TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM. NOT FOR F.D.A.-TYPE
           ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT TEACHERS -- NOT
           FOR FAD-TYPE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT
           TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW TO BE BETTER. IT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF
           COMMON SENSE AND WILL RESULT IN A REAL IMPROVEMENT IN TEACHER
           QUALITY. MY HOME STATE SERVES AS A GOOD EXAMPLE. YET VERMONT
           STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CLASS-SIZE MONEY. YET SINCE THE FIRST
           DOLLAR WAS APPROPRIATED FOR CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION, VERMONT

           SOUGHT GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO USE THAT MONEY FOR PROFESSIONAL
           DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE
           TEACHER IN THE CLASSROOM. BECAUSE VERMONT ALREADY HAD SMALL
           CLASSES, SIZES THAT HAPPENED TO MEET THE FEDERALLY MANDATED
           STANDARD OF 18, THOSE DOLLARS WERE ABLE TO GO FOR PROFESSIONAL
           DEVELOPMENT. I WANT OTHER STATES TO DO WHAT VERMONT HAS DONE IF
           THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR STUDENTS.
           REDUCING CLASS SIZE IS IMPORTANT. HAVING A DYNAMIC, QUALIFIED
           TEACHER AT THE HEAD OF THE CLASSROOM IS OF EQUALLY AND GREATER

           IMPORTANCE. TITLE 2 OF THIS BILL SUPPORTS BOTH HIGH-QUALITY
           PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND HIRING TEACHERS TO REDUCE CLASS
           SIZE. YET DOES IT IN ANY WAY THAT ALLOWS SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO
           COME UP WITH THEIR OWN RECIPE FOR IMPROVEMENT THAT WILL WORK
           FOR ITS STUDENTS. S. 2 HAS A NEW FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF OTHER
           EDUCATORS AS WELL. IN ALL THE SCHOOLS I HAVE VISITED OVER THE
           YEARS, I CAN TELL ALMOST IMMEDIATELY IF THE SCHOOL'S A GOOD ONE
           BY MEETING THE PRINCIPAL. PRINCIPALS HAVE THE ABILITY TO
           TRANSFORM THE ENVIRONMENT IN A SCHOOL AND MAKE IT A PLACE WHERE

           INQUIRY, COLLABORATION AND LEARNING FLOURISHES. THAT IS WHY I'M
           PLEASED THAT TITLE 2 OF THIS BILL INCLUDES A NEW PROGRAM TO
           SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SCHOOLTEACHERS. THE
           PROGRAM IS BASED IN LARGE PART ON THE VERMONT MODEL. THE
           SNELLING SENATOR FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP. IT WILL SUPPORT
           TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL
           SKILLS AND ENHANCING AND DEVELOPING STUDENT MANAGEMENT AND --
           SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS SKILLS, IMPROVING EFFECTIVE USE
           OF EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY AND ENCOURAGES HIGHER-QUALIFIED
           INDIVIDUALS TO BECOME SCHOOL LEADERS. IN GENERAL, I AM PLEASED

           THAT S. 2 MAKES A SIGNIFICANT AND THOUGHTFUL INVESTMENT IN
           PROGRAMS THAT WILL GIVE OUR NATION'S TEACHERS THE KNOWLEDGE AND
           KNOW-HOW TO EDUCATE OUR NATION'S YOUNG PEOPLE. SUPPORTING OUR
           NATION'S TEACHERS IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS THAT WE CAN INVEST IN
           THE FUTURE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE

           FLO FLOOR. MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           MR. GREGG: ARE WE UNDER CONTROLLED -- TIME CONTROL HERE?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE'S NO CONTROL OF TIME.
           

