[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1420

  Mr. JEFFORDS. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment 1420 offered 
by the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President. I was hoping it was. I would 
like to speak on the amendment.
  This amendment was offered by myself and Senators Gregg and Dodd. The 
purpose of the amendment is to, first of all, raise the awareness of 
the Members of the very difficult situation arising within our States 
and local governments over the funding of special education. Nobody 
wants to in any way hinder the tremendous progress that has been made 
in the so-called IDEA bill and program. We are all very pleased with 
the great progress that has been made in handling those who have been 
less fortunate in being able to attain the learning abilities and get 
to the efficiencies in life that we would like to see.
  However, there is no question but that it has strained the resources 
of the State and local governments and we have also seen, very, very 
unfortunately across the Nation, that what the States are spending in 
education has gone down.
  So the combination of those two matters is making it difficult for 
our local and State governments to be able to look toward meeting the 
demands which will be placed on our society by the Goals 2000 which I 
am very much in favor of. Right now 40 percent of the cost of educating 
children with disabilities has fallen.
  That was our promise back in 1975 and I--and I am sure I know the 
President also--was very much instrumental in the passage of so-called 
94-142 along with Senator Stafford my predecessor. And I worked with 
John Brademas in bringing forth what is now the IDEA act. We recognized 
at that time that even though it was the States mandate by the courts, 
mandating the States that they had to provide an appropriate education 
to those who needed special help, that we intended to provide the sum 
of money that would be needed to fund 40 percent of that bill, 
recognizing that it would be casting a very substantial demands upon 
the State and the local governments to take care of those children who 
had really been forgotten up to that time.
  Thus, as we look towards the future and ask ourselves how are the 
States and local governments going to be able to take the Goals 2000 
which we are giving them and figure out how they can implement their 
programs to meet them, it seems only appropriate that the Federal 
Government and those of us here in the Congress should do what we can 
to bring the funding level of the 94-142 bill up to the 40 percent that 
we agreed to provide.
  Right now, only 8 percent of the funding for the special education is 
provided by the Federal Government. That is 32-percent less than we 
said we would provide. In Vermont it is even worse than that. For 
instance, in my State of Vermont we spent $71.3 million last year out 
of our budget and yet we only received about $4 million from the 
Federal Government. This means that we had a very substantial--we are 
almost half of what the rest of the States have on the average. So our 
State along with others is being strained very heavily. But it also is 
very proud of the work it has done in the special education field.
  So what our amendment does is say that as we go forward with the 
Goals 2000, we should do everything that is reasonably possible to 
ensure that we up the amount of money that is being paid towards 
special education to the 40 percent that we figured. This would cost 
the Federal Government about $10 billion more a year in order to fully 
fund.
  That money, unless we somehow--which I would be very much against--
fettered it in some way, would release that much money to the States to 
help them as they look toward trying to reach the demands being placed 
upon them by the increasing demands for education.
  So I hope that our Members will support us. It is nothing which 
creates any budget problem. We are careful to point out that it should 
be done within the constraints of the monetary problems we are dealing 
with in the budget. But as Senator Dodd and I would, with an amendment 
along with Senators Simon and Specter and Harkin this last year on the 
HHS appropriations bill, raised the awareness which this body 
unanimously agreed with that we should reorder our priorities as we 
move toward the next century such that we each year dedicate 1 percent 
more of the total Federal budget towards education. That is about $15 
billion a year.
  So it would be my expectation if we can live with what was expressed 
by the Senate last year, that we would be able to fully do what this 
amendment provides, and that is to provide the necessary funds to raise 
the level of funding for the special education to that which we 
promised back in 1975.
  I also would point out that I would hope that that additional amount 
of money could be used for programs which would really get us moving 
towards fully funding of some of our other so-called mandates or 
demands that we have placed upon the local governments, because I think 
it is incredibly important that we provide what we promised to provide. 
I would hope, for instance, that we would provide for our gifted talent 
program which we had on the books, but without any funding for 
sometime, in order to also help those that are most likely to provide 
that leadership in the years ahead to make us a competitive in the 
world area.
  So, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, which is one which 
I think they will find will be cheered by their State and local school 
districts. As well as by the disability community.
  One reason for that is there is now, because of the shortage of 
funds, a growing problem of tension between those who want to see us 
live up to our promises in special education and those who want to try 
to improve the education generally for their students and to stop the 
steady decline in the resources available.
  So, Mr. President, I will cease my discussion on that amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and that I bring up amendment No. 1394 for the purposes of 
offering a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1422 to Amendment No. 1394

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer the following amendment as a 
second-degree amendment to amendment 1394. I ask that the amendment be 
read. It is relatively short. I want to make sure anybody left in this 
institution has an opportunity to understand what it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Helms, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1422 to amendment No. 1394.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this Act, or any other Act, shall be available to any 
     state or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     constitutionally-protected prayer in public schools by 
     individuals on a voluntary basis. Neither the United States 
     nor any state nor any local educational agency shall require 
     any person to participate in prayer or influence the form or 
     content of any constitutionally-protected prayer in such 
     public schools.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of Senator Helms, who could not be here to do that. He has asked me to 
offer this amendment, and I am doing so at this time.
  Mr. President, I have no further business myself, so I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. 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. 1423 to amendment 1394

  Mr. SARBANES. I send to the desk a perfecting amendment by Senator 
Levin to the Levin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1423.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert 
     the following:

     ``Any other provision of this act, no funds made available 
     through the Department of Education under this Act, or any 
     other Act, shall be denied to any State or local educational 
     agency because it has adopted a constitutional policy 
     relative to prayer in public school.
       This section shall take effect 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont will state it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe that this is an amendment--is this, as I 
understand it, an amendment to the amendment that I just offered?
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment sent to the desk by the Senator 
from Maryland is a second-degree perfecting amendment and it is in 
order.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. May I withdraw my amendment to the Levin amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment to the Levin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 1422) was withdrawn.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1423, that was 
sent to the desk a little earlier on behalf of Senator Levin. It was 
sent to the desk on behalf of Senator Levin, and I withdraw it on 
behalf of Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 1423) was withdrawn.


