THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents If the Senator from Vermont, and others, support the amendment--which I hope they will--I do not need to respond. If other Senators don't want to come to the Chamber and debate, then there is no one to respond to, so I will
[Page: S4798] GPO's PDF
Mr. REID. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is the understanding of the two managers of the bill--one of whom is not here--on these two amendments there would be no second-degree amendments?
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Vermont, the Senator from Arkansas is on her way to the Chamber. She will be here momentarily. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 451 TO AMENDMENT NO. 358
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. LINCOLN] proposes an amendment numbered 451 to amendment No. 358.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) SENSE OF THE SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should appropriate $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to carry out part A and part D of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and thereby--
(1) provide that schools, local educational agencies, and States have the resources they need to assist all limited English proficient students in attaining proficiency in the English language, and meeting the same challenging State content and student performance standards that all students are expected to meet in core academic subjects;
(2) provide for the development and implementation of bilingual education programs and language instruction educational programs that are tied to scientifically based research, and that effectively serve limited English proficient students; and
(3) provide for the development of programs that strengthen and improve the professional training of educational personnel who work with limited English proficient students.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part A and part D of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
(1) $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(2) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(3) $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(4) $2,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(5) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(6) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senator BINGAMAN and Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I describe the specifics of my amendment, I want to take just a few moments to commend Senators JEFFORDS and KENNEDY for their tireless efforts in crafting the bipartisan proposal that is before the Senate today. As someone who works hard to bridge the partisan divide in Washington, I think each Member of this body owes the managers of this particular bill a debt of gratitude for bringing Senators with very different points of view together to find common ground on the most important bill we will likely consider this year.
They have done an excellent job. They have worked tirelessly together. I certainly commend both of them for their good manners and for the diligence with which they have gone about this very important issue.
They have demonstrated real leadership in this debate by placing the education of our children above partisan advantage. I am proud to join this bipartisan effort to reform our system of public education by helping States and local school districts raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all students.
I think the way this bill has been brought up also accentuates the opportunity we have to move in a timely way. As the mother of small children who will start kindergarten this fall, I certainly understand that the more time we waste in addressing this critical issue, the more at risk we put more and more young people across this Nation of not being able to achieve their goals.
So I am pleased to note that the bill before us reflects many of the priorities that are important to me and the 500,000 elementary and secondary students in my State of Arkansas. As many of my colleagues know, I have worked with Senator LIEBERMAN and other new Democrats over the last 18 months on a bold ESEA reform proposal known as the three R's bill. Our bill took a new approach to Federal education policy by combining the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility and accountability to help our school districts meet higher standards.
If there is one thing we have come to know about education, it is that you do not get something for nothing. We have to make a priority in this Nation of investing in education. This bill and this session gives us that opportunity to meet the mark and to actually do what it is we say we want to do.
One fundamental component of our plan, which is also a part of the BEST bill, is a commitment to give States the resources they need to help all limited English proficient students attain proficiency in the English language and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects.
The amendment I offer today recognizes that we aren't doing enough at the Federal level to provide the vast majority of LEP students in this Nation with the educational services they need to be successful under this new framework. This year, we will spend $460 million to serve LEP and immigrant students but only 17 percent of eligible children will benefit from these programs.
My amendment calls on Congress to appropriate $750 million for language instruction programs and services in fiscal year 2002. Also, my amendment would authorize additional funding over the next 6 years so all LEP and immigrant students could receive services under title III within 7 years. Under this approach, funding will be distributed to States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the number of students who need help with their English proficiency. It is so essential, if we are going to ask these students to meet the performance standards in our schools, that we indicate we have left the status quo of education in this country and have moved beyond to the 21st century. We must give them the tools in order to do so.
If you have visited many schools in your States lately, you have probably heard about the challenges schools and educators face in serving the growing number of students in need of LEP programs. From 1989 to the year 2000, the enrollment of limited-English-proficient students in our Nation's schools grew by 104 percent, from 2 million to an estimated 4.1 million today. During this same time period, total school enrollment grew only by 14 percent.
My State of Arkansas is a prime example of the trend that is occurring across this great Nation, especially in Southern States. According to the most recent census estimates, the Hispanic population in our State of Arkansas grew 337 percent since 1990, which is believed to be the largest percentage of growth in the Nation. Not surprisingly, the number of LEP students in Arkansas has increased dramatically in recent years as well. Since 1994, the number of LEP students enrolled in Arkansas public schools has increased by 80 percent, from 2,172 students to 10,599 students today.
Other States have experienced a similar increase in the number of students in need of services under title III. Between fiscal year 1999 and the year 2000, the percentage of immigrant students grew dramatically in the following States: Connecticut by 72 percent; Georgia by 39 percent; Louisiana
[Page: S4799] GPO's PDF
The need to do more to serve these students and the educators who are responsible for teaching them is clear. Providing more resources alone won't bring about reform or help close the achievement gap which persists between LEP and non-LEP students. Under the BEST bill, States will have to establish and meet annual performance goals for LEP students or face sanctions. In addition, all LEP students must attain the State's proficient level of performance within 10 years. This is a new approach that represents an important change from the past where too often low expectations for LEP students and immigrant students has resulted in low performance in the classroom. Our Nation and its economy cannot tolerate that approach to educating our children any longer.
