[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
amendment no. 1394
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business in the Senate is the
Levin amendment No. 1394 to the bill S. 1150.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. Levin].
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to assure school boards
that if they seek in good faith to adopt constitutional policies
relative to prayer in school that they are not going to find their
Federal funds cut off.
Last week the Senate adopted an amendment of Senator Helms which
threatens to cut off Federal education funds to local school districts
if they make a mistake, even, presumably, in good faith, relative to
the efforts of students seeking to pray in school. It put a club to
heads of local school boards to protect the rights of only one group of
students: the group wishing to have organized prayer in school.
There were a number of options following the adoption of the Helms
amendment.
One was to offer an amendment threatening the same funds cutoff if
local school boards violate the constitutional rights of persons who do
not want to be faced with organized prayer in school, thereby putting
another club to the heads of local school boards.
A second option was to try to remove some of the threat in the Helms
amendment by assuring school boards that if they adopt a constitutional
policy toward prayer, whether facilitating it or the opposite, their
good faith decision would not lead to a funding cutoff.
My amendment follows the second route because the first approach is a
slippery slope for local school boards which already face complex
decisions relative to constitutional rights as relate to prayer in
school. We should not make it more difficult for school boards to
follow the Constitution by making them a target of either side of the
prayer issue. We should not put them under the threat that Federal
funds could be cut off if a good faith effort on the school boards'
part turns out to be unconstitutional, according to some court.
The school prayer issue is one of the most emotional of all issues
faced by school boards. School boards already spend large sums of money
defending lawsuits from one side or the other. That is why my amendment
is aimed at neutralizing some of the impact of the Helms amendment.
That is why I decided not to put another club to the heads of local
school boards by threatening them with the loss of Federal funds if
they failed to protect the constitutional rights of those on the other
side of the issue.
One final word on a procedural issue: My amendment was offered last
week pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement which allowed for
amendments offered before a time certain. I was not involved in setting
the time. This amendment was offered in a timely manner. I had
previously informed the leadership staff that I would be offering such
an amendment. There was no restriction in the unanimous-consent
agreement relative to this amendment nor did I know of any side
agreement, if there was one.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to be added as a cosponsor
of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
LEVIN AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH HELMS-LOTT AMENDMENT
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this past Thursday there was a gentlemen's
agreement with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], which
would reduce the debate time on this bill. I agreed to reduce to two
the number of amendments I would offer--and the Senator from
Massachusetts would be permitted to offer one opposing amendment for
each of my two.
I offered an amendment on school prayer. Senator Danforth then
offered an amendment on behalf of Senator Kennedy on silent meditation.
The Senate then approved my prayer amendment, 75-22, and, by a vote of
78 to 8, approved the Danforth amendment the following morning, on
Friday. I then offered my second amendment forbidding the distribution
of condoms to school children without parental consent. Senator Kennedy
and Senator Jeffords offered an opposing amendment.
Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreed to by Senator
Kennedy and me, I assumed that good faith had prevailed. I then agreed
to another unanimous consent request establishing a deadline for
Senators to offer other first degree amendments to the bill at 4 p.m.
on Friday, with votes on all amendments pending to be stacked on
Tuesday.
However, without my knowledge or consent, the unanimous-consent
agreement was changed to extend the deadline for amendments to 5 p.m.
At a few minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline, the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. Levin], offered another first degree amendment relating to the
issue of prayer in the schools.
So once again, good faith efforts from this side of the aisle to save
the Senate's time are met with bad faith from the manager on the other
side of the aisle.
Mr. President, as to the Levin amendment itself, over the weekend I
checked with some of the Nation's foremost legal scholars and
litigators on the issue of school prayer and the first amendment.
Specifically, I asked them to examine Senator Levin's amendment to see
what effect, if any, the Levin proposal would have on my school prayer
amendment which the Senate passed by a vote of 75 to 22.
Mr. President, their unanimous conclusion was that the Levin
amendment is consistent with, and indeed complements, the Helms
amendment.
Obviously, the Levin amendment, is what is known around this place as
a CMF amendment, a ``cover my fanny'' amendment. Senator Levin was 1 of
the 22 Senators who voted against my school prayer amendment last
Thursday--and he caught some heat about it. However, as the Levin
amendment will not diminish the impact of the Helms-Lott amendment, I
will not be upset if is it accepted on a voice vote. At least that
would save the Senate some time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a legal opinion on the
implications of the Helms-Lott amendment and the Levin amendment be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HELMS. This opinion was drafted by Mr. James Matthew Henderson,
Sr., senior litigation counsel for the American Center for Law and
Justice.
Mr. Henderson has been involved in many of the school prayer and
religious rights cases that have come before the Supreme Court in prior
years. Mr. Henderson has this to say about the effect of the Levin
amendment on my school prayer amendment:
First, the Levin amendment is not a substitute for the
Helms-Lott amendment. The two amendments are separately
effective. The two amendments are capable of coordinated
reading and effect. There is no inconsistency in a reading of
the amendments which allows Levin to moderate Helms-Lott.
Because they are not inconsistent, and because Levin does not
purport to supplant Helms-Lott, both amendments are viable.
Second, the Levin amendment responds to the Helms-Lott
amendment. In other words, the funding inquiry would begin
with the Helms-Lott amendment question: does the agency have
a policy or practice which interferes with instances of
voluntary, student-initiated prayer? If so, Helms-Lott would
mandate stripping funding from such education agencies. The
Levin amendment, however, would provide those education
agencies in jeopardy of funding losses with the opportunity
to prove that the questioned policy on school prayer
satisfies constitutional requirements.
Mr. President, the Levin amendment really should be withdrawn, but if
it is not, I must serve notice that I have a number of second-degree
amendments that I will offer to it.
Exhibit 1
A Tale of Two Amendments: Comparisons and Contrasts Between the Helms-
Lott and Levin amendments
(By James Matthew Henderson, Sr.)
introduction
The Senate has added one amendment to the education bill
now pending before it, and has a second one pending before
it. The first amendment, the Helms-Lott amendment, states:
``No funds made available through the Department of
Education under this Act, or any other Act, shall be
available to any state or local educational agency which has
a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents
participation in, constitutionally-protected prayer in public
schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. Neither the
United States nor any state nor any local educational agency
shall require any person to participate in prayer or
influence the form or content of any constitutionally-
protected prayer in such public schools.''
On February 4, 1994, Senator Levin offered the second
amendment, which is still pending. The Levin amendment
states:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds
made available through the Department of Education under this
Act, or any other Act, shall be denied because it has adopted
a constitutional policy relative to prayer in public
school.''
Important questions must be answered in consideration of
these back-to-back amendments. Most importantly, the question
of whether the legal effect of the two amendments is
essentially a nullity, if both survive conference committee,
it needs to be resolved. Also, consideration should be given
to their separate operation and enforceability, given the
possibility that only one may survive conference.
As a prerequisite to this discussion, it must be understood
that, in the public school setting, a student is generally
free to express his views so long as such expression does not
lead to disruption of the school or work a substantial
interference with the rights of others. Further, it is clear
that the Establishment Clause does not operate to restrict or
private religious expression, including prayer. That
clause concerns itself with the affairs of government, not
of students. Thus, a guiding axiom is that students in
public schools cannot violate the Clause by their private
actions.
the helms-lott amendment
There need be no doubt about the need for strong medicine
to buttress the rights of students seeking to express faith
in their God through voluntary, student-initiated prayer on
public school campuses. The contact reports and files of the
American Center for Law and Justice include many, many
instances in which public school officials have prevented or
interfered with student-initiated, voluntary prayer on
campus. It is an unfortunate fact of life for many students
that ignorance of the law seems to abound in the area of
student-initiated, voluntary prayer.
Consider the case of Misty Newberry, a student at Massac
County High School in Metropolis, Illinois. In September,
1992, Misty joined with a small group of friends for a short
time of prayer before the beginning of the school day. They
were observing ``See You At The Pole,'' the National Day of
Student Prayer, when hundreds of thousands of students around
the Nation joined together to pray for their fellow students,
their teachers and administrators and their communities.
When Misty Newberry and her friends were praying, however,
her school's administrators were calling the police and the
sheriff. Before the event could end voluntarily, Misty and
another had been threatened with tear gas, if they would not
cease their prayer activities. Ultimately, Misty was taken
into custody and placed in the back of a sheriff's cruiser,
then released after approximately fifteen minutes.
Had the Helms-Lott amendment been the law at the time of
Misty's misfortune, there is little doubt that Misty would
have been able to pray for her principal, instead of being
arrested at his direction.
The Helms-Lott amendment positively mandates a cut-off of
any funds made available through the Department of Education
for any ``state or local educational agency'' that, by policy
or practice, ``prevents participation in, constitutionally-
protected prayer'' under conditions where the prayer is
student-initiated and voluntary. No implementing regulation
seems necessary before the effect of the amendment would be
felt. Nor does the language admit of a discretionary
authority to deny funding. Rather, funding under the Goals
legislation, and funding under any other act, which is
provided through the Department of Education would be at
jeopardy if a school district or state education department
promulgated or enforced a policy of interfering with student-
initiated voluntary prayer.
It is also important to note what the Helms-Lott amendment
would not do. Under the Helms-Lott amendment, there would not
be any possibility of coerced participation in religious
activity. Nothing in the language admits of an interpretation
under which students could be compelled to participate in
prayer activities. Of course, the Supreme Court's decision in
Abington v. Schemmp, struck down such programs of compulsory
religious observance in public schools. As if the fact of
precedent were insufficient, the Helms-Lott amendment states
quite specifically, ``Neither the United States nor any state
nor any local educational agency shall require any person to
participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any
constitutionally-protected prayer in such public schools.''
Thus, student and teachers both are protected from unwanted
and unwarranted compulsion to give assent to any particular
religious observance.
the levin amendment
Following the adoption of the Helms-Lott amendment, the
Senate took up the Levin amendment, a separately effective
provision which prohibits the Department of Education from
withholding any funds under any federal act in cases where
the recipient of the funds has ``adopted a constitutional
policy'' on school prayer.
Taken in isolation, the Levin amendment approaches
constitutional insignificance. Its operative impact is
extremely light. Because it appears chiefly to have been
offered as a counterweight to the Helms-Lott amendment, it
would only affect those situations where an educational
agency was threatened with a cut-off of federal funds because
of its policy or practice of preventing voluntary
participation in student-initiated prayer. Careful review of
the language of the Levin amendment demonstrates that it is
not positive law.
In the absence of the Levin amendment, would the Department
of Education be permitted to withhold funds from a school
district solely on the basis of the district having a stated,
and constitutional policy regarding school prayer? The
obvious answer is, no. Such a denial would be irrational. The
addition of the Levin language, then, adds nothing, because
the Department of Education is not in the business of denying
federal funding to otherwise eligible educational agencies.
taking the amendments in tandem
Two key points should be noted about the situation in which
both amendments service the conference process, and,
ultimately, become law.
First, the Levin amendment is not a substitute for the
Helms-Lott amendment. The two amendments are separately
effective. The two amendments are capable of coordinated
reading and effect. There is no inconsistency in a reading of
the amendments which allows Levin to moderate Helms-Lott.
Because they are not inconsistent, and because Levin does not
purport to supplant Helms-Lott, both amendments are viable.
Second, the Levin amendment responds to the Helms-Lott
amendment. In other words, the funding inquiry would begin
with the Helms-Lott amendment question: does the agency have
a policy or practice which interferes with instances of
voluntary, student-initiated prayer. If so, Helms-Lott would
mandate stripping funding from such education agencies. The
Levin amendment, however, would provide those education
agencies in jeopardy of funding losses with the opportunity
to prove that the questioned policy on school prayer
satisfies constitutional requirements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If there is no
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1394) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the committee accepted an
amendment that I have joined Senator Pryor in introducing which would
utilize the reservoir of skill and talent that exists among senior
citizens in the school community. Our amendment would provide for State
enhancement and expansion of intergenerational mentoring programs,
including tutorial programs, in their public schools. The proposal
would place trained, mature adults into the public school system, and
match the needs of America's youth with the experience and skills of
seniors. Specifically, our amendment would:
Encourage States to use intergenerational mentoring for
State educational improvements:
Ask States, in developing State improvement plans, to describe
strategies for utilizing programs such as intergenerational
mentoring in helping students meet State standards; and
Authorize that funds to be used for State activities designed to
implement the State improvement plan would include programs such as
intergenerational mentoring.
Mr. President, this amendment builds upon legislation I previously
authored, which was enacted into law in 1989 as a part of the National
Volunteer Service Act, that creates a separate RSVP one-to-one senior
tutorial program for K-12 students.
Programs that involve senior citizens in the education of our
Nation's children are by no means new. Such projects have had great
success in schools throughout this country, including my own State of
Michigan. There are currently a number of projects in Michigan that
have achieved success in increasing the learning abilities of
educationally disadvantaged students, and have provided rewarding
experiences to our greatest human resouce--our senior citizens.
Programs exist from as far north as Escanaba in the Upper Peninsula, to
the southern region of the State in Jackson County, and spanning from
west to east covering Kent, Oakland, and Wayne Counties.
Mr. President, current projects that are scattered about varying
public schools in the States, are not sufficient to meet the demands
and the challenges in its entirety. It is estimated that even with
presently established projects, millions of educationally disadvantaged
children are in need of help in the basic skills of reading, writing,
and math. This amendment will enable the States, that may voluntarily
choose to do so, to bring in more projects as needed.
Mr. President, I am also pleased that the committee has decided to
accept my amendment which adds to the list of initiatives that may be
funded under State improvement plans. My amendment permits State
educational agencies to use certain title III funds for: ``* * *
supporting innovative and proven methods of enhancing a teacher's
ability to identify student learning needs, and to motivating students
to develop higher order thinking skills, discipline, and creative
resolution methods, including significantly reducing class size and
promoting instruction in chess.''
Mr. President, studies on the effects of reduced class size show that
students in small class routinely outperform those in regular and
regular-with-aide classes in all types of schools. Small classes also
enhance the teacher's ability to identify student learning needs,
provide individual attention, develop positive relationships with
students and families and teach more material more thoroughly.
Relative to the provision of my amendment on the instruction of
chess, current studies speak to the success of such programs in the
schools. A 4-year study of school chess players found that chess
instills self-confidence and self-worth; dramatically improves the
ability to think rationally; and results in higher grades, especially
in English and math. I ask unanimous consent that the attached articles
from the August 27, 1993, USA Today and the May 17, 1993, Washington
Post regarding the success of chess in the schools be included for the
Record at the end of the text of my statement.
Mr. President, in closing, I would like to commend my colleages on
the Labor Committee for their leadership and perseverance in getting us
to this point today. The legislation before us represents a great deal
of bipartisan effort and consensus that we can, indeed, succeed in
fundamental education reform if the connection between school and
community is strengthened and the essential partnership with parents,
teachers, and students is renewed.
Due in no small part to the distinguished leadership and special
efforts of Senator Kennedy, Senator Pell, Senator Kassebaum, Senator
Jeffords, and others, the legislation provides the framework for
meeting the national education goals, while maintaining critically
important local flexibility--the ability for school districts and
States to try things that work in their community and in their State.
Mr. President, one of the reasons why I joined as an original
cosponsor of this legislation is the positive nature of the national
education goals, which specify that by the year 2000:
First, all students would arrive at school ready to learn;
Second, that the graduation rate would increase to at least 90
percent;
Third, that students would master challenging content in core subject
areas;
Fourth, that our students would be first in the world in math and
science;
Fifth, that all adults would be literate and prepared for life-long
learning;
Sixth, that our schools would offer children a disciplined and drug-
free environment; and
Seventh, that every school will promote partnerships that will
increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the
social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
Finally, Mr. President, I hope the enactment of this legislation will
help make major improvement in American education and work force
training.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From USA Today, Aug. 27, 1993]
Chess Center Helps Kids in the Game of Life
(By Tamara Henry)
Washington.--Fearing a wrong move, 11-year-old LaWanda
Wellington slowly slides her black knight across the board
while suspiciously eyeing her opponent's white bishop and
queen.
``Go ahead and do it,'' coaches Andrew Agostinelli, an
Eastern High School math teacher who helps out at the chess
camp in downtown Washington. ``You think you can't, but you
can.''
LaWanda plops the knight on a square. ``Yeah. That's it!
Isn't it?'' reassures Agostinelli. She sighs. She smiles.
The camp is the first project of the U.S. Chess Center,
which began last July when director David Mehler received the
official go-ahead to operate the largest chess facility
outside the former U.S.S.R. In a city that reeks of power and
self-important bureaucrats, Mehler's goal is to share his
love of chess with the powerless--inner-city children.
Traditionally, chess had not been an inner-city sport but
mainly a game for men, the wealthy or intellectuals. Brought
to America by Spanish explorers, chess players include Queen
Isabella, who financed Christopher Columbus, and Benjamin
Franklin.
