[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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will continue with the 
consideration of H.R. 1804.
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This statement expresses my views and those of Senator 
Kassebaum on the National Skills Standards Board.
  The managers' amendments to the Goals 2000 legislation included 
modifications to provisions in title V, the National Skills Standards 
Act. The following is an explanation by the managers of those 
provisions:


           employee representatives in voluntary partnership

  The employee representatives who are to be included in the voluntary 
partnerships are individuals recommended by national labor 
organizations representing employees in the occupation or industry for 
which a standard is being developed, and other nonmanagerial employees 
with significant tenure or experience, where appropriate, given the 
nature and structure of employment in that occupation or industry. 
Under this provision, this latter category of nonmanagerial employees 
may constitute the only employee representatives in the partnership if 
there are no employees represented by a national labor organization in 
the industry or occupation for which standards are being developed.


                      human resource professionals

  The managers intend that the individuals appointed to the National 
Skills Standards Board under the category of certified human resource 
professionals be neutral, qualified experts in their field. The 
managers understand that there are organizations that certify human 
resource professionals as having met specific requirements attesting to 
their expertise and experience in the human resource field.


        use of the national skills standards board's endorsement

  The legislation prohibits the endorsement or lack of an endorsement 
of a skill standards system by the National Skills Standards Board to 
be used in any action or proceeding to establish that such system 
conforms or does not conform to the requirement of civil rights laws. 
It is the managers' intent that this title neither diminishes nor 
expands any of the protections provided under Federal civil rights 
laws, including the 1991 Civil Rights Act. Since the managers expect 
the skill standards developed under this title to relate to broad 
clusters of occupations and not to be designed for a particular job, 
the managers believe it would be inappropriate for the courts to give 
weight to the fact that the Board endorsed or did not endorse a 
standard in determining whether such standard is properly used in a 
particular case. Therefore, the use of the endorsement or lack of an 
endorsement, in and of itself, is prohibited. However, the managers 
intend that this prohibition would not prevent any studies or other 
information developed by the partnerships or the Board relating to a 
skill standard from being used in such legal proceedings where such 
studies or information is relevant to a particular position in 
question, in accordance with the requirements of current civil rights 
bill.


                        apprenticeship amendment

  The managers intend that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify 
that in endorsing skill standards the National Board should not only 
ensure that skill standards meet or exceed the highest applicable 
standards used in other countries or the highest applicable 
international standards, but also the highest applicable standards used 
in the United States, including the apprenticeship standards registered 
under the National Apprenticeship Act. This clarification ensures that 
the standards endorsed by the Board are, in fact, the highest standards 
in the world. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that board-
endorsed standards contribute to the development of a high skills, high 
performance work force in the United States that is second to none, and 
are not used to undercut or dilute any existing standards.
  Under this amendment, where there are existing standards specific to 
the particular occupation and industry for which proposed standards are 
being endorsed, it is intended that the proposed standard meet or 
exceed those existing standards. However, it is important to note, that 
it is intended that the Board will primarily develop standards for 
broad clusters of occupations. These standards will be sufficiently 
general in nature to allow industries and employers to adapt and refine 
the standards to meet their particular needs. Therefore, for many of 
these occupational clusters, there may not be any existing standards 
that are applicable. In other cases, there may only be sections of 
existing standards that would be applicable.