In closing, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment which expresses a strong commitment to enhance educational opportunities for LEP students by increasing and distributing Federal resources for LEP programs in a reliable way and requiring LEP and immigrant students to meet higher standards. If we are going to ask these students to master English and meet the same challenging State content and student performance standards that all students are expected to meet, which we must do under this bill, then we need to provide States and local school districts with the resources they need to meet this new challenge.
I thank all of my colleagues for their support and encourage their vote in favor of the amendment. Attention to this issue is growing in so many of our States.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold, please.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 403, AS MODIFIED
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really will not need to take much more time. In a few moments, I am going to ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. There isn't anything I have said that I would change. I just think part of the disagreement, at least with the Senator from Vermont, was more semantics. I am intending the quality of testing language here to apply to this act, this piece of legislation, this reauthorization of the ESEA.
I haven't resolved this one way or the other yet. In my own mind, I have a question as to whether or not the Federal Government ought to be telling the school districts--I really mean this--in States across the country that you will do this testing, and you will do it every year in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 with every kid. That is a philosophical question.
The second concern I have is that in terms of our involvement and the ways in which schools are going to be measured and accountability is going to be defined, I want to make sure we have the necessary language that deals with quality, and again I, in particular, would emphasize the importance of comprehensiveness, multiple measures, and coherence, tests measuring the curriculum and what is being taught, and that it is continuous so that we see how children are doing over time.
I don't know how other Senators will vote, but I am certainly pleased to have had the discussion with my colleague from Vermont.
I send my amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 403), as modified, reads as follows:
On page 46, strike line 19 and replace with the following:
``assessments developed and used by national experts on educational testing.
``(D) be used only if the State provides to the Secretary evidence from the test publisher or other relevant sources that the assessment used is of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under this Act, and such evidence is made public by the Secretary upon request;''.
On page 46, line 20, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(K) enable itemized score analyses to be reported to schools and local educational agencies in a way that parents, teachers, schools, and local educational agencies can interpret and address the specific academic needs of individual students as indicated by the students' performance on assessment items.''.
On page 125, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 118A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.
Part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1117 (20 U.S.C. 6318) the following:
``SEC. 1117A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.
``(a) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this section is to--
``(1) enable States (or consortia or States) and local educational agencies (or consortia of local educational agencies) to collaborate with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, and other organizations to improve the quality and fairness of State assessment systems beyond the basic requirements for assessment systems described in section 1111(b)(3);
``(2) characterize student achievement in terms of multiple aspects of proficiency;
``(3) chart student progress over time;
``(4) closely track curriculum and instruction; and
``(5) monitor and improve judgments based on informed evaluations of student performance.
``(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
``(c) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.--The Secretary is authorized to award grants to States and local educational agencies to enable the States and local educational agencies to carry out the purpose described in subsection (a).
``(d) APPLICATION.--In order to receive a grant under this section for any fiscal year, a State or local educational agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(e) AUTHORIZED USE OF FUNDS.--A State or local educational agency having an application approved under subsection (d) shall use the grant funds received under this section to collaborate with institutions of higher education or other research institutions, experts on curriculum, teachers, administrators, parents, and assessment developers for the purpose of developing enhanced assessments that are aligned with standards and curriculum, are valid and reliable for the purposes for which the assessments are to be used, are grade-appropriate, include multiple measures of student achievement from multiple sources, and otherwise meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(3). Such assessments shall strive to better measure higher order thinking skills, understanding, analytical ability, and learning over time through the development of assessment tools that include techniques such as performance, curriculum-, and technology-based assessments.
``(f) ANNUAL REPORTS.--Each State or local educational agency receiving a grant under this section shall report to the Secretary at the end of the fiscal year for which the State or local educational agency received the grant on the progress of the State or local educational agency in improving the quality and fairness of assessments with respect to the purpose described in subsection (a).''.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to hear from my colleague from Vermont. Sometimes when I feel particularly indignant--and I do right now about where we are heading with this bill, and I have a Senator on the floor whom I respect and like to work with, I don't want the Senator from Vermont to think this is aimed at him.
My third concern, which I will talk about next week, is that we are just going to kind of keep these children thin when it comes to prekindergarten and what is being done for them, and keep them thin when it comes to the additional title I help, which could be pre-K, or extra reading help, or after school, and we are going to keep them thin when it comes to whether or not their schools have the resources and they are able to get the best teachers; and then we are going to put them on the scale, test them, and fail them again.
This doesn't work. The ``accountability'' without resources doesn't work. But at least this amendment deals in part with the accountability piece, which is to make sure we don't confuse accountability and testing and a single standardized test as one and the same thing. It is not.
So in the spirit of improving this bill, I hope there will be support for this amendment. I thank my colleague
[Page: S4800] GPO's PDF
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents