[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7129-H7169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2264.

                              {time}  1149


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2264) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, September 9, 1997, the bill was open for amendment from page 
64, line 1, through page 65, line 3.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


        Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 64, line 7, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 69, line 26, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for 
support for the Peterson-Blunt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would first 
like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the 
subcommittee, for his willingness to facilitate this amendment. I would 
also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking 
member, for his cooperation, and I would also like to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] for his support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to reaffirm actions taken by 
the House at the end of July. Before we left, this body overwhelmingly 
adopted H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
Education Amendments Act, by a vote of 414 to 12.
  Mr. Chairman, it was this tremendous support that encouraged me to 
offer this amendment. The amendment which I am offering today will 
increase the vocational education basic State grant account by $20 
million, with an offset from the Goals 2000 Program.
  Vocational education is a very essential part of our educational 
system and particularly for rural America. For a variety of reasons, a 
postsecondary education is not the answer for every student, with many 
of them living in rural America. In fact, about half of our Nation's 
graduating senior class will choose to attend college and roughly half 
of those will receive a degree.
  Mr. Chairman, a responsible and appropriate avenue for outfitting the 
rest of our Nation's youth with the skills to make them attractive and 
competitive in the job market is a commitment from the Federal 
Government in assisting local schools. The best avenue for this 
commitment is through continued support of vocational education.
  Mr. Chairman, true education reform will only take place at the local 
level. It is time that we provide the resources to our schools to make 
the needed and necessary changes for improvement. H.R. 1853 will enable 
this to happen by directing more funds to local education agencies and 
removing a number of requirements which prevent school districts from 
taking steps necessary for providing an appropriate academic education.
  How significant is a $20 million increase for a program funded at 
nearly $1 billion? In these times of budget constraint, any increase is 
significant. However, Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 1853 were law, the formula 
that we have in it will drive 90 percent of the money down to the 
school districts, where historically under the current vocational act 
only 75 percent of the money actually reached the school districts. So 
this will be a significant increase, the 2 percent that the $20 million 
will give.
  Mr. Chairman, to put this another way, a 2-percent increase will 
enable a 20-percent increase in funding for local education agencies if 
the House-passed measure becomes law. Being a legislator for nearly 20 
years now, I have always felt it was important to reinforce legislative 
improvements through the budget process.
  By adopting the Peterson-Blunt amendment, we will be doing just that 
and sending a message to the American people that we are serious about 
legislation enacted by this body. Vocational education is a vital 
program for the future of America.
  This legislation, overwhelmingly agreed to, is good legislation. I 
urge my colleagues to support both. Support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment is agreeable 
to both sides and will be accepted. For that I again thank the 
gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their 
willingness to work with us.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] offers an excellent amendment, and we will 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am frankly of mixed views on this amendment. Let me 
simply recite for the committee what has already transpired with 
respect to Goals 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, last year Goals was funded at $491 million level. The 
administration asked for a $620 million funding level this year. The 
bill as reported by the committee cut Goals 2000 to $475 million, which 
is $16 million below the previous year.
  On the floor, we had an amendment adopted which cut it further to 
$462 million, and now this amendment cuts it to $442 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out to the House that this Goals 
2000 issue, which has become so politicized, started out as a joint 
effort of President Bush and the National Governors. The person who 
headed up, or one of the two Governors who headed up the Governors' 
Task Force on Education, working with the President, was a fellow by 
the name of then-Gov. Bill Clinton. I remember going to a conference 
and talking with a number of Governors, including then-Governor 
Clinton, about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am baffled by why it has become so politicized, and I 
have misgivings about this amendment. But I am willing to accept it as 
a gesture of goodwill, indicating flexibility on our part. But I have 
to say in the process that as this bill moves through, it is important 
to remember that there are three different groups who have to be 
satisfied in the end for this legislation to pass. The legislative 
priorities of the majority in this House have to be respected; the 
legislative priorities of the minority in this House have to be 
respected; and so do the legislative priorities of the President.
  That does not mean we have to rubber stamp everything that he does, 
and we do not have to rubber stamp everything that each other does. But 
I think that we are at a point where we have cut this program far 
enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment. I 
have been a longtime supporter of vocational education. The first issue 
I ran on when I ran for the State legislature was reform of vocational 
education. When I was in the legislature, we created on a bipartisan 
basis an entirely new system of vocational education and technical 
schools in my own State.

[[Page H7130]]

  So, recognizing that, I am willing to accept the amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], but I would simply say that 
I think we have gone far enough and I hope we can move on and get away 
from using this program as a punching bag, because I think it is not 
the only tool that is useful, but it is certainly one of the tools 
which, used in concert with others, can help to raise standards and to 
raise performance. And that is, after all, what I think the Federal 
role ought to be in the area of education.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and particularly 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] for working so 
hard to put this amendment together and to make it work.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been trying in this debate to find some 
additional money for vocational education. I think this movement 
forward is helpful. We had frozen vocational education at last year's 
funding at a time when I think we are working in every possible way to 
get people to the workplace, people who have not been there before 
through welfare reform; people who are out of high school or did not 
get out of high school who need additional training.
  Vocational education is critically important. I am certainly glad to 
hear both the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman, and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, agree to 
accept this change to add this money to vocational education.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this amendment becoming part of the 
package that the House passes, and then I am hopeful that we will also 
be committed, realizing what I just heard about the importance of 
everybody being in agreement, to uphold the House's position and keep 
this additional $20 million for vocational education in this bill when 
it comes back to the House from conference.
  This is an important step, going along with the step that we have 
already taken in passing the authorization legislation that, as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out, sets a new standard of 
money in vocational education that gets to the classroom where students 
are affected by it.

                              {time}  1200

  That new standard of 90 percent, essentially under local control and 
maybe, more importantly, under the control of a local teacher, of the 
teacher in the classroom, as opposed to 75 percent, is an important 
standard for us to meet. To add to that some additional funding for 
vocational education in a program that is critical to the future of the 
country is going to be a good thing to see.
  I hope we see it in the final bill as well. I am grateful that the 
chairman and the ranking member have agreed to be supportive of this 
amendment and grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Peterson] for not only letting me work with him but for working so hard 
to put this amendment together.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Peterson].
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado:
       Page 64, line 7, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 65, lines 7 and 8, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles 
the $40 million provided for prevention and intervention programs for 
children and youth who are neglected and delinquent or at risk of 
dropping out by transferring $40 million from the Goals 2000 Program. 
This formula grant program provides services to participants in 
institutions for juvenile delinquents, correctional institutions, and 
institutions for the neglected.
  The bill calls for $39,311,000, which is about a little over a 
million less than the budget request and the same as fiscal year 1997. 
Arrest rates for juveniles have more than tripled in the last decade. 
The average stay in youth correction facilities is about 1 year for 
crimes against persons, 248 days for drug offenses, and 17 days for 
weapons crimes. The total number of juveniles arrested that are under 
the age of 18 rose 20.1 percent between 1991 and 1995. The need for 
education is growing. Giving incarcerated juveniles an education is 
something that liberals and conservatives can both agree on and 
understand that it benefits children and the public.
  Juvenile crime has increased significantly over the last few years 
and represents an alarming and tragic trend. A good education is one of 
the few things that can help children out of a life of crime and 
despair and give them the tools to live a productive and happy life. 
Without education, these children remain without hope.
  High school dropouts similarly need special consideration since they 
are all but doomed to a life of poverty. The needed money that this 
amendment represents will go to State programs to prevent at-risk 
children from dropping out. The amendment would take money out of the 
hands of a program that is totally administrative and put it into the 
hands of vulnerable children and their teachers specifically but 
directly to assist vulnerable children.
  The Government has asked for $475 million for the Goals 2000 Program 
but only $40 million for these at-risk children. The $40 million 
increase that we are proposing in this amendment will show in a more 
direct and a more positive way our commitment to these children.
  In my State, 1,165 children are served in various State programs at 
the State level and local level that these funds are directed to. 
That's just in my State as an example.
  The amendment, of course, applies nationally. These funds are 
distributed to State and local programs. These are local dollars that 
we would be empowering. State grants go directly to the facilities 
where these children are taught and into homes for delinquent and 
abandoned or neglected children. They are used to hire teachers, 
provide supplementary education for children who are not achieving at 
their grade level and who are failing to meet State standards in 
academic areas, and those who are targeted as at great risk of dropping 
out. Funds are, and what has been known as the title I program, that is 
the shift we are attempting to make.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just state again that with respect to children 
who are at risk, those at risk of dropping out of school because of the 
economic setting or situation that they may be in or any other 
conditions that may lead to that particular designation are worthy of 
our attention here in Congress and States, I would submit, are most 
capable of assisting them. These dollars just support States and local 
communities, people who know what they are doing and have achieved real 
results.
  One of the individuals back in my home State in the Department of 
Education commented that this particular area in education is the most 
neglected area of assisting children in our education system and could 
use not only the dollars that the small amount that we are proposing in 
the amendment but far beyond that.
  I think the $40 million shift is a reasonable amount, one which I 
suspect will be supported widely and is greatly anticipated not only by 
the young children who deserve our thought and consideration, our 
support and help, but those who are committed to them, their teachers, 
parents in many cases, and those who are also dedicated to improving 
the lives of children back in our home States.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] insist on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another in a series of amendments being offered 
by a small band of Members on the other side of the aisle to, in 
essence, on an amendment-by-amendment basis gut one of the two top 
priorities of the President in this bill.

[[Page H7131]]

  I did not vote for the budget agreement. I have minimum high regard 
for the budget agreement. I think that in many ways the budget 
agreement that was endorsed by a majority of both parties is a public 
lie because I do not believe that the spending cuts which are contained 
in that budget agreement will, in fact, in the fourth and fifth years, 
be voted for by Members of either party. But nonetheless, the Congress 
adopted it.
  When we did so, we reached certain understandings with both branches 
of Government and with both parties. That understanding was that, as I 
said earlier, the priorities of each of the parties, the priorities of 
the President would be largely respected.
  We have already seen now two cuts adopted on the House floor with 
respect to goals. This cuts another $40 million out of one of the 
President's top two priorities, so we have already seen one of the 
President's top two priorities reduced by a substantial amount.
  The account to which the gentleman would transfer this money has not 
been cut. In fact, that subaccount within title I has been level funded 
so there is no dollar reduction in that program. In fact, the overall 
title I program, which is directed at improving standards, improving 
performance on the part of our disadvantaged children has been 
increased by $400 million. In fact, we are providing over $8 billion to 
deal with the problems of those children. And I am committed to each 
and every one of those. I have spent my life in this House championing 
each and every one of them, often over the opposition of a good many 
Members on the other side of the aisle. I would point out that the 
gentleman himself voted just 2 years ago to cut title I, the program 
which is being enhanced by his amendment, he voted to cut it by over $1 
billion.
  What I will simply say is that we can do this all day long. But if 
amendments are adopted on the House floor that savage the President's 
top two priorities, this bill will not be supported on this side of the 
aisle and this bill will wind up where apparently a small band of 
Members on that side of the aisle want to see it. It will be part of a 
continuing resolution.
  I think, substantively, that will be bad for the country, but 
politically, to be frank about it, it will demonstrate that even after 
the two parties have made an agreement, that side of the aisle is 
incapable of living up to that agreement.
  I do not think that is in the interest of the gentleman's party or 
this House or the political system in general.
  I also would point out that this bill will not become law and neither 
will a continuing resolution if the President's priorities are not 
respected to the same degree that other people's priorities are 
respected. I would say to those Members of the House in both parties, 
we have a choice. We can produce a bill which is signable, which is 
passable and which will end the wars that have accompanied this bill 
for the past 2 years.
  As we know, this bill was a large part of the reason that the 
Government was shut down 2 years ago. We can follow that course again 
or we can try to reach a reasonable compromise between our views. That 
is what the committee product represents. I think the House ought to 
stick to that. I would urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point 
out with respect to the ranking member's recollection of my voting 
record on this particular topic, it is remarkable since 2 years ago I 
was not a Member of Congress and for me to have voted on that would 
have been a tremendous achievement, I assure my colleagues.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. I apologize. I was looking 
at the amendment and I saw the name of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder] on it, who originally intended to offer the amendment. He was 
here and did so vote. I apologize for a case of mistaken identity.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will always be 
pleased to be confused with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob 
Schaffer. I am proud of my vote the last time, so I stand here saying 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has worked with us on a 
number of points, and we appreciate that, but in general, it is easy to 
talk peace while carrying a sword to some degree.
  He knows that in fact we have worked with the President. We have 
agreed to work and compromise on a number of things in the budget 
agreement. He admits that he voted against the budget agreement whereas 
I voted for the budget agreement. So I think it is important in the 
American people, at least many of the people, there are some who are on 
the left or the right who have some justifiable criticisms with it but 
for the most part we are trying to move forward.
  When we agreed to the tax cuts in return for the President's spending 
more money, and presumably spending more money in education and social 
programs, many of us who were conservatives who had voted in the past 
to reduce the size of Government in Washington, to cut the spending 
here and give more power to the people back home, more power to the 
State governments, local governments, to parents and doing that through 
tax cuts and through transfer of funds to States with block grants, 
once we were defeated and the money is going to be spent at the Federal 
level, which, in effect, this budget agreement did, we can have a 
legitimate debate in Congress about how we are going to spend that 
money in Washington without having and being maligned about us trying 
to shut down the Federal Government, without us having to hand our 
voting cards over to the President of the United States and say we just 
have to take his priorities on education. We can discuss what are the 
best ways once we are going to spend these dollars at the Federal level 
on kids without the constant threat that the President is going to veto 
the bill if we win one vote and shut down the Government because, quite 
frankly, it is a joint thing when the Government shuts down.

                              {time}  1215

  It was not just us so-called radical then-freshmen who shut down the 
Government. We passed our bills; the President of the United States 
refused to sign them. We bear joint responsibility when something like 
that happens.
  We need to try to work through this. And this does not mean that we 
have to roll over and say, oh, we are going to sign off on every 
priority the President has. As I understand from our negotiators, we 
did not agree that we were surrendering our right to reshape 
appropriations bills. What we did agree to is, we are going to put more 
money into education and youth programs, and we have been trying to do 
that.
  In fact, in title I of this amendment, we tried to move more money to 
education, because we also said that we did not believe, for example, 
in increasing OSHA; and then when we increased OSHA, we tried to move 
it into the compliance section rather than enforcement and 
administration, and we were defeated on that effort. We were trying to 
move money into education, and the minority voted against transferring 
those funds into education. So this is not a battle against 
transferring funds into education.
  Furthermore, we have been constantly maligned in the last few days as 
to whether we are trying to filibuster. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has been careful not to do that. In this case, he merely 
said we were offering a series of amendments, and that is true, and I 
think people are starting to realize that what we are doing is, we are 
having, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] encouraged us to 
do that when we were negotiating before these debates started, to have 
a good and healthy debate for the American people of what are our 
priorities, where do we think they should go.
  Those of us who wanted to cut expenditures and move power back to the 
States have now, in effect, at least in this Congress, had to back up a 
step and say, OK, the Federal Government is going to do it. In this 
case, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, proposing to move 
money from a program which admittedly does not put

[[Page H7132]]

a straitjacket on State and local governments by having Goals 2000, but 
certainly puts a framework which pushes States toward that, which then 
puts pressure on the State educational leaders, on the local school 
boards to say, well, these are the national goals; are we going to be 
below the national level?
  If we would have put in the national history standards, which were an 
abomination, every school district would have been under tremendous 
pressure to explain why their standards were not like the ``national 
history standards.'' That is the danger of something like this, not 
that there is a straightjacket that forces people to do it, but that 
momentum overwhelms the ability of local governments to resist it.
  On the other hand, in the neglected and high-risk youth, as someone 
who has worked as the Republican staff director when the Republicans 
were a minority on the children and family committee, then worked in 
the Senate with Senator Coats on children and family issues.
  Then I have been a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families; I cannot think of a more needed area than to work 
with these high-risk youth, and that is a better way to target our 
funds.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob 
Schaffer, where this money would actually end up under his amendment. 
It would come out of Goals 2000 and go into this program, but who would 
actually receive these funds?
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. The dollars are headed to State and 
local grant-related programs that assist neglected or delinquent 
children in State-supported institutions, could be correctional 
facilities or other institutions for neglected and delinquent children.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, 
because the way I read the amendment, it would take the money out of 
Goals 2000 over which local school districts have discretion.
  As the gentleman may know, under the Istook amendment, that was 
adopted in the last year's appropriation, and I think it was a very 
good amendment. It eliminated the need for States to submit their 
improvement plans under Goals 2000 to the Secretary of Education, it 
eliminated the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, it 
removed the requirement for States to develop opportunity to learn 
standards, and most importantly, the revision allows the States and 
localities to use all of their Goals 2000 money for the purchase of 
technology if they so choose. That seems to me a very high and 
important priority.
  This money, that now could be used by local school districts for 
education technology needs, is instead going out of the education 
system, controlled by local school boards; and it is going to go to 
institutions for juvenile delinquents. It is going to go to adult 
correctional facilities and institutions for the neglected. In other 
words, it is going out of the public school system entirely and going 
for other purposes.
  I personally think that the use of the money in Goals 2000, where 
school districts have a great deal of discretion as to how that money 
can be used, is a better use of the money than for the Neglected and 
Delinquent Youth program.
  I am not a great fan of Goals 2000, but we spend $8.2 billion in 
title I, and this is a title I program. Within title I we spend $40 
million, for neglected and delinquent youth. We are going to put $40 
million more, or double this account, in 1 year under the gentleman's 
amendment. The gentleman will make it go from $40 million in the bill 
to $80 million in one amendment.
  The amendment would double the request of the President of the United 
States as to what is needed in this account; and very frankly, I would 
simply rather see this money go to the local school districts and allow 
them to decide whether they want to use it for education, the Goals 
2000 programs, or for educational technology, which many of them do.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
further yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggests 
that the amendment represents dollars going out of school districts 
entirely toward other types of settings, which I would refute and 
reject and believe that that cannot be supported.
  In fact, this is a grant program. School districts, in many cases 
and, in fact, in most cases, also apply for these funds, receive these 
funds for the assistance of at-risk children.
  Now, these activities take place in schools of all sorts, and they 
are at the will and liberty to apply for the grants just as any other 
institution may. The real question, though, is that we are talking 
about specific individuals.
  Now, while some may measure fairness based on a relationship between 
institutions, others of us measure fairness on a relationship of how we 
treat individuals, whether they are a child at risk and subjected and 
entitled to a public education, be it at an elementary school, be it at 
a special home that has been created for a neglected or an abused 
child, or in a juvenile correctional facility. We are talking about 
dollars that are going directly to children to assist children.
  Now, frankly, I am less impressed by how one building or one group of 
education bureaucrats fares compared to another. I think the American 
people, in general, are more inspired by what we can do for children 
and for individuals who have the greatest need, who are at the greatest 
risk.
  This amendment, in fact, gets dollars to children who need it most 
wherever they may be.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that the gentleman, and let 
me say I share the gentleman's lack of enthusiasm for Goals 2000, but I 
am not aware that the gentleman has shown any support up till now for 
the program that he would increase. He did not come to testify before 
our subcommittee in that regard nor write us regarding this program.
  I am not a fan of Goals 2000, but I think the money under Goals 2000 
has a great deal more flexibility for use that local school districts 
would provide. And it seems to me increasing a program that even the 
President of the United States thinks is fully funded at $40 million to 
$80 million is just not a good concept to follow.
  It does not make any sense to me whatsoever, and I would urge the 
Members to reject the amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully join in the points made by the gentleman 
from Illinois relative to what happens to the money that is taken out 
of the Goals 2000 Program and put into the section where the gentleman 
who offers the amendment would like to have the money put.
  I am reading from the law here, which says that the purpose and 
method of operation of that particular program provides financial 
assistance to State educational agencies for education services to 
neglected and delinquent children and youth under age 21 in State-run 
institutions for juveniles and adult correctional institutions. It says 
the funds are allocated to the individual States through a formula 
based on the number of children in State operations and per pupil 
counts in State institutions that provide at least 20 hours of 
instruction from non-Federal funds; that adult correctional 
institutions must provide 15 hours per week.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anyone in the Congress that has worked 
harder over the years to provide money for programs for at-risk, 
neglected, and delinquent children than I have. I have sat on this 
subcommittee for more than 20 years urging that we put money into 
programs that will avoid at-risk children and neglected and delinquent 
children having to go to State-run institutions and adult correctional 
institutions.

[[Page H7133]]

  The money that is being taken out of there, if it were going into a 
program to help these children avoid becoming at risk and avoid 
becoming delinquent, it would be the proper way to put the money. But 
when we look at the Goals 2000 Program, that program is designed so as 
to keep these children from becoming at risk and becoming children who 
later on become inmates in State-run institutions and adult 
correctional institutions.
  I think we might just for a moment take a look at what the Goals 2000 
Program actually does. This program reflects over a decade of 
rethinking of American education and how it can be improved. It is one 
of our best investments because it is aimed at helping all students 
reach high academic standards and because it offers States, school 
districts, and schools maximum flexibility in the use of Federal funds 
to reach this objective.
  Goals 2000 also has a tremendous impact because it helps Governors 
and educators develop the strategic map or planning guide for most 
effective use of all other resources, Federal, State, and local.
  On the contrary, under this other section, where the money is being 
put, those young people are not helped by the moneys being put there. 
This money is more designed to carry out the administration of keeping 
them in these institutions as inmates.
  Standards-based reform, which is the purpose of Goals 2000, is 
working all across the country. Strong schools now, with clear 
standards of achievement and discipline, are essential to our children 
and our society. These standards are needed to help instill the skills 
and encouragement for hard work that our children need to succeed in 
school and in life. Toward that end we must now establish meaningful 
standards for what students should be expected to learn and to achieve.
  The American public supports high standards in education. Parents 
deserve to know how their children are performing, based on rigorous 
standards. And with the help of Goals 2000, States are establishing 
academic standards and coordinating their curriculum frameworks, 
student assessment programs, teacher preparation, licensure 
requirements, parental and community involvement and other aspects of 
the educational system to help all children achieve the State standard.
  So it does not help the young people that the maker of the motion 
intends to help by taking money out of this type of a program to put it 
over in a program where these children are the victims then of not 
having the proper amount of money in those programs and have become 
delinquent, and as a result of their delinquency become incarcerated in 
these State institutions and correctional institutions.
  So I would hope that the House would reject the gentleman's 
amendment, because no matter how wellintentioned, it will not achieve 
what the gentleman desires to achieve. I think I can say this clearly 
as one who has fought hard for at-risk youth to try to see that they 
never have to see what the inside of a State-run institution or what an 
adult correctional institution is like by having money put in the 
programs that are designed such as Goals 2000.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, rather than ask for an extension of time 
with the chairman of the subcommittee, I wanted to make a couple of 
points and then ask a question.
  I understood him to say that he felt that the problem of juvenile 
delinquency was less than the need for the funds for Goals 2000. I want 
to get that clarified. But that in this amendment as we move to look at 
the question of national standards, the last speaker said it was not 
mandatory but that we needed national standards and people were looking 
for standards. I do not disagree that there needs to be stronger 
standards in the local schools and at the State level, but we have a 
fundamental disagreement over whether people are looking to Washington 
to set standards on anything. We do not have a particularly great 
record of putting standards on ourselves in this House or in the White 
House or in the executive agencies on a lot of different things. I do 
not think parents want to trust us with setting the standards out of 
here with all the dealmaking that occurs and with all the ability of 
different lobbying groups to influence it disproportionately here in 
Washington. I do not think they want the standards coming out of 
Washington, the involuntary pushing toward this.
  On the other side, in the discussion that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] had with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, 
the question was, was this money going to the local schools. My 
understanding is that in Goals 2000, if they agree to cooperate and 
follow with certain things, some of the money goes there. But in the 
juvenile delinquency programs, it goes to the States which then move it 
down to the local level.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania will yield, let me 
correct that, because I think the gentleman from Colorado's and the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment does not do what they want it to do.
  The program that the gentleman mentioned, that is, the program to 
which the $40 million would be transferred, is a program that is 
apportioned to the States. I will read to the gentleman if he wants 
from the budget justification submitted this year, but let me summarize 
the first part:

       Funds are allocated to the States through a formula based 
     on the number of children in State-operated institutions. . . 
     . Like other title I programs, this program requires 
     institutions to gear their services to the high State 
     standards that all children are expected to meet. All 
     juvenile facilities may operate institutionwide education 
     programs and use title I funds in combination with other 
     available Federal and State funds.

  This is a program for State institutions, not for local school 
districts, and it is not a grant program.
  Mr. SOUDER. It says institutions in the States. It does not 
necessarily say State institutions.
  Mr. PORTER. It says State institutions serving children, ``State 
institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 
least 30 days.''
  Mr. SOUDER. Whether or not, and we can discuss whether State 
institutions move it to the local level. Let us assume for purposes of 
debate that we are moving it to the States for neglected children. We 
attempted in earlier amendments in title I to move money to vocational 
education for prevention as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] was 
referring to, we attempted to move money to IDEA, we will have 
additional amendments here to try to move it to education programs for 
high-risk students. This particular amendment is focused on the goals 
and then moving it to kids. It is hard to say that once somebody is in 
a juvenile institution that forever they are gone. The purpose of this 
program and as we reworked the Juvenile Justice Act in the authorizing 
subcommittee, we tried to look not only at prevention which is 
important but how we take those kids who are in the system and try to 
rehabilitate them and work with them while they are in the system. I 
believe that that ought to be done predominantly at the State level, 
which these funds do. This moves those funds to the State level. 
Presumably those State funds and those institutions are at the local 
community, but let us say that it goes to the State level. I believe 
that that is much more effective than arbitrary standards set out of 
Washington in education. That is what this amendment by the gentleman 
from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, does.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Let me read from this. I was reading the wrong section. I 
apologize for that.