                       administrative cost limit

  The managers' amendments include a provision to facilitate the start 
up of the National Board by delaying the application of the 20-percent 
administrative cost limitation until fiscal year 1995. The managers 
recognize that prior to awarding grants to voluntary partnerships to 
develop skill standards, the National Board will have to carry out a 
number of preliminary activities, such as the hiring of staff, 
arranging for facilities, developing criteria for awarding the grants 
and endorsing standards, and encouraging the formation of partnerships, 
that will necessitate a significant proportion of administrative 
expenditures, for example, conducting meetings and conferences to 
promote and ensure public participation in many of these activities. 
These up-front costs require that flexibility be provided to the 
National Board with respect to cost categories during fiscal year 1994. 
However, this provision is not intended to encourage the National Board 
to expand all first year funds on administration and the managers urge 
the National Board to move as expeditiously as it can in a responsible 
manner to be in a position to award grants to the partnerships and 
carry out its additional supportive activities.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join so many of my 
colleagues today in supporting S. 1150, the Goals 2000 Educate America 
Act. This bill has been developed in a bipartisan manner by 
distinguished Senators on both sides of the aisle who care very deeply 
about the quality of education in our Nation.
  And the result of that hard work and cooperation is an eminently 
reasonable bill that makes the Federal Government a better partner with 
States and localities in improving public education in this country, 
while allowing the most important decisions on the direction of 
educational reform to remain where they should be--right with our 
States and our communities.
  Mr. President, during the time that I was privileged to serve the 
people of Virginia as Governor, I made education a top priority. By 
making many tough choices, we were able to put a billion dollars in new 
money into public education. We raised teacher salaries and toughened 
standards, created the first year-round Governor's Schools for the 
Gifted and the Commonwealth's first electronic classroom.
  Our students responded, Mr. President, with test results which 
surpassed the national average in every category for the first time 
ever.
  I recall, as Governor, testifying before congressional committees, 
and asking, not for more Federal dollars, but for freedom from more 
Federal mandates.
  This bill is not another Federal mandate, Mr. President. Rather, it 
is a voluntary program which provides flexible incentives to interested 
States to work to improve their public schools.
  Some of my constituents expressed concern to me that, to qualify for 
the Goals 2000 funding, States must undertake fundamental 
restructuring. While I believe we need to improve the status quo in 
many ways. I did not believe that the term fundamental restructuring, 
which was included in section 306(a) of the committee-passed version of 
S. 1150, accurately reflected the reasonable State and local 
flexibility inherent in the plan's approval criteria.
  For that reason, I asked the chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator 
Kennedy, if he would simply eliminate the words fundamental 
restructuring in portraying the State improvement plan in that section 
of the bill. Senator Kennedy kindly deleted these words in the 
managers' amendment offered during floor consideration of S. 1150, and 
I appreciate his willingness to work with us in addressing a concern 
expressed to me by some Virginians very interested in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am supporting S. 1150 because it gives our States an 
additional tool in crafting their own State and local reform efforts. 
With this new funding States can, if they choose, work to establish 
tough academic standards, create a system of assessments to put real 
accountability into our schools, and expand efforts to better train 
teachers and give them the tools they need to teach our kids.
  I support all of these important goals.
  As a Nation, Mr. President, we can make no better investment in our 
future than to make an honest investment in our children's education. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1150.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate approved the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act. Regrettably, I was not here earlier in the day to 
vote on many of the remaining amendments to Goal 2000. As some of you 
may know, I was at home in Rhode Island attending the funeral of a 
young police officer, Steven Shaw, who was slain in the line of duty.
  Goals 2000 is a very important step toward achieving the improvements 
in education that our Nation's children deserve and that we have been 
discussing for a decade. Since the issuance nearly 10 years ago of the 
special report, ``A Nation at Risk,'' our focus has been on what is 
wrong with education. This bill encourages States, local education 
agencies, and individual schools to look at what is right in education 
and to use that as a model for improvement and reform.
  To help in encouraging this practice, the National Education 
Standards and Improvement Council will develop national opportunity-to-
learn standards, content standards, and student performance standards 
and assessments. This does not mean that the Federal Government will 
dictate to schools in Providence and Cranston, or anywhere else in 
Rhode Island or the Nation, what goes on in the classroom. Rather, the 
Council will develop guidelines that States receiving grants through 
this legislation should consider in the development of education reform 
plans. In other words, the Council is charged with developing standards 
to stimulate improvement at the local school level. After all, it is 
the principals, administrators, teachers, and parents who know best 
about the strengths and weaknesses of their own schools.
  This bill takes a bold and positive approach by recognizing that 
every child has the ability to learn and by taking steps to assure that 
the tools are available to enable all children to reach their full 
potential. Setting high standards for teaching and learning and making 
sure that students have mastered the material presented to them is long 
overdue.
  An effort was made to divert funds authorized in this legislation for 
a private school choice demonstration program. Supporters of private 
school choice often suggest that this will encourage competition 
between public and private schools. Presumably competition should occur 
on a level playing field, but the playing field between public and 
private schools is far from level. Private schools can refuse to accept 
a child with disabilities. They can refuse to accept a child who may 
pose disciplinary problems. They do not have to take a child whose 
principal language is one other than English. In the public schools in 
Providence, there are children from families who speak one of 82 
different languages at home! Private schools are able to pick and 
choose the children they will accept.

