[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]


 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the considerations of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2430

   (Purpose: To provide for an educational opportunity demonstration 
                                program)

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2430.

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

       On page 650, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

        ``PART H--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1801. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) while low-income students have made significant gains 
     with respect to educational achievement and attainment, 
     considerable gaps still persist for these students in 
     comparison to those from more affluent socio-economic 
     backgrounds;
       ``(2) our Nation has a compelling interest in assuring that 
     all children receive a high quality education;
       ``(3) new methods and experiments to revitalize educational 
     achievement and opportunities of low-income individuals must 
     be a part of any comprehensive solution to the problems in 
     our Nation's educational system;
       ``(4) preliminary research shows that same gender classes 
     and schools may produce promising academic and behavioral 
     improvements in both sexes for low-income, educationally 
     disadvantaged students;
       ``(5) extensive data on same gender classes and schools are 
     needed to determine whether same gender classes and schools 
     are closely tailored to achieving the compelling government 
     interest in assuring that all children are educated to the 
     best of their ability;
       ``(6) in recent years efforts to experiment with same 
     gender classes and schools have been inhibited by lawsuits 
     and threats of lawsuits by private groups as well as 
     governmental entities; and
       ``(7) there is a compelling government interest in granting 
     the Secretary authority to insulate a limited number of local 
     educational agencies and schools which are experimenting with 
     same gender classes for a limited period of time from certain 
     law suits under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 
     section 204 of the Education Amendments of 1974, section 1979 
     of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983), or any other law 
     prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, in order to 
     collect data on the effectiveness of such classes in 
     educating children from low-income, educationally 
     disadvantaged backgrounds.
       ``(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this part--
       ``(1) to give the Secretary discretion to allow 
     experimentation with same gender classes for low-income, 
     educationally disadvantaged students;
       ``(2) to determine whether same gender classes make a 
     difference in the educational achievement and opportunities 
     of low-income, educationally disadvantaged individuals; and
       ``(3) to involve parents in the educational options and 
     choices of their children.

     ``SEC. 1802. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part--
       ``(1) the term `educational opportunity school' means a 
     public elementary, middle, or secondary school receiving 
     funds under this title, or a consortium of such schools all 
     of which receive funds under this title, that--
       ``(A) establishes a plan for voluntary, same gender classes 
     at one or more than one school in the community;
       ``(B) provides same gender classes for both boys and girls, 
     as well as a co-educational option for any parent that 
     chooses that option;
       ``(C) gives parents the option of choosing to send their 
     child to a same gender class or to a co-educational class;
       ``(D) admits students on the basis of a lottery, if more 
     students apply for admission to the same gender classes than 
     can be accommodated;
       ``(E) has a program in which a member of the community is 
     asked to volunteer such member's time in classes of children 
     of the same gender as the member; and
       ``(F) operates in pursuit of improving achievement among 
     all children based on a specific set of educational 
     objectives determined by the local educational agency 
     applying for a grant under this part, in conjunction with the 
     educational opportunity advisory board established under 
     section 1803(e) and agreed to by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) the term `educational opportunity advisory board' 
     means an advisory board established in accordance with 
     section 1803(e).

     ``SEC. 1803. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts made available under 
     section 1002(f)(3), the Secretary may award grants to ten 
     local educational agencies for the design and operation of 
     one or more educational opportunity schools.
       ``(b) Inapplicability.--Title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972, section 204 of the Education Amendments 
     of 1974, section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
     1983), and any other law prohibiting discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, shall not apply to a local educational agency 
     or an educational opportunity school during the period such 
     agency or school receives assistance under this part only to 
     the extent the Secretary determines necessary to ensure the 
     development and operation of same gender classes in 
     accordance with this part.
       ``(c) Grant Periods.--Each grant under subsection (a) may 
     be awarded for a period of not more than 5 years, of which a 
     local educational agency may use not more than 1 year for 
     planning and program development.
       ``(d) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award more than 
     one grant under this part to support a particular educational 
     opportunity school or consortium of such schools.
       ``(e) Educational Opportunity Advisory Board.--Each local 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this part shall 
     establish an educational opportunity advisory board. Such 
     advisory board shall be composed of school administrators, 
     parents, teachers, local government officials and volunteers 
     involved with an educational opportunity school. Such 
     advisory board shall assist the local educational agency in 
     developing the application for assistance under section 1804 
     and serve as an advisory board in the functioning of the 
     educational opportunity school.

     ``SEC. 1804. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Applications Required.--Each local educational agency 
     desiring a grant under this part shall submit, within 180 
     days of the date of enactment of the Improving America's 
     Schools Act of 1994, an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner and accompanied by such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Scope of Application.--Each application described in 
     subsection (a) may request assistance for a single 
     educational opportunity school or for a consortium of such 
     schools.
       ``(c) Application Contents.--Each application described in 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the educational program to be 
     implemented by the proposed educational opportunity school, 
     including--
       ``(A) the grade levels or ages of children to be served; 
     and
       ``(B) the curriculum and instructional practices to be 
     used;
       ``(2) a description of the objectives of the local 
     educational agency and a description of how such agency 
     intends to monitor and study the progress of children 
     participating in the educational opportunity school;
       ``(3) a description of how the local educational agency 
     intends to include in the educational opportunity school 
     administrators, teaching personnel, and role models from the 
     private sector;
       ``(4) a description of how school administrators, parents, 
     teachers, local government and volunteers will be involved in 
     the design and implementation of the educational opportunity 
     school;
       ``(5) a description of how the local educational agency or 
     the State, as appropriate, will provide for continued 
     operation of the educational opportunity school once the 
     Federal grant has expired, if such agency determines that 
     such school is successful;
       ``(6) a description of how the grant funds will be used;
       ``(7) a justification for the waiver or inapplicability of 
     any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements that the 
     local educational agency believes are necessary for the 
     successful operation of the educational opportunity school 
     and a description of any State or local statutory or 
     regulatory requirements, that will be waived for, or will not 
     apply to, the educational opportunity school, if necessary;
       ``(8) a description of how students in attendance at the 
     educational opportunity school, or in the community, will 
     be--
       ``(A) informed about such school; and
       ``(B) informed about the fact that admission to same gender 
     classes is completely voluntary;
       ``(9) a description of how grant funds will be used in 
     conjunction with funds provided under this title, and any 
     other Federal programs, administered by the Secretary;
       ``(10) an assurance that the local educational agency will 
     annually provide the Secretary such information as the 
     Secretary may require to determine if the educational 
     opportunity school is making satisfactory progress toward 
     achieving the objectives described in paragraph (2);
       ``(11) an assurance that the local educational agency will 
     cooperate with the Secretary in evaluating the program 
     authorized by this part;
       ``(12) assurances that resources shall be used equally for 
     same gender classes for boys and for girls;
       ``(13) assurances that the activities assisted under this 
     part will not have an adverse affect, on either sex, that is 
     caused by--
       ``(A) the distribution of teachers between same gender 
     classes for boys and for girls;
       ``(B) the quality of facilities for boys and for girls;
       ``(C) the nature of the curriculum for boys and for girls;
       ``(D) program activities for boys and for girls; and
       ``(E) instruction for boys and for girls; and
       ``(14) such other information and assurances that the 
     Secretary may require.

     ``SEC. 1805. SELECTION OF GRANTEES.

