Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I will yield for a quick question.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, on our side, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be followed by Senator Dorgan.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from Michigan and Florida for addressing an issue I think all of us really need to address; that is, how do we recruit and retain good teachers in our classrooms today? I think all of us whose kids are in public schools want to know our child will go to school and get the best teacher in that school. The question before us is, How do we make that happen? How do we ensure every one of our kids gets a really good teacher? I have to say I am disappointed in the proposal our colleagues on the other side of the aisle came up with on merit pay. We have heard a lot of slogans in this debate. So far, from the other side, we have heard about private school vouchers, block grants, and now we are getting merit pay and testing for teachers. They all sound really good. But I assure my colleagues, as someone who has been a teacher, someone who has been a school board member, someone who served in the State legislature, slogans don't teach kids; they don't keep good teachers in our classrooms; they don't improve test scores. We are right in looking at the question of how we assure that we have good teachers. I was on a school board. I have debated the issue of merit pay, which, by the way, school districts can now do and which State legislatures can now do. As a Senator, I ask you to give us an example of a current school district that has merit pay in place that is working. We have not heard of any. I will tell you why. Because when you get down to the question of what does merit pay really do and you start to look at it, you realize that merit pay doesn't accomplish what we really want in ensuring that all of our kids get a good education. Good current educational policy and curriculum standards are what we want to teach our kids today. It is not how to sit at a desk, listen to an adult, do everything right all day long, and not move but, rather, how to work together in teams and how to work together with other students because that is what is required of them when they get into the workforce. Very few jobs today have a single person sitting at a desk doing the same task all day long. Merit rewards an individual teacher pitted against another teacher rather than encouraging teachers to work together in their building to improve the education of all of our children. That is what we are trying to teach our children. The best way to do that is by example--encouraging teachers in a building to work together. Certainly different teachers in every building have different skills. Certainly some of them do better with one child, or another child, or another curriculum piece. We must encourage everyone to work together rather than saying we are going to pick the best three or four of you and give you an extra incentive; we encourage a teacher to come and be the principal's pet, or to be there to work the longest, or to try to show that they are somehow better than the other teachers. You start getting teachers pitted against each other. That is not what we want in a good school building. We want all the teachers supporting each other. The best schools I have been in are ones where all of the first grade teachers get together after school, or support each other throughout the day, or share their curriculum. Who is going to share their curriculum, or share the good things that work in their classroom, if that means they may not be the teacher who gets the merit pay? That is why school boards and States have not enacted merit pay. It is simply another slogan we put out here. I think we really need to concentrate on what works. How can we ensure that we recruit the best and brightest? How can we ensure that people want to go into the teaching profession, that we keep the best and brightest, and help those who need additional skills to be the best and the brightest? Think back through your own education. I don't know how many Senators have gone to public schools all their lives. I have, my kids have, and I have been in them. I know. When I look back at my education, or my children's education, and I think about all the teachers I had--think about this: Which one would you pick to get merit pay? It is difficult to do because all of us have had really good teachers. Our kids have had good teachers, and all of us have had good teachers. I will tell you something. I remember well when my kids were in elementary school and my son had a teacher for whom I didn't particularly care. I was at a meeting with some friends. I complained about the teacher. And, surprisingly, another one of my friends said: You do not like that teacher? That is the best teacher my child has ever had. Why? Because that teacher didn't connect with my son but did connect with her son. Different kids learn different ways. Different kids connect with different adults. A teacher may do really well with one child and not well with another. Tell me, how are we going to pick which teacher gets the merit pay? By the parents who like the teacher the best? By the teacher who is the toughest, who may do well for some kids but not well for others? By the teacher who does the most testing in their classrooms? By the teacher who passes a test, maybe? I can tell you this. I have had teachers in my own life and in my kids' lives who were brilliant but who had no way of communicating with the kids they were teaching or how to teach what they held in their own head. I ask my colleagues, and I ask those who are listening, how would you pick which one of your very own teachers or which one of your kids' teachers should receive merit pay? Do you think you can do a fair job? That is what we are doing in this amendment we are debating today. Somebody is going to have to pick. Somebody is going to have to choose that curriculum. Instead of encouraging teachers to work together, whatever that criterion is which some principal decides is going to be how they choose a teacher to get merit pay is going to create disincentives in their own building and antagonism in their own building. I don't think that is what we