Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I also ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from Washington.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask how much time we have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask how much time the Senator from Texas requires?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is this would be after the Senator from Washington speaks? That will be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could take a moment, I thank the Senator from Washington. Her work as a State legislator, as a school board member and teacher, her familiarity with children and what is happening in schools, with kids, with teachers, and for the amendment, comes through all the time. I thank her.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That would be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator have an amendment she is trying to dispose of?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think we should probably go ahead and finish up on the other amendment. How much time do we have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask the other side how much time they intend to use?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a little time to summarize. If you all are going to use a few minutes, then at the end I will go ahead and finish. If you have a lot to say, I want to respond to your comments. All right. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have come to the Chamber and spoken on the amendment; quite a few Senators have. I thank each and every one of them for some very powerful words. I almost forget everybody, but Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, Senator Reed, Senator Corzine, Senator Stabenow, I thank all of them. This amendment says that the tests that are authorized under title I need not be implemented until after we live up to our goal of appropriating the $24 billion for title I. This is the amount the Dodd amendment called for in authorization. I am not saying that Minnesota or any other State can't go forward. They can do whatever they want. What I am saying is, States have a right to say to us, if you don't live up to your word to get us the resources to go with the testing, then we decide whether we want to do this. The testing that is being done post-1994 goes on. I am talking about the testing in this bill. This amendment has endorsements from, among others, the Hispanic Education Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, National School Board Association. In addition, we have a letter from Democratic Governors basically saying, while we support the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are hopeful that any final version to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically to include title I, the argument being that the Government needs to strengthen its accountability with adequate new investment. Colleagues, there is a reason that all these organizations that represent the education community on the ground--I didn't include the National Education Association as well--support this amendment, because what they are saying is: Don't set us up for failure. If you are going to mandate that every child in every grade will be tested every year, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, then how about a Federal mandate that we will have equality of opportunity for every child to be able to succeed and do well on these tests? To not do so is ethically unjust. This bill, right now, without the resources, without this amendment passing, will test the poor against the rich and announce that the poor failed. Federally required tests without federally required resources for the children amounts to clubbing children over the head after we have systematically cheated them. We already know in advance which children are going to fail. This is a plan, without this amendment passing, not for reform, not for equality, but for humiliation of children. How in the world can we continue to have the schools? They don't have the resources. They have the large classes. All too often, it is two or three or four teachers in a given year, much less the children living in homes where they move two or three times a year. They come to kindergarten way behind, not kindergarten ready. Quite often, they don't have qualified teachers. They don't have the technology. They don't have the resources. Then, in the absence of making the commitment to making sure these children have a chance to do well, the only thing we are going to do is require testing and fail them again. This amendment is just saying, if we are going to have the testing, we are going to provide the resources. My friend Jonathan Kozol, who I think is the most powerful writer about children in education today, says that testing is a symbolic substitute for educating. Don't substitute a symbol for the real thing. Kids who are cheated of Head Start--we fund 3 percent of the children who could benefit from Early Head Start, barely 50 percent of the children who are 4-year-olds. Children who are cheated of small classes, cheated of well-paid teachers learn absolutely nothing from a test every year except how much this Nation wants to embarrass and punish them. That is what is wrong with having the testing without the resources. I hope the testing advocates do not assume that teachers are afraid to be held accountable. Frankly, that is libel against teachers. No good teacher is afraid to be held accountable for what she or he does. I wish I had the time. I have e-mails from teachers all across the country about this. Accountability is a two-way street. What we have here is one-way accountability. We want to have the tests every year, but we don't want to be accountable to the words we have spoken. Seventy-nine Senators went on record to vote for authorizing full funding for title I, for disadvantaged children, in 10 years. I see my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, presiding. He would say: Why 10 years? He is right. A 7-year-old will be 17 then. That is