                  continuing the dialog on goals 2000

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was a pre-school teacher. I served on 
my local school board in Shoreline, WA. I have two teenagers who attend 
public school. I attend parent-teacher nights and am involved in my 
kids education. Like all parents, I am deeply committed to improving 
the quality of American education. That is why I rise today in support 
of Goals 2000.
  As a mother and an educator, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in 
this effort. I support Goals 2000 because it begins to bring education 
to the forefront of the national public policy debate. That is exactly 
where education should be.
  Our children's education is an investment in our Nation's future.
  This is repeated so often that sometimes we don't really pay much 
attention to it. But it's true. The quality of our children's education 
today is the basis for America's competition in the world economy 
tomorrow.
  How can our children succeed in the global work force of the next 
century if they can't identify Germany on a map? It is easy to talk 
about the problems of our education system. We can always pull out 
another study about how many high school students are functionally 
illiterate.
  It is easy to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and say how 
committed we all are to improving education. The tough part is really 
doing something about it.
  Mr. President, this bill isn't going to solve all the problems with 
our education system. The Federal Government does not have the 
resources to do that.
  But this bill will take us an important first step down a long road 
toward improving our Nation's schools. It deals with some of the root 
causes of our education problems. Most importantly, this bill is a good 
starting point for a new dialog on education reform.
  Part of this dialog must be equality of opportunity. The legislation 
stresses that all children, regardless of their family's wealth, race, 
religion or national origin, should have the opportunity to succeed. 
This is an education bill of inclusion.
  Another part of the dialog must be the multiple demands placed on our 
teachers. I know from first-hand experience that teachers are called on 
to play counselors, doctors, policewomen, and drug enforcement agents.
  Madam President, very few teachers are prepared to play all these 
roles. So, they improvise--teachers are good at improvising. It is a 
miracle they succeed, but they do. As a parent, I am indebted to their 
ingenuity and dedication.
  The responsibilities of the classroom teacher have changed 
drastically. But preparation and training of educators has failed to 
keep pace. We must provide our teachers with the skills to face the 
challenges of the classroom.
  Our job as legislators in this dialog is to listen to our educators. 
They need to become true partners in the decisions that affect the way 
they do their job.
  Another part of the dialog is defining the goals of our Nation's 
education system. At one time, literacy was the goal of public 
education.
  Today, our businesses tell us they want a highly skilled, better 
educated work force. They tell us schools must produce students with 
more than just a broad liberal arts background. That means we need to 
talk about school-to-work transitions and vocational training.
  Educators and parents tell us the students' diplomas should mean more 
than their kids knowing a marketable trade. That means strengthening 
liberal arts programs. Educators, parents and the private sector need 
to come together to talk about realistic goals for our future work 
force.
  Madam President, if we are sincere in our desire for top-quality 
education, another part of the dialog must be about the social problems 
in today's schools--violence, AIDS, and teen pregnancy. The list goes 
on.
  We have to encourage our educators, social workers, and health care 
professionals to discuss these issues in their circles. Their ideas and 
solutions should be used to complement the education process. Only then 
can teachers teach and leave these other issues in the hands of those 
trained to deal with them.
  In conclusion, this bill can serve as the foundation for a continuing 
dialog on education reform. It can help establish a closer relationship 
between the business and education communities. It can recognize the 
incredible burden of social problems plaguing our schools.
  If the bill accomplishes these goals, than we will have legislated 
responsibly. We owe at least this much to our children, their teachers 
and our society.
  Madam President, let me stress to my friend, Chairman Kennedy, I am 
happy he has once again shouldered the burden of education reform. I 
want him to know that I stand ready to continue this dialog to ensure 
that students today emerge prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.


                     student involvement amendment

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to Goals 2000 
to make students major players in education reform. This amendment is a 
direct result of what I heard at a recent education conference I held 
in Fife, WA. Students played a major part in our discussion that day, 
and they should continue to play a major part in education reform 
policies.
  Anticipating our debate on Goals 2000, I asked the parents, teachers, 
businesspeople, community leaders, and students at the conference to 
tell me their top concerns regarding education. I promised to return to 
the District of Columbia with specific legislation based on what they 
told me. Interestingly, though not surprising by, the most insightful 
comments and toughest questions came from the students. There was 
overwhelming consensus by the end of the day that these students 
needed, not only to be part in education reform, but to be major 
players.
  I want to read a few of those comments. Ryan Booth from LaConner High 
School said his family, and extended family, is the most instrumental 
force in his education. Ryan Choate, Evergreen High in Vancouver, 
emphasizes that computer literacy is a necessity. Sam Galano of North 
Kitsap High School in Poulsbo said his school thrives on ethnic, racial 
and structural diversity. Mashavu Gordon, Olympic High in Silverdale, 
believes too much time is spent concentrating on the problems with the 
school system. She feels a new positive focus is needed. Chalu Harris, 
Franklin Pierce High in Tacoma, says inordinate emphasis on the gifted 
excludes the underachiever. Brad Hiranaga, of Gig Harbor High School 
explained the importance of service to the community. Jenney Jarrett, 
with Hanford High School in Richland feels strongly that teachers must 
continue their education in order to keep up with the latest learning 
techniques. Korie Kuzina, Ferndale High School, sees a separation 
between those excelling and those falling behind. A system was set up 
at her school where students worked at their own pace. Yuri Nakamura of 
Juanita High School told me schools support students once they realize 
their potential. Aaron Nelson, of Mountain View High School in 
Vancouver, feels that gifted children are not being challenged in 
public schools. When the leave to go to private schools, however, it 
dilutes the public school curriculum. Nicole Nolte, Nooksack Vally 
High, said the advisers at her school are not just supervisors, they 
are friends. Zak Payton, Lincoln High in Tacoma told me the emphasis in 
school is not on learning, it is on surviving in an increasingly 
violent school setting. Rainier Reyes, Mount Rainier High in Des Moines 
says new ways of teaching need to be examined.
  I hope every Senator will take a moment to go back and read these 
comments. These students are the people who our policies directly 
affect. Students are the only ones who can really tell us what it is 
like to be a student in today's society. This kind of information is 
invaluable as we devise education policy.
  I have a granddaughter in kindergarten and I have five more on their 
way to school. My personal commitment to improving education could not 
be stronger. Mr. President, my amendment assures that students, the 
customers of our education system, are major players in the education 
decisions that affect their future. I urge my colleagues to support 
this crucial amendment.


                         star schools amendment

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to Goals 2000 
promoting one of the most cost-effective education programs in the 
country, STAR Schools, My amendment would ensure that members of this 
successful program are included in the development of the national 
long-range technology plan. The STAR Schools Program and other distance 
learning consortia provide education to rural areas via satellite. If 
we are to truly move forward in education reform, we must be led by 
those who are already succeeding.
  In anticipation of Goals 2000, I held an education conference to find 
out exactly what people wanted from education reform. One of the most 
frequently cited issues, trailing only to reducing school violence, was 
promoting successful programs. One of the most important ways of 
recognition is through providing these groups a direct voice in 
national decisions. My amendment gives STAR Schools a voice in 
educational technology reform.
  Mr. President, on January 7, 1994, I participated in a STAR Schools 
Program. My voice and picture were up-linked from the Seattle School 
District studio, in conjunction with the Spokane-based Educational 
Service District 101, to a satellite. The transmission was then down-
linked to 5 States and over 169 sites in Washington State alone. 
Students were able to call in and ask me tough questions about youth 
violence, education, and politics. I talked to students from all over 
the State, including Bellingham, Colville, and Vancouver.
  The STAR Schools Program is one of the most cost-effective programs 
in the country. The number of students positively affected by this 
program cannot be understated. Children in rural areas can simply turn 
on the television and interact with decisonmakers around the country.
  Mr. President, too often we have a tendency to focus on the negative 
aspects of education. My amendment recognizes the hard-working efforts 
of the STAR Schools Program and includes them in the national 
decisionmaking process. this is an important amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the Goals 
2000: Educate America Act. As it has previously been said by many of my 
colleagues, this legislation has strong bipartisan support. I'm pleased 
to be a part of this effort to encourage better education for all of 
our Nation's young people.
  In my State of Montana, we take great pride in the quality of 
education that we provide our students, and I'm sure other States do as 
well. In fact, Montana ranks in the top 10 for States with the highest 
percentage of adults 25 and over who have completed high school. We 
know that education is the key to our future. However, we can and must 
do better.
  There is nothing more important than assuring that America's children 
can grow and learn in an even greater and more prosperous place than we 
know today. We need to foster an environment in which our children, our 
most valuable resource, can flourish. We live in a competitive and 
complex global economy. Our most vigorous competitors already place 
high emphasis on education. Of all the industrialized nations, we are 
the only country not to have identified what we expect our students to 
know.
  Many Americans, myself included, believe that we lack clear standards 
for what we expect our students to be able to do upon graduation. The 
focus of Goals 2000 is to set high academic standards in core subjects 
such as math, english and geography. The goals it sets out will 
challenge us to develop performance standards for all students. If 
America is to succeed in a global economy, we must expect the most from 
our students.
  There is no greater need for quality education than there is right 
now. To excel in today's competitive world we must have high academic 
standards and raise the expectations of our students to meet these 
standards. They must be challenged and motivated to do their best. And 
they must have equal access to a quality education.
  Goals 2000 will help us provide better education for all American 
students. It provides a framework for reform with national leadership 
and support for local action. But let me stress this point, while it is 
national in scope, the ultimate responsibility for reform and delivery 
is--and should remain--at the local level.
  Goals 2000 encourages States to develop and implement educational 
reforms using the goals it sets out as a guideline. But no State or 
local school district is required to initiate reforms. It is their 
choice to participate.
  This allows each State the flexibility required to meet their own 
individual needs and upholds our American tradition of having education 
decisions made at the local level. Nowhere in this legislation does it 
state that these goals and standards are mandatory. These are offered 
as guidelines for States and communities developing reforms within 
their educational programs. This legislation takes a carrot, not a 
stick approach toward improving education across the United States.
  Further, this legislation explicitly states that it shall not be 
construed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of the Department 
of Education Organization Act. This is the law protecting State and 
local school districts from a national curriculum and from unlegislated 
Federal education rules and mandates.
  Along this same line, I would like to list what this bill does and 
what it does not do. I have received a number of calls from Montanans 
who are sincerely concerned about the possibility of a national 
curriculum, giant unfunded Federal mandates, and loss of local control 
over education. At this point I ask that the following list of what 
this bill does do and what it does not do be entered into the Record.