need to be encouraging. I think we need to address the issue of getting the best and brightest teachers in our classrooms. We do not pay any teacher enough, I am here to tell you, particularly those teachers who are in our toughest schools, who have the kids with 99-percent-free and reduced lunches in their elementary schools. I have been in those schools--kids who come and hear 70 different languages in one school district, kids who come to school who have not even lived in a home, or in the same home for more than several weeks, kids who come to school whose parents may not have come home last night, who may not have eaten last night, who have seen tremendous difficulties in their own lives. We need to make sure those kids get a good teacher. But those are incredibly difficult challenges, and those are the incredibly difficult classrooms. If we are going to provide extra pay for a couple of teachers only, I say let's give it to those teachers who are teaching in the most difficult circumstances. We should be giving them combat pay for their difficult circumstances. Certainly, I will tell you that those teachers who are in those classrooms are not likely to be the ones who get merit pay if it is based on any kind of teacher testing, or testing of their students, because they have the toughest kids in their classrooms. Merit pay, if you do it on testing, rewards those teachers whose kids come to school ready to learn, whose parents are there helping them, and who come from the communities that have the resources in those schools. Let's be very careful about what we are promoting. Let's be sure that we tell kids in our high schools and colleges that we want them to teach; we need them to teach. We know we need the best and the brightest in our classrooms, we know we need teachers who are professionals, and we know we must reward them. I know that doesn't address the question my colleagues brought out about: What about those poor teachers? What about those teachers who aren't qualified? I can tell you what we are asking teachers to do today is tremendously different from what we asked teachers to do 10, 20, or 30 years ago. If you got your teaching degree back in 1972 and you are teaching in a classroom today, I assure you that no one in your college taught you how to use a computer. No one taught you how to develop your curriculum to use technology. No one thought you would need the math skills our students need today. No one thought you would be teaching in a classroom with many different languages or cultures. No one thought you would have the discipline problems you have. Let's take those teachers who got their degree back in 1970, 1975, or 1980 and give them the professional development to get the skills they need in today's classrooms. I have talked to teachers who feel extremely frustrated. They tell me if I were in a private business and the requirements had changed as dramatically as our public schools had in the last 30 years, they would have sent me to professional development. We lack the resources and haven't provided the resources in our public education system to give our teachers the professional development they need. Let's not condemn them for that now. Let's do what is right and help provide professional development for our teachers in a way that is constructive so we can keep people who want to be in the classroom but have not been able to keep up. I think we can revise some of the systems of tenure; many districts have done that. I think that is a good way to proceed. It is pretty darn frustrating to be a teacher today. They listen to the debate on the Senate floor and they hear about all the horrible teachers who cannot pass tests. These are people with college degrees who chose to be in our classrooms with our young kids. These are people who we should be supporting. We should be supporting them with incentives to be in the teaching profession. We should support them with quality pay. When teachers work for $23,000 a year and are told they have to go back and pay for a test to stay in this profession, or pay to go back to school, how do they do that? I don't know how they do that. I don't know how a single mom with a couple of kids who is teaching and earning $23,000 or $25,000 a year would ever be able to continue to be in our classroom, even if she were in the best classroom, if we required her to go back to school to take tests. There is one problem with this underlying amendment I have not mentioned, and I don't think anybody has. There is no money here. It requires testing, and there is no money. That money will have to come from somewhere in the districts. The districts will not have the money, and likely they will require the teachers themselves to pay for it. That has been the practice in the past. I understand the motive behind the slogan. I understand the desire to tell the good teachers in our classrooms that we appreciate the work they are doing. However, I think we should reward all teachers with better salaries. I think we should provide better training for teachers, more professional development for our teachers, give them the skills they need. If we want to come back and say we have done everything for these teachers to give them the best skills and they still don't make the grade, then there is something to say about this underlying amendment. We haven't done that yet. We have left our teachers behind. As a result, we have left our students behind. In closing, there are tremendously good people in our schools today who are trying their best and working very hard. I think they deserve the most accolades we can give them. We should not be denigrating them. We do have some excellent ways of rewarding good teachers today. On my staff, I have a woman named Ann Ifekwunigwe, an Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator. She has been with me on my staff as a fellow for the last year and has done an outstanding job. She is actually an elementary schoolteacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District. She is a great example of what we are already doing. Ann worked very hard and received her national board teacher certificate in California. Once you have done that in California, teachers then get a 15-percent salary increase and a $10,000 bonus. There are ways under current law to encourage and help pave the way for teachers who want to get additional training which benefits all of our students. We should encourage those. I don't think we should be just using a slogan of merit pay, saying we will pick a couple of teachers out of our schools and tell them they are better than the rest of the teachers, without understanding the consequences of what may happen. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield the time to the Senator from Minnesota after the Senator from Ohio speaks.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, classrooms across America are less crowded today than they were a year ago, because this Congress made a commitment to hiring new teachers to reduce classroom overcrowding. The progress has been overwhelming. Today, 1.7 million students are in less crowded classrooms--where they can learn the basics in a disciplined environment. That is the type of progress we should continue. Unfortunately, this Republican bill abandons our commitment to helping students learn in less crowded classrooms. At a time when we should be ensuring that every student can benefit from an uncrowded classroom, this Republican bill makes no guarantee that smaller classes will become a reality. That is why I am on the floor today--to make sure that no student is stuck in an overcrowded classroom in grades 1-3. I am offering an amendment which would authorize the class size reduction program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As a former teacher, I can tell you, it really makes a difference if you have 18 kids in a classroom instead of 35--parents know it, teachers know it, and students know it. By working together over the past 2 years, we have been able to bring real results to students. With the first year of class size reduction funding, we have been able to hire 29,000 teachers across the country. Approximately 1.7 million students across the country are learning in classrooms that are less crowded than they were the year before. The average class size has been reduced by more than five students in the grades where these funds have been concentrated. Forty-two percent of the teachers hired are teaching first grade. In these schools, the average class size fell from approximately 23 to 17 students, 23 percent of the teachers are in 2nd grade, and 24 percent are in third grade. In both of these grades, the average class size, where these funds were used, dropped from 23 to 18 students. In addition, districts are using approximately 8 percent of this money to support professional development so we can have teachers of the highest quality. Let me take a moment to share a list of some of the benefits of class size reduction. Class size reduction produces better student achievement, something every Senator has been out here to say they support. It brings about fewer discipline problems. When there are fewer kids in your classroom you can maintain discipline; there is more individual attention, better parent-teacher communication--an essential to a child's education--and dramatic results for poor and minority students. Those are some of the ways smaller classes help students reach their potential. Those are the results we should be giving all students in the early grades. But today, there are still too many students in overcrowded classrooms. Today, the average classroom in grades 1-3 has 22 students in it, students who are fighting for the time and attention of just one teacher, students who might not get their questions answered because their classmates are creating disruptions, students who aren't learning the basics. Those students would be helped dramatically if we gave them a less crowded classroom with a fully-qualified, caring teacher. Go out into your local school districts and talk to any teachers, and I believe they will tell you classes are overcrowded. It is not easy for local school districts to hire teachers on their own. Believe me--I served on a local school board. This is one area where the Federal partnership really makes a dramatic difference for students. I understand, as a former school board member, the pressure the school boards and others involved with the budget face in allocating scarce resources. The pressure on how to spend these funds are immense, and in most district budgets, there is not money to reduce class size. The Federal funds for the purpose of reducing class size are incredibly important for supplementing district budget to address the class size. Let me share an example of how one of the districts in my State is using these funds. The Tacoma School District in Washington State received a class size reduction grant of a little over $1 million, and the district started a program called ``Great Start.'' That's one of the best things about this program. School districts can use this money to meet the unique challenges their students face. We know that not every school district is the same. We know that some schools need more help hiring teachers, and others need more help training teachers. That is why this program that we created 2 years ago is flexible. So the educators in Tacoma decided they would focus the money on first grade. And, they decided that--in addition to reducing over- crowded classrooms--they were going to make sure that those new teachers had the best strategies for helping students. They set clear goals. For example, they set the goal that every student be able to read and write by the spring of their first grade year. They hired an additional 20 fully-qualified new teachers. And the difference has been dramatic. Today, as a result of this program, those classrooms have an average of just 16 students. Those students are now better able to learn the basics with fewer discipline problems. I am proud to say I have visited schools in Tacoma. I have seen the great strides those dedicated educators are making. But do not take my word for it. Listen to what one of the teachers wrote to me. I received this letter from Rachel Lovejoy, a first grade teacher at Whittier Elementary School in Tacoma. She writes: I knew first graders could make great gains, and this year they are. Rachel is the type of teacher who goes out and visits every child's home in August before the school year begins. She meets