  We don't need to fund a demonstration program to know what the 
results of such a program would be. The results would show that the 
public school children who were sent to the private schools did better 
than the average public school child. Why would it show that? Because 
the children selected from the public schools would be the high 
achievers, the children without disciplinary problems, the children 
without learning disabilities. They would be the children from homes 
whose principal language is English. They also would be the children 
from motivating families with parents who play an active role in their 
children's education. The students who pose the greatest challenges to 
our public school system would not be affected because the private 
schools would reject them. The final result would be that the private 
schools would skim the high achievers from the public schools, and the 
public schools would be left with all the challenges.
  I am very pleased that the committee included in the bill that was 
brought to the floor a measure I strongly supported: a seventh goal for 
increased parental participation. This is a provision that was endorsed 
by both the national and the Rhode Island PTA. It is clear to me that 
without parental involvement in education, there will be no real 
reforms and improvements. This goal calls upon parents to become 
partners with their children's schools. I believe that parents must 
play an integral role in the education of their children. Experience 
has taught us that children whose parents are actively involved in the 
educational process simply do better in school than children whose 
parents or families are disengaged.
  This bill includes other important amendments related to parental 
involvement that I cosponsored: the Parents as Teachers Program [PAT] 
and the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters [HIPPY]. Both 
of these programs operate successfully in Rhode Island and across the 
Nation. Their purpose is to ensure that all children start school on 
the right foot.
  For many of us, having our children's eyes and ears tested is as 
natural as reading a bedtime story to them. Unfortunately, many new 
parents are unaware of, or unable to provide, proper health screening 
for their very young children--just as they are not familiar with the 
benefit, and pleasure, of reading to their very young children. The PAT 
program enables eligible parents of newborns to 3-year-olds to receive 
instruction and assistance in their own homes on the most beneficial 
ways of encouraging children to reach their full potential. HIPPY 
offers similar instructional assistance to children ages 3 to 5. The 
first goals of Goals 2000 is, ``All children will begin school ready to 
learn.'' These two important programs, with a proven track record of 
success, will help us to achieve that goal. Many experts agree that the 
foundation for learning that is laid in early childhood can be the most 
critical element in an individual's future success.

  I want to take a moment to focus on a particularly important 
challenge that--unfortunately--our schools face today. The role of our 
schools has changed drastically in the past three decades, and schools 
have taken on extraordinary new burdens. Today we are seeing youngsters 
with learning disabilities; youngsters who don't get enough to eat; 
youngsters born with a drug or fetal alcohol problem; youngsters from 
totally shattered families. As a society we expect that our schools 
will take in these children and help make them whole. That is quite a 
task, and it means that educating these children is that much more 
difficult. Yet in the face of these increasing challenges, we now have 
an element that makes our work even more difficult: and that element is 
guns.
  There are 72 million handguns in this country, and their number is 
increasing at the staggering rate of 2 million per year. The sheer 
number of these guns is impacting heavily on our schools, for if these 
guns are in general circulation, there is no doubt that they will end 
up in our schools as well.
  Children of all ages, in every State across the Nation, have access 
to guns. Just last November, a joint study by Newsweek magazine/
Children's Defense Fund found that 31 percent of the youngsters 
surveyed knew where to go to get a handgun if they wanted one. It 
should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention estimates that 4 percent of high school students 
carry a handgun at least once a month; with 16.7 million high school 
students, that percentage translates into a whopping 666,000 teens who 
are toting guns.
  If handguns are being carried regularly by children, you can be sure 
that they are being carried into our Nation's schools. An estimated 
270,000 boys have brought a gun to school at least once, and 135,000 
boys are believed to bring a gun to school every day! The presence of 
these guns creates a terrible ripple effect: a child sees another 
student carrying a handgun, and decides to carry his or her own gun 
just to be safe. Then that child is seen by another child, and so on, 
and so on.

