[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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1150) to improve learning and teaching by
providing a national framework for education reform; to
promote the research, consensus building, and systemic
changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities
and high levels of educational achievement for all American
students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all
Federal education programs; to promote the development and
adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards
and certifications, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
(1) Dorgan-Conrad amendment No. 1369, to require each local
educational agency, as a condition for receiving Federal
assistance, to implement a gun-free program in its schools.
(2) Kennedy amendment No. 1375 (to Amendment No. 1369), to
express the sense of the Senate regarding guns in schools.
(3) Danforth-Kassebaum amendment No. 1383, to express the
sense of the Senate that local educational agencies should
encourage a brief period of daily silence for students for
the purpose of contemplating their aspirations.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are now working with the distinguished
Senator from the State of Washington on an issue involving violence in
schools. I think we are making good progress. The Senator from
Washington intended to lay his amendment down at 8:30, and we were
going to have the opportunity to debate it. I think we have been able
to make good progress in terms of developing a common position so that
the time is being well spent.
I would like to use some of this time prior to the vote at 9:30 on
Senator Danforth's amendment. I will just elaborate on one of the
important parts of this legislation that has not received attention but
is, I think, extremely important.
Over the past several days our debate on the Goals 2000 bill has
focused primarily on the first four titles of the bill, which deal with
goals and standards for the improvement of our education system. This
bill also, however, includes another equally important title which
provides for the development of standards which will be crucial to the
improvement of our job training system.
Under title V of the bill, we are establishing for the first time a
national skill standards board to oversee the development of a
voluntary national system of skill standards for use in the training of
our workers. The proposal to create such a board was one of the key
recommendations contained in the influential report, ``America's
Choice: High Wages or Low Skills,'' issued in 1990 by the bipartisan
Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force. The cochairs of
that were Senator Brock from Tennessee and Ray Marshall, who was
Secretary of Labor under President Carter. This was one of their very
important recommendations that we received at that time, and since we
have received it, we have worked with a number of our colleagues, both
on the committee as well as others who have been interested and
experienced in these areas.
Those recommendations have been included in the legislation and work
very much in harmony with what we will be doing subsequently with the
dislocated worker program.
I know many of my colleagues are familiar with the work of that
Commission which was cochaired by the Cabinet Members, Republican Bill
Brock, a former Member of this body, and Ray Marshall, who was
Secretary of Labor. Serving on that Commission were some of the most
accomplished individuals in the country. The list of the members
included business leaders like John Sculley, the CEO of Apple Computer;
James Houghton, chairman of the board of Corning; Alan Wurtzel,
chairman of Circuit City stores. Labor leaders, such as Owen Bieber,
president of the Auto Workers; Howard Samuel, head of the AFL-CIO's
industrial union department; Bill Lucy from AFSCME; John Jacob,
president of the Urban League; and former Governors Jim Hunt and Tom
Kean.
This was the caliber of individuals from the business community, from
the labor and education community and from Government, who served on
that Commission.
The constituencies these individuals represent tend to have very
different views of the world. Yet what was remarkable about this
Commission was that all of its members representing the three disparate
interests came together and were able to agree on a sweeping set of
recommendations for major reform of our education and job training
systems.
As I said earlier, one of the key recommendations of the Commission
was that we establish a national skill standards board to oversee the
development of voluntary standards for job training. As the
Commission's report noted, one of the reasons why we have been doing
such a poor job in providing training for our front-line work force is
that we have no mechanisms for identifying the kinds of skills workers
should be acquiring to meet the needs of a competitive economy.
We have no system by which to measure whether particular training
programs are effective in providing workers with those skills. We have
no system to certify that workers who have undergone training have
acquired particular skills. What we have instead is a highly fragmented
system of public and private training efforts that may or may not be
teaching workers skills that are relevant to existing or future job
opportunities.
What we have found is that, in many of these training programs, when
individuals who go through the training programs finish the programs
and are then hired, employers do not know precisely the range of
different skills a particular graduate of a program has achieved. The
graduates are not sure exactly what skills they have. Each knows that
he or she has participated in a training program, but it may be one of
many different types of training programs set up by the local group.
Third, the taxpayer does not know whether a particular training
program is really effective in terms of the investment of the taxpayers
in that program.
These are some of the concerns that exist with respect to training
programs throughout the Nation.
We want to try to ensure that by establishing voluntary standards
through various industries, individuals who participate in training
programs will know that they have achieved certain skills, that those
skills will be portable, and when they go to employers, that employers
will know that they have those skills--and the taxpayers will know that
their investments in training programs have been worthwhile and valid.
That is what we are attempting to achieve by consolidating and
coordinating the various training programs with the recommendations
that will be considered by the administration in the next few weeks,
and doing so by developing various skills standards.
Under the Job Training Partnership Act, for example, every community
has its own private industry council which contracts with providers to
provide training in various different skills. Yet there is no
uniformity in the content and quality of the programs offered. So, for
example, a particular worker here in the District of Columbia might be
referred to a program in computer technician training, but because
there are no recognized standards for training workers for careers in
that field, the individual making a decision whether to enroll in a
particular program has no way of knowing whether the skills taught by
that program will be skills valued by employers, or whether the program
is effective in providing its participants with those skills. As a
result, the worker is left with no effective way to choose a training
program that will best serve his or her needs.
Now, suppose that a worker chooses and completes a training program
and starts looking for a job. She puts on her resume that she is a
graduate of the District of Columbia computer operator training
program, but finds out that going through that program is not helping
her get hired, because the employers who interview her do not know what
that credential means.
Unless an employer happens to be personally familiar with the
particular program the worker completed, she has no way of knowing
whether the training provided through that program is at all relevant
to her company's needs, or what skills the worker actually acquired
through the program.
By the same token, public officials, who are accountable for making
good use of the taxpayers' money, have no reliable way of measuring
whether the training the taxpayers are paying for is effective or not.
The National Skills Standards Board will help to address that
problem.
One of the best models that we have in this country for a more
effective training system is the building trades apprenticeship system
used in the unionized construction industry.
The building trades apprenticeship system is widely recognized for
doing an excellent job in developing highly skilled workers, who are,
as a result, able to command very good wages and benefits. One of the
key elements contributing to the success of that system is the use of
recognized training standards, which are developed jointly by employers
and unions in the relevant industry. There must be the combination of
both groups in developing successful programs.
These standards typically allow for local variation, but establish
basic criteria concerning the skills apprentices are expected to
acquire at each stage of their training in order to advance through the
program and achieve certification as fully qualified journeymen craft
workers.
Because of these standards, an apprentice entering the program can be
confident that he or she will be taught a full range of skills that
will be relevant to the industry and valuable to employers, and that,
after completing the program, will receive a certification that is
meaningful, not just to one employer, but to employers throughout the
industry and across the Nation.
At the same time, employers are willing to pay for training provided
through the program, and to hire workers who have completed the
program, because they have confidence in the credential and know that
the skills that have been taught and acquired in that program are
skills that are in fact relevant to their needs.
Our goal in creating a National Skills Standards Board is to create a
framework for the development of industry-based standards for training
workers, particularly in industries that do not have a tradition of
apprenticeships or similar skill development systems in place.
Once developed, these standards could be used by government agencies
as a means of ensuring that public training funds are used effectively.
That is very important in terms of the taxpayers' understanding of
how resources within the budget are being used for training programs.
This is something that the Nation will have to change about the
training programs that have been developed in the past, and that were
tailored to address different employment challenges, in order to create
more coordinated and unified programs that will help individuals
receive additional training and effective educations today and in the
future.
Forty or fifty years ago, when someone worked in a shipyard in Fall
River, MA, it was generally the case that, if his father or grandfather
had been a welder, then he would be a welder also. Now we know that
every new graduate who enters the work force may have perhaps six or
seven different jobs over the course of their lifetime. If we are going
to be competitive in the world community, it is essential that students
have the opportunity to continue their training and their education,
and to upgrade a variety of different skills. We are hopeful that we
can achieve that objective in both the private and public sectors.