           MR. GREGG: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
           TODAY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE POINTS MADE BY SOME OF OUR
           COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE DURING THE DEBATE
           YESTERDAY. BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED I
           BELIEVE TO MISCHARACTERIZE OUR BILL AS IT COMES FORWARD. THE
           REASON FOR MISCHARACTERIZING IT, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. MAYBE
           THEY DO NOT -- ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT IT OR MAYBE THEY
           SIMPLY FEEL THAT THE BILL IS SUCH A STRONG BILL THAT THEY CAN'T
           DEFEND IT WH THEY TALK ABOUT IT IN ITS REAL FORM. THEREFORE,
           THEY MUST CHARACTERIZE IT IN A FORM THAT AMOUNTS TO FANTASY AND

           THEN ATTACK THAT FANTASY AS BEING INAPPROPRIATE. LET'S BEGIN BY
           T SENATOR FROM MASS MARKS WHO CAME DOWN TO THE FLOOR --
           MASSACHUSETTS, WHO CAME DOWN TO THE FLOOR YESTERDAY AND SAID
           THAT THE FLEXIBILITY WE'RE AFFORDING TO THE STATES WILL JUST
           REVISIT THE SITUATION WHERE STATES WERE SPENDING DOLLARS --
           EDUCATION DOLLARS ON THINGS LIKE UNIFORMS AND TUBAS. I MUST SAY
           THAT I THINK THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS IN A TIME WARP
           ON THIS POINT. THAT HAPPENED WHEN TUBAS AND UNIFORMS WERE
           BOUGHT, AND I GUESS ONE OR TWO STATES ACTUAL DID THAT, IN 1965.

           TITLE 1 WAS PASSED IN 1965. THAT WAS 35 YEARS AGO. 35 YEARS
           AGO. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE CATCH UP WITH TODAY AND
           THE EVENTS OF TODAY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE CATCH UP WITH
           THE EVENTS OF TODAY IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TODAY. WE HAVE
           NOW HAD 35 YEARS OF TITLE 1, OF THE PROPOSAL AS STRUCTURED BY A
           DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING THE
           EDUCATION OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN. CORESS WAS CONTROLLED BY THE
           DEMOCRATS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE 35 YEARS. AND WHAT
           HAVE WE GOTTEN AS A RESULT OF THAT?

           WE SPENT $120 BILLION TO $130 BILLION ON TITLE 1 AND THE
           ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN HAS NOT IMPROVED. IT
           HAS EITHER DECREASED OR IT HAS STAYED T SAME. WE KNOW THAT
           CHILDREN, LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, IN THE FOURTH GRADE ARE READING
           AT TWO GRADE LEVELS LESS THAN LOW -- THAN THE OTHER CHILDREN IN
           THAT GRADE LEVEL. WE KNOW THAT THE LOW-INCOME CHILDREN IN OUR
           INNER CITIES ARE READING AT GREAT LEVELS -- GRADE LEVELS
           SIGNIFICANTLY LESS AND SOME CAN'T READ AT ALL AS THEY HEAD
           TOWARDS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, AS THIS

           CHART SHOWS, THAT 73 -- 70%-PLUS OF OUR STUDENTS IN
           HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS ARE BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN READING.
           60%-PLUS ARE BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN MATH. AND ALMOST 70% ARE
           BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN SCIENCE. WE KNOW THE PROGRAM HAS NOT
           WORKED. AND YET THE MEMBERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE DECIDE TO
           STROLL ON TO THE FLOOR AND START CITING PROBLEMS FROM 30 YEARS
           AGO AND ACTING AS IF THEY'VE CORRECTED THOSE PROBLEMS OVER THE
           LAST 35 YEARS. THEY HAVEN'T CORRECTED THE PROBLEMS IN

           EDUCATION. THEY HAVE AGGRAVATED THE PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION.
           GENERATION AFTER GENERATION OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH A
           SYSTEM WHICH HAS NOT ALLOWED THEM TO ACHIEVE. LOW-INCOME
           CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DENIED THE AMERICAN DREAM BECAUSE THEY
           HAVEN'T BEEN EDUCATED TO READ AND TO WRITE. AND THEY ARE
           COMPLICITY IN THIS. THEY SAY THE STATUS QUO -- C -- STATUS QUO
           WORKS. THEY BASICALLY SAY THEY HAVE THE ANSWERS. LET'S SEE HOW
           THE PRESIDENT WORKS. I LIKE TO HOLD UP THESE CHARTS, THEN I CAN