Now, the move Searching for Bobby Fischer has sparked even
more interest in the game, especially among children. But
unlike Fred Waitzkin's story of his son Josh's journey
through the national chess championships, Mehler isn't
looking for chess geniuses.
``I just enjoy doing this,'' says the 42-year old former
criminal defense lawyer.
``It's the most effective way to get these kids to have a
different feeling about themselves,'' Mehler says. He's been
teaching chess for more than 20 years and discovered the
benefits of the game while teaching school and earning his
law degree in Sacramento.
Studies show young chess players quickly learn self-
discipline, the dangers of impulsive behavior, the value of
concentration and how to succeed within the limits of the
rules.
The U.S. Chess Federation says children make up almost
35,000 of its total paid membership of about 70,000--the
highest membership ever in the group's history. Adults pay
$200 and student $60. Almost 2,500 USCF-affiliated chess
clubs are in schools. About 150,000 youngsters play in
organized competition.
About 30 youngsters signed up for the two-week, three-
hours-day-camp. But a little over a dozen actually show up
each day. The children are transported from blighted
neighborhoods by a local community group to a neoclassical
office building blocks away from the White House. The
building's carpeted basement houses the Chess Center, the
U.S. Chess Hall of Fame and Museum and gift shop.
Once downstairs, the youngsters rush to long tables lined
with chess sets. Usually they wait for Mehler to discuss the
day's new concept or to serve milk. Occasionally, there are
field trips.
``Here's a little strategy,'' says Mehler in his mini-
lecture. ``I see folks move pawns in front of rooks. That's
not as good as moving pawns in front of kings and queens.''
He pauses. ``The bolder you are, the more successful you'll
be. Move pawns into the center of the board.''
The children study their chess boards as he talks.
Meanwhile, Agostinelli and LaWanda continue their
discussions. A few space down, Mark Smith, 17, helps Jared
Estep, 14, improve his strategy. At another table sit two
other Wellingtons, 6-year-old William and 7-year-old LaNette,
LaWanda's cousin and sister.
``What I like about (the chess camp) is it helps them to
get out of the drug environment, gets them off of the streets
and helps them to use their brains and think,'' Smith says.
Smith started playing chess about five years ago and has
seen remarkable improvements in his math, thinking and verbal
skills: ``Instead of writing on paper, I imagine. I calculate
in my head.''
The plan for the chess center began in 1989 when world
champion Garry Kasparov came to the nation's capital to
introduce the game as a way to battle drug abuse among
children. He helped raise funds for a pilot program that
summer.
Mehler's goal is to teach chess to youngsters at the center
and in every school in the metropolitan area. He targets
minorities, girls and women.
Besides the camp, there are after-school lessons for
students in grades four through 12, a Saturday morning
program for kindergarten through third-graders, weekend and
other special activities for teenagers. Evenings are reserved
for adult tournaments, seminars taught by masters, casual
games and adult lessons.
``Many of these kids came with the attitude they would
never be able to play chess,'' says Mehler, who remembers
LaNette crying when she first tried to properly move a pawn.
``But, of course, she did learn to play chess,'' Mehler
says. ``If we can get these kids out of the habit of thinking
they can't learn things and instead in the habit of knowing
that they can, then there are no limits.''
[From the Washington Post, May 17, 1993]
Maneuvering to Win Young Minds: P.G. School Chess Club Teaches Boys
Self-Discipline, Self-Esteem
(By Lisa Leff)
Classes have ended for the afternoon at Morningside
Elementary School, but in the library two dozen young boys
are sitting in silence, smooth chins cupped in hands and wiry
shoulders hunched over wooden tables. They are the Master
Knights, and twice weekly at 2:15 p.m., this library becomes
their clubhouses.
``You know what happens at the tournament if you make too
much noise, don't you?'' coach Beulah McMeans tells the
members of Morningside's boys-only chess team as they ponder
their next moves. ``You'll get disqualified, won't you?''
To the Master Knights, patience, self-discipline and
playing by the rules are part of the game. Now in its second
year, the 29-member scholastic chess club was formed to
engage the minds of black males from kindergartners to sixth-
graders. Like a variety of other programs at the 175 public
schools in Prince George's County, the Morningside club is
designed to nurture black youths and help them to thrive.
But Morningside, in western Prince George's County near the
District line, is the only county school using chess as a
vehicle for student success. McMeans, a guidance counselor
who made a habit of pulling out a worn chess set when
children were referred to her because of behavior problems,
sees a simply beauty in it.
The centuries-old board game, correctly or not, generally
is thought of as the pastime of ``brains,'' which is just
what McMeans wants her players to feel free to be. And the
boys seem to get a kick out of ``doing something no one else
they knew was really doing,'' she said.
``One of the first rules of chess is after the game, you
shake your opponent's hand, win, lose or draw. Second, you
learn from your mistakes,'' McMeans said, ``We want that
to go right back into the classroom and the community.''
A sense of high purpose infuses the team's Tuesday and
Thursday meetings. Although uniforms are optional for
students at Morningside, Knights must wear blue pants and
white shirts and spend their recesses at practice. Team
members usually are required to put in an hour of homework
before they may pick up their vinyl, tournament-style chess
boards after school.
McMeans demands that her players approach chess with the
dedication of athletes. They keep thick playbooks filled with
rules and the strategies of Bobby Fischer, the only American
ever to be world chess champion. She does not let them have
sodas and snacks while they practice. ``If you really want to
play chess, you don't care about cookies or candy,'' she
tells them.
In the era of fast-paced video games and Rollerblades, it
might be hard to understand why a group of boys would stay
after school to play chess, a game that can be time-consuming
and plodding. But the Knights say they appreciate the game's
emphasis on tactics, rather than luck. What's more, size
matters little in chess; just last Thursday, Richard English,
8, a third-grader, beat Joseph Walker, 10, a fifth-grader,
who accepted the defeat with a gentlemanly grin.