Workers will benefit by being able to select training programs
knowing whether those programs have complied with recognized industry
training standards.
And employers will benefit by being better able to assess the skill
development needs of their workers and thereby improve their return on
training investments.
In Germany, which is widely regarded as having the best worker
training programs of any modern industrial countries, uniform national
skills standards, developed jointly by labor and management, are
regarded as critical to the training system.
In Australia, labor and industry--including many American companies
that are doing business in that part of the world--have joined together
to work with government and the education community to develop skills
standards for their training programs.
In the development of the Australian skills standards, which were
adopted a little over a year ago, much of the support for those efforts
came from American subsidiaries in those countries that were actually
involved in those kinds of training programs. Their support was to
ensure that, as they continue their education and training programs,
companies in other industries will do the same so that everyone shares
the costs of training effective workers, and as a result, everyone
shares the benefits.
Under this proposal, we will also bring together business, labor, and
the education community, to work together to establish a framework for
a voluntary national skills standards system.
I particularly want to thank Senator Kassebaum for her contributions
to this proposal. The substitute bill which is pending includes
provisions modifying the composition of the Board which were worked out
with her assistance, and which have helped us to secure broad support
for the proposal from the business community.
Mr. President, this is one aspect of the Goals 2000 legislation
that obviously will be related to the Schools-to-Work Program, as well
as to the Dislocated Workers Program, which we hope to address in the
late spring of this year.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is
recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager.
Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the Gorton
amendment. From personal conversations I have had with educators,
principals, and others, there is clearly a need for an amendment of
this nature. It would assure communications between schools and between
educators relative to young people who have a history of violence.
Currently, there is no provision to allow communication to come forth
if the youngster moves from school to school.
I am appalled at the rise of violence occurring in and around
schools.
There are no comprehensive statistics on school violence but
according to a survey by the National School Boards Association: 82
percent of 729 school districts said violence had increased; 61 percent
reported weapons incidents; 39 percent reported shootings or knifings;
23 percent reported drive-by shootings; 15 percent reported at least
one rape; 78 percent reported student assaults on students; and 60
percent reported student assaults on students and teachers.
Why does violence occur? According to an article in America's Agenda:
18 percent gang or drug disputes; 15 percent long standing arguments;
12 percent romantic disagreements; 10 percent fights over material
possessions; and 13 percent accidents.
Earlier this week, I was visited by Larry Graham and Esther Cox, who
were representing both the National Association of Elementary School
Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals
of which Esther is the State president.
Two weeks ago, it was one of the schools in Esther's district that
was the recipient of a drive-by shooting.
As clearly stated by the National School Boards Association,
``Violence is not confined to urban schools.''
We can't expect children to learn if they are afraid to go to school.
It is, therefore, important to provide the safest environment for
students to learn and teachers to instruct.
The significance of having this information is not to breach the
individual rights of that student but simply to prepare the educator to
better understand the actions of a youngster who has a history of
violence.
Currently, as explained to me by educators, information is unable to
be requested, and as a consequence, they have a very difficult time
addressing the problems of violence. As you know, it is quite a common
practice of schools with students who have a history of violence, to
try to readjust them in new surroundings, where, hopefully, new friends
and so forth will take some of the tensions off them.
So as I understand the amendment, Mr. President, it ensures that
there is nothing standing in the way of schools, from the standpoint of
Federal or State jurisdiction, which would prevent them from requesting
or receiving information that would, perhaps, help them avoid a
situation from developing that would jeopardize the teacher's safety or
the safety of those in the classroom. The difficulties here are many,
especially as to how we address those youngsters who are troubled and
how we ensure that safety remains in the classroom for the benefit of
the majority of youngsters.
This is an effort, if you will, to address a very difficult problem,
in a broad way, by giving greater discretion to educators, who have the
responsibility of accountability, which is appropriate.
I commend the Senator from Washington for his steadfast commitment to
try to address, in a positive manner, one of the ways we can improve
the process. Clearly, I think one of the most significant ways is to
remove any Federal activities or strictures that would inhibit
communication which would serve the best interests of students and the
teachers.
I understand the amendment is under some review now, and I am
certainly supportive of it.
I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. 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. 1385
(Purpose: To help local communities achieve Goal 6 of the national
education goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every school in
America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning, by strengthening local disciplinary
control)
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr.
Wallop, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Simpson, proposes an amendment numbered 1385.
Mr. GORTON. 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:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
TITLE --YOUTH VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
SEC. 01. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to help local communities
achieve Goal Six of the National Education Goals, which
provides that by the year 2000, every school in America will
be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning, by strengthening local
disciplinary control.
SEC. 02. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the violence within elementary and secondary schools
across the Nation has increased dramatically during the past
decade;
(2) almost 3,000,000 crimes occur on or near school
campuses every year, with 16,000 crimes occurring per school
day or one crime occurring every 6 seconds;
(3) 20 percent of teachers in school have reported being
threatened with violence by a student;
(4) schools are being asked to take on responsibilities
that society as a whole has neglected, and teachers and
principals are being forced to referee fights rather than
teach;
(5) over two-thirds of public school teachers have been
verbally abused, threatened with injury, or physically
attacked;
(6) violent or criminal behavior by students interferes
with a teacher's ability to teach in a safe environment the
students not exhibiting such behavior;
(7) 40 percent of all students do not feel safe in school
and 50 percent of all students know someone who switched
schools to feel safer;
(8) nearly one-half of the teachers who leave the teaching
profession cite discipline problems as one of the main
reasons for leaving such profession; and
(9) a lack of parental involvement contributes strongly to
school violence.
SEC. 03. PROVISIONS.
(a) Local Discipline Control.--No Federal law or
regulation, except education and civil rights laws protecting
individuals with disabilities, or state policy implementing
such a Federal law or regulation, shall restrict any local
educational agency, or elementary or secondary school, from
developing and implementing disciplinary policies and action
with respect to criminal or violent acts of students,
occurring on school premises, in order to create an
environmental conducive to learning.
(b) Shared Information.--No Federal law or regulation, or
state policy implementing such a Federal law or regulation,
shall restrict any local educational agency or elementary or
secondary school from requesting and receiving information
from a State agency, local educational agency, or an
elementary or secondary school regarding a conviction or
juvenile adjudication, within five years of the date of the
request, or a pending prosecution for a violent or weapons
offense, of a student who is attending an elementary or
secondary school served by the local educational agency, or
the elementary or secondary school, requesting such
information.
(c) Parental Responsibility.--It is the policy of the
Congress that States, in cooperation with local educational
agencies, schools, and parent groups, should be encouraged to
enforce disciplinary policies with respect to parents of
children who display criminal or violent behavior toward
teachers, students, other persons, or school property.
On page 90, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 90, line 11, strike the period and insert ``,
and''.
On page 90, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
(J) supporting the development, at the State or local
level, of school-based programs that restore discipline and
reduce violence in schools and communities, such as community
mobilization programs.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there are six education goals in broad,
general terms established by this legislation, Goals 2000: School
readiness; school of completion; student achievement in citizenship;
excellence in mathematics and science; adult literacy and lifelong
learning; sixth, and last in the bill, safe, disciplined, and drug-free
schools.
Mr. President, with respect to the first four of those goals, we will
find them impossible unless our school buildings provide a safe
atmosphere in which our students are to learn.
We see on the front page of this morning's Washington Post three
separate stories that deal with safety in schools and with school
discipline, not the least of which is the visit by the President of the
United States to a crime and violence-ridden school here in the
District of Columbia. Regrettably, however, conditions in that school
are not confined to that particular venue or to the District of
Columbia but are found all across the United States.
Mr. President, early last month, in preparation for the debate in
which we are engaged here today, this Senator convened an education
conference in Fife, WA, a small city between Seattle and Tacoma, which
was attended by 200 parents, teachers, students, principals, school
board members, school administrators, representatives of private
schools, home schoolers, business people, State legislators,
representatives of disability groups, and other community leaders. The
purpose was to discuss Goals 2000 and the direction of the education
system in the United States.