their family and learns about that student's unique needs and challenges. As Rachel told me: With 16 families, I can fit the visits into my room preparation with greater ease. What a great start to building that family atmosphere in my class. Rachel tells me that because she has fewer students in each class she is better able to keep track of how each student is progressing. Rachel also says there are fewer discipline problems in her classroom today: It is much easier to build a familial, caring community in the classroom with fewer children. Rachel knows what makes a difference in the classroom, and she has a message for all of us about reducing class size: The research is there. Accept no excuses. Gives us lower class size and training, and let us do what we do best . . . teach. That is what we should be doing and that is what the amendment I am offering today does. It shows teachers like Rachel that we will stand with them and help them create effective classrooms. I was fortunate to receive a letter from Lori Wegner--the parent of one of the students in Rachel Lovejoy's classroom. She writes: With 16 children, Rachel is able to interact with each child on an individual basis throughout each day. Rachel is able to go above and beyond the basic requirements for testing the students' achievements and focus on each child's development in a way that is appropriate to the individual child. Lori closes her letter to me by saying: Please give our teachers the opportunity to facilitate the development of each individual student to their fullest potential during these critical years of learning. Not only do the parents and teachers in my community tell me it works, but national research proves smaller class size helps students learn the basics in a disciplined environment. A study conducted in Tennessee in 1989, known as the STAR Study, compared the performance of students in grades K-3 in small and regular-sized classes. This important study found that students in small classes--those with 13 to 17 students--significantly outperformed other students in math and reading. The STAR study found that students benefitted from smaller classes at all grade levels and across all geographic areas. The study 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. I repeat, students who are in smaller class sizes in first, second, and third grade have higher graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and are more inclined to go on to higher education. Isn't that what all of us want? According to research conducted by Princeton University economist, Dr. Alan Kruger, students who attended small classes were more likely to take ACT or SAT college entrance exams, and that was particularly true for African American students. According to Dr. Kruger: Attendance in small classes appears to have cut the black- white gap in the probability of taking a college-entrance exam by more than half. Three other researchers at two different institutions of higher education found that STAR students who attended small classes in grades K-3 were between 6 and 13 months ahead of their regular class peers in math, reading, and science in each of grades 4, 6, and 8. In yet another part of the country, a different class-size reduction study reached similar conclusions. The Wisconsin SAGE Study--Student Achievement Guarantee in Education--findings from 1996 thru 1999 consistently proved that smaller classes result in significantly greater student achievement. Class-size reduction programs in the SAGE study resulted in increased attention to individual students. This produced three main benefits: No. 1, fewer discipline problems and more instruction, No. 2, more knowledge of students, and No. 3, more teacher enthusiasm for teaching. The Wisconsin study also found that in smaller classes, teachers were able to identify the learning problems of individual students more quickly. As one teacher participant in the SAGE class-size reduction study said: If a child is having problems, you can see it right away. You can take care of it then. It works a lot better for the children. Parents of children in smaller classes notice the difference as well. The mother of a child who moved from a class of 23 students to a class of 15 students discovered that--she wrote this to me: The smaller class makes it possible for the teacher to get to know the kids a lot faster, so they can assess their strengths and weaknesses right away and start working from those points right away. Discipline problems were also greatly reduced in smaller classes. One teacher said: In a class of thirty students, you're always redirecting, redirecting--spending most of your time redirecting and disciplining kids where you're not getting as much instructional time in. Those are not my words, they are hers. By contrast, another teacher said: Having 15 [students], I'm so close to them. Generally, I don't have to say a thing; I just look at them and they shape up and get back to work . . . So I don't spend a lot of time with discipline anymore. The empirical support for smaller class size is compelling. Smaller classes in SAGE schools produced high levels of classroom efficiency; a positive classroom atmosphere; expansive learning opportunities; and enthusiasm and achievement among both students and teachers. The SAGE study concluded that the main effect of smaller class size was greater student success in school. Today we have the opportunity to authorize the class-size reduction program in this bill and ensure we do not abandon our school districts in their efforts to reduce class size, which have been so successful. It is our opportunity to make a commitment to improving America's public schools. I am offering this class-size reduction amendment to give Members of the Senate the opportunity to show parents, teachers and students that we understand that it's important to reduce the class size. My class size amendment will continue the progress we have made over the past 2 years in dedicating funding to class-size reduction. It will bring us to a total of more than 43,000 fully qualified teachers nationwide. Here are the specifics of my amendment: This amendment would use $1.75 billion to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, grades 1 through 3, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children. It targets the money where it is needed within states. Within States, 99 percent of the funds will be disbursed directly to local school districts on a formula which is 80 percent need-based, and 20 percent enrollment-based. Small school districts that alone may not generate enough Federal funding to pay for a starting teacher's salary may combine funds with other dollars to pay the salary of a full or part-time teacher or use the funds on professional development related to class size. This amendment ensures local decision-making. Each school district board makes all decisions about hiring and training new teachers. They decide what their needs are. They decide how many teachers they want to hire. They decide which classrooms to focus their efforts on. They decide what goals they want those students to reach. It is local decision making. This amendment promotes teacher quality. Up to 25 percent of the funds may be used to test new teachers, or to provide professional development to new and current teachers of regular and special needs children. The program ensures that all teachers are fully qualified. School districts hire State certified teachers so students learn from fully trained professionals. This amendment is flexible. Any school district that has already reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer children may use funds to further reduce class sizes in the early grades; reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades; or carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including professional development. The flexibility for these funds is seen throughout my State. In Washington, the North Thurston school district is using all of their funds to hire teachers to reduce class size. At the same time, the Pomeroy school district, which is a rural district in eastern Washington, was able to use 100% of their funds to improve teacher quality through professional development. The Seattle school district even used a portion of their funding to recruit new teachers. The Class-Size Program is simple and efficient. School districts fill out a one-page form, which is available on-line. Here is a copy of the one-page form from my State. This is a copy. We hear from the other side about bureaucracy and paperwork. This is an example of how targeted Federal funding for a program really works. This is a one-page form. School districts fill it out, and they get the money. It is at their request. They do not have to ask for the money, but if they do, they fill out a one-page form and the money is available to them. Teachers have told me, by the way, they have never seen money move so quickly from Congress to the classroom as they have seen with these class-size reduction funds. Linda McGeachy in the Vancouver school district, recently commented, ``The language if very clear, applying was very easy, and there funds really work to support classroom teachers.'' Finally, this amendment ensures accountability. In Addition, the language clarifies that the funds are supplementary, and cannot replace current spending on teachers or teacher salaries. Accountability is assured by requiring school districts to send a ``report card'' in understandable language to their local community--including information about how achievement has improved as a result of reducing class size. Before I close, I just want to make one final point. This class size program was a great idea when we passed it 2 years ago, and I was especially pleased that we had the support of so many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. In fact, I have a press release from the Republican Policy Committee which was put out on October 20, 1998. It listed class size as one of the accomplishments the Republican Party had at that time. It says, ``Teacher quality initiative cleared by the President,'' and it lists class-size reduction funding as one of the major accomplishments during the 105th Congress. So this was a bipartisan proposal. Throughout the last 2 years, we have worked together to make sure the language works for everyone involved. We have seen the results come in. Mr. President, 1.7 million students have benefited from this policy. That really is why I find it so surprising that in this underlying Republican bill we back away from that commitment that 2 years ago we were touting as the way to go and as an accomplishment for both sides. I am offering this amendment today to give both the Democrats and the Republicans an opportunity to show that they care about the students in America's classrooms and to keep that commitment we made 2 years ago. Parents, teachers, and students across America want students to be in classes that are not crowded. Working together over the past 2 years, we have been able to help 1.7 million students learn the basics with fewer discipline problems. The results are in. Smaller classes are making a positive difference. The research proves it. Parents, teachers, and students have seen the results. We should be committed to continuing that effort and not abandoning it in the underlying bill. That is why I am offering this amendment today, to make sure we continue the progress in reducing class size. Our children deserve the best. America deserves the best. This amendment gives it to them. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we came together several years ago in a bipartisan manner, both sides of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, and said we have made a great accomplishment, we have targeted Federal funds to a program that we know will work, reducing class size. Studies show it, from the Educational Testing Service in 1997 to the Star study in 1989, to the Wisconsin State study, to the New York study which I will read to you very quickly. A teacher said: Now that I have seen the difference a small class makes, I don't want to go back to being a policeman. I think that says it for all of us. We know in first, second, and third grades, if we reduce the class sizes, our kids will learn the basics--math, reading, and science--that they will go on to college, there will be fewer discipline problems, and we will have accomplished something great. Senator Harkin has been out in his State, as many of us have, in the classrooms that are a direct recipient of our class size money. I challenge my colleagues to do the same because when you do, you can then walk away and say: I did something realistic and I can see it in the faces of these kids. We have the opportunity now to continue that program, and I urge this amendment's adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield 8 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for my clarification, I understand my amendment is in order and the time between now and 5 o'clock is equally divided, is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Murray amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the example that was given was entertaining to listen to, but this amendment we are offering is incredibly flexible. It appears the example he is using is reflective of local ineptness, not Federal inflexibility in this amendment. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. We are about to have three very important votes. One will be on the class size amendment. First, the Senator from Arkansas mentioned in his remarks the WestEd Policy Briefing and spoke eloquently about the challenges, but he failed to talk about the tremendous benefits that were also in the report, including achievement gains and greater individual attention. The list goes on. I ask unanimous consent to have the entire study printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to thank our minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, for the tremendous effort he has made in helping us craft the Democratic alternative to the underlying bill that we are considering today, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This amendment the minority leader has put forward is going to make very important corrections to the Republican bill that will help all students in this country and their schools get the help they really need. On Monday on the Senate floor, I, along with a lot of my colleagues on this side, outlined the many ways that this Republican bill is going to hurt our students. I outlined our positive agenda that will help all students reach their potential by investing in the things we know work. Today, I have come back to the Senate floor to support this alternative which sets the right priorities for our students. This is a positive agenda for making improvements to the role the Federal Government plays in helping our local districts provide education. Across this country, schools are making remarkable progress, but none of us can remain satisfied with the status quo. As Americans, we believe every child should be able to meet high standards and reach his or her full potential. This debate in this Senate is our chance--our only chance, perhaps in 6 years--to make sure every child has the tools to succeed. As a parent, as someone who has fought for our students on the PTA, as a school board member, I have seen what works in our schools. Parents and educators have told me we need to invest in smaller class sizes. We need to invest in teacher quality. We need to help to have more parental involvement in our schools. We need to invest in safe and modern schools for all of our kids. Those are proven strategies that are transforming schools across the country. We should invest in those powerful approaches. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal before us goes in the exact opposite direction. Instead of making a commitment to what works, and to what we know works, it experiments with things that have no record of producing results for students. Today, surprisingly, the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of all education funding. But those dollars are very importantly targeted to help America's most vulnerable students meet their critical needs. It is a responsible, accountable way to meet the needs in America's classrooms. The Republican approach would take the things that are working and turn them into a block grant. Their block grant does not go to the classroom. It goes to State legislatures and adds a new layer of bureaucracy between the education dollars and the students who are so important. The Republican approach puts all of its faith in block grants. I am here to tell you that students will lose out because, as I have said before, a block grant cannot teach a single child to read. A block grant cannot teach a single child the basics. But investing in teacher quality and reducing our class sizes can help teach children the basics. That is what we should be doing in the Senate. The Republican block grant proposal is a reckless, giant step backwards. First of all, the Republican bill is going to hurt disadvantaged students. Today, education dollars are targeted at the Federal level to America's most vulnerable students, ensuring that children who are homeless or children of migrant workers get the resources they need. They travel from school to school, from State to State; and we need to make sure, no matter what school or State they are in, they get the help they need. Under block grants, there would be no assurance that the education dollars intended for these very vulnerable students will actually go to those vulnerable students. Educationally disadvantaged students have very few advocates. Believe me, as a former school board member, I know they do not show up at school board meetings. They do not show up in State legislatures. They certainly do not travel here to the Congress to stand up for the programs that serve their children. We have the responsibility to do that for them. By eliminating the targeting that helps poor students, block grants would simply cut the lifelines that run to disadvantaged students. We cannot let that happen. Secondly, block grants reduce accountability. Under block grants, we do not know where our tax dollars are going. We will not know if that money is being used for critical needs. We will not know if public taxpayer dollars are staying in our public schools. Block grants have little or no accountability for student achievement. In this bill, we let 3 to 5 years pass before any accountability kicks in. We are going to lose kids in that amount of time. The Republican bill simply is a 3-year experiment that breaks our commitment to the things we know work, and it risks having students fall behind. Under the