``It's like a thinking game,'' said Deshaun Wells, 11, who
is in sixth grade and taught himself chess using a computer
program. ``When we play, it's like we are seeing who is the
smartest or something.''
Gregory Bridges, 12, is president of the Master Knights, a
position for which he was selected because of his devotion to
the club and his skill as a player. His father, Elvin
Bridges, one of several parents who sometimes drop by the
school for a quick game or two, taught Gregory how to play
six years ago. Now, the sixth-grader is teaching his younger
brother, DeShawn Brown, 5, after school with the Master
Knights.
Chess, Gregory has decided, ``keeps everyone down to
earth.''
``When you see someone who is big and bad on the streets,
you hardly see anyone who plays chess. That is how chess
influences you,'' he said. ``You have to have patience and a
cool head, and that patience carries outside the chess
club.''
Last month, with financial help from the school system and
a local property management firm, the Knights took a four-day
road trip to Charlotte, N.C., to participate in the National
Scholastic Chess Championships. They were the first public
school team from Prince George's to compete in a tournament
and one of a few all-black teams among those representing 300
elementary schools.
Much of what they saw made an impression--teams that had
chess masters as coaches, teams with their own jackets. One
team even rented a $500 hotel suite so it could practice in
private. The Knights, most of whom were in championship
competition for the first time, suffered a bad case of
jitters. Gregory was the only player to win his first game.
But although they did not bring home any trophies, they
gave a respectable performance, winning 37 of their 105 games
and finishing ahead of several teams with more experience.
``It was better than coming in last or not coming anywhere at
all,'' Gregory said.
Amy Schapp, a fifth-grade teacher at Morningside, said the
Master Knights have made her a believer in the power of
chess. Last September, one of the boys in her class was in
danger of getting D's and E's and seemed totally disconnected
from school. At McMean's suggestion, he became a Knight. Last
marking period, he made the honor roll.
``The chess club is a very positive thing. It gives them
something to strive for. They belong to the Master Knights,
and I think that is a good feeling for them,'' Schapp said.
McMeans and her husband taught themselves how to play chess
more than 20 years ago while living as an Air Force family in
Athens. On club days, she wears an ivory knight on a gold
chain around her neck, a gift from her husband. She plans to
get the team members T-shirts with the logo ``Leaders of
Tomorrow,'' because in chess, moves by knights are L-shaped.
Still, she'll confess there is nothing mystical or sacred
about the game. Chess makes the Master Knights smarter
because they believe it can. Their team slogan is, ``We
think, therefore we are.''
``Whatever works. If this works for them, we'll play
chess,'' McMeans said. ``If this fades, we will find
something else.''
Mr. LEVIN. Am I correct in my understanding that the wording in the
legislation pertaining to the subjects of history, geography, civics,
and government would not impede States and local school districts who
define those subjects as social studies from continuing that practice
and benefiting from the legislation?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. The intent of this legislation is not
to exclude States and local school districts that use the subject
heading social studies rather than history, geography, civics, and
government.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my strong support for Goals 2000.
This country has a justifiable reason to be proud. It is the first
modern nation to guarantee all its citizens access to an education.
When we look at the progress of our schools, however, we discover what
our young people have not learned as opposed to what they have learned.
All too often the high school diploma is a certificate of attendance
instead of a certificate of knowledge. There is an uneven playing field
in education. Expectations of students differ not only between
socioeconomic classes, but from State to State, and for college-bound
students and the forgotten student group that goes to the work force
immediately after high school.
We need a national framework to funnel our efforts and to reach the
35 percent of our kids who are not ready to participate successfully in
school.
In response to our current predicament, a bipartisan group including
our Nation's Governors and the President developed the six national
education goals to be achieved by the year 2000. These goals, along
with a newly added seventh goal calling for more parental
participation, have provided a framework for Goals 2000. I have been a
supporter of this legislation from the beginning.
Goals 2000 will create a partnership between the educational system
and local communities by providing a set of voluntary world-class
standards. Standards are the linchpin that bring about educational
reform, designed to fit the special needs of our communities.
Opponents of Goals 2000 claim this bill is bad for local community
control of school because they think it establishes Federal education
mandates. As we all know, this just isn't so. This bill creates no
mandates, no outcome-based education, no refusals to fund other
education programs down the road. It's voluntary, inclusive, and
bottom-up.
Let me quickly go through the goals to reiterate what we are talking
about here.
Goal 1, all children in America will start school ready to learn.
Goal 2, high school graduation rate will be 90 percent. In my own
State of Colorado, we are ranked 26th in the Nation with a 74.5 percent
graduation rate. This bill will help us help more kids earn their
diploma.
Goal 3, students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competency in core subjects. In 1990, only 22 percent of Colorado's
fourth graders scored at the proficient or advanced level in reading.
Goal 4, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and math
achievement. In Taiwan, 41 percent of eighth graders have advanced
scores in math; in Switzerland, 33 percent score at this level. Only 26
percent of Colorado eighth graders earn advanced scores.
Goal 5, every adult American will be literate.
Goal 6, every school in the United States will be free of drugs and
violence. Nearly 3 million crimes occur on or near schools every year.
We must make our schools a safe environment if we intend to create a
learning environment.
Goal 7, the newest goal; every school will promote partnerships that
will increase parental involvement and participation. Because we all
know it's parents that must raise children, not schools, and not the
government.
Last month, I had the honor of hosting Secretary Riley on a tour of
Denver's West High School. We were able to see students who are
learning at world-class levels, even in a tough part of Denver. I had
the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ed Cordova, the principal at this school.
With tenacity and determination, he is reaching these kids, even with
many of them in local gangs. He has found a way to help these kids aim
for high standards as young adults.
