Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in today's Washington Post, ``From Teachers to Drill Sergeants,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a piece Jay Mathews wrote. I want to give some examples from this article. There is one thing he mentions that is really important: I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty. That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson plan. The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear that I had an incurable, terminal disease. Then the article gets much more serious. Part of the insulting assumption of this legislation is that the teachers in this country don't want to be held accountable, that we now have to do the tests to show that they really are not doing their job. There are, of course, teachers you will find who subtract from children, but many of them are saints. And I doubt that there is one Senator who condemns these teachers who could last an hour in the classrooms they condemn. If you go and visit schools, teachers are talking about other issues: What happens to children before they get to school; the whole question of kids who come to kindergarten way behind. They are talking about the lack of affordable housing, children who are coming to school hungry today in America, class size and all of the rest of it. That is what they are talking about. But our response is to go to these tests and to assume that somehow, once children are tested, everything will become better. I want to give some examples Jay Mathews gives today, about the effect that an over-reliance on testing can have on the classroom. He writes: Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science specialist in Easton, Md., said ``a rich, interesting classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the `drill and kill' method.'' But in many cases, teachers said, administrators make it difficult to do the right thing. Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of grammar was banned because it conflicted with the step-by- step schedule for preparing for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skill (TAAS) tests. A third grade teacher in Fort Worth said her principal asked her if she had designated as many students as possible for special education classes so they would be exempt from the tests and make the school average higher. Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth grade honors English class would not have the time to read all of Charles Dickens' ``David Copperfield'' because there were too many topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test. A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide- ranging discussion of the possible answers to sample test questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers are correct, she was told. Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked not to be identified, dropped their engaging approach to U.S. history because of the [Virginia standard of learning test]. They had been starting with post World War II history, stimulating family discussions about events their students' parents and grandparents had witnessed. Then they went back to colonial days to show how it all started. So I just want to issue this warning, about where I am afraid we are heading: I think in the absence of the resources and with the overreliance on tests that is emerging, what we are going to have is, as one teacher put it so well to Jonathan Kozol, you are going to have great teachers living in ``examination hell.'' A lot of the really good teachers are going to get out. In fact, they are now. Some of the really great teachers are just refusing to be drill instructors, teaching to tests, tests, tests. They are leaving. This is the opposite direction from where we should be going. It is very much the case that the best teachers are the ones who are not going to want to be teaching to these tests. And frankly, some of the worst teachers can do it. When I am in schools, and I have been in a school about every 2 weeks for the last 10 and a half years I ask the students, when we get into a discussion of education: What do you think makes for a good education? You are the experts. Before class size, before technology, before anything else, they say: Good teachers. Then I say: What makes for a good teacher? I never hear students say: Well, the really good teachers are the teachers who teach to worksheets. The really good teachers are the teachers who basically have us memorizing all the time and then regurgitating that back on tests. They talk about teachers who spend time with them, teachers who fire their imagination, teachers who don't just transmit knowledge but basically empower them to figure out how to live their lives. They talk about teachers who get the students to connect personally to the books that are being discussed, to the ideas that are being discussed, to how those ideas affect their lives. That is what they talk about. That is not the direction we are going, not with what we are bringing down from the Federal Government, top-down to school districts all across our land. Again, that is why this amendment is so important. I thank my colleague for the amendment. I am proud to support him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Let me just in 3 minutes lend my support to this very important amendment. I will try to do this a little differently. I think this amendment that is offered by Senator Dodd, joined by Senator Biden, is, at least to me, obvious. This is an amendment offered by a Senator who spends a lot of time in schools. Not every Senator does. Senator Dodd is in schools all the time in Connecticut and probably around the country. What Senator Dodd is saying is this comparability amendment has to do with making sure we deal with--and I am sure that the most noted author of children's education, Jonathan Kozol, is smiling. This is all about his book ``Savage Inequality.'' What the Senator is saying is let us have some comparability when it comes to class size, access to technology, safe schools, curriculum, and teachers. I would just say to Senator Dodd that as we have gone forward with this bill, I have had all of these e-mails from around the country from all of these teachers, sometimes parents, sometimes students, but these teachers are the ones who know, these are the teachers who are--I think the Senator's sister is a teacher in fact--in the inner-city schools. They are in the trenches. They have stayed with it. They are totally committed. They are saying: For God's sake, please, also in the Senate, above and beyond talking about annual testing, give us the tools to make sure the children can achieve. Please talk about the importance of good teachers, qualified teachers. Please talk about the importance of access to technology. Please talk about the importance of good curriculum, of small class size. Please talk about the importance of dividing school buildings. Please talk about the importance that schools should be safe. Please talk about all of the resources that will make it possible for all the children in America to have the same opportunity to learn. That is what this amendment is about. That is why this amendment is so important.