current bill, block grants would even allow public taxpayer dollars to be used for private schools. The amendment that was previously offered supposedly fixes that, but it does not fix the fact that, under the title I portability requirements, public tax dollars will still be able to be used in private schools. Finally, block grants mean less money for the classroom. Pure and simple, block grants will mean less money from the Federal Government to our classrooms. By the way, block grants are not new. They do have a history here. That history shows us, very clearly, that when a specific program is turned into a block grant, inevitably the funding will get cut. For example, an education program that we call title VI, which funds innovative education efforts, was turned into a block grant in 1982. Guess what happened between 1982 and 1999. The funding for that program was cut in half. The effects of putting our education budget today into a block grant would be felt in every school across this country. We would see more overcrowded classrooms with fewer resources dedicated to improving teacher quality. That will be the result of block grants. The Republican agenda is made up of block grants and vouchers, cutting lifelines to vulnerable students, having less money for our classrooms, and less accountability for taxpayers. There is no reason to experiment with block grants and risk leaving students behind. We know how to improve education, and we should be doing that on the Senate floor. That is why I support the Democratic alternative that is now before the Senate. We believe we must keep our commitment to vulnerable students. We believe we should keep our schools accountable. We believe we should not let block grants shortchange students. That is why we are fighting these block grants and standing up for the strategies that make a positive difference in the classroom. That is why we are working very hard to pass this Democratic alternative. This alternative makes a real commitment to reducing classroom overcrowding. It keeps our commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce classroom overcrowding, an approach that we know works--parents know it works, teachers know it works. Studies are showing that reducing class size in the first, second, and third grades makes a difference in our student's ability to read, to write, and to reduce discipline problems in our classrooms. That is in the Democratic alternative. Over the past 2 years, Congress has provided more than $2.5 billion for the specific purpose of recruiting, hiring, and training teachers to reduce class size. Unfortunately, the underlying Republican bill walks away from that commitment. The Democratic substitute will authorize the Class Size Reduction Program, and provide $1.75 billion to help districts hire new, fully qualified teachers. In addition to keeping that commitment, this alternative will address the need for a qualified teacher in every classroom. I assure you, when they send their child off to school on the first day of school in September, every parent wants to know two things: how many kids are in their classroom, and who is their teacher? Why do parents ask those questions? Because they know if their child is in a classroom that is small enough, where they get individual attention, and if they have the best teacher, that child is going to learn. We want to make sure every child has a qualified teacher in their classroom. This Democratic alternative makes a move in the right direction. The amendment will hold schools accountable for better student performance. It will expand and strengthen afterschool opportunities for students, which Senator Boxer has been so strong on, knowing that it makes a difference in the educational lives of thousands of students across this country. We will repair and modernize America's aging schools. I can't tell you how many times I have been in a school where we have seen kids with coats on because the heat didn't work, where water was dripping through the classrooms, where they were in portables. We send first, second, and third graders out across schools to use restrooms because there isn't any running water in their building. We believe our children can learn if we pay attention to what they are learning in. Our underlying Democratic alternative increases parental involvement. Every parent knows intuitively if they participate with their child in their school, their child will learn better. We make sure that happens in the Democratic alternative. Finally, we work to close the digital divide. As Senator Mikulski so eloquently speaks about, we have to make sure every child is on the right side of the digital divide. This Democratic alternative makes that happen. I urge my colleagues to support this alternative. Clearly, the Republican proposal before us will leave students behind. By passing this amendment, we will show parents, teachers, and students across the country that we understand the challenges they face, and that we are going to be good partners at the Federal level to make sure all of our kids, no matter who they are or from where they come, will have the opportunity to reach their full potential. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield further, does the Senator understand, as I do, that this amendment would not apply to title I portability? And we, again, asked the author of this amendment in committee if the title I portability funds could be used for private education institutions, and his answer was yes. This amendment doesn't fix that. I am glad it fixes the first part of it, but it doesn't--and the Senator can respond--fix the portability.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mrs. MURRAY. The order on the Democratic side, obviously alternating with the Republican side, would be Senators Dodd, Kerry, Schumer, Harkin, and Dorgan.

Mrs. MURRAY. We will alternate, obviously, between the sides. But that will be the Democratic speakers.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may we amend that for this side? The order on this side would be Senators Dodd, Kerry, Schumer, Harkin, and Dorgan.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ann Ifekwunigwe, a fellow of my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the entire ESEA debate.