Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. How much remains on the other side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time does the Senator from Michigan wish?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we all want to improve education. In the last few years we have made a lot of progress. In fact, thanks to our commitment at the Federal level, local schools have now hired about 34,000 new highly qualified teachers. Because of our investment over the last 3 years, almost 2 million students are learning in less crowded classrooms today. That is because of the Federal commitment we have had. Those kids are learning the basics. They have fewer distractions and fewer discipline problems. Isn't that what we want for all of our kids? Over the last 3 years we have done the responsible thing by supporting what works. But the underlying bill, despite the rhetoric you have just heard, takes a very different approach. It breaks our commitment to investing in smaller classes. I can tell you as a parent, as a former educator, and as a former school board member, it is the wrong way to go. We should be building on our progress. That is why I am offering this amendment today. In just a few hours we are going to vote on this amendment. So I want to talk about some of the arguments we have heard throughout the debate last week and today and probably we will hear more of today. First, we have heard that smaller classes do not really make a difference. Let me tell you, any parent or any teacher knows better. The first questions parents ask their kids when they come home from school on the first day in September are: Who is your teacher? And how many kids are in your classroom? Parents know it makes a difference on how many kids are in that classroom as to whether their child is going to have a successful year or not. It is not just parents and it is not just teachers. Research, over and over again, has shown us that smaller classes help children succeed. The Tennessee Project STAR--Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio--study has consistently demonstrated that reducing class sizes in K-3 to 13 to 17 students significantly increases children's reading and mathematics scores. And the biggest gains have been found for poor and minority students--those children who are most in danger of being left behind. Studies have shown that the children in those smaller classes in the early grades were: More likely to take college entrance exams, more likely to finish high school, more likely to enroll in college, less likely to become teen parents, and less likely to go to jail. In the last month two new studies that have been released interpreting the STAR study have concluded that smaller classes produce significant benefits. One joint study by researchers from Tennessee State University and the University of Chicago found significant increases in ninth grade math test scores among students who had spent their early grades in smaller classes, with the gains even more pronounced among minority students. Robert Reichardt, a researcher with Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, concluded in yet another study that class size reduction ``provides policymakers with a direct lever for influencing classrooms'' and is one of a few policies that ``offer such immediate concrete effects.'' As in Project STAR, students participating in Wisconsin's SAGE class- size reduction effort outperformed their counterparts in larger classrooms on standardized tests. Again, as in the other studies, these benefits were strongest among African American students who had larger gains than their white counterparts. So not only can smaller class size help raise student achievement overall, but reduced class size may be an especially effective measure for closing the ``achievement gap'' between black students and white students. Let me turn to a second argument we have heard. I keep hearing that Federal money should not be targeted for a specific purpose such as making classrooms less crowded. I remind all of my colleagues that in this underlying bill we have targeted money for many causes, including reading, technology, afterschool programs, school safety, and charter schools and magnet schools. In fact, there are more than 20 targeted funding streams in the underlying bill. If targeted funding were really the problem, and why we should vote against this amendment, then those who vote against my class size amendment ought to vote against the entire bill. Some have said we should just let school boards choose how to use this money. But that really ignores the realities local school boards face. I served on a local school board. I know what it is like to try to set aside money to hire new teachers for the foreseeable future when you do not even know if a school bond is going to pass next month. That is one of the reasons it is so hard for local schools to hire new teachers to reduce overcrowding on their own. Fortunately, because of the work we have done in the last 3 years, today they are not on their own. They have a Federal partner to help them make that critical investment. We need to continue that commitment. The truth is, the underlying bill would pit two key elements of good schools against one another: Small classes and good teachers. Under this bill, any dollar that local schools decide to spend on smaller classes comes at the expense of a dollar spent on teacher quality. We should not make our schools choose between two priorities that are important; we should fund both. This kind of ``false flexibility'' that we see in this underlying bill would be unacceptable in most other arenas. Do we make our military choose between weapons and training? Of course not. We know both are necessary to protect our Nation. Do we make a sick patient choose between food and medicine? Of course not, because we know both are necessary. Why then, in this underlying bill, are we forcing our schools to choose between high-quality teachers and smaller classes when we know both are necessary to help our children learn? In their zeal to assail small classes, some people have even claimed that a good teacher is more important than a small class size. Let me say this as clearly as I can: Small classes and good teachers are both important. The importance of funding teacher quality should not crowd out funding for other important reforms such as smaller classes. I also point out that smaller classes can help us recruit and retain good teachers. One of the main reasons that teachers leave the classroom is job dissatisfaction. The truth is, we are losing a lot of teachers very early in their careers. After 1 year of teaching, we lose 11 percent of our new teachers; after 2 years, we lose 21 percent of them; and after 5 years, it is now up to 39 percent. Why are we losing teachers out of our classrooms? Studies have shown that one of the main reasons is job dissatisfaction. One of the main causes of job dissatisfaction: Overcrowded classes. Another top complaint: Student discipline. We know there are fewer discipline problems in smaller classes. We need to keep good teachers in our classrooms. That means we ought to invest in teacher quality. But it also means we should reduce overcrowding to encourage more good teachers to stay in our classrooms and give their students their best. This is not just about statistics. The other day in this Chamber I read an excerpt from a letter sent to me by an award-winning teacher from Pullman, WA. Kristi wrote to