       This program provides financial assistance to State 
     educational agencies for education services to neglected and 
     delinquent children and youth under age 21 in State-run 
     institutions for juveniles and in adult correctional 
     institutions.

  This money will not go to school districts under any circumstances.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Indiana.

[[Page H7134]]

  Mr. SOUDER. I was not maintaining it went to local educational 
institutions. It went to try to educate people at the local level who 
are in institutions for juveniles. What I am arguing is that we cannot 
just say everybody in school is the problem. We also have to try to do 
literacy courses, vocational education training, and stuff for people 
who are lost but are coming back out. Juveniles in the system with the 
exception of those who may have committed a life sentence crime are not 
going to be there forever. This money moves money for education for 
those who are in juvenile institutions or adult institutions for 
training. I believe that is a better use of funds. The gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, proposed this amendment because he believes 
it is a better use of funds than some sort of Federal standards coming 
out of Washington that drive our school districts and often override 
what local school boards or the State institutions in education would 
favor.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am shocked, shocked to hear that 
all this time we thought that many Members on that side of the table 
were anti-education when they tried to do away with the Department of 
Education, never stood up for preventative actions for the criminal 
justice system before, for juveniles or for anyone else. All of a 
sudden they have this heartfelt concern for many, many programs that 
have been fought on that side of the aisle, particularly by that 
element of the group repeatedly.
  I am on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Chairman. 
Believe me, I did not hear any cry for vocational education, asking for 
more funding at the committee level. In fact, they wanted to zero it 
out at the committee level. But here we are with an opportunity for 
them to attack a program that they do not like, and all of a sudden 
they want vocational education.
  If you were sitting in the Committee on the Judiciary, you probably 
would not hear much from them about preventative programs for 
juveniles, but here we are with an ability for them to attack a program 
they do not like and all of a sudden they have a newfound fervor for 
that.
  I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if we had sat around for their planning 
session, what we would have heard is this is an area of Goals 2000 we 
are going to attack and do it by making some sort of a problem for 
people by pitting that money against cuts or increases in another area 
that people feel very strongly about also. They want to be less than 
disingenuous. If they wanted to be actual and straightforward about it, 
they would just move to cut the budget.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SOUDER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts 
suspend?
  The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SOUDER. Is it in violation of House rules to malign the motives 
and try to prescribe motives to people when they have no idea what 
those motives were?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Indiana making a 
point of order?
  Mr. SOUDER. My point of order is I believe it is a violation of House 
rules to malign the integrity of other Members and their reasons for 
offering amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman demanding that the 
gentleman's words be taken down?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I will take back my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I proceed because I think it is important 
for the people to know that if it is Goals 2000 about which they want 
to have the debate, let us have it straightforward on that particular 
program. This is a program that President Bush put forward with the 
cooperation of Governors across this Nation, including a then Governor 
who is now President of the United States. It is a program that 
virtually every major business group supported, every major educational 
group supported, people by and large in this country supported because 
it was not national standards, it was an opportunity to combine Federal 
resources with local and State resources to establish standards to 
raise the bar for students across this country, to give them goals to 
achieve.
  That is what we ought to be doing. Then we have to assess where they 
are. But we need teacher development. Goals 2000 provides the tools to 
do that. We need to have assessment, and the local communities can do 
that with the help they get from Goals 2000. We need to have parental 
involvement, and some communities have taken Goals 2000 grants and done 
just that, increased parental involvement. These are the programs that 
we put forward repeatedly, programs that help the public schools in 
this country improve the ability of the children to learn and give them 
a chance in this life.
  If you do not like Goals 2000, take a straight vote on whether or not 
to cut that program. But do not try to be disingenuous, do not try and 
pit one program against another when you have lost the initial debate 
on policy. Come straight to the people of this country, have the 
debate, have the vote and then let the House get on with its business.
  I commend the chairman and I commend the ranking member for the hard 
work that they have done in reaching a compromise on a bill that helps 
to educate children in this country in what has been by and large 
historically a nonpartisan venture, the education in the public schools 
of the children of this country. I ask that we return to that agenda 
and stop what is going on here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Bob Schaffer.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Bob Schaffer will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 64, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the spirit of 
bipartisanship with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and in 
the spirit of strong support for our education system and this 
bipartisan bill that has been put together.
  I want to start by commending the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for their hard work 
in funding particularly a number of programs in education that are 
important to me. Title I, Head Start and Pell grants are not only fully 
funded, but we see increases in those very vital programs. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for their strong work in those areas.
  This bipartisan amendment that I offer today is an amendment that 
would support an innovative, bold, imaginative new idea for public 
school choice, and that is charter schools.
  Where do we get the $25 million to support charter schools, to take 
it up from $75 million in this bill to the President of the United 
States' request of $100 million? We take the $25 million out for 
charter schools from a program called the technology literacy challenge 
grant. That is a program that I strongly support. The President asked 
in that program for $425 million. The Committee on Appropriations gave 
it $460 million, a 130-percent increase. While I strongly support that 
technology literacy program, our $25 million taken from that program to 
put in charter schools will still result in a 112-

[[Page H7135]]

percent increase in the technology literacy program, $10 million above 
the President's request, and fully fund the charter program that the 
President has strongly supported.
  Why should we be supporting charter schools in this Nation? They are 
cradles of innovation, they empower teachers and students and parents, 
they are schools created by teachers, schools and our parents. They are 
accountable. If a charter school is not working, a charter school can 
be shut down. They strengthen the public school system. We are not 
trying to take money away from public schools. We are trying to find 
bold, new, imaginative programs that give accountability and give 
access and give local control, and that is a charter school.
  These programs, I think, Mr. Chairman, are working. Three years ago, 
there were two or three charter schools in America. Now there are over 
700.

                              {time}  1245

  Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and 30 States have charter 
schools. They are independent public schools. They are open to all 
students, they are supported by our tax dollars, they are accountable 
to citizens, to taxpayers, to parents and to students and to teachers, 
and they are community-based.
  One charter school that I visited here in Washington, DC, is called 
the Options Charter School. The Options Charter School here in 
Washington, DC, is not for the elite, it is not for the wealthy, it is 
100-percent minority. All the students are eligible for free and 
reduced lunches, and most of those students have dropped out of the 
D.C. school system.
  So this charter school is not trying to help the elite and the 
wealthy; it is, in fact, trying to help some of the most disadvantaged 
students that the D.C. school system is failing.
  So let us debunk the myths of charter schools that they are vouchers. 
No, they strengthen the public school system. Let us debunk the myth 
that they are for the elite. No, they often serve needy and disabled 
students. And these are completely accountable because State 
legislatures have to pass charter school laws.
  So I would hope that my colleagues would support a bold and new idea. 
I would hope my colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship and the 
spirit of support for education would bring charter schools up to the 
President's request of $100 million, and I would hope that they 
understand that the money coming out of the Technology Literacy 
Challenge Grant Program still results, let me remind my colleagues, 
still results in a 112-percent increase for that Technology Literacy 
Challenge Grant Program.
  Vote for innovation, vote for bipartisanship, vote for charter 
schools.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain why. First of all, I think when we are 
trying to keep an agreement together between the parties, it is 
important to oppose amendments from both sides of the aisle, not just 
that side.
  Second, I, frankly, do not know quite what I think of the pace at 
which charter schools ought to be encouraged. I like the idea of 
charter schools, because I think that they offer an opportunity to 
escape the bureaucratic box which a lot of local schools have been 
caught in.
  But I am also concerned about the very uneven result we have seen so 
far with the charter school movement. I think if it is to be developed 
in the future, it sort of reminds me when we used to be involved, we 
had a competition between parties, frankly, to show who is most against 
cancer back 20 years ago. You would have amendment after amendment 
throwing money very fast into the Cancer Institute. But we did not also 
add money to the grant overseers in the department to see that the 
money was not wasted, and a lot of it wound up being wasted and some 
people went to jail.
  I think you can kill a good thing by sometimes increasing its budget 
too fast, and that is why I am concerned about increasing the funding 
for charter schools until we have better results.
  Third, while that alone would not cause me to oppose the amendment, 
because I think in the end charter schools will get their problems 
worked out, I very much am concerned about the source from which the 
gentleman takes the money, the technology account.
  I have had a good many experiences in my district in helping schools 
on projects in wiring those schools so they can connect with the 
information highway, in trying to see to it that rural schools, and I 
do not represent a single city larger than 37,000, I am concerned with 
seeing that rural schools are not passed by on either the school reform 
movement or by the technology revolution that is taking place in this 
country.
  It seems to me that this technology account is a key tool in enabling 
schools with very limited local resources to be able to stay abreast of 
the breathtaking changes that are occurring in technology and 
communications around the country.
  So that is why I very reluctantly would have to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. Perhaps we can reach a different understanding 
in conference, because the President, I know, is an enthusiast for 
charter schools, and I am willing to listen to that. But for the 
moment, again, we have reached an understanding about how these 
resources ought to be divided.
  There is no question that on the merits many accounts in this bill 
are underfunded. I think this entire bill is underfunded to the tune of 
at least $4 to $5 billion. I think we should be putting more resources 
into education, into student aid, into medical research. But until that 
happens, we have to, unfortunately, make these very hard choices.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman and Mr. Porter once again for making some of the tough 
choices for increasing funding for Head Start, a fantastic program, 
increasing funding for Pell grants, increasing funding for title I. You 
have done a great job. I salute the gentleman for that.
  I also would agree with the gentleman that the gentleman and I would 
probably want to take money out of B-2 and space station and put it 
into education. We do not have that luxury in this bill.
  The gentleman's first concern about too much money going into charter 
schools too quickly, again, I am a supporter of the Technology Literacy 
Challenge Grant Program. But we have funded that at an 130 percent 
increase. And even if we are successful in transferring $25 million, it 
will still be $10 million above the President's request. Whereas, if we 
take the $25 million and get it into charter schools, we just meet the 
President's request there.
  If this amendment is successful, we have met the President's 
educational request for charter schools, and we are still $10 million 
above his request on the Technology Literacy Challenge Grant Program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I recognize that. All I 
would say is there is a reason why technology funding is exploding, and 
that is because technology itself is exploding, and no school wants to 
be left behind. This is a crucial time for all of them.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on this amendment, and I am very 
pleased to join with my good friend and colleague on the Subcommittee 
on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] 
in offering and sponsoring this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 14 years ago the late Terrence Bell, who served as 
Education Secretary in the Reagan administration, headed up a group 
that was charged with studying the conditions of American schools. They 
issued a breakthrough report, a remarkable report, a report that I 
think to this day is considered somewhat of the definitive study on 
American education. It was called A Nation at Risk.
  Now, 14 years later, 1997, another group that Mr. Bell was involved 
with until he passed away did a followup study called Reclaiming a 
Nation at Risk, and they found that the No. 1 and most important aspect 
of educational reform is decentralized decisionmaking and site-based 
management, and that is what charter schools are all about.

[[Page H7136]]

  They are a remarkable experiment in a highly regulated, very 
bureaucratic profession, and that is not a slight on teaching, which I 
consider to be a missionary occupation, but they are a remarkable 
experiment in decentralization and deregulation.
  The early results on charter schools are very, very promising. We 
have about 600 charter schools in the country today, out of 16,000 
primary-secondary schools nationwide, and these charter schools are 
producing great results.
  I personally went to a charter school in southern California called 
the Vaughn Learning Center, run by a longtime educational 
administrator, a school administrator, a true professional, an 
educational entrepreneur I call her, by the name of Dr. Evone Chan.
  She started the Vaughn Learning Center in a gang-ridden, poverty-
infested area, and has done tremendous things with that particular 
school. It used to be a neighborhood elementary school. Now it is a 
charter school.
  The kids who lived in that neighborhood who were going to other 
schools around the city of Los Angeles are back at that charter school, 
and she has a long waiting list of kids whose families want to send 
them to the Vaughn Learning Center.
  Dr. Chan is very excited about charter schools. She is a tremendous 
enthusiast for charter schools as being the cutting-edge of public 
school reform and a way of giving parents more choice in public 
education.
  She told us when we were in Los Angeles having our field hearing on 
the campus of the Vaughn Learning Center that charter schools were the 
answer to what she called the three B's, bussing, bureaucracy, and 
buts.
  She explained many times throughout her career with the Los Angeles 
unified school system, she would have a great idea, she, if you will, 
would promote that idea up the chain of command, up the lines of 
authority, and get back an answer, ``basically that is a great idea, a 
great suggestion, Dr. Chan, but we can't do it or it won't work for the 
following reasons.''
  So she says charter schools are the answers to problems, the bussing, 
bureaucracy, and buts, in education today, and she is joined by a wide 
number of people, people from across the political spectrum.
  Now, the Hudson Institute has also looked at charter schools, Bruno 
Manno, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, visited 50 such 
schools in 10 States, and concluded, quoting from a Washington Post 
article, that charter schools may be ``the most vibrant force in 
American education today.''
  The Department of Education is doing a study on charter schools and 
they have just finished the first phase of that study. We now know the 
key findings of that first phase study, the first year report on 
charter schools, are that educational vision and flexibility from 
bureaucratic laws and regulations are the two reasons most commonly 
cited for starting public charter schools.
  Second, they have a racial composition, and this is important to 
hear, a racial composition similar to statewide averages, or have a 
higher proportion of minority students.
  Third, the Department of Education tells us from their study that 
they enroll roughly the same proportion of low-income students on 
average as other public schools.
  Last, most charter schools are small, with an average of 275 
students, and that provides a tremendous learning environment.
  That is why the Hudson Institute found in their report that charter 
schools are havens for children who have had bad educational 
experiences elsewhere, low-income children, at-risk children, minority 
children, and children with learning disabilities and behavioral 
problems. They and their parents reported they are doing better at 
their charter schools than at previous schools.
  So I support the Roemer amendment and am very pleased to join with 
the gentleman in commending the amendment to our colleagues.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. Charter 
schools can be created by parents, by teachers, by community leaders, 
by museums, by universities, anyone who is interested in pursuing 
excellence in education.
  Charter schools aim to equip our children with the skills they need 
to compete in today's ever-expanding global marketplace. A good charter 
school holds the students to rigorous academic standards and makes 
excellence the norm.
  We are experimenting with charter schools in my State of Connecticut, 
and these schools create an alternative form of public schooling. For 
example, in my district, the Odyssey Charter School in Manchester is a 
middle school that helps underachieving students in traditional 
subjects like math and English, but also goes on to have these students 
understand more about communication, newspapers, radio, and the 
Internet.
  Another school that we are beginning is the Sports Science Academy in 
Hartford, CT. This school has 125 students focusing on careers related 
to sports industries.

                              {time}  1300

  These schools aim to lift restraints on public schools so that all 
the talent, all the creativity, all the excitement that faculties want 
so much to bring to a student body can be unleashed. Charter schools 
can pursue innovative teaching methods that will improve student 
performance. Designed to deregulate and decentralize education, the 
charter school concept is intended to empower parents, teachers, and 
community members with a flexibility to innovate.
  At a time when we are so aware that our students have to grow up and 
have talent and learn new technological skills, we really have to 
actively pursue every avenue to make quality education, public 
education, available. I just think this makes good sense.
  Mr. Chairman, my school district in Hartford has some serious, 
serious problems. All of us who claim to really care about public 
schools, all of us who really know that what made this country great 
was our public school system, we really have to think about supporting 
choice in public schools. If we are going to have choice in public 
schools, we are going to have to deliver the necessary financial 
support to charter schools in a way that we demonstrate our commitment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer] for bringing this forth. The time has come, and we all say 
that we are for this, that, or something else, but if we truly believe 
our public school systems are going to work, then we have to be 
innovative, and we have to share the cost of that innovation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Roemer-Riggs amendment. I think 
it strikes right at the heart of one of the most exciting concepts in 
education in this country, no matter what part of government we are 
dealing with. And I have always liked pilot projects, where we test how 
things work before we nationalize them, or before we make them 
statewide, or before we bring them into the system.
  Charter schools are making a difference in this country. Charter 
schools are one experiment of the many educational experiments that I 
think people all over this country are excited about. We should not 
allow the educational bureaucracy to just allow them to grow very 
slowly. When we look at the numbers, we heard today that 600 in this 
country out of 16,000 schools, that is about 3\1/2\ percent, are 
charter schools. That needs to grow.
  I, too, am a very strong supporter of the technology literacy fund. 
But that received a 130 percent increase over last year. It will still 
have a 110 percent increase. I have heard the words here today several 
times that you can grow funding for a program too fast and not spend it 
wisely, and that might be the case here. It will not be underfunded, 
and it will bring the charter school funding up to what the President 
felt the needs were. This is one area where the President and I 
sincerely agree.
  All the new research documents show that the reason charter schools 
are not moving forward faster is the lack of startup funds. That is the 
role we can play. Even the NEA, I am told, is talking of doing five 
charter schools. When

[[Page H7137]]

the establishment starts to get into the charter school business, it 
shows us that this is a concept that is making a difference.
  In my district, I have a regional charter school proposed that I 
think is exciting. Small, rural school districts really are challenged 
to deal with troubled students, students that are truant, students that 
are in trouble with the law and cause a lot of problems in the school. 
When there is a certain amount of that, the whole school is disrupted, 
and the educational process.
  We have a regional concept where they are going to hopefully get 
chartered soon to have, for a multicounty area, a place where troubled 
students, delinquent children in these small, rural school districts, 
that could not deal with them in a positive way, a place to offer them 
a kind of program that would help them, but done on a regional basis.
  The grass-roots support continues to grow as people learn about 
charter schools. In Florida, where independent observers first 
predicted a relatively small amount of activity due to aspects of the 
State's enabling legislation, 40 schools were approved in the first two 
rounds. In North Carolina, more than 60 groups applied for charters in 
the first round of applications. In Pennsylvania, my State, 90 groups 
wanted to have a charter school before the law was even passed, and 67 
are now receiving State support.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an educational experiment that has proven it 
can make a difference in American schools, all different types of 
charter schools, and it is one we should force-feed. We should at least 
fund the President's recommended request of $100 million, which the 
Roemer-Riggs amendment does. I think it is one of the best amendments I 
have seen in the educational debate here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for innovation, to vote for change, to 
vote for the funding for charter schools that are making a difference, 
and will make a great difference in this country if we adequately fund 
them.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Roemer-Riggs 
amendment, to join my colleagues from the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. They seek to put an additional impetus behind this 
charter school movement. I think it is important.
  I come as someone who fully supports free, public, quality education 
in our country, and I do not think there is anything inconsistent in 
that in the support of charter schools. They will be and have been, as 
they have been established throughout the country, public institutions 
focused on funding through experimentation, and a particular focus on 
some of the key answers to questions that still challenge the public 
education system.
  In my school district in Philadelphia, the largest in the State of 
Pennsylvania, our board of education has just approved the application 
for a number of charters, many of which will be set up in my district, 
and I am very, very hopeful that not only will it benefit the students 
who will attend those charter schools, but that there will be lessons 
learned from them that will be applicable throughout the system.
  We need to continue this. As this country goes forward to perfect our 
Union, nothing has been more important in the American experiment than 
a free, public, quality education for all of our citizens. So even as 
those who come to point at some of the difficult and remaining 
challenges and find some reason to complain about our circumstances in 
public education, I believe that there is still hope, and I think part 
of that hope is the charter school effort.
  It includes in it still a commitment for a public process, public 
schooling, and one in which, at least for the charters in Pennsylvania, 
that the application and enrollment processes are ones in which we can 
see that there will be a fair opportunity for every young person who 
wants to participate and be part of those institutions.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and his 
cosponsor, and I would hope this House would favorably support and 
endorse this amendment. It is unfortunate that we have to move some 
money from another very worthy program. That is part of a larger debate 
about what our commitment in this Nation really ought to be in terms of 
education.
  But I am hopeful, even as we take this step, that the technology and 
literacy program will still have, as has been mentioned by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], a colleague of mine, 
adequate resources and an appropriate increase as we go into the next 
fiscal year.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose this amendment. We have a 
choice here of two good spending programs in education. I think most 
Members on both sides of the aisle can support the programs, the 
charter school program and the technology program. As a member of the 
subcommittee, we have to make those tough choices, how do you allocate 
the money.
  Charter schools is a new program. We increased it by 50 percent. 
During hearings this summer, for example, on June 3 we were advised by 
the chairman of the subcommittee that with respect to charter schools, 
he said, I am recommending that any funding increase you consider for 
the Federal charter schools be contingent on enactment of additional 
authorizing legislation.
  There is concern about putting too much money too fast into the 
program. So we increased it about 50 percent, which is legitimate, and 
I have already had the pleasure of visiting two charter schools in my 
district. I am very, very impressed. They are brand new this year. One 
is the PAL Program. In fact, I spoke at the opening day ceremonies, 
along with our State superintendent of schools, Frank Brogan, that our 
sheriff, Charlie Wells, has used the Police Athletic League to start 
middle school programs for kids that need special help, not a 
disciplinary program, but kids that need special learning help, energy 
and techniques and such, that can help these 100 kids in middle school; 
a great program. It is really exciting. I was talking to the principal 
on the phone just yesterday about the benefits of the program.
  Another program that I visited last week was Easter Seal, helping 
disabled kids, again a great idea. I think it is going to be very 
successful in helping that targeted group of kids that need that 
special down in Sarasota-Manatee area. I am a supporter of charter 
schools, and I think maybe Members on both sides of the aisle are.
  The technology program is a program that we started to help bring 
computers in and help us into the 21st century for our schools. Our 
goal is to have $2 billion over the next 5 years to help schools get 
the latest technology, again something we all support. It is a program 
that we have a goal to reach in 2 years, is the reason this program is 
increasing, and should continue to increase over this 5-year effort to 
reach that amount of money.
  So charter schools is a good program, and technology is a good 
program. We can support both of them, but we only have so much money to 
work with. How do we allocate the dollars? It was the choice of the 
committee to increase the charter schools by $25 million. It is not the 
end of the world if this amendment passes, it is just a matter of 
making those tough choices.
  I think charter schools are an exciting new idea in education. I see 
it working in the State of Florida. But we have to be careful and let 
it grow and see how we in Washington can help support the local and 
State efforts, which of course, is where all control of the educational 
system should be placed.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He is a 
very good friend, and I have certainly enjoyed serving with him on the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to my colleagues, we are 
talking about increasing funding for charter schools from $75 to $100 
million, which would fully fund the President's budget request for 
charter schools. In the hearings we have already conducted in the 
subcommittee that I chair on primary-secondary education, Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families, we have heard that the single biggest 
obstacle to the opening or startup of

[[Page H7138]]

more schools is seed capital. That is what we are trying to provide 
here.
  We think we have found a reasonable offset. While I respect the 
gentleman's views, we think we have found a reasonable offset in the 
Technology-Literacy Challenge Fund, because that program, that account, 
received a 130 percent increase in funding, as the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] pointed out, exceeding the President's request by 
$35 million.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, when the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] was speaking before the 
committee, on questioning, he was saying we needed to go slow as far as 
new authorization. Our reluctance was not to increase it too fast until 
the authorizing legislation caught up to what is happening in charter 
schools.
  Charter schools is a good idea, but the technology program is 
something that I think we need to continue to push forward on and 
achieve that $2 billion goal. I rise in reluctant opposition.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Riggs-Roemer amendment. 
I rise in appreciation that these two Members on opposite sides of the 
aisle have adopted a bipartisan approach to perhaps the most important 
issue facing our country at this time.
  At a time when, on education matters, we are fighting over tests and 
fighting over vouchers, two Members have anchored us where we all are. 
They deserve our support and they deserve our appreciation.
  They have my particular support because the divisive fight over 
vouchers has caused unnecessary splits in people who really want the 
same thing. There is a constitutional issue raised there. There is the 
fight over diversion of public money. Here is the kind of compromise 
that can get everybody working together.
  In the District last year, when there was a task force appointed by 
the Speaker to work on school issues for the District, and 
Representative Steve Gunderson, who has now left the Congress, found 
that there had been a referendum in the District against vouchers. He 
looked for an alternative that would accomplish the same thing, and 
worked with us to get a charter provision in the D.C. appropriation.
  Now we see this issue coming alive all over the country. Those who 
support vouchers tell us existing schools need competition. They could 
not be more right. Public schools need competition, but I have to tell 
the Members, they have been getting competition from church schools and 
from private schools forever. There were those schools there before 
there were public schools, and they have done nothing to, in fact, 
improve public schools. The reason is, public schools need to see a 
public school doing better than they are doing. That is what a charter 
school is; it is a public school that is allowed to fly by its own 
light.
  If they see children, just like the children in the public school, 
going to school on public money, using innovation, you then have real 
competition. We do not have it from the wonderful parochial schools in 
my district now. We do not have it from the private schools in my 
district now. But I can tell the Members, out of the side of their eye, 
our public schools look at charter schools that are doing better, 
getting better test scores, and getting better involvement of parents.
  The private schools have been there all along. Charter schools are 
giving a big push to public schools. In my district, we cannot keep up 
with the number who want public schools.