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to send the amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd, along with Senators Dayton, Feingold, Clinton, Hollings, Murray, Reed, and Corzine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The amendment is at the desk. I am sorry. I ask unanimous consent that the additional Senators be added as cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, I think in a lot of ways, is kind of a test case of whether or not we are passing a reform bill. I will have a lot to say about this, and other Senators will as well. I am certainly hoping that colleagues on the other side--whether they are Republicans or Democrats--who disagree will come to this Chamber to express their dissent so that I can know what possible arguments can be made against this amendment. There are many Senators who have said publicly in this Chamber, and back in their States, and in interviews with the media, that we have to have this testing for the accountability--we can talk more about that later--but that, in addition, we also have to have the resources to make sure that the children, the schools, and the teachers have the tools to do well. The testing is supposed to assess the reform. The testing is not supposed to be the reform. I remember at the very beginning, a long time ago, I said: You cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind or you cannot talk about an education reform program if it is on a tin cup budget; you have to have the resources. I have heard many Senators say: We are for the testing for the accountability, but we are also going to invest in these children and make sure there are the resources. That is point 1. Point 2: Senator Dodd and Senator Collins came to this Chamber with a very important amendment which authorized a dramatic increase in resources for the title I program. It was a bipartisan amendment. There were, I believe, 79 Senators who voted for this amendment. This amendment was a Paul Simon amendment. It turns out the Senator from Illinois is in the Senate Chamber. This amendment was an education amendment by Senator Dodd and Senator Collins. I say to the best friend I ever had in the Senate--Senator Paul Simon of Illinois--who is here, that what I am now saying to every Senator is: 79 Senators voted for an authorization, but that is not money. That is fiction. This amendment says that by 2005--we committed in that amendment that we would spend $24.72 billion for title I which would go to the benefit of children for extra reading help, for afterschool, for prekindergarten, all of which is critically important. So what this amendment says is that the tests we are authorizing need not be implemented unless we, in fact, appropriate the money at the level we said we would. This was the amount the Dodd amendment authorized. We have been saying to our States: We are going to get you the resources. So what we are saying in this amendment is that States do not have to do this unless we make the commitment to the resources. I have heard people talk about the need to walk our talk. I have heard Senator after Senator say that they are for accountability but they are for resources. I do not know how Senators can vote against this proposal. We said we were for authorizing this money. This amendment is a trigger amendment. It says that we make this commitment to $24.72 billion for title I. And this amendment says, if we do not do this, then the new tests need not be implemented. If the States or school districts want to say we do not want to do this because you have not lived up to your commitment, they do not have to do it. I look back because sometimes our staff do the best work. So I am looking back at Jill Morningstar to make sure I am right about this. Now just a little bit about what this really is all about. This is the heart of the debate. Right now, title I is a program for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is the major Federal commitment. We are funding it at a 30-percent level. The title I money is used for extra reading help. It can be used for prekindergarten. It can be used to help these children do better. What this amendment is saying is, it does not do a heck of a lot of good to test the children all across the country when we have not done anything to make sure they have the best teachers; that the classes are smaller; that the buildings are inviting; that they come to kindergarten ready to learn; that they get additional help for reading. The testing is a snapshot. It is one piece of the picture. It does not tell us anything about what happened before or what happens after. What good does it do to have so many children in America right now who are crowded into dilapidated buildings, into huge classes, who have four teachers a year, who do not have the same resources and benefits as a lot of other children, who come to kindergarten way behind, and we are going to test them and show that they are not doing well, which we already know, but we are not going to have the resources to do anything to help them after they don't do well on the tests. Or even more importantly, we are not going to have the resources to help them to make sure that when we hold them accountable, they have the same opportunity as every other child in America to do well. I am on fire about this amendment because this is the amendment that holds people accountable for the words they have been speaking. We must not separate the lives we live as legislators from the words we speak. We have been saying that we were going to have the resources, that we were going to get them to the teachers and the schools and the children. And that is what this amendment says. This amendment says: Don't fool people by just doing an authorization. This was so important what