Considerably, to my surprise, I found that the primary education
concern of those attending was not the specific goals in mathematics,
science, English, and the like, it was school discipline and the safety
of students and teachers in the schools served by the local communities
represented by the people attending my education conference.
We find, from a national point of view, that more than two-thirds of
all public school teachers have been verbally abused, threatened with
injury, or physically attacked. Perhaps more significantly, almost half
of all of the people who leave the teaching profession, Mr. President,
do so citing discipline problems as one of the frustrations which cause
them to abandon that noble profession.
Violence has increased dramatically all across the country in
schools, elementary as well as secondary, during the course of the last
decade. Statistics show us that some 3 million crimes a year are
committed on or very near to school campuses. One-fourth of all major
urban school districts now use metal detectors at their schools. Twenty
percent of all of the teachers have reported being threatened by
violence by a student.
Mr. President, I have three children who have gone through the public
schools of the State of Washington, occasionally with some problems,
but never with a threat to their physical well-being. My first
grandchild now is in kindergarten. I have a deep personal fear and
concern over whether or not she will be granted the ability to learn
those skills which are necessary for an American citizen, if she is
required to go to a school in which her personal safety cannot be
guaranteed because of other students engaged in criminal or violent
activity.
All of this, Mr. President, is a springboard to the amendment which I
have here submitted and which I am pleased and delighted to say has the
agreement and support of the distinguished senior Senator from
Massachusetts, who is managing this bill. I want to thank him for
working out his very real concerns with some elements of the proposal,
which can now be summarized relatively simply.
This amendment simply states that no Federal law or regulation will
restrict the disciplinary rights of school districts and of schools
regarding criminal or violent activity on the part of students on those
school grounds.
Mr. President, that would seem almost to go without saying that this
kind of authority should exist. Yet, I found a common thread in
frustrations expressed to me by local communities. These Washingtonians
feel restricted by Government laws and regulations in their ability to
discipline violent or criminal activity. One school principal told me
he has spent more time in hearings in the last 2 years than in the
previous 25 years of his educational career.
A second area of importance, the second substantive area included in
this amendment is the sharing of criminal information. We find schools
and, for that matter, law enforcement authorities, fearful of lawsuits
if they simply exchange information between one school district and
another to follow a student who has a history of violent and criminal
behavior. Law enforcement agencies are often reluctant to share such
information with schools. This amendment states, again, that no Federal
law or regulation will restrict the sharing of that information.
This Senator, Mr. President, believes in a Federal system and in the
rights of States to pass their own laws and engage in their own
activities. My amendment does not restrict what any State authority may
require through State law of one sort or another. Though, obviously, we
encourage States and local districts to impose appropriate disciplinary
standards to reduce violent and criminal activity.
Perhaps the single most controversial element in connection with this
amendment was the concern raised on the part of organized disability
groups. So at the suggestion of my distinguished leader, Senator Dole
from Kansas, and of Senator Kennedy himself, we have carved out an
exception in this amendment for those determined to be disabled under
Federal civil rights and disability laws.
I have some serious concerns about the misuse of a determination that
a person is disabled and therefore cannot be disciplined for violent
activities, Mr. President. I think in many cases we see how that misuse
of those laws is exercised.
One of the front-page stories in the Post this morning, having to do
with a separate law, illustrates dramatically the frustration of
communities with respect to violent activity which is determined to be
a result of a disability. But I have agreed to this exception for two
reasons. One is that we will be dealing with at least some of these
laws and their own reauthorization within the immediate future, and we
can debate how they should be amended at that time.
Second, most Washingtonians tell me that the overwhelming majority of
the violent offenses which are committed in schools are committed by
those who are not disabled under any definition whatsoever.
The Washington State PTA told me:
We understand that parents of disabled children are
concerned about the effect of this amendment on the rights of
their children. Parents and teachers [in Washington state]
have observed that when a student exhibits violent behavior
in a classroom and the teacher is unable to remove that
student from the classroom due to an interpretation of a
federal regulation, the educational performance of all
students is impaired. The same parents and teachers have
observed that the educational performance of special needs
students [and others with disabilities] virtually comes to a
halt. Under these circumstances, the Washington State P.T.A.
believes that [your] amendment would provide much needed
protection for these disabled students.
While I have reservations, my preference actually to do something
about violence in schools, however, and to restore some authority and
confidence to local communities exceeds my desire to do this job
perfectly and totally at this particular time.
Mr. President, I would like to share with you a few of the words I
have heard from parents and educational authorities in the State of
Washington about this problem.
This is from a very recent letter:
Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington Association of School
Principals and our National Affiliates, the National
Association of Elementary School Principals and the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, support the
concepts presented in [your] proposed amendment.
Specifically: ``that students and parents must realize there
are immediate consequences for violent behavior''; ``that
information regarding criminal or violent behavior of
students must be shared between agencies to maximize the
chances for remediation and to ensure the safety of all
students, staff and community''; and ``that parents and
students must take greater responsibility for the behavior of
the student.''
I would now like to quote from a letter I received from the
Washington State PTA.
Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State P.T.A. supports
the Youth Violence Amendment to Goals 2000 that you are
sponsoring. We appreciate your quick response to the concerns
about discipline and violence expressed by parents and
educators at your Education Summit [and in Washington state].
Another letter:
Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State Educational
School Districts support this amendment.
In a major meeting of the teachers and principals in King and Pierce
County on Monday evening, there was an urgency expressed for clear laws
regarding discipline and a zero-tolerance policy towards violence. They
embraced the idea of being empowered at the local level to reduce
violence.
Dr. Gene Sharratt of the North Central E.S.D. in Wenatchee says:
Dear Senator Gorton: Your amendment is excellent and
certainly reflects the feelings of not only the nine E.S.D.s
in the State of Washington, but the 296 local school
districts as well.
Another letter:
Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State School Directors'
Association is ``supportive of [your] proposed amendment.''
Mr. President, these are samples of the kind of communications we
have received, stating we must deal with violent and criminal behavior
in our schools--now. That kind of behavior is taking place every day
and it undercuts tremendously not only the security of our students,
teachers, administrators, and communities, but with equal importance
the ability of the millions of our students to actually learn. A safe
environment for learning is vitally important. The goals of Goals 2000
cannot be met without safe schools and without schools free from the
fear of violence.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that this amendment does the job
as well as I would have liked. We do run into legitimate concerns on
the part of those concerned with the disabled. We will have an
opportunity to debate those particular matters in the near future. But
the great bulk of the violence, the great bulk of the crimes committed
in our schools, comes from those who are not in any way disabled
whatsoever. And many of our school authorities feel that their hands
are tied by Federal regulations; that they cannot take a young person
who commits an assault at the beginning of a free school lunch period
and expel him and deprive him of that lunch because it is a Federal
program, and Federal regulations will lead to lawsuits about such a
deprivation. Some of my colleagues tell me this is not the intent of
the law. Well, I suggest talking to the people who must face these
frustrations every single day. In fact, I recommend every Senator hold
an education conference in their States. Hearing from the people who
must deal with our education policies everyday is invaluable.
Our schools feel--and even if it is a feeling, this is significant--
that their hands are tied with respect to discipline by a myriad of
Federal laws and Federal regulations. The gist of my amendment, the
guts of this amendment, is simply that no Federal law or regulation
will limit the ability of schools except in cases regarding the
disabled, implement prompt disciplinary policies with respect to
violent or criminal activities on the grounds of our schools.
I hope at some point we will be able to go further, but I believe
this empowerment of local schools and communities will have a
significant and beneficial effect on safety in our schools, on the
well-being of our children in our schools, and therefore on their
ability of our children to learn and become good, law-abiding American
citizens.
Once again, I wish to express my appreciation to the distinguished
senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for agreeing to at
least the heart of this amendment and a similar agreement on the part
of the Senator from Vermont. I, therefore, have concluded my remarks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a group of letters from
which I quoted be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington State PTA,
Tacoma, WA, February 2, 1994.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State PTA supports the
Youth Violence Amendment to Goals 2000 that you are
sponsoring. We appreciate your quick response to the concerns
about discipline and violence expressed by parents and
educators at your Education Summit.