       ``The Secretary shall award grants under this part on the 
     basis of the quality of the applications submitted under 
     section 1804, taking into consideration such factors as--
       ``(1) the quality of the proposed curriculum and 
     instructional practices;
       ``(2) organizational structure and management of the 
     school;
       ``(3) the quality of the plan for assessing the progress 
     made by children in same gender classes over the period of 
     the grant;
       ``(4) the extent of community support for the application; 
     and
       ``(5) the likelihood that the educational opportunity 
     school will meet the objectives of such school and improve 
     educational results for students; and
       ``(6) the assurances submitted pursuant to section 
     1804(c)(13).
       On page 474, line 16, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$19,000,000''.
       On page 474, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(3) Part h.--(A) For the purpose of carrying out part H, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(B) Funds appropriated under subparagraph (A) shall 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, this amendment establishes the 
possibility that in a limited number of school districts, schools can 
be set up for the purpose of providing the alternative of single-sex 
education in those schools.
  I want to emphasize the word ``possibility,'' because the heart of 
this amendment is to require absolutely nothing, to mandate absolutely 
nothing, but merely to provide for an additional alternative for those 
school districts or those schools that want to avail themselves of that 
alternative.
  Public schools now are coeducational. That is certainly the norm in 
America. And this amendment offers the possibility, on a trial basis, 
to create at least some schools--just a few--for a limited period of 
time, where single-sex education could be tried on a voluntary basis.
  This amendment would give the Secretary of Education the discretion 
to waive title IX of the education statutes for 10 applicants. There is 
nothing that requires a school or a school district to make an 
application. If a school district is content with coeducation, does not 
even want to try the possibility of single-sex classes, the school 
district does not have to make an application. But if a school district 
wishes to try, then it can at least attempt to qualify for this 
educational opportunity demonstration program--a demonstration program.
  If the school district does qualify and the Secretary of Education 
does waive title IX, then it is up to the parents to decide what they 
want to do. There is nothing in this amendment which would require a 
parent to opt for single-sex classes for his or her child. So even if 
the school were in one of the up to 10 areas in the country that might 
qualify, at the discretion of the Secretary of Education, for the 
program, the parent would still have the option to say yes or no. The 
parent could say, yes, I want my daughter or my son to be in, let us 
say, a single-sex math class; or the parent could say, no, what is best 
for my child is coeducation.
  This option that would be available on a limited number of cases to 
parents would be equally available to parents of girls and parents of 
boys. The design is one of absolute equality of opportunity. And, as I 
say, it simply opens up the possibility for those schools that want it 
and for those parents that might want it.
  Mr. President, for kids who go to private schools, their parents all 
over this country have the option to send their children to coed or 
single-sex schools. For some children, coeducation is the best thing in 
the eyes of the parents, and for some parents of boys and some parents 
of girls, single-sex education is the best thing for those kids.
  My first four children were all daughters, and we decided that--and 
in fact they decided--that they preferred to go to single-sex schools. 
They were private schools. They thought that they were the best schools 
for them. And then our fifth child is a son, and it was the same thing 
for him. He went to a single-sex school. For some kids, coeducation is 
better. But for our kids--I think especially for our daughters--single-
sex education held them up as young women--girls, really--because they 
started when they were in fourth or fifth grade, something like that. 
Single-sex education, for my kids at least, happened to be the best 
thing for them. It ratified, approved, held up for approval those 
attributes of my children which deserved to be held up and deserved to 
be approved. So it was a very, very good experience for my children. 
But I recognize that it is not the best for everybody. For some people, 
coeducation is better.
  All I am saying in this amendment is to at least open the door so 
that for at least some parents of some children, and some public 
schools, there is another alternative to coeducation. For some parents 
and some schools, there is at least the option to say that, for my 
child, it is better that my boy go to a boys' class, or that my girl go 
to a girls' class. That is all it is about. Nothing is required.
  For each one of these children in this new optional program that 
would be created, the alternative to coeducation would also exist. So 
for each one of these parents, the parent could say: I do not want my 
girl going to a girls' math class or to a boys' history class. They 
could say: We want coeducation. That alternative under this amendment 
would have to be available for those children.
  Why is this necessary? Why is this amendment necessary? Why do I even 
bother to offer it? Well, it is necessary because there are, around the 
country, Mr. President, school districts that have reached the 
conclusion that for at least some of their kids, single-sex education 
is the best thing for those kids. In school districts in Milwaukee and 
Detroit and Miami and Baltimore and Philadelphia, there have been at 
least some schools in those districts that have come to the conclusion 
that, for at least on a trial basis, they should have the opportunity, 
they should make the attempt to find out if for some of those kids, 
single-sex education works. However, the bad news is that they have 
been under the cloud of lawsuits when they have made that decision. 
They have been threatened and, in some cases, they have been sued. In 
some communities, these trial programs have been terminated.
  In the inner cities in particular, there have been attempts at same 
gender schooling in the form of classes to address the poor academic 
performance of the kids in those schools. However, legal opposition, 
particularly legal opposition that has been precipitated by the 
American Civil Liberties Union and by the National Organization of 
Women, have chilled those decisions.
  So, Mr. President, let me provide a few examples of what has happened 
in the real world. Stanton Elementary School is in Philadelphia, PA. 
There is a teacher at Stanton Elementary School named John Coats. And 
John Coats initiated a model 5-year program for a group of 20 first-
grade boys who had exhibited learning problems in kindergarten. Under 
this trial program, nine of the boys made honor roll; however, the ACLU 
threatened to file a lawsuit, and as a result of that the program was 
canceled.