                        What Goals 2000 Does Do

       Place the emphasis on our investment in education on 
     results;
       Codify the National Education Goals and the National 
     Education Goals Panel which includes two House Members and 
     two Senators among others;
       Encourage the development and use of high academic 
     standards for all students such as those which are used in 
     other industrialized countries;
       Create an incentive grant program for states to support 
     comprehensive education reform;
       Provide funds for use by states for ongoing teacher 
     training and professional development;
       Promote flexibility by providing authority for the 
     Secretary of Education to waive certain federal regulations 
     to assist states in implementing reform plans;
       Permit states to use funds granted under the Act to promote 
     public school choice, charter schools and magnet schools;
       Create a National Education Standards and Improvement 
     Council to oversee development of voluntary national 
     standards;
       Promote bottoms-up education reform in every school and 
     community;
       Provide planning grants to the states to increase the use 
     of technology to increase student learning;
       Create a mechanism to establish national workforce skill 
     standards.

                      What Goals 2000 Does Not Do

       Federalize education;
       Establish a national curriculum or the equivalent of a 
     national school board;
       Equire that states adopt national standards or submit state 
     standards for Federal Government approval;
       Create unfunded mandates;
       Make the receipt of any other federal funds contingent upon 
     any provision of Goals 2000;
       Dictate to states how much to spend, how to license 
     teachers, or what textbooks to use;
       Establish school-based health clinics;
       Mandate or encourage value-based or outcome-based 
     education.

  I am also aware there have been arguments made against Goals 2000 
based on a belief that it encourages schools to stress the teaching of 
values, not academics. Or that it promotes outcome-based education. 
This is simply not the case. There is no mention of outcome-based 
education in Goals 2000, nor is there any connection between the two.
  Goals 2000 takes the first step towards promoting educational goals 
so that all students can, and will, reach their fullest potential. 
These national goals were first developed by our Nation's Governors in 
1989, so it truly is a grassroots effort. Now is the time to continue 
building on the momentum started by our Governors.
  The support for this legislation extends much beyond the U.S. Senate. 
It encompasses many individuals and groups of the American public. 
Although it's unusual, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce have 
both given their names in support of this legislation. These two 
organizations, along with many other organizations representing a wide 
variety of Americans, all support Goals 2000. I ask that a full listing 
of the organizations supporting this legislation be placed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  As a nation, it is our responsibility to ensure that each and every 
American child receives a top quality education. We must challenge them 
by setting high goals and we must expect them to meet the standards 
needed to achieve those goals. If we act now, we all can be guaranteed 
a brighter future.

      Organizations Supporting the Goals 2000: Educate America Act

       American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
       American Association of School Administrators.
       American Council for the Arts.
       American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       Business Coalition for Education Reform.
       The Business Roundtable.
       Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
       The College Board.
       Committee for Economic Development.
       Council of Chief State School Officers.
       Council for Education Development and Research.
       Council for Great City Schools.
       Music Educators National Conference.
       National Alliance of Business.
       National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies.
       National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Music Merchants.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       National Association of State Boards of Education.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       National Education Association.
       National Parent Teacher Association.
       United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America, UAW.
       National School Boards Association.
       United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

  (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed at this point in the Record:)