me that she is very frustrated. Every day she tries to give her students her best, but with large classes that is getting harder and harder. Kristi is a great teacher. She is a national award-winning teacher. She is asking us to help her be the kind of ``high-quality'' teacher we say we want for every child by giving her a class small enough for every child to get the attention they need. Dedicated teachers such as Kristi spend their lives helping our children to learn. We reward them with working conditions that none of us would tolerate. Fourth, some on the other side have said we should focus our reform efforts on testing and accountability. The truth is that this amendment is even more essential because of the testing and accountability provisions in the underlying bill. This bill could punish students for failing tests, but it does not give them the tools they need to pass those tests. Implying that testing is some kind of magic bullet that will somehow turn around low-performing schools is simplistic. The truth is far more complex. Testing is just one of many tools, and it is useless by itself. Tests can identify problems but without the support to solve those problems, tests have little value. Tests alone cannot improve a student's achievement, but give that student a smaller class and a good teacher, and the sky is not even a limit for his or her potential success. I want all of us to think about that. No test is going to help a student learn to read or learn to write or learn to add. A smaller class and a qualified teacher will. We can take a classroom of students and give them tests every day for 10 years, and those kids won't do better unless they have a qualified teacher in a classroom that is not overcrowded, where they get the individual attention they need to learn. Let's make sure we give those kids the tools they need to pass the test, not just to take the test. Let's invest in what works. Our schools are facing bigger challenges than they ever have before. They are educating more students, and more students with special challenges are filling our classrooms such as children with limited English proficiency and disabilities. They are educating them to meet higher standards and succeed in an increasingly complex world. We know many schools need to do a better job. Schools need to be held accountable and teachers need to be held accountable. But in Congress, we must also be held accountable for meeting our responsibilities as a Federal partner to our schools. Believe me, if we pass this bill without guaranteed funding for things such as smaller classes and with huge unfunded testing mandates, we will be held accountable. Finally, I will mention something we did not hear from the other side but is at the heart of what is going on in the bill. We did not hear this new funding scheme that is in the underlying bill described as a block grant. That is exactly what it is. The reason it is not called a block grant is because parents know that block grants offer less accountability, less focus on things that work, and in the end less funding. So instead of calling it a block grant, they now call it ``a funding pool.'' Parents don't want pools of funding. They want commonsense investments that make a difference, such as smaller classes and decent facilities. We have heard a lot of excuses. We have heard a lot of rhetoric. The only thing that will matter when this debate is done is how the students in Kristi's classrooms and thousands of classrooms across our country do next year. I have shown my colleagues why the arguments that have been raised don't hold up. I close by mentioning some of the reasons we should target these dollars to smaller classes. Parents know better than to believe the false rhetoric about smaller classes not helping children learn. Smaller classes result in more individual attention for students and better student performance on assessments. They produce long-lasting academic benefits such as lower dropout rates and more students taking college entrance exams and long-lasting social benefits such as less teen pregnancy and incarceration. Rhetoric about choice and flexibility will not go very far when parents ask us why class sizes went back up. The reasons we need a guaranteed funding stream for class size reduction are clear. In closing, I urge my colleagues to invest in the things that work. As local schools across the country try to make progress in the face of growing challenges, let's give them the tools they need to succeed.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise, once again, to urge my colleagues to continue our commitment to help our schools reduce classroom overcrowding. Before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Levin, Mikulski, and Schumer.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator from Tennessee wants to begin, that is OK. I will go after the Senator finishes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could respond quickly, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He has been a champion for our State in assuring that we have the cleanup dollars that are so drastically needed. I know he understands the moral obligation we have to clean up that site. So I thank him for his comments.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have total at this point?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Presiding Officer. And I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his tremendous leadership on this issue and for working with us who serve on the Budget Committee in one of the best ways I have ever seen, including, in the process, helping us to understand the true impact of this budget. I really want to let him know how much I appreciate that. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, the budget resolution before us provides the framework for Federal budget priorities for the coming fiscal year. In fact, this debate and this budget are the most important things the Senate will do this year. The vote we take will have a significant impact on our Nation's ability to meet our challenges and to provide opportunity for America's working families. But this vote isn't just about what happens to Americans a year from now. It is about what happens to our country generations from now because this budget will have a major impact on the projected surplus and on future budgets. Over the last 8 years, we learned what a difference a responsible budget can make. We learned it starts with the basics--such as using real numbers and not ``betting the farm'' on rosy projections. We learned that if we invest in the American people and their needs, our country and our economy will also benefit. We learned we need to be fiscally responsible. That means making tough choices and holding the line on deficit spending. And we learned that we have to work together to get things done. The last 8 years have shown us that if we follow those lessons--using real numbers, investing in people, meeting our needs, being fiscally responsible, and working together--we can turn deficits into surpluses, and we can transform the American economy into a job-creating machine. Today, there is a new President in office. There is a new Congress. And there are new economic challenges as our economy slows and an energy crisis grows. Mr. President, the times are different, but the lessons are the same. This isn't the time to throw away the handbook we have used for the past 8 years. It is time to follow the lessons it offers. Unfortunately, the