                              {time}  1315

  One hundred million dollars will not begin to do it nationwide. Why 
should this money be put here? Because there is a market. The market 
out there in the country is saying: We want these schools, and we ought 
to respond to that market.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want innovation, that is where the innovation is. 
Vouchers are stuck in the courts and are going to be stuck there for a 
long time, until the Supreme Court tells us there is a violation of 
church and State. Meanwhile, all energy, for example in the District of 
Columbia, is going into public schools, and well it might.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Members, and there are so many now, who 
are hosting D.C. students as interns in their offices. Many have 
stopped to tell me how helpful these students are. We want to keep the 
focus on these public schools; not only on their roofs, but what goes 
on in these schools.
  The District has been chosen out for a possible attachment to its 
appropriation, imposing a voucher provision on the District, after the 
District has already said in a public referendum that the District does 
not want vouchers. This issue held up our appropriation 2 years ago and 
almost took an insolvent District all the way down.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that a voucher provision will be filibustered 
in the Senate. What a waste of time and energy. Why cause this 
divisiveness among us on a question of overriding importance to us all, 
and that is education?
  Nobody would filibuster a charter school provision. The overwhelming 
majority of the public want us to find a quick, nondivisive way to 
improve their schools tomorrow, not after the Supreme Court tells us 
whether or not money can be given to a parochial school or a private 
school. And, above all, imposing vouchers on a helpless jurisdiction 
that is not fully represented here, nor in the Senate, is a shameful 
way.
  Mr. Chairman, if the majority thinks that they have a majority for 
vouchers on the District, then they have a majority for vouchers in 
this House. The majority should put their own bill forward, and not 
bully a smaller jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge its passage.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Riggs amendment, and I 
am very cognizant of the stated concerns of the appropriators. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] spoke earlier, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] spoke to this as well. I think they raise 
some legitimate points.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I could say that I was an expert on the 
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. I know a little bit about it, I 
think, so it is a good program. I am not quite sure why it is getting 
the significant increase that it is getting here.
  The charter schools is already getting an increase, and this would 
take it to an additional $100 million. But I am familiar with the 
charter schools in my own State. In Delaware, like in other States, we 
are beginning to innovate and do different things to present a 
different way of looking at our public schools.
  Public school choice, for example, has become a very major issue in 
just about the last 2 or 3 years in my State, and I think it is a good 
issue. During the campaign last year, I was actually out at schools 
having an open house and I never saw such parental interest in a 
school. It was getting into a choice situation. We are beginning to see 
real changes.
  Mr. Chairman, charter schools invite that. In Delaware, we have 
charter schools. They tend to be very varying in the kinds of things 
they are doing. There are not many of them at this point. We certainly 
need all the guidance, all the innovation, all the research we can get 
with respect to charter schools, but it is making teachers and 
administrators and parents and students sit up and say, gee, do I want 
my child to go to a school of arts? Do I want my child to go to a 
business or finance school? Do I want my child to do something perhaps 
different than what the child might be doing otherwise?
  Mr. Chairman, the answer in many instances is ``Yes.'' It is breaking 
the mold. I agree with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton], because I think we need to do some of this at the public 
school level, not just at the private school level.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of situation in which we have 
Federal money as an overlay to what is done at the State and local 
government level, but I believe that the Federal dollars in this have 
been well spent. My understanding is that the request of the White 
House was actually for the amount of money that we are taking

[[Page H7139]]

this up to, or something roughly equivalent to it. So I assume that the 
Department of Education is fully prepared to be able to handle and 
manage this increase, if we are able to make this change.
  So while I have some reluctance to go out of the parameters as set 
forward by the appropriators, particularly on this very sensitive bill, 
I think in this instance we would be well-served to help this as the 
moderate step.
  Some people are opposed to vouchers to private schools, and I have 
mixed feelings about that as well. I think for those who are very 
interested in vouchers, that this is another offshoot, in a sense, to 
that; a way of bringing innovation and change to our schools. Mr. 
Chairman, I would encourage their support for this as well.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Riggs amendment, 
and I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities for submitting this bipartisan amendment, and 
urge all Members to look closely at what we are considering here.
  We need a more deliberative process and, really, we need a bill out 
of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, which deals 
with charter schools in an appropriate fashion. But, Mr. Chairman, in 
that process there are certain facts we start with. The one gentleman 
who spoke before said that there are 16,000 schools in the country and 
about 600 charter schools. The gentleman was not correct. There are 
16,000 school districts, approximately, in the country. There are 
86,000 schools, approximately, in the country, 86,000 public schools, 
and only 600 charter schools. According to a study recently released by 
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, there are 600 
charter schools and probably by the end of the year there may be 800 
charter schools. So, Mr. Chairman, we might have at the end of this 
year 800 charter schools out of 86,000.
  Mr. Chairman, charter schools are a reasonable experiment. Charter 
schools represent an approach that has been adopted by a number of 
different people on both sides of the aisle. Both parties have endorsed 
charter schools. The President has endorsed charter schools.
  We have the National Educational Association and in my State the 
United Federation of Teachers. There are a number of groups that have 
endorsed the idea as being no danger to public schools. And, yet, we 
have only 600 at this point. The experiment will drop off the radar 
screen if we do not have more just in terms of trying to have an 
orderly, balanced approach to educational reform.
  If we have a good idea, an idea that so many approve of, then why not 
have it increased to the point where we can study it? We cannot even 
really study it, it is so small now, the tiny number of charter 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, the push is coming from people who are very angry and 
upset, who will at all cost try to push to get a charter school 
established and people who want to experiment and get out from under 
the bureaucracy. But, basically, these people are in the fringes and we 
need to bring this in and have more groups consider starting charter 
schools.
  Charter schools represent a change in the governance and management 
of public schools; the governance most of all. The governance is 
removed from boards of education and big bureaucracies and placed under 
small groups closer to the school. I do not want it always to be a 
small group. I do not think only 100- or 200-pupil schools should be 
charter schools. I think we should have some high schools and we should 
have some schools that look at the problem of students with discipline 
problems and really have a board of people from the private sector and 
education experts, as well as teachers and parents, and come together 
to try to solve some of these problems that the public schools find 
intractable. They always complain about disruptive students and where 
can we put them. Let us have some charter schools to try to attack that 
problem.
  Already, in the area of the technology literacy, we have a 
substantial amount of money there. I do not like taking money away from 
that. I am very much a proponent of technology in the schools. We have 
this week the Congressional Black Caucus, and I have a whole 3-hour 
forum on technology in the schools bringing together the private sector 
with the public sector and trying to make it work for the inner-city 
sector as well as it works in other places.
  But, Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that $2.2 billion a year is to 
be made available to help this process through the new ruling by the 
FCC. That is a result of congressional action. When we passed the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, we mandated the FCC should develop a 
way to provide a universal fund for discounted or free service to 
schools and libraries, and they have done that. I can get a 90 percent 
discount in most of my district, where we have the poorest children, a 
90 percent discount on telecommunication service.
  That has given impetus to the development of more and more 
technology, even in the communities where we have a great deal of 
poverty. The private sector now is involved not only in my community 
and my city, but all over the country. So we have a great deal going 
for telecommunications and for technology. If we take $25 million from 
that, it will not slow that down at all.
  But, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand, if we do not give charter 
schools more, they are going to fall off the radar screen. We need a 
critical mass in order to be able to study what we are doing. That is 
all we are asking. Give charter schools a chance. It is a good idea. 
And if it is a good idea, it deserves the support in an orderly way of 
the legislators and the people in policy-making positions. It should 
not be something that gets pushed from the bottom because the public 
demands it. We have to run to stay ahead of the public in this critical 
area. So charter schools should be supported with this transfer of 
funds.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are hearing another debate on the tough choices that 
we as Members of Congress have to make. We have had a number throughout 
this bill where there are two programs that some Members may support or 
not support, or in fact they may support both of them, then we have to 
make a priority funding. That is partly why the people elect us and pay 
us the salaries that we get to make those tough choices.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not here to suggest that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] are 
part of any scheme to attack technology assistance, just because they 
favor funding in charter schools. They have made their case that they 
believe there is enough money in one category and they need to move it 
into another, and I think it is really unfortunate when people attack 
the motives of Members of Congress when they try to move money between 
accounts. We ought to stop that on the House floor.
  Mr. Chairman, once we have decided that we are going to spend money 
in this bill, we have a right to stand up and advocate how we are going 
to do that.
  I am also not suggesting in any way that the gentleman from 
California or the gentleman from Indiana are any part of a filibuster 
on this bill. They have a sincere belief that it is important to switch 
funds, because they believe this area has been underfunded.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with them. I am reluctant. I think the money 
ought to come out of Goals 2000, a program where we have not seen the 
success, where it is Federal meddling beyond the point where I think 
the Federal Government ought to meddle, rather than technology 
assistance, which I think is a much more defensible program.
  But this whole debate is uncomfortable for many of us whose primary 
goal has been to move the money back to the parents and individuals to 
make the decisions on education where we believe constitutionally the 
Founding Fathers wanted it.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we tried to do through the tax cuts. By 
giving the $500 credit to parents to make that decision, they now have 
the choice to use it for health, they can use it for housing, they can 
use it for clothes or other expenses. But they can use it for

[[Page H7140]]

either higher education or private school education.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we as part of this whole package, have given 
parents the flexibility who want to go to, in effect, private schools 
that would not be eligible under charter school funding or our current 
education bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this addresses another concern, which is what about 
charter schools to increase competition with public schools? I want to 
say up front that first off, like I say, I am uncomfortable about 
moving it from technology assistance, which I believe is a far more 
deserving program than Goals 2000. At the same time, charter schools 
are an innovative way to put pressure on the public schools for reform.
  In the public schools, however, we cannot abandon those who have been 
left behind in the public schools, particularly in districts where they 
do not have the tax support, or handicapped students, which is why we 
have not been striking at programs that address those areas where 
schools need the supplemental assistance most in our different 
amendments and why we have been looking at things like Goals 2000.
  Charter schools, however, have been innovative in trying to reach 
out. Hudson Institute, based in my home State of Indiana, found that 19 
percent of the 8,400 students in charter schools they have surveyed had 
disabilities or impediments affecting their education, indicating that 
charter schools in fact serve proportionally more disabled students 
than traditional public schools.
  In the Center for Education Reform, the San Diego Chamber of Commerce 
found that the overall California charter schools enrolled 53 percent 
minority students. So we are seeing, even in the charter school area, 
an effort to try to address the highest risk areas where those parents 
have been left behind. Where higher income people can often go into an 
alternative school thing, and by Congress giving the tax credit to them 
we have increased that flexibility, now we need to give more choices to 
those who may not have that income.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, I am willing to withdraw my 
amendment which was to follow, which is to move funds from Goals 2000 
to charter schools, because I think it is important that we get the 
funding in the charter schools. I am disappointed that it would be 
coming out of technology assistance and computer assistance that I 
think is far more important than Goals 2000, but I am willing to 
consider withdrawing my amendment if this amendment looks like it is 
going to pass.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the gentleman and to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that I am a great fan of charter 
schools and think they are very, very important.
  The only reason that the subcommittee provided less than the 
President's request was because the gentleman from California, who was 
a member of our subcommittee and is now the chairman of the relevant 
authorizing subcommittee, suggested we ought to do so until some 
changes could be made in the authorizing law.
  Now that he is offering the amendment, I guess he is satisfied with 
the authorizing law. I certainly think that this is the place where the 
money ought to be, and I would accept the gentleman's amendment and the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment at this point.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin that we are delighted with the offer 
to accept the $25 million increase in the charter schools. We look 
forward to working with the gentleman not only in conference but in the 
years ahead to monitor the charter school program but to also see that 
it continues to get increases as it performs like the States and the 
parents and the students want it to perform. So we accept the 
gentleman's offer.
  I think there are two or three more speakers that would just like to 
speak very briefly in support of the program.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no issue that we need to 
debate on the floor of this House that is more important than improving 
our schools and understanding our fundamental obligations to stimulate 
positive reform in our communities and our neighborhoods and in our 
schools, particularly those reforms that best empower principals and 
teachers and parents and ultimately students.
  As we have talked about this morning, charter schools is an excellent 
example of that. Thirty States have adopted charter school legislation 
authorizing the creation of charter schools, including my home State, 
Florida. In Florida, the law that I helped write struck the balance 
between assuring a quality education and the protection and safety and 
well-being of our students while encouraging innovation.
  There are five charter schools that have been created so far under 
that law in the State of Florida, and there are 31 others that are 
scheduled to open right now.
  I think it is significant to point out that of the five schools that 
have opened, the class size is a lot smaller than the class size we see 
around the State in our public schools, averaging about 17 students per 
class. The students come from very diverse backgrounds. More than half 
of them have special education needs. What charter schools prove is 
that there is no greater advocate for our kids at risk than the parents 
and the teachers that know them, that see them on a daily basis, and 
principals. These are the people that are creating charter schools. 
These are the people we are empowering by the adoption of the Riggs-
Roemer amendment.
  I would like to further add that in an informal survey the parents of 
the children that are attending the charter schools so far in Florida 
have said that far more than half of them are doing much better in the 
charter school setting than they were doing in the traditional school 
setting. We have had a great start with charter schools, not just in 
Florida but around the country. I think the House has taken a positive 
step today by the agreement which I am certain we will follow through 
on conference to stimulate more positive reform at home with charter 
schools.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the leadership of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] and certainly my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and those on the Committee on Appropriations for 
having the vision and certainly the innovative spirit to recognize the 
importance and the invaluable work that charter schools are, the 
invaluable impact, really, that charter schools are having in 
communities around this Nation.
  I certainly thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the leadership on the other 
side for readily accepting this amendment. But I would say to all of my 
colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the aisle, that the 
exuberance and certainly the feeling of victory and triumph that 
saturates both sides right now, I would hope that we would also pay 
some close attention to some of the other challenges that many of the 
school districts in this Nation are facing.
  I speak from the Ninth District in Tennessee, Mr. Chairman, where 
many of our students even today are being let out at noon because they 
have no air conditioning in their schools. At 7 a.m., classrooms where 
they are trying to teach algebra and basic English and basic science, 
the temperature is stifling, 96, 97, and 98 degrees. These are our 
future leaders, our future public policy leaders, our future pastors, 
our future policemen and firemen. We owe them what we give really to 
other issues in our budget, whether it is the B-2 or other expensive 
items that all of us deem necessary.
  I would hope that we would recognize that as we talk about moving 
this

[[Page H7141]]

country into a new millennium, as we talk about taking this Nation from 
what has been to what can be, that we will invest in those areas which 
will allow our institutions and our systems to educate our future 
leaders.
  Again, I salute the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for their leadership, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that this amendment will be 
accepted. It should be. This is one of the most exciting things that is 
happening in the area of educational reform. I particularly want to 
give credit to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer], for being in the vanguard of this effort legislatively.
  I am the ranking subcommittee Democrat on the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. One of the 
most frustrating things that we have to deal with is the District of 
Columbia public school system. It may be the worst of any urban area in 
the country. Even those intimately involved in it will recognize that. 
But the most exciting thing that is happening within that school system 
is what is happening in the area of charter schools.
  We, in the suburbs, have about 50,000 unfilled jobs. There are at 
least that many people within the District of Columbia who could be 
filling those jobs who are not employed. Yet, we cannot make that 
match.
  One of the ways that we are going to attempt to match those jobs with 
those people who are willing to work and have the basic skills is 
through the charter school movement, by putting in vocational 
education, vocational training, bringing in businesses, making the 
education relevant to the jobs that are available for the graduates.
  We had more than 40 good applications for charter schools for the 
District of Columbia. We cannot possibly fund that many. We will be 
lucky if we can fund half of the well-qualified ones. This amendment is 
going to give us more resources so that we can fund more of those 
excellent efforts at finding ways to get around the institutional 
orthodoxies, all the institutional structures that mitigate against 
reform and enabling us to do the right thing for the young people of 
the District of Columbia.
  The District of Columbia is just a microcosm. This is happening all 
over the country. Every once in a while institutions need to be 
reformed. We need to bring good innovative ideas in. Think about them 
for a while, throw them around, see what the effects would be of 
implementing them, and then, in the case of this idea, we can now 
implement it, we can now change the lives of thousands of students 
around the country and, in many ways, change that whole institutional 
structure of our public school system so that we are not bound by all 
those limitations toward excellence in both students, teachers, and 
administrators.
  It is an excellent idea. It is an excellent program. It is an 
excellent thing that the chairman is doing in accepting this amendment 
to give us more resources to devote to see to it that these good ideas 
are actually put into practice where they are needed around the 
country.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we will not take up an issue on 
the floor of this House more important than the one we are debating 
today--improving the education of our children. I am asking my 
colleagues to join me today in investing in one of the most promising 
reforms happening in our country: charter schools. Charter schools are 
often created by parents, teachers, and communities advocating for the 
students they care about. These schools often serve as an alternative 
for at-risk, or special needs children who, for whatever reason, do not 
perform their best in the traditional public school setting.
  We need to have the courage to join these parents and keep these 
exciting reforms alive. Thirty states, including my home State of 
Florida, have already passed legislation permitting the establishment 
of charter schools.
  In the Florida law, which I helped write, we struck the balance of 
protecting students and assuring a sufficient level of quality while 
allowing innovative teaching. Charter schools have been blossoming all 
over the State. Thirty-one new charter schools are starting this year 
in Florida joining the 5 that opened last year.
  From Escambia County in Florida's Panhandle to Liberty City in Miami, 
parents all over Florida are finding out the benefits of charter 
schools.
  Barbara Bowland says Escambia Charter School saved her son from 
failure. William Allen Reed was in danger of being expelled from high 
school. After 5 months in charter school, Bowland says Reed was making 
straight A's and has a brighter future ahead of him.
  In my hometown of Tampa, Oscar Wilson decided to put his two children 
in Eastside Multicultural Community School because the school will give 
Andrea and Dustin a broader education from different historical 
perspectives.
  Another school opening in Tampa will be started by Metropolitan 
Ministries which is expected to enroll about 60 kids from kindergarten 
through the sixth grade. This school will serve children of families 
living at the nonprofit organization's homeless shelter.
  These are just a few of the charter schools giving our children new 
educational opportunities.
  We're learning more and more about this reform movement every day and 
the benefits students are experiencing. In the five schools that opened 
last year, the average class size was smaller than most public 
schools--17 students in each class. That alone thrilled the parents who 
enrolled their children in charter schools. The schools also attracted 
students from diverse backgrounds and more than half had special needs.
  An informal survey of parents showed that nearly half the students at 
these schools who were doing poorly in traditional public schools are 
now performing at above average levels. I believe one of the main 
reasons for the success is that these schools are unshackled from the 
rigid rules and maxims that govern our public school system. Instead, 
teachers are encouraged to use innovative and creative educational 
programs to reach these children.
  Even though charter schools are one of the fastest growing and most 
promising education reform efforts in the country today, the current 
level of funding doesn't even come close to matching the growth. 
Currently more than 400 charter schools are open across the country, up 
from only 250 last year. The Riggs-Roemer amendment increases the 
funding for charter schools from $75 to $100 million for fiscal year 
1998. The increase will come from a program slated for a 130-percent 
increase--$35 million more than President Clinton asked for.
  I urge my colleagues to review the facts here. Smaller class sizes, 
innovative teaching techniques, success from students who never before 
performed well in school. Do not turn your backs on this opportunity to 
improve our children's education. Join me in supporting the Riggs-
Roemer amendment.
  I commend my friends, Mr. Roemer and Mr. Riggs for their commitment 
to our children's future by offering this amendment. This funding will 
ensure the quality and success of charter schools.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Miller of California moves that the Committee do now 
     rise.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken, if 
ordered, on the pending question.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 383]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler

[[Page H7142]]


     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Four hundred and 
eleven Members have answered to their name, a quorum is present, and 
the Committee will resume its business.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that so many Members of 
this body have members of their family in town for what had been 
scheduled to be the White House picnic this evening, and even given the 
fact that the White House has had to cancel the picnic because of the 
weather circumstances, we believe that we ought to show deference and 
consideration to those Members who have their families in town, and for 
that reason, there will be no recorded votes this evening after 6 p.m.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two additional points. We would encourage the 
floor managers of the bill and Members with amendments, if they are 
able to work out arrangements, to continue work beyond that time to 
make further progress on the bill in such a way that we might even roll 
votes until tomorrow morning, to do so if they so desire. But the 
Members at large should understand that they would not be called back 
for a vote after 6 p.m.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has asked that I announce 
on behalf of the Speaker, myself and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt], the minority leader, that from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. this 
evening, there will be a reception/open house held in the Speaker's 
office and on the Speaker's balcony available to all Members and their 
guests, hosted by the Speaker, the minority leader and myself. In the 
spirit of Hershey, we thought this might be an opportunity for Members 
and their families to have some time together.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 40, 
noes 369, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                                AYES--40

     Allen
     Andrews
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Johnson, E.B.
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Rodriguez
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Vento
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--369

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)

[[Page H7143]]


     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baker
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Berry
     Carson
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Dellums
     Dooley
     English
     Fazio
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Kennedy (RI)
     Matsui
     McKinney
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Oxley
     Radanovich
     Schiff
     Stenholm
     Tauscher
     Torres

                              {time}  1429

  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage with the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations 
regarding a public awareness program to increase organ donation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to engage in a 
discussion with the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I really would like to 
compliment the chairman and his committee for bringing to the floor a 
very, very good bill. The chairman has provided important increases for 
the National Institutes of Health and other very important programs 
that will yield important benefits for the health of the Nation. I well 
understand the benefits of research on hepatitis and liver disease, as 
well as other areas.
  I want to thank the chairman for the NIH increases provided, and the 
important report language the committee has included in its report 
providing policy guidance to the NIH on these subjects.
  As the chairman well knows, with regard to end-stage liver disease, 
there is often no other medical option available except 
transplantation. As of September 3, 1997, just last Wednesday, there 
were 56,611 people on the United Network for Organ Sharing waiting 
list. Last year, only 19,000 transplants were performed.
  Approximately 3,000 people die each year waiting for an organ. Last 
year, for example, approximately 800 people died waiting for a liver. 
The administration recognized the problem of shortages, and requested a 
$1.6 million increase for organ donor awareness programs. Regrettably, 
Mr. Chairman, the House has not been able to provide increased funding 
for this initiative. Therefore, I would hope that the chairman would 
look favorably on this item in conference.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing this very 
important matter to my attention. I want to assure him that I do 
recognize the importance of expanding the supply of organs, and I want 
to assure him further that I will look favorably on this item in the 
conference.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his 
outstanding work in this committee and what he has done. I also thank 
him very much for his response.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very generous 
and kind words.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Graham

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Graham:
       Page 64, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.
       Page 64, line 7, after the second dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.
       Page 68, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.
       Page 68, line 17, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shift $55 million from 
the Goals 2000 Program to the IDEA Program. I think a lot has been said 
about both programs.
  I understand that there has been a lot of work going on behind the 
scenes to try to bring several issues to resolution. I would like for 
someone, maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to detail what 
the agreement is, or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. But 
until we get to that point, let me make a couple of observations about 
how I feel as an individual Congressman, and I think that feeling is 
shared by many in this body.
  A little bit of history about Goals 2000: It started in the Bush 
administration with an effort to try to set standards to make us 
competitive with the Japanese and Germans and other international 
competitors by having national goals to achieve in education. 
Unfortunately, every good idea that starts in Washington winds up 
somewhere a little different than you wanted it to be.
  We found that when we try to implement national standards, no matter 
how noble they are, that the people who implement them have a different 
view of how the world should work.
  I would just make this observation, the Department of Education is in 
the hands of folks I consider more liberal, more on the liberal side of 
the House. One day that will probably change, as politics is subject to 
change. My basic objection is, I do not think we need close to $400 
million to $500 million in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington to 
put their personal stamp of approval of how States administer 
education. The whole idea of the carrot-and-stick approach is a bad 
idea.
  However, we do not get what we want all the time in life. In the 1996 
appropriation process, the House had zero dollars for this program; and 
in fiscal year 1997, we had zero dollars. I think the House spoke very 
clearly where it felt the $400 to $500 million should be spent. It 
should not be funded through bureaucrats in Washington; it should be 
spent at home, so people at home can do the best job educating the 
children. The people at home are the ones that know their names.
  However, having said all that, in trying to get through a very tough 
process, I do believe we have reached an agreement that covers several 
issues.
  I would be glad to yield to the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the 
subcommittee chairman.