Educators and parents stressed that there are federal
regulations that make it difficult to create a safe, orderly
environment in our schools. Educators are unreasonably
hampered when they try to prevent or reduce violence. They
find that federal regulations inhibit their ability to design
and implement common sense discipline in their schools.
Thank you for including parents in the decision-making
process. We believe parents need to help create disciplinary
policies to make parents accountable for the acts of their
children who display criminal or violent behavior towards
teachers, students, other persons, or school property.
We understand that parents of disabled children are
concerned about the effect of this amendment on the rights of
their children. Parents and teachers have observed that when
a student exhibits violent behavior in a classroom and the
teacher is unable to remove that student from the classroom
due to an interpretation of a federal regulation, the
educational performance of all students is impaired. The same
parents and teachers have observed that the educational
performance of special needs students virtually comes to a
halt. Under these circumstances, the Washington State PTA
believes that this amendment would provide much needed
protection for these disabled students.
Once again, thank you for your quick action on behalf of
the safety and welfare of the students of Washington.
Sincerely,
Cara Lockett,
President.
____
North Central
Educational Service District,
Wenatchee, WA, January 28, 1994.
Campbell Mathewson,
Legislative Assistant, Senator Slade Gorton's Office, Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Campbell: I was extremely pleased to receive your fax
on January 27 relating to Slade Gorton's amendment to Goal
2000. His proposed amendments are excellent, and certainly
reflect the feelings of not only the nine ESDs in the State
of Washington, but the 296 local school districts as well.
Maintaining local district control for establishing a
disciplined learning environment will help all schools meet
the learning needs of their students in a safe and orderly
manner.
I will be happy to write a letter of support or get others
to either call or write, if necessary. Please extend our
appreciation and congratulations to Senator Gorton for his
leadership in this crucial area.
Sincerely,
Gene Sharratt,
Superintendent.
____
To: Campbell Mathewson, Legislative Assistant for Senator
Slade Gorton.
From: Dr. Charles E. Talmage, Walter Ball, and John
Richardson, Executive Directors, Association of
Washington School Principals.
The Association of Washington School Principals and our
National Affiliates (NAESP/NASSP) support the concepts
presented in Senator Gorton's proposed amendment:
First, that information regarding criminal and/or violent
behavior of students must be shared between agencies to
maximize the chances for remediation and to insure the safety
of students, staff and community.
Second, that parents and students must take greater
responsibility for the behavior of the student. That students
and parents must realize there are immediate consequences to
undesirable behavior. We have become a ``too many chance''
society.
____
To: Campbell Mathewson.
From: Walter Ball, Association of Washington School
Principals.
Subject: Local discipline control.
Mr. Campbell Mathewson: Since the Goals 2000 apply to all
of our nation's public K-12 students, we are concerned that
subs (a) and (b) apply only to students in federally funded
programs, a limited application. But, even this statement of
federal support is of value in improving flow of information.
We would recommend for your consideration the following
language for para (a):
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal
law, or State law that implements a Federal program or that
establishes a State program funded in whole or in part with
Federal funds, shall restrict a local school authority in
developing and implementing disciplinary policies necessary
to maintain a proper learning environment.''
For para (b) the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal
law, or State law that implements a Federal program or that
establishes a State program funded in whole or in part with
Federal funds, shall restrict any local school authority from
requesting and receiving information from or sharing
information with a State or local agency, including health,
social service, law enforcement and judicial, regarding the
criminal or violent behavior of a student who is attending an
elementary or secondary school served by the entity
requesting such information.''
For para (e), the following:
``It is the policy of the Congress, that States, in
cooperation with local education agencies and schools, should
support the enforcement of disciplinary policies that include
parental responsibility when their children display criminal
or violent behavior toward teachers, students, other persons,
or school property.''
____
Washington State School
Directors' Association,
Olympia, WA, January 31, 1994.
To: Campbell Mathewson, education legislative assistant to
Senator Gorton.
From: Dottee Rambo, coordinator for Federal relations.
Subject: Senator Gorton's proposed amendments to Goals 2000.
Thanks for sharing the proposed amendments with us and
offering us an opportunity to comment before the fact.
The only concern we have is with provision (a) Local
Discipline Control. It appears that attorneys have determined
that the ``stay put'' provision of the Federal Education of
the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C., Sec. 1403 e 3) prohibits
schools from removing a special-education student from his/
her regular learning environment as a discipline measure even
if the misconduct had no relationship to the student's
handicap. (A ``worst-case'' example: a vision-impaired
student brings a gun to school. Clearly there is no
connection between the handicap and the misconduct, but
apparently ``stay put'' would prevent usual discipline from
being enforced.)
The WSSDA has difficulty with this particular provision
even when the discipline problem is related to the handicap
because the short period of time permissible to suspend such
a student is inadequate to reassess the student's placement.
But beyond that, it appears that federal regulations, rules
or perhaps case law have extended this protection to other
than handicapped-related incidents.
We would appreciate it if you and the Senator would take a
look at this provision of the Education of the Handicapped
Act as it related to schools' disciplinary ability, in order
to protect all children in a safe and sound learning
environment.
Other than this concern, the WSSDA would be supportive of
the Senator's proposed amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the 10 minutes?
Have we exhausted the time the Senator from Washington requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 50 seconds remains.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to briefly make 30 seconds of comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that
we have reached with the Senator from Washington. The issue that he is
addressing--reducing violence in schools--is a serious one and one I
ardently support trying to solve that problem.
One death resulting from violence is one too many. Yet, we hear
countless stories about guns in the school, stabbings, violence and
discipline problems. The bloodshed has been so rampant that we have
become numb to it. Clearly, we cannot sit idle, do nothing or ignore
violence occurring in our schools. Yet, we must find the best way to
stop the violence and we must be reasonable at the same time.
Yesterday, I believe we took a step in the right direction with
respect to the Senator from Massachusetts and my colleague from
Washington. We have reached full agreement today, and I am pleased to
support his amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Gorton's amendment is aimed at a
critical issue, ensuring that schools have the flexibility to deal with
criminal or violent acts on school premises, so that teachers may teach
and students may learn, without disruption and without basic fear for
personal safety. The amendment makes clear that no Federal law or
regulation, or State policy implementing such a law or regulation,
shall restrict a school district or school from implementing
appropriate disciplinary actions to address and stop violence.
Before agreeing to accept the amendment, I and my colleague from
Vermont, Senator Jeffords, insisted that the amendment make clear that
it is not intended to override important protections in existing law
for children with disabilities. Equally important, the amendment is not
intended to override basic civil rights or due process protections
embodied in State or Federal statutory law and in court cases
interpreting various statutes and constitutional provisions.
This amendment also makes important strides with respect to providing
schools with information on students in their midsts who have
previously been convicted of firearms violations or other violent
offenses, or who have a pending prosecution for such offenses. The
newspapers are full of stories of students who enroll in a new school
or school district, while under house arrest in another jurisdiction
for a violent felony, with all of these facts and circumstances
completely unknown to the new school. This amendment makes clear that
no Federal law or regulation, or State policy implementing such a law
or regulation, shall restrict a school from requesting or receiving
information on students with violent felony convictions.
Again, the information that a school may request and receive is
narrowly restricted only to convictions, juvenile adjudications, or
pending arrests, and only to a narrow class of violent or weapons
offenses. This amendment is not intended to promote fishing expeditions
by school districts into the various records maintained by State and
local agencies, which are protected from disclosure except under
specified circumstances.
With these important restrictions in scope, we have accepted Senator
Gorton's amendment as an important measure to help us achieve Goal Six
of the National Education Goals, which provides that by the year 2000,
every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will
offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning, by strengthening
local disciplinary control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that under
the previous order a vote is now to be taken.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could yield myself 1 minute to make
a unanimous consent request.
I understand we are about to vote. We are going to urge the
acceptance of this amendment.
Mr. GORTON. It is certainly agreeable to the Senator that we deal
with the actual vote now.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider the amendment of the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Washington.