You see, the problem isn't so much what to do and how to improve
schools. The difficulty is taking what we have learned and putting
those ideas into action. We have already learned that reform is best
when it is voluntary, inclusive, and bottom-up. When we involve
parents, teachers, and the entire community in the process of putting
children first like West High School is attempting to do. Goals 2000
allows the States and local school boards to continue in their efforts
and encourages them to excel.
What's important to stress here is this: I think most of us agree
each State in this country needs to be working in its own unique
context toward the common goal educating America's children. I know I
trust the people of Colorado to make the right choices for our children
at the local level. If people are concerned about Goals 2000, they
should be involved with their local community and their decisions about
local schools.
The year 2000 is only 6 years away. We have a long way to go to have
our children learning at world-class standards. Passing Goals 2000 is
the next step forward.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to give the decisionmaking powers
to our local communities and vote in support of the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Parents
as Teachers Act, I rise to offer my support for Senator Bond's
amendment to include the Parents as Teachers Program as part of Goals
2000. As Governor of Missouri, my colleague developed this fine program
in our State, and it works. He should be commended for his continued
efforts in promoting this concept.
Parents as Teachers began statewide in 1985 with 13,000 families. The
program has experienced steady increases in participation with 119,000
families participating last year and a waiting list of 3,000 families.
The success of Parents as Teachers is evidenced by its limited
replication in 42 other States.
The strength of the program is that it is community and family based
and it assists parents in being actively engaged in the early childhood
development and health of their children from birth until the ages of 3
to 4. The premise underlying the program is that parents are a child's
first and most important teachers, and the role of the State is to
assist the parents in providing the best educational foundation
possible. Parents as Teachers represents a wise investment. Remedial
education and dealing with the problems of dropouts in high school are
very expensive. Helping children be ready for school in the first place
is much more cost effective and supporting parents in doing this makes
sense.
In recognition that income and education levels do not necessarily
determine how much a parent knows about child development, Parents as
Teachers is a voluntary program for all parents. Even our most affluent
school districts have children who are struggling. Parents as Teachers
assists parents in making rational choices for their own family. The
professional parent educators do not do things for families, but rather
provide them with information and support to feel confident in making
good decisions for themselves. There are specific things parents learn
through Parents as Teachers about how to lay a solid foundation for
school success. All parents deserve support in giving their children
the best possible start in life.
In keeping with the objectives of Goals 2000, the Parents as Teachers
model is flexible to meet the needs of the community, incorporates
community participation, and fosters interagency collaboration. I
believe this amendment complements and strengthens the seventh goal
added to Goals 2000 with regard to parental participation in the
education of their children and recognizes the significant role of
parents' involvement. My colleague, Senator Bond, should be commended
for his continuing efforts to improve the education of our young
children.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has turned its
attention to this matter. Education is an issue that I think all of us
will agree is a vital one for the future of our country, and it is
appropriate that with the new year we rededicate ourselves to this
topic.
During the past week, Members have worked very hard to get a good
bill. While there are some portions of this bill that I disagree with--
and which I believe can be, and should be, improved--there are also a
number of provisions I endorse. I have been willing to listen hard to
both sides and do what needs to be done to craft a good bill, and I
appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to do the same.
So let me begin by being very blunt about what we are doing here. I
favor reforms to the educational system that will make a significant
difference in the delivery of educational services to our students.
Period.
I do not want to create just another expensive block grant program
which does nothing more than perpetuate the status quo. While I will be
one of the first to admit that our system is meeting the needs of
students who are performing well, I also believe that we can and should
continue to do better.
I do not favor reforms that wrestle control of education away from
State and local governments and place it in the hands of the Federal
Government. Nor do I want a bill that places a government monitor at
every stage of a student's development.
During the past week or so, I have received more phone calls and
letters than I can count from parents, teachers, and administrators who
have expressed a serious concern that this bill will mean Federal
interference in a vital part of their lives and the lives of their
children.
I absolutely agree with them that we don't need a government that is
constantly looking over the shoulders of teachers and parents. Folks
are already intimidated enough by the threat of a big government. I
want to give our educators the opportunities they need to do their jobs
right, which means doing their jobs effectively, creatively, and
efficiently. We cannot assume, even with all our good intentions, that
we know better than our teachers, principals, local school boards, and
parents about what works in local schools. There is too much evidence
to the contrary.
During consideration of the education reform bill in the 102d
Congress, the final version of the bill made no meaningful reforms and
simply established a large block grant program with a tangle of Federal
strings attached.
I believe control of education should remain firmly in the hands of
the States, their local governments, and individual communities, each
of which has its own unique needs. As I have done before, I will oppose
any legislation that tips this balance in favor of the Federal
Government.
However, I am pleased to note that numerous provisions of the Goals
2000 bill reflect--at least in ideology--many of the proposals that
Senator Nunn and I have recommended in the first report issued by our
Strengthening of America Commission.
Senator Nunn and I serve as cochairmen of this Commission, which was
formed with the cooperation of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies [CSIS]. Our object is to help build a stronger
America through changes in tax policy, investing in human resources,
and breaking gridlock in Washington.
For example, in our report, we essentially agree with the proponents
of Goals 2000 that the time has come to consider developing academic
standards. Our CSIS report encourages the Nation to develop educational
content and student performance standards in core subjects, very
similar to the core subjects listed among the Nation's education goals.
We have recommended that these standards draw upon work being done by
the States, subject matter specialists, and other professional
organizations, as well as comparing with those standards set by our
competitors.
To this end, we have recommended that the Congress establish an
entity to coordinate and ensure the quality of this effort and monitor
its results. Ideally, this is the role that will be filled by the
National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] in the
Goals 2000 legislation.