[[Page H7144]]

  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  I would inform Members that this amendment is the first part of a 
four-part agreement. This amendment by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Graham] would cut $55 million from the Goals 2000 Program 
and transfer that money to the IDEA special education account.
  There is a further amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] that is part of the agreement. The agreement also involves 
the national testing. I agree with the authorizing chairman on this 
issue. The final part of this agreement is an amendment that will be 
offered by the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that affects the part of the bill 
dealing with whole school reform and comprehensive school reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina for 
offering this portion of the amendment. I think we are moving money in 
the right direction. I am glad we could achieve agreement.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, a question. Does this include the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] regarding the 
needle exchange program?
  Mr. PORTER. I do not believe that part is part of this agreement. 
That will be taken up in order. As the gentleman may know, I am 
accepting that amendment, but I expect that there will be debate and a 
vote taken on that separately.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to thank the chairman.
  A lot of people have worked hard to put this together: Chairman 
Goodling, our Education Committee chairman; the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]. But the folks who started this, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], the others who spent hours 
trying to make this bill more acceptable for a lot of people, I want to 
thank them, because the hours have, I think, resulted in a product that 
I feel a little better about.
  Life is give and take. Sometimes you have to fight for what you want. 
I think we fought in a very fair, acceptable way that makes the people 
in America more proud of the House. At least, I would like to think 
that, anyway.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's amendment, 
and believe because we mandate special education, we have a 
responsibility to put our money where the mandate is.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Chairman Goodling is one of the reasons we have reached 
this agreement. I hope people will accept this as being what it is, 
moving the ball a bit forward, not backward.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for every Member of 
the House to understand what is occurring here.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for every Member to understand 
what is happening here. This is an amendment which will be the last 
amendment to cut Goals 2000. This amendment is going to be accepted, 
most reluctantly accepted, on this side of the aisle, but it is part of 
an agreement, the other parts of which will follow immediately.
  The committee will accept this amendment, further reducing Goals by 
the amount specified in the amendment. The committee then also plans to 
accept the Goodling amendment on testing, an amendment which I, for 
one, am strongly opposed to, but which I think represents the will of 
the House.
  The committee will also accept, as I understand it, the Riggs 
amendment with respect to eligible IDEA recipients in prison; although, 
again, there is strong controversy on that question, and it will have 
to be further resolved in conference.
  The committee intends also to then, as I understand it, accept the 
amendment, and I am not certain who will offer it, the amendment that 
will change the designation of Whole School Reform to reflect the 
intent of all sides that this be comprehensive reform. But we do not 
want to imply what the ``Whole School'' term seems to imply to some 
folks.
  That represents, basically, the four pieces which will be accepted. 
It has been agreed that there will be a limitation, as I understand it, 
of an hour on the discussion of that issue.
  I want to make clear, I very strongly personally oppose the idea of 
accepting the testing amendment. I have very strong reservations about 
the Riggs amendment, as well. I am certainly not thrilled with the idea 
of reducing Goals further. But all of these matters are going to have 
to be worked out between the administration and various groups in the 
Congress.
  I would also say that I think the administration has a good deal of 
work to do in reaching an understanding on the testing issue with both 
the majority party and significant elements in the Democratic Caucus as 
well, and I hope that that can be accomplished. So I want Members to 
understand that this amendment is being accepted conditionally on our 
part.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, how does the gentleman propose to proceed on 
this? Will there be individually considered amendments or just one?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, Members will be 
offering their amendments and other Members are free to say or do 
whatever they want.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, so 
this will not be a package that the gentleman is accepting in totality?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, as far as we are 
concerned, this is part of the four-cornered package which the 
committee has agreed to. Procedurally, we will be required to deal with 
these issues one at a time, but I wanted the House to know that this is 
part of an overall agreement that has been reached with much 
controversy. I expect that even after the House proceeds with it, that 
there will continue to be much controversy about a number of these 
items as we move to conference.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also add my commendation to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 
agreeing to this four-part agreement in the education section of this 
bill.
  As the American people who have been tuning in the last few days 
realize, there has been a substantial debate about the general 
direction of the funding of these three agencies, the Department of 
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
of Education, and that many of us feel that we need to move that 
funding out of Washington and into America where it can be put to good 
uses by the people who need help in these areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of this agreement. I 
think it moves in exactly the right direction. This first amendment to 
be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] will take 
$55 million from Goals 2000, of which I will speak more later, and move 
it to the IDEA program which is sorely underfunded.
  Then the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has a reform proposal 
on IDEA to make that more manageable at the State levels. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has a wonderful amendment that says no 
fund shall be used to set up a national standard, which the President 
has been proposing that we do through the Department of Education and 
then an outside group. I strongly support that Goodling amendment and 
do agree that that is the will of the House and should be reflected 
today in a vote on that.
  Then finally the work that the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. 
Northup] has brought to our attention, the whole school reform, and 
once again we are creating a new program

[[Page H7145]]

under that proposal that would have strings attached to $200 million 
being sent to the local schools. The gentlewoman worked very hard to 
bring to the attention of this House the problems with that program, 
which she knows all too well in her home State of Kentucky. Without the 
effort of the gentlewoman from Kentucky, frankly, I am not sure we 
would have reached this agreement.
  Ultimately, the people who are the winners out of this type of an 
agreement are the American people, because we have a better bill. We 
have had a lot of hard work by Members on both sides of the aisle, and 
it has been worth the hours that we have spent here debating these 
issues to reach this point. So I commend, again, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 
accepting this agreement on these four amendments.
  Now, there will be a couple of additional issues, such as allowing 
needle exchanges for drug users that Members will want to bring toward 
the ends of this bill. But I think we will be able to wrap up work 
fairly expeditiously on this.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me address in particular the Graham 
amendment. It has already been brought out in this House how IDEA has 
been a terrible mandate on the States, has been underfunded, and that 
we need to reach that critical 40 percent, something over $1 billion of 
Federal money, in order to meet our obligations under that bill here in 
Congress. This is a beginning toward that step. Fifty-five million 
dollars will allow us to keep negotiating for more additional funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is one that is very dear to my heart, 
because it provides funds to allow disabled children to participate in 
an educational program that works for them. Some children are brought 
into the school and mainstreamed into their classroom. Other children 
have special, unique educational opportunities. This bill deserves 
funding, so I am very much in favor of this amendment.
  In addition, the $55 million is coming from a program that has been 
terribly controversial in this country of ours. Goals 2000 has come to 
stand, for some people, as a Federal effort to teach values that those 
families do not agree with in our schools. To other people it 
represents an effort to dummy down the curriculum, to allow students to 
miss answers on their spelling quizzes and yet still receive a perfect 
grade because they need to meet these goals.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unfortunate because the origin of Goals 2000 
was a laudatory goal in increasing the standards of what our young 
people learn in their education. So I am very pleased that we are able 
to redirect this $55 million from Goals 2000 into the very worthy 
program of IDEA to provide education for disabled students.
  Mr. Chairman, we have much more work to do in that area, and I trust 
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
will continue to work through the conference to make sure that this 
amendment, as well as additional funds for IDEA, are made available, 
and that the other three amendments will continue to be reflected in 
the final legislation when it comes back to the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about some report 
language and then enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by very much thanking the gentleman from 
Illinois, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and their staffs for all the help that they have 
provided me in attempting to try to address one of the most important 
issues facing American veterans and one of the great medical dilemmas 
facing our country, and that is that over 70,000 Persian Gulf veterans, 
including hundreds in the State of Vermont, who continue to suffer from 
Gulf war illness. Mr. Chairman, 6 years after that war's completion, 
there is still no understanding of the cause of that illness or the 
development of an effective treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who is the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, has held 10 hearings 
on Gulf war illness since March 1996. As a member of that committee, I 
cannot begin to express the frustration that many of us feel regarding 
the ineptitude of the Department of Defense and the VA in responding 
adequately and effectively to the needs of those veterans who continue 
to hurt.
  Mr. Chairman, pure and simple, the bottom line is that 6 years after 
the end of the Persian Gulf war, the Department of Defense and the 
Veterans Administration still have not developed an understanding of 
the cause of Gulf war illness or an effective treatment protocol. In 
fact, their record has been so inadequate that last week the 
Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness indicated that it 
will be recommending to the President that an independent agency 
outside of the Pentagon take on responsibility for investigating the 
health effects of low-level chemical and biological weapons exposures.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform my colleagues that there is 
language in the committee report which funds an independent, scientific 
research program into how chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf relate 
to the illnesses suffered by as many as 70,000 of our veterans. This 
research program is to be implemented through the Secretary of Health 
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Science as the lead 
agency.
  The committee, as I understand it, has agreed to appropriate $1.1 
million for fiscal year 1998, and has committed to fund this research 
program at a level of $7 million over a 5-year period. What is 
important here is that for the first time a governmental entity outside 
the Pentagon or the VA will be looking at the role that chemicals may 
have played in Gulf war illness, and this is a major breakthrough.
  Mr. Chairman, this report language is strongly supported by the 
American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the National Gulf 
War Resource Center. Veterans and Americans all over this country, to 
say the least, are less than impressed by what the DOD and the VA have 
done and are looking for an alternative methodology for getting some 
real research into the cause of that terrible problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I would now like to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the committee the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Let me begin by saying once again that I would like to thank the 
gentleman for his cooperation in this important effort. The report 
language is an important step in the effort to understand the health 
effects of chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf.
  The report language does not address specifically what amount of 
money is to be appropriated for fiscal year 1998 for this research 
program. It is my understanding from discussions with the Committee on 
Appropriations staff that the committee intends that $1.1 million be 
spent for this purpose in fiscal year 1998. It is also my understanding 
that the committee intends that $7 million be allocated to this program 
over the next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like assurances from the gentleman from 
Illinois that these are the amounts which the Committee on 
Appropriations is committed to providing
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Vermont 
that the House committee intends that this program be supported in 
fiscal year 1998 at $1.1 million, and that the committee intends that 
this program be supported over the next 5 years at the level of $7 
million.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Illinois very much for his help on this important issue, and I 
thank his staff as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher 
     Education Act, $8,204,217,000, of which $6,882,616,000 shall 
     become available on July 1, 1998, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 1999,

[[Page H7146]]

     and of which $1,298,386,000 shall become available on October 
     1, 1998 and shall remain available through September 30, 
     1999, for academic year 1998-1999: Provided, That 
     $6,191,350,000 shall be available for basic grants under 
     section 1124: Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of 
     these funds shall be available to the Secretary on October 1, 
     1997, to obtain updated local-educational-agency-level census 
     poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, 
     That $949,249,000 shall be available for concentration grants 
     under section 1124A, $400,000,000 shall be available for 
     targeted grants under section 1125, $150,000,000 shall be 
     available under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective 
     approaches to whole school reform as authorized under section 
     1502(a)(1)(C), $10,000,000 shall be available for evaluations 
     under section 1501 and not more than $7,500,000 shall be 
     reserved for section 1308, of which not more than $3,000,000 
     shall be reserved for section 1308(d).


                    Amendments offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Riggs:
       On page 65, line 23, strike ``whole school reform as 
     authorized under section 1502(a)(1)(C)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``comprehensive school reform: Provided that such 
     approaches show the most promise of enabling children served 
     by Title 1 to meet challenging State content standards and 
     challenging State student performance standards which shall 
     include an emphasis on basic academics and parental 
     involvement based on proven research and practices'';
       On page 73, line 19, strike ``whole school reform'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``comprehensive school reform: 
     Provided that such approaches show the most promise of 
     enabling children to meet challenging State content standards 
     and challenging State student performance standards which 
     shall include an emphasis on basic academics and parental 
     involvement based on proven research and practices''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I reserve a 
point of order against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Is there objection to the amendments being considered en bloc?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe I just heard the Clerk as she was 
reading the second amendment, she began the description of the 
amendment by saying ``on page 73, line 19,'' and the copy of the 
amendment I have in front of me says ``on page 73, line 18.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify that. Mr. Chairman, I will 
withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. I am told that the reading Clerk is 
correct. Far be it from me to question the work of the wonderful people 
in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I further ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
these two amendments, and any amendments to these two amendments, be 
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between myself and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this pertains 
to the school reform amendment only?
  The CHAIRMAN. Pending amendments and any amendments thereto.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, that is the intent of the unanimous consent 
request that I am offering now, that debate on these two amendments 
that deal with whole school reform be limited to 1 hour to be equally 
divided between myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to reiterate my understanding of the agreement that 
resulted from some fairly extensive discussions or negotiations on the 
House floor today and which I think is attributable to the fine 
leadership, the bipartisan leadership of the appropriators.
  First of all, as we heard just a few moments ago, the first aspect of 
the agreement was the accepting of the Graham amendment to move $55 
million from Goals 2000 to IDEA, which is a Federal special education 
program, to IDEA part B.
  Second, it is my understanding that at the end of this debate, the 
appropriators will accept the amendment that I am proposing, joined by 
the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup] and others, changing the 
legislative language in the bill regarding whole school reform. We will 
explain that a little bit further here as we get into the debate. And 
as part of that understanding, I also believe that we on the 
authorizing committee, led by our chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], will be responsible for representing House 
Republicans during negotiations on this conference report, the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education appropriations conference report, 
again, regarding the $200 million that has been set aside or dedicated 
in the bill to whole school reform. Again, I point out that we hope 
that our amendment here that is now pending will modify the definition 
of whole school reform.
  Also, as part of the agreement, Mr. Chairman, I understand, again I 
am going through this so that our colleagues hear this at least a 
couple of times and will be aware of what is transpiring on the floor, 
also as part of this agreement, the bipartisan leadership of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
chairman, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
member, will accept the testing limitation amendment to be offered 
later today or tomorrow by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], and they will not oppose a recorded vote on that particular 
amendment after, obviously, the opportunity to debate the Goodling 
amendment.
  Lastly, as part of this agreement, I understand that my amendment 
dealing with IDEA special education services for incarcerated 
individuals, adult prison inmates will also be accepted as part of this 
agreement. I would be happy to debate that particular amendment if the 
opportunity presents itself later.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are discussing here again is the $200 million 
that has been set aside in two different accounts in the bill to fund 
whole school reform.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if it is his expectation 
to have a recorded vote on his IDEA amendment?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to push for a 
recorded vote.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out 
that this bill appropriates $200 million to fund whole school reform. 
Many of us, myself included, as chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee, have some concerns about this $200 million, especially 
given the fact that no congressional hearings have been held this year 
on the whole school approach to education reform. We have been hoping 
for the opportunity which now presents itself in this debate to discuss 
exactly how that $200 million would be used to promote school reform 
and educational improvement at the local level.
  We believe very strongly on this side of the aisle that we have to 
avoid micromanaging in public education.
  I understand that whole school reform is designed to promote school 
reform at the local level based on one of seven approved models and the 
good work that the new American Schools

[[Page H7147]]

Corp. is doing. However, I personally believe that by defining what is 
a successful school at the Federal level really ignores that most real 
reform occurs at the local level and, of course, is the prerogative of 
those locally elected school board members. Those are the locally 
elected decisionmakers who are closest to the people. They are, 
obviously, accountable to the people in that community who vote in 
school board elections. I think we have to resist the temptation to 
attach strings to money that we provide for education and instead let 
local experts decide what is best in their community, what will work 
best in their community.
  So we are trying to leave education reform up to the real education 
experts: States, local leaders, teachers, and parents.
  We heard a little bit earlier today about charter school reform and 
the tremendous strides that are being made in promoting educational 
progress and improvement in America today through the start up of more 
charter schools. That is basically because charter schools are all 
about, as I explained in that debate, decentralization and 
deregulation.
  I also want to add that I believe that the public schools, when 
deregulated, can compete with the very best private schools. That is 
also what charter schools are all about. We really do, again, want to 
respect local control in the longstanding American decision of 
decentralization of decisionmaking in public education, so instead of 
forcing taxpayers to fund a program where there may be questions about 
its success, we really do believe that we should try to make funds 
available to States and local communities to make better choices about 
how to improve the education of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that there has been a great deal of confusion 
and misinformation and mischaracterization that has accompanied the 
debate on this issue. Let me try to walk the House through what in fact 
the committee is doing with the funding in this bill for this 
provision. I want to make clear I intend to support the amendment, 
because I see no difference in the amendment and what our original 
intentions have been.
  Basically, as Members know, this bill has been part of a war zone the 
past 2 years. It has been one of the key issues, the education issues, 
the health issues, the labor issues in this bill have been some of the 
key issues that divided the majority party in the Congress from the 
White House and that division led to a protracted government shutdown. 
Because of that fact, we have tried this year to reach bipartisan 
agreement on this bill, which is one of the two big gorillas within the 
appropriations process, the other being the defense bill. We have tried 
to reach agreement between ourselves on a bipartisan approach so that 
we do not have a repeat of what happened 2 years ago and last year when 
we had savage differences of opinion on the bill.
  Basically what we agreed is that the priorities of the Republican 
Party in the House, the priorities of the Democratic Party in the 
House, and the priorities of the President would all to the best of our 
abilities be respected and reflected in the bill.
  That resulted in a significant increase in funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. It also resulted in significant increases in 
funding for school reform. Within the school reform arena, there are 
some conflicting ideas about how to proceed. The President, for 
instance, is strongly committed to Goals 2000. He thinks that is the 
magic answer to school reform. He is committed to testing. He thinks 
that is a key ingredient of school reform. Members of the House have 
varying degrees of enthusiasm about either of those approaches.
  So we searched for another way to promote reform without getting into 
an ideological battleground. We came up with this compromise. Basically 
what we did was to not approve the President's significant increase in 
Goals 2000. We tried to keep that intact as much as we could, however, 
in comparison to last year's funding, and we tried to complement that 
package with another effort at school reform which would devolve most 
of the decisions back to the local arena.
  What we did was to note that a group of very well-known businessmen 
over the past few years have become increasingly concerned with the 
failure of a good many public schools to perform the way they wanted 
them to perform. And because it is, after all, our employers in this 
country who wind up having to consume, so to speak, the product 
produced by our local schools when they hire workers that graduate from 
those schools, they set out to try to determine what could work to make 
school performance better than it is today. They funded a variety of 
approaches.
  After they had done that for a number of years, they then hired the 
Rand Corp. to test those various models. They determined that there 
were six or seven models which they felt showed superior performance in 
terms of raising student performance.
  That is not to say that those are the only models that work. There 
are many others that are being tried around the country and there are a 
number of others that seem also to perform rather well.
  What they have been asking for the last 3 years is that the Congress 
help them jump start the school reform movement at the local level. So 
that is what we have tried to do. As a result, we have put in this bill 
the item now before us, a proposal to spend $200 million so that not 
just title I schools but all schools who want to experiment at how we 
improve academic performance can apply for seed money, seed money 
grants, in order to develop their own plans to reform at the local 
level.
  Now, these reforms are meant to be comprehensive, not single shot. 
Some people seem to think that the way to deal with school reform is to 
load up schools with computers or plug into the Internet. Others seem 
to think we have got to rethink the way we train teachers. Those are 
all single-shot approaches.
  What they have suggested is that we need to enable local school 
districts to think through how they are going to reform the way they 
operate in totality so that they take a look at the way they are 
administering schools, the way kids are being taught, the way teachers 
are being trained, and the way parents and families are being involved 
in local school decisions.
  Despite some of the statements that have been made about this 
proposal, it has been suggested, for instance, that this is a top to 
bottom school approach, it is just the opposite. I welcome this 
amendment because in my view it simply clarifies the original intent of 
the committee.
  What we are trying to do is get decisions not only moved out of 
Washington to the local district but we are also trying to get schools 
to operate on the basis of not just how the local superintendent thinks 
they ought to run but on the basis of how local parents, local faculty, 
and the community itself thinks they ought to be run. And that is what 
this is an attempt to do.
  Now, it has also been charged that it was the intent of the committee 
to say that there were only seven models that could be reviewed. That 
is absolute nonsense. I do not care, and neither does the committee, if 
the local school districts choose one of the seven models developed by 
the new American schools movement or if they choose some other model or 
if they develop their own wrinkle. The only requirement we have in this 
proposal is that after these schools try whatever reforms are developed 
at the local level, they have to accept evaluation by somebody besides 
the people who implemented it so that parents know whether, in fact, 
there has been an increase in the level of performance. That is exactly 
what this approach does.
  That is why this package has been endorsed by the American Education 
Research Association, a wide variety of teachers' unions, as well as 
school administrators, local school board associations, the Council of 
Chief State School Officers, the National Association of Title I 
Directors, the National Parent-Teachers Association, and all the rest, 
because they recognize that this is an effort to empower local people 
in local communities to improve

[[Page H7148]]

the standards of their schools without taking dictation from either 
Washington or their local school board.

                              {time}  1515

  So I welcome the amendment because it simply clarifies what the 
intention is.
  I would also point out, because some people seem to be seeing ghosts, 
and I want my colleagues to understand who is the New American Schools 
group. Their first full-time president was that well-known leftist Ann 
McLaughlin. She was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Labor. She was the 
first full-time president of the organization.
  The president of that organization is now David Kearns, who was 
formerly the chief executive officer of Xerox. In addition, we have Lou 
Gerstner, who is chairman and CEO of IBM Corp.; and Robert Allen from 
AT&T John Clendenin from BellSouth, the chairman and CEO of B.F. 
Goodrich Co.; the chairman of Honeywell; the chairman of Boeing; the 
chairman of Lockheed Martin; the chairman of TRW; the chairman of GTE; 
Paul Tagliabue, the National Football League Commissioner, and others.
  This is the supposed left-wing conspiracy that got together and 
decided that public schools were worth saving and that we needed to 
base our reforms on hard-headed research, not somebody's ideological 
ideas, be they right or left, about what might or might not work.
  And so it just seems to me that conservatives, liberals, moderates, 
you name it, all ought to be able to agree that the best way to reform 
schools is to give people the local resources and the local flexibility 
to do it. And that is why we did it, so that we could have a 
constructive alternative to some of the approaches that were polarizing 
the country.
  I want to give my colleagues one example. Bob Slaven, who has 
developed the model which Johns Hopkins is helping local school 
districts with around the country, Success For All. He will not even 
allow the materials for his program to be sent out to any local school 
district unless they first have broad-based acceptance in the entire 
community that that is the approach that that local community wants to 
try.
  It is not enough to get the school principal, it is not enough to get 
a few activist faculty members. They have to have 80-percent agreement 
from the administrators, 80-percent agreement from the faculty and 
broad-based community support as well, or he will not even provide his 
materials to them. He will not even work with them.
  So it seems to me that despite people's different sets of concerns, 
we have arrived at exactly the same place we started. We are putting a 
key amount of money in a new initiative which originates in the 
Congress on this end of Pennsylvania Avenue and which demonstrates, I 
think, that we can have good ideas about education whether we are in 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or whether we reside in the Capitol Building 
or whether we reside in local school districts all throughout the 
country.
  This is the idea behind it. And I think that this language, suggested 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and others, helps us 
to clarify that, and so I happily accept it. And I think we can get on 
to discuss our individual philosophies, but in the end, when this 
funding is adopted, we will strengthen the ability of National 
Government to do what we do best, not to impose our own judgments but 
to help local schools develop their own best ideas about how best to 
educate their kids.
  Because in the end I deeply believe that the most important ideas 
about what happens in education are those that occur at the local 
level. Parents, teachers, business leaders, students themselves, 
everyone has a shared responsibility. And what counts is what happens 
in each individual school because that is where the kids learn, one 
school at a time, not one State at a time, not on the basis of some 
nationally imposed prescriptions.
  This is simply an effort to help local people develop their own best 
views about how to achieve a suitable performance.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:
                                   California Congress of Parents,


                                 Teachers, and Students, Inc.,

                               Los Angeles, CA, September 8, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re Opposition to proposed amendment of H.R. 2264.

       Dear Mr. Riggs: I am writing on behalf of the California 
     State PTA to convey our opposition to an amendment that would 
     eliminate ``whole school reform'' from H.R. 2264, the House 
     Appropriations Committee FY 1998 funding bill for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education. As we understand the proposed amendment, it would 
     remove from the budget the $200 million now targeted to whole 
     school reform initiatives and redirect this amount to Title I 
     basic grants.
       We support the bipartisan proposal by subcommittee chairman 
     John Porter (R-IL) and member Davy Obey (D-WI) to promote 
     educational reform efforts that focus on a whole school. This 
     approach to school improvement brings together parents, 
     teachers, administrators and others in a community to address 
     their school's problems in a way that is comprehensive but 
     specifically tailored to local needs. Many successful models 
     around the country show that whole school reforms do work. 
     This $200 million is a wise investment and would provide much 
     needed assistance for schools that recognize their problems 
     and are trying to improve.
       PTAs in California actively supports the current Title I 
     programs and would enthusiastically support an increased 
     funding allocation for Title I basic grants; but we believe 
     the money should not be taken away from the whole school 
     reform initiative. Providing for these reforms is an 
     important bipartisan effort that would surely increase the 
     effectiveness of Title I programs in helping economically and 
     educationally disadvantaged students to achieve educational 
     success.
       In sum, PTA believes an amendment to eliminate the whole 
     school reform initiative is not in the best interests of 
     California's children. We urge you to support the $200 
     million education appropriation targeted to while school 
     reforms.
       Thank you for considering our concerns.
           Sincerely,
     Rosaline Turnbull,
                                                        President.
     Ann Desmond,
                                          Director of Legislation.
     Betty DeFen,
                                 Advocate for Federal Legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                September 9, 1997.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Coburn: On behalf of the Oklahoma PTA, I am 
     writing to oppose your amendment to H.R. 2264, the House 
     Appropriations Committee FY 1998 funding bill for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education--that would eliminate funding targeted to whole 
     school reform through Title I and the fund for the 
     Improvement of Education to Title I basic grants.
       We realize that effective school reform is very much needed 
     in America and that the Oklahoma's 109,000 PTA members are 
     eager to support an increased funding allocation for Title I 
     basic grants. At this time we are not in agreeance to divert 
     monies away from this initiative to spark whole school 
     reform. The initial funding that has been set aside for H.R. 
     2264 will provide the financial support schools need to 
     implement these whole school reforms and we strongly oppose 
     your amendment to eliminate funding for this purpose.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Liz Parker,
     President, Oklahoma PTA.
                                                                    ____



                                                  Indiana PTA,

                              Indianapolis, IN, September 9, 1997.
     Hon. David McIntosh,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing to advise you that the 
     Indiana PTA fully supports the bi-partisan support--adopted 
     as part of H.R. 2264, the House Appropriations Committee FY 
     1998 funding bill for the Department of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education--that would direct $200 million 
     to whole-school reform initiatives.
       We understand that you are opposing the whole-school reform 
     initiative part of that bill. While we would fully support 
     additional funding for Title I basic grants, we in Indiana 
     cannot afford to take this money away from whole-school 
     reform.
       Effective school reform demands a strong commitment of 
     financial resources and appropriate technical assistance to 
     ensure successful implementation. There are many proven 
     research-based models of effective schools that communities 
     can replicate if they have the tools. The funding that H.R. 
     2264 sets aside for this purpose would be much needed 
     financial support schools will need to implement whole-school 
     reforms.
       The whole-school reform initiative would nicely complement 
     Title I in helping economically and educationally 
     disadvantaged students achieve educational success. We 
     strongly support the $200 million in supplemental assistance 
     for whole-school reform and encourage you to support it as 
     well.
       Indiana's children are depending on you to support all 
     measures that would advance their educations. Thank you for 
     considering this as a priority item for those children.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Darlene Maloney,
                                                        President.