Senator Dodd did, so important what Senator Collins did, so important that 79 Senators voted for it, but really what makes a difference is if we go on record and make it crystal clear that unless we live up to what we already voted for and provide the money--this would be $24 billion plus in the year 2005-- then in Rhode Island or Minnesota or other States, schools can say: You didn't provide the money you said you were going to provide. You didn't provide the resources you said you were going to provide. We choose not to do the testing. They should have that option. Otherwise, this testing is an unfunded mandate. You are setting everybody up for failure. I will quote a recent study by the Center for Education Policy. Here is the conclusion: Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the public into thinking that testing and accountability will close the gap. They are right. Do you think by jamming a test down the throats of every school in every school district in every State in America--by the way, I am going to ask my conservative friends. I don't get this. Right now, I haven't made a final decision, but I lean pretty heavily in the direction that the Federal Government should not do this. I don't know where the Federal Government gets off telling school districts and schools they have to test every child age 8, age 9, age 10, age 11, age 12, and age 13. What a reach on the part of the Federal Government. It is quite one thing to say all of us in America live in a national community and when it comes to discrimination, when it comes to human rights, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to a basic diet that every child should have, no State, no community should be able to fall below that. That is one kind of argument. But now we are going to tell every school district they have to do this? It is absolutely amazing to me that we are doing so. The point is, don't anybody believe that the test we make every child take means that child now is going to have a qualified teacher. It doesn't do anything about that. A test doesn't reduce class size. A test doesn't make sure the children come to kindergarten ready. Part of the crisis in education is the learning gap by age 5. Some children come to kindergarten, then they go on to first grade, second grade, third grade. Now we are going to test them, age 8. One group of children, to be honest with you, actually has had 7 years of school. They came to kindergarten. Then they had the 3 years plus that. Now they are third graders. Before that, they had 3 years of enriched child care. They came to kindergarten having been widely read to. They know colors and shapes and sizes. They know how to spell their name. They know the alphabet. They are ready to learn. They have had the education. And then a lot of other children haven't. And they are behind, way behind. This is during the period of time of the development of the brain, the most critical time. Then they fall further behind. Testing doesn't change any of that. Testing doesn't do anything about making sure there is the technology there. Testing doesn't do anything about whether or not you have 40 or 50 kids crowded into a classroom. But if we were to make a commitment to some title I funding, then we could get some additional help for reading; some additional help for after school; for teachers to have assistance helping them with children, one-on-one help; prekindergarten. How can Senators possibly vote against this amendment? They can't, not if they have said they are committed to getting the resources to these schools. The Association of American Test Publishers, the people who develop virtually every large standardized test used in our schools, say the same thing. I quote from the Association of American Test Publishers: In sum, assessments should follow, not lead, the movement to reform our schools. What they are saying is that the testing is supposed to assess the reform. The testing isn't the reform. And the reform is whether or not we are going to have the resources to make sure these children have a chance to do well. Senators, if we are going to say that it will be a national mandate that every child in America will be tested and we will hold the children and the schools and everyone else accountable, then it should be a national mandate that every child should have the same opportunity to learn and do well in America. That is what this amendment is about. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Democratic Governors' Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. They say: While we are pleased to support the Carnahan Nelson amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of legislation to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically to include title I. This is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged students and the federal government needs to back its efforts to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment. These Governors are saying this is part of your major Federal commitment. With all due respect, you have to back accountability with new investment, and we support the idea of this trigger amendment. They are absolutely right. For some reason, these Governors are a little worried that we are going to mandate all this testing and then not live up to our commitment of resources, for very good reason. I would like to quote from an article given to me by my good friend from Florida, Senator Graham. This is by a Walter R. Tschinkel. He discusses Florida's system of grading schools. The Presiding Officer is one of the people in the Senate most immersed in education. What does Mr. Tschinkel find is the single most important variable in determining how children do on test scores? Would anybody here be real surprised to hear that it is poverty? He found that for every percent that poverty increases, the school score drops by an average of 1.6 points. He showed that the level of poverty in a school in Florida predicted what the school's achievement score would be with 80-percent accuracy. May I ask, what are we doing here with this bill that is called BEST? What are we doing? We are not doing anything to reduce poverty. We have not made any commitment to title I money being there, which is what this amendment calls for. We are not doing anything when it comes to a commitment in prekindergarten and child care. We are still funding Early Head Start at the 3-percent level and Head Start for 3- and 4-year-olds at the 50-percent level. We are not