  In Miami, an elementary school principal implemented a male-only 
class in his school. After 2 years of operation, the regional office of 
the Department of Education killed it on the ground that it violated 
title IX.
  In August of 1991, a Federal court prohibited Detroit's operation of 
its three all-male academies after suits were filed by the ACLU and the 
National Organization for Women. The black community in Detroit 
strongly supported these all-male schools, and on a kind of informal 
basis about 90 percent of the students who were enrolled in these three 
academies continue to be boys.
  But, to say the least, there has been a chilling effect, and some of 
these programs have been stopped as a result of the threat of lawsuits 
or the actuality of lawsuits.
  Now, while some of the programs have been terminated, other programs 
have continued, albeit on a clandestine basis--furtively. There has 
been a fear of lawsuit. There has been a fear of action by the 
Department of Education. So they have continued to operate these 
programs, but they have done so on a furtive basis.
  While there is an interest in single-sex schooling among the African-
American community, it is evidenced by the fact that ``all-boys classes 
are being held quietly in as many as two dozen schools around the 
country, mostly in inner cities.'' These programs are going on in 
``near secrecy for fear of discovery by lawyers and government 
officials intent on shutting them down in the name of equality.''
  That is a quote, Mr. President. That is a quote. And the quote is 
from someone who a lot of people in the Senate have heard of, Prof. 
Susan Estrich of the University of Southern California. We remember 
Professor Estrich because she was a key adviser to Michael Dukakis. She 
says, ``all-boys classes are being held quietly in as many as two dozen 
schools around the country, mostly in inner cities.''
  She says that ``near secrecy for fear of discovery by lawyers and 
government officials intent on shutting them down in the name of 
equality'' has been the result of this situation.
  So, Mr. President, if people who want good schools, if school 
districts and schools that want to do a good job especially for 
minority kids are trying to do it, it is the judgment of this Senator 
that we should enable them to do that. We should allow them to at least 
make application to the Secretary of Education. The Secretary of 
Education does not have to say yes to them. The Secretary of Education 
could say: ``I do not believe in this program. I do not believe that 
the option of single-sex education should be made available to 
anybody.'' The Secretary of Education could say: ``Well, this just does 
not pass muster. I do not like it.'' And the Secretary of Education 
would be free to say no.
  But I believe that at least we should offer the Secretary of 
Education that option, to say yes to schools that themselves have said 
yes for parents who want this alternative for their children.
  Mr. President, clearly we are at a state in our country where 
different approaches to education are becoming essential, especially 
becoming essential for those who live in our inner cities and who go to 
schools that have been so ineffective in providing decent education for 
those kids.
  Let me just give a few examples of what I am talking about. Here is 
the current state of our public schools in this country. In a 1992 
study, only 6 percent of 12th grade students could do word problems 
involving algebra and fractions that prepare them for college math. Let 
me restate that. In a 1992 study, only 6 percent of 12th grade--that is 
seniors in high school--students could do word problems involving 
algebra and fractions that prepare them for college math.
  Less than half of 17-year olds in school possess the skills and 
knowledge required for most entry level jobs or college.
  Forty-seven percent of the U.S. population performed at the lowest 
two levels of literacy in 1992.
  Thirty million Americans are functionally illiterate, as are 11 
percent of high school graduates in America. Eleven percent of high 
school graduates in America today are functionally illiterate.
  Fifteen percent of recent graduates of high schools read at less than 
a sixth-grade level. One million Americans between the ages of 12 and 
17 cannot read above a third-grade level. One half of all the heads of 
households below the poverty line cannot read an eighth-grade book.
  In 1993, 11.8 percent of Hispanics 25 years of age and over had less 
than a fifth-grade education. Forty-two percent of African Americans 
over the age of 17 cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level. In urban 
areas where 85 percent of the African-American community resides, the 
dropout rate is nearly 50 percent. In 1986, 57 percent of blacks 
between the ages of 10 and 15 were 2 or more years behind their grade 
level.
  America ranks 49th in the world in literacy. Nine-year-old students 
from the United States scored lower on average in mathematics 
performance than 9-year-olds from all other developed countries in the 
world.
  In a 1989 study, Americans between 18 and 24 finished last among nine 
countries, including Mexico, in a knowledge of geography.
  On and on and on and on.
  Mr. President, my point is that is the status quo. That is the status 
quo.
  And the status quo is not enough. If there are schools that want to 
try something else and there are parents who want to try something else 
for their children, the Congress of the United States should not stand 
in the way.
  Milwaukee is one of the cities that has made the attempt to 
experiment on at least some basis with having single-sex classes. In 
Milwaukee, 50 percent of black males did not graduate from college and 
2 percent of black males had grade point averages above 3.0.
  And then there is the problem of girls. Research has found that 
teachers call on boys more frequently than they call on girls. Research 
has shown that teachers spend more time with boys than they spend with 
girls; that they encourage the initiative of boys and the 
inquisitiveness of boys more than they do of girls.
  Evidence has shown that by grade six, girls have become more 
tentative, far less likely to respond to questions, and reluctant to 
take part in class demonstrations than boys. Girls' self-esteem begins 
to slide in the middle-school years. There are tests that demonstrate 
all of this. There are reports that demonstrate all of this.
  The reason that we made the decision in our family, including our 
daughters themselves, that they should go to a single-sex school was 
for the very reason that, for them at least, a single-sex school built 
that self-esteem and that confidence that we felt was so important to 
them. And they have done very, very well, I might say, Mr. President, 
as a result. All four of them went to coeducational colleges, which, 
Mr. President, when you and I were in college were all male colleges at 
that time. Two of them went to Princeton, one went to Dartmouth, and 
one went to the University of Virginia from their all-girl schools. And 
they went there with a great sense of self-esteem and a great sense 
that they could do anything and, in fact, since then they have been 
able to do anything.
  Well, what is the result of single-sex education where it has been 
tried? It has been tried at the Ronald Coleman Elementary School in 
Baltimore. There have been threats, I might say, by the ACLU to close 
down that program. However, the mayor, Mayor Schmoke, took a very 
strong stand and said, in effect, ``Don't you dare close my program 
down.'' So it is still going, the Coleman Elementary School in 
Baltimore.
  All classes in that school are segregated, boys and girls. That would 
not be the case in this legislation. But in that school, there are 
boys' classes and girls' classes. It is an economically depressed area, 
Mr. President. It is an area in which 85 percent of the students live 
with a single parent or with a grandparent.
  Let me read the rankings of those kids in this area in north 
Baltimore and then in the Baltimore school system as a whole.
  Kindergarten, Coleman Elementary School ranked fifth out of 21 in the 
north area; 13th out of 115 throughout Baltimore. First grade, first in 
the area; fifth out of 115 in the system. Second grade, second; in the 
whole system, they ranked third. Third grade, third; in the whole 
system, 10th out of 115. Fourth grade, fourth; 21st out of 115 in the 
entire system. Fifth grade, seventh out of 21; 29th out of 115 in the 
entire system.
  And how about math? In math, I will just read the entire system 
format, although it is equally strong in the area.
  But in the entire school system, the Coleman Elementary School ranked 
sixth out of 115 for kindergarten; sixth for first grade; third for 
second grade; 23d for fourth grade; 29th out of 115 for fifth grade.
  Well, that is a pretty good performance for the Coleman Elementary 
School.
  I debated whether or not to even mention the name of the school 
because, while it has been under threat by the ACLU, I am concerned 
that something will happen to it as a result of publicizing this. But 
it has obviously been successful.
  In 1986, research reported in the Journal of Education Psychology 
found that girls attending single-sex schools have greater interest and 
achievement in math and English, and both boys and girls spent more 
time on homework.
  Another study found that attendees of single-sex schools were more 
likely than students attending coeducational high schools to gain 
admissions at selective 4-year colleges, and more likely to consider 
graduate study.
  A study of eight coeducational and seven independent female boarding 
schools revealed that students in single-sex schools reported more 
emphasis on academics in their schools.
  (Mr. SIMON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DANFORTH. Researchers have also concluded that single-sex 
learning environments provide greater emphasis on discipline and 
control and a significant correlation between order and discipline in 
accounting for positive educational outcomes.
  Cornelius Riordan, the professor at Providence University, has done 
research on this subject, particularly with reference to girls. 
Cornelius Riordan--Professor Riordan, in his research, confirms earlier 
research that girls in single-sex schools score a full half grade above 
their coeducational counterparts on academic ability tests. Girls in 
single-sex schools outperform girls in coeducational schools by almost 
a full grade level on science test scores. African-American and 
Hispanic students scored nearly a grade level above their coeducational 
counterparts in academic achievement tests.
  I want to repeat that for emphasis because I think this is very 
important information. Girls in single-sex schools scored a full half 
grade above their coeducational counterparts on academic ability tests. 
Girls in single-sex schools outperformed girls in coeducational schools 
by almost a full grade level on science test scores.
  African-American and Hispanic students scored nearly a grade level 
above their coeducational counterparts in academic achievement tests.
  In addition, Riordan has found that leadership behavior and 
participation among African-American and Hispanic students, both male 
and female, who attend single-sex schools, surpasses that of those who 
attend coeducational Catholic schools. At the Malcolm X Academy in 
Detroit, seventh graders who have attended single-sex classes at the 
Malcolm X Academy, their math scores for 1993 and 1994 were the highest 
among the 77 schools in Detroit and the second highest in Michigan 
among 780 schools. Similar results have occurred in Baltimore. Those 
are the studies.
  One of the problems is that it is hard to study this because there 
are so few schools that do it. It is not even tried for fear of 
lawsuits or for fear of the Department of Education. They do not even 
try it. They are afraid. So they cannot do it, so it is hard to study. 
One of the things this legislation would do would be to provide at 
least the possibility in just 10 areas of the country, maximum of 10 
areas of the country, that we could at least get some more information 
as to whether these early indications that we have so far have greater 
application.
  Is it not worth at least a try? Particularly if we are not forcing 
anybody to do anything. We are not forcing the school district to do 
this. We are not forcing a parent to do it. If a school district does 
not want to have any part of it, they do not have to apply. If the 
Secretary of Education does not want any part of it, the Secretary of 
Education does not have to allow it. And if it does come into existence 
and the parents do not want it, the parents will have every right to 
keep their children in a coeducational environment. It is absolute 
freedom. It simply opens an option, and is not the option at least 
worth studying?
  Mr. President, I want to read the conclusions of a number of people 
who have weighed in on this subject, just to say I am not alone.
  Again, Professor Susan Estrich, professor of law and political 
science, University of Southern California--as everybody knows, a key 
adviser to Michael Dukakis, former campaign manager, in fact, of 
Michael Dukakis. She wrote an article on this subject. She said in the 
article:

       Private schools may open their doors only to boys or girls 
     under an exemption to federal law mandating ``equality.'' But 
     public schools enjoy no such freedom. The reality is that if 
     you need a Wellesley education in America, you have to pay 
     for it. That's the price of committing to formal equality 
     instead of real opportunity.

  Elizabeth Fox Genovese, professor at Emory University, here is what 
she says:

       Research and common sense suggest that what single-sex 
     schools offer especially benefits people from lower and 
     middle-class backgrounds, precisely the people who need the 
     public sector.

  William Raspberry, the noted columnist, concludes that same gender 
programs clearly work. I have a column from William Raspberry. I ask 
unanimous consent that column be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                No Offense, But What Have They Learned?

                         (By William Raspberry)