The amendment (No. 1385) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
vote on amendment no. 1383
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30
a.m. having arrived, the question is on agreeing to the amendment (No.
1383) of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth]. On this question,
the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], the
Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Wofford] are necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], the Senator from Maine [Mr.
Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Nickles], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]
YEAS--78
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simpson
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wellstone
NAYS--8
Boxer
Byrd
Feingold
Hatfield
Leahy
Murray
Shelby
Simon
NOT VOTING--14
Bond
Cochran
Cohen
Durenberger
Glenn
Hatch
Helms
McCain
Mikulski
Nickles
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Wofford
So the amendment (No. 1383) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. Coats] now be recognized to offer his amendment on school
choice; that there be 1 hour of debate on the amendment divided as
follows: 40 minutes under the control of Senator Coats or his designee,
and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy or his designee;
that upon the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on
or in relation to the Coats amendment; that no second-degree amendments
be in order thereto, and that all of the above occur without any
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). Under the previous order,
the Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Amendment No. 1386
(Purpose: To provide a low-income school choice demonstration program)
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will be shortly sending to the desk an
amendment that Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, and I
are offering relative to this bill. I would like just to take a few
moments to describe what the amendment does and then turn it over to
Senator Lieberman for his analysis and description of the legislation.
It was Edmund Burke who said ``Time is the grand instructor.'' When
it comes to education and when it comes to making substantive changes
in our education system, changes that will truly make a difference, it
seems that our time is running short. It is true that not every
education system is broken. There are a number of innovations underway.
Some of those are effective, but it is also true that there are many
education systems in public education today that are badly in need of
repair.
Probably there is no area where there is greater need for examination
of how we provide public education to our young people than in those
education institutions affecting low-income children. It is easy and at
least available for affluent families in America to make a choice as to
where they send their children to school. If they are unhappy with the
public education system or the school which their children are going
to, they can place their children in a parochial school or a private
school, giving their children what they believe are opportunities for a
better education.
That is not true for low-income children. In many of our inner cities
and in many of our rural areas, they simply do not have the choice or
the financial wherewithal to make any decision other than sending their
child to the public school.
The public school systems have tried all kinds of different
innovations. We have reduced the size of school classes, increased the
length of the school year, raised teachers' salaries, lowered
expectations, painted buildings, encouraged ethnicity, and focused on
self-esteem and feeling rather than fundamentals.
The bottom line is that most of these changes have not truly made a
difference. They have not significantly altered the quality of
education provided to these students and they have not only not
improved the results as measured by SAT scores and other tests, but we
have actually seen a reduction in those scores.
The truth is that for a majority of poor- and middle-class families
in America, there is no choice about where they send their children to
school and there is no competition within the system to force or to
bring about innovative changes to make those school systems better.
Today in America, if you have the financial means, you have a choice
of where you send your children to school, and if you do not have the
financial means, you do not have a choice. We have had a number of
discussions about the whole concept of choice on this Senate floor over
a number of years. There are proponents and opponents. There are those
who advocate that choice is the magic bullet solution to our
educational problems and those who vigorously oppose that. I do not
fully know whether or not choice is the answer, but it may be an answer
and the amendment that we will be offering today says let us test the
concept; let us not make a radical choice change now throughout the
whole public education system, let us not mandate that the school
systems offer this, but let us test the concept to see whether or not
it works.
If the proponents of choice are correct, we will have objective data
to analyze and to evaluate and to offer to other school districts and
other State education institutions around the country from which they
can then make a decision as to whether or not they want to utilize
choice in their systems for the future.
If the opponents are correct and the arguments that are raised
against choice are valid, we will have an objective set of data to come
to the conclusion that perhaps this is not the best solution.
So the amendment that we are offering today is very simple. It says,
let us set aside a small amount of funds available to the Secretary of
Education to offer six demonstration grants to local education
associations for their utilization in providing a test of the choice
system.
Our amendment would go specifically for the purpose of providing
assistance to children from the lowest income homes, and their parents.
The children who would be eligible under this program would be children
who qualify for reduced school lunch prices or full subsidy on school
lunch--an income-based measurement.
So the funds can only go to parents and children who fall in the low-
income category. Those funds could be used to opt into and to pay for
education costs at alternative schools. It would be the parents' choice
as to which school they could send their children. There is no
limitation, there is no restriction, yet there is no proscription of
which school needs to be chosen.
We have incorporated a very strict civil rights and desegregation
protection clause to make sure that participating schools can in no way
discriminate on the basis of race. We also stipulate that demonstration
projects cannot continue if they interfere with these segregation
plans.
The total cost of this demonstration project would be $30 million and
there would be no more than six projects. School districts would
voluntarily apply for the grants through the Secretary, and we have
established some criteria for the Secretary to make that determination
as to which districts would be included.
My home State of Indiana has several existing choice initiatives
underway. One program, originated by Golden Rule Insurance, pays half
the tuition for children from low-income families to attend private
schools. The program already serves 1,100 students, with a waiting list
of 650 students. Our public schools are also experimenting with choice.
Indianapolis public schools, for example, has initiated the Select
Schools Program. More than 80 percent of parents participated this
year.
I have spoken with educators in a district in Indiana who have
already expressed an interest in the program. Some public school
educators have met with the parochial and private school educators and
there is real interest in testing the concept to see how it works, to
work out the bugs, and to see if it would actually make a difference.
I do not really understand why anybody would want to oppose this
particular amendment because it is not a mandate, it is purely
voluntary. It provides a basis for which we in Congress can evaluate
the validity of this particular concept. If it turns out that it
substantially improves opportunities for low-income children, then why
would we not want to provide that data to school districts and
education agencies across this country? Why would we not want to have
that set of information available so that we can make intelligent
choices? After all, our bottom line is not preserving any particular
system. Our bottom line is providing the best education opportunities
we can to American children. In this particular area, we have denied
that opportunity to children from low-income homes because they simply
do not have the opportunity to have a choice as many others do.
It is important to understand what this amendment does not do. It
does not force choice on anyone. It is purely voluntary. It will not
upset the American public education system. We are simply doing it on a
voluntary basis for six test districts throughout the entire country.
Third, it will not drain resources from any public school or
education system. We have a specific prohibition against that. The
Secretary cannot provide any reduction in funds or deny any funds that
a public school would otherwise be eligible for, even though students
in that school or school system opted out or numbers decreased. It
cannot adversely affect the amount of funds available during this time.
It does not violate civil rights protections. I have already spoken
to this. It does not destroy public education. In fact, I think it
enhances public education. My home is Fort Wayne, IN. For decades, our
education system has thrived on competition. We have a vigorous
Catholic school education system in Fort Wayne, IN. We have a Lutheran
school system because of our heavy concentration of people of Lutheran
belief. They have established their own system.
Those two systems exist, along with other private education
opportunities, side by side with the public schools in Fort Wayne, IN,
and they are all thriving. They are thriving because the parents and
students of Fort Wayne, IN, have a choice. The competition between
those three systems has caused each system to better their education
program to compete with each other for the students, and they work hand
in hand. Parents in Fort Wayne have opportunities which parents in many
States and areas do not have.
So why not give it a try? Why not give it a test?
Madam President, I think the amendment is very simple and self-
explanatory. I now send it to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment
numbered 1386.
Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
as read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
TITLE ____--LOW-INCOME SCHOOL CHOICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Low-Income School Choice
Demonstration Act of 1993''.
SEC. ____02. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to determine the effects on
students and schools of providing financial assistance to
low-income parents to enable such parents to select the
public or private schools in which their children will be
enrolled.
SEC. ____03. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title--
(1) the term ``choice school'' means any public or private
school, including a private sectarian school, that is
involved in a demonstration project assisted under this
title;
(2) the term ``eligible child'' means a child in grades 1
through 12 who is eligible for free or reduced price meals
under the National School Lunch Act;
(3) the term ``eligible entity'' means a public agency,
institution, or organization, such as a State, a State or
local educational agency, a consortium of public agencies, or
a consortium of public and private nonprofit entities, that
can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, its
ability to--
(A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
(B) carry out the activities described in its application
under this title;
(4) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 1471 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(5) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other
individual acting in loco parentis;
(6) the term ``school'' means a school that provides
elementary education or secondary education (through grade
12), as determined under State law; and
(7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education.