  When I was Governor in my State, the worst one might hear of at the 
schools was a fistfight. A gun incident, or shooting, was unheard of. 
My State is not a major urban area. Yet this year we have seen a dozen 
gun incidents in our schools. Just recently, a 16-year-old Mt. Pleasant 
High School student told police that another student had threatened him 
in a school corridor with a small pistol.
  Guns in our schools is not a problem confined solely to New York City 
or Detroit. It occurs across the country. Just 2 weeks ago, in 
Columbia, SC, a boy was shot four times at his high school. Last 
November, in Bellevue, IL, a seventh-grade boy brought a gun to school. 
In May, in Princeton, WV, a teenage boy walked into his biology class, 
and, using a gun smuggled into school in his gym bag, took the class 
hostage. At a high school in Irving, TX, a 17-year-old boy walked up to 
another student and shot him in the neck; the reason was a fight over a 
girlfriend. In St. Louis, a teenage girl, upset after her boyfriend 
broke up with her, shot him in the head and killed him at school last 
March. One year ago, in Grayson, a 17-year-old brought a small handgun 
to school and killed a teacher and a janitor. This is a handful--a mere 
handful--of shootings that occur daily in this country; few States are 
exempt.
  What is the only route for school administrators to take? To ensure 
the safety of all who are in the school, administrators are forced to 
divert scarce funds from books to $4,000 metal detectors. Some schools 
are beginning to resemble armed camps. But more and more school 
districts are using such equipment: In July of 1992, 25 percent of the 
45 largest school districts were using metal detectors; today, 69 
percent are using them.
  The presence of guns in schools diminishes the work of educators 
across the country. For how can any child learn in an environment of 
fear? We stand no chance of improving our educational system unless we 
first ensure that our heavily-burdened schools are free of guns and the 
violence that results.
  I am pleased, therefore, that Goal Six of the legislation before us 
reads as follows:

       By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be 
     free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined 
     environment conducive to learning.

  I successfully offered an amendment to this bill that amends Goal Six 
to include the word ``firearms.'' Goal Six now will read ``every school 
in the United States will be free of drugs, firearms, and violence.'' 
This amendment is just a one-word change. But I believe that it 
behooves us to be as firm as possible: The presence of guns--highly 
effective, dangerous, and lethal weapons--in our schools is simply 
intolerable. We must allow our children to learn in peace. I hope my 
amendment states the intention of our Government to do so, as clearly 
as possible.
  Another key amendment dealing with guns in our schools was adopted 
during floor debate, and as a cosponsor of that amendment, I believe it 
will make a difference in combating school violence. The Safe Schools 
amendment authorizes Federal grants to school districts to fight 
violence in their schools. The money may be used for planning 
strategies to prevent violence, conducting safety reviews, developing 
violence prevention activities, providing counseling for victims of 
violence, and even purchasing metal detectors and other security 
equipment. This is an important step toward ensuring our schools are 
safe.
  In sum, Mr. President, the Goals 2000 legislation is right in line 
with reform efforts that are underway in Rhode Island and many other 
States. Passage of this legislation brings us one step closer to 
forging a new and constructive partnership between every school, school 
district, State, and the Federal Government. It is through this 
partnership that our children will receive the world class education 
they deserve.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 10 years ago, we were told that America was 
a Nation at risk. We were told that if a foreign power had imposed such 
an educational system on the United States, we might very well consider 
it an act of war.
  That report was our wake-up call. Or was it? What has happened since 
then? There have been more reports and more studies and more stories on 
how desperate our public education system is. Yet, there has been very 
little action at the Federal level. Granted, some the doomsaying 
rhetoric has been overblown. But, every one who has a child in school--
and every child in school--knows that we can do better. We can demand 
more of our parents, our teachers, and especially our students.
  We can work to see that all students start school ready to learn; 
that the high school graduation rate is increased to at least 90 
percent; that all students meet the highest standards in English, math, 
science, civics, history, art, and geography; that American students 
rank No. 1 in the world in math and science achievement; that we 
eradicate illiteracy; that all schools are free of violence and drugs; 
and that all parents are involved in the education of their children.
  These, Mr. President, are the national education goals established at 
the education summit in 1989 by President Bush and the Nation's 
Governors, led by then-Governor Clinton. Today, those goals are before 
us in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. I am pleased to support this 
legislation. Perhaps we in Congress are finally ready to foster reform 
of our Nation's public school systems.
  Goals 2000 establishes national goals and standards to which every 
American school and every American student can strive. For if we are to 
improve our educational system, national costs must be established and 
the highest standards set. Our young people must be equipped with the 
skills and knowledge needed to get good jobs and to help American 
industry compete effectively in the global marketplace. National goals 
and standards--not imposed on the States, but established as 
measurements by which all States can gauge their achievement--are 
essential to the reform effort.
  What is also essential--and what is also provided for under this 
bill--is Federal support for local reform plans. My State of Delaware 
recently launched a statewide comprehensive educational reform effort. 
Under the outstanding leadership of State Superintendent Pat Forgione 
and State Board President Paul Fine, ``New Directories for Education in 
Delaware'' is ready to be implemented. The State has committed funding, 
and each of the 19 school districts have committed their own resources 
toward ensuring that the public schools in Delaware meet the highest 
standards. Indeed, the Delaware plan was developed with the national 
education goals in mind.