       Thank heaven it's not a public school, or St. Stephen's and 
     St. Agnes would be in trouble. No, the private Episcopal 
     school in Alexandria is not overcharging kids, or abusing 
     them, or oppressing them. It's educating them very well.
       But it is doing so by (among other things) operating 
     single-sex classrooms for math and science in sixth, seventh 
     and eighth grades.
       The rationale for this gender separation is the well-
     documented fact that, in math and science, girls tend to do 
     as well as boys of equal intelligence. Whether the difference 
     is the result of nature or merely of socialization, of male-
     oriented teaching styles or of lowered self-esteem for girls, 
     the result often is that girls have their subsequent academic 
     and career choices curtailed.
       I've heard all manner of explanations: that girls learn 
     more efficiently by listening, boys by mental and physical 
     manipulations; that girls deliberately under-perform (in 
     mixed settings) to avoid the social cost of being as good as 
     the boys; that teachers (inadvertently, of course) pay more 
     attention to boys than to girls; the girls prefer cooperative 
     learning, while boys turn learning--and everything else--into 
     a competition.
       Some of the explanations may not be true. This is: If the 
     St. Stephen's and St. Agnes experiment were taking place in a 
     public school, somebody would be out to stop it.
       They just stopped one in Philadelphia, where John Coats, a 
     teacher at Stanton Elementary School, had initiated a model 
     five-year program for a group of 20 first-grade boys who had 
     had learning problems in kindergarten.
       The program was working--indeed, it was the subject of a 
     documentary, ``I Am a Promise,'' that reportedly is up for an 
     Oscar. Nine of these erstwhile slow-learning boys made the 
     honor roll. But the program is dead now. The American Civil 
     Liberties Union threatened to file a lawsuit against it on 
     the ground that boys-only classes are unconstitutional, and 
     the school district folded.
       Detroit's attempt to establish all-male academies as a way 
     of rescuing boys at risk of becoming dropouts (and worse) ran 
     into similar legal opposition, as did an earlier effort in 
     Miami in which I, quite indirectly, had a hand. My limited 
     involvement was a column I had written on Spencer Holland, 
     then with the D.C. school system and now at Morgan State 
     University in Baltimore. Holland, an educational 
     psychologist, had told me of his dream to establish all-male 
     kindergarten and primary classes, headed by male teachers. 
     Particularly in the inner cities, where young boys may go for 
     days at a time without directly encountering a literate adult 
     male, he thought it might make an important difference.
       Willie Wright, a Miami elementary school principal, saw the 
     column, and asked me to help him get in touch with Holland. 
     In the fall of 1987, the two men implemented Holland's idea. 
     As Wright told me later, ``It was a total success, 
     academically and socially. There were no fights, no kids sent 
     out for discipline. They not only improved academically, they 
     became their brothers' keepers, something not generally found 
     in low socioeconomic schools. Not a single parent complained. 
     In fact, virtually all of the parents of boys wanted their 
     sons in the classes.''
       But after two years of unquestioned success, the Department 
     of Education's regional office killed the experiment--said it 
     was a violation of Title IX (of the federal Civil Rights Act) 
     guarantees against gender discrimination.
       Where do they get these people who are so solicitous of 
     disembodied ``rights'' that they are willing to do 
     demonstrable damage to actual children? The explanation, 
     always, is that the way to meet the academic needs of these 
     real-life children is not to segregate them by gender but to 
     make the classrooms fair.
       Of course. But it isn't entirely clear that the problem is 
     classroom unfairness of a sort that can be readily corrected. 
     Most elementary schoolteachers (sixth grade is where girls' 
     self-esteem begins to take a downward slide) are women and 
     are unlikely to be deliberately uncutting the self-confidence 
     of girls' Philadelphia's Coats, like Holland before him, 
     thought the boys weren't learning because of the near-total 
     absence of positive male role models in their lives. How do 
     you make the classrooms fair enough to compensate for that?
       There's a lot we don't know about educating children. 
     That's what make it so sad when these self-righteous 
     monomaniacs are willing to kill a program that clearly works 
     for actual children out of deference to the possibility that 
     somebody's theoretical rights might somehow be damaged.
       Where, I ask, is the societal gain if our children wind up 
     dead to ``rights''?

  Mr. DANFORTH. The headline is ``No Offense, but What Have They 
Learned?'' I do not know yet the date, but I will supply it for the 
Record later.
  Deborah M. McGriff, Ph.D., with The Edison project. She concludes, 
``Same gender schools are a viable idea supported by credible 
research.''
  Anthony S. Bryk, professor of education, University of Chicago:

       * * * results here strongly suggests that schools 
     specifically designed to educate historically disadvantaged 
     populations--such as women, minority men--may be especially 
     effective in expanding educational opportunities in our 
     society. 
  Anita Boggs, principal, Rochester, NY, speaking of the amendment that 
is now before the Senate:

       Your amendment would offer serious researchers the 
     opportunity to take this concept out of the realm of 
     assumptions and band wagon hysteria and into the realm of 
     hard facts based on research driven data.

  James S. Coleman, professor of sociology, University of Chicago:

       The amendment will provide a valuable opportunity to learn 
     from a virtually costless educational change that could 
     increase achievement.

  Cornelius Riordan, professor of education, Providence College:

       Single-gender schools work. They work for girls and boys, 
     women and men, whites and non-whites. Research has 
     demonstrated that the effects of single-gender schools are 
     greatest among students who have been disadvantaged 
     historically--females and racial/ethnic/religion minorities.

  Dianne Ravitch, former Assistant Secretary of Education.

       This is a important amendment, for it will expand the 
     educational diversity and opportunity that is so badly needed 
     for children who are now at risk of failure.

  Elsa Bowman, past president, National Coalition of Girls Schools:

       It is ironic that Title IX, originally intended to 
     encourage gender equity, now actually hampers the public 
     sector's freedom to experiment with alternative programs such 
     as single-sex schools. At present, such models of schools are 
     available only to parents who can afford a private or 
     parochial school. Parents who must rely on public education 
     are being denied the right to choose from a range of 
     educational options which might better serve their children.

  David Reisman, professor of sociology, Harvard University:

       Opposition to the Amendment would seem to me to suggest a 
     fear on the part of some of the groups which have opposed 
     single-sex education for boys, even the African-American boys 
     at greatest risk, that it might turn out to be successful!