[[Page H7149]]

     
                                                                    ____
                                                  Indiana PTA,

                              Indianapolis, IN, September 9, 1997.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing to advise you that the 
     Indiana PTA fully supports the bi-partisan support--adopted 
     as part of H.R. 2264, the House Appropriations Committee FY 
     1998 funding bill for the Department of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education--that would direct $200 million 
     to whole-school reform initiatives.
       We understand that you are opposing the whole-school reform 
     initiative part of that bill. While we would fully support 
     additional funding for Title I basic grants, we in Indiana 
     cannot afford to take this money away from whole-school 
     reform.
       Effective school reform demands a strong commitment of 
     financial resources and appropriate technical assistance to 
     ensure successful implementation. There are many proven 
     research-based models of effective schools that communities 
     can replicate if they have the tools. The funding that H.R. 
     2264 sets aside for this purpose would be much needed 
     financial support schools will need to implement whole-school 
     reforms.
       The whole-school reform initiative would nicely complement 
     Title I in helping economically and educationally 
     disadvantaged students achieve educational success. We 
     strongly support the $200 million in supplemental assistance 
     for whole-school reform and encourage you to support it as 
     well.
       Indiana's children are depending on you to support all 
     measures that would advance their educations. Thank you for 
     considering this as a priority item for those children.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Darlene Maloney,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                September 9, 1997.
     Hon. Anne Meagher Northup,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Northup: I am writing to you to ask for 
     your support in voting against Representative Riggs's 
     amendment to redirect $200 million from the House 
     Appropriations Committee FY 1998 funding bill for the 
     Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, H. R. 2264. We know that his amendment is to take 
     this money away from ``whole school reform'' and put it in 
     Title I funds. We definitely support Title I efforts but feel 
     that school reform is of utmost importance to our state.
       In 1990, you were one of a few Republicans that voted for 
     Kentucky Education Reform Act. You felt that a new 
     educational system was exactly what Kentucky needed to move 
     forward in education. It takes money to make sweeping changes 
     in school reform, as you well know by being part of 
     Kentucky's movement in 1990. You have seen vast improvements 
     in Kentucky's education through our new school reform.
       Please continue your support for initiatives in whole 
     school reform at the national level. All our children deserve 
     to learn at higher levels and can do so with improvements by 
     each community working together to address the problems 
     schools face in a very comprehensive manner.
       Please vote to keep $200 million for ``whole school 
     reform'' as a part of H.R. 2262.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sharon Solomon,
     Legislative Chairman, Kentucky PTA.
                                                                    ____


                   [The New American Schools Network]

                            Accomplishments


                           groundbreaking r&d

       In five years, New American Schools has developed exciting 
     new designs for effective schools that enable students to 
     reach high standards. (Most American schools are based on a 
     model designed at the turn of the century.) Working with 
     leading teams of education researchers, teachers, principals, 
     and policymakers, the NAS Design Teams have successfully 
     created models for whole-school improvements.


                  testing designs in the `real world'

       We tested our designs in 147 schools and in 19 states to 
     verify, improve, and fine-tune our approaches.
       A 1995 analysis by RAND documents New American Schools' 
     successes at the test sites so far. RAND reported that 
     virtually all field-test sites have implemented high academic 
     standards and more in-depth, insightful ways of testing 
     students. In addition, test sites are adopting improved 
     curriculum and teaching strategies, according to RAND, and 
     parent and teacher enthusiasm for these schools continues to 
     grow.


                        success on a broad scale

       We are currently working with a total of nearly 500 schools 
     in and out of the NAS jurisdictions in ten communities--
     cities, districts and states--New American Schools is working 
     to bring high performance designs to at least 30 percent of 
     their schools within five years.


                            lessons learned

       We consider one of our most important accomplishments to be 
     the knowledge we've collected in five years of developing, 
     testing, and spreading the use of new school designs. The 
     lessons are:
       The vision of reform must be clear, shared by school staffs 
     and the communities they serve, and directed at the entire 
     school--not an isolated department or program.
       Professional development (training) for teachers and 
     administrators is crucial to successful school improvement 
     and the training must be tied directly to the school vision. 
     But it must be coherent, reinforcing a long-term vision for 
     change and advancing progress toward higher student 
     achievement. New American Schools Design Teams have worked 
     concertedly to eliminate fragmented one-shot training 
     efforts.
       One size does not fit all. Communities need a range of 
     tested, research-based options for school improvement. New 
     American Schools' plan to give schools choices among 
     successful reform strategies ``is a significant break with 
     some past efforts that sought to impose a single best 
     solution on schools from above,,'' according to RAND.
       An investment fund is critical to school transformation. 
     Ultimately, high performance schools will run at the same 
     cost as today's schools, but they require an initial capital 
     investment to jump-start the changes needed. New American 
     Schools estimates that this investment will range from one to 
     two percent of a district's overall budget.
       Most schools and districts that have embarked on reform 
     need consistent, ongoing support and assistance from outside 
     organizations with expertise in school improvement.
       School change is necessary but not sufficient; school 
     systems must change, too. Teachers, principals, and parents 
     need supportive policies and administrators backing them up.
       Teachers can't do it all. Public engagement must be a 
     serious sustained strategy involving parents. students, 
     employers and religious and community leaders if school 
     improvement is to last.


                           mounting evidence

       No studies have found exactly what makes it possible for 
     children to succeed in school--if there were a single easy 
     answer, it would have been pursued by now. However, there is 
     mounting evidence that the approaches embodied in the New 
     American Schools designs contain all the elements that state-
     of-the-art research shows are needed for success.
       Two recent reports, in particular, confirm the principles 
     and practices embodied in New American Schools designs:
       Successful School Restructuring, a 1995 report by the 
     Center on Organizing and Restructuring of Schools (CORS), and
       Schools and Workplaces--An Overview of Successful and 
     Unsuccessful Practices, a 1995 report by the General 
     Accounting Office.
       Of course, the most tangible indicators of success come 
     from the schools and communities using our designs.


                       more specific achievements

       New American Schools designs and the communities in which 
     they are working are measuring success in many ways--student 
     test scores, teacher retention, safety and discipline 
     incidents, new practices linked to successful student 
     performance, such as team teaching, active and exciting 
     classrooms, hands-on learning and others.
       In a short period of time, New American Schools has 
     generated impressive results.
       In many schools using one of the New American Schools 
     designs:
       Students are producing higher quality work, achieving at 
     higher levels, and showing improvement on standardized tests 
     and other measures of performance.
       Discipline problems are down. Student attendance and 
     engagement are up.
       Teacher enthusiasm and community involvement are both on 
     the rise.
       Student achievement throughout the school is improving 
     quicker than conventional wisdom suggests is possible.
       A few examples of real results so far:
       In pilot schools using the Roots and Wings design, third-
     graders' scores on the Maryland School Performance Assessment 
     Program rose in language, math, and science,
       Fourth-graders in a Co-NECT school made significant gains 
     on a Massachusetts statewide test compared to two years 
     earlier.
       The proportion of third-graders demonstrating essential 
     skills rose from 22 percent to 50 percent in reading, and 
     from 48 percent to 82 percent in math at a school in the 
     South Bronx using the Modern Red Schoolhouse design.
       New American Schools Working Towards Excellence: Early 
     Indicators from Schools Implementing New American Schools 
     Designs covers the latest results available on all seven 
     designs.
       Some schools will not see test scores rise this quickly. 
     New American Schools believes, however, that quantifiable 
     increases in student performance are among the most important 
     indicators of success, and we will insist on accountability 
     in this area.
                                                                    ____


 Demonstrating Progress--Profiles of Exemplary Schools Using NAS Whole 
                   School Designs, September 8, 1997


                      audrey cohen college school

       The Audrey Cohen College system of education focuses 
     student learning on the study and achievement of meaningful 
     ``purposes'' for each semester's academic goals. In fourth 
     grade, for examples, one purpose is ``we work for good 
     health.'' Students achieve their purpose by using their 
     knowledge and skills to plan, carry out, and evaluate a 
     constructive action to benefit the community and the larger 
     world. The design emphasizes strong leadership among 
     administrators, teachers, parents, students and community 
     members.
       Number of schools: 21.
       Locations: Dade County, Florida; Hollandale, Mississippi; 
     Memphis: Phoenix; San Diego; Seattle.

[[Page H7150]]

       For More Information: contact Janith Jordan, (212) 343-1234 
     ext. 3400; email: [email protected]; www.audrey-cohen.edu.
 Simmons Elementary School, Hollandale, MS
       For six years, Simmons Elementary School has been an Audrey 
     Cohen College school. Students monitor their own progress as 
     they increasingly assume responsibility for their learning.
       Each student is assessed to see how well he or she 
     understands academic content and to determine their ability 
     to use knowledge and skills with increasing sophistication to 
     achieve the overarching purpose of the academic plan. Under 
     the Audrey Cohen whole school design, students achieve a 
     meaningful purpose each semester by planning, carrying out, 
     and evaluating a ``Constructive Action'' in which they use 
     their knowledge and skills to benefit their community and the 
     larger world. In using what they know and applying what they 
     learn, students not only achieve a meaningful Purpose, but 
     they also learn to be effective and caring citizens able to 
     manage their lives and help to make the world a better place 
     to live. For example, sixth graders at Simmons Elementary 
     School recognized the need for more community planning. They 
     met with university, business, and government officials to 
     initiate work on a strategic plan for economic and community 
     development. Subsequently, they participated in the actual 
     community planning.
       As a result of this approach, students at Simmons 
     Elementary made gains in Reading, Mathematics, and Language 
     on the state's test of academic skills between 1994 and 1995, 
     and these gains were sustained on the most recent 1996 
     results. By 1996, fifth grade students at Simmons ranked 
     third in the state in Language, ninth in Reading, and 
     sixteenth in Mathematics out of 153 schools measured. Simmons 
     has been featured in the Memphis Commercial Appeal as a 
     ``success story'' and the Superintendent cited for leading 
     the way in showing what quality public education can be. The 
     Superintendent credits the Audrey Cohen approach called 
     ``Purpose-Centered Education'' for the district's current 
     success.
     Louisa May Alcott Elementary School, San Diego, CA
       ``My husband and I learned first-hand that in many areas--
     math, computer technology, reading comprehension, and most 
     important, the teaching of respect for oneself and others--
     this school far exceeds the two private schools we tried. I 
     have seen the strength of the Purpose-Centered curriculum and 
     staff.''--Louisa May Alcott Elementary, School Parent
       ``We introduced the College's Purpose Centered Education in 
     our elementary school five years ago and the results have 
     been incredible. The evidence is varied and is visible not 
     just in the excitement and new culture of the school but 
     throughout the community.''--Principal
       Louisa May Alcott Elementary School in San Diego has been 
     using Audrey Cohen's Purpose-Centered school design since 
     1991-92. Over the past six years, the community has been 
     actively involved with the College's system of education 
     through a growing number of community members serving as 
     Purpose Experts and community businesses and organizations 
     serving as sites for Purpose Trips.
       School-wide activities developed by students have been 
     effective in sustaining and increasing student achievement 
     gains. Through the years, the school has maintained or 
     improved its above-average scores in Reading and Mathematics. 
     Constructive Actions being developed at the school are 
     creative and far reaching. For example, through the Internet, 
     students learned that foundations offer help to people who 
     are suffering. The students decided to find a way to use 
     technology as a communications device in order to rally 
     people from all walks of life around individuals in need. 
     This activity enabled students to become familiar with 
     various technologies, including the Internet, for sharing 
     information. Students were able to understand how distant 
     communities can be linked by sharing information around 
     subjects of interest and concern to all.
       Students at Louisa May Alcott Elementary School also 
     planned and conducted a full-blown health conference, with 
     exhibits, demonstrations, activities, materials and services 
     such as blood pressure readings, to inform community 
     decision-makers about health issues that they thought were 
     not being addressed. Through the local news media, the class 
     also took a position against proposed cuts in the local 
     Health Department budget.


                expeditionary learning outward bound usa

       Built on the 10 Outward Bound principles, Expeditionary 
     Learning Outward Bound operates on the belief that learning 
     is an expedition into the unknown. Expeditionary learning 
     draws on the power of purposeful, intellectual 
     investigations--called learning expeditions--to improve 
     student achievement and build character. Learning expeditions 
     are long-term, academically rigorous, interdisciplinary 
     studies that require students to work inside and outside the 
     classroom. In Expeditionary Learning schools, students and 
     teachers stay together for more than one year, teachers work 
     collaboratively through team teaching and shared planning, 
     and there is no tracking.
       Number of Schools: 53
       Locations: Baltimore County, Maryland, Boston; Cincinnati; 
     Dade County, Florida; Decatur, Georgia; Denver; Dubuque, 
     Iowa; Portland, Maine; Memphis; New York City; San Antonio
       For More Information: contact Amy Mednick, (617) 576-1260 
     ext. 17; email: [email protected] http://hugse1.harvard.edu/
     elob
     King Middle School, Portland, ME
       King Middle School's students include a growing number of 
     immigrants who speak as many as 28 different languages. 
     Nonetheless, the school went from being below the state 
     average in all curriculum areas in 1994-95 to being above the 
     state average in six out of seven areas in 1995-96. As a 
     result, principal Mike McCarthy was selected as Maine 
     Principal of the Year.
       King faculty have developed a shared understanding of 
     effective middle level education grounded in core principles: 
     active learning in thematic, project-based learning 
     expeditions that have meaning and purpose; sharing student 
     work with authentic audiences beyond the classroom; 
     heterogeneous grouping and instructional practices that 
     incorporate multiple learning styles; multidisciplinary team 
     teaching; cooperative learning; and high expectations that 
     each and every student is capable of high achievement and 
     high quality work. Through ongoing conversations, there is a 
     shared vision of whole school change focused on a common set 
     of design principles.
       All teachers plan and teach in teams, and team planning 
     time is built into the school schedule. Staff development 
     workshops are held weekly after school on issues related to 
     school improvement and implementation of Expeditionary 
     Learning. The school is divided into two houses to promote 
     and foster effective student teams. All students stay with 
     the same team of teachers for two years in order to foster a 
     sense of belonging among both students and teachers and to 
     create the stability and familiarity of a long-term 
     relationship between students, teachers, and parents.
       Every learning expedition ends with students sharing work 
     with an audience beyond the classroom, enhancing the sense of 
     purpose and belonging. For example, students published a 
     professional quality field guide to intertidal life in Casco 
     Bay and presented their design plans for a Portland Aquarium 
     to architects and the Portland Museum Design Committee. Both 
     the nature of the tasks and the public demonstration 
     constitute real world assessment that foster high quality 
     student work. The school held a two day fair where community 
     members, parents, and teachers from other schools were 
     invited to see a gallery of student work from learning 
     expeditions.
       King School has developed a core curriculum aligned with 
     Maine educational standards that is the focus of learning 
     expeditions. Learning expeditions provide a highly effective 
     means to address the learning needs and styles of a diverse 
     group of learners in heterogeneous classrooms. Learning 
     expeditions challenge and support each student to do his or 
     her best, using multiple voices and media, and then to better 
     their personal best. The ability to translate state learning 
     standards into an effective curriculum and instructional 
     practices was demonstrated by performance of King students on 
     the Maine Educational Assessment, which focuses on critical 
     thinking and higher order thinking skills.
     Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning (RMSEL), 
         Denver, CO
       ``The Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning is 
     well on its way to becoming a powerful example of educational 
     practice for the state of Colorado and the nation. We were 
     greatly impressed with the level of commitment, respect, and 
     thought about learning that both students and teachers 
     demonstrated during our visit. Nearly every student 
     interviewed by the visiting team could articulate what they 
     were learning and where they were going. We saw much evidence 
     of Expeditionary Learning Design Principles in action. RMSEL 
     is helping students overcome fear and apathy while `allowing 
     them to discover that everyone has much more in them than 
     they think.' It is clear that RMSEL is a thoughtful, caring 
     and respectful community of educators. We look forward to 
     following the school's progress.''--From the Report of the 
     Visit of the North Central Association (NCA) Visiting 
     Resource Team (April 1997)
       Through an ongoing series of task forces, whole school 
     planning meetings, and reflection, the Rocky Mountain 
     school's faculty and parents have developed and are 
     continuously improving ``rubrics'' for student work for 
     scientific reasoning (science and technology), quantitative 
     reasoning (math), cultural understanding (social studies), 
     language arts, writing, and arts, literature, and aesthetics. 
     Led by the Portfolio Committee, the school structure focused 
     discussions of student work in teacher teams and in classes 
     with students, and developing a school-wide assessment 
     plan.
       The school has set aside one staff meeting each month to 
     fine-tune rubrics, and to think about what they value in 
     student work in various domains and how to capture those 
     criteria in rubrics. Additional staff meetings are devoted to 
     sharing and giving feedback on learning expeditions. 
     Assessment of student work with rubrics is used in developing 
     learning expeditions and thinking about the qualities of 
     culminating projects and exhibitions.
       The school has developed an authentic graduation 
     requirement and ``rites of passage'' (graduation 
     performances) for grades

[[Page H7151]]

     2, 5, 8, and 12 based on portfolios and a demonstration of 
     what students know and are able to do. The process of 
     developing graduation requirements began with a three day 
     retreat where teachers, parents, and students developed a 
     draft for discussion within the school community. The 
     graduation requirement and rites of passage integrate the 
     major academic disciplines with experiential learning, 
     intellectual rigor, reflection, service, and adventure. To 
     demonstrate that the graduate has both a well developed 
     intellect and character, he or she must present ten 
     portfolios and a senior exhibition project to the graduation 
     committee.
       RMSEL makes service learning an important and formal part 
     of their educational focus. As part of the graduation 
     requirement, students must submit a Service Portfolio that 
     contains (1) a formal resume of the student's community 
     service work that is viewed as being significant to the 
     community and relevant letters of reference from supervisors 
     or organizers; (2) a major service project that is presented 
     in the form of an essay, video, or oral presentation; and (3) 
     evidence of service to the school.


                        modern red school house

       This design strives to help all students achieve high 
     standards through the construction of a standards-driven 
     curriculum; employment of traditional and performance-based 
     assessments; effective organizational patterns and 
     professional-development programs; and implementations of 
     effective community-involvement strategies. Students master a 
     rigorous curriculum designed to transmit common culture, 
     develop character, and promote the principles of democratic 
     government.
       Number of Schools: 52
       Locations: Columbus, Beech Grove, and Greentown, Indiana; 
     Dade County, Florida; Franklin and Lawrence, Massachusetts; 
     Illinois; Indianapolis; Kayenta, Arizona; Memphis; New York 
     City; Philadelphia; San Antonio
       For More Information: contact June Gregory, (888) 275-6774; 
     email: [email protected]; http://www.mrsh.org
     Robert Frost Elementary School, Indianapolis, IN
       Since Fall 1993. Robert Frost Elementary School has 
     implemented most aspects of the Modern Red Schoolhouse 
     Design. Classes have been redesigned to promote continuous 
     student progress toward standards in a multi-age, multi-year 
     setting. Core Knowledge is used as the foundation for 
     teacher-developed units that are linked to the modern Red 
     Schoolhouse standards. An instructional management team meets 
     with the principal weekly to design and modify instructional 
     practice, technology use, design implementation, and budget 
     plans. This team also works to write grant proposals and to 
     organize extended learning opportunities.
       Test scores on the standardized NCE test given to fifth 
     graders improved across the board in the 1996-97 year. Scores 
     for fifth graders rose 12 points in reading, 12 points in 
     math, and 10 points in language over the 1995-96 scores. 
     Robert Frost Elementary achieved 100 percent participation in 
     parent conferences in both the 1995-96 and the 1996-97 school 
     years and its accountability plan is being used as a model 
     for all Indianapolis Public Schools.
     Treasure Island Elementary School, North Bay Village, FL
       Treasure Island Elementary also uses the Modern Red School 
     House design to focus on high academic achievement for all 
     students. According to the approach taken by the school all 
     children can learn and attain high standards but vary in the 
     time they need to learn and the ways they learn best. To 
     accommodate the varying needs of children, the school 
     introduced 13 after-school classes which are attended 
     voluntarily by over 20 percent of students at the school. 
     These classes include both enrichment and support topics such 
     as Creative Writing, Math-Manipulatives, and Spanish 
     Literature. To help students concerned with their test taking 
     skills, the school also implemented a Saturday Academy 
     focused on following directions during a test and managing 
     time during a test.
       Treasure Island has developed block scheduling for staff in 
     order to allow them one hour of grade level planning time 
     every day to be used either for grade level teams or for 
     personal planning time.
       Modern Red has helped to clarify and target Treasure 
     Island's focus--organizing instruction to meet the needs of 
     all students. By reallocating funds from a variety of sources 
     (Title I, grant monies, and instructional funds), they have 
     been able to improve both the content and the delivery of 
     curriculum.
       Results have been impressive. Students have increased their 
     reading comprehension, mathematics computation scores, 
     mathematics applications, and science scores each year. 
     Scores in reading comprehension are up four percent since 
     last year. Mathematics computation and mathematics 
     application scores are up 15 percent and 7 percent, 
     respectively. Science scores increased 11 percent.


                                Co-NECT

       Assisting schools in creating and managing their own high-
     tech equipment and network, Co-NECT uses technology to 
     enhance every aspect of teaching, learning, professional 
     development, and school management. Co-NECT Schools are 
     organized around small clusters of students who are taught by 
     a cross-disciplinary team. Most students stay in the same 
     cluster with the same teachers for at least two years. 
     Teaching and learning center on interdisciplinary projects 
     that promote critical skills and academic understanding. A 
     team of educators and parents set school goals.
       Number of Schools: 78
       Locations: Cincinnati; Dade County, Florida; Juneau, 
     Alaska; Memphis; Philadelphia; San Antonio; Worcester, 
     Massachusetts
       For More Information: contact Diana Nunnaley, (617) 873-
     2683; email: infoconect.bbn.com http://co-nect.bbn.com
     Oak Forest Elementary School, Memphis, TN
       Oak Forest Elementary School, located on the outskirts of 
     Memphis, Tennessee, has been working with Co-NECT since 1995. 
     The school lab, greenhouse, computer lab, multi-purpose room, 
     story-telling room, library/media center, and music rooms.
       The school has had a strong commitment to technology since 
     its opening in the fall of 1993. It is one of twenty-four 
     Memphis City Century Classroom Program. Every classroom in 
     grades 4-6 has a minimum of three fully-equipped technology 
     stations, and one teacher workstation with a large-screen 
     display, laser disc player, and VCR. Every classroom in 
     grades K-3 has at least one computer. Every classroom is 
     connected to the Internet.
       Some 32 classroom teachers in grades K-6 are teamed in 
     clusters of three to four classes, representing different 
     grades and ages. The cluster studies the same topic, with 
     each class investigating a different question related to that 
     topic. For example, if the topic is North America, one class 
     may study North American birds, another may study the 
     different cultures, while another may elect to study folk 
     tales. As a way of keeping teachers with the same group of 
     students for more than one year, some teachers ``loop'' with 
     their classes--teaching, for example, 4th grade one year and 
     5th grade the next.
       In recent years, teachers have become increasingly adept at 
     using technology to enrich and extend curriculum projects. 
     For examples, using the Internet, students have collected 
     data on acid rain from other students in California, New 
     York, Illinois, Germany, Japan, and Russia. They used a 
     spreadsheet program to organize the data and create graphs 
     and charts, then presented their findings using HyperCard.
     Campbell Drive Middle School, Homestead, FL
       In the spring of 1996-1997, Campbell Drive Middle School, a 
     Co-NECT School in Dade County, Florida, reported test score 
     gains in several critical areas, including writing, reading 
     comprehension, science, and mathematics.
       Most impressively, the percentage of students scoring 
     ``3.0'' or higher or Florida Writes!, the state writing 
     assessment, is now up to 72 percent approaching the district 
     average, marking the third year in a row of continuing 
     improvement.