doing anything about rebuilding crumbling schools. Shame on us. We are not doing anything about reducing class size. Shame on us. Now what we are going to do is test these children and show these children in America again how little we care about them. I have to cool down. It would be better if we had some debate. I want to hear how people justify not providing resources. I am not surprised by a recent study by the Education Trust Fund which shows the extent of the gap between low-income and high-income districts. There are not too many Senators who have children in low- income districts. The study found that nationally low-poverty school districts spend an average of $1,139 more than high-poverty school districts. In 86 percent of the States, there is a spending gap favoring wealthier students. The widest gap is in New York where the wealthiest districts spend on average $2,794 more per student. As the Center for Educational Policy concludes: Policymakers on the State and national levels should be wary of proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap but do not help build the capacity to accomplish this goal. That is what this amendment is about. This testing is nothing but the rhetoric of closing the gap. We are not closing the gap because we are not providing the resources. This amendment says we go on record, we are committed, we are going to say to any State and school district: If we do not live up to our commitment and provide the resources in 2005, which we have gone on record in supporting, then you do not have to do the testing. This amendment starts to take us in the direction of putting the money where our mouth is. Seventy-nine Senators agreed to authorize title I so that it would be fully funded in 10 years. Seventy-nine Senators should support this amendment. By the way, I am being pragmatic. I do not even understand why we are not providing the funding now. Why 10 years? What good does it do a 7- year-old to provide funding in 10 years? She will be 17. Childhood is only once. We should not steal their childhoods. In 10 years we are going to do it. How does that help the 7-year-old? We are going to test her when she is 8 and show her--surprise--that she is not doing well, but we may not be helping her for many years later. I am just starting on this. This is 4 hours of debate now. Next week, there might be 36 hours of debate on another amendment. Again, we went on record. We said we were for this authorization. This amendment just says let's do it. My colleagues say tests have their place. By the way, I want to also print in the Record--I hope every Senator will read this. This is a high stakes testing position statement. This is a statement by health care professionals which include people such as Robert Coles, a psychiatrist who has written probably 40 books about children in America. The man has won every award known to humankind; Alvin Poussaint, another talented African-American psychiatrist; Debbie Meyer who has done more good work in inner-city New York City than anybody in the country. Do my colleagues want to know what they say in the statement? They say two things. One, which ties into this amendment, is that we must make sure we live up to the opportunity-to-learn standard; that every child has the same opportunity to learn. What I want to point out is they say from a public health point of view: What are you doing to these kids? They are talking about the stress on 8-year-olds taking all these tests, and they point out what is happening to schools. I do not know; there must be 30 people who have signed this. They are the best educators, the best child psychologists, award-winning authors, and they say: What in God's name are you doing to these children? That is another amendment about testing next week with Senator Hollings. For right now, at the very minimum, what they are saying is we ought to at least make sure we provide these children with the opportunity to learn. One hundred percent of major city schools use title I to provide professional development and new technology for students; 97 percent use title I funds to support afterschool activities; 90 percent use title I funds to support family literacy and summer school programs; 68 percent use title I funds to support preschool programs. The Rand Corporation linked some of the largest gains of low- and moderate-income children doing better in education to investment in title I. In my home State of Minnesota, the Brainerd Public School system has had a 70- to 80-percent success rate in accelerating students in the bottom 20 percent of their class to the average of their class following 1 year of intensive title I-supported reading programs. My colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, cited important research by the Aspen Institute: In the effort to raise the achievement of all American students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge disparity in resources for education across districts and States. It is not unusual for per student expenditure to be three times greater in affluent districts than poor districts in the same State. Mr. President, do you know that in my State of Minnesota, in St. Paul, schools where we have less than 65 percent of the students who are eligible for the free or reduced school lunch program, receive no title I money. We have run out. I could not believe it. I heard the Secretary of Education and some of my colleagues saying we have spent all this title I money; we have thrown dollars at the problem. First of all, we are not funding it but at a 30-percent level and, second, title I represents about one-half of 1 percent of all the education dollars that are spent, but it is key in terms of the Federal Government commitment. I am suggesting that it can make a huge difference. The problem is, we have had a dramatic expansion in the number of children who need help. The GAO study said that, but a lot of States, such as the State of Minnesota, in a school that has 64 percent of the children who are low income or who qualify for the reduced or free school lunch program get no help. Can my colleagues believe that? I want to quote from Linda Garrett who is assistant director of title 1 programs in the St. Paul schools. This is the irony of what we are doing. We are pounding ourselves on the chest. This is bumper-sticker politics. It is called the BEST. Test every child, say we are for accountability, and we are not going to provide the resources for the children, all the children, to