  Those are the words of people who know far more than I know, and they 
have studied this far longer than I have.
  I just want to add one other point. I think all of us in Congress 
have been stung in the health care debate by those who have said, ``Why 
can we not have what Congress has?'' For people who go to Congress and 
they have children, they have a whole variety of opportunities. They 
can send their children to some of the best schools in the area, if not 
in the country.
  Some of those schools are coeducational. President and Mrs. Clinton 
send their daughter to a coeducational private school, Sidwell Friends, 
an excellent school. Other people send their kids to very, very fine 
single-sex schools--National Cathedral School, St. Albans School. Vice 
President Gore, I believe, has sent his son, or sons, to St. Albans. 
Holton-Arms School where my daughters have gone; Landon where my son 
has gone--all single sex.
  Some of the Catholic schools are coeducational, some are single sex. 
Georgetown Prep, single-sex school. It is an option that we have. It is 
an option that people who have some income or some assets have. But it 
is an option which is generally unavailable to people who must rely on 
the public schools. And yet it is an option that might work. Not for 
everybody, not for every child, but for some children it might work.
  We do not even have the knowledge to make that decision, other than 
some anecdotes which I have recited, other than some studies which have 
been very partial studies and conclusions from some experts. But the 
body of information is not there. Let us at least try it. Let us at 
least try it on this very tentative version that is offered in this 
amendment--only 10 demonstration projects around the country. Only 10 
around the country, each of which would have to be approved by the 
Secretary of Education, 5 years per program.
  The school district does not have to participate. Parents do not have 
to participate. But for those who want them, Mr. President, does 
anybody contend that we have someplace to go that is down? My view is, 
given the state of education in this country, we have no place to go 
but up. It is the greatest thing we can give our children, and when we 
talk about generation after generation in poverty, and when we talk 
about subclasses of America that seem locked into the status quo, 
should we not at least offer some research on a tentative basis to see 
if something else works?
  So, Mr. President, with that in mind, I offer this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for two questions?
  Mr. DANFORTH. Of course.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I am impressed with the innovation of this 
idea, and I personally believe that schools ought to be encouraged to 
experiment so that they can meet diversity of needs of children.
  As I listened, the Senator's statement of problem is that there are 
current legal impediments which have caused local school districts to 
be either reticent to or to actually be prohibited from pursuing 
single-sex schools; is that a correct statement?
  Mr. DANFORTH. That is correct, either because of statements made to 
them by the Department of Education or the fear of lawsuits. I might 
say, in the case of Miami, it was the regional office of the Department 
of Education. In other cases, it has been the threat of lawsuits that 
have caused them to terminate the programs or to continue the programs 
on a clandestine basis.
  Mr. GRAHAM. My concern is that it seems as if the amendment of the 
Senator from Missouri goes beyond solving that problem and creates a 
rather elaborate superstructure of grants, funding and advisory 
committees in order to set up these 10 demonstration programs.
  Would it not be more direct and a resolution of the problem if we 
were to authorize--under some appropriate circumstances--a waiver of 
those existing provisions in title IX, or elsewhere, which have served 
as the prohibition and then let local school districts without the 
restraint to local educational agencies or without the superstructure 
of an elaborate grant process in specific details as to how it be 
accomplished, let local discretion decide, A, whether to adopt this 
philosophy and, B, if so, how to go about implementing it?
  Mr. DANFORTH. I think it would be wonderful if there were a 
simplified and very general waiver, but my concern was, I think that 
there is obviously a controversial idea and when you have a 
controversial idea, it is better to proceed, I think, in a cautious 
way. That is why we limit this to a demonstration program which applies 
to only 10 possible schools and which has an application process, and 
in the application process, among other things, the school district has 
to give various assurances, especially assurances relating to the 
equality of opportunity.
  I had a discussion about this last week with Senator Carol Moseley-
Braun, and she expressed the concern, well, maybe this can be rigged in 
such a way that it will be disadvantageous to various people. We have 
assurances that have to be given that resources are used equally for 
the same gender classes for boys and girls, that activities assisted 
cannot have an adverse effect on either sex, the distribution of 
teachers between same gender classes for boys and girls are equal, and 
so on.
  All of this is the way to try to give assurances to people that were 
proceeding one step at a time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I can make a short statement, Mr. President, and then 
conclude with another question. What concerns me is that there is an 
appearance here of more than sanction but outright promotion of this 
idea. For instance, in the appropriations section in the first year, 
you authorize up to $1 million for 10 local educational agencies. Those 
dollars, as I read the amendment, are to be used for planning purposes. 
Then in subsequent years, it is ``such funds as may be necessary.''
  What concerns me is there is an inference there that a school 
district is going to receive more than normal funding through this 
additional Federal source to support these single-sex schools than the 
school district would receive if the same children were in a 
conventional dual-sex educational environment.
  I do not think it is either necessary to solve the problem, nor maybe 
the goal of the sponsors of this proposal, to create such an outright 
promotion by the carrot of additional Federal funds.
  Personally, I think the idea would be more acceptable and less 
controversial if it stopped at the problem--that is, removing the 
current legal inhibitions to local school districts experimenting with 
this--without them going the next step of creating the concept that 
there is a Federal advocacy of this approach and an undefined amount of 
potential Federal financial support for these schools.
  I am not incorrect, am I, in suggesting that it is not your opinion 
that these schools are going to be permanently more expensive than 
traditional dual-sex schools and, therefore, are going to require 
either from Federal or local sources a continuous level of funding 
which is above that available in dual-sex schools? Am I correct that is 
not your assumption?
  Mr. DANFORTH. That is a thought that, quite frankly, never crossed my 
mind. The $1 million, which is about the smallest amount of money I 
guess that could be appropriated by the Federal Government, is simply 
for the purpose of the cost of submitting the grant application. The 
only other cost that I conceive of is a study of how effective it is.
  But there is absolutely no notion of trying to sweeten the pot or 
trying to encourage school districts to do it. Rather, it is to allow 
up to 10 school districts to make an application and to simply offer 
them the possibility. It has to be borne in mind that by the very 
nature of this, the school districts that would apply for this are, 
generally speaking, the poor school districts, and because of that we 
thought that to facilitate the application and to also allow the 
possibility of studying how well it works, certain funds have to be 
made available. If the Senator would like, I would be happy to delete 
that if that would be something that Senators felt strongly about. I 
really do not feel strongly about it. I just want to open up the 
possibility of a limited number of cases of waiver.
  Mr. GRAHAM. With that goal, I would be in agreement, to allow local 
school districts to have the flexibility to experiment with this 
without creating the impression that the Federal Government is 
promoting this as opposed to other organizational arrangements local 
school districts may be considering.
  There are lots of ideas that I personally, if I were a member of a 
school district, would like to see my school district experiment with 
and attempt to implement. But I am cautious about the Federal 
Government passing a whole series of interesting ideas with bits of 
money behind them and the distorting effect that is going to have at 
the local school district level by creating the impression that these 
are the ideas which have been given some particular sanction and for 
which there is a positive inducement by virtue of the money available.
  I think the amendment the Senator submitted says after the first year 
when the funding is limited to $1 million, then in subsequent years it 
shall be such funds as are required, which could create the impression 
that there is going to be some cornucopia of educational dollars 
flowing to those districts. I doubt that that is the case, but I think 
that creating such an impression, as flawed or as inappropriate as that 
impression may be in terms of the sponsor's objective, goes beyond the 
necessity of removing legal inhibitors toward the promotion and 
advocacy of a particular idea.
  Mr. DANFORTH. As I stated, that never crossed my mind. If the Senator 
is interested in this and believes that is the effect of it, I will be 
very happy, as soon as we finish the colloquy, to ask my staff to 
communicate with the Senator's staff, and we can send a modification to 
the desk.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be very pleased to engage in that 
discussion.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from 
Missouri. I had the opportunity to listen to his remarks, and I would 
like to compliment him for a very thoughtful and comprehensive 
statement.
  I really believe that inherent in the early part of the Senator's 
remarks were statistics that indicated our public school systems are 
failing to educate young people. We need to have flexibility, and some 
of that flexibility is already being shown. We have seen the 
development of magnet schools, alternative schools, a new program for 
charter education. Why not try some single-sex schools? I think $1 
million for a pilot of 10 schools is certainly something that this bill 
ought to be able to provide.
  I am the product also of high school which was single sex. It stood 
me in very good stead. I went on. My elementary education was in public 
education. I had the opportunity to go to a Catholic girls high school 
which was a very special experience for me, gave me extraordinary 
benefit, I think.
  I listened to what the Senator said about his own children, and I 
find myself in agreement. Why should not a parent have a choice of 
whether to send a youngster to a single-sex elementary school if that 
parent believes that youngster could learn better in that environment. 
It seems to me to be something that public education ought to offer.
  I would like to commend him for his thoughtful dissertation and 
rationale.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks the floor?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as always, our friend and colleague has 
addressed the Senate in a very thoughtful way. He is someone for whom 
all of us have enormous respect because of his continuing interest and 
commitment to advancing the academic achievement of young Americans. 
Any proposal that he recommends is always given a good deal of thought 
and attention. Certainly this one deserves thought and attention as 
well, since really the thrust of all of this legislation is to try to 
see to the advancement of education for children, particularly those 
that are economically disadvantaged. I think all of us understand very 
well the extraordinary challenge facing our young children in this 
country who must deal with, both in urban and rural circumstances, many 
of the real challenges of life. These challenges pose extraordinary 
difficulties for young people, who deserve to grow in an atmosphere 
where they can learn and where they can progress.
  I think all of us understand the importance of academic achievement 
and accomplishment and what it means in terms of self-value and self-
worth for each individual, and the influence it has on the 
contributions that every individual can make not only their own lives 
and their families' lives but also in the future of the country.
  I think there is an increasing recognition that intervention at the 
earlier stages is critical. Earlier in the year we made the significant 
step of expanding Head Start from ages zero to 3, in the effort to 
focus resources on developing confidence in our children before they 
even enter the academic world.
  So this bill really is about trying to enhance academic achievement 
of our young people, recognizing the existence of enormously 
complicated issues, such as the fact that many children live in home 
settings torn apart by physical violence, emotional abuse, and 
substance abuse. Too many children live in extraordinarily difficult 
home environments, and if that were not enough, have to face violence 
on their way to school, at school, and on their way back home from 
school. No place for them is safe. In addition to the violence, many 
children go to school hungry, and then must try to learn on empty 
stomachs in crowded classrooms, using books that are not challenging, 
and in many, many instances, outdated, taught by teachers who are, as a 
result, unable to give the kind of attention and instruction that they 
were trained to provide.
  There is no question that in many, many instances--although there are 
some extraordinary examples to the contrary in many of the urban 
areas--improving the ability of children to excel and achieve in the 
schools is really one of the Nation's great and basic and fundamental 
challenges. Earlier this year, the Carnegie Commission report came out 
on the impact that nutrition, and the lack thereof, has on the brain 
development of infants and young children. Giving children the right 
kinds of nutrition, as well as love and support and caring during the 
very earliest parts of their lives, can have a significant impact on 
their ability to learn and progress.
  So these are difficult and complex issues, and I think we all have a 
sense of frustration about what is really the best way or a new way of 
moving this process forward. We have reflected on many of the 
suggestions and recommendations which have been illustrated in this 
legislation, and have responded by waiving various kinds of 
requirements at the local level to permit a greater gathering of 
resources, thereby allowing local communities the ability to reduce the 
number of students in the classroom, enhance teacher training, and 
provide many other programs to expand literacy both for students and 
parents.
  It is against a background, Mr. President, that we have seen over the 
history of our country where we have had many of our schools segregated 
as a result of policies of historical understanding. We certainly moved 
away from those, and attempt to do so. But still we find that many of 
our schools are basically of one particular race, certainly in many of 
the urban areas of this country.
  We have also come from a tradition where young women students have 
not been given the kind of recognition, have not been given the 
priority, have not been given the attention, and have not been given 
the support in a wide range of different services out there. Some of 
those were referred to by Senator Danforth. That has generated strong 
support by a number of us here in trying to address the gender equity 
issues that are surrounding education which many of our colleagues have 
given great attention to.
  We are not that far from the problems that young women were facing in 
terms of entry into the Citadel--one of our fine universities--in 
recent times, to understand that in many instances some of the 
institutions of higher learning as well as others have not been as 
nearly receptive to women in terms of the educational opportunities 
that are being provided to them.
  We passed title VII and title IX. We passed antidiscriminatory 
provisions in terms of women, and also on gender, and we were fighting 
this issue even in recent times when we had a Supreme Court say it was 
all right at an institution of higher learning if you are going to 
discriminate against women out there on the playing field, or even in 
the lab, as long as you did not discriminate against them in the 
financial aid office because that is where the entry level of financial 
aid, which is taxpayers aid, was actually coming to the university. 
That is the most convoluted reasoning that I think we could possibly 
understand, certainly by the Supreme Court.
  But, as a matter of national priority, we have to be very clear that 
we are not going to continue to support taxpayers' money to be utilized 
in ways that are going to further segregation, whether it is going to 
be on race or religion or ethnicity or gender, or on disability as in 
the most recent times.
  So this has been building over a period of time where we have seen 
women--women's education, women's programs, support for women's 
activities have basically been second class in terms of too many 
aspects of our educational processing system. It is one of the key 
reasons that we have included in this legislation the gender equity 
provisions because we have taken note of it. We have had testimony 
about it--that when you begin to divide up and have in one situation 
just boys or young men, and in another situation have girls and young 
women, the record is very replete, it is very extensive, and it is 
historic about the fact that young women or women under the kind of a 
dual system which has moved in a direction where you have males and 
have females who historically, and even in the very recent times, have 
been shortchanged.
  With strong bipartisan support, we have the programs in this 
legislation to address the issues of effective gender equity policies 
and practices at all educational levels, to assist educational agencies 
to implement policies and practice complying with the title IX program, 
the training for teachers and counselors, administrators and other 
school personnel, especially preschool and elementary school personnel 
in gender-equitable teaching and learning practices. Why? Because, in 
the experience we have seen in this country, when it has been left out 
there, the boys are in one area and the girls are in another, history 
has demonstrated time in and time out that they are the ones that have 
been left out and left behind.
  We continue leadership training for women and girls to develop the 
professional, marketable skills to compete in the global markets, and 
the school-to-work transition program which we passed before. There 
have been a number that have been selected. In my own State we have 
Tech-Prep which has been extraordinary in moving young people from high 
school into good employment. We have to be very careful so that the 
ones that are selected are not primarily males. We have taken note of 
this as well, which offers new opportunities for young people.
  Many of the kinds of model programs that have been out there to try 
to jump start that School-to-Work Program tended to be primarily the 
male programs because there had not been the development of other kinds 
of educational models by which women could move on into the workplace 
in a more equitable way.
  This goes on, Mr. President. I just raise that because of the genuine 
concern that we have about beginning to diminish. I find that the 
arguments that Senator Danforth made by only limiting this to just a 
handful--the 10 schools, very, very small to try something--has at 
least the basic kinds of appeals, because I think many of us are 
prepared to try most anything to try to have some impact in terms of 
children and enhanced possibilities.
  But I think that we have to look at this whole area in terms of 
waiving important provisions in law which have been carefully devised 
over a period of time to try to give the continued protection to 
individuals.
  We know basically what begins to work for children, from whatever 
experience. We begin to have some kind of idea. My concern is that in 
an attempt to try to find some silver bullet in this whole process, 
that we really failed to focus on what is the most important and 
essential lessons that we have to learn in terms of educating. Young 
people cannot learn if they are hungry when they go to school. Young 
people cannot learn if they are intimidated in the classroom. Young 
people cannot learn if they are in overcrowded classrooms. Young people 
cannot learn if they have teachers that are not well trained. Young 
people cannot learn if they are going to schools and buildings that are 
deteriorating and without heat. Young people cannot learn if they have 
lousy school books and been denied some of the more basic kinds of 
elements that most of us associate with education; that is, sometimes 
to be able to develop themselves physically and enjoy the comradeship 
in terms of sports, competition, and learning the lessons that they 
afford in those areas.
  We know that if you deny our young people in an important way, any of 
those dozens of others, they are not going to learn. They are not going 
to learn. The focus and the attention of this legislation is to try, in 
an enhanced way, because there was an important enhancement by the 
administration in terms of the funding of these programs, to build upon 
those experiences, to reach out in terms of trying to be sensitive to 
the gender-equity issues, and to try to see if we cannot make some 
additional kinds of impact in terms of the children, and with the 
expense of the Headstart Program, and with the school reform of the 
Goals 2000, and with the school-to-work program, and with the community 
service programs, and with the very important advancement in terms of 
the teacher training, and with the inclusion of Senator Moseley-Braun's 
amendment dealing with infrastructure, and with the different 
provisions of the legislation dealing with literacy and other efforts 
which have been tried and tested, advance the whole process.