                           amendment no. 1382

                   supporting voluntary school prayer

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer my wholehearted support for 
Senator Helms' amendment allowing voluntary prayer in school. I want to 
point out this amendment will not force students to partake in prayer, 
instead it would give students the freedom to take a moment for 
reflection or prayer in a public school.
  We have been struggling with this issue as a nation since the early 
1960's when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on public school prayer. While 
the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the State may not prescribe 
religious activities, the Court has never held that individual 
expression in schools is unconstitutional.
  I believe that religious ideas and religious speech, including prayer 
should be treated with the same degree of freedom in public places as 
are other forms of lawful speech. If freedom is to prevail then 
religious expression must be protected for public school students to 
the same extent as nonreligious expression. Public schools must make 
the adjustment to accommodate the religious needs of students. Most 
Americans agree that individuals should be free to express their 
personal beliefs, including religion in public as long as it does not 
impose upon another individual's rights. I certainly do not believe 
that taking a moment for voluntary prayer or reflection will infringe 
on the rights of others.
  I think it is important that we remember that our country is based on 
the Judeo-Christian ethic. The first amendment of our Nation's 
Constitution was created to ensure that Congress could make no law 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech. Students in our public schools should not be deprived of that 
right when it comes to prayer.
  Allowing voluntary prayer in public schools will not discriminate 
against certain sects of religion, nor will it discriminate against 
students who do not practice formalized religion. Rather, school prayer 
will supply all students the freedom to chose whether to exercise their 
right.
  The classroom can be characterized as a marketplace of ideas. The 
time has passed when it can be validly argued that the young must be 
shielded from ideas or beliefs separate from their own. Allowing our 
children the freedom of religious expression in their educational 
experiences, including voluntary school prayer can serve the 
educational needs of our children while preserving the precious and 
ancient liberties of free speech and expression.
  Mr. President, our Nation's Founding Fathers pledged that we are one 
Nation under God. Following their lead, I strongly urge this body to 
pass this important and valuable amendment.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise with my distinguished 
colleague from Connecticut to comment briefly on several important 
provisions in this bill that I believe will make Goals 2000 a more 
effective and more complete framework for state and community-based 
education reform.
  I would also like to use this opportunity to discuss the growing 
movement toward using more choice and more choices as part of education 
reform initiatives around the country. These initiatives will benefit 
from both this legislation and from the administration's proposal 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  One provision I am referring to, Mr. President, authorizes the use of 
State grants to support public school choice initiatives--including 
parent-student information and referral programs.
  A second provision also allows States to use their grants to support 
the establishment of innovative new public schools, including magnet 
schools and charter schools.
  Finally, under an amendment I suggested, local school districts are 
also explicitly allowed to use a portion of their grants to help start 
innovative new public schools.
  Members of this body know of my strong interest in both public school 
choice and in charter schools. I want to commend President Clinton and 
Secretary Riley for making good on their commitment to these tools of 
education reform by supporting this authority in the Goals 2000 
proposal.
  If properly utilized, Mr. President, the Goals 2000 proposal could 
help promote the kind of consumer-driven dynamic that makes real change 
much more likely.
  That's certainly been the case in Minnesota and in other States that 
have used public school choice and initiatives like magnet and charter 
schools to empower teachers, parents and communities, and to expand the 
number and diversity of school choices.
  At last count, eight State legislatures have now authorized teachers, 
parents, and community groups to start innovative new charter schools. 
They are Minnesota, California, Georgia, New Mexico, Colorado, 
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
  Missouri has also authorized a more limited ``New Schools Pilot'' to 
test ways of decentralizing management and removing State rules for 
three existing school sites over a 5-year period.
  Michigan is the most recent State to enact charter schools 
legislation as part of a comprehensive set of financing and 
organizational reforms proposed by Gov. John Engler and adopted by the 
Michigan State Legislature late last year.
  The new Michigan charter school law is one of the most open-ended in 
the entire country. Unlike most States, it places no limit on the 
number of charters that may be granted.
  And, the new Michigan law makes it possible for new public schools to 
be chartered not just by local and intermediate school districts, but 
also by community colleges and any branch of the Michigan State 
university system.
  In addition to the nine States I just mentioned, a number of other 
States are seriously considering legislation to authorize charter 
schools.
  One of those States is New Jersey, where Gov. Christine Todd Whitman 
has included support for both charter and magnet schools in a 
comprehensive education reform package she outlined in her inaugural 
address in mid-January.
  Mr. President, I am proud that Minnesota was the first State to 
authorize parents and teachers to start new charter schools under 
legislation that was adopted in 1991.
  Under this legislation Minnesota has now authorized nine charter 
schools.
  The first of those schools--City Academy--is one I visited last 
winter in a community center on the east-side of St. Paul.
  By design, all students at City Academy have previously dropped out--
or been kicked out--of traditional schools. Yet 15 of City Academy's 
first 17 graduates are now going on to some form of postsecondary 
education.
  Just 3 weeks ago, I visited a second Minnesota charter school, the 
Metro Deaf School, which is located in a renovated warehouse building 
on the east edge of downtown St. Paul.
  The Metro Deaf School is also small and highly specialized. It was 
created around the premise that deaf and hearing impaired children will 
learn more--and retain more knowledge--if their subjects are all taught 
in American sign language.
  Mr. President, Minnesota now has a total of five charter schools in 
operation, with several others set to open in the coming year and a 
number of charter proposals now pending before State and local boards 
of education.
  In response to growing interest in this aspect of education reform, 
the 1993 Minnesota Legislature raised the maximum number of charters 
that may be granted from 8 to 20.
  The 1993 legislature also made it possible for schools that can't get 
a charter from their local districts to appeal that decision to the 
State board of education.
  One very exciting charter school scheduled to open this spring is the 
Skills for Tomorrow High School in Minneapolis.
  During the recent recess, I was briefed by the sponsors of this 
school--a coalition of local organizations led by the Minnesota 
Teamsters Service Bureau.
  The Skills for Tomorrow charter school will be housed in the 
Minneapolis Technical College's facilities in downtown Minneapolis. It 
will stress hands-on learning experiences for its students, especially 
through apprenticeships with local employers.
  Mr. President, another very exciting charter school proposal--just 
approved by the State board of education in January--is for the 
Minnesota New Country School. This new school will be located in 
LeSeuer, a smaller, rural community in south-central Minnesota.
  The New Country School will stress its small scale, extensive parent 
and community involvement, and new educational technologies.
  Equally important is the premise behind the New Country School that 
the availability of more diverse educational choices should not be 
limited only to students living in major metropolitan areas.
  Mr. President, as I have listened to the parents, teachers, and 
others who are designing and opening charter schools in Minnesota, I 
have heard one recurring theme.
  If the opportunity to break the exclusive franchise local school 
districts now have on starting new public schools, at least minimal 
amounts of start-up funding are an absolute necessity.
  Planning and designing a new curriculum--usually done by parents and 
teachers on their own--takes time and money.
  Expertise also must be hired--to draft contracts, to work through the 
complexities of State education finance law, to design a positive 
learning environment for the students.
  And, cash flow needs of a new enterprise must be met, computers 
textbooks, and desks must be purchased, and minor renovations are often 
needed to meet health and safety codes in what are usually rented 
facilities.
  These realities have led one of the Nation's leading advocates of 
charter schools--Colorado Gov. Roy Romer--to propose making $325,000 in 
start-up funding available to charter schools in his State that focus 
on students who are at-risk of dropping out.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government can and should be a partner in 
encouraging start-up funding for charter and other innovative public 
schools.
  And, with the authority now included in the Goals 2000 legislation, 
States and local school districts will be able to offer startup funding 
for charter schools and other innovative public schools like City 
Academy and the Skills for Tomorrow High School.
  Under this legislation, States will also be able to use a portion of 
their funds for State-level public school choice initiatives including 
the kind of computer-based information and referral program that the 
State of Minnesota is now developing.
  Finally, Mr. President, I should point out that support for 
increasing the number and diversity of school choices would expand even 
further under the Clinton administration's proposal for reauthorizing 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Under the administration's ESEA proposal, a new Federal grant program 
would be established to help start new public charter schools.
  I should note, Mr. President, that similar authority to use Federal 
funds to help start new charter schools was originally proposed in 
legislation I introduced last year, the Public School Redefinition Act.
  Cosponsoring that proposal were Senators Lieberman, Kerrey, and 
Gorton. A bipartisan companion bill was introduced in the House by 
Representatives Dave McCurdy, Tom Petri, Tim Penny, and Tom Ridge.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working closely with these and other 
supporters of charter schools, with the administration, and with the 
Labor Committee to make sure Federal support for innovative new public 
schools remains in the ESEA reauthorization.
  It is not surprising, Mr. President, that States are authorizing 
establishment of charter schools in a variety of ways. So, we must also 
make sure Federal programs to support them are flexible and deferential 
to how States choose to allow such schools to be established.
  But, if we retain that kind of flexibility, the Federal Government 
could be an important partner in helping parents, teachers, and 
communities expand public school choices.
  And, with the marketplace dynamics that come with choice and choices, 
all students in those States stand to gain.
  Mr. President, there have been a number of developments on charter 
school legislation around the country in the past several months that 
were updated an excellent report released recently by the Morrison 
Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University.
  Because of the strong interest in charter school activity in a 
growing number of States, I would ask that an excerpt from that report 
be included at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

    Charter School Update: Expansion of a Viable Reform Initiative--
                           Executive Summary