           READ THEM. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ARM'S LENGTH FOR ME TO READ IT.
           THIS IS THE PRESIDENT TALKING TO "THE WASHINGTON POST." HE
           SAID, "HE TOLD THE REPORTERS THAT THE FEDERAL MONEY FOR NEW
           TEACHERS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATES AND LOCAL SCHOOL
           DISTRICTS. 'IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY,' HE SAID." THAT'S THE
           ATTITUDE ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY. WELL, WHOSE
           MONEY IS IT?
           WHERE'S THIS MONEY COME FROM?
           IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY. IT'S OBVIOUSLY COMING OUT
           OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE LOCAL STATES. IT COMES TO
           WASHINGTON. BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE MENTALITY ON THE OTHER

           SIDE IS IS, WE THEN CAPTURE THIS MONEY HERE IN WASHINGTON. WE
           SEND IT BACK TO THE STATES. WE TELL THE STATES EXACTLY WHAT TO
           DO WITH IT. CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS, TARGETED PROGRAMS,
           STRAITJACKETED PROGRAMS. PROGRAMS AFTER PROGRAMS, REGULATIONS
           AFTER REGULATIONS. 900 PAGES OF NEW LAW. AND WHAT DO THEY GET
           FOR IT?
           WHAT HAVE WE GOTTEN FOR IT FOR 35 YEARS?
           VERY LITTLE AND OUR LOW-INCOME KIDS HAVE EVEN GOTTEN LESS.
           VIRTUALLY NO IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR ACADEMIC EFFORTS. AND SO THE

           MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE COME TO THE FLOOR AND THEY SAY THINGS
           LIKE, "THIS MONEY WILL BE SPENT ONCE AGAIN AS IT WAS 35 YEARS
           AGO IF FLEXIBILITY IS GIVEN TO THE STATES T. WILL BE SPENT ONCE
           AGAIN ON TUBAS AND FOOTBALL UNIFORMS." WELL, I GUESS THEY JUST
           DIDN'T REAL READ THE BILL. BECAUSE THE BILL IS VERY SPECIFIC.
           BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE ARE EXPECTING IN EXCHANGE FOR
           GIVING THE STATES THESE FLEXIBILITY OPPORTUNITIES WITH THESE
           FUNDS, WE ARE EXPECTING ACHIEVEMENT. THIS BILL AS A RESULT OF

           REPUBLICAN INITIATIVES SAYS THERE MUST BE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.
           IT MUST BE PROVABLE. IT MUST BE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT WHICH CAN
           BE SHOWN TO HAVE OCCURRED THROUGH -- THROUGH TESTS WHICH HAVE
           BEEN GIVEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
           MUST OCCUR AMONGST OUR LOW-INCOME KIDS. SO THAT THEY AREN'T
           LEFT BEHIND BEHIND. AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING DUMMING DOWN, AS
           REGRETTABLY HAS OCCURRED IN TOO MANY OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
           WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING LOWERING THE AVERAGE SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE
           THE LOW-INCOME CHILD IS GETTING CLOSER TO THE NORM. NO, WE'RE

           SAYING LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, ACHIEVEMENT MUST IMPROVE AS A
           RESULT OF LOW-INCOME KIDS ACTUALLY DOING BETTER IN MATH AND
           SCIENCE AND READING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR PEERS. EQUALLY
           IMPORTANT, THE ACHIEVEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS IN THIS
           BILL ARE VERY SPECIFIC IN SAYING THAT THEY WILL BE
           DISAGGREGATED. THEY WILL BE DISAGGREGATED. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
           THAT MEANS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIDE THE PERFORMANCE
           OF LOW-INCOME KIDS BEHIND -- THROWING THEM IN WITH THE AVERAGE.

           YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT GROUPS BY THE BASIS OF THEIR ABILITIES
           AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION SO THAT WE WILL KNOW WHETHER A POOR
           CHILD FROM THE INNER CITY IS ACTUALLY IMPROVING IN THEIR
           EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS AND WE WON'T HAVE THAT POOR CHILD BEING
           CLAIMED TO HAVE IMPROVED BECAUSE HE'S PUT IN A POOL WITH KIDS
           WHO HAVE HIGHER INCOMES AND WHO ARE ATTENDING DIFFERENT SCHOOL
           SYSTEMS. SO WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN
           THIS BILL. AND YOU CANNOT IN ANY WAY COME DOWN HERE AND IN

           FAIRNESS OR WITH OBJECTIVITY OR, IN MY OPINION, WITH AN
           ACCURATE READING OF OUR BILL CLAIM THAT THIS IS A TYPE OF
           PROGRAM THAT OCCURRED 30 OR 35 YEARS AGO AND IT'S, THEREFORE,
           NOT GOING TO WORK TODAY. IT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IT'S AN
           ATTEMPT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN. STUDY
           AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT IT'S NOT FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN TITLE 1
           THAT HAVE WORKED TO HELP KIDS. IT IS LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND

           STATES FOCUSING ON KIDS' EDUCATION THAT HAVE HELPED KIDS KIDS.
           IN THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE
           ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS OF LOW-INCOME KIDS, STATES LIKE TEXAS AND
           NORTH CAROLINA, SUCCESS HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVED BECAUSE
           THE LOCAL SCHOOLS HAD FLEXIBILITY AND CONTROL OVER THE MONEY.
           THE STATE MONEY. IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS. IN FACT,
           A NEPA STUDY, A STUDY BY THE NESHAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL,
           REPORTED -- NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANE REPORTED -- AND I

           QUOTE -- "THE STUDY CONCLUDES THAT THE MOST PLAUSIBLE
           EXPLANATION FOR TEST SCORE GAINS ARE FOUND IN THE POLICY
           ENVIRONMENT ESTABLISHED IN EACH STATE." NOT IN ANY POLICY --
           POLICIES THAT CAME OUT OF WASHINGTON. SECOND PART OF THAT
           SENTENCE WAS ADDED BY MYSELF. SO THE POINT IS THIS -- THE OTHER
           SIDE IS TRYING TO MISLEAD US. IT'S MAKING REPRESENTATIONS WHICH
           ARE TOTALLY INACCURATE ON THE ISSUE OF HOW THESE DOLLARS WHICH
           ARE PUT INTO MORE FLEXIBLE ARENAS, SUCH AS "STRAIGHT A'S" OR

           PORTABILITY, WILL BE USED. THERE IS SPECIFIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
           "STRAIGHT A'S" WRITERS THAT STATES ESTABLISH ANNUAL KNEW MARE
           RICK GOALS FOR CREATION THE PERCENTAGE -- KNEW MARE RICK GOALS
           FOR CREATING THE PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
           STUDENTS, OF MINORITY STUDENTS, OF STUDENTS WITH LIMITED
           ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. IT REQUIRES THAT THOSE KIDS MEET HIGHER
           ABILITIES OF PROFICIENCY AND THAT THEY ADVANCE IN THEIR ABILITY
           IN MATH, SCIENCE AND ENGLISH. SO THIS -- THIS REPRESENTATION,

           WHICH WE HAVE HEARD NOW FOR AT LEAST A DAY -- AND WE'VE HEARD
           IN THE PRESS FOR NUMEROUS DAYS -- ABOUT THE FAILURE -- ABOUT
           THE ABILITY TO JUST SIMPLY THROW MONEY AT THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS
           AND ALLOW THEM TO SPEND IT FOR WHATEVER
           