  But, the money the State and the districts have pledged is simply not 
enough. The task is just too daunting. The State and the local schools 
need the Federal Government's help. The local schools of Delaware need 
Federal financial assistance with few strings attached to allow them to 
innovate--to adopt school reforms tailored to the needs of the local 
communities. Experience has proven that decisions on education policies 
are most responsive and efficient when made by local communities.
  And, that's what the Goals 2000 bill does. Reform--fundamental 
reform--will occur where it should--at the local level. Indeed, 85 
percent of the State grants provided under this bill must be passed on 
to local schools with few strings attached. Each school--whether urban 
or rural, big or small--will in turn be able to adopt those reforms 
that will best meet the needs of the students at that school.
  Furthermore, with the regulatory flexibility provisions of the 
legislation--as well as with Senator Hatfield's flexibility amendment 
that I supported--States and local schools will have an even greater 
opportunity to provide a top-quality education as best as they see fit. 
All the Federal Government is demanding is that States, schools, and 
students make real and measurable progress toward high educational 
achievement.
  It sounds so simple, so basic, and such a common sense approach to 
the Federal Government's role in education reform. Yet, the 
misinformation about this bill abounds. So, let me take just a moment 
to debunk the myths--and reiterate the facts.
  Goals 2000 does not establish a national curriculum. Rather, it 
establishes national goals outlining where we as a Nation should go and 
voluntary standards to measure how successful we are in getting there. 
Goals 2000 is not a one-size-fits-all education reform plan mandated 
from Washington. Rather, it allows each school to make the reform 
decisions. And, Goals 2000 does not promote, endorse, encourage, or 
establish a system of so-called Outcomes Based Education. Rather, this 
bill seeks to raise the standards of all schools and all students--not 
dumb them down.
  Mr. President, 10 years ago, the Nation was told our public school 
system was in need of repair. Two years ago, we debated education 
reform legislation very similar to that before us today--only to have 
the conference report killed because of a Republican filibuster in the 
waning days of the 1992 session. Because of these delays, we have lost 
precious time. Meanwhile, too many of America's children have continued 
to move through a public school system that desperately needs 
improvement. Let's not lose any more time--or any more of our children.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. President, this legislation codifies the existing six education 
goals that President Bush and the Nation's Governors agreed to in 1990. 
It also adds a seventh goal calling for increased parental involvement 
in education. I strongly support the addition of this goal. Children 
must receive encouragement at home as well as at school.
  Mr. President, this legislation also establishes a National Education 
Goals Panel that will give us a bipartisan reporting on what type of 
progress we are making towards achieving the seven national education 
goals. It will also review voluntary national content standards, 
voluntary student performance standards and voluntary opportunity to 
learn standards. These voluntary standards will challenge our schools, 
teachers, students and parents to strive for tangible goals that will 
ultimately improve our elementary and secondary educational system.
  This bill also includes a grant program for State and local school 
districts to develop innovative, ``break and mold'' schools. These 
grants may go to States and school districts for innovative programs 
like public school choice, public charter schools, magnet schools, 
curriculum improvement and teacher training. These grants will help 
stimulate more innovation in our Nation's schools.
  Mr. President, we need to begin a national crusade to improve our 
schools. While the Federal Government only funds about seven percent of 
all education expenditures, it can help serve as a catalyst to spur 
educational reform in our Nation's schools. Improving the performance 
of our schools and students is critical to our Nation's ability to 
compete with other countries like Germany and Japan. This bill 
represents a good start in this direction.
  Mr. President, this bill is supported by a broad range of 
organizations including the National Education Association, the PTA, 
the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the College 
Board.
  Mr. President, this bill also includes an amendment I offered 
entitled Pro-Kids. Pro-Kids will make all schools smokefree along with 
all other Federally funded children's programs. I am hopeful that the 
conferees will retain this amendment and prevent our Nation's children 
from breathing secondhand smoke--a substance that EPA has determined is 
a group A carcinogen responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year 
and thousands of childhood illnesses.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.