administration and the Republican leadership are running in the opposite direction. And I fear we are going to repeat the same mistakes of the past--mistakes that we are just now getting over. Let me say that again. The Republican budget ignores the lessons of the last 8 years. Instead of focusing on real numbers and realistic estimates, the Republican budget puts all its faith in projected surpluses that may never materialize. The things we know so far about this budget are disturbing. We know it is based on surplus estimates that may not come true. We know that it abandons fiscal responsibility in the name of a tax cut primarily benefitting a few. We know that it fails to adequately meet the priorities and needs of the American people and the people of my home State. We know it fails to invest in our future economic security and competitiveness. And we know it fails to eliminate the $5.3 trillion in debt that has accumulated over the past 20 years. What we already know about this budget is enough to give us pause, but what we don't yet know about this budget is enough to stop it cold. We don't know what the surplus or the overall economy will look like a few years from now. And today there are very real reasons to be concerned. In my home State, and up and down the West Coast, we are experiencing an energy crisis. Gasoline prices are skyrocketing, factories are closing down, and energy bills are up significantly. This energy crisis is having a negative impact on the economy of the country--but this budget resolution and its projections do not take any of that into account. This budget resolution is also silent on two major Bush proposals: developing an unfettered missile defense system and privatizing Social Security. Now, what is significant about these announcements is not just that they represent major departures from past policy, but that they came with no price tag. So, we have the President proposing to spend huge sums on these initiatives, but they are not accounted for in the budget proposal, that he presented, nor in the one being considered by this Congress. Why would we as a country pass a budget that we know is based on shaky projections, that excludes huge bills we know we are going to have to pay, and that forces cuts in vital services just to fund a tax cut that is tilted to just a few? Why are we proceeding down the slippery slope of rosy predictions and fiscal irresponsibility? Frankly, it is because it is the only way this President can pay for his tax cut. Democrats support a fair tax cut. All of us have been working on that. We want a fair tax cut for middle-class Americans, and we are fighting for an immediate tax rebate that would put an average of $600 in your family's pocket this year. A tax cut is one of the many things Americans deserve, but it is not the only thing. We also deserve a Government that stops corporate polluters, that supports the hiring of more police officers and good teachers, and that strengthens Medicare with a real prescription drug benefit. Americans do deserve to get a tax cut this year. After all, it is our money. But it is also our national debt, our overcrowded classrooms, our prescription drug costs, and our drinking water. And we cannot walk away from those responsibilities. Finally, this budget does not address the needs of the American people. I want to talk about some of those. This budget eliminated the amendment that this Senate passed to increase our investment in education. This budget falls short of our targeted debt reduction goals. It fails to give communities the tools they rely on to prepare for natural disasters and to limit their damage. In fact, President Bush's budget eliminated a program called Project Impact, which is a predisaster program that saved lives and prevented damage during the February 28 earthquake that occurred in my home State of Washington. The President's budget also cut the Federal share of a program that helps communities rebuild after disasters strike. The Senate passed my amendment to restore those vital programs, but this budget resolution took them out. This budget eliminates the successful community-oriented COPS Program and other law enforcement programs that have helped thousands of communities achieve some of the lowest crime rates in a generation. The police on our streets have worked to restore a measure of safety and security in our communities, and this budget takes away that funding. This budget also cuts the budget for Eximbank which allows our Nation's industries to compete with highly subsidized foreign competitors. This budget also jeopardizes the Federal class size initiative which has helped school districts hire 40,000 new qualified teachers so our kids can learn in a safe environment. This budget cuts rural health care initiatives, including telemedicine grants that literally provide a lifeline for remote and underserved areas, and it cuts support to our family farmers who need it now more than ever. This budget does not invest enough in environmental restoration and conservation. It cuts research and development of renewable energy sources and energy conservation efforts. This budget does not provide adequate funding for veterans programs for which the House and the Senate voted. In fact, both Chambers told the budget conferees to do better than the President's funding level. The Republicans met behind closed doors and stuck us with the President's insufficient number. Not only did the conferees refuse to honor the increases for veterans programs that were approved by both the House and Senate, but they also discarded an amendment that I proudly cosponsored about concurrent receipt. The amendment that was offered by Senator Reid would have allowed our military retirees to collect both their retirement pay and their disability benefits. Today, we single out veterans by denying them these benefits. The Senate passed an amendment that would have corrected that injustice, but the Republican conferees, behind closed doors, when no one was looking, dropped that critically important provision. America's veterans are big losers in this budget. To me, that is another example of why this process should have been bipartisan and open from the start. By closing the door on bipartisanship, the conferees have left America's priorities behind. Let me mention two more: prescription drugs for seniors and the Federal Government's obligation to clean up nuclear waste. On prescription drugs, we all know that the lack of affordable drug coverage is a problem not just for those with low incomes, all seniors and the disabled face the escalating costs of prescription drugs and lack of affordable coverage. This issue did not go away the day after the election. We know that a prescription drug benefit was estimated to cost $153 billion; that was originally. Now estimates show that it will take about twice that amount to provide a real benefit. We know that seniors need an affordable drug benefit that is part of Medicare. The Republican budget that we are looking at does not set aside enough money to provide that budget and that benefit. That is a promise all of us made in the last several years. Let me turn to another example. This budget reduces the Federal Government's responsibility for the cleanup of nuclear materials and waste. In Washington State, we face a tremendous challenge of cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford cleanup has always been a nonpartisan issue, and I hope we can keep it that way. There were some