too late. You only have your childhood once. Nevertheless, we went on record, and that means that by 2005, we made a commitment of $25 billion for title I, which right now is funded at a 30-percent level. So Senator Dayton, in St. Paul, when you get to a school with fewer than 65 percent low-income children, they don't receive any funding--we have run out already--money that could be used, especially with the little children, for additional reading help, after school, prekindergarten. What this amendment is saying is that 79 Senators voted for that authorization. If that is what you did, and it was a good vote for the Dodd-Collins amendment--Senator Dodd was here speaking --then let's live up to our words. Let's say that unless that money is appropriated--and I can see Senators running ads: I voted to authorize full funding for the title I program for the children in my State--knowing that the authorization has nothing to do with whether there is money. This amendment makes the words real. Let's not fool around with people. Let's live up to our commitment, and let's make it clear; yes to accountability, but we also are going to follow through when it comes to living up to our commitment of resources. I have heard Senators say if we talk the talk but we do not walk the walk, we are going to fail our children. That is exactly what is wrong with this bill that calls for the testing without the resources. Testing and publishing test scores is talking, only talking. Giving title I, supporting what we should be doing--fully funding Head Start, making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to learn, getting the best teachers in the schools, providing additional help for reading--that is walking. That is what this amendment is. This is a walking amendment. I say to Senators: It is time to walk. It is time to start walking. It is time to start walking your talk. It is time to start living up to what you said when you voted for the full funding for title I. Let's be accountable. I have heard the majority of Senators say they were going to fight for the resources to go with the testing. Now is the time to do so. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me try to clear up the confusion of my good friend from Massachusetts. First, part of what we talked about is whether or not there should be full funding for the testing. I support the Carnahan amendment. It was not adopted. I think it should have been adopted. The Senator talked about the Dodd amendment full funding in 10 years. This amendment does not call for full funding by 2005. This amendment tracks the Dodd amendment. This amendment is a 100-percent reflection of what we have already gone on record supporting. I do not call for full funding; $25 billion in 2005 is not full funding. This is exactly what the Dodd amendment calls for as we reach full funding in 10 years. As to the testing, it is true we are already testing. As a matter of fact, this amendment does not talk about that testing. This amendment talks about the fact that this bill, called the BEST bill, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, does not say title I children are tested. It says every child in every school district in every State is tested every year. That is quite a different piece of legislation in its scope. Finally, one more time, the National Council of LaRaza, National Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, National School Board Association, Democratic Governors--why in the world do you think they support this? Because they have had enough of it. They have had enough of us constantly putting more requirements on them without backing it up with resources. They are a little bit suspicious of the Congress. They think we are great when it comes to telling them to do this, this, and this, but they do not think we fully fund what we ask them to do, and they are right. That is why they support this, and they are right. They are saying if you are going to have a national mandate that every child is tested, then let's have a national mandate to make sure every child has an opportunity to do well on those tests and make sure you live up to your commitment on the title I programs, which is one of the major Federal commitments--it is not a large part of education money spent, but it is a real important piece when it comes to what our commitment is. This commitment just asks every Senator to walk the talk. You already went on record saying you are for this. Now let's get real. This amendment just says walk your talk. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senate lives up to its word and we do exactly what we say we are going to do in the appropriations, which is to provide the money for title I which provides the money for the extra help for reading and afterschool and prekindergarten, nobody loses. I am calling everybody on their bluff on the words they have spoken. I have not seen any firm commitment about money. I have not seen the administration come forward with any commitment of resources to expand title I to make sure we do our very best for these kids. I don't think this program called BEST, is the best, unless we live up to our commitment. This should be easy for Senators to vote for. It just means that in our appropriations we do exactly what we promised to do. How can anyone vote against what was already voted for? How can Members vote against an appropriation that is exactly the same thing Members voted for as an authorization? What is wrong with saying, don't ask for me to vote for testing every child throughout America in every school, which is what Senator Dodd said? Start as young as age 8, unless you are also going to give me a chance. Don't ask us to vote for a mandate of testing every child without also letting us have an opportunity to pass legislation which will assure we get the resources to the schools and the teachers and kids so they can do well in these tests. I don't believe that is an outrageous assumption. I stand for that. I hope we get this through.