SEC. ____04. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for
fiscal year 1995, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, to carry out this title.
SEC. ____05. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to
the authority of section ____04 in any fiscal year, the
Secretary may reserve not more than 5 percent for evaluation
of programs assisted under this title, in accordance with
section ____11.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to
the authority of section ____04 and not reserved under
subsection (a) in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
grants, in amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 in the first year
of the demonstration project, to eligible entities to carry
out not more than 6 demonstration projects under which low-
income parents receive certificates for the costs of
enrolling their eligible children in a choice school.
(2) Inapplicability of section 401.--Section 401 shall not
apply to this title.
(c) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (b)
shall be used to pay the costs of--
(1) providing education certificates to low-income parents
to enable such parents to pay the tuition, fees, the
allowable costs of transportation, if any, and the costs of
complying with section ____09(a)(1), if any, for their
eligible children to attend a choice school; and
(2) administration of the demonstration project, which
shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the
first fiscal year for which the grant recipient provides
certificates or 10 percent in any subsequent year,
including--
(A) seeking the involvement of choice schools in the
demonstration project;
(B) providing information about the project, and the
schools involved in the project, to parents of eligible
children;
(C) determining the eligibility of children to participate
in the demonstration project;
(D) selecting students to participate in the demonstration
project;
(E) determining the value of, and issuing, certificates;
(F) compiling and maintaining such financial and
programmatic records as the Secretary may prescribe; and
(G) collecting and making available to the Secretary such
information about the effects of the demonstration as the
Secretary may need to conduct the evaluation described in
section ____11.
(d) Special Rule.--Any school participating in the
demonstration provided for under this title shall comply with
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not discriminate
on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
SEC. ____06. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS; PRIORITY.
(a) Authorized Projects.--The Secretary may provide
assistance under this title only to a demonstration project
that--
(1) involves at least one local educational agency that--
(A) receives funds under section 1006 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
(B) is among the 20 percent of local educational agencies
receiving funds under section 1006 of such Act in the State
and having the highest number of children described in
section 1005(c) of such Act; and
(2) includes the involvement of a sufficient number of
public and private choice schools, in the judgment of the
Secretary, to allow for a valid demonstration project.
(b) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under this
title, the Secretary shall give priority to projects--
(1) in which choice schools offer an enrollment opportunity
to the broadest range of eligible children;
(2) that involve diverse types of choice schools; and
(3) that will contribute to geographic diversity, including
States that are primarily rural and States that are primarily
urban.
SEC. ____07. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Any eligible entity that wishes to receive
a grant under this title shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may prescribe.
(b) Contents.--Each application described in subsection (a)
shall contain--
(1) information demonstrating the eligibility of the
applicant and its demonstration project;
(2) with respect to choice schools--
(A) a description of the standards used by the applicant to
determine which public and private schools are within a
reasonable commuting distance of eligible children and
present a reasonable commuting cost for such children;
(B) a description of the types of potential choice schools
that will be involved in the project;
(C)(i) a description of the procedures used to encourage
public and private schools to be involved in the
demonstration project; and
(ii) a description of how the applicant will annually
determine the number of spaces available for eligible
children in each choice school;
(D) an assurance that each choice school will not impose
higher standards for admission or participation in its
programs and activities for eligible children with
certificates provided under this title than the school does
for other children;
(E) an assurance that each choice school will have been
operating an educational program of the same type as the
program for which it will accept certificates, for at least 1
year before accepting such certificate;
(F) an assurance that the applicant will terminate the
involvement of any choice school that fails to comply with
the conditions of its involvement in the demonstration
project; and
(G) a description of the extent to which choice schools
will accept certificates as full payment for tuition and
fees;
(3) with respect to the participation of eligible
children--
(A) a description of the procedures to be used to determine
the eligibility of children under this title, which shall
include--
(i) the procedures used to determine eligibility for free
and reduced price meals under the National School Lunch Act;
or
(ii) any other procedure, subject to the Secretary's
approval, that accurately establishes a child's eligibility
within the meaning of section ____03(2);
(B) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
that, in selecting eligible children to participate in the
demonstration project, the applicant will--
(i) apply the same criteria to both public and private
school children; and
(ii) give priority to children from the lowest income
families;
(C) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
maximum choice of schools for participating children,
including procedures to be used when--
(i) the number of parents with certificates who desire to
enroll their children in a particular school exceeds the
number of such children that the school has agreed to accept;
and
(ii) grant funds are insufficient to support the total cost
of choices made by parents with certificates; and
(D) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure
compliance with section ____09(a)(1), which may include--
(i) the direct provision of services by a local educational
agency;
(ii) arrangements made by a local educational agency with
other service providers; and
(iii) an increase in the value of the education certificate
in accordance with section ____08(a)(2)(A);
(4) with respect to the operation of the demonstration--
(A) a description of the geographic area to be served;
(B) a timetable for carrying out the demonstration;
(C) a description of the procedures to be used for the
issuance and redemption of certificates;
(D) a description of the procedures by which a choice
school will make a pro rata refund of the certificate for any
participating child who withdraws from the school for any
reason, before completing 75 percent of the school attendance
period for which the certificate was used;
(E) a description of the procedures to be used to provide
the parental notification described in section ____10;
(F) an assurance that the applicant will place all funds
received under this title into a separate account, and that
no other funds will be placed in such account;
(G) an assurance that the applicant will provide the
Secretary periodic reports on the status of such funds;
(H) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with the
Secretary in carrying out the evaluation described in section
____11; and
(I) an assurance that the applicant will maintain such
records as the Secretary may require, and comply with
reasonable requests from the Secretary for information; and
(5) such other assurances and information as the Secretary
may require.
SEC. ____08. EDUCATION CERTIFICATES.
(a) Education Certificates.--
(1) Basic value.--The basic value of an eligible child's
education certificate under this title shall be the cost of
tuition and fees normally charged by the public or private
school chosen by the child's parents.
(2) Increases and issuances.--Subject to such regulations
as the Secretary shall prescribe--
(A) the value of the certificate may be increased to cover
the additional reasonable costs of transportation directly
attributable to the child's participation in the
demonstration project or the cost of complying with section
____09(a)(1); and
(B) education certificates may be issued to parents of
children who choose to attend schools that do not charge
tuition or fees, to cover the additional reasonable costs of
transportation directly attributable to the child's
participation in the demonstration or the cost of complying
with section ____09(a)(1).
(b) Adjustment.--The value of the education certificate may
be adjusted in the second and third years of an eligible
child's participation to reflect any increases or decreases
in the tuition, fees, or transportation costs directly
attributable to that child's continued attendance at a choice
school, but shall not be increased for this purpose by more
than 10 percent over the value for the preceding year. The
value of the education certificate may also be adjusted in
any fiscal year to comply with section ____09(a)(1).
(c) Special Rule.--If a participating eligible child was
attending a public or private school that charged tuition in
the year before the first year of a grant recipient's
participation under this title, the basic value of the
certificate for such child shall be the tuition charged by
such school for such child in such preceding year, adjusted
in accordance with subsection (b).
(d) Maximum Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the basic value of an eligible child's
certificate shall not exceed the per pupil expenditure for
elementary and secondary education, as appropriate, for the
preceding year by the local educational agency in which the
public school to which the child would normally be assigned
is located.
(e) Income.--Certificates, and funds provided under
certificates, shall not be deemed income of the parents for
Federal income tax purposes or for determining eligibility
for any other Federal program.
SEC. ____09. EFFECT ON OTHER PROGRAMS; USE OF SCHOOL LUNCH
DATA.
(a) Effect on Other Programs.--
(1) In general.--Eligible children participating in a
demonstration under this title, who, in the absence of such a
demonstration, would have received services under part A of
chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 shall be provided such services.