press reports back in February that the Bush budget was going to cut these important critical cleanup funds. I talked to the White House budget Director, Mitch Daniels. He assured me there would actually be an increase in funding for the Hanford cleanup. The President's proposed budget cut the nuclear cleanup program, which is assumed, by the way, in this conference report, and that would make it very difficult to meet the Federal Government's legal operations in this area. Any retreat from our cleanup commitment will result in a legal action by the State of Washington. To avoid that and to meet our legal obligations to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, we need an increase of approximately $330 million. The price of America's victory in World War II and the cold war is buried in underground storage tanks and in facilities, and we have a responsibility, both morally and legally, to clean it up. That is not in the budget we are considering. As you can see, this budget leaves a lot of American priorities behind. It takes rosy projections. It leaves out major bills we know will come due, and it puts a squeeze on hard-working families. We can do a lot better. We ought to be working together to come up with a proposal that is fair and balanced, that meets the needs of the American people. This administration came to town and promised to restore bipartisanship and promised to reach across party lines to meet the challenges of governing. This budget doesn't do that. As a member of the joint House-Senate conference committee, I can tell my colleagues, Senator Conrad and I were not invited to that table. We were told our presence was not necessary. This partisan, back room dealing spells disaster for the entire budget process. Adoption of this budget resolution is only the first step in a lengthy budget process. It is far too early for this bipartisanship to break down now. I am really disappointed in the decision to ignore many of the bipartisan amendments that were adopted in the Senate. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fear this kind of partisan tone will make past budget battles pretty mild. We have learned a lot about responsible budgeting over the last 8 years. I think those lessons are being ignored in this budget resolution. I fear that it is going to put us on the road to repeating the same costly mistakes of yesteryear. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget agreement. I hope we can sit down and work on a budget agreement that is bipartisan and that works for the needs of the American people.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me state we will have more time, obviously, this afternoon to debate the class size amendment. I appreciate the comments from the chair of the HELP Committee in this regard. I agree with him. Professional development is extremely critical. That is why my amendment to separate the professional development funds from class size funds is extremely important. We want our schools to have professional development but not at the expense of reducing class size, which we know works. That makes sure Federal tax dollars are spent wisely at the local level--and which is a local decision, I say to the Senator from Arkansas, who spoke earlier. If a school district doesn't want to participate, they certainly do not have to do so. But for the many schools out there, for 2 million students who have benefited, let's not take it away now. Let's make sure they are in a class size in K-3 that allows them to learn math, science, basic reading, and they are able to succeed in the future.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his work on class size, too. I saw the article in the Washington Post today. It shows that the debate we are about to have on the class size amendment is extremely critical. We know it makes a difference in our children's classrooms. We have had tremendous progress. I hope that our colleagues will listen carefully to the debate as we bring it forward because it is an important part of education. It is what parents are looking for. It is what we are demanding of our students--achievement. I appreciate the words of the Senator from Massachusetts, and I look forward to the debate we are about to have. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Reed of Rhode Island, and Wellstone.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, right now in classrooms across our country students are gathering. Right now teachers are beginning his or her lesson, and those students in that classroom probably do not know the specifics of the debate that we are about to have. They probably are not familiar with the amendment I am about to offer. But I will promise you one thing. Those students will realize the impact of how the Senate votes on this class size amendment. Today, I am offering an amendment to continue the progress we have made over the last 3 years in making classrooms across the country less crowded and more productive. My amendment will ensure that we keep our commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new teachers so that students can get the time and the attention they need and deserve in our classrooms. We know that smaller classes help kids learn the basics with fewer discipline problems. Just this year we also learned that smaller classes resulted in better scores on standardized tests and a higher likelihood of taking college entrance exams and a lower teen pregnancy rate. As managers of the taxpayer dollars, we should invest in ideas that work. We know that smaller classes help our students learn. Unfortunately, the underlying bill combines funding for class size reduction and teacher quality into one pool. As a result, local school districts would have to choose, under this bill, between providing smaller classes or funding teacher quality. They shouldn't have to choose one or the other. We should fund both. It has always been important to invest in the things that work in the classroom. This year it is even more important as I look at the rest of the underlying bill. Since President Bush plans to punish schools that do not improve, we have to make sure that schools have the proven tools they need, such as smaller classes, to help our children learn. Before I continue, I want to share a personal reflection about what we are doing on education this month. As we update the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we are creating a blueprint of how we are going to support excellence in schools across the country. As a parent and as a former educator, I cannot imagine smaller classes not being a part of that blueprint. It just does not make sense. Right now, this bill leaves behind targeted funding for smaller classes. My amendment corrects that failure and tells students, teachers, and parents across the country that we know they are concerned about overcrowded classrooms, we know they want help in hiring new teachers, and we are going to honor our responsibility to pay for them. I want to talk this morning about the difference that smaller classes can make according to research and according to parents and teachers. We know that too many classes are overcrowded with growing enrollment and limited space. Too many students are trying to learn in classrooms that are packed to capacity, where they have to fight just to get a teacher's attention. And too many teachers are spending time on crowd control instead of spending time on curriculum. Over the years, major studies have found that