have the same opportunity to do well. It is unconscionable. Linda Garrett says: The title I entitlement from the Department of Children and Families Learning have remained level for the past 2 years, and we have been notified to expect the same for the next year. While the funding has remained level, the number of St. Paul schools entitled to receive title I funding increased and the number of eligible children increased. In 1998-1999 the per pupil title I funding was $720; 1999-2000, $540; 2000-2001, $515, 2001-2002, we are now going to $445 per pupil. We have surpluses; we say we are for children; we say we are for education; and we are providing less money. There are 79 Senators who voted for the Dodd-Collins amendment. If you voted for that amendment, you have to vote for this amendment. It is almost insulting. We are saying to these parents, we need to test your children every year so you can understand how they are doing and what is working and what is not. We are saying to the teachers: Teachers, you are afraid to be held accountable, so now we will hold you accountable with these tests. Teachers are not afraid to be held accountable. And the teachers and the parents and the schools, especially the schools with low- and moderate-income children, already know what is working and what is not working. They already know they don't get the resources. They already know the children come to kindergarten way behind. They already know the buildings are dilapidated. They already know the classes are too large. They already know they don't have beautiful landscaping. They already know they don't have the support assistance they need from additional staff. They know all of that. They are just wondering when we will live up to our words and provide some assistance. That is what they wonder. In my opinion, we are playing politics with children's lives. We all want to have our picture taken next to them; we all want to be in schools with them; we are all for them except when it comes to reaching in the pocket and investing in resources. I believe what we are doing to poor children in America, unless we pass this amendment, is we are going to test children and show they are not doing as well. Why would anybody be surprised? The children in the inner city of south Minneapolis or west St. Paul are not doing as well as the children in the affluent suburbs with a huge disparity of resources and a huge disparity of life chances. It is staring us in the face in terms of what we need to do. We have not made a commitment to them, and now we are going to club them over the head with tests and humiliate them. I want Senators to debate me. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 Democratic Governors' Association, Washington, DC, May 22, 2001. Hon. Jean Carnahan, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the nation's Democratic Governors, I am writing in support of the amendment being offered by Senators Carnahan and Nelson to S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST). This amendment would ensure that the federal government meets its commitment to states by fully funding the cost of the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) testing requirements. The amendment would replace the $400 million cap authorized for FY 2002 for developing and implementing tests, in the underlying bill, instead requiring the federal government to pay 100% of all state testing costs not currently required under federal law. If the federal government does not meet this commitment, states would be released from the obligation to implement the new testing requirements. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Education to annually calculate the total costs of testing. In addition, the amendment would add a protection that would prohibit the federal government from sanctioning a state for falling behind schedule in designing and implementing tests if the federal government has not provided full funding. While we are pleased to support the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of legislation to reauthorize the ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically to include Title I. This is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged students and the federal government needs to back its efforts to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment. We would also prefer that final legislation link federal funding accountability to consequences imposed on states and local schools unable to meet proposed annual performance measures, such as fiscal sanctions and school reorganization. Relieving states from the cost of implementing new tests does not alter the mandated levels of improvement in student performance. Democratic Governors urge Congress to fulfill the historic commitment to America's children that the BEST Act represents by fully funding authorized levels for IDEA, Title I, and teacher quality, as well as for testing. We believe that the Carnahan-Nelson amendment helps to ensure this, and we urge that the Senate adopt the amendment. Sincerely, Gov. Tom Vilsack, State of Iowa, DGA Vice-Chair of Policy.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Nevada needs to speak, too, so I will just take a couple minutes to respond. First of all, the Senator from Tennessee talks about the importance of accountability. I was an educator, a college teacher for 20 years. I do not give any ground on accountability. The point is not to confuse accountability, testing, and standardized tests as being one in the same thing. We have had two amendments that have been adopted which I think will at least make the testing, and hopefully the assessment, accurate and done in a better way. This amendment does not say that you do not do the testing. I may have an amendment next week that goes right to the heart of that question with Senator Hollings, and others, but that is not what this amendment is about. Everybody in this Chamber has been saying they are for accountability and that we are also going to get the resources to the kids. We have to do both. You can't do this on a tin-cup budget. We have to walk our talk. Seventy-nine Senators voted for this authorization. But that is a fiction. It does not mean anything in terms of real dollars. This amendment says that with the accountability comes the resources. We make a commitment that, unless we live up to what we said we would do by way of title I money for our school districts and our children, then those school districts and States do not