                       school violence provisions

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on what I 
know is a growing level of concern in this body--and in the Nation as a 
whole--about violence in schools. In particular, I was pleased to 
support the amendment offered by Senator Dodd incorporating into this 
legislation, S. 1125, the Safe Schools Act of 1993.
  I do so with the understanding that this is an interim measure 
designed to authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to 
school districts for violence prevention programs during the next 2 
years. In particular, it will allow the Secretary to use up to $20 
million, which has already been appropriated for the current fiscal 
year, for these purposes.
  This interim measure will also give Congress the time it needs to 
consider the administration's proposal to add violence reduction to the 
mission of the Drug Free Schools Program which is being reauthorized as 
part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That 
reauthorization will take place later this year.
  Mr. President, I supported Senator Dodd's amendment because I believe 
all levels of government must respond to the growing incidence of 
weapons possession and violence in our Nation's schools.
  A recent national survey found that nearly 20 percent of 8th, 10th, 
and 12th graders had been threatened with a weapon at school and nearly 
10 percent had been injured. One out of every five high school students 
regularly carries some type of weapon. And many of these weapons are 
carried to school.
  Mr. President, it is clear from this and other studies that disputes 
among young people that traditionally had been settled with words are 
now being settled with fists. And disputes that traditionally were 
settled with fists have now become knife or gun fights that too often 
end in life-threatening injuries or even death.
  Overall, nearly 3 million thefts and violent crimes occur on or near 
school campuses every year, totaling almost 16,000 incidents every 
school day. And 12 percent of violent crimes in schools involve 
weapons; with nearly 500,000 teens being victimized annually by a 
violent crime occurring at or near school.
  Minnesota--despite its peaceful tradition and strong record in 
education--is no exception to this national trend.
  Statistics on weapons-related incidents are too infrequently kept by 
schools and districts who fear negative publicity and even increased 
fear among parents and students. But to its credit the St. Paul School 
District did recently complete a survey to help document the level of 
gun and other weapons offenses in its schools.
  That survey found that, in the 1992-93 school year, the St. Paul 
schools had 58 dangerous weapons violations, including 36 that involved 
knives, 8 with pellet or BB guns, 9 with hand guns, and 5 others. 
Students ages 12 to 17 were involved in these incidents, which resulted 
in police notification, suspension, and/or expulsions.
  There is no question that the growing level of crime and violence in 
schools is a detriment to both teaching and learning. Both students and 
teachers report an increased preoccupation with personal safety 
concerns that get in the way of their studies and work.
  That is one reason that President Bush and the Nation's Governors 
included drug and violence prevention as one of the national education 
goals, goals that are being placed in law in the legislation we are now 
about to approve.
  We simply cannot expect students to learn--or teachers to teach--if 
they come to school every day in fear of their personal safety.
  Having made that point, I want to caution all of us not to count on 
this amendment--and the limited Federal funding it will authorize--to 
solve all the problems related to guns and violence in our Nation's 
schools. Typically, we are using a single, poorly funded categorical 
program--aimed at schools--to address a complex, community-level 
problem.
  The use of guns and other violent behavior by young people most often 
reflects deeper problems, including problems at home. For example, a 
recent survey by Minnesota's Johnson Institute found that junior and 
senior high school students who experience alcohol and other drug use 
problems are:
  Twice as likely to instigate physical fights and have trouble 
concentrating;
  Three times as likely as to be truant from school; and
  Four times more likely to commit vandalism.
  These and other youth survey results help make the case for the 
administration's proposal to combine violence and drug/alcohol 
prevention programs as we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act later this year.