smaller classes boost student achievement. The STAR study found that students in small classes--those with 13 to 17 students--significantly outperform other students in math and reading. It also found that students in small classes have better high school graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and they are more inclined to pursue higher education. Certainly those are goals. Every one of us in the Senate Chamber has stated that we want that for our children in our school systems in this country. Another critical study, the Wisconsin SAGE study, consistently proved that smaller classes result in significantly greater student achievement. Just two months ago, in March, we got more good news. Dr. Alan Krueger of Princeton University found there are long-term social benefits of being in a smaller classroom, including better scores on standardized tests, a higher propensity to take college entrance exams, a lower teen pregnancy rate, and possibly a lower crime rate for teens. Those are the types of benefits we want for every one of our students. But you do not need research to know that smaller classes help. Just talk to parents or teachers or talk to the students themselves. I have been in classrooms where this funding has reduced overcrowding. It makes a difference. I recently received an e-mail from Kristi Rennebohm Franz. Kristi teaches at Sunnyside Elementary School. I also should mention that Kristi is one of our best educators. She received a Milken National Teacher's Award. She received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Elementary Science, and the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell Award for Excellence in Education. Those are some of Kristi's credentials. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her entire letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 10 years ago, when Kristi started as a teacher, she promised herself that she would take time each day to listen to her students and to understand their needs. Kristi writes to me now: It is a promise that can only come true if we have small enough classes with enough qualified teachers in place to meet the individual learning needs of each child. . . . She continues: . . . because of the sheer numbers of children in our classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational conversations I need and want to have with each child to best assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs to go. She says: I can't tell you how frustrating it is to know how to teach and not be able to do the very best teaching every moment because it is difficult with too large a class and without enough teachers on board as a team to meet the learning needs of the children. Mr. President, let's show Kristi and thousands of hard-working teachers that we do support them and want them to be able to do their best in uncrowded classrooms. I have talked about the research, and I have shared a teacher's perspective, but I have one more example of the importance of small class sizes. It comes from the Houston Independent School District where our Education Secretary, Rod Paige, served as their superintendent. I show my colleagues this chart. It is actually from a presentation by the former Chief of Staff for Educational Services in the Houston district, Susan Sclafani. By the way, she currently serves as Counselor to Secretary Paige at the Education Department. Part of her presentation that I am showing on this chart shows how Houston helped turn around low-performing schools. I know we are basing a lot of this education bill on what happened in Houston at the directive of the President and Dr. Paige. They talk about test scores, but they also are very clear about what made a difference in making sure those test scores turned around and that those schools improved. On the chart, you can see that among the seven things they have done in the Houston school district was to make classrooms less crowded. They made making classrooms less crowded one of the seven things to be done to improve education. They know it works. In fact, Houston hired 177 new teachers through the Class Size Reduction Program that we funded at the Federal level. Houston also used the funding to provide professional development for more than 600 teachers. That is the type of support we want all communities to have. We know that making classes smaller works. The research shows it. Parents know it. Teachers know it. Even Secretary Paige used smaller classes to make improvements in the Houston school district. There was not a miracle in Houston. There was hard work. And there was investment in what works. Class size reduction was one of those investments. We should invest in the things that we know work in the classroom. Parents want to know that their Federal education dollars are making a difference for students. I served on a local school board. I can tell you that hiring new teachers is difficult because you have to commit today for a new teacher when you don't know what is going to happen 3 months down the road. That is one of the reasons why many school districts have had a hard time hiring new teachers on their own. Fortunately, they are not all on their own. Local educators have partners at the State and Federal level who are working together to help all students succeed. That is why in 1998, Congress began the Class Size Reduction Initiative. This program sends Federal dollars to school districts across the country so they can hire new, fully qualified teachers in grades K-3. And let me remind my colleagues that this is a voluntary program. No school is forced to use this money. If a district wants help hiring teachers to make classrooms less crowded, they simply apply. And there is very little paperwork or administration. In fact, in my own State of Washington you can apply for this class size reduction money over the Internet on a simple, one-page form. Many educators have told me that they have never seen dollars get so quickly from Congress to the classroom. Local schools, under this, make all the decisions about who to hire based on their unique needs. The money is also flexible. If schools have already reduced classroom overcrowding, they can use the money for teacher recruitment or for professional development. Finally, and critically, these dollars are targeted to disadvantaged students--who can make the most progress when they are in a productive classroom. This program has been a success story for the Congress. Since 1998, we have helped school districts across the country hire 34,000 new teachers. Over the past 3 years, we have made classrooms less crowded in K-3 and more productive for almost 2 million students. It is a program that works, and we should not abandon it now. This underlying bill does not ensure that this overcrowding will be reduced because it eliminates the targeted funding for class size reduction. Some say that we should combined funding for teacher quality and class size reduction and just let folks choose. Unfortunately, that is a false choice, and our kids will pay the price. This bill--the underlying bill--pits effective programs against each other and makes educators choose. In the end, our kids will lose if they can't have both smaller classes and qualified teachers. We should be the ones making sure that happens. Let me repeat that. Smaller classes and qualified teachers go hand in hand. Educators should not have to choose between either making classes smaller or improving teacher quality. They need both. We