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for just a few minutes, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to the other side.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will take a few moments. I am a little confused by my colleague's remarks. This amendment just says that we want to have a bonus go to the States that develop high-quality assessments as determined by peer review. We have peer review of everything. It says nothing about qualitative. It tells no State and no school district how to do a mathematics test. I have been a teacher and educator for 20 years. That is not what this is about at all. This amendment just says, first of all, that every State has to implement these tests on time. We make it clear. But the second thing it says is, rather than putting an incentive on rushing, we also want to encourage high-quality tests. I draw on all of the professional literature and I draw on what the Secretary said about high-quality tests. They are comprehensive, with multiple measures. What are they? In addition to comprehensive, they are coherent so our school districts know they will be able to have tests related to the curriculum that is being taught--not some national simple jingo, multiple-choice test. What are they? They are continuous. I am really saying let's not penalize any State that wants to go forward and do the very best job of putting together high-quality tests. That is what States want to be able to do. That is what we are hearing. All of the articles that have been coming out all over the country in almost every State say if you are not careful, you have tests which aren't even correct, and then mistakes are made; kids pay consequences; schools pay consequences; and teachers pay consequences. We have quotes from people who have been leading the test movement: Robert Schwartz, president of Achieve, Incorporated, and the independent panel review of title I that just issued a report. And what do they say? They are saying: Look, we have to make sure that we don't have people rushing to attach consequences to tests until we get the tests right. What are they saying? They are saying: Accountability for student progress is only as good as the tools used to measure student progress. That is what we are talking about, having high-quality tests, having a bonus system that goes to States which move forward with high-quality testing. It couldn't be more simple. It couldn't be more straightforward. It doesn't micromanage. It doesn't tell anybody how to do a mathematics test. I never would dream of doing that. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. In the time I have left, first of all, I want my colleagues to know I am all for accountability. I have never taken a position that we should not have accountability. The question is, How we do it? I have drawn from everybody in the testing field. I have drawn from all the people in the States. I have drawn from all the people who are doing this work. And they are all saying: Let's make sure the bonus incentive goes to the States for doing the assessments as well as possible as opposed to doing the assessments as fast as possible. This is just a commonsense amendment. This has nothing to do with political correctness. I think this really adds to the strength of the bill. Again, the truth is, the accountability is only as good as the assessment of the children, of the students. Let's make sure we have the best assessment. Let's make sure it is comprehensive, that there is more than one measurement. Let's make sure there is coherence and that the teachers don't have to teach to the test but that the tests are actually measuring the curriculum that is taught in our school districts and in our States. And lets's make sure it is continuous and we can look at the progress of the child. This is the best amendment that, frankly, strengthens this bill. Right now, I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, I am wearing my very pragmatic hat and trying to get this legislation to be a better piece of legislation. The reason I want to have a vote on this amendment is because this whole issue of testing is important. I want as many Senators as possible to go on record for high-quality testing. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I make my final 14-second plea for colleagues to have good, strong support for this amendment. It is a very good amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 465.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the original cosponsor of this amendment is Senator Feingold from Wisconsin. I thank him for his support. Other cosponsors are Senators Kennedy and Clinton. Mr. President, let me try to summarize this amendment. Right now on this education bill there is a bonus incentive for States to move forward with tests that this legislation calls for. Remember that this legislation on the floor of the Senate is very sweeping, for better or for worse. I think all Senators should think very seriously about that. Right now we are basically mandating or telling every school district in every State in the United States of America that every child in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be tested every year. This is not an option. School districts don't decide. States don't decide. At the Federal level, the Congress and the Federal Government are saying to States: You will do this. In the legislation, as I say, the additional bonus money is for States that are able to move forward, and, as a matter of fact, put this testing into effect earlier than 2005. What this amendment would say is that it is not speed that is the most important criteria. The most important criteria is the quality of the test. What we want to say to States and school districts around the country is that we will provide an additional bonus to you if you, in fact, are designing and implementing quality tests. Again, what I mean by that is States should not be relying on single standardized multiple-choice tests. There are probably some students even in the gallery as I speak today. If they were the ones