect those children, and that we are going to maintain our content and performance standards which are out there now so we can have some opportunity to be assured that those children are actually benefiting from any alteration or change from what has been the Federal policy; and that there will be ultimately the judgment of the Secretary of Education that if the measure is going to violate the fundamental principle of the intent of the legislation, then the power still retains within the Secretary of Education not to permit such a waiver to move ahead. That is basically the initial issue that we will be debating. We will also, I think, have an important opportunity to debate the President's proposal for smaller class size. That is something which is very, very important. We made a downpayment with Republicans and Democrats alike at the end of the last session to ensure additional schoolteachers in local school districts, and now the school districts themselves are going to wonder whether that was really a one-time only or whether it will be as the President intended to be--a commitment over a period of some 6 years. The afterschool programs which have been such a success, which the President and Secretary Riley have talked about--there will be initiatives, hopefully, in those areas. There are excellent programs by Senator Bingaman in terms of school dropouts that has been accepted in the past by this body; I hope we will be able to give attention to that area. There will be a limited but important group of amendments which we think can be enormously helpful and valuable to our local communities in terms of being that kind of constructive partner in enhancing the education for the children of this country. So that is where we are going, and I welcome the chance to have that debate over the period of these next several days. There are many things that are important in this session, but this will be one of the most important. Finally, let me say I want to pay tribute to my friend and associate from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, who has very strong views in terms of making sure these resources are going to actually be targeted to the neediest children in this country. He has been an effective and forceful fighter for those children. I know he will speak for himself, but he really questions whether any of these kinds of waivers can still give the kinds of assurances, as we have them in the current legislation, that will target those funds to the children. It is a powerful case that he makes--one that should be listened to by our colleagues--and it is a very persuasive case that he makes. We have come to a different conclusion, but I have enormous respect and friendship for him. I must say that our colleagues should listen to him carefully on the points he is making, because I think he speaks for the neediest children in this country, as he has so often. It is a position that is a respectable position and I think a very defensible position, and I think it underlies the kind of central concerns many of us have if we fail to have the kind of accountability that hopefully will be included in the legislation. So I thank him for all of his work and for his consistency in protecting the title I children. I hope that all of our colleagues will pay close attention to what I know will be a very important statement. I yield whatever time I have back, Mr. President. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object. I am just inquiring of the leader--since this is the legislation, I would like to, as the ranking member, make a brief opening statement, as we proceed to this motion, for 10 minutes. I ask for 10 minutes tonight.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And then if it is agreeable----

Mr. KENNEDY. At the start.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps continue to perform their duties superbly in the defense of our nation. Today, as our nation prepares for the possibility of sending 4,000 marines and Army troops as part of a peacekeeping force for Kosovo, we must do all we can to support all our forces who sacrifice so much to serve and protect this country. Our service men and women deserve a pay raise, and they deserve fair retirement benefits. If we don't make significant improvements in these two areas, we will continue to fail to recruit and retain the forces needed to maintain our nation's military readiness and protect our national security. I voted to report S. 4 out of the Armed Services Committee, and I support this legislation. I remain concerned, however, that we are moving too quickly, without adequately considering the budget impact or the best means to recruit and retain our talented service men and women. Clearly, action by Congress is needed to meet the needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, but we have not yet adequately considered the full impact, including the long-term impact of these policy changes on our troops and our defense budget. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Chiefs, themselves, have testified about the need for reforms in military retirement plans, and they have expressed their support for a significant and much-needed pay raise. But, we have not held any hearings at all on the specifics of this bill. Secretary Cohen expressed his concerns about the overall impact of this legislation in a letter to Senator Levin last Friday. The Secretary said he appreciated the Senate's attention to this critical issue, but he also emphasized his concern about the high cost of this legislation and about the lack of hearings to discuss the bill's impact on our service men and women. Our Armed Forces are facing complex challenges. Military recruiting has tremendous difficulties. In the last few months, the Army and Navy have announced they must reduce their recruiting standards in order to meet their recruiting goals. The Air Force, facing an unusual drop-off in new recruits, announced that for the first time it will use national television advertising in its recruiting. Our Armed Forces are having increasing difficulty retaining highly- skilled personnel. Retention of mid-level officers and enlisted personnel is the lowest it has been in many years. These mid-grade personnel are the backbone of our Armed Forces. They lead and train new service members. They provide critical continuity between high-level commanders and individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We cannot afford to lose these irreplaceable leaders. Recruiting and retention are in critical condition. Our margin for error is gone, and we must ensure that the policies we enact are the best ones. That is why many of us have serious reservations about how we are proceeding. We have too little information about whether these proposals are cost-effective or will do enough to boost morale, increase retention, or improve recruiting. We are all concerned about the readiness of our Armed Forces. But further consideration of these far-reaching proposals is essential. Before this bill reaches the President's desk, we need a far better understanding of this bill's impact on our service men and women and on the overall budget.