should fund both. That is what this amendment would ensure. Finally, I remind my colleagues that there are real consequences to not providing dedicated class size funding. Without my amendment, this bill could put schools in an unwinnable situation with very high stakes. The underlying bill will punish schools that do not improve. At the same time, it takes away the very tools they need to improve, and that is just wrong. On the one hand, we are telling students to meet high standards, and on the other hand this bill takes away the support they need to get there. We can do better than that. If we want our students to succeed and we are going to punish those who don't, now is the time to increase our investment in smaller class sizes. That is what this amendment does. This week we are talking about many different education issues from accountability to testing to funding. Right now there is only one question being asked by each of us as Senators: Do you favor targeted funding to make classrooms less crowded or will you take that targeted funding away from your schools? How you vote on this amendment will affect millions of students who are trying to get a good education. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment by voting yes. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, May 8, 2001] Prince George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever 34% of County Schools Meet U.S. Benchmark (By Tracey A. Reeves) Prince George's County students posted their highest gains ever on a key standardized test used to gauge how local children measure up to their peers nationally, according to results released yesterday. Prince George's has often been criticized for its abysmal test scores and spotty leadership, but its gains on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills are the first significant academic increases the county has registered since Iris T. Metts took over as superintendent in 1999. According to the results, 34 percent of county schools had median test scores at or above the national average this school year, compared with 21 percent last year. Of the schools tested, 82, or 63 percent, registered significant gains. Results also show a slight narrowing of the achievement gap between black and white students and between Hispanic and white students, an added boon for school officials who have been struggling for years to close the gap. The improved scores brought a huge sigh of relief for Metts, who acknowledged yesterday that she felt vindicated by the results and empowered to continue her changes. Metts said she hoped that county and state leaders would see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about improving academic achievement and that they would reward it with more funding to reduce class size and repair deteriorating buildings. ``We're not just achieving,'' an elated Metts said at a celebratory news conference announcing the test results. ``We're achieving miraculously.'' The mood was indeed upbeat as school officials asembled in Upper Marlboro to learn more about the results and to coax each other on in the effort to improve the school system's rank as the second-worst in the state, behind Baltimore. In the hallways, school system employees flashed wide grins as they toasted the gains with punch. Teachers and their staffs, who had been summoned to county school headquarters for the news conference could hardly contain their applause. Principals hugged their teachers. High-fives were everywhere ``This didn't happen by chance,'' said Leroy Tompkins, head of instruction for county schools. ``We achieved this by focusing on what we needed to do, and it's paid off.'' School Board Chairman Kenneth E. Johnson (Mitchellville), who with the rest of the board has accused of not putting the needs of students first, praised the superintendent for the results and said the board never doubted her ability. ``The board always thought she could bring the system along,'' Johnson said. ``All we need to do now is stay the course.'' Even Maryland Schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said she was encouraged by the results, though she hesitated to classify the scores an all-out success. She is eager to see the results of Maryland School Performance Assessment Program exams, which students are taking this month. ``I expect to see improvements there, too,'' Grasmick said. ``But all of these results will have to be sustained over a two-year period for us to really know what's happening here.'' Maryland requires all public school sec- ond-, fourth-, and sixth-graders to take the basic skills exam, which tests ability in math, reading and language arts. Prince George's is the first Maryland county to release its results, in part because it is using the scores to determine whom to recommend for a new summer program established to bring along struggling students. Other school systems are expected to release their test scores in coming weeks. The test is given annually to gauge trends in ability among students. Unlike the MSPAP, which generally measures how well schools are teaching children, the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills is viewed as more useful to parents because it looks at how students did individually. The basic skills test is also considered useful to teachers because it lets them know what areas to concentrate on and which students need more help. Until this year, Prince George's scores have been low, flat and far from the national norm. School officials attributed the gains to the reforms that Metts has demanded. For example, she has required all schools to give students in the early grades 120 minutes of uninterrupted reading time and 90 minutes of math a day. She has also reduced class sizes in the lower grades, and efforts are underway to remove disruptive students from classrooms. Metts and principals have also put more emphasis on training teachers. Systemwide, Prince George's scores increased at each of the three grade levels and in every content area in the March test. For example, the rate of students scoring above the national average in reading rose from 24 percent last year to 36 percent. In math, it more than doubled, from 16.7 percent to 42.4 percent. Exhibit 2 April 30, 2001. Dear Senator Murray: As the U.S. Congress has its focus on educational programs, I want to take time to thank you for your tireless efforts on behalf of quality education funding for our public schools! As a primary classroom teacher in Washington State, I know first hand the challenges we face in making sure no child is left behind. While the challenges are tremendous, it is a challenge which public school teachers take on day after day, unwilling to give up and unwilling to do anything less that the very best we can and know how to do in each moment we have in the classroom. When I interviewed for my current teaching position ten years ago, one of the comments I made about my goals as a teacher was that it was very, very important that I hear each child's voice at school each day so that each child would know he/she: (1) had multiple opportunities to be listened to and heard; (2) had the opportunity to tell me what he/she understood and what he/she needed help with; and (3) had multiple opportunities to know he/she was greatly valued as a learner and person. That is a promise that needs to be reality in order for no child to be left behind. It is a promise that can only come true if we have small enough classes with enough qualified teachers in