(2) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education
act.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
requirements of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
(b) Counting of Children.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any local educational agency participating
in a demonstration under this title may count eligible
children who, in the absence of such a demonstration, would
attend the schools of such agency, for purposes of receiving
funds under any program administered by the Secretary.
(c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the
National School Lunch Act, a grant recipient under this title
may use information collected for the purpose of determining
eligibility for free or reduced price meals to determine a
child's eligibility to participate in a demonstration under
this title and, if needed, to rank families by income, in
accordance with section ____07(b)(3)(B)(ii). All such
information shall otherwise remain confidential, and
information pertaining to income may be disclosed only to
persons who need that information for the purposes of a
demonstration project under this title.
(d) Construction.--
(1) Sectarian institutions.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State
constitution or State law that prohibits the expenditure of
public funds in or by sectarian institutions, except that no
provision of a State constitution or State law shall be
construed to prohibit the expenditure in or by sectarian
institutions of any Federal funds provided under this title.
(2) Desegregation plans.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that
involve school attendance areas affected by this title.
SEC. ____10. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.
Each grant recipient under this title shall provide timely
notice of the demonstration project to parents of eligible
children residing in the area to be served. At a minimum,
such notice shall--
(1) describe the demonstration;
(2) describe the eligibility requirements for
participation;
(3) describe the information needed to establish a child's
eligibility;
(4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the
number of eligible children seeking to participate exceeds
the number that can be accommodated;
(5) provide information about each choice school, including
information about any admission requirements or criteria; and
(6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their
children to participate.
SEC. ____11. EVALUATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a rigorous evaluation of the
demonstration program authorized by this title. Such
evaluation shall--
(1) describe the implementation of each demonstration
project and its effects on all participants, schools, and
communities in the project area; and
(2) compare the educational achievement of all students in
the project area, including--
(A) students receiving certificates; and
(B) students not receiving certificates.
SEC. ____12. REPORTS.
(a) Report by Grant Recipient.--Each grant recipient under
this title shall submit an annual report to the Secretary, at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
(b) Report by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall report annually to the
President and the President shall report annually to the
Congress on the progress of the local demonstrations,
including information submitted by each grant recipient and
from other sources.
(2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
President and the President shall submit a report to the
Congress on the national evaluation described in section
____11 within 9 months after the conclusion of the
demonstration projects assisted under this title.
In section 3, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike
``title V'' and insert ``titles V and ____''.
Mr. COATS. With that, I yield to my colleague and cosponsor, the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
I am delighted to join with him as a cosponsor of this amendment,
repeating a role that I played with another distinguished Member of
this Chamber 2 years ago.
Madam President, I associate myself with everything my colleague from
Indiana said, and I would add a few remarks.
It seems to me the amendment we are offering is entirely consistent
with the thrust and the content of the underlying Goals 2000 bill which
starts from a recognition that our current system of education is
obviously doing well in some areas but failing a lot of our kids in
other areas; that we need to set goals for ourselves nationally, and
that we need to stimulate a lot of different programs, fresh ideas to
try to achieve those goals.
In fact, Goals 2000, as submitted by the administration and reported
out of the committee, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
which will come before us in a while, does open unconventional, new
doors, down the road to educating our children.
The fundamental truth is that what we are about is not focusing on
any particular structure or defending that existing structure of
education. What we are focused on is our children and what is the best
way to educate and prepare them for lives that are self-sufficient,
that are productive, that are responsible. In fact, in Goals 2000 and
in the later bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to
follow there is specific endorsement, as the President has personally,
of public school choice, a fresh idea in many cases. Let us stimulate
children and parents to have the choice to take their kids from one
public school to another, creating some competition among the public
schools and hopefully upgrading the quality of education.
In the Goals 2000 proposal and in the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act there is explicit support of a great idea that is being
tried in more and more of our States that my colleague from Minnesota,
Senator Durenberger, and I introduced legislation on in the last two
sessions, which is charter schools, independent entities set up
generally within the public school format or within the public school
aura, but freed of the central bureaucracy, usually created by groups
of teachers. It would be created by entrepreneurs, negotiating a
charter with the public education authority, given 3, 4, 5 years to
achieve the aims and, if they achieve it, the charter, the contract is
renewed. If they do not, that is it. It is a very innovative idea,
supported by the underlying bill and the overall Elementary and
Secondary Education Act to follow.
So as I cosponsor this amendment, I see it as consistent with this
attempt to focus on the children, not on the buildings or the existing
personnel, and to open the door to innovation, acknowledging that a lot
of what we are doing now is not working, and all of it aimed at helping
our kids and our society achieve the kinds of goals we are talking
about in the underlying bill.
Madam President, that is what this amendment is all about. It says a
number of things. One is that, as my colleague from Indiana has said
and I will just mention it briefly, we have a special challenge in
educating our poorest children, and it has special consequences for our
society. Our poorest children come into the schools too often with
problems, and it is hard for the schools often to respond to those
problems. But you know what, our poorest children are born with the
same potential as every other child in America. I take it is as a
failure of the system, not a failure of the child, when too many of our
poorest children are moved along through the system of education
without having attained the skills, increasingly deprived of self-
esteem because they know they are not being given what it takes to make
it, being sent in and out of a world in which they are not going to be
prepared; they do not have the training to live the kinds of lives they
and their parents want them to live.
This amendment says let us give the parents of those poorest
children--in this case defined as families that qualify for free or
reduced-price school lunches--the opportunity to make the same choices
that wealthier parents make in our society. If they are not happy with
the school, the public school that their kids are attending, they pick
them up and either push their way to another public school or send them
to a private or a religious-based school.
Today, poor parents do not have that option, and that is what this
amendment is all about.
It is about something else. It is about what I have observed in the
State of Connecticut, which is that private schools--and in this case I
wish to particularly focus on the religious-based school systems, and
in the State of Connecticut that mostly means schools operated by the
Catholic Church, the so-called parochial school system, many of these
schools built around churches that were started decades ago in many of
our cities, in many cases around those churches is now mostly a poor or
minority population.
Those schools that have opened up and reached out to a lot of kids in
those neighborhoods, African-American, Hispanic-American, inviting them
into education, and the result--incidentally, many, if not most, of the
kids are not Catholic, as it happens, an expression of the mission, of
the remarkable mission, of these church-related, church-sponsored
schools. And by and large I observe--I know there are arguments about
why--that the kids from the poor families who are going to those
parochial schools seem to be doing better. You know there are those who
argue this is a self-selection process. Parents who care enough to send
their kids to the parochial schools are ones who are obviously guiding
them with education. I think it is something more than that.
The Rand Corp. did a study a while back evaluating the performance of
a comparable group of African-American and Hispanic-American children
in Catholic parochial schools and public schools. The study shows that
the gap in performance between these minority children and all other
children dropped significantly in the parochial school system. The Rand
study also points out that these parochial schools seem to perform
better because they had a very rigorous academic curriculum. They were
independent, sometimes not so much by choice but by necessity, because
there is not much money there. The central bureaucracy got in the way.
They had the ability to provide the students with more attention than
their colleagues in the public school system.
I also suspect that the record here is an expression of the special
sense of mission and underlying sense of values that I have noted every
time I have been inside or been in touch with teachers and
administrators in a religious-based school system. So we do have these
schools that seem to be working.
I note parenthetically, although it is not the purpose of this
amendment in a specific sense, that, unfortunately, many of these
schools are in financial trouble today. It is hard to run a school. It
is hard to run a school particularly where the children --it is not so
much the children of the people who are going to the church any more
than they are going to the school. One positive effect of a choice
program would be to give a little bit more financial support for these
schools to keep some of them open. In the State of Connecticut, the
trend is for these schools to close because of financial problems.
I know the question is raised that if we have a school choice
program, it will be a fundamental threat to the public schools.
Madam President, obviously our primary responsibility as public
officials is to the public schools. I am a graduate of the public
school system, and I am grateful for the education I received and proud
of it.
Most of our children will always be educated at the public school
system, where they should be. And most of the money will go there. But
what we are saying here is maybe there is something special going on in
these religious-based school systems. Maybe this is a little bit extra
in the way of education and values being conveyed to our children that
not only educate them in reading and writing, but educate them with a
sense of purpose and value and mission.