       Charter schools offer policymakers a structure that 
     integrates many ideas that heretofore have met with 
     resistance. As part of an ``ideal'' charter school structure, 
     educators within existing public or private schools, parents, 
     or other members of the community develop a proposal 
     describing how they would operate a school and what specific 
     outcomes they would achieve. Local school boards or other 
     county/state entities are authorized to grant a ``charter'' 
     to this group and to hold them responsible for the provisions 
     of their proposal. Once granted a charter, a school receives 
     formula-driven funding as if it were a public school 
     district. Two key differences, however, exist. First, these 
     charter schools are freed of most state and local 
     regulations, allowing them to implement innovative ideas. 
     Second, if these schools fail to attain outcomes as specified 
     in their charter contract, they are put out of business.
       Charter schools, therefore, offer a significant departure 
     from the standard management structure of public schooling. 
     However, if implemented as an option and if done initially on 
     a pilot basis, charter schools offer many potential reforms 
     for education. District boundaries would no longer dictate 
     where a child attends school since charter schools serve as 
     an enrollment option for students, parents, and teachers. 
     Decentralization would be achieved by granting full control 
     over the entire school budget as well as management and 
     personnel decisions to school-based councils. Removal of most 
     state and local regulations (other than those necessary to 
     ensure safety, nondiscrimination, and high educational 
     outcomes) would provide opportunities to be innovative and 
     eliminate the ability to lay blame for poor achievement 
     elsewhere.
       On the other hand, charter schools continue to subscribe to 
     the American democratic ideas of the common school--that all 
     children have the right to a free public education. To this 
     end, charter schools are to be tuition-free, non-sectarian, 
     and cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or 
     disability. Although private schools can be brought into a 
     charter school program, they need to meet the same standards 
     as other public schools seeking charter status and public 
     funding.
       To date, eight states have passed some type of charter 
     school legislation (see chart below) although many other 
     states have considered similar action. This report provides 
     information on activities and legislation in these states 
     regarding charter school formation, including roles played by 
     individual teachers and others as organizers, by local school 
     boards as sponsors, and by county or state officials in 
     providing an appeals process and technical assistance. 
     Statutory requirements, legal responsibilities, funding 
     mechanics, and employment issues including hiring and 
     dismissal, collective bargaining, and job security are also 
     detailed.


                 States with Charter School Legislation

       Minnesota (1991).
       California (1992).
       Colorado (1993).
       Georgia (1993).
       Massachusetts (1993).
       Missouri (1993).
       New Mexico (1993).
       Wisconsin (1993).
       This report also offers recommendations to policymakers 
     considering potential charter school legislation. The 
     following provides a recap of the key issues:
       Who should sponsor? Local school boards represent an 
     appropriate entity to sponsor charter schools; however, it is 
     important to establish a county or state appeals process for 
     organizers who believe that a denial by a local board was 
     inappropriate.
       Which state laws/rules should remain? Policymakers should 
     not review every education-related law and rule to identify 
     which should apply to charter schools. Instead, a general set 
     of minimums should be established that focus on student 
     outcomes; nondiscriminatory procedures; and the health, 
     safety, and welfare of students.
       What about the mechanics of funding? Methods used across 
     the eight states illustrate that direct funding to charter 
     schools can be accomplished. Given, that some economies of 
     scale will be lost when operating an individual school, 
     charter school organizers should develop a ``small business'' 
     financing plan.
       Who should govern? Since the legal and fiscal authority 
     will reside at the school-level, the state should establish 
     minimums regarding a charter school's local governance/
     management structure. However, policymakers should resist the 
     temptation to specify the exact composition in order not to 
     ``mandate decentralization.''
       How can resistance be overcome? Efforts should be made to 
     obtain input and to communicate with individual members of 
     the local school boards association and teachers unions 
     regarding their potential new roles. Local school boards will 
     actually gain power by being able to develop performance-
     based charters with some or all of their schools and in turn 
     will be freed from most state regulations; teachers will gain 
     a stronger voice in the focus and management of their school.
       What about private school inclusion? States must give 
     careful consideration to the question of including private 
     schools in the chartering process. If included, they should 
     be held to the same state requirements as other public 
     schools seeking charter status.
       Do charter schools conflict with consolidation efforts? 
     Steps should be taken to ensure that appropriate educational 
     programming can be provided without additional costs. It is 
     important that charter schools do not become eligible for 
     ``small school'' weights or other similar support.
       What role should the state play? Providing technical 
     assistance support for charter school organizers (including 
     the development of a small business finance plan) and 
     establishing a state or county appeals process are important. 
     In addition, distribution of charter school information is 
     also necessary.
       Will charter schools cost more? Charter schools can be 
     initiated with fairly nominal state start-up costs; however, 
     total costs are dependent upon specific legislative 
     provisions. If the program is optional and begins with a 
     small group of willing participants, no additional funding 
     for training would be necessary. If the state chose to 
     implement a program that is mandatory and/or includes a large 
     percentage of schools immediately, additional training would 
     be necessary. Also, if private school students are eligible 
     to participate, additional costs would also occur since 
     states are currently not paying for their education. In 
     addition, state-level technical assistance and an appeals 
     process would also cost a small amount. Finally, a continued 
     look at funding equalization and at-risk support is important 
     to ensure that all interested schools can develop the 
     infrastructure necessary to move toward a charter school 
     setting.
       This report illustrates that charter schools appear to be a 
     viable reform initiative. This is especially true for states 
     in which ``gridlock'' has occurred regarding the creation of 
     a school choice system, the decentralization of power to the 
     school-level, and/or encouraging more innovative and 
     accountable systems. Charter schools have the appeal of 
     allowing these activities to occur within schools and 
     communities that believe such changes will improve 
     educational outcomes. Although the implementation of such 
     schools will not be easy, the potential benefits of 
     establishing charter school legislation outweigh the 
     impending policy battles.
                                  ____


               What's Happened So Far Across The Country?

