[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14898-S14899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1301. A bill to amend the Goals 2000: Educate America Act to 
eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council and 
requirements concerning opportunity-to-learn standards, to limit the 
authority of the Secretary of Education to review and approve State 
plans, to permit certain local educational agencies to receive funding 
directly from the Secretary of Education, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                         goals 2000 legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, back in 1983, when President Reagan's 
Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, issued that now-famous report on the 
problems of education in this country he called that report ``A Nation 
at Risk.'' Not a school district at risk. Not a State at risk. But a 
nation at risk.
  Recognizing the need to improve educational achievement of this 
Nation's children, Governors of both parties launched a program to 
raise the achievement standards in American schools and a national 
education goals effort was embraced at the 1989 education summit in 
Charlottesville.
  That effort culminated early last year, when a bipartisan majority in 
Congress voted to approve Goals 2000 legislation. That legislation 
supports development of model national academic standards in 13 
subjects, standards that any school district may use as guides.
  The Goals 2000 legislation also authorizes grants to States to help 
reform their schools so they can achieve their education goals. 
Participating States must develop challenging State content and 
performance standards and assessments aligned with those standards.
  Since the passage of Goals 2000, 48 States have applied for and 
received funding. Two States, Virginia and New Hampshire, have refused 
the funds and have taken issue with the intent of Goals 2000, citing 
fears of Federal intrusion. A third State, Montana, has declined to 
receive 2d year funding; and a fourth State, Alabama, announced last 
week that it was ending its participation. In addition, a number of 
organizations have leveled a wide assortment of charges against Goals 
2000.
  Some say the legislation usurps State and local control over 
education. Others say it does no such thing and represents 
unprecedented flexibility in Federal legislation.
  All of the concerns expressed, however, ultimately focus on what is 
the most appropriate and effective Federal role in elementary and 
secondary education.
  By way of background and to help put this in context, let me review a 
few facts.
  States now contribute about 36 percent of the cost of running our 
schools; local agencies contribute 26 percent, and private institutions 
account for 30 percent. The Federal Government's financial stake 
amounts to less than 10 percent.
  If one agrees with the old adage that money is power, then it appears 
that the principal responsibility for running our schools continues to 
rest with the States and with local communities.

[[Page S 14899]]


  Where the Federal Government has traditionally played an important 
role is in helping to build partnerships among States, communities, and 
private institutions; and in helping to disseminate information on what 
works in one part of the country to others which may be struggling with 
the same problem. In that regard, I have always believed that the 
Federal Government can play an important part in helping to ensure a 
degree of fairness and equity for all our children.
  The Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Subcommittee 
which I chair recently held a hearing on the Goals 2000 issue. To help 
us better understand the controversy surrounding goals, the 
subcommittee heard from two witnesses.
  Our first witness was Education Secretary Richard Riley, who 
testified in support of the Goals 2000 legislation and the 
administration's request of $750 million for fiscal year 1996.
  Our second witness was Mr. Ovide Lamontagne, who chairs the New 
Hampshire State Board of Education. Specifically, Mr. Lamontagne raised 
concerns about the Secretary of Education's ability to review and 
approve a State's plan for its entire educational system, which he 
considered unprecedented. After much discussion with Mr. Lamontagne and 
Secretary Riley, the Secretary seemed to think he could live without 
that provision. Mr. Lamontagne also stated that eliminating secretarial 
review and approval would go a long way toward improving the 
legislation.
  We also addressed the issue of school districts receiving funds 
directly from the Secretary, if their States chose not to participate 
in Goals 2000. In addition, discussions were held concerning the 
National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] and both 
the Secretary and Mr. Lamontagne agreed that eliminating the Council 
would be desirable.
  The legislation which I am introducing today addresses the concerns 
of States that have chosen not to participate in Goals 2000. 
Specifically, the legislation:
  Permits school districts, in States that elect not to participate in 
the Goals 2000 Program, to apply directly to the Secretary of Education 
for Goals 2000 funding.
  Eliminates the requirement that States submit their plans to the 
Secretary of Education.
  Removes the authority of the Secretary of Education to review and 
approve State plans.
  Deletes the requirements for the composition of State and local 
panels that develop State and local improvement plans.
  Eliminates the National Education Standards and Improvement Council 
[NESIC], which was to certify national and State standards, and which 
some viewed as a national school board.
  Removes the requirement for States to develop opportunity-to-learn 
standards. These standards would specify the educational resources--
such as funding, facilities, and materials--deemed necessary for local 
schools to achieve State or national content and performance standards.
  It is my hope that this legislation will improve Goals 2000 so that 
all States will feel they are able to participate in this important 
program because it strikes the proper balance between State and local 
responsibility for education and Federal leadership.
                                 ______