While we need national standards, local educators must be given
flexibility in attaining them. Resources, authority, and responsibility
must be returned to the classroom. With this concern in mind, I think
we need to be very careful about how we go about implementing many of
these reforms, as well as how much authority we invest in NESIC.
This bill places a great deal of weight on setting national and State
content and student performance standards. The content standards are to
be broad descriptions of knowledge and skills to be acquired in a
particular subject area, while student performance standards are the
more concrete and explicit definitions of what students should know and
be able to achieve.
Setting national standards has always been tricky. We've had a
difficult time addressing the issue because no one has ever been quite
sure how we go about measuring success in attaining these standards.
However, if we are going to strive for excellence in the classroom, I
think most would agree that we do need to give our educators some idea
of what we consider that standard of excellence to be.
The real challenge will be to ensure that content standards are
sufficiently broad enough--and voluntary enough--to leave schools the
flexibility and creativity to strive for these standards in an infinite
number of ways.
In basketball, for example, we know that the standard of excellence
is to get the ball through the hoop. But what kind of offense each team
wants to run to reach that goal is left to each team to determine. Our
standards must be very carefully set so as not to say, ``You may only
shoot layups. You may not shoot three-pointers.''
This same philosophy should apply to national content and performance
standards. I know Senator Kassebaum shares this concern and has worked
very hard to ensure that this bill does not become overly prescriptive.
I was pleased to read that the committee noted in the bill's report
that setting and adopting standards are in and of themselves not
enough--that we will also need well-trained teachers and other
resources. I also believe we should make it clear that any national
standards are not expected to be the ceiling on what our students
should know. Our teachers and students should not only strive to meet
these standards, but to exceed them.
On the similar topic of education standards, our CSIS report also
states that the current mesh of standardized tests does not reflect
true academic effort and achievement of our students. As I mentioned
earlier, one of the primary concerns about national standards has
focused around how we measure student success in meeting those
standards.
In the CSIS report, we recommended that high-quality educational
content and student performance standards be supported by high-quality
student assessments. We believe educators need to move away from the
typical multiple-choice format--turn the crank and get the answer--and
toward a new type of assessment process.
Again, we recognize that this will be difficult. I hope NESIC will
work closely with States to explore new methods of student assessment.
It really is an area where much still needs to be done.
I am somewhat less enchanted, however, with opportunity-to-learn
[OTL] standards. I believe the rationale behind such standards is
certainly well-intentioned--that it may not be fair to ask students to
strive for national standards when they were never, for any number of
reasons, given a fair opportunity to learn such standards. However, I
do not believe we significantly improve education by imposing mandates
on what those in industry might call the beginning of the pipeline.
Instead, we must focus our efforts on providing schools with support
and flexibility which will help them meet high standards, rather than
dictating to them what resources must be utilized.
For instance, while we may have a good idea what conditions are
generally favorable for learning--which types of instruction, for
example, what kinds of resources, and how much money--we also know that
these factors do not hold true in every situation.
For example, I once brought to the attention of my colleagues the
accomplishments of five students in El Paso, TX, who, despite what many
would have considered tremendous odds, were bound for the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Five students from one public school was
believed to be the largest class from any one public school to attend
MIT.
Yet, looking at the demographics of this school, one would hardly
have expected five students with such high academic achievement. A
majority of students lived below the poverty line, and a great deal did
not speak English upon entering the school their freshman year. Still,
through perseverance, hard work, dedicated teachers, and very little
Federal interference, this school produced these, and other,
outstanding students.
Might this school have done some things differently with OTL
standards? You bet. Might the school have produced more quality
students? It's hard to say. But my point is, what teachers in El Paso
or Albuquerque find works for their students may not necessarily work
equally as well for students in Amarillo or Santa Fe. The diversity of
our system is what makes it so great.
Therefore, Federal, State, and local governments should ensure that
their poor schools have the requisite resources to prepare their
students to meet rigorous standards. Frankly, we can do this any number
of ways--our CSIS Commission, for example, recommends reforms in the
Chapter I Program, and you can be certain that Senator Nunn and I will
revisit this issue during the debate on the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act--and I believe schools should take the opportunity to
address the issue as they see fit. But I certainly don't think we
should mandate this standard.
I caution my colleagues that experience has traditionally shown that
what begins as voluntary often does not stay that way for long.
However, I am satisfied that the language we currently have before
adequately protects the rights of State and local education agencies to
address this issue voluntarily and to fit each specific situation.
I know Senators Kassebaum and Jeffords also have the same serious
concerns about opportunity-to-learn standards, and I believe it is
through their efforts that the OTL language in the bill has been
shifted from prescriptive to descriptive. If I thought this bill
mandated any of these standards, I would oppose it.
I have also heard a great deal of concern from folks that this bill
will force States to implement what people are calling outcome based
education [OBE]. As I understand it, the intent of OBE is to focus on
academic results and provide greater flexibility to localities. This in
itself is good.
However, I understand and appreciate the concerns I am hearing from
New Mexicans who fear that outcome-based education will move away from
the basics of education and into matters that are best left to the
discretion of parents.
As I understand it, this legislation in no way mandates or endorses
one system of reform over another. There may be many who oppose
outcome-based education, but whether a school wants to use assistance
under this legislation to implement OBE as a means of reform, that is
entirely their business.
I am also encouraged by the emphasis this legislation places on the
importance of job skills standards. This is also an issue stressed in
our CSIS report, though in a slightly broader scope than allowed by the
parameters of this bill.
Our report points out that the United States has only minimal
standards to measure skill competencies. For example, most occupational
training certifies only program completion or graduation, which are not
necessarily recognized by employers or transferable from job to job and
State to State.
The Skills Standards Board authorized under this legislation is
charged with endorsing voluntary skill standards systems developed with
voluntary partnerships. These skill standards, among other criteria,
must allow for regular updating as information becomes available, must
be developed after taking into account relevant standards in other
countries, and, perhaps most important, they must be portable
credentials to facilitate mobility within that skill or among
industries.
In the CSIS report, we have stressed the importance of businesses,
trade association, educators, and labor working together to develop a
system of technical and professional standards for occupational
training.
We believe that the technical and professional certificates
recognized by employers and postsecondary institutions should be
available for the entire range of services and industries and should
include rigorous qualifications and standards. If enacted, I urge the
National Skills Standards Board to consider the recommendations made in
our report.
Finally, I want to thank the members of the committee for their
willingness to accommodate me on several amendments I proposed to the
bill we currently have before us. For the benefit of my colleagues, I
want to review very briefly how my amendments change this bill for the
better.
My first amendment lays some ground rules for how the National Goals
Panel would conduct its business. Frankly, if we are going to invest as
much authority in the Goals Panel to make important decisions as this
bill provides, then I think we need to define exactly how the members
of the panel make those decisions.
My amendment is very simple: It states that in making final
decisions, the Goals Panel shall operate on the principle of consensus.
In the event that a vote is required to reach a final decision, a
three-quarters vote by members present and voting is required. I think
these are reasonable parameters to set for the panel, especially with
the importance of its role.
My second amendment refers to the national report card that this
legislation asks the Goals Panel to submit annually to the President.
In the bill before us, we allow the Secretary to waive statutory
requirements in six specific areas--such as chapter 1 and Eisenhower
Math and Science, for example--if States believe that regulations
within these statutes are impeding their ability to implement education
reform.
This is an idea I support, as I hear often from educators who tell me
they feel they are being strangled by regulatory redtape and are thus
not able to perform their jobs to the fullest of their abilities.
Frankly, I think we should allow States to waive other regulations that
may be hindering their efforts, not just the six provided in the bill.
However, rather than adding to the bill other statutes and
regulations that may be waived, I am simply asking that the Goals
Panel, as part of the report card, revisit this issue each year, and
identify actions that it believes should be taken to overcome statutory
or regulatory impediments to education reform. I have worked with
Senator Jeffords on a slight modification of this amendment, and I am
pleased the bill now reflects the intent of this language by assigning
this duty to the Secretary in his report to Congress.
Finally, my third amendment amends the provision relating to the
opportunity-to-learn development grant first by adding language
allowing NESIC to consider unsolicited proposals when determining whom
will receive OTL development grants. This amendment also clarifies that
more than one grant is to be awarded under this provision. I have been
informed that the committee has always intended for more than one award
to be issued, and this amendment makes this intention clear.
Mr. President, I believe we can--and should--make a determined effort
to ensure we pass a good bill and a bill which, unlike our efforts in
1992, will return from conference in a recognizable form. I know all of
us in this body are committed to doing so.
I want to thank the members of the Education Subcommittee for their
efforts on this bill and their willingness to accommodate on my
amendments. I am encouraged by the debate we have had so far, and I
look forward to enacting meaningful and responsible reform during this
Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendments to be
proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays on final passage
been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator that they
have been ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect very shortly we will be having
the final vote on the Goals 2000. I thought I would just report to the
Senate what the administration intends to do in the outyears.
This current year, subject to authorization, Goals 2000 will receive
$100 million. After the conference, which I think can be worked out
very quickly, we will be able to implement the program. Under the
President's budget, which we have now, the President has indicated that
Goals 2000 funding would be increased to $700 million in 1995 and $1
billion in 1996, 1997, and 1998. That would be $3.8 billion over 5
years in terms of support for education reform. I do not mean support
from the top. Those grants will go primarily to schools and school
districts across this country.
I believe that is a very, very significant commitment toward
achieving the goals in the legislation and toward real school reform.
When you take the increase in the Head Start Program, which is going
to be some $700 million; the increase in the Chapter 1 Program, which
is an additional $700 million; the $300 million increase for Chapter 2,
which would basically go to training programs for teachers, focusing on
teacher education and upgrading teachers' skills--all this is a major,
major commitment by the administration to education programs.
So, this is a very important day in the life of the education of this
country. I just want, once again, to extend our great appreciation for
the strong bipartisan support we had in our committee and here on the
floor, and to thank, in particular, Senator Jeffords, Senator
Kassebaum, and our associate, Senator Pell, who is the chairman of the
Education Committee who has been a tireless advocate for these kinds of
reforms and a number of others over many years.
It is important for our local schools to understand, for parents to
understand, for students to understand, for school boards and
principals and supervisors to understand, and for those who have
responsibility in the States for leading education, as well as the
Governors, to understand that this is really a dramatic commitment by
the President and the administration and the Congress to put education
issues on the front burner of the American agenda.
I think this is extremely important. I agree with those--and I note
the Senator from Vermont is on the floor--who believe we have to do
even more in terms of investing in our young people than even this
commitment. But I do think we are making an extremely important
downpayment on what I hope will be an increased commitment of resources
to quality education for the young people of this country.
We now look forward to working to make sure that this legislation
achieves the objectives which we have advanced in the committee and on
the floor during these past days of debate.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Massachusetts for the incredible work on this bill. As he has stated,
we have established a needed framework or at least the groundwork to
create the framework for education reform in this country. What we have
done today could turn out to be one of the most important days in the
history of this country if we fulfill our commitment to follow up with
the plans that are laid and follow through with the resources that are
necessary to accomplish the goals which we have established.
So I look forward to working with my good friend in my neighboring
State of Massachusetts to make sure we do continue on this path towards
alleviating an incredible crisis in this Nation in the field of
education which is related directly to our ability to compete in the
world of the future and to increase the standard of living and to help
all of our people have a better life.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leaders' time was reserved; the Senator is
correct.
____________________