have to do the testing. That is all it says. That is my first point. So the argument that somehow this is an amendment that declares null and void testing is just not accurate. I am just trying to get us to live up to our words. The second point I want to make is that my colleague said--and I have to smile--somehow this is all about decentralization, whereas Democrats tend to look to the Federal Government. I have to tell you one more time, I do not know where the conservatives are, or whether the whole political world is being turned upside down, but I seem to find myself being a Senator who--I have not resolved this question, but at the moment I do not think it is appropriate that the Federal Government mandate, tell, insist, require that every school district in America test every child every year. This is radical. It is amazing to me. I am surprised others have not raised this question. Human rights, civil rights, antidiscrimination, yes, but this? I think we are going to rue the day we did this. There is a rebellion right now in the country that is developing. People are going to say: You voted to make us do this? Where did you get off thinking you were the ones who had the authority to do that? I think this is a real Federal reach. My third point is, this is a real disagreement we have with my colleague from Tennessee. My colleague is a very gifted doctor, and everybody gives him full credit, of which he richly deserves, but this is not trying to find out if a child has a heart problem.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question. But with all due respect, we already know--I have been in a school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. We know what is not working and what needs to be done. It is absolutely no secret. We know that children, when they come to kindergarten, are way behind. We know children who have had no prekindergarten education. We know of the dilapidated buildings. We know of the overcrowded classrooms. We know of kids having three or four teachers in 1 year. We know of kids who are taught by teachers who aren't certified. We know kids go without afterschool care. We know of the disparity of resources from one school district to another. We know what the affluent children have going for them versus what the poor children have going for them. We know all that. We know we fund Early Head Start at 2 percent, 3 percent. And we fund Head Start at only 50 percent for 4-year-olds. We know we fund affordable child care for low-income children where only 10 percent can participate. We know all that. What do we need to know? Why do we need the test? I ask my colleague from Tennessee, what I just said, are these not realities? Is there one thing that I have said that is not a fact, that is not empirical, that is not a reality in the lives of children in America? If you can tell me, Paul, there is something you just said that is not accurate, then you can argue against this amendment. If you cannot, then you cannot. This amendment does not say no to testing. It just says with the testing and accountability come resources.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for the question because then I think Senators can have a clear picture of the amendment on which we are going to vote. This amendment does not say it is wrong to do that. This amendment does not say it is wrong to do the testing. This amendment does not say it is wrong to do the testing every year. This amendment says, if you are going to have a Federal mandate that every child is going to be tested every year, you better also have a Federal mandate that every child is going to have the same opportunity to do well. One of the major commitments we have not made is the title I money. That is why the Governors in their letter said we favor this trigger amendment. We want to make sure that they also, with the tests, get the resources. That is all this amendment says.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, fair enough. I will say to my colleague publicly, I have a couple different views. First, the amendment. First, let's be clear about the amendment. The amendment, you will be pleased to know, does not say no to testing at all--not at all. It simply says we ought to live up to our commitment on the resources. That is all. That is all it says. That is it. If we do not, it says to States: Look, if you do not want to do it, you do not have to. That is the amendment. Above and beyond that, I will say two other things to my colleague from Tennessee, who I know has shown a very strong interest in education over the years. In our State--I am sure it is the case in Tennessee--we are doing the testing. In fact, by the way, by what we passed for title I several years ago, we are just starting to get the results of that testing, for which I voted. We are doing the testing. The only thing I am telling you is that there is a difference between our school districts and our States deciding they want to do it because it is the right thing to do and the Federal Government telling them they have to do it. I just think it is an important distinction. I do not know where I come down on that final question yet. I just think it raises an important philosophical question. Then the second point I make is that there is also a distinction between what we did several years ago with title I, which is a Federal program, saying we also want to see the testing and the accountability versus telling every school district in Tennessee and every school district in Minnesota you will test every child every year--not every other year--but every year. That is sweeping. My amendment is not about that question. I just raised that question. I haven't resolved that question. I will tell you one thing I have resolved, which is what this amendment is about. The worst thing we can do is to pretend we don't know what the problems are and not make the commitment with both the IDEA program and title I, which are two of our major program resources, so that we basically set everybody up for failure. That is the worst thing we can do. If you want to argue that money is not a sufficient condition, I agree. I think it is a necessary addition. We can go through the Rand Corporation assessment of title I and other assessments of title I programs. I can talk about Minnesota. You can talk about Tennessee. A lot of these resources are key to prekindergarten, key to extra reading help, key to afterschool programs. This is really important. That is all this amendment