       Minnesota was the first state to grapple with the charter 
     school idea and, in 1991, initiated'' outcome-based schools'' 
     (i.e. charter schools) legislation. This law authorized the 
     creation of up to eight legally and financially autonomous 
     schools to be organized by certified teachers and sponsored 
     by local school districts. During the 1992/93 school year, 
     two of the eight permissible charter schools were 
     operational. The first is located in a donated city 
     recreation building in St. Paul and offers a year-round 
     program for 35 at-risk adolescents and young adults from ages 
     13-21. The second is a private Montessori school, which 
     converted to charter status in March 1993, educating children 
     from kindergarten through grade six. Minnesota has the only 
     legislation that does not prohibit private schools from 
     applying for charter status.
       Another four schools began operating under their charters 
     during Fall 1993. The program offerings at these schools are 
     diverse, including a school for deaf students, a vocational/
     technical school, and a pre-K through grade 12 school 
     emphasizing the needs of at-risk students. The other schools 
     also utilize various innovative practices such as multi-age 
     classrooms, thematic learning, extensive parent involvement, 
     year-round education, extended school day, and multicultural 
     curricula.
       During Spring 1993, the Minnesota legislature modified 
     their charter school statues allowing 12 additional (20 
     total) schools to be approved. They also prescribed an 
     appeals process to their state board of education, heretofore 
     excluded due to strong opposition from local school boards.
       In September 1992, California adopted a charter schools law 
     which allows the creation of up to 100 such schools in the 
     state. Any individual can circulate a charter school petition 
     which must receive sponsorship by the local school district. 
     An appeal to the county board of education was included in 
     the legislation. Whether a school receives legal autonomy is 
     dependent upon the provisions of the charter agreement. 
     Schools do receive their total funding independent of the 
     school districts, although funding does flow through the 
     districts before reaching the charter schools. To date, 40 
     schools have received approval, with a few operating under 
     their charter beginning Fall 1993. Most, however, will begin 
     operations as charter schools in 1994. This delay is due 
     primarily to a variety of the charters being adopted as 
     ``developmental'' (i.e., more details need to be developed 
     prior to charter school conversion).
       Like Minnesota, the California charter schools describe a 
     wide variety of innovative strategies to be employed. 
     However, unlike Minnesota, California has approved two 
     charters using a home schooling approach in which the school 
     operates as a resource center. In addition, one school will 
     operate an English as a second language (ESL) curriculum; 
     another school will utilize Edward Demming's Total Quality 
     Management theory.
       During Spring/Summer 1993, legislators in six additional 
     states enacted some form of charter school law. The character 
     of the new legislation in the six states is varied in its 
     approaches to the charter school concept and warrant brief 
     exploration here.
       Colorado: Passed in June 1993, legislation permits no more 
     than fifty charter schools to be created prior to July 1997; 
     at that time, the ceiling is removed. Any individual or group 
     can enter into a charter school agreement with the local 
     school board if ``adequate'' support from parents, teachers, 
     and pupils is obtained. A charter school remains under legal 
     authority of its school board, but receives at least 80 
     percent of per pupil funding from the district. Two schools 
     have already been approved; several more are pending.
       Georgia: Passed in 1993, this legislation allows an 
     unlimited number of charter schools to be converted from 
     existing public schools. Public school personnel may apply to 
     the state board for charter status if the local board gives 
     approval, if two-thirds of the faculty and staff approve, and 
     if parents present at a meeting to initiate a charter school 
     petition give their support. Schools are not legally 
     autonomous from their districts, and the amount of funding is 
     to be negotiated in the terms of the charter agreements. 
     Charter agreements are to emphasize school improvement and 
     student outcomes. It is anticipated that school proposals 
     will be considered during Fall 1993, once the specifics of 
     implementation are addressed by the state board.
       Massachusetts: Part of a comprehensive school reform 
     package, this state's charter school component will not be 
     implemented until September 1995. Twenty-five public charter 
     schools are permitted, in which two or more certified 
     teachers, ten or more parents, or any other individual or 
     group, may enter into a charter agreement with the state 
     secretary of education. Other than Minnesota, Massachusetts 
     has the only legislation that automatically grants charter 
     schools legal and financial autonomy.
       Missouri: Missouri's ``New Schools Pilot'' is a more 
     formative version of the charter school concept. It is 
     designed to test a revised management system within three 
     existing school sites that volunteer to participate for a 
     five year period beginning July 1995. Local school boards 
     will apply to the state board of education to participate. 
     Each site will implement a five member management team with 
     two members permitted to be exempt from certification 
     requirements. The functions of this management team are (at a 
     minimum) to deal with all staffing and personnel decisions. 
     The state board of education has autonomy to waive and 
     implement rules for these schools.
       New Mexico: Passed in 1993, New Mexico's legislation allows 
     five existing public schools to be granted charter school 
     status by the state board of education. Charter schools will 
     continue to function under the legal authority of school 
     districts, and administrative costs may be withheld by the 
     districts. Regulations will be developed by the state board 
     of education by Spring 1994, at which point applications for 
     charter schools will be processed. In the meantime, the state 
     board of education has provided ten schools with planning 
     grants of $5,000 each.
       Wisconsin: Legislation passed in August 1993, requires the 
     state superintendent of education to approve the first ten 
     charter school requests received. Charter schools can be 
     created two ways. First, after receiving a petition from an 
     individual (signed by at least ten percent of the teachers at 
     the school district or 50 percent at one school and receiving 
     approval from the state superintendent of public 
     instruction), the school board must hold a hearing, and if 
     adequate employee and parent support are determined, may 
     grant the petition. Under this provision, a school board may 
     also convert all of its schools to charter status (a maximum 
     of two per district) if the petition is signed by at least 50 
     percent of teachers employed in the district, and it provides 
     alternative public school arrangements for children not 
     wishing toattend charter schools. Second, the school board 
     can generate and seek approval from the state superintendent 
     for its own proposals and contract with a group or individual 
     to operate the school. Regardless of the method used to 
     create charter schools, they remain under local school 
     district control and the level of funding is determined 
     within the terms of the charter agreement. The state 
     superintendent has already approved the first ten district 
     generated requests; two more districts are on a waiting list.
       During the past three years, attempts to pass charter 
     school legislation have also taken place in several other 
     states including Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, 
     Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wyoming. 
     In each case, the debates surrounding the issue have been 
     extensive. For example, in Arizona the concept of charter 
     schools was offered by Governor Symington's Task Force on 
     Educational Reform in 1991 within their recommendation to 
     develop ``New Arizona Schools.'' Although introduced in 1992 
     as part of a comprehensive legislative package, this concept 
     failed due to both its lack of specific details and the 
     political turmoil surrounding the overall reform attempt. A 
     further effort to incorporate charter schools occurred in the 
     1993 legislative session within a larger educational reform 
     package which was tabled until a budget could be developed to 
     include with the bill. The concept is predicted to return in 
     1994.
       In addition to state level activity, charter schools were 
     also proposed (but not enacted) at the national level in 1992 
     within both S.2, the Senate's Neighborhood Schools 
     Improvement Act, and in H.R. 4323, the House Education 
     Improvement bill. As of October 1993, start-up funding slated 
     to go directly to charter schools was included within the 
     proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act. It is anticipated that Congress will begin 
     hearings for the reauthorization of the Act in the Spring of 
     1994.
       Finally, many local school systems have adopted their own 
     version of charter schools, giving schools more control over 
     their budgets and curriculum. A term unheard of just a few 
     years ago, has now become part of state and local educational 
     reform debates across the nation.


     charter schools provisions in goals 2000: educate america act

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you very much for the opportunity 
to address this bill, Goals 2000: Educate America Act. I would like to 
highlight provisions in the bill that will allow States to use funds to 
launch chartered public schools. Last year, Senator Durenberger and I 
introduced legislation to provide Federal funds for planning and 
piloting charter schools, and I am pleased that Goals 2000 includes 
charter school provisions.
  Goals 2000 provides a national framework for education reform, and 
seeks to promote systemic changes in our education system to improve 
education opportunities and outcomes for our children. Whether or not 
we achieve real improvement will ultimately depend on how reforms are 
implemented at the local level. The charter schools provisions in this 
bill are critical because they provide local jurisdictions with the 
resources, encouragement, and flexibility they need to implement real 
change.
  Charter schools encourage innovation within the public schools by 
allowing school staff, parents, and others in a community to apply for 
a charter to run their own public school, free of many of the onerous 
regulations and bureaucracy of school administrations. But charter 
schools still must abide by the fundamental requirements of public 
schools. They are bound by Federal and State statutes that prohibit any 
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, disability, or any other 
factor. They also must be open to all students interested in attending, 
with a lottery if they are overenrolled. And they must be nonsectarian 
in their programs, employment practices, and all other operations and 
cannot be affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious 
institution.
  In contrast to many existing public school programs, however, these 
schools will add a significant measure of choice, quality, and 
diversity to the options offered to students. As my colleague Senator 
Durenberger has discussed, charter schools are successfully serving 
children with special needs, including those who have previously 
dropped out of school and those with physical disabilities. They offer 
a way to broaden quality choice within public education and stimulate 
creativity.
  More and more States are establishing charter schools programs, Eight 
States--California, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Georgia, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin--have passed legislation. And 
over 10 other States, including Connecticut, are considering such 
legislation.
  While State and local governments will be able to use a small portion 
of the funds authorized in this bill to start charter schools, charter 
schools will have to compete with a variety of other State and local 
education systemic improvement programs for funds. I hope Congress will 
be able to strengthen its support for charter schools later this year 
when we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA]. 
I understand that the administration has included a charter schools 
program in its proposed ESEA legislation, and I look forward to working 
with Senator Durenberger and our colleagues to make sure that ESEA 
provides States and local governments with the full support that they 
deserve as they pursue excellence, innovation, and diversity in 
education through charter schools.