  So, Mr. President, I have great respect and friendship for the 
Senator. In listening to his discussion, and during the period of time, 
I find that he makes an important contribution, certainly, to the 
debate and the discussion. It has, obviously, a good deal of appeal to 
a body that is constantly looking at alternatives that we have not 
thought about or considered. But I do think that, having seen the whole 
process and movement, we should be very wary of waiving basic and 
fundamental rights. There have been some who have suggested in some 
areas that we ought to try to do it not only with respect to gender, 
but also on the basis of race. Suppose you just do it on the basis of 
race. What would eventually happen if you do it just with respect to 
African-Americans, and then, let's say, with respect to Hispanic-
Americans or Asian-Americans. And then, would you have the same thing 
with regard to gender on the other side? What is going to be the 
totality in this kind of a movement? Can we honestly say that this 
would help us overcome one of the great challenges of our society--
eliminating misunderstandings and suspicions and insensitive awareness 
to the hopes and dreams of young and old alike? Or does it really only 
perpetuate the problem?
  I know that the particular scenario which I have just outlined is not 
included in this amendment, but it is a very real part of what some 
individuals have been thinking about. As a society, we should be 
cautious about moving in that direction, because we have a pretty good 
idea and awareness about what does work. It is the investment in 
people. Schools work because people invest their energies in making 
them work, and they invest in teachers, and that results in academic 
achievement and accomplishment. And these schools must constantly 
improve in the process. We know what really works in education. Too 
often, we are unwilling to give it the kind of central priority for 
society we should.
  So, Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not be accepted.
  Mr. DANFORTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I thought, until the last sentence, that 
was a pretty good speech for my amendment.
  Mr. President, clearly the objective of all of us is to improve 
opportunities for more of our citizens, and particularly for poor kids. 
I went through a whole list of facts earlier about the failure of 
education for our most disadvantaged kids. I made the argument that we 
have to do better; we have to try something that does better.
  With respect to the possibility of single-sex education, first let me 
reiterate that Senator Kennedy talked about the importance of going 
slow and not jumping into something that is precipitous. It would be 
hard to imagine an amendment that goes slower than this amendment. This 
is a very, very incremental amendment. It does not create a nationwide 
waiver of title IX. It simply gives the Secretary of Education the 
power to waive title IX in no more than 10 selective cases for no more 
than 5 years--just to try something else. It does not force a school 
district to participate; it does not force a parent to participate. In 
fact, as a result of this amendment, if this amendment became law, 
there is no parent in the country that would not, as a matter of right, 
be able to place his or her child into a coeducational class. 
Coeducational classes, under this amendment, must be made available. 
All this would say is that there would be the possibility of trying out 
single-sex education.
  Clearly, we have a problem now. It turns out that the problem is not 
only one of poverty and is not only one of poor schools, but there is a 
gender aspect to this problem. There are studies that girls in our 
schools often do not do as well as they should. In girls' schools, 80 
percent of girls take 4 years of math in comparison to the national 
average of 2 years in coeducational environments. So in a coeducational 
school, girls generally take 2 years of math at the high-school level. 
Boys, as a result, tend to outscore girls in college board tests. There 
is no reason for that. I do not think there is a reason that a 
scientist could discover for that. But on a de facto basis, something 
happens in the education of at least some girls.
  I pointed out earlier, teachers call on boys more frequently than 
they call on girls. Why is that? It is not something that is written in 
the law. There is nothing in the law that says to teachers that you 
have to call on boys more than you call on girls. But it is true. There 
are studies that show this, and it is true. If a girl is in a class 
side-by-side with a boy, the boy is more likely to be called on than 
the girl.
  So by the sixth grade, girls have become more tentative; they are 
less likely to respond to questions. By the time they enter middle 
school, girls who have previously held the edge in subjects, including 
mathematics, begin to lose points in every category of national tests.
  I do not know the reason for this. But I do know that from the 
standpoint of girls, there are some girls--maybe a lot of them--that do 
better in a single-sex setting than a coeducational setting. Therefore, 
there are parents that pick all-girl schools, just as I and my wife and 
our girls did for them. That is what they did, and this is what brings 
them out. It did, at least for them. It made them very confident. Every 
officer of the class was a girl. Every member of the student council 
was a girl--the newspaper, the yearbook, all girls. And for them that 
was a great thing--not for everybody--but for them it was a great 
thing.

  I pointed out in the debate that Prof. Cornelius Riordan of 
Providence College has studied this, and he has found that girls who 
were in a single-sex setting do better than boys.
  I am just going to repeat that. I know I have already read this to 
the Senate.
  Cornelius Riordan's research confirms earlier research that girls in 
single-sex schools score a full half grade above their coeducational 
counterparts on academic ability tests. Girls in single-sex schools 
outperform girls in coeducational schools almost a full grade level on 
science testing scores.
  I do not know the reason for that. But it seems to me that there are 
parents out there when they hear of this who might want to say: ``I 
would like to try that for my daughter. I would like to try that for my 
daughter. I would like to give it a try.'' And there are parents of 
sons who would say, ``I want to try that for my son.'' I think that we 
should let them do that.
  The state of affairs, the state of the law now is that if a parent 
makes that decision, our response is: ``Well, so what? We do not care 
what you think. We do not care what the school district thinks, and we 
do not care what the parents think. It is not possible to have your 
child in a single-sex setting even if you are convinced that this is 
going to work for your kid. Your Congress says no. Your Congress says 
no. We will not let you do it.''
  I am not saying we should just take the cork off the bottle. I am 
just saying that in a limited number of cases we should try it. This is 
not the repeal of title IX. This is to say we really are concerned 
about those who now are not doing well, whether they are minorities, 
whether they are boys or girls. We are really concerned about those who 
are not doing well. We as a country are not doing a good enough job by 
them, and we want to at least open up the possibility of trying 
something else, just in 10 cases, just for 5 years, just try it and 
study it and see.
  I think that if we were to try this in 10 school districts for 5 
years, there would be professors of education around this country who 
would be studying it. There would be all kinds of studies. And then we 
would have an opportunity to see whether or not it works.
  One of the interesting things about the quotes that I read earlier, 
Mr. President, from the academic community about this is that so many 
of them said, in effect, we support your amendment because it will give 
us something to study. It will give us something to study because right 
now, by and large, there is no single-sex education in public schools. 
So if you have single-sex education, by and large, it is in private 
schools, and those schools spend more money per student than public 
schools.
  People can say that is not a fair study; that is not a fair analysis. 
Even though there are studies that show that, generally speaking, 
particularly girls, and particularly minorities, who have an 
opportunity to be in a single-sex setting, do better, the argument 
could be made, well, that does not mean anything because those are 
private schools, or those are parochial schools, those are not public 
schools.
  This amendment says let us just try it for public schools and do not 
do it on a furtive basis. Do not make them go underground. That is what 
we have now. We have underground schools. We have schools where because 
of the strength of personality of the mayor of Baltimore who says, 
``Don't you dare sue my school district,'' you have an experiment going 
on, but it is going on on an unapproved basis, not knowing when the 
shoe will drop or when the Department of Education will speak or when 
the lawsuit will be filed.
  So that is all this is. This is not a wholesale anything. Is it a 
precedent for something? I think it is just a precedent for trying out 
one new program. I would not see it of having a precedential value for 
anything. But I do think that sometimes we can get so bound into the 
existing legal structure that nothing is possible beyond that legal 
structure, that there is not any opportunity to move. This is the law. 
Congress has acted. Congress has spoken. This is it. Then there is no 
chance to see if there is anything better than the four corners of the 
statute. This is an opportunity to see that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from Massachusetts 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we should judge this amendment 
both in terms of this particular piece of legislation, which is focused 
on trying to enhance educational achievement for children that are 
particularly disadvantaged, and also we ought to judge it in terms of 
the most recent history, during which we have found that discrimination 
in the U.S. education system has not just been related on the basis of 
race but on gender as well. There have been efforts that obviously have 
been made by many of us to try and move beyond that period of a 
continued kind of discrimination.
  I want to point out for the record, Mr. President, that there are 
many innovative programs that are taking place in high schools across 
the country today in terms of working with different groups over 
different periods, some which do focus on gender differences.
  We have seen, in historical and even in recent times that women have 
been shortchanged in terms of educational facilities, in educational 
funding, and in a wide variety of ways. This amendment would suggest 
that, even though it may only be 10 different school districts, somehow 
this is really the way, this is really an active option in terms of 
enhancing opportunities for women.
  However, we should be asking if this could lead to separation of men 
on a larger scale, and eventually in other areas as well. It's easy to 
say ``Well, look we are just starting that with education now.'' But 
then that could become ``Let us try and see if it works in the area of 
employment. Let us try if we can get a better opportunity for getting 
women ahead in terms of some of these jobs, or there may be some 
opportunity to get men ahead in some of these jobs.''
  ``Let us just say we are going to waive a little bit on the 
discrimination in the employment.'' And this could lead to ``Maybe we 
can experiment with single-sex programs in housing, as well as 
employment and education. Just let women in only certain parts of the 
house. Maybe this would reduce some of the violence. Or, if not the 
women, maybe we can find a way to just put the males together in 
certain kind of housing. Maybe that's the way we can reduce violence.''
  We must ask ourselves as a society whether we are enhanced by 
furthering separatism in our society? What about the young women 
enrolled in single-sex classes, who will later compete for leadership 
positions with other women and men who have been educated in co-
educational environments. Will these women, who have been separated in 
the classroom, be able to effectively interact and effectively lead in 
a world in which there is no separation of the genders? How will they 
be able to interact in the real world when they have not had the 
opportunity to interact with both genders in the classroom? And if we 
allow such separatism, what will happen to the ability of men, who have 
been separated from women in the learning environment, to effectively 
interact with women in a workforce where women are no longer hidden 
from view? This has been the problem women have faced throughout their 
history in this country. Surely there are better ways to improve the 
confidence and ability of women in the classroom without separating 
them from the other half of society.
  We know what happened in terms of the employment situation over the 
period of the history of the country; that by and large men have had no 
difficulty at all in terms of taking and assuming control and command 
in situations where there are men and women, and what we have seen 
exist which women have been facing over a long period of time in terms 
of taking leadership positions in managing men and managing kinds of 
responsibilities. Is this helping? Is this assisting? Does this kind of 
experiment really move us in that direction?
  Well, Mr. President, I do not really see that. I just do not see it 
as an intoxicating suggestion that, ``Well, we are just looking at 5 or 
6 or 10. How can this really be so bad. We are only looking at 10 in 
terms of employment. We are just going to waive this act for a shorter 
period of time.''
  What is going to happen in terms of those teachers, as they start 
coming up? They are going to need special kinds of training, perhaps, 
just to deal with the women and just with blacks. How long is it going 
to take before the next amendment says, ``Well, all right, let us 
separate the blacks out, let us put Asians, let us put the women 
students, let us put the browns out here. Let us separate all of these 
people. Let us just try it.''
  Now we have to also waive for the teachers. Because they are going to 
be in a different situation, we have to waive those, as well. We have 
to waive the act for the universities that are going to train those 
teachers. We are going have to waive those matters, as well, in terms 
of teacher training.
  How do you say no in terms of the development of those situations? 
People say, why not go that way?
  We know what has been happening in the educational system in terms of 
tracking. We know what has happened in our educational system in terms 
of pullout, which we have rejected in this legislation.
  We say, all right, let us just take those individuals who are in the 
greatest need of additional kinds of training and let us pull them out 
of the classroom and put them over here. And what happened after this 
period of time? We find out that they have missed more from not being 
in the classroom at the time when they are being pulled out. Well, that 
is all right. Maybe if we left them there all the period of time and 
put them in another situation, that they can develop.
  I know that this is well-intentioned. I think all of us who have 
looked at the extraordinary problems that we are facing in our urban 
areas, primarily, to some extent in terms of the rural areas, know the 
incredible kinds of frustrations that parents are facing in terms of 
the failure of our educational systems.
  But, quite frankly, Mr. President, there are increasing examples of 
schools in the inner cities where the academic achievements are going 
up, where teachers have been innovative and creative. It is true in my 
city of Boston, working with blacks and browns and Asians, and getting 
the kinds of results that are equal to any educational private schools 
in this country in the public schools.
  I can take anyone in this Chamber to those schools. Those teachers in 
those classrooms give you the difference. They are not prepared to give 
up. They are not prepared to give up on it. I can bring you to schools 
in my city of Boston where 40 percent of those children are on AFDC, 
where they teach eight different languages in those schools, and where 
there are scores of individuals from all races who want to attend it. 
They are making some progress. They are making some important progress, 
and they are creating some hope. And the teachers are challenged.
  It seems to me that we have a course that is set to try, which is 
incorporated in this bill, which is really a reflection of a wide 
variety of work of Republicans and Democrats alike, with very careful 
attention. Not that we should not be willing to consider other kinds of 
ideas. I just do not believe that we are really moving toward enhancing 
the critical kinds of needs of children who are economically 
disadvantaged by moving in this direction of waiving some of the most 
fundamental and basic tenets of our society in terms of separation, 
rather than inclusion.
  So I hope that this amendment would not be accepted. I do not know 
what the Senator would like to do on this as far as the time.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, we are working up a modification to try 
to meet the concerns expressed by Senator Graham. I think in just a few 
minutes that will be ready. At that time, I will ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the Danforth amendment to S. 1513--the Improving America's Schools 
Act.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1513. Our Nation must maintain 
quality public education for everyone--and that is exactly what the 
Improving America's Schools Act is all about.
  S. 1513 would increase educational opportunities for all Americans by 
raising the authorizations for programs authorized by the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] to $12.5 billion while targeting 
more of these funds to low-income children.
  This legislation would also increase educational opportunities for 
all Americans by authorizing most of the gender equity in education 
package.
  Mr. President, Senators Kennedy, Simon, Harkin, Mikulski, and I 
introduced several bills last year as a cooperative effort to address 
the widespread gender inequities in our Nation's schools. These bills, 
which are collectively known as the gender equity in education package, 
include the Equity in Education Amendments Act, the Women's Educational 
Equity Restoration Act, the Fairness in Education for Girls and Boys 
Act, and the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.
  All four of these bills are important because they will help the 
Secretary of Education enforce title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972. This law, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, has 
helped to eliminate many discriminatory policies such as rules that 
only boys could take shop classes.
  Just last week, the Senate recognized the need to improve compliance 
with title IX by unanimously accepting the last important gender equity 
initiative, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, as an amendment to 
S. 1513.
  The amendment being offered today by the Senator from Missouri, 
however, would undermine our efforts to eliminate sex discrimination in 
our Nation's schools.
  The Danforth amendment would authorize the Secretary of Education to 
support 10 demonstration programs that provide single-sex public 
education to low-income, educationally disadvantaged students. In order 
to shield these programs from lawsuits, the Danforth amendment would 
allow local school districts to waive the civil rights protections in 
title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, and all other laws which prohibit sex 
discrimination.
  As I have already stated, I support S. 1513 because I firmly believe 
that we must focus appropriate attention on the longstanding, adverse 
conditions that exist in our Nation's low-income communities by 
increasing the authorization for ESEA programs and by targetting more 
of these funds to low-income children. While I commend Senator Danforth 
for his focus on these conditions, I oppose any attempt to waive 
essential civil rights protections for any purpose.
  As someone who strongly supports critically important civil rights 
laws, I am convinced, for several reasons, that his legislative 
proposal is neither necessary nor appropriate.
  Most importantly, I oppose the Danforth amendment because it could 
create unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex by allowing 
local school districts to waive title IX and other important civil 
rights statutes.
  This amendment would also create a dangerous precedent. If Congress 
were to waive civil rights laws to test single-sex education, it would 
encourage other individuals to file for additional waivers from other 
civil rights statutes.
  This amendment also sends the wrong message to our Nation's educators 
and administrators: That complex educational problems faced by young 
people in disadvantaged communities can be solved by segregating groups 
of students from one another. It also raises grave policy concerns 
about the wisdom of addressing the serious educational and social 
problems facing our disadvantaged children by returning to the long-
discredited practice of segregated schooling.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I join the following 
organization in opposition to the Danforth amendment: the American 
Association of University Women; the National Council of La Raza; the 
American Civil Liberties Union; the Anti-Defamation League; the NAACP; 
and the National Organization for Women.
  Since our efforts to achieve excellence in education will be half-
hearted unless gender bias in our schools is eliminated, I would like 
to conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues to vote against the 
Danforth amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment. I do appreciate and understand the intent 
of Senator Danforth's amendment which is to find a solution to the 
continued lack of progress by whole groups of students in our schools. 
However, I cannot support a waiver of civil rights provisions to do 
that.
  What concerns me most is the precedent Congress would set by waiving 
our civil rights laws to help researchers. I don't think this is a road 
we want to start down. Especially given the fact that there are other 
ways of achieving the Senator's goal of facilitating research regarding 
single-sex education without waving any of our civil rights laws.
  Under current law, single-sex programming is permitted if you can 
show that such a program would remedy historic discrimination or under 
representation. Many of our private and parochial schools serving 
inner-city youth already have single-sex programs that could provide 
ample information to researchers.
  We should certainly pursue that option before taking such a drastic 
step. Again, I want to say that I recognize and understand the support 
for such a study. But, before we waive any civil rights laws to 
encourage single-sex classrooms, we ought to find out whether our 
education and social problems can be addressed by segregating our 
students and whether a waiver of these laws is necessary to do this. I 
have serious concerns about the wisdom of such a policy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an interesting amendment. I have 
listened to the very excellent dissertation by my friend from 
Massachusetts and also the long statement of my friend for many, many 
years from the State of Missouri. I understand the feelings on both 
sides.
  Let me, first of all, just run through again what the amendment does, 
so argue the amendment on that basis.
  This amendment would provide funding for a demonstration project, no 
more and no less. It is not an attempt to establish or change the 
existing law in any regard. In my mind, though, the controversy over 
this amendment shows that we have gone through a very tumultuous time, 
and I think we have fared well. When title IX was passed, we understood 
it was important and necessary for us to remove the problems of sex 
discrimination, to allow our young people, boys and girls, to be able 
to progress in our society on an equal footing.
  We had many issues from the past which were difficult to overcome, 
yet we have made a great deal of progress.
  It makes me happy to look out now to colleges and universities and 
see the support that is given to both men and women's athletics. I read 
this morning about the women's soccer team from the United States; 
probably a world champion soccer team. I am sure that has a lot to do 
with what we have done to remove discrimination for a lot of our young 
women to be able to participate fully in our athletic programs. I 
certainly want to see that progress.