  Another survey of Minnesota young people found strong links between 
students behavior and their own home environments. The most recent 
Minnesota student survey, done by the Minnesota Department of 
Education, found strong correlation between abusive behavior at home 
and alcohol and other drug abuse. The survey is conducted of Minnesota 
adolescents in grades 6, 9, and 12.
  These and other surveys document the need to approach growing 
violence and other behavior issues involving young people on a 
community-wide basis, not just focusing on schools.
  Typically, however, when society spots new issues or problems 
involving its younger citizens, it adds responsibility for dealing with 
those problems to already overburdened teachers and others in schools.
  I believe it is time for the larger community to take more 
responsibility for these issues--beginning with parents, but also 
involving local governments, nonprofit agencies, employers, and others. 
Without that kind of combined effort, we will not have either the 
resources or the capabilities to deal with violence and other behavior 
problems facing young people in a truly effective manner.
  One good example of how that can be done is the use that Minnesota is 
making of the Governor's discretionary grant it receives under the Drug 
Free Schools Program.
  For the past several years, Minnesota has made both planning and 
implementation grants to several dozen colocation projects which 
combine access to a number of different community services in or near 
schools.
  I have visited with individuals involved in a number of these 
projects and have found them to include broad community support and 
involvement. And, although it is too early to see definitive results, 
there are indications that this kind of pooling and colocating of 
resources can both spread scarce resources further and improve access 
to needed services by both young people and their families.
  I am pleased, Mr. President, that the amendment offered by Senator 
Dodd requires collaboration among a variety of education, social 
services, and law enforcement agencies in each community. And, as we 
make this Federal contribution to solving a much larger community need 
permanent, I would hope we will learn from the experiences of States 
like Minnesota that are promoting broad community support and 
responsibility.
  One of the lessons learned from States like Minnesota is that the 
solution to problems of violence and disruption in schools must be 
designed by each school and each local community to fit its unique 
circumstances.
  In some cases, those problems may require tough solutions that 
involve law enforcement agencies and tools like metal detectors and 
other measures designed to remove weapons and individuals from schools 
who can only be regarded as violence-prone criminals.
  In other cases, preventive measures are more appropriate. And 
beginning such measures at a young age--in elementary, middle, and 
junior high schools--can be a very good place to start.
  One example of this type of approach to preventing violence is a Peer 
Mediation Program which is being used successfully in a number of 
schools in Minnesota, including Lyndale Elementary and Anthony Junior 
High Schools in Minneapolis. In all, some 45 schools in Minneapolis are 
currently developing peer mediation programs as part of the Minneapolis 
School District's efforts to make conflict resolution and peacemaking 
an integral part of teaching and learning.
  Because of the exciting potential that peer mediation programs hold, 
Mr. President, I would ask that a recent article in the Southwest 
(Minneapolis) Journal describing its effects at Lyndale and Anthony 
Schools be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to pay special tribute to our 
distinguished colleague from Connecticut for his leadership in 
addressing the growing concerns that Americans have about violence and 
disruption in our schools.
  The Goals 2000 proposal is a better bill because of his insistence 
that we include his safe schools amendment. And I look forward to 
working closely with him, with other Members of this body, and with my 
constituents in Minnesota as we enact this and other related 
legislation in the coming year.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Solve It Yourself: Students Show How To Make School a Safer Place

                           (By Mark Anderson)