     PERCENTAGE SCORING 3.0 OR BETTER ON FLORIDA WRITING ASSESSMENT     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1993-94   1994-95   1995-96   1996-97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dade County Public Schools......        45        66        84        80
Campbell Drive Middle School....        14        52        67        72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       These results are especially impressive in a year when 
     scores on the state writing assessment have dropped district 
     wide. In fact, Campbell Drive was the only school in Region 
     IV to show improvement, and was the second most improved 
     middles school in Dade County. Scores on the Stanford 
     Achievement Test were also up in science (grade 8), reading 
     comprehension (grade 8), and math applications (both grade 7 
     and grade 8).
       Principal Santiago Corrada credits the hard work of this 
     teaching staff and students for these improvements. ``We've 
     had a banner year,'' he says, ``and although we still have 
     room for improvement, we're rapidly becoming the premier 
     middle school in South Dade.''
       The school has recently organized a ``Tech Squad'' to help 
     train other students how to use various software applications 
     as well as help maintain the school's web site. The squad is 
     made up of nine students trained by four Campbell Drive 
     teachers. The students have learned how to use scanners and 
     QuickTake cameras. After learning various technologies, the 
     squad ventures into classrooms to help train teachers and 
     fellow students.
       Located in Homestead, Florida, Campbell Drive Middle School 
     serves a student population that is 54 percent Hispanic, 34 
     percent African-American, and 10 percent White. In 1995-1996, 
     approximately 83 percent received free or reduced lunch, and 
     8 percent were classified as having Limited English 
     Proficiency. Many are children of migrant workers. The school 
     has been a Co-NECT School since 1995-1996.


                           atlas communities

       The ATLAS design centers on pathways--groups of schools 
     made up of high schools and elementary and middle schools 
     that feed into them. Teams of teachers from each pathway work 
     together to design curriculum and assessments based on 
     locally defined standards. Teachers collaborate with parents 
     and administrators to form a learning community that works 
     together to set and maintain sound management policies.
       Number of Schools: 52 (10 pathways)
       Locations: Gorham, Maine; Memphis; Norfolk, Virginia; 
     Philadelphia; Prince George's County, Maryland; Seattle

[[Page H7152]]

       For More Information: contact Jane Feinberg, (617) 969-
     7100, email: A[email protected] http://www.edc.org/FSC/ATLAS
     The Booker T. Washington High School, Memphis, TN
       In 1989, Principal Elsie Lewis Bailey joined The Booker T. 
     Washington High School in Memphis, TN as an assistant 
     principal. Her appointment was part of the city's ``de-
     regulation'' experiment, which gave schools in close 
     proximity to public housing and opportunity to interview only 
     those staff who chose to be there. As a result, ``the turmoil 
     was gone, but the academics were still very poor.''
       As principal, Bailey began to lay the groundwork for 
     changes in curriculum and teaching practice. A colleague in 
     Texas had helped her implement block scheduling. The school 
     also formed curriculum committees, readying her staff for 
     conversations around education reform. ``If you don't have or 
     develop a site-based framework, ATLAS won't work,'' commented 
     Bailey.
       After two years with ATLAS, Bailey reported that the school 
     has incorporated pieces of the ATLAS design in phases. During 
     the first year she spent much of her time working closely 
     with the ``resistors to change.'' It was not until the next 
     year when she visited the elementary and middle schools in 
     the pathway that, ``the light bulb went off in my head. Atlas 
     in not going to make us change. ATLAS is a framework--we 
     decide how we're going to do it.''
       Bailey spoke of the deep impact of ATLAS on the students at 
     Booker T. Washington. A peer mediation program is in full 
     force. All student work is expected to be typed. The school 
     just finished its first pilot year doing Exhibitions, a 
     milestone considering that students in the school thought 
     they were incapable of such work. The school has also 
     implemented full inclusion. She mentioned one student whose 
     state test score went from 49 to 85 after inclusion. ``We've 
     got to stop labeling kids. Our children lack experiences. If 
     you've never seen a mountain, you can't talk about it.''
     Mason Elementary School, Boston, MA
       In 1991, the Boston Herald called the Mason Elementary 
     School the ``least chosen'' of 120 schools in Boston. 
     Enrollment at Mason Elementary School was at an all-time low 
     in 1991. The building was falling apart. Retention between 
     first and second grade was 30 percent. Special education 
     referrals were in the double digits. Reading scores were in 
     the lowest quartile. The school offered no psychological 
     services and no extended hours. Parent involvement was 
     minimal at best.
       In five years, Mason Elementary has been transformed. Now 
     one of Boston's ``overchosen'' schools, Mason is bursting at 
     the seams with students. Enrollment is 11 percent above 
     capacity. The school has undergone renovations worth $1.5 
     million. Special Education referrals have fallen to six 
     percent, while test scores have moved to the upper quartile. 
     In addition, more than 90 percent of the parents are involved 
     in the school and volunteer hours have soared from 30 in 1991 
     to 600 in 1996.


                             roots & wings

       This elementary school design builds on the widely used 
     Success for All reading program and incorporates science, 
     history, and mathematics to achieve a comprehensive academic 
     program. The premise of the design is that schools must do 
     whatever it takes to make sure all students succeed. To this 
     end, Roots and Wings schools provide at-risk students with 
     tutors, family support, and a variety of other services aimed 
     at eliminating obstacles to success.
       Number of Schools: 236
       Locations: Anson County, North Carolina; Asbury Park, New 
     Jersey; Cincinnati, Elyria, and Dawson-Bryant, Ohio; 
     Columbus, Indiana; Dade County, Palm Beach County, and Putnam 
     County, Florida; Everett, Washington; Flint Michigan; Henry 
     County and Memphis, Tennessee; Houston; Aldine, Morton, 
     Muleshore, San Antonio, Texas; Mesa and Lueppe, Arizona; 
     Modesto, Pasadena, and Riverside, California; Brooklyn, New 
     York; Philadelphia and Johnstown, Pennsylvania; Rockford, 
     Illinois; St. Mary's County and Baltimore County, Maryland
       For More Information: contact Dr. Robert Slavin, (410) 516-
     0274; email: [email protected] http:/scov.csos.jhu.edu/sfa
     Lackland City Elementary School, San Antonio, TX
       Lackland City Elementary School began working with the 
     Success for All component of Roots & Wings in the fall of 
     1994. The reading program was successfully implemented at all 
     grade levels and a special effort was made to ensure that all 
     students had opportunities to take books home to read. 
     Additional support was provided for reading by having older 
     students listen to younger students read during breakfast 
     served to most students in the school through federal funds. 
     The school added its family support component in 1994 and 
     began implementation of Math Wings in third, fourth, and 
     fifth grades in the fall of 1996. The school's focus on 
     community involvement has led to partnerships with local 
     agencies. For example, Santa Rosa Hospital provides a weekly 
     immunizations clinic at the school, as well as WIC program 
     services.
       Since implementing Roots & Wings, 84 percent of students at 
     Lackland Elementary are achieving the grade level objectives 
     in reading on the Texas statewide assessment (TAAS). On the 
     mathematics TAAS, eighty-five percent of the students 
     achieved grade level--an increase of 35 points over the 
     previous year when the school began implementation of Math 
     Wings. All students read a book of their choice at home each 
     night and virtually every single parent reports that they 
     listen to or discuss what their children are reading and sign 
     a ``reading response'' form each week.
     El Vista Elementary School, Modesto, CA
       El Vista Elementary School has been working with the Roots 
     & Wings design since 1993. All of the elements of the reading 
     program, Success for All, have been fully implemented 
     throughout the school since 1991. Additionally, one of the 
     other key elements of the design, Math Wings was implemented 
     in grades 3, 4, and 5 during the 1995-96 school year. El 
     Vista has a very strong Family Support Team, which has 
     developed a wide variety of strategies for helping parents 
     read to their children. The teachers at El Vista are very 
     active in the development of specific classroom materials to 
     enhance their implementation of Roots & Wings components.
       Since 1992, achievement levels for all first graders have 
     been tracked until the students finish third grade. Of the 
     students tracked, only two were below grade level at the end 
     of the third grade. Discipline problems are down and students 
     are actively involved in the school and in each other's 
     success. After only one year in Math Wings, total math scores 
     on the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) had increased 
     by 2.5 points among third graders, 6.2 points among fourth 
     graders, and 8.6 points among fifth graders at the school.


          National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE)

       This partnership of schools, districts, states, and leading 
     national organizations works to change the education system 
     from classroom to statehouse through a five-point set of 
     priorities. Known as ``design tasks,'' they are: standards 
     and assessments, learning environments, high-performance 
     management, community services and supports, and public 
     engagement. The National Alliance provides extensive training 
     and materials in each area.
       Number of Schools: 218
       Locations: Arkansas; Chicago; Kentucky; Pittsburgh and the 
     Milton Hershey School, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Rochester and 
     White Plains, New York; San Diego; Washington
       For More Information: contact Zenette Duffy or Dr. Mary 
     Anne Mays, (202) 783-3668; email: [email protected]; http://
www.ncee.org/OurPrograms/narePage.html
     John F. Kennedy Elementary School, Louisville, KY
       Once known for all the wrong reasons, John F. Kennedy 
     Elementary School has improved student performance remarkably 
     over the past five years and has earned national acclaim for 
     doing something right. Performance in reading and math 
     tripled; performance in writing quadrupled; and scores in 
     science and social studies were twice what they were. In 1996 
     the school's principal, who was once summoned to the 
     superintendent's office to explain a high kindergarten 
     failure rate, received the Milken Family Foundation Award.

 JFK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRESS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS SINCE PARTICIPATING
                                 IN NARE                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subject             1991-92    1992-93    1993-94    1994-95 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading.....................         16         24         40         67
Math........................         11         13         53         61
Science.....................         16         10         23         37
Social Studies..............         17         22         48         51
Writing.....................         11         23         46         54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Teachers and parents credit the school's remarkable 
     improvement to its commitment to ensuring that all children 
     achieve at high levels and its relentless focus on student 
     achievement. Jacqueline Austin, the school's principal, notes 
     that National Alliance workshops and technical assistance 
     have helped her improve her own ability to analyze student 
     performance data and to focus the school's strategies on 
     improving performance.
       Kennedy Elementary is continuing its quest to reach its 
     goal of ensuring that all students reach high standards of 
     performance. This year, Austin and her staff are focusing on 
     improving performance in reading and literacy by aligning its 
     reading curriculum more closely to standards and 
     concentrating its professional development resources on 
     enabling teachers to use instructional strategies tied to 
     standards for student performance.
     Canyon Creek Elementary School, Bothell, WA
       Canyon Creek Elementary School has attained what one parent 
     calls ``a track record of success'' by maintaining an 
     unswerving commitment to improving performance for all 
     students, particularly the lowest performers, and doing 
     whatever it takes to achieve the goals. And parents and 
     members of the community feel that the school has succeeded, 
     and that students are learning consistently.
       Canyon Creek has also developed a discipline policy that 
     has had a dramatic effect at the school and was chosen as 
     exemplary by the district. Drawn up by a committee composed 
     of parents and staff members, it states rights, rules, and 
     consequences.
       This years goal for performance-driven improvement was to 
     increase by eight percent the number of students who read 
     above the 80 percent mark and to decrease by 16 percent the 
     number of children who were reading below the 25 percent 
     level. In order to

[[Page H7153]]

     measure progress, the school had to identify a new assessment 
     instrument since the current assessment tested reading 
     performance only in the fourth grade.
       The Canyon Creek approach for this coming year is to 
     institute a new calendar aimed at helping them reach their 
     performance targets more efficiently and effectively. Under 
     the calendar, students will be in school 4.5 days a week, and 
     school will close early on Friday to permit time for teachers 
     to plan together and develop professionally. This calendar 
     shift was developed during a three-day retreat of parents and 
     staff, and adopted by an 85 percent vote. It represents a 
     typical effort by Canyon Creek to listen to the entire 
     community, take risks, and involve everyone in decisions.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to tell the ranking member that I respect his views and would 
submit that perhaps this money, this $200 million in the bill for whole 
school reform, would still be better spent meeting the Federal 
obligation to provide special education services to children with 
learning disabilities.
  I would also point out that perhaps, if we really did respect the 
idea of local control and decentralized decision-making in public 
education, perhaps if we have to spend the money, we are better off 
block-granting it back down to local communities.
  But I do want to point out that through the bipartisan compromise we 
have worked out, we will be adding language down through the bill, 
through my en bloc amendment that says, and I think it is important for 
Members to hear this language, that such approaches, and we have 
changed whole school reform to mean comprehensive school reforms, we 
have changed the definitional language, and then we say provided that 
such approaches show the most promise of enabling children served by 
title I, the educationally disadvantaged children, to meet challenging 
State content standards and challenging State student performance 
standards, which shall include an emphasis on basic academics and 
parental involvement based on proven research and practices.
  So I think it is important that we understand that we are stressing 
again State and local roles in determining how this money will be 
spent, and we feel that that is the best way to ensure proper 
accountability for the use of this $200 million in funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
[Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for helping 
to pull us all together today to resolve our differences. I want to 
thank particularly the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I think that their help in putting 
a resolution to those things that divided us was very important.
  I appreciate their leadership and I appreciate that they proved one 
more time that it is important to put all the good ideas on the table; 
and that when we are talking about education, it is not about winning 
or losing, but trying to pull together some concept of what works and 
making sure that that is what we do.
  I want to thank all members of the committee for their dedication to 
public schools. Regardless of whether we feel strongly about what other 
schools exist in this country, I believe that public schools will 
always be a critical part and a very important part of what the 
education picture is for all of the children in this country.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin and I share the same objectives. All the 
things the gentleman said about education and about resolving the 
school crises that we have, I share the gentleman's vision of what 
makes those schools better. I could not agree more with the gentleman 
about his description of how schools succeed, and for that reason, I 
look forward to working together with this committee in the future to 
build strong and better public schools.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  As an individual who has spoken out on this floor on this issue 
several times already in the course of this debate, I want to tell my 
colleagues that I believe the compromise that has been struck is indeed 
a very good one; and I compliment the ranking member and the chairman 
of the subcommittee and all who have been involved in it.
  At least insofar as I understand the agreement which has been 
reached, I think it does a great deal of good. Let me just, if I might, 
make it clear what that understanding is by emphasizing what is 
important to me and then entering into a brief colloquy with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and, hopefully, a brief colloquy 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Let me begin by saying, when the issue of Whole School Reform was 
raised by the language in this bill, that became a topic of concern for 
many of us and many of us spoke out on that topic. I want to make it 
clear that Whole School Reform, as it is set forth in the studies that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin has described, is not something I object 
to. My concern is that, as the bill was written and with its reference 
to the prior authorization which said the moneys had to be spent on 
Whole School Reform, what we were doing was federally mandating school 
reform only so long as it fit into the box of Whole School Reform, 
however that term is defined by those studies.
  As I have listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin in this discussion 
and to the gentleman from California, I think the amendment that we 
have now agreed upon, striking the words ``Whole School Reform'' and 
instead inserting the definitional language which says that these 
moneys will be available for school reform standards or school reform 
programs which meet State content standards and State student 
performance standards with emphasis on basic academics and parental 
involvement, go a tremendous way toward resolving my concern that we 
were in fact doing top down.
  I would have to agree with the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. 
Northup]. I could not agree more with the description which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin just gave of the critical importance of 
allowing these decisions to be made right at the school level by 
parents, by teachers, by school administrators in their own schools. My 
concern with the language of the bill as it existed before this 
agreement was that we were saying they could do it, but only if they 
did it to fit into the box of Whole School Reform.
  I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin describe what he sees 
here, and he emphasizes local reform, and I am extremely pleased by 
that.
  If I could ask the gentleman from California to join me in a 
discussion. Is it the gentleman's understanding of the language, which 
we are substituting into the bill as a result of this compromise, that 
it makes it clear that the school reforms which will qualify for these 
moneys includes school reforms created and designed at the local level 
and not necessarily having them meet any Federal definition of what is 
acceptable or not acceptable?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, that is my interpretation of my en bloc 
amendment. The fact that we have now added language saying that these 
funds must be spent, shall be spent to help children meet challenging 
State content standards and challenging State student performance 
standards will have the effect of bringing that Federal funding under 
State and local control.
  It will certainly allow local discretion in terms of how those funds 
are spent pursuant to existing State education law, but provided that 
the funds are spent, again as I just mentioned, to promote student 
achievement, student accomplishment in the area of statewide 
educational standards.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just to further 
clarify, the language does not impose any Federal standard or 
requirement that it must fit a particular Federal mold?
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is my 
understanding, yes. And I understand the gentleman's concern is that we 
create these programs very often and they have the effect of enticing 
States to perhaps change their curriculum, change their educational 
program in order to gain access to Federal dollars.
  What we have tried to do here is to make sure that the emphasis is 
again on State standards and State content

[[Page H7154]]

standards and State student performance standards.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for that clarification.
  It had been my intent to offer an amendment to transfer the entire 
$200 million, which is the subject of this debate and of this 
appropriation, to the IDEA Program, because I do think that is an 
important program, and it is right now a partially unfunded mandate.
  But, as crafted, I believe that this amendment on which we have 
struck a bipartisan compromise resolves my concerns, and I have no 
intention of offering that amendment, assuming that we have agreement.
  I listened to the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in which 
again I agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly, that he believes we 
should enable school districts to reform how they do everything they 
do. I certainly agree with the gentleman on the issue of comprehensive 
reform. I do not think that it is reform to just bring in computers or 
just do one piece.
  If I could just clarify that. It is the gentleman's understanding 
that this leaves these decisions to parents and teachers and 
administrators at the local level on how best to reform their school 
and improve education for their children?

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, as the committee indicated in 
its report, as we have indicated in our press statements, as we have 
indicated in our Dear Colleague letters for the last 3 weeks, as I have 
indicated on seven previous occasions on the floor, and as I emphasize 
again now, this package simply provides Federal money so that local 
schools can examine all of the possibilities for improving the way they 
work in their own schools on a comprehensive basis so that they can do 
what I hope everybody believes in, which is to find a model which 
really does raise performance. There are a lot of people shopping 
models around this country who make a heck of a lot of money with ideas 
that do not produce any real change for kids. What we are trying to do 
is to help local schools to get some idea of what works and what does 
not. They are free to develop any idea they want, but it is our 
obligation after we have spent millions of dollars on research to help 
them understand what works and what does not so they can make their own 
decisions.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate the clarification from the gentleman. I 
certainly agree with him. There ought to be an examination of the 
success or failure, and I am thrilled to hear that there will be no 
top-down Federal mandate on what these programs must include or not 
include.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time and again congratulate him and the gentleman 
from Illinois for working out this bill and this particular provision 
within the bill.
  Let me say that I think that many of us have long ago gotten the idea 
that now certain Members on the other side are finally catching on to, 
is that nobody is trying to do anything except find a way to educate 
our children. We are not trying to have the Federal Government try to 
do it. We are trying to provide the resources so that communities can 
do it. This is about opportunity, the opportunity that exists within 
our public schools so that we can take the responsibility. People in 
the community, whether it is the business community, the colleges 
surrounding public education institutions, the teachers, whether they 
belong to unions, the administration and parents, to seize the 
responsibility to come together and do something that we all want to 
do.
  I do not care personally whether we call it a charter school or 
whether we call it a whole school, whether we call it comprehensive 
school reform, whatever the semantics may be. The idea is that we are 
actually trying to get to the point that we can take a blank 
educational canvas and work together to develop the foundation for a 
school system, a public school system that is the one that we want.
  This is happening in Salem, MA at a school called the Saltonstall 
School, and people often mistake it for a whole school or a charter 
school because it has all of those elements. The point I want to make 
is that it is a public school. We did not make that school better by 
creating a separate institution and a separate structure somewhere else 
and dividing the money and resources taking it out of the public school 
system and setting it aside. We did it by investing and providing 
resources so that that community at the local level in Salem could use 
the resources of Salem State College, the business community around 
Salem, the teachers from the teachers union sitting down and 
negotiating how they were going to go extra hours during the day and a 
longer period. It is the first public school in New England to be a 
year-round institution. It is working. They got together, they decided 
on a mission and they put it in writing. Whether you want to call it a 
charter or just call it an assessment or a standard, whatever it is, 
they put it in writing. Now they shoot for it. They decided what the 
mission of that school is going to be, and it happens to be math and 
science. They got parents involved, 140 volunteers every week in that 
school helping to work together. They decided how they were going to 
move forward as a group and as a community and they have done that. 
They have set those standards and they measure them year by year to see 
how they are doing against that. It is working. Achievement levels are 
increasing rapidly.
  People in the middle school look forward to seeing these children 
come out of the Saltonstall School in fifth grade and come into the 
sixth grade because they know they are going to be ready. When you 
visit the school, the children are excited about learning. Their 
parents are excited about participating in the process, and the 
community knows that it has a good model there. When you go to somebody 
like Kathleen Corley, the principal of that school, who has had a 
tremendous amount of impact on the community by working with all those 
folks, and you ask what is the one reason why the city of Salem and 
other communities do not have public schools of the nature and quality 
of the Saltonstall School, her answer would be resources.
  That is what we are able to do with this Federal program, provide the 
resources so that the local community can seize the public school 
opportunity, take the responsibility to work as a community and make 
the concept work, to raise the bar and raise the standard and provide 
the means for these students to have the opportunity. This program, 
$200 million, will give us the chance to broaden out what has already 
been shown to be successful in about 1,200 schools throughout this 
country and show everybody that this is the way to provide good, equal 
educational opportunity for the students in this country. It is through 
the public school system, it is not by walking away from them. It is by 
recognizing what works, celebrating what works, giving it the resources 
to be duplicated and making sure that we have the best educational 
infrastructure as an investment in our future.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] in a brief colloquy about the intent of this 
amendment. As the gentleman knows, originally the amendment was 
drafted, and I was a cosponsor of it, that took the $200 million from 
this whole school reform program and put the bulk of it into the block 
grant under chapter 2 but $15 million into a program to provide 
computers and $5 million into the Jacob Javits Program for gifted and 
talented students. I wanted to clarify that the new amendment, the new 
language that redefines the authorizing section for this program, that 
it is written, in my understanding, broad enough to include 
particularly the Jacob Javits Program for gifted and talented students 
or at least students who would be participating in that program who 
would also be eligible for title I, so that schools could use this 
money if they needed to increase their compliance to State standards 
and directed toward title I students for gifted and talented programs 
in which those students could participate.

[[Page H7155]]

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to do is thank 
him for his help and support and his leadership on this amendment. He 
is absolutely correct. Under the original substitute, not the en bloc 
substitute that is pending here on the floor but under our original 
substitute, the gentleman is right, we would have redesignated $5 
million of the $200 million for the Jacob Javits gifted and talented 
student program.
  As to the gentleman's question, yes, it is my understanding that this 
money could be used for gifted and talented students, for a GATE 
Program, I believe is the acronym that you would normally use, at the 
local level, provided it is part of comprehensive school reform. But 
yes, if a child is gifted and talented and they also qualify under 
title I as educationally and socially disadvantaged, then they 
absolutely could be assisted under this program and the $200 million 
that has now been set aside in the bill to promote comprehensive school 
reform.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say that I would urge the department to 
implement this new approach in exactly that way, to give the schools as 
much leeway and to include, wherever possible, gifted and talented 
education programs, because it is my belief that the Department of 
Education programs should be helping schools meet special needs of 
their students, and in the same way that disabled students require 
additional funds, gifted and talented students often require programs 
that require additional funds. If not, we stand the risk of losing 
those students who become bored or disinterested in the educational 
program that is offered and they can, instead of turning out to be our 
brightest and best, they sometimes turn out to be among the worst 
members of society because they were never challenged with that type of 
program when they were young.
  Mr. Chairman, referring to a report from the Yale Child Study Center, 
a School Development Program which was one of the three whole school 
reform programs that was originally mentioned in the legislation, there 
are some deep philosophical implications of moving to that type of 
approach. And so I am pleased that this Congress is holding back and 
not endorsing a whole school reform.
  For example, this one says: We believe that ``it takes a whole 
village to raise a child.'' That has become a very controversial notion 
and stands in many people's minds for a very liberal way of 
administering school programs.
  Then turning further into the document, it says that all the adult 
stakeholders agree to use a ``no-fault approach to solving problems.'' 
Many of us are worried that a ``no-fault approach to solving problems'' 
implies that there is not a right and wrong answer on a math test or a 
spelling test and that that is one of the deep problems that we are 
seeing in our educational program.
  I would commend the author of that en bloc amendment and thank my 
colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who reluctantly agreed to 
it and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the Yale Child Study Center 
School Development Program.