      charter schools language in sections 308 and 309 of s. 1150

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have just spoken at length on why I 
support charter schools. My understanding is that new chartered public 
schools such as those provided for by Minnesota law and the laws of 
seven other States, and under consideration in Connecticut and close to 
a dozen other States, could receive start-up assistance from funds set 
aside for State and local school improvement initiatives in sections 
308(b)(2) and 309(a)(4) of this legislation. Chartered public school 
programs which would be eligible under this provision are those 
established by groups of teachers, parents, or community groups which 
enter into a performance-based contract with the State or locality 
empowered to enter into a charter agreement. Those schools must, of 
course, comply with the language in the bill stating that these new and 
innovative public schools must be non-sectarian in their programs, 
admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations and 
shall not be affiliated with a non-public sectarian school or religious 
institution. I would like to ask the manager of this bill, the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, if I am correct in my 
understanding that these public chartered schools would be eligible for 
funding under sections 308 and 309.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Connecticut for raising the issue of chartered public schools. I am 
familiar with charter schools as enacted in Minnesota, Massachusetts, 
California, Georgia, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and 
under consideration in a number of other States, including Connecticut. 
I want to assure my colleague from Connecticut that the language of S. 
1150 which would allow States and local jurisdictions to set aside 
money to develop new and innovative public schools, includes non-
sectarian chartered public schools as you have described.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator for his interest in this issue and 
his knowledge of charter schools. I want to reiterate that these 
charter schools will be public schools, new and innovative public 
schools which could be created by a group of teachers, parents, or a 
local community. Under sections 308 and 309 of this bill, a State or a 
local district could use these set-aside funds to create new public 
schools which are not part of the current public education system. The 
schools must be governed by principles of public education including no 
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, disability, or other 
factors, no charging tuition, no selectivity in admissions, and must be 
non-sectarian in programs, employment practices, and all other 
operations. I thank the chairman of the Labor Committee for including 
this language in the bill and for his interest in this area.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator from Connecticut is aware, S. 1150 is 
dedicated to improving quality of and promoting innovation in our 
public schools. Charter schools are one way to promote innovation and 
can make an important contribution to the improvement of our public 
schools.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman. I am very pleased 
that S. 1150, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, will enable States and 
local jurisdictions to use set-aside funds to develop chartered public 
schools, and I congratulate the chairman on sponsoring this 
legislation, which will play a vital role in improving education in 
America.


     reauthorization office of educational research and improvement

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering to the Goals 
2000 legislation is the Educational Research and Improvement Act. This 
amendment was reported from both the Subcommittee on Education, Arts 
and Humanities and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources 
unanimously as S. 286. It is a truly bipartisan bill and is supported 
by the Clinton administration. I am joined in offering it by Senators 
Kennedy, Kassebaum, and Jeffords.
  We spent considerable time fashioning the Educational Research and 
Improvement Act last Congress and improving it this Congress. I believe 
it most appropriate to move this educational research and improvement 
initiative as we consider the Goals 2000 legislation. To my mind, the 
most effective school reform is informed by quality research and 
development. As is the case with business, industry, and defense, the 
caliber of our educational system depends heavily upon the quality and 
scope of the investment we make in research and development.
  During all of our work on this reauthorization of authority for the 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI], we have had 
several specific goals in mind which we believe the amendment builds 
upon.
  First and foremost, we have sought to ensure that the Office be a 
beacon of educational excellence unsoiled by partisan politics. Towards 
that end, we have created five new directorates on critical education 
concerns. These directorates will serve as the strong, stable arm 
within OERI that advances research on new, innovative, and perhaps even 
controversial educational ideas, concepts and programs. In addition, we 
have established an Advisory Board of Education Research to review the 
research agenda and operation of the Office. We require that this Board 
be composed of nine men and women who have distinguished records in 
educational research, so that expert guidance is provided in matters 
governing the Office.
  Second, it has been our firm intent that development, dissemination, 
and access be the one of the primary missions of every component of the 
Office. We seek to accomplish objective through a new Office of 
Dissemination and Reform Assistance. Senator Kassebaum has initiated 
what I believe is an excellent, streamlined teacher training program 
that will empower teachers to reach and tailor educational research to 
fit the needs in their classrooms. We have also redefined the mission 
of our educational labs to advance the National Education Goals and 
focus upon bringing proven educational practices into the frontlines of 
instruction in our schools.
  Finally, we have also broken new ground by boldly reaching into new 
areas of critical interest. There is a new, badly needed international 
educational exchange program to assist central and eastern European 
countries in developing their economic and governance system. And there 
is also a minority focused civics education program aimed at educators 
who teach large proportions of minority children.
  This legislation offers the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement the chance to be the engine that drives the train of 
excellence and innovation. I am fully confident that OERI's new 
Assistant Secretary Sharon Robinson, through her fine leadership, will 
use this newly charged authority to promote a lasting imprint on 
educational achievement and improvement for years to come.


              office of education research and improvement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am a visual learner. I need to see and 
personally connect with people to fully understand and appreciate new 
issues. Now, modern research tells me that I am not alone. The vast 
majority of people learn better the same way. The research has shown 
the validity of the statement:
  ``If I hear, I will forget,
  If I see, I will remember,
  If I do, I will understand.''
  This is particularly true for younger children. The new standards 
already developed for mathematics and being developed for science all 
emphasize the effectiveness of hands-on techniques. However, those 
hands-on techniques require hands-on materials. We must provide the 
means for elementary students to do so they will understand.
  I am pleased that we are now considering an amendment which includes 
legislation that I first introduced in November of 1991, entitled the 
``Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment Act.'' I reintroduced 
this bill in January of 1993 with the endorsement of the Council of 
state Science Supervisors, the National Council of Teachers of 
Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, the National 
Science Resources Center, the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology 
Education, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development.
  During the 102nd and the 103d Congresses, this legislation has been 
supported and approved by the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. The time has come to move it into public law. Frankly, we 
need it to attain the 4th National Education Goal which encourages the 
Nation to be first in math and science by the year 2000. We all know 
that this message must be heard in our elementary classrooms and must 
be backed-up with the tools necessary to get the job done.
  I would like to thank Senator Pell and his excellent staff for their 
very strong support of this program.
  This legislation allows a one time allocation of funds for each 
school in the Nation for the purchase of hands-on mathematics and 
science equipment at the elementary level, grades 1-6. Schools are to 
receive these funds based on need, and matching support is strongly 
encouraged. The $10 million that is in this bill is not enough to get 
the job done on its own, but it is a vital start when so many schools 
have so little to work with now.
  Let me give you an example of how a little can do a lot. Technology 
has developed a small hand-held electronic microscope that magnifies 30 
times. The cost is less than $6.00. If you add to this a technique that 
students can use to make their own inexpensive slides using paper 
cards, a hole punch and clear tape, a new world is opened for them.
  I can assure you that children and adults will marvel at the 
appearance of even simple materials such as salt, sugar and pepper 
right off the dinner table. Imagine the excitement among the students 
when you put four of five of these in an elementary classroom. When you 
do, you're going to hear the sounds of students being turned on to 
science--you're going to hear the sounds of our future--the sound of 
progress toward meeting the math-science goal.