who were out here on the floor and were going to have a chance to speak, I think the students would say: Look. If, in fact, you are going to measure what we have learned and what we know, if you are going to measure what education is on the basis of single tests, standardized tests, or multiple-choice tests, the result will be teachers teaching to those tests, and drilling to get ready to take those tests. This is not all of what education is. In fact, I think it can become quite educationally deadening. The best teachers I know--I am in schools about every 2 weeks in the State of Minnesota--are teachers who never teach to worksheets. The best teachers I have met are teachers who engage students, who get students to think about their lives in relation to the material, who get students to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves and speak for themselves. At the very minimum, we ought to be saying to States that we do not want States and school districts to abuse tests by relying on the sort of off-the-shelf standardized fill-in-the-bubbles multiple-choice tests. That is just outrageous. By the way, these multiple-choice tests put the real world into categories. They do not measure a student's sense of irony. They do not measure how profoundly students are thinking. They do not measure whether students can think creatively. There is a whole lot that these tests don't measure. Indeed, when the other amendment I introduced was passed, one of the criteria was that the testing that is going to be done has to use multiple measures, and not just one single, standardized test. We need to encourage that type of assessment. We also need to talk about whether the assessments are coherent. That is to say, are they measuring what is actually taught in the curriculum? If you have a single, standard, multiple-choice test that is generic that just sort of measures students in relation to other students but does not have anything to do with the curriculum and the material and what is actually being taught, then basically you are putting all of America in an educational straightjacket. Aren't we going to make sure, I say to my good conservative friends, that local school districts have some say over defining what makes for good education? I think we want to make sure the tests are comprehensive. We want to make sure they are coherent. Then the other thing we want to do is to make sure they are continuous; that is, if we are going to say we want an assessment, then we want to try to measure the progress of the student over a period of time. So what this amendment says is, look, let's make sure the assessment gives us the best picture of how students are really doing; if we are going to be engaged in testing, let's make sure it is high- quality testing; let's make sure we are really measuring how well students are doing; and, for God's sake, let's not force school districts and schools and teachers and students into some drill education, what I would call straitjacket education. I was really pleased that in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Secretary Paige himself wrote: A good test, the kind the President and I support, is aligned with the curriculum so schools know whether children are actually learning the materials that their States have decided a child should know. Again, that is what I mean by a test that is coherent. Above and beyond that, let me just simply say to all of my colleagues that the independent panel review of title I, which was mandated in the 1994 reauthorization, has issued its report in January called ``Improving the Odds.'' The report concluded that: Many States choose assessment results from a single test, often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests may have an important place in State assessment systems, they rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge captured in State content standards. The panel went on to make a strong recommendation: Better assessments for instructional and accountability purposes are urgently needed. So I again say, with this amendment, if you want to have a bonus system set up, if you want to provide additional moneys for States--not to hurry up, not to just bring a test off the shelf, a test that does not even give us a good idea of how our students are doing--have a bonus that focuses on high-quality testing. Frankly, I am surprised that I have to come out in this chamber and debate this amendment. I would think this amendment would be adopted with 100 votes. Maybe it will be before we are done. Now, let me just quote Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve, Incorporated, which is the nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform movement. Here is what he said: You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests. Tests have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms, and that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach consequences to them before, in lots of places, we have really gotten the tests right. Mr. President, these are important words by a man whose work, whose profession, is in the accountability field. I would like to quote the last part of it again: Tests have taken on too prominent a role in these reforms, and that's, in part, because of people rushing to attach consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have really gotten the tests right. That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. ``Quality Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the United States, concludes this way: In too many States, the tests still focus too much on low multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with the standards they are designed to measure. So again--and I will emphasize this for maybe the 20th time this afternoon--what we want to do is we want to make sure that if there is going to be this testing--all in the name of accountability, all in the name of assessing how our students are doing--then we had better make sure we get it right. And if we are going to have a bonus system, let's provide