  At the same time, we do know, especially for young people who may be 
in disadvantaged situations with difficult home lives and other 
problems, that there may be problems which are the reverse of what we 
had originally imagined. Rather than the issue of young women not 
having access to the same resources and supports as their male 
counterparts, which was an easy problem to address, we now have a 
situation where young women are being discouraged, either directly or 
subliminally, from participating in the educational system on an equal 
footing with young men, particularly in their efforts to learn some of 
the subjects on which women have not traditionally focused their 
attention.
  As I understand the Danforth amendment, it will just give the 
Secretary discretion to award grants for pilot programs with same-
gender classes for low-income, educationally disadvantaged students. 
There is no question, as my good friend from Missouri pointed out, that 
if you have the money, you still can take advantage of private schools 
that teach only one gender. Those who are economically disadvantaged do 
not have that option.
  The purpose of the amendment is to determine whether same-gender 
classes for low-income, educationally disadvantaged students can make a 
difference in the level of their educational achievement. I think it is 
wise for us, as we move forward, to look hard at whether our well-
intentioned policies may have created inflexible situations which we 
did not intend when we passed the law. I do not think it ever does any 
harm to do longitudinal studies on the policies we implement and this 
amendment provides a perfect opportunity to see whether same-gender 
classrooms might improve the academic performance of some very 
disadvantaged youth. The same-gender pilot projects would be completely 
voluntary and the pilot sites would have to provide same-gender classes 
for both boys and girls as well as provide coeducational options for 
any students or parents choosing that option. Also, it would admit 
students on the basis of a lottery if there were more students who 
wanted to participate than there were slots to participate in.
  The amendment would provide a waiver for these programs under title 
IX and any other law that prohibits sex discrimination in that regard. 
The waiver would be limited to the extent the Secretary deems it 
necessary to allow the development and operation of same-gender classes 
as proposed by the amendment and to allow the participating pilot 
programs to be able to hire teachers of a particular gender to teach 
same-gender classes as proposed by the amendment.
  As I understand it, the civil rights community has problems with this 
amendment because of the waiver. They are concerned that it will set a 
precedent, that it will have a negative impact on all other civil 
rights enforcement. In my mind, however, the issue is somewhat 
different when we talk about boys and girls than if we talk about some 
other civil rights issue, as I believe there may be legitimate reasons 
to look at boys and girls differently within the context of education, 
such as research which shows that they may have different learning 
styles. The civil rights community should not worry that this amendment 
will carry over to issues of race, enthnicity, or national origin 
because we know that is a vastly different situation.
  So I feel there is a logical difference between the situation with 
respect to the sexes, especially when we are talking about young kids, 
and the situation with respect to other civil rights issues. We have 
issues of hormonal development and other adolescent issues that make 
the boys and girls different at that age. Those issues are quite 
distinct from the issues surrounding racial segregation, which I really 
do not believe is warranted under any circumstances. I believe that we 
must work toward total equality amoung various races with no 
discrimination whatsoever.
  So I believe that we may have something to learn from the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Missouri.
  I support the Senator's amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont is on the floor at the moment and, I must say, he is doing his 
excellent job.
  I understand--perhaps I should ask, what is the parliamentary 
situation at the moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2430 offered by the Senator from 
Missouri is the pending question.

                          ____________________