                            hippy amendment

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today, along 
with Senator Chafee, addresses the first and most compelling national 
education goal--that by the year 2000, all children will start school 
ready to learn. The ``Goals 2000: Educate America Act'' codifies the 
six national education goals and builds a framework for reforming our 
public schools. Such reform is fundamental to the ability of our 
educational system to achieve those national goals. My amendment 
supports preschool programs that, for many children, will also be 
fundamental to their ability to meet national expectations. Without 
such programs, fully 35 percent of children in this country--according 
to a 1991 survey--will begin their first year of school unprepared to 
learn. Such children often continue to struggle to learn or give up on 
learning altogether in their later school years. If children enter 
school without basic school readiness skills and without a positive 
attitude toward learning and education, our schools will be hard put to 
achieve any of the education goals we have determined to be fundamental 
to our Nation's success.
  Parents, of course, play the primary role in teaching those skills 
and in fostering that love for learning in their young children. But 
parents, too, often lack the tools they need--knowledge, resources, or 
the support of family and community--to prepare their children to enter 
school. The demands on their time and energy may even overwhelm them at 
times. Think of yourself as a parent with small children. Of course, 
you want to give your children a good start in life and a better chance 
to succeed than you may have had. You want to work with your children 
yourself to help them learn. But, what do you do--and how? Will what 
you do be effective? You are not trained as a teacher, have no 
materials and are not sure where to begin. If you yourself have not 
been able to finish or succeed in school, you may have even more 
questions. And you may not know where to turn for answers or be able to 
afford the advice of experts.
  Thousands of families across the country face the same dilemma. If 
they are among the most economically or educationally disadvantaged, 
they may receive services from the Federal Government through Head 
Start or early childhood Chapter 1 programs. But even Head Start and 
Chapter 1 do not come close to serving all those families who qualify 
for services: Head Start serves only about 30 percent of eligible 
children, and the preschool programs funded under Chapter 1 are 
relatively small in number. I strongly support these programs and 
believe they should be expanded to serve all those eligible.
  At the same time, even if Head Start and Chapter 1 were to be fully 
funded, many families would still not qualify for the preschool 
services they need and seek. Families whose incomes do not fall below 
the official Federal poverty guideline--$14,340 for a family of four--
or who do not live in a community with a high enough concentration of 
families on public assistance are not likely to qualify for Head Start 
or Chapter 1. Such families--primarily the working poor and near poor--
fall through the cracks in our current educational system, and their 
numbers are increasing every day in my State and around the country.
  In March of last year, I visited a program in Warrensville Heights, 
OH, a suburb of Cleveland, that addresses the needs of such families by 
creating opportunities for success for parents and children. The 
program is called HIPPY--Home Instruction Program for Preschool 
Youngsters--and this is one program that really works. HIPPY was 
developed in Israel in the late 1960's and is now operating in 9 
countries and 22 States in the United States. The philosophy behind 
HIPPY is both simple and profound: Participating parents learn how to 
work with their preschool children for 15 to 20 minutes per day, at 
home, using storybooks and other materials specially designed and 
structured to enhance school readiness. The activities focus on basic 
school readiness skills such as verbal expression; discrimination of 
shapes, sounds and colors; and eye-hand coordination. Support and 
training for the parents are given by paraprofessionals, themselves 
parents of young children from the community. All of this is done at 
very low cost, requiring only minimal overhead, and of course, saves 
the taxpayer money in the long run. The results are as profound as the 
philosophy: Children enter school ready and eager to learn, and parents 
strengthen their relationships with their children, their schools, and 
their communities.
  My amendment would incorporate HIPPY--a proven parent and early 
childhood education model--into the Even Start family literacy program. 
Even Start is a program that integrates early childhood education, 
adult literacy and parenting education. Both Even Start and HIPPY focus 
on parents and children as a unit, and all Even Start projects provide 
some home-based instruction. My amendment would allow States to use up 
to 20 percent of funds already authorized under Even Start to help 
communities establish, operate, or expand HIPPY programs. Near-poor and 
working-poor families and parents who have had limited or unsuccessful 
formal schooling would be eligible to participate in these programs, as 
well as those below the poverty line who already qualify for Even 
Start.
  Unfortunately, programs like HIPPY are struggling to survive in local 
communities around the country. Funding is scarce while the interest of 
parents in participating in the programs is high. Communities across 
the country deserve a better chance to help parents reach the goals 
they set for their children--success in school and a lifelong love for 
learning. In fact, our country's best chance of meeting its first 
national education goal rests with parents who want to and know how to 
help their children learn.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the OERI 
reauthorization amendment that will soon be offered by the managers of 
this bill contains language requiring OERI to collect and disseminate 
information on alternative management of public schools. I requested 
this language and appreciate their accommodating my request.
  Mr. President, it seems like every day we read about a new reform 
going on one of our Nation's elementary and secondary schools. Some 
States are experimenting with longer school hours, some are adopting 
``Charter Schools'' and some are instituting public school choice. 
Inside the classroom, many schools are using technology and other 
experimental teaching methods to increase student achievement in math, 
science, and the humanities. It is imperative that these innovative 
experiments continue. We must keep the entrepreneurial spirit going in 
our Nation's schools.
  Recently, we have also read about several instances where private 
entities--companies and universities in particular--have taken over the 
operations of public schools. Such experiments are going on in Detroit, 
Baltimore, Miami, and Chelsea, MA, and others are planned for 
Washington, DC and Minneapolis.
  Mr. President, I believe that is important for the Department of 
Education to serve as a clearinghouse for information on these types of 
experiments and the Office of Education Research and Improvement is the 
natural place to do it. If this information is made available, school 
districts that wish to undertake such an endeavor will benefit from 
having information on schools in the aforementioned cities.
  Mr. President, I have always maintained that we need to spur 
educational innovation in our Nation's public school system. The Goals 
2000 legislation will do this. In addition, some of the private 
takeovers of public schools also show promise. That is why I requested 
this language so that we can have as much information on this issue as 
possible.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I have been a strong supporter 
of public education in the Senate. I have been a strong supporter for 
Federal funding for elementary and secondary education and have 
consistently opposed using federally funded vouchers to go directly to 
private schools.
  However, many of our public schools are in a state of crisis. One 
major problem that many public schools have is that they spend too much 
on administration and not enough on classroom instruction. Several 
studies indicate a correlation between the percentage that a school 
spends on instruction and the level of student performance. Thus, it is 
important that we encourage schools to reduce their administrative 
costs. Many of these private companies have pledged to reduce such 
costs and improve educational programs.
  It is critical that our public schools remain public schools--
providing equal opportunity to all students in the community. However, 
it is also important to revolutionize education by encouraging schools 
to cut their bureaucracies and strengthen their educational programs.
  Once again, I appreciate the managers for including my language in 
the amendment and I urge my colleagues to adopt the entire OERI 
reauthorization amendment.

                          ____________________