           THEY WANT: FOOTBALL UNIFORMS OR TUBAS, IS A FANTASY. IT'S BEING
           MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN A TIME WARP. IT'S NOT ONLY A
           TIME WARP RELATIVE TO THAT FANTASY. ITS A TIME WARP AS TO WHAT
           EDUCATION, WHAT THE PROPER WAY TO APPROACH EDUCATION IS. AND
           THEY'RE UNWILLING TO LOOK AT ANY CHANGE. THEY'RE JUST SO
           ENMIRED IN THE STATUS QUO THEY'RE UNWILLING TO CONSIDER ANY

           CHANGE. EVEN LIKE ONE WE PUT FORWARD, WHICH IS AN OPTIONS
           APPROACH, VERSUS AN APPROACH WHICH REQUIRES THE STATES TO DO
           SOMETHING. WE SAY TO THE STATES, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO TRY
           THESE NEW IDEAS. WE DON'T SAY TO STATES YOU MUST TRY THESE NEW
           IDEAS. ANOTHER COUPLE AREAS. THERE WAS A REMIT--
           --REPRESENTATION THAT "STRAIGHT A'S" WOULD END UP UNDERMINING
           THE ABILITY OF KIDS TO ACHIEVE IN AN -- IN THE SENSE THAT THEY

           WILL BE REQUIRED -- THAT THE SCHOOL WILL GET THE MONEY AND THAT
           THE MONEY WON'T FLOW TO THE LOW-INCOME CHILD THAT, IT WILL BE
           USED ON SOME OTHER ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND
           THEY'RE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT TUBA AND UNIFORMS, THEY'RE
           TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER SCHOOL ACTIVITY WHICH MIGHT END UP
           BENEFITING SOME AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENTS AS VERSUS THE
           LOW-INCOME STUDENT. WELL, THAT MAY BE. BUT THE POINT HERE IS,
           OF COURSE, THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MUST
           PROVE THAT THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LOW-INCOME CHILD HAS
           INCREASE TO DO GET THE MONEY -- INCREASED TO GET THE MONEY. SO

           HOWEVER THEY SPEND THE MONEY, THE RESULTS OF THE SPENDING OF
           THE MONEY MUST MEAN THAT THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
           LOW-INCOME CHILD HAS IMPROVED. THIS IS THE NEW THRUST THAT WE
           PUT INTO THIS BILL. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ACHIEVEMENT OF
           THE LOW-INCOME CHILD, AND WE AREN'T WILLING TO SPEND ANOTHER 35
           YEARS OF THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM CREATING A STATUS QUO IN
           EDUCATION THAT LOSES US ANOTHER GENERATION OR TWO OF KIDS. NOW,

           SENATOR MAUR RAY CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SHE SAID -- NOW, SENATOR
           MURRAY CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SHE SAID THAT FIRST THIS IS A
           BLOCK GRANT. WELL, FIRST, IT'S NOT A BLOCK GRANT BECAUSE ALL
           THE CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS ARE STILL IN PLACE. THE MONEY FLOWS
           INTO THE STATES STATES. THE STATES STILL HAVE THE CATEGORICAL
           PROGRAMS. THEY CAN SPEND IT ON ANY ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS THAT
           THEY WANT BUT THEY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE IT AMONGST
           THOSE PROGRAMS. AND THEY DO HAVE THE ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS
           WHICH WE PUT IN PLACE. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN THAT, SHE GOES
           ON AND SAYS, "AND CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS -- AND BLOCK GRANT

           PROGRAMS ARE ALWAYS EASY TO CUT." WELL, I WOULD POINT OUT, AND,
           THEREFORE, WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS BECAUSE THE PROGRAMS MIGHT GET
           CUT AND WE WOULD END UP REDUCING FUNDING. I WOULD POINT OUT
           THAT IT IS THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
           INCREASED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. WE
           HAVE INCREASED FUNDING -- FEDERAL FUNDING FOR K-12 BY 67% 67%.
           THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IT IS THIS
           ADMINISTRATION -- AND SPECIFICALLY MEMBERS OF THE OTHER SIDE OF
           THE AISLE -- WHO HAVE SUGGESTED CUTTING BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS.
{END: 2000/05/02 TIME: 16-15 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}