       A distressing change that's taken place in both city and 
     suburban schools the last several years has been the apparent 
     increase in violence.
       School leaders, politicians, parents, and students are all 
     searching now for changes that can ensure again that school 
     will be a safe place for children and for learning.
       An important step toward providing that assurance, 
     according to the Minneapolis schools, is achieved in a 
     strategy they've been implementing in the district the last 
     several years.
       Their idea: Let the students handle it.
       Forty-five schools in the district are in the midst of 
     developing peer mediation programs, one part of a district-
     wide curriculum to make conflict resolution and peacemaking 
     an integral part of learning for students and teachers.
       Lyndale School, at 34th and Grand Avenue, celebrated the 
     second year of its peer mediation project last month, with an 
     assembly honoring its 56 mediators.
       Students heard Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, District Court 
     Judge Isabel Gomez, and Superintendent Peter Hutchinson all 
     praise their efforts that day, and they also received new 
     mediator uniforms: purple jackets emblazoned with the program 
     logo, HELP--Here Everyone Learns Peacemaking.
       At Lyndale, two mediator partners are assigned each period 
     to monitor the playground, lunchroom, and hallways. They're 
     trained to intervene when a scuffle or argument develops, 
     pull the belligerents to a designated mediation spot and sort 
     out the dispute.
       ``What we have them do is talk about what they're mad 
     about,'' according to mediator James Capehart, a fifth-
     grader. ``They may not even know what that is. Most of the 
     time is works.''
       James and his colleagues learned their mediation skills in 
     10 weekly classes where they talk about what causes conflicts 
     and strategies for defusing them. They get hands-on training 
     through role-playing, which students say turns out to be a 
     lot like the real thing.
       Still, performing that first actual medication with a 
     couple of angry students wasn't easy.
       ``I didn't know if I could remember all the steps, and the 
     first time I did it, it felt really weird,'' says Mahaulo 
     Andersen. ``But when I got started, it went OK.''
       Candace Murphy, another fifth-grade mediator, explained the 
     ground rules that the disputants must accept in order to do a 
     mediation. ``They have to agree to try to solve the problem, 
     not to interrupt or call each other names, and to tell the 
     truth.'' The mediators also agree that their meeting will be 
     confidential and they won't spread any tales later.
       Marlys Svobodony, coordinator of the Lyndale project, says 
     that the mediation and other peacemaking activities are 
     important not only because they teach valuable skills for 
     resolving conflicts, but also because they're improving the 
     school environment. The youngsters have often succeeded at 
     resolving disputes that adults couldn't, she said.
       ``It's so important to kids that they're listened to and 
     their side is understood. Other kids are better at that kind 
     of listening than adults often are. When they go through the 
     mediation process they take time to make sure everyone is 
     heard.''
       It's not uncommon for a busy adult to handle the dispute 
     ``by simply tell the kids to stay away from each other,'' a 
     tactic that may stop the fight but doesn't end the anger and 
     misunderstanding, according to Svobodony.
       Cheryl Pittman, an Anthony Junior High teacher who has 
     conducted peace-making activities--including peer mediation--
     for three years, says it's very important to help junior high 
     aged kids resolve conflicts. Her students, who are entering 
     adolescence and a demanding new social environment in junior 
     high, face bewildering problems that often lead to anger and 
     frustration.
       ``But junior high kids don't want to get into fights,'' she 
     said. ``They want to work things out and save face, but they 
     often don't have the skills to get it done.''
       Pittman admitted to a little skepticism when mediation was 
     introduced. ``I thought it might be a goody-goody thing, 
     attracting only the best-behaved, straight-A students.''
       But she was surprised by how many students want to get 
     involved.
       ``And it was really `peers' joining in, and that's 
     important. We have kids who are streetwise and who could gain 
     the respect of a wide range of students.''
       Results are hard to measure, but at both schools there's a 
     lot of anecdotal evidence that says mediation and the other 
     peacemaking efforts work. Pittman and Svobodony say they've 
     gotten calls from family members reporting that children are 
     now ``mediating'' at home with siblings and that students 
     feel better about going to school. And, at both Lyndale and 
     Anthony, mediations are frequent and detentions for student 
     fights have dropped.
       Although the fundamental reason for teaching peacemaking is 
     probably to teach valuable life skills, Lyndale Assistant 
     Principal Donna Amann cited another very practical reason for 
     educators to embrace the approach.
       ``About 50 percent of teacher time is spent dealing with 
     conflicts. If we can teach kids to solve their own conflicts, 
     we have a lot more time to get down to the business of good 
     teaching.''

                          ____________________