           Yale Child Study Center School Development Program


          Mission and Vision of the School Development Program

       The School Development Program is committed to the total 
     development of all children by creating learning environments 
     that support children's physical, cognitive, psychological, 
     language, social and ethical development.
       Our vision is to help create a just and fair society in 
     which all children have the educational and personal 
     opportunities that will allow them to become successful and 
     satisfied participants in family and civic life.


             Core Beliefs of the School Development Program

       We believe that ``it takes a whole village to raise a 
     child,'' noting especially that: children's most meaningful 
     learning occurs through positive and supportive relationships 
     with caring and nurturing adults; parents are children's 
     first teachers; all parents, and staff members, and community 
     member, regardless of position, has an important contribution 
     to make towards improving students' education; and in order 
     to bring out the best in children, adults must interact more 
     collaboratively and sensitively with each other on behalf of 
     children.
       We believe children: should be at the center of the 
     educational enterprise; are capable of higher learning; learn 
     through various pathways: physical, cognitive, psychological, 
     language, social, and ethical; and who develop well learn 
     well.
       We believe that teachers: work in supportive environments 
     which maximize their ability to teach and prepare students 
     for life beyond school; and develop positive relationships 
     with parents to make the necessary bonds for effective 
     teaching and learning.
       We believe school communities: must be structured to 
     promote collaborative decision making in order to create a 
     culture of inclusion; should promote learning as a lifelong 
     process; should embrace cultural, linguistic and ethnic 
     differences to enhance the educational process for all 
     people; use data from all levels of the system--student, 
     school, and district to inform educational policies and 
     practices; should view change as an ongoing process guide by 
     continuous constructive feedback; design curriculum, 
     instruction and assessment to align with and promote child 
     and community development and high content area standards; 
     provide administrators with the support they need to lead and 
     manage schools; and promote organizational synergy among 
     school boards, educators, and parents.


     A Brief History and Summary of the School Development Program

       The School Development Program (SDP) was established in 
     1968 in two elementary schools as a collaborative effort 
     between the Yale University Child Study Center and the New 
     Haven Public Schools. The two schools involved were the 
     lowest achieving in the city, had poor attendance, and had 
     serious relationship problems among students, staff, and 
     parents. Staff morale was low. Parents were angry and 
     distrustful of the schools. Hopelessness and despair were 
     pervasive.
       The Child Study Center staff--social worker, psychologist, 
     special education teacher, and child psychiatrist--provided 
     the traditional support services from these disciplines but 
     focused more on understanding the underlying problems and how 
     to correct them. Problems were identified on both sides--
     family stress and student underdevelopment in areas necessary 
     for school success, as well as organizational, management and 
     child development knowledge and skill needs on the part of 
     the school staff.
       Because of pre-school experiences in families under stress, 
     a disproportionate number of low-income children presented 
     themselves to the schools in ways that were understood as 
     ``bad,'' under-motivated, and demonstrating low academic 
     potential. The behavior, in fact, reflected underdevelopment, 
     or else development that was appropriate on the playground, 
     at home or other places outside of school, but inappropriate 
     at school.
       The school staffs lacked training in child development and 
     behavior, and understood school achievement solely as a 
     function of genetically determined intellectual ability and 
     individual motivation. Because of this, the schools were ill-
     prepared to modify behavior or close the developmental gaps 
     of their students. The staffs usually responded with 
     punishment and low expectations. Such responses were 
     understandable given the circumstances, but they usually led 
     to more difficult staff-student interactions and, in turn, to 
     difficult staff-parent and community interactions, staff 
     frustration, and a lower level of performance by students, 
     staff and parents.
       Even when there was a desire to work differently, there was 
     no mechanism at the building level to allow parents, 
     teachers, and administrators first to understand the needs, 
     then to collaborate with and help each other address them in 
     an integrated, coordinated way. This led to blame-finding, 
     fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and frustration. There 
     was no sense of ownership and pride in the school. The kind 
     of synergism that develops when people work together to 
     address problems and opportunities could not exist.
       The model took shape in response to the conditions in the 
     schools. Dr. Comer and his colleagues, working 
     collaboratively with parents and staff, gradually developed 
     the current nine-component process model (3 mechanisms, 3 
     operations, and 3 guiding principles). In the first category 
     is (1) a School Planning and Management Team representative 
     of the parents, teachers, administrators and support staff; 
     (2) a Student and Staff Support Team (formerly called the 
     Mental Health Team); and (3) Parent Team.
       The School Planning and Management Team carries out three 
     critical operations: the development of a (4) Comprehensive 
     School Plan with specific goals in improving school climate 
     and academic areas; (5) staff development activities based on 
     building-level goals in these areas; and (6) periodic 
     assessment which allows the staff to modify the program to 
     meet identified needs and opportunities.
       Successful implementation of the School Development Program 
     requires several important guiding principles and agreements. 
     All the adult stakeholders agree to use (7) a ``no fault'' 
     approach to solving problems. This allows school teams to use 
     all their time and energy on problem solving. Many groups get 
     bogged down and are unable to move forward because blame 
     creates defensive behavior and conflict. When people use ``no 
     fault,'' they can speak up without fear of attack or blame.

[[Page H7156]]

       The School Development Program uses (8) consensus decision 
     making rather than voting as the way to make decisions. 
     Discussions keep the developmental needs of children in mind. 
     One of the principal benefits of consensus decision making is 
     that it minimizes ``winner-loser'' behavior and a variety of 
     negative feelings that are common when decisions are made by 
     voting.
       Participants on the School Planning and Management Team (9) 
     collaborate with the principal who is often the team's 
     leader. Team members cannot paralyze the principal and on the 
     other hand the principal cannot use the group as a ``rubber 
     stamp.'' In some cases, a staff member rather than the 
     principal serves as a leader of the governance and management 
     team. When this happens, it is often after all involved have 
     become comfortable with the process, but sometimes it occurs 
     at the outset. This works when it is a genuine arrangement to 
     promote leadership from within the staff, and not as an act 
     of disengagement. With this arrangement, it is important for 
     the principal to be present and fully involved both in 
     meetings and in facilitating the process. These nine 
     components, developed in the 1968-69 school year, continue to 
     make up the essential elements of the School Development 
     Program.


         a brief summary of school development program effects

       Past efforts to document the effects of the School 
     Development Program have been consistent with our philosophy 
     that educational improvement embodies academic as well as 
     personal and social growth. To document the effects, a 
     combination of three research strategies are used: (1) 
     quantitative (e.g., Surveys), (2) qualitative (e.g., our 
     ethnographic protocols), and (3) theory development. These 
     strategies have been employed to document academic effects, 
     behavior and school adjustment effects, self-concept, and our 
     school climate.
       Studies conducted by the School Development Program and 
     other researchers provide evidence of significant SDP effects 
     on school climate, student attendance, and student 
     achievement. SDP effects are usually first manifested in the 
     improvement of the school climate, indicated by improved 
     relationships among the adults in the school, better 
     collaboration among staff members, and greater focus on the 
     child as the center of the education process. Research showed 
     that schools in which the SDP guiding principles (``no 
     fault'' problem solving, consensus decision making and 
     collaboration) were followed consistently, there was a 
     significantly greater decline in absenteeism and suspension 
     rates compared to the district as a whole. Comparative 
     studies of SDP and non-SDP schools reported significantly 
     higher self competence, self-concept, and achievement for SDP 
     students than for non-SDP students.
       Qualitative analyses of more than 130 interviews of 
     parents, students, teachers, principals, and other school 
     personnel from ten schools indicated (a) improved parental 
     and community involvement, (b) strong, positive climate, (c) 
     increased team work and greater coordination, (d) greater 
     focus on child-centered issues for comprehensive school 
     planning, and (e) greater top-down and bottom-up management. 
     These analyses also showed that the Student and Staff Support 
     Teams (formerly called Mental Health Teams) focused primarily 
     on prevention rather than crisis management. These teams 
     established stronger linkages between schools and communities 
     in order to better facilitate services to students. The three 
     SDP structures (School Planning and Management Team, Student 
     and Staff Support Team and the Parent Team) and the three 
     guiding principles served as vehicles for bringing the school 
     and community together to resolve conflicts and reach 
     solutions.
                                                                    ____


    Welcome to the Home of Success For AllTM and Roots & 
                           WingsTM

                     (By Johns Hopkins University)

       Success For AllTM (SFA) and Roots & 
     WingsTM are comprehensive school restructuring 
     programs for students in grades Pre-K to Six.
       The idea behind the SFATM program is to organize 
     resources to focus on prevention and early intervention, to 
     ensure that virtually every student will succeed in reading 
     throughout the elementary grades--and no student will be 
     allowed to ``fall between the cracks.'' This highly 
     successful model is currently in use in 750 schools in 37 
     states.
       The goal of Roots & WingsTM is to ensure every 
     child a firm foundation in the knowledge and skills needed to 
     succeed in today's world, and to go far beyond this to 
     higher-order learning and integration of knowledge.
       Roots refers to strategies designed to ensure that every 
     child meets world class standards--effective instructional 
     programs in reading, writing, and language arts; tutoring for 
     children struggling with reading; integrated health, mental 
     health, and social services; and family support. These 
     elements are based on Success for AllTM.
       Wings refers to improvements in curriculum and instruction 
     designed to let children soar. A key component of Wings is a 
     science and social studies program called 
     WorldLabTM, which includes a set of simulations in 
     which students will be able to apply knowledge and skills in 
     flexible, creative, and integrated ways to solve problems. 
     Children in WorldLabTM design and test efficient 
     vehicles, explore African culture and agriculture, write a 
     new U.S. Constitution, or investigate sources of pollution in 
     local waterways.
       MathWingsTM, based on NCTM standards, provides 
     practical constructivist approaches to math emphasizing 
     cooperative learning, complex problem solving, games, and 
     discovery.


                      success for allTM

     Tutors
       In grades 1-3, specially trained, certified teachers work 
     one-on-one with any students who are failing to keep up with 
     their classmates in reading. First grade students have 
     priority for tutoring.
     Eight-week assessments
       Students in grades 1-5 are assessed every eight weeks to 
     determine whether they are making adequate progress in 
     reading. This information is used to assign students to 
     tutoring, to suggest alternative teaching strategies in the 
     regular classroom, and to make changes in reading group 
     placement, family support interventions, or other means of 
     meeting students' needs. The school facilitator coordinates 
     this process with the active involvement of teachers in 
     grade-level teams.
     Early learning (preschool and kindergarten)
       Whenever possible, a half-day preschool program is provided 
     for all four-year-olds. The program emphasizes language 
     development, readiness, and positive self-concept. A full-day 
     kindergarten program continues the emphasis on language, 
     using children's literature and big books, as well as oral 
     and written composition, activities promoting the development 
     of concepts about print, alphabet games, and math concept 
     development. Peabody Language Development Kits are used to 
     provide additional experience in language.
     Reading and writing programs
       During reading periods, students are regrouped across age 
     lines for 90 minutes so that each reading class contains 
     students reading at one level. This eliminates the need to 
     have reading groups within the class and increases the amount 
     of time for direct instruction. Also, use of tutors as 
     reading teachers during reading time reduces the size of most 
     reading classes. The reaching program in grades K-1 
     emphasizes the development of language skills and launches 
     students into reading using phonetically regular storybooks 
     supported by careful instruction that focuses on phonemic 
     awareness, auditory discrimination, and sound blending as 
     well as meaning, context, and self-monitoring strategies. 
     Students become fluent as they read and reread to one another 
     in pairs.
       At the second through fifth grade levels, students use 
     school or district selected reading materials, basals, and/or 
     trade books in a carefully structured set of interactive 
     opportunities to read, discuss, and write. This program 
     emphasizes cooperative learning activities built around 
     partner reading, identification of characters, settings, and 
     problem solutions in narratives, story summarization, 
     writing, and direct instruction in reading comprehension 
     skills. At all levels, students read books of their choice 
     for twenty minutes each evening as homework. Classroom 
     libraries of books are developed for this purpose. For 
     schools with Spanish bilingual programs, Success For All 
     TM provides a Spanish reading curriculum, Exito 
     ParaTodos, in grades 1-5.
       Writing is emphasized throughout the grades. Writing 
     instruction uses a writer's workshop format in which students 
     plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish compositions with 
     feedback at each stage from teachers and peers.
     Cooperative learning
       Cooperative learning is the vehicle that drives the Success 
     For All TM curriculum. Students work together in 
     partnerships and teams, helping one another to become 
     strategic readers and writers. Emphasis is placed on 
     individual accountability, common goals, and recognition of 
     group success.
     Family support team
       The family support team works with parents in ensuring the 
     success of their children. The team focuses on promoting 
     parent involvement, developing plans to meet the needs of 
     individual students having difficulty, implementing 
     attendance plans, and integrating community and school 
     resources. The team is composed of the principal or assistant 
     principal, facilitator, social worker, and other personnel.
     Facilitator
       A full-time facilitator works with teachers in each Success 
     For All TM school to help them implement the 
     reading program. In addition, the facilitator coordinates 
     eight-week assessments, assists the Family Support Team, 
     facilitates staff support teams, plans and implements staff 
     development, and helps all teachers make certain that every 
     child is making adequate progress.
     Staff support teams
       Teachers in the Success For All TM program 
     support one another through the training and implementation 
     process in coaching partnerships, grade level teams, and 
     other staff team configurations. These teams become a 
     catalyst for the dissemination of new material, goal setting, 
     and problem solving, and they provide a supportive forum for 
     discussion around new instructional strategies.
     Professional development
       Professional development for Success For All TM 
     requires three days for all teachers before the program 
     begins. Success For All TM consultants return to 
     the school for three two-day visits during the school year to

[[Page H7157]]

     work with principal, facilitators, and teachers to build a 
     strong implementation. Success For All TM 
     facilitators are available for telephone consultation during 
     the year. Building facilitators follow up on initial training 
     with classroom visits, coaching, and team meetings.


     for all/roots & wingsTM frequently asked questions

       Where is the program used?
       What are the results?
       What are the costs?
       How do schools adopt Success for AllTM?
       Where can I get more information?
     Where is the program used?
       As of the 1996-97 school year, Success For AllTM 
     is being implemented in more than 473 schools in over 126 
     districts in more than 37 states in all parts of the United 
     States.
     What are the results?
       Success For AllTM has been evaluated in several 
     school districts. In each, matched Success For 
     AllTM and control schools have been compared on 
     individually administered reading scales and other measures. 
     The results have consistently favored Success For 
     AllTM. In average grade equivalents, Success For 
     AllTM students perform approximately three months 
     ahead of comparison students by the first grade, and more 
     than a year ahead by fifth grade. Effects are particularly 
     strong for students who are most at risk, those in the lowest 
     25% of their grades. Effects of the Spanish version of 
     Success For AllTM, Lee Conmigo, have also been 
     strong. Positive effects have also been found on district-
     administered standardized tests. Success For AllTM 
     has produced substantial reductions in retentions and special 
     education referrals and placements.
     What are the costs?
       Cost is based on the size and location of the individual 
     school, and number of schools collaborating in training. 
     Sample costs for a school of about 500 students in Pre-
     kindergarten through fifth grade range from $45,000 to 
     $58,000 for Year 1; $45,000 to $52,000 for Year 2; and 
     $45,000 to $52,000 for Year 3. (Add approximately $55 for 
     each student over 500.) These estimates include training, 
     materials, follow-up visits, and other services. Actual costs 
     will vary for different situations, depending in part on 
     distances from training centers and local capacity to provide 
     some training and follow-up and will be calculated for the 
     individual school. (For more information see Considerations 
     for Adoption)
     How do schools adopt Success For AllTM?
       We encourage district and school staff to review program 
     materials, view video tapes, and visit nearby Success For 
     AllTM sites. Schools must apply to become a 
     Success For AllTM or Roots & Wings school. The 
     application process insures that the school staff are aware 
     of the elements of the program, have the resources to 
     implement the program successfully, and agree as a staff to 
     make the commitment to implement the program. A positive vote 
     of 80% or more of all teachers is required.
     Where can I get more information?
       For awareness materials or information on training, school 
     visits, or other assistance, contact us at: Success For 
     AllTM Program, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. 
     Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, Phone: 410-516-8896 (in 
     Maryland), or 1-800-548-4998, fax us at: 410-516-8890, or you 
     can browse our Web site.
                                                                    ____


                    Success for All/Roots and Wings


              Summary of Research on Achievement Outcomes

      (By Robert E. Slavin, Nancy A. Madden, and Barbara A. Wasik)

       Ms. Martin's kindergarten class has some of the brightest, 
     happiest, friendliest, and most optimistic kids you'll ever 
     meet. Students in her class are glad to be in school, proud 
     of their accomplishments, certain that they will succeed at 
     whatever the school has to offer. Every one of them is a 
     natural scientist, a storyteller, a creative thinker, a 
     curious seeker of knowledge. Ms. Martin's class could be 
     anywhere--in suburb or ghetto, small town or barrio--it 
     doesn't matter. Kindergartners everywhere are just as bright, 
     enthusiastic and confident as her kids are.
       Only a few years from now, many of these same children will 
     have lost the spark they all started with. Some will have 
     failed a grade. Some will be in special education. Some will 
     be in long-term remediation, such as Title I or other 
     remedial programs. Some will be bored or anxious or 
     unmotivated. Many will see school as a chore rather than a 
     pleasure and will no longer expect to excel. In a very brief 
     span of time, Ms. Martin's children will have defined 
     themselves as successes or failures in school. All too often, 
     only a few will still have a sense of excitement and positive 
     self-expectations about learning. We cannot predict very well 
     which of Ms. Martin's students will succeed and which will 
     fail, but we can predict--based on the past--that if nothing 
     changes, far too many will fail. This is especially true if 
     Ms. Martin's kindergarten happens to be located in a high-
     poverty neighborhood, in which there are typically fewer 
     resources in the school to provide top-quality instruction to 
     every child, fewer forms of rescue if children run into 
     academic difficulties, and fewer supports for learning at 
     home. Preventable failures occur in all schools, but in high 
     poverty schools failure can be endemic, so widespread that it 
     makes it difficult to treat each child at risk of failure as 
     a person of value in need of emergency assistance to get back 
     on track. Instead, many such schools do their best to provide 
     the greatest benefit to the greatest number of children 
     possible, but have an unfortunately well-founded expectation 
     that a certain percentage of students will fall by the 
     wayside during the elementary years.
       Any discussion of school reform should begin with Ms. 
     Martin's kindergartners. The first goal of reform should be 
     to ensure that every child--regardless of home background, 
     home language, or learning style--achieves the success that 
     he or she so confidently expected in kindergarten, that all 
     children maintain their motivation, enthusiasm, and optimism 
     because they are objectively succeeding at the school's 
     tasks. Any reform that does less than this is hollow and 
     self-defeating. What does it mean to succeed in the early 
     grades? The elementary schools' definition of success, and 
     therefore the parents' and children's definition as well, is 
     overwhelmingly success in reading. Very few children who are 
     reading adequately are retained. assigned to special 
     education, or given long-term remedial services. Other 
     subjects are important, of course, but reading and language 
     arts form the core of what school success means in the early 
     grades.
       When a child fails to read well in the early grades, he or 
     she begins a downward progression. In first grade, some 
     children begin to notice that they are not reading 
     adequately. They may fail first grade or be assigned to long 
     term remediation. As they proceed through the elementary 
     grades, many students begin to see that they are failing at 
     their full-time jobs. When this happens, things begin to 
     unravel. Failing students begin to have poor motivation and 
     poor self-expectations, which lead to continued poor 
     achievement, in a declining spiral that ultimately leads to 
     despair, delinquency, and dropout.
       Remediating learning deficits after they are already well 
     established is extremely difficult. Children who have already 
     failed to learn to read, for example, are now anxious about 
     reading, and doubt their ability to learn it. Their 
     motivation to read may be low. They may ultimately learn to 
     read but it will always be a chore, not a pleasure. Clearly, 
     the time to provide additional help to children who are at 
     risk is early, when children are still motivated and 
     confident and when any learning deficits are relatively small 
     and remediable. The most important goal in educational 
     programming for students at risk of school failure is to try 
     to make certain that we do not squander the greatest resource 
     we have--the enthusiasm and positive self-expectations of 
     young children themselves.
       In practical terms, what this perspective implies is that 
     schools, and especially Title I, special education, and other 
     services for at-risk children, must be shifted from an 
     emphasis on remediation to an emphasis on prevention and 
     early intervention. Prevention means providing 
     developmentally appropriate preschool and kindergarten 
     programs so that students will enter first grade ready to 
     succeed, and it means providing regular classroom teachers 
     with effective instructional programs, curricula, and 
     professional development to enable them to see that most 
     students are successful the first time they are taught. Early 
     intervention means that supplementary instructional services 
     are provided early in students' schooling and that they are 
     intensive enough to bring at-risk students quickly to a level 
     at which they can profit from good quality classroom 
     instruction.
       The purpose of this report is to describe the current state 
     of research on the achievement outcomes of Success for All, a 
     program built around the idea that every child can and must 
     succeed in the early grades, no matter what this takes. The 
     idea behind Success for All is to use everything we know 
     about effective instruction for students at risk to direct 
     all aspects of school and classroom organization toward the 
     goal of preventing academic deficits from appearing in the 
     first place; recognizing and intensively intervening with any 
     deficits that do appear; and providing students with a rich 
     and full curriculum to enable them to build on their firm 
     foundation in basic skills. The commitment of Success for All 
     is to do whatever it takes to see that all children become 
     skilled, strategic, and enthusiastic readers as they progress 
     through the elementary grades. In addition, this report 
     describes research on Roots and Wings, a program that adds to 
     Success for All programs in mathematics, science, and social 
     studies (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996).