the bonus money to those States on the basis of their putting together high-quality tests. That is what this amendment says: That above and beyond timeliness, the other criterion, the criterion that is so critically important, is that we have high-quality tests. I say to Senators--and, by the way, I have a real question about this; I have not decided this question in my own mind; I have not decided what the right answer is--if we are going to mandate--I think this is breathtaking, what we are doing here, frankly--if we are going to mandate that every school district in every State test every kid, then, at the very least, it is our obligation to make sure these tests are done right so that they achieve the best effect. Let's not give States an incentive to do low-quality tests which can have such a damaging effect by rewarding them for rushing. What we ought to reward States for is having high-quality tests, which means they are comprehensive, which means they are coherent, which means we are actually assessing the progress of students over a period of time. I want to make it really clear that if we do not focus on high- quality tests, we are asking for real trouble. I say to Senators, before you vote on this amendment, if we do not provide a bonus payment to States for high-quality tests, if we do not make that our priority, and instead our emphasis is just on States rushing forward with any kind of test, we will not be helping children or teachers or schools in America; rather, we will be doing damage because if the only thing we do, all in the name of ``reform,'' is to barrel down this path where you have State after State after State being forced by the Federal Government to do the testing, just taking off the shelf these standardized tests, with no multiple measures, and not being related to the curriculum that is taught, then we are going to have something which amounts to what I call drill education. Again, I am looking up at the gallery. I know there are students up there. Students hate drill education. And they should hate drill education. And teachers hate drill education. It is not real teaching, and it is not real learning, to just sort of drill, drill, drill, and have students memorize, memorize, memorize, and then have some simple jingo standardized testing and nothing else. I fear for where education is going to go if, at the very minimum, we are not, in our work in the Senate, focusing on quality testing. I also point out to my colleagues that there has been recently in the New York Times--and, frankly, I wish the New York Times had done this 6 months ago, not just within the last several weeks--an excellent and a very troubling series, of articles on the perils of testing. I again mention to my colleagues that right now this legislation encourages States to rush to develop their new annual tests so they can receive bonuses from the Federal Government. What my amendment says is that every State has to be on time. Not one Senator can say: Senator Wellstone, you are trying to stop the testing. By the way, if it were within my power, I might. I am not so sure we should be doing this. But that is not what this amendment says. What this amendment says is that every State is going to have to implement the testing, if we pass this legislation, but if they do it, then they ought to receive a bonus from the Federal Government for having high-quality tests. That is what this amendment says. This amendment, cosponsored by Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Clinton, rewards those States that develop high-quality assessments as gauged by a peer review process, rather than simply speeding towards implementing tests with no consideration as to the quality of these assessments. In the New York Times articles, they point out, in a very crystal- clear way, that quality matters. I want to just read from a couple of these pieces in the New York Times. I quote from a piece in the New York Times. This is on some of the dangers of rushing: Each customized test the State orders must be designed, written, edited, reviewed by state educators, field-tested, checked for validity and bias, and calibrated to previous tests--an arduous process that requires a battery of people trained in educational statistics and psychometrics, the science of measuring mental function. While the demand for such people is exploding, they are in extremely short supply despite salaries that can reach into the six figures, people in the industry said. ``All of us in the business are very concerned about capacity''. . . . What we have is people in the educational area saying: We are really worried about whether or not we are going to be able to follow through on this mandate. And there are all sorts of examples in different States, from New York to Arizona to Minnesota, where either there have been testing errors and kids have been kept back or have not graduated, with unbelievably harsh consequences, or principals and teachers have lost jobs, with the argument being that they were not able to teach well when in fact, as it turns out, the tests were not reliable or articles about teachers who were high-quality teachers who we would want to teach in inner cities or in rural areas--the Presiding Officer is from Maine--and who basically are now leaving the teaching profession because they are saying, wait a minute; not only do we want the resources but we certainly don't want to be forced to be involved in drill education, just teaching to these simple standardized tests. The New York Times, again, had several articles which pointed out some of the real dangers. The Washington Post had a piece February 10, 2001. I quote from one of the pieces. But 21 states test in three or fewer of the six grades, according to the center, and under President Bush's plan would have to at least double the number of students they test annually. Only seven States right now are testing every year in grades 3 through 8 in a way that is aligned with state standards; other States do it every other year; some States, have not even met the