says. Did I answer my colleague's question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. We have a letter from the Democratic Governors that says: [Above and beyond] the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are hopeful the final version of the legislation to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically to include title I. This is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged students, and the Federal Government needs to back its efforts to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment. The reason they are tied together is that they go together, for God's sake. You can't test every child without also making sure these children have an opportunity to do well on the tests. Of course, they go together. This amendment simply says that the tests authorized need not be implemented until after the title I appropriation has reached the level we said. We said, 79 of us, we are going to appropriate this money; we are going to make sure that with the accountability comes the resources for the kids to do well. We went on record. Now I have this amendment that says we make the commitment to Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, and everywhere else, if we don't live up to our end of the bargain and you decide you don't want to do the test, you don't have to. By the way, many States are doing it. It is up to them. I am becoming a decentralist. I am becoming the conservative Republican in this debate, apparently.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I wanted to try to bring down the whole bill, I would have an amendment out here to bring down the whole bill. Maybe I will, and it won't be successful. I am still trying to actually improve the bill, just as we did on testing. I say to my colleague, we already have accountability with title I. That is law right now that is on going. My second point is, this is an honest difference. My colleague's concern is that we won't have a test, that somehow that will be nixed. My concern is that if we just do the tests and make every school, every school district, every child take the test every year, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, but we do not live up to our end of the bargain of providing the resources so that the children can do well on the test-- extra help for reading, prekindergarten, after school--then the only thing we have done is we have set them up for failure. I don't want to do that. I think that is cruelty. I cite again the study from Senator Graham which showed that poverty predicts 80 percent of the students' scores right now. I am not surprised. I have been to school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. I know that. So far, I haven't heard any compelling reasons against this. For Democrats, our party, we have been out publicly saying that we are committed to the resources that go with the testing. It is time to walk the talk. I know there are going to be some other Senators who will speak. I want to go on to another aspect of this. I have spent some time on this, but this is a little different. This has to do with why testing actually can do more harm than good if we don't give the schools the resources to do better. I have not made that argument yet. I will start out quoting the Committee for Economic Development, which is a strong protesting coalition of business leaders who warn against test-based accountability systems that lead to narrow test- based coaching rather than rich instruction. I will tell you what happens. We don't give the schools the resources. In this particular case, I am talking about title I. That is a real commitment on our part. They are going and you are going to do the testing, and the testing is also going to determine consequences for those schools, whether they are sanctioned, whether principals are removed. Do you know what happens when they don't have the resources and this is what you do? It leads, I say as a teacher--I am not a doctor; my colleague is a doctor--it leads to the worst kind of education. Do you know what they are going to do? It is what they are doing right now. You drop social studies. You drop poetry. You don't take the kids to the art museum. And you have drilled education where the teachers are teaching to the tests because they are under such duress. That is exactly what happens. For example, in Washington State, a recent analysis by the Rand Corporation showed that fourth grade teachers shifted significant time away from arts, science, health and fitness, social studies, communication and listening skills because they were not measured by the test. I do not know if I am making the case the way I want to make the case, but the schools that are going to be under duress are the ones where the children have not had the same opportunity to learn. They came to kindergarten way behind, and we are not making a commitment to early childhood. Now what happens is because of this--and I see my colleague from New Jersey, and I will finish in 3 minutes so he can speak; I thank him for being here--now because of this duress, what we have is these schools are dropping social studies, art, trips to museums because they are not tested and the teachers are being asked to be drill instructors. Guess what. Some beautiful, talented teachers are leaving teaching today because of this. This is crazy. We better give them the resources. I say to my colleague from New Jersey, this is a classic example. The Stevens Elementary School in Houston pays as much as $10,000 a year to hire Stanley Kaplan to teach teachers how to teach kids to take tests. According to the San Jose Mercury, schools in East Palo Alto, which is one of the poorest districts in California, paid Stanley Kaplan $10,000 each to consult with them on test-taking strategies. According to the same articles, schools across California are spending thousands to buy computer programs, hire consultants, and purchase workbooks and materials. They are redesigning spelling tests and math tests all to enable students to be better test takers. Forget sense of irony. Forget childhood. Forget 8-year-olds experiencing all the unnamed magic of the world before them. Forget teaching that fires the imagination of children. Drill education to taking tests: it is educationally deadening. That is another reason why without the resources this is not a big step forward. This is a huge leap backwards. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. My colleague may want to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First, for my colleague to say if Senators vote for this, the testing might not take place is as much as saying, therefore, we are not going to live up to our word. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, the testing will take place because I assume we are going to live up to our word. Seventy-nine of us already voted for this. All this amendment says is we are going to be clear to States and school districts that we are going to live up to our commitment of resources. That is the first point. The second point--my colleague from Tennessee left--to say this is more modest than in 1994, my God, we are telling every school district in every State they have to test every child, every year, ages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. That is not modest in scope. At the very minimum, transitioning to the Senator from New Jersey, what I am saying is, if we are going to have a national mandate of every child being tested, then we ought to have a national mandate of every opportunity for every child to do well. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will give the Senate a bit of background. This amendment tracks the amendment that Senator Dodd worked on with Senator Collins. The Senate went on record--79 Senators--saying we would make this commitment to title I and over a 10-year period we would have funding. I don't think the Senator would disagree, as much as I was for it, in some ways I very much regret we could not have said full funding in 1 year. For a 7-year-old, 10 years is too late. In any case, this amendment says by 2005 the Senate went on record saying we ought to be spending $25 billion on title I because that puts us on track for full funding, gets more resources to schools and our children, more help for reading. It can be prekindergarten; it can be technology; it can be more professional training for teachers; it can be afterschool programs. This amendment says, if we do not live up to our commitment, the States and school districts, if they do not want to do the testing, do not have to. It is up to them. No one is telling them they can't do it, but it is entirely up to them. We have been saying over and over and over again, with accountability comes resources. I wanted to give my colleague a bit of background. My other point is, if we are going to have a mandate of every child being tested, we better also have a national mandate of every child having the same opportunity to do well. Since the title I program is one of the major ways we at the Federal level make a commitment to low- income, disadvantaged children, we ought to live up to our word. That is what this amendment says. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know other people desire to speak. I would like to take 20 seconds to say to the Senator from Connecticut that, try as I might, I cannot say it as well as he did. I thank him. We thank each other all the time. But what he said was so powerful. Honest to God, it was so powerful. I really do believe having national testing without any guarantee of equal opportunity to pass the test, and the opportunity to do well, is ethically unjust. What we are trying to say with this amendment is let's give these children the opportunity to do as well as they can. I thank him. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me be real clear. I have said that in my own mind it is an interesting question as to whether or not the Federal Government ought to be telling every school district in every State to do this. I have never said I am opposed to accountability. I was a college teacher for 20 years, and I do not tend to give ground on this issue. The reason I have had amendments to try to make this testing of high quality is because, if this is going to be done, it has to be done the right way. But there is more to this legislation. My colleague from Massachusetts says we are already doing this with title I. That is right. This legislation requires every school district to test every child--not just title I children, every child, every year. I have heard Senator after Senator after Senator say we ought to, along with the mandate of testing every child, have the opportunity for every child to do well. That is all this amendment says. I cannot believe what I have heard in this Chamber, which is that we are not going to live up to what we said. Seventy-nine Senators voted for the authorization. We were going to fully fund title I in 10 years. It was going to be up to the level of $25 billion in 2005. Right now we are only funding 30 percent of the children who are eligible. And now my colleague comes to the floor and says that is all fiction, that it is never going to happen. If it is never going to happen, why, in God's name, do we want to pretend it is going to happen? Whatever happened to the idea that every child should have the same opportunity to succeed and do well? I will say it one more time. I have heard a million people--I am the one who first said it--say you cannot achieve the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin-cup budget. You cannot pretend to have education reform on a tin-cup budget. I have heard Senator after Senator after Senator say we are going to do both accountability and resources. All this amendment says is, not that States and school districts cannot test--they can; not that they don't want to go ahead with testing--they can. What we are saying is, if we do not live up to our commitment to provide the money for more help for kids for reading, more prekindergarten education, more afterschool education, then the State can say they do not want to do the testing. We ought to live up to our end of the bargain. I cannot believe we are acting as if the test brings about better teachers; that testing leads to smaller class sizes; that testing means kids come to kindergarten ready to learn; that testing means children get the help they need. None of that is happening the way it should. And title I is part of our commitment. Can't we at least live up to our words? That is all this amendment says. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do we have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island. I also say, in 30 seconds right now, for month after month after month, I have been hearing how we are going to get a commitment from the administration of resources. We have no commitment of any resources in this bill when it comes to title I. I am trying to make sure we live up to our promises.