                          Program Description

     Success for All
       Success for All exists as a separate program and also 
     serves as the reading/writing/language arts component for 
     Roots and Wings. Success for All is built around the 
     assumption that every child can read. We mean this not as 
     wishful thinking or as a philosophical statement, but as a 
     practical, attainable reality. In particular, every child 
     without organic retardation can learn to read. Some children 
     need more help than others and may need different approaches 
     than those needed by others, but one way or another every 
     child can become a successful reader.
       Success for All began in one Baltimore elementary school in 
     1987-1988, and since then has expanded each year of 
     additional schools. As of Fall, 1996, it is in about 450 
     schools in 120 districts in 31 states throughout the United 
     States. The districts range from some of the largest in the 
     country, such as Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Philadelphia, 
     Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, and

[[Page H7158]]

     Miami, to such middle-sized districts as Richmond, Virginia; 
     Rockford, Illinois; and Modesto and Riverside, California, to 
     tiny rural districts, including two on the Navajo reservation 
     in Arizona. Success for All reading curricula in Spanish have 
     been developed and researched and are used in bilingual 
     programs in California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, 
     New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. Almost all Success 
     for All schools are high-poverty title I schools, and the 
     great majority are schoolwide projects. Otherwise, the 
     schools vary widely.
       Success for All and Roots and Wings have somewhat different 
     components at different sites, depending on the school's 
     needs and resources available to implement the program 
     (Slavin et al., 1996b). However, there is a common set of 
     elements characteristic of all Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings schools. These are described on the following pages.
     Reading Program
       Sucess for All and Roots and Wings use a reading curriculum 
     based on research, on effective practices in beginning 
     reading (e.g., Adams, 1990), and on effective use of 
     cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995; Stevens, Madden, Slavin, 
     & Farnish, 1987).
       Reading teachers at every grade level begin the reading 
     time by reading children's literature to students and 
     engaging them in a discussion of the story to enhance their 
     understanding of the story, listening and speaking 
     vocabulary, and knowledge of story structure. In kindergarten 
     and first grade, the program emphasizes the development of 
     oral language and pre-reading skills through the use of 
     thematically-based units which incorporate areas such as 
     language arts and writing under a science or social studies 
     topic. A component called Story Telling and Retelling (STaR) 
     involves the students in listening to, retelling, and 
     dramatizing children's literature. Big books as well as oral 
     and written composing activities allow students to develop 
     concepts of print as they develop knowledge of story 
     structure. There is also a strong emphasis on phonemic 
     awareness activities which help develop auditory 
     discrimination and support the development of reading 
     readiness strategies.
       Reading Roots is typically introduced in the second 
     semester of kindergarten or in first grade. This K-1 
     beginning reading program uses as its base a series of 
     phonetically regular but meaningful and interesting minibooks 
     and emphasizes repeated oral reading to partners as well as 
     to the teacher. The minibooks begin with a set of ``shared 
     stories,'' in which part of a story is written in small type 
     (read by the teacher) and part is written in large type (read 
     by the students). The student portion uses a phonetically 
     controlled vocabulary. Taken together, the teacher and 
     student portions create interesting, worthwhile stories. Over 
     time, the teacher portion diminishes and the student portion 
     lengthens, until students are reading the entire book. This 
     scaffolding allows students to read interesting literature 
     when they only have a few letter sounds. Letters and letter 
     sounds are introduced in an active, engaging set of 
     activities that begins with oral language and moves into 
     written symbols. Individual sounds are integrated into a 
     context of words, sentences, and stories. Instruction is 
     provided in story structure, specific comprehension skills, 
     metacognitive strategies for self-assessment and self-
     correction, and integration of reading and writing.
       Spanish bilingual programs use an adaptation of Reading 
     Roots called Lee Conmigo (``Read With Me''). Lee Conmigo 
     employs the same instructional strategies as Reading Roots, 
     but uses Spanish reading materials.
       When students reach the primer reading level, they use a 
     program called Reading Wings, an adaptation of Cooperative 
     Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Stevens, Madden, 
     Slavin, & Farnish, 1987). Reading Wings uses cooperative 
     learning activities built around story structure, prediction, 
     summarization, vocabulary building, decoding practice, and 
     story-related writing. Students engage in partner reading and 
     structured discussion of stories or novels, and work toward 
     mastery of the vocabulary and content of the story in teams. 
     Story-related writing is also shared within teams. 
     Cooperative learning both increases students' motivation and 
     engages students in cognitive activities known to contribute 
     to reading comprehension, such as elaboration, summarization, 
     and rephrasing (see Slavin, 1995). Research on CIRC has found 
     it to significantly increase students' reading comprehension 
     and language skills (Stevens et al., 1987).
       In addition to these story-related activities, teachers 
     provide direct instruction in reading comprehension skills, 
     and students practice these skills in their teams. Classroom 
     libraries of trade books at students' reading levels are 
     provided for each teacher, and students read books of their 
     choice for homework for 20 minutes each night. Home readings 
     are shared via presentations, summaries, puppet shows, and 
     other formats twice a week during ``book club'' sessions.
       Materials to support Reading Wings through the sixth grade 
     (or beyond) exist in English and Spanish. The English 
     materials are built around children's literature and around 
     the most widely used basal series and anthologies. Supportive 
     materials have been developed for more than 100 children's 
     novels and for most current basal series. Spanish materials 
     are similarly built around Spanish-language novels and 
     basals.
       Beginning in the second semester of program implementation, 
     Success for All and Roots and Wings schools usually implement 
     a writing/language arts program based primarily on 
     cooperative learning principles (see Slavin, Madden, & 
     Stevens, 1989/90).
       Students in grades one to three (and sometimes 4 to 5 or 6) 
     are regrouped for reading. The students are assigned to 
     heterogeneous, age-grouped classes most of the day, but 
     during a regular 90-minute reading period they are regrouped 
     by reading performance levels into reading classes of 
     students all at the same level. For example, a 2-1 reading 
     class might contain first-, second-, and third-grade students 
     all reading at the same level. The reading classes are 
     smaller than home rooms because tutors and other certified 
     staff (such as librarians or art teachers) teach reading 
     during this common reading period. Regrouping allows teachers 
     to teach the whole reading class without having to break the 
     class into reading groups. This greatly reduces the time 
     spent in seatwork and increases direct instruction time, 
     eliminating workbooks, dittos, or other follow-up activities 
     which are needed in classes that have multiple reading 
     groups. The regrouping is a form of the Joplin Plan, which 
     has been found to increase reading achievement in the 
     elementary grades (Slavin, 1987).
     Eight-Week Reading Assessments
       At eight-week intervals, reading teachers assess student 
     progress through the reading program. The results of the 
     assessments are used to determine who is to receive tutoring, 
     to change students' reading groups, to suggest other 
     adaptations in students' programs, and to identify students 
     who need other types of assistance, such as family 
     interventions or screening for vision and hearing problems. 
     The assessments are curriculum-based measures that include 
     teacher observations and judgments as well as more formal 
     measures of reading comprehension.
     Reading Tutors
       One of the most important elements of Success for All and 
     Roots and Wings is the use of tutors to promote students' 
     success in reading. One-to-one tutoring is the most effective 
     form of instruction known (see Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The 
     tutors are certified teachers with experience teaching Title 
     I, special education, and/or primary reading. Often, well-
     qualified paraprofessionals also tutor children with less 
     severe reading problems. In this case, a certified tutor 
     monitors their work and assists with the diagnostic 
     assessment and intervention strategies. Tutors work one-on-
     one with students who are having difficulties keeping up with 
     their reading groups. The tutoring occurs in 20-minute 
     sessions during times other than reading or math periods.
       In general, tutors support students' success in the regular 
     reading curriculum, rather than teaching different 
     objectives. For example, the tutor will work with a student 
     on the same story and concepts being read and taught in the 
     regular reading class. However, tutors seek to identify 
     learning problems and use different strategies to teach the 
     same skills. They also teach metacognitive skills beyond 
     those taught in the classroom program. Schools may have as 
     many as six or more teachers serving as tutors depending on 
     school size, need for tutoring, and other factors.
       During daily 90-minute reading periods, certified tutors 
     serve as additional reading teachers to reduce class size for 
     reading. Reading teachers and tutors use brief forms to 
     communicate about students' specific problems and needs and 
     meet at regular times to coordinate their approaches with 
     individual children.
       Initial decisions about reading group placement and the 
     need for tutoring are based on informal reading inventories 
     that the tutors give to each child. Subsequent reading group 
     placements and tutoring assignments are made using the 
     curriculum-based assessments described above. First-graders 
     receive priority for tutoring, on the assumption that the 
     primary function of the tutors is to help all students be 
     successful in reading the first time, before they fail and 
     become remedial readers.
     Preschool and Kindergarten
       Most Success for All and Roots and Wings schools provide a 
     half-day preschool and/or a full-day kindergarten for 
     eligible students. The preschool and kindergarten programs 
     focus on providing a balanced and developmentally appropriate 
     learning experience for young children. The curriculum 
     emphasizes the development and use of language. It provides a 
     balance of academic readiness and non-academic music, art, 
     and movement activities in a series of thematic, 
     interdisciplinary units. Readiness activities include use of 
     the Peabody Language Development Kits and Story Telling and 
     Retelling (STaR) in which students retell stories read by the 
     teachers. Pre-reading activities begin during the second 
     semester of kindergarten.
     Family Support Team
       Parents are an essential part of the formula for success in 
     Success for All and Roots and Wings. A Family Support Team 
     works in each school, serving to make families feel respected 
     and welcome in the school and become active supporters of 
     their child's education as well as providing specific 
     services. The Family Support Team consists of the Title I 
     parent liaison, vice-principal (if any), counselor (if any), 
     facilitator, and any other appropriate staff already present 
     in the school or added to the school staff.
       The Family Support Team first works toward good relations 
     with parents and to increase involvement in the schools. 
     Family

[[Page H7159]]

     Support Team members may complete ``welcome'' visits for new 
     families. They organize many attractive programs in the 
     school, such as parenting skills workshops. Most schools use 
     a program called ``Raising Readers'' in which parents are 
     given strategies to use in reading with their own children.
       The Family Support Team also intervenes to solve problems. 
     For example, they may contact parents whose children are 
     frequently absent to see what resources can be provided to 
     assist the family in getting their child to school. Family 
     support staff, teachers, and parents work together to solve 
     school behavior problems. Also, family support staff are 
     called on to provide assistance when students seem to be 
     working at less than their full potential because of problems 
     at home. Families of students who are not receiving adequate 
     sleep or nutrition, need glasses, are not attending school 
     regularly, or are exhibiting serious behavior problems, may 
     receive family support assistance.
       The Family Support Team is strongly integrated into the 
     academic program of the school. It receives referrals from 
     teachers and tutors regarding children who are not making 
     adequate academic progress, and thereby constitutes an 
     additional stage of intervention for students in need above 
     and beyond that provided by the classroom teacher or tutor. 
     The Family Support Team also encourages and trains the 
     parents to fulfill numerous volunteer roles within the 
     school, ranging from providing a listening ear to emerging 
     readers to helping in the school cafeteria.
     Program Facilitator
       A program facilitator works at each school to oversee (with 
     the principal) the operation of the Success for All and Roots 
     and Wings models. The facilitator helps plan the program, 
     helps the principal with scheduling, and visits classes and 
     tutoring sessions frequently to help teachers and tutors with 
     individual problems. He or she works directly with the 
     teachers on implementation of the curriculum, classroom 
     management, and other issues, helps teachers and tutors deal 
     with any behavior problems or other special problems, and 
     coordinates the activities of the Family Support Team with 
     those of the instruction staff.
     Teachers and Teacher Training
       The teachers and tutors are regular certified teachers. 
     They receive detailed teacher's manuals supplemented by three 
     days of inservice at the beginning of the school year. In 
     Roots and Wings schools, this level of inservice continues 
     over a three-year period as the main program elements are 
     phased in.
       Throughout the year, follow-up visits are made to the 
     school by project staff, who visit classrooms, meet with 
     school staff, and conduct inservice presentations on such 
     topics as classroom management, instructional pace, and 
     cooperative learning. Facilitators also organize many 
     informal sessions to allow teachers to share problems and 
     problem solutions, suggest changes, and discuss individual 
     children. The staff development model used in Success for All 
     and Roots and Wings emphasizes relatively brief initial 
     training with extensive classroom follow-up, coaching, and 
     group discussion.
     Advisory Committee
       An advisory committee composed of the building principal, 
     program facilitator, teacher representatives, parent 
     representatives, and family support staff meets regularly to 
     review the progress of the program and to identify and solve 
     any problems that arise. In most schools existing site-based 
     management teams are adapted to fulfill this function. In 
     addition, grade-level teams and the Family Support Team meet 
     regularly to discuss common problems and solutions and to 
     make decisions in their areas of responsibility.
     Special Education
       Every effort is made to deal with student's learning 
     problems within the context of the regular classroom, as 
     supplemented by tutors. Tutors evaluate student's strengths 
     and weaknesses and develop strategies to teach in the most 
     effective way. In some schools, special education teachers 
     work as tutors and reading teachers with students identified 
     as learning disabled as well as other students experiencing 
     learning problems who are at risk for special education 
     placement. One major goal of Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings is to keep students with learning problems out of 
     special education if at all possible, and to serve any 
     students who qualify for special education in a way that does 
     not disrupt their regular classroom experience (see Slavin, 
     Madden, Karweit, Dolan, Wasik, Shaw, Mainzer, & Haxby, 1991).
     Roots and Wings
       Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1994; 
     Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996) is a comprehensive reform 
     design for elementary schools that adds to Success for All 
     innovative programs in mathematics, social studies, and 
     science.
       Roots and Wings schools begin by implementing all 
     components of Success for All, described above. In the second 
     year of implementation they typically begin to incorporate 
     the additional major components. MathWings is the name of the 
     mathematics program used in grades 1-5. It is a 
     constructivist approach to mathematics based on NCTM 
     standards, but designed to be practical and effective in 
     schools serving many students placed at risk. MathWings makes 
     extensive use of cooperative learning, games, discovery, 
     creative problem solving, manipulatives, and calculators.
       WorldLab is an integrated approach to social studies and 
     science that engages students in simulations and group 
     investigations. Students take on roles as various people in 
     history, in different parts of the world, or in various 
     occupations. For example, they work as engineers to design 
     and test efficient vehicles, they form a state legislature to 
     enact environmental legislation, they repeat Benjamin 
     Franklin's experiments, and they solve problems of 
     agriculture in Africa. In each activity students work in 
     cooperative groups, do extensive writing, and use reading, 
     mathematics, and fine arts skills learned in other parts of 
     the program.
       As of Fall 1996, approximately sixty schools in fifteen 
     states are adding either MathWings or WorldLab to their 
     implementations of Success for All, making themselves into 
     Roots and Wings schools. Demonstration sites for the program 
     are being established in many parts of the United States.
     Research on Success for All and Roots and Wings
       From the very beginning, there has been a strong focus in 
     Success for All on research and evaluation. We began 
     longitudinal evaluations of the program in its earliest 
     sites, six schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Later, 
     third-party evaluators at the University of Memphis--Steven 
     Ross, Lana Smith, and their colleagues--added evaluations in 
     Memphis, Houston, Tucson, Montgomery, Alabama, Ft. Wayne, 
     Indiana, and Caldwell, Idaho. Most recently, studies focusing 
     on English language learners in California have been 
     conducted in Modesto and Riverside by the Southwest Regional 
     Laboratory. Each of these evaluations has compared Success 
     for All schools to matched comparison schools on measures of 
     reading performance, starting with cohorts in kindergarten or 
     in first grade and continuing to follow these students as 
     long as possible (details of the evaluations design appear 
     below). Vaguaries of funding and other local problems have 
     ended some evaluations prematurely, but most have been able 
     to follow Success for All schools for many years. As of this 
     writing, there are seven years of continuous data from the 
     six original schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and 
     varying numbers of years of data from seven other districts, 
     a total of twenty-three schools (and their matched control 
     schools). Information on these schools and districts is shown 
     in Table 1.

                                      TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESS FOR ALL SCHOOLS IN THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Percent      Ethnicity by    Date began      Data                                                       
        District/school           Enrollment   free lunch      percent          SFA       collected     Pre-school?      Full-day K?        Comments    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore:                                                                                                                                              
    B1.........................          500           83  B-96 W-4                1987        88-94  yes............  yes...........  First SFA school;
                                                                                                                                        had additional  
                                                                                                                                        funds first 2   
                                                                                                                                        years.          
    B2.........................          500           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  Had additional   
                                                                                                                                        funds first 4   
                                                                                                                                        years.          
    B3.........................          400           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
    B4.........................          500           85  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
    B5.........................          650           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
Philadelphia:                                                                                                                                           
    P1.........................          620           96  A-60 W-2 B-20           1988        89-94  no.............  yes...........  Large ESL program
                                                                                                                                        for Cambodian   
                                                                                                                                        children.       
    P2.........................          600           97  B-100                   1991        92-93  some...........  yes...........  .................
    P3.........................          570           96  B-100                   1991        92-93  no.............  yes...........  .................
    P4.........................          840           98  B-100                   1991           93  no.............  yes...........  .................
    P5.........................          700           98  L-100                   1992        93-94  no.............  yes...........  Study only       
                                                                                                                                        involves        
                                                                                                                                        students in     
                                                                                                                                        Spanish         
                                                                                                                                        bilingual       
                                                                                                                                        program.        
Charleston, SC:                                                                                                                                         
    CS1........................          500           40  B-60 W-40               1990        91-92  no.............  no............  .................
Memphis, TN:                                                                                                                                            
    MT1........................          350           90  B-95 W-5                1990        91-94  yes............  no............  Program          
                                                                                                                                        implemented only
                                                                                                                                        in grades K-2.  
    MT2........................          530           90  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
    MT3........................          290           86  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
    MT4........................          370           90  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
Ft. Wayne, IN:                                                                                                                                          
    F1.........................          330           65  B-56 W-44               1991        92-94  no.............  yes...........  SFA schools (&   
                                                                                                                                        controls) are   
                                                                                                                                        part of         
                                                                                                                                        desegregation   
                                                                                                                                        plan.           
    F2.........................          250           55  B-55 W-45               1991        92-94  no.............  yes...........  SFA schools (&   
                                                                                                                                        controls) are   
                                                                                                                                        part of         
                                                                                                                                        desegregation   
                                                                                                                                        plan.           
Montgomery, AL:                                                                                                                                         
    MA1........................          450           95  B-100                   1991        93-94  no.............  yes...........  .................

[[Page H7160]]

                                                                                                                                                        
    MA2........................          460           97  B-100                   1991        93-94  no.............  yes...........  .................
Caldwell, ID:                                                                                                                                           
    CI1........................          400           20  W-80 L-20               1991        93-94  no.............  no............  Study compares 2 
                                                                                                                                        SFA schools to  
                                                                                                                                        Reading Recovery
                                                                                                                                        school.         
Modesto, CA:                                                                                                                                            
    MC1........................          640           70  W-54 L-25 A-17          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large ESL program
                                                            B-4                                                                         for students    
                                                                                                                                        speaking 17     
                                                                                                                                        languages.      
    MC2........................          560           98  L-66 W-24 A-10          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large Spanish    
                                                                                                                                        bilingual       
                                                                                                                                        program.        
Riverside, CA:                                                                                                                                          
    R1.........................          930           73  L-54 W-33 B-10          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large Spanish    
                                                                                                                                        bilingual & ESL 
                                                                                                                                        programs; year- 
                                                                                                                                        round school.   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: B--African American; L--Latino; A-Asian American; W--White.                                                                                        

     Evaluation Design
       A common evaluation design, with variations due to local 
     circumstances, has been used in all Success for All 
     evaluations. Every Success for All school involved in a 
     formal evaluation is matched with a control school that is 
     similar in poverty level (percent of students qualifying for 
     free lunch), historical achievement level, ethnicity, and 
     other factors. Schools are also matched on district-
     administered standardized test scores given in kindergarten 
     or (starting in 1991 in six districts) on Peabody Picture 
     Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores given by the project in the 
     fall of kindergarten or first grade. The measures used in the 
     evaluations were as follows:
       Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.--Three Woodcock scales--Word 
     Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension--were 
     individually administered to students by trained testers. 
     Word Identification assesses recognition of common sight 
     words, Word Attack assesses phonetic synthesis skills, and 
     Passage Comprehension assesses comprehension in context. 
     Students in Spanish bilingual programs were given the Spanish 
     versions of these scales.
       Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty.--The Durrell Oral 
     Reading scale was also individually administered to students 
     in grades 1-3. It presents a series of graded reading 
     passages which students read aloud, followed by comprehension 
     questions.
       Gray Oral Reading Test.--Comprehension and passage scores 
     from the Gray Oral Reading Test were obtained from students 
     in grades 4-5.
       Analyses of covariance with pretests as covariates were 
     used to compare raw scores in all evaluations, and separate 
     analyses were conducted for students in general and for 
     students in the lowest 25% of their grades.
       The figures presented in this report summarize student 
     performance in grade equivalents (adjusted for covariates) 
     and effect size (proportion of a standard deviation 
     separating the experimental and control groups), averaging 
     across individual measures. Neither grade equivalents nor 
     averaged scores were used in the analyses, but they are 
     presented here as a useful summary.
       Each of the evaluations summarized in this report follows 
     children who began in Success for All in first grade or 
     earlier, in comparison to children who had attended the 
     control school over the same period. Students who start in it 
     after first grade are not considered to have received the 
     full treatment (although they are of course served within the 
     schools).
       Results for all experimental-control comparisons in all 
     evaluation years are averaged and summarized in the following 
     graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in 
     Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994'' 
     using a method called multi-site replicated experiment 
     (Slavin et al., 1996a,b; Slavin & Madden, 1993).
       For more details on methods and findings, see Slavin et al. 
     (1996a,b) and the full site reports.
     Reading Outcomes
       The results of the multi-site replicated experiment 
     evaluating Success for All are summarized in the following 
     graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in 
     Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994'' 
     for each grade level, 1-5. The analyses compare cohort means 
     for experimental and control schools; for example the Grade 1 
     graph compares 55 experimental to 55 control cohorts, with 
     cohort (50-150 students) as the unit of analysis. In other 
     words, each bar is a mean of scores from more than 5000 
     students. Grade equivalents are based on the means, and are 
     only presented for their informational value. No analyses 
     were done using grade equivalents.
       Statistically significantly (p=.05 or better) positive 
     effects of Success for All (compared to controls) were found 
     on every measure at every grade level, 1-5. For students in 
     general, effect sizes averaged around a half standard 
     deviation at all grade levels. Effects were somewhat higher 
     than this for the Woodcock Word Attack scale in grades 1 and 
     2, but in grades 3-5 effect sizes were more or less 
     equivalent on all aspects of reading. Consistently, effect 
     sizes for students in the lowest 25% of their grades were 
     particularly positive, ranging from ES=+1.03 in first grades 
     to ES=+1.68 in fourth grade. Again, cohort-level analyses 
     found statistically significant differences favoring low 
     achievers in Success for All on every measure at every grade 
     level.
     Roots and Wings
       A study of Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996) 
     was carried out in four pilot schools in rural southern 
     Maryland. The Roots and Wings schools serve populations that 
     are significantly more disadvantaged than state averages. 
     They average 48% free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, 
     compared to 30% for the state; 21% of Roots and Wings 
     students are Title I eligible, in comparison to 7% for the 
     state. The assessment tracked growth over time on the 
     Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), 
     compared to growth in the state as a whole. The MSPAP is a 
     performance measure on which students are asked to solve 
     complex problems, set up experiments, write in various 
     genres, and read extended text. It uses matrix sampling, 
     which means that different students take different forms of 
     the test.
       In both third- and fifth-grade assessments in all subjects 
     tested (reading, language, writing, math, science, and social 
     studies), Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth, 
     as shown in the following graphs.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     * Graphs were not reproduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The State of Maryland gained in average performance on the 
     MSPAP over the same time period, but the number of Roots and 
     Wings students achieving at satisfactory or excellent 
     increased by more than twice the state's rate on every 
     measure at both grade levels.
     Effects on District-Administered Standardized Tests
       The formal evaluations of Success for All have relied on 
     individually administered assessments of reading. The 
     Woodcock and Durrell scales used in these assessments are far 
     more accurate than district-administered tests, and are much 
     more sensitive to real reading gains. They allow testers to 
     hear children actually reading material of increasing 
     difficulty and responding to questions about what they have 
     read. The Woodcock and Durrell are themselves nationally 
     standardized tests, and produce norms (e.g., percentiles, 
     NCEs and grade equivalents) just like any other standardized 
     measure.
       However, educators often want to know the effects of 
     innovative programs on the kinds of group administered 
     standardized tests they are usually held accountable for. To 
     obtain this information, we have sometimes requested 
     standardized test data for students in experimental and 
     control schools, and some districts have done their own 
     evaluations on their own measures. The following sections 
     briefly summarize findings from these types of evaluations.
       Baltimore, Maryland--Through the 1992-93 school year we 
     collected CTBS scores for our five Success for All and 
     control schools. On average, Success for All schools exceeded 
     control schools at every grade level. The differences were 
     statistically and educationally significant. By fifth grade, 
     Success for All students were performing 75% of a grade 
     equivalent ahead of controls (ES=+0.45) on CTBS Total Reading 
     scores (see Slavin, Madden, Dolan, Wasik, Ross, & Smith, 
     1994).
       Memphis, Tennessee--A longitudinal evaluation of three 
     Memphis Success for All schools (now becoming Roots and Wings 
     schools) by Ross, Smith, & Casey (1995) included an 
     assessment of program effects on the Tennessee Comprehensive 
     Assessment Program's (TCAP) Vocabulary and Reading 
     Comprehension tests. On average, the three Success for All 
     schools exceeded the three controls by an effect size of 
     +0.38 in first grade and +0.45 in second grade. Again, these 
     effects are educationally and statistically significant.
       Flint, Michigan--Two schools in Flint, Michigan began 
     implementation of Success for All in 1992. The percentage of 
     students passing the Michigan Educational Assessment Program 
     (MEAP) in reading at fourth grade has increased dramatically. 
     Homedale Elementary had a pass rate of 2% in 1992, placing it 
     last among the district's 32 elementary schools. In 1995, 
     48.6% of students passed, placing it first in the district. 
     Merrill Elementary, 27th in the district in 1992 with only 
     9.5% of students passing, was 12th in 1995 with 22% passing. 
     Over the same period the average for all Flint elementary 
     schools only increased from 18.3% passing to 19.3%.
       Ft. Wayne, Indiana--An evaluation in two schools in Ft. 
     Wayne, Indiana (Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1995) found positive 
     effects of Success for All on the reading comprehension scale 
     of the ISTEP, Indiana's norm-referenced achievement test. In 
     first grade, the

[[Page H7161]]

     effect size was +0.49 for students in general and +1.13 for 
     the lowest-performing 25%. In second grade, effect sizes were 
     +0.64, and in third grade, ES=+.13.
       Miami, Florida--(Dade County) An evaluation of three 
     Success for All schools (currently becoming Roots and Wings 
     schools) was carried out by Yuwadee Wongbundhit (1995) of the 
     Dade County Public Schools. In comparison to three control 
     schools, the Success for All schools gained seven percentile 
     points from grades 1-2 while matched control schools lost 
     five points on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8). In 
     grades 2.3, Success for All students gained only one 
     percentile point, but controls lost eight.
       Wichita Falls, Texas--Fannin Elementary School, the 
     highest-poverty school in Wichita Falls, Texas, began 
     implementation of Success for All in 1991. Its scores on the 
     1992 Texas Assessments of Academic Skills (TAAS) showed a 
     dramatic improvement. The percentage of third-graders meeting 
     minimum expectations in reading increased from 48% to 70% 
     (during the same year, the district percentage declined by 
     3%). Fannin students also increased from 8% to 53% in the 
     percentage of students meeting minimum expectations in 
     writing.
       Modesto, California--Two schools in Modesto, California 
     have been implementing Success for all since 1991. Each year, 
     their average NCE's in reading comprehension have increased 
     significantly. In 1993, El Vista Elementary showed an NCE 
     gain of 10.8; in grades two and three, the gains were 14.7 
     and 13.5, respectfully. Orville Wright Elementary showed 
     gains averaging 4.6 in grades 2-3. On the Spanish Aprenda, 
     Orville Wright students using the Lee Conmigo program gained 
     9.5 NCEs. On the CLAS, California's experimental performance 
     measure, both schools significantly exceeded their matched 
     comparison group in 1993. Principals report that among 
     students who have remained in the program since first grade, 
     no third graders are reading below grade level.
       Charleston, West Virginia--Chandler Elementary School began 
     implementing Success for All in 1990. In the two years before 
     the program was introduced, the school averaged an NCE score 
     of 34. This increased to 43 in the first year after 
     implementation and to 54 by the third year.
     Changes in Effect Sizes over Years of Implementation
       One interesting trend in outcomes from comparisons of 