requirements set out in the 1994 law. What we are now going to say is every State, every school district has to test every child every year. They are not given any choice. Not only are we saying that, but we are also saying there will be consequences based upon how the students do on those tests. There will be consequences in terms of additional money, in terms of whether or not those schools will be sanctioned, in terms of whether or not those schools will be told that they have to operate differently, in which case, what my amendment is saying is: With this bonus system, let's not provide bonuses for States for rushing, since we have example after example after example of the abuse of testing and what can go wrong. Let's provide bonuses to States on the basis of quality. My definition of quality, which is based on a recent report by the National Research Council, ``Knowing What Students Know'' and on other sources such as the ``Professional Standards on Educational and Psychological Testing'' is: A, the tests should be comprehensive and not rely on just one single standardized test, B, the tests should be coherent. The tests should test the curriculum being taught. Otherwise, you have teachers in schools who have to teach to standardized tests that have nothing to do with the curriculum being taught in a school district in Maine or in Minnesota. That makes no sense whatsoever. And C, you want to track the progress of a child over a period of time. What this amendment says is, right now in the legislation, we have it backwards; we are talking about providing an incentive, a bonus, to States for rushing. My amendment says, even though I have concerns about this Federal mandate, it is amazing: Here I am, a liberal Democrat from the State of Minnesota--I don't think the Chair would refer to me as a conservative Republican--and yet I am not sure in my own mind--I mean this; I am not trying to be gimmicky--I am not sure the Federal Government should mandate this. I am not sure we really have any business telling every school, every school district, every State, you have to test every child every year, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds. But that is almost beside the point. With my amendment, what we are saying right now is, if we are going to do it, let's do it the right way. Last week, we passed, with 50 votes, an amendment which said this testing needs to meet professional standards and that states have to show that their tests are of adequate technical quality for each purpose for which they are used. That is really important. What this amendment says is, when we do the bonuses, let's be clear to the States--all my colleagues who believe otherwise about testing, this is not an amendment that says we don't have testing. Every State will have to meet the deadline. Every State will have to meet the deadline by 2005. But what this amendment says is, on the bonus payment, let's give the bonus payments to the States and to the school districts for high- quality testing. That should be the criterion. It makes no sense to say we give bonus money to States solely on the basis of who does it first. Then you have everybody rushing. When people rush, they might not get it right. If you don't get it right, you don't have an accurate assessment. If we are going to do it, we had better get it right; it had better not be inaccurate. Some of this testing around the country has been inaccurate. As I said, the New York Times had a whole series of articles about that. It had better be accurate. Secondly, if you are going to do it, it had better measure real teaching and real learning and real education. Let's not put all of the children and all of the schools and all of the teachers in America in a straitjacket. Let's make sure they know that we are expecting and support multiple measures. Let's make sure they know we want it to be coherent and measure the curriculum they are teaching. Let's make sure we are, indeed, measuring the progress of a child. Let's make sure it is done the right way, in which case, let's have bonus payments that provide the money and provide the additional payment and provide the additional bonus to those States that are engaged in high-quality testing. That is what the amendment says. I could go on, but I think this is a fairly accurate summary of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will just take a few minutes. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and thank him for being a cosponsor of this amendment. Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the series of articles in the New York Times, and also a very interesting piece in the Atlanta Journal titled ``Teachers Find Flaws in State Test's Science Part.'' I thank Senator Feingold for his support as an original cosponsor of this amendment and Senators Kennedy and Clinton for their support as cosponsors as well. To remind my colleagues, since it has been a long time since this amendment was first introduced, this amendment is very non- controversial. It says that instead of the bill's language, which would reward states solely based on how quickly they finish their assessments, the Secretary should instead reward states that develop the highest quality assessments. The awards would be granted through a peer review system. We should not be giving states an incentive to rush on such an important issue. We have to give more incentives to improve the quality of the assessments. This amendment really goes back to why we are measuring student achievement in the first place and what are our goals in setting up the accountability systems we have. Are we measuring for the sake of measuring only, or are we measuring to get the best picture of how our children are doing? If we want to get the best picture of how students are doing, we need to have the best possible assessments. They need to be aligned with standards. They need to be free from bias. They need to reflect both the range and depth of student knowledge and assess not just memorized responses, but student reasoning and understanding. This is exactly what my amendment on the quality and fairness of State assessments that was passed earlier in the consideration of this bill is all about. That is what this amendment is about. If there is anybody who thinks that speed is more important than quality, please, vote against this amendment. Please, come down and debate me on it. I would be happy to. I was happy to see that Secretary of Education Paige also agrees that tests need to be high quality. He wrote that state assessments must be tied to the state standards and curriculum in his Washington Post op-ed that was published a couple of weeks ago. Secretary Paige writes: ``A good test--the kind the president and I support--is aligned with the curriculum so that schools know whether children are actually learning the material that their states have decided a child should know.'' I would like to thank the Secretary for this statement, and based on it, I would hope that he and the administration and every Member of the Senate would support this amendment. Let me review quickly my statements here on the floor before the recess about the key components of high-quality and fair assessments. The standards used by experts in the field--as laid out in the recent National Research Council Report ``Knowing What Students Know''--in analyzing assessment quality are summed up in three questions: Are the assessments comprehensive? That is, do they use multiple measures to capture the complexity of student learning rather than rote memorization of test content? Are the assessments continuous? That is, do they capture student learning across time? Finally, are the assessments coherent? That is, do they measure what is actually being taught in the curriculum? So, based on Secretary Paige's comments, there now seems to be some agreement that the new state assessments need to be high-quality and fair. But, anyone working in the field of educational assessment will tell you that high-quality assessments take a long time to develop. They require a deliberative process. They should not be rushed. It seems odd that, in this context, we would reward states simply because they finish their assessments quickly. If in fact, seems like an incentive for people not to spend time developing, improving and perfecting their assessments, but rather to take the easy way out. If they do, they can get a reward. If they do not, they get nothing. This would be extremely problematic, because all the research indicates that we need to move toward higher quality assessments, not lower quality assessments. I believe that those states that invest resources in the very expensive endeavor of developing high-quality exams that reflect state standards should be rewarded for the value judgment that they have made. The Independent Review Panel on title I which was mandated in the 1994 Reauthorization issued its report ``Improving the Odds'' this January. The report concluded that: Many States use assessment results from a single test-- often traditional multiple choice tests. Although these tests may have an important place in state assessment systems, they rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge reflected in state content standards. The Panel went on to make a strong recommendation. It said: Better assessments for instructional and accountability purposes are urgently needed. Further, as Robert Schwartz, the president of Achieve, Inc., the nonprofit arm of the standards-based reform movement recently said: You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests . . . Tests have taken on too prominent of a role in these reforms and that's in part because of people rushing to attach consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have really gotten the tests right. That is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. ``Quality Counts,'' a recent study on the state of assessments in the United States, also concludes, ``In to many states, the tests still focus to much on low level multiple choice questions and are poorly aligned with the standards they are designed to measure.'' Low quality assessments can actually do more harm than good. I would like to quote from the National Standards on Educational and Psychological Testing. The standards state: The proper use of tests can result in wiser decisions about individuals and programs than would be the case without their use and also can provide a route to broader and more equitable access to education and employment. The improper use of tests, however, can cause considerable harm to the test takers and other parties affected by test-based decisions. It is our obligation to see that tests are done right so that they achieve the best effect. Let's not give states an incentive to do low quality tests, which can have such a damaging effect, by offering them an award for rushing. The National Standards state that this is our obligation. The Standards say: Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to consider any potential unintended effects that may result from large scale testing programs. Concerns have been raised for instance about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on the objectives tested, restricting the range of instructional approaches to correspond to the testing format, increasing the number of dropouts among students who do not pass the test, and encouraging other instructional or administrative practices that may raise test scores without effecting the quality of education. It is important for those who mandate tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to identify and minimize the potential of negative consequences. Let's enhance our accountability systems by trying to enhance the quality of assessments so we can avoid the negative outcomes described in the Standards and more accurately measure what students know and can do. This way we can more effectively use tests for their best purpose: to diagnose students' needs and help students improve. I urge support for this amendment, for quality and for better reform. Amendment No. 465, As Modified