Maybe we ought to open this little door to allow some parents to make
this choice, and maybe the public schools will learn--all of us will
learn--some things from this test.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I certainly yield to the President pro tempore,
Senator Byrd.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Madam President, I suggest that the biggest threat to the public
schools of this country is the fact that more and more there is less
and less discipline in those schools. Anything goes. The halls are
filled with thugs in many schools, carrying guns and knives. I have
voted, I guess, for every bill that has come along in this Senate in
the nearly 36 years that I have been a Member of the Senate, for every
bill supporting public education.
As Caesar said in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:
But I am constant as the northern star, of whose true-fix'd
and resting quality there is no fellow in the firmament.
I have been constant in my support for public education, and I am
still very supportive of public education. It will be a catastrophe in
this country if the public school systems ultimately fail. But I am
becoming frustrated, and I think I reflect the frustrations of millions
of citizens in this country, millions of students, and thousands upon
thousands of teachers.
How can a teacher teach in an environment where the teacher is
threatened, feels threatened, and is many times the subject of abuse
and the object of assault and battery? How can students learn in such
an atmosphere?
So I say the biggest dangers to the public school system today are
the problems that are associated with it concerning lack of discipline,
the failure to teach, the failure to educate, and the failure to learn.
I have voted for billions of dollars to go into the public school
systems of this country. I have never failed in my support for those
moneys. But as I say, I am becoming frustrated. I hear it every day
from teachers, from parents, and from students.
This is not to say that there are not some excellent public schools
nor that they do not turn out some excellent students. But all too
often, and all too much we are not getting our dollars' worth in the
education of our young people. And the taxpayers of this country are
going to turn away to something else. That is the greatest danger to
the public school system.
I have some hesitations about voting for this amendment. But I also
have some inclinations to vote for it. As I understand, it is a pilot
project. Perhaps we ought to give it a try. If we really want to save
the public school system in this country, it had better shape up. There
needs to be discipline. For the rowdies and the thugs, they ought to be
thrown out; have a special building for them if necessary; put all of
them in it. Let those students who are not only willing to learn but
who are desirous of learning have the chance to learn in an atmosphere
which is not threatening to life and limb.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the President pro tempore, and I appreciate
his remarks very much. They are really at the heart of what motivates
this amendment.
I spoke to one parent in a Connecticut city who said to me, ``My
child, when he goes to school, is more worried about getting shot than
getting AIDS, and that is why I want to pull him out of that school.
I think one of the things that might come out of this test we are
talking about--and it is only a test--is that one of the reasons why
some of these religious-based schools seem to do better with the same
population of kids is that they have more discipline and they have this
sense of mission and values.
Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, I have had the occasion many
times during my years of service in the Senate to observe students who
are taught discipline in the schoolrooms and respect for the flag,
respect for authority, respect for their teachers, and, in many
instances, those are Catholic schools.
Another thing, we are not teaching our children the basics. I saw on
television, not too long ago, a young lady who was asked, ``What do you
remember about Abraham Lincoln?'' She giggled and said, ``He got
shot.'' How much longer are we going to pour billions of dollars of
taxpayers money into a system that turns out students who are not ready
to be promoted or to graduate? We are experimenting too much with our
children and they are not being taught the basics.
``Every mother breeds not sons alike.'' Daniel Webster was next-to-
the-youngest in a group of eight siblings. Those people were poor, but
the other seven siblings were not Daniels. There was only one Daniel
Webster. Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus, said, ``Every mother breeds
not sons alike.'' He was later on to say, ``All the water in the ocean
can never turn a swan's black legs to white, although she lave them
hourly in the flood.''
I think we ought to do everything we can to educate children who
really want to learn, and put the fast learners on a fast track. I
think we ought to emphasize excellence in our schools, not only with
students but also with teachers. It came to my attention in the last
day or so that, on a blackboard in a local school over in Virginia, a
teacher had written w-h-o-'-s for the pronoun w-h-o-s-e, and t-h-e-y-'-
r-e for t-h-e-i-r. How can students learn when they have teachers who
cannot spell?
I thank the Senator. I am just having difficulties within myself as
to how to vote on an amendment like this. I have been a stalwart, but I
am becoming frustrated and the people are becoming frustrated, and it
poses a danger to the public school system. It is going to have to be
cleaned up, and the people of the education system are going to have to
learn to teach. It is all right to study methodologies, but they also
need to know the substance of the subjects they are teaching.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the President pro tempore. I will conclude
here. I hope I can convert his inclination to a definite disposition to
vote for the amendment. The amendment is merely a test. God knows that
none of us can say that our existing school systems are working
perfectly so we should not at least take $30 million out of the
hundreds of billions that are spent in American education and test this
idea of choice. If it does not work, that will be it. If it does, we
will see how we can expand it.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I understand the desires of the
proponents of this amendment, and I recognize the validity of taking a
look at the comparisons of the private versus public school system.
However, I must oppose the amendment at this time. First of all, and
probably foremost, we have gone out of our way to ensure that we do not
load this bill down with demonstration programs. This will be the first
one which will be added which would authorize funds to start
demonstration projects before we have had an opportunity to implement
the bill and to look at the planning process and get the advice of the
States. There is no prohibition right now for States to do anything--
they can have private school choice.
Again, I reiterate that my main concern here is that the school
choice amendment which is being offered is the only and the first of
what could prove to be many, if we start allowing demonstration-type
projects to be offered to what is designed to be a planning bill to
provide funds for the States to plan.
There is no prohibition under the law or any Federal prohibitions to
the States or the local Governments from sending or having their own
programs on demonstrating the applicability or the desirability of
school choice.
I point out, however, that I also believe at this time, when we
should be and hopefully will be reordering priorities, I have looked at
the proposal of the administration this morning on eliminating the
number of demonstration projects in the Department of Education with
the expectation that that will help fund other programs. I have some
concern about that, and I am hopeful that we will at least find out
through studies as to their validity and whether those programs have
and are working.
I just point out that we are going to be eliminating a number of
demonstration projects. Should we now start adding more of them? I hope
that will not occur here.
I think it is time we reorder our priorities on education and examine
all those programs that have worked. However, at this time, we should
not be adding new demonstration projects.
We point out that also this will cut into the amount of money that is
available in the Department of Education under the funds for education
to assist, to try to serve some of the needs.
This amendment establishes a $30 million program to assist private
schools, while our financially strapped public schools continue to
fight looming deficits. In the past decade, this Nation has seen a
declining share of funds committed to education. The total share of
Federal spending on education accounts were a mere 1.8 percent compared
to 2.5 percent in 1980. In other words, we have had a real slide during
that period of time. In addition to that, when this Nation had its huge
educational crisis after World War II, we committed 10 percent of our
budget to education.
So we have had an overall decrease, after adjusting for inflation, of
5 percent and 15 percent from funds for elementary and secondary
education. To start now siphoning funds off into a choice plan I think
would be a serious mistake at this particular moment.
Along with the decline in Federal funds has come an increase in the
number of 5- to 17-year-olds in this country. Over 4 million eligible
children will be denied chapter 1 reading and math instruction.
Furthermore, the Federal Government picks up a mere 9 percent of the
cost of educating our children with disabilities, far short of the 40
percent we promised to shoulder, and Senator Gregg will raise that
issue later, talking in depth.
The tragic state of funding for this has led the Vermont House of
Representatives to pass a bill to call for massive restructuring of the
tax base to curtail increase in property taxes. Thirty other States in
this Nation are facing a similar crisis.
Too much of the burden to pay for our Federal programs is falling on
the States. Passage of an amendment similar to this one will provide
even less money to the States to fund their own public educational
programs.
An important element of that argument is the very real fear that the
local schools will be left with the most difficult and expensive
students to serve. Private schools may still use the same entrance exam
on choice students as they do on all students.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield
additional time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I just hope that we will be able to
accommodate these kinds of matters as we change our national priorities
to provide much more money to education.
I yield the floor.
____________________