place to meet the individual learning needs of each child and to mentor children in meeting the expectations we share for them as teachers, parents, community, state, and country. Each school day, I try to live to that promise . . . and as I come to the end of each day, I know I have come up short . . . because of the sheer numbers of children in our classroom, it is not humanly possible to have the educational conversations I need and want to have with each child to best assess their understandings, struggles, challenges, and progress that can inform where the next day's learning needs to go. In order to best and most effectively and efficiently teach primary children, I need time each day to interact with them as individuals, in small groups and as a cohesive whole class without distractions and interruptions. I need time to build the math, literacy, science and social studies concepts, problem solving and critical thinking skills they need for today's complex and ever dynamically changing world. When I have a large class of primary children with very diverse academic, social and emotional needs and with no additional adult in the classroom to assist children, the importantly needed and valued time to work on learning with children individually and even in small groups or as a cohesive whole class can be lost. Presently, every classroom teacher in my building is well qualified for his/her assignment and has special outstanding abilities. But we can not do the job we know how to do and keep learning new and better ways to teach in response to changing needs and in today's schools, when: (1) the numbers of students in each class makes it impossible to meet the challenges each student faces; (2) the number of adults needed to help provide education is too low; and (3) the energy toll of the teaching day (which requires planning, preparation, reflection, collaboration with colleagues and parents far beyond the time our 8:00 to 3:30 contract time) leaves teachers unable to engage in much needed professional development beyond the needs of the daily classroom instruction. We hear people say that throwing money at the challenges in education won't help, but I don't know how we can provide the number of qualified teachers needed to provide the best education possible for each child without funding those positions, without providing the funding for teaching materials and for safe, healthy learning environments that are needed, and without funding support for teachers to keep learning and growing professionally! During this school year, I received a Milken National Teacher's Award as well as the Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching Elementary Science, the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Paul D. Coverdell Award for Excellence in Education (which was presented at the U.S. Senate building with comments from Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Christopher Dodd), a national Blue Ribbon Classroom Website Award, and just recently a grant for funding a co-teacher in our classroom for the remaining weeks of the school year to sustain and document our innovative primary curricular program where children are developing the literacy, science, social studies and math skills they need to meet state learning goals through local to global collaborative telecommunications service learning projects. I am continually learning how to teach. I often work 12 hours per school day developing and sustaining our curricular program as well as usually a full weekend day. I often spend recess time with children as well as after school time building team support for a child and communicating with parents. I spend summers reviewing the past school year and preparing for the next. I spend time taking the course work I need to improve my teaching skills and keep my certification updated. That is what it takes to even come close to a goal of leaving no child behind. Yet, even with developing a classroom which is being recognized as outstanding, I feel that I come up short at the end of each day in providing each of the children in my class the full measure of what they need, deserve, and are capable of doing. If only we had been able to have two teachers for this many children all school year, the sky would not even be the limit for what these children could be accomplishing!!! There is no substitute for educational success for all children than critically needed time with an adult to teach them and enable them to soar! And I don't know anyway to insure that those adults are in place each day with needed qualifications without funding!!! There is no substitute for having the funds to prepare qualified teachers and have them in classrooms in great enough numbers so we can do the job of teaching that is needed for today's schools. Almost every public school class today faces challenges of helping children with behavior. Some days, the biggest challenge comes down to making sure each child is safe from harmful physical and verbal hurt by other peers. Large class sizes greatly, exponentially exacerbate these challenges of classroom management to the point of taking away from valuable teaching and learning time. Additionally problems are compounded by not having enough school personnel to assist children facing emotional behavior needs often caused by circumstances not of their fault. Primary grades are the school years with the first opportunities for helpful interventions for children and their families on issues of academic successes and for meeting the emotional needs that affect that success. We know what to do to help. We know how to design learning programs to help children succeed but we simply can't do it unless we have the people we need to implement those programs. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to know how to teach and not be able to do the very best teaching every moment because it is difficult with too large a class and without enough teachers on board as a team to meet the learning needs of the children. People will say to me, ``You are trying to do too much, Kristi, . . . your expectations for what we can do in school are too high'' . . . but, to me, lowering the expectations of what's possible means some children will be left behind and I'm not willing to accept that option. How can we ever possibly be doing too much until we know every child is succeeding to the best of his/her abilities? And wouldn't it be wonderful to be at that place where we say, we have enough of what we need to meet the challenges of educating our children and we are indeed leaving no child behind? I dream of someday hearing that conversation nationally . . . and, until that conversation is truly there, we must do all we can and more just to insure we meet our educational vision and goals for all the children in our country!!! And how can we assess if children are meeting those educational goals and we as teachers are meeting our teaching vision . . . We can administer standardized test to a whole class to measure how students are doing according to a norm and against the skills a particular test identifies as priorities. But, those measurements provide only one form of reference on student learning and, depending on the integrity and quality of a standardized assessment, the test data may or may not be an accurate assessment of what students understand. I can't tell you how many times, in working with primary children, I have seen a child's standardized test results communicate an assessment profile that does not provide the full measure of what I have seen that child demonstrate in the classroom learning environment lessons. Performance on an isolated skill assessment with primary children simply cannot document the whole of who they are as learners. Primary children are growing along a developmental continuum where many of the skills and understandings that we need to see in place in these years as indicators of ongoing successful learning are best demonstrated within the context of active learning with the teacher rather than being only demonstrated in individual performance by themselves. Rather than just being able to demonstrate mastery of individual, isolated skill tasks that are assessed in a standardized test without support of a teacher and outside the context of lesson learning . . . many, many of the skills and understandings that we need to have in place in the primary years for ongoing school success are in the category of: Being able to engage in lessons with the teacher; being able to learn when being taught during a lesson; being able to actively think and talk within a teachable moment; and being able to generate a product or comment when asked to contribute and work with the teacher and peers on ideas and work directly with curricular learning materials . . . While I am successfully using the standardized tests that are required in our district and state to provide data on student progress, if I were to rely only on those standardized skills assessments to measure the success of our children in our public schools, I would miss important documentation of learning that is taking place but simply is best revealed in the interactive teaching and learning between the student with his/her teacher and peers. A standardized test, while providing specifically focused insights on a child's progress, is just a moment of time in a child's school learning. This is especially true when assessing primary children. Sometimes, a standardized assessment presents a profile of student learning that shows a child not succeeding when in actuality, he/she has been demonstrating some successes. I have seen a standardized assessment provide data that looks like the child and the teaching is failing when in actuality neither is true. Often, the observation of a child's behaviors when responding to the challenges of an individual standardized test tell me as much about that child's learning strategies and performance as the actual numerical score that child receives. I often make documentation notes on a child's behavior during the process of administering a standardized test. This takes time for individual observations and writing on my part while also devoting energy and focus on the rest of the class . . . which is no easy task but an important one to fully understand and interpret the results of a standardized score. Many of the standardized assessments we are required to do with our primary students require extended, individual, uninterrupted time with each student. After we give the initial instructions, we must time and record their performance. This is especially true of reading assessments as those are done while listening to, recording, timing and notating each child's reading aloud performance (while also keeping track of the rest of the class). Often these assessments can take ten to fifteen minutes per child to implement and additional time to score. While the information from these assessments can be very valuable, you can well imagine the time involved in a school day to do this accurately and reliably with each child when you have a large class of primary children without any other adult assistance in the classroom. In order to do the best possible job on all assessments of student progress, we need to have smaller class sizes. Often, the best insights I have had on children's learning progress have emerged in the process of having a cohesive whole class, small group or individual conversation about important basic skills and concepts we have been working on together and sometimes it comes from listening in on conversations a child is having with a peer as they work on their learning with one another. Those avenues of assessment tell us so much about the successes in children's learning as well as direction for ongoing learning. Those conversations will not happen unless we have small enough classes with enough teachers to hear the voices of what children are learning each school day. Sincerely, Kristi Rennebohm Franz.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just make a 1-minute wrapup before we turn to the Senator from Virginia, I would appreciate it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire who has spoken eloquently and passionately. I remind our colleagues that the class reduction bill is not a mandate from the Federal Government. It is a Federal partnership from the Federal Government to our classroom and to our schools that want to reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades. I also let our colleagues know that the California experiment which the Senator from New Hampshire spoke of had teachers who were hired that were unqualified. I agree that we don't want that to happen. That is exactly why in our amendment we require fully qualified teachers to be hired if these Federal funds are used. I point out that a study has shown even in the California class size reduction reform they didn't require fully qualified teachers. Test scores are up and student achievement is improving. Test results have been released in the last week that show student scores are up in those classes because they reduced class size. Reducing class size does make a difference. We target a number of areas in this bill from reading first to technology, to training math and science teachers. We should also target money for class size reduction. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Virginia wants to speak on his amendment. If I could have 1 minute by unanimous consent to speak.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank he Senator from Massachusetts for answering that question. He is absolutely correct; 99 percent of the money does go to the local schools at their discretion to use for class size because it is a national priority. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts and ask him again, because we have heard from the other side that this is some kind of Federal mandate for local class size would the Senator from Massachusetts not agree with me that this is a voluntary steady stream of money for schools that choose to use this money to reduce class size?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield on that point for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we began the discussion this morning about the very important issue of reducing class sizes in first, second, and third grades. To me, this is one of the most important issues facing us as we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: whether or not we are going to continue our commitment to first, second, and third grade classrooms across this country to ensure students are in a class small enough for them to learn the basic skills that all of us want them to learn: reading, writing, and math. I see the Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He has been a very strong supporter of reducing class size in early grades. I yield for him.

Mrs. MURRAY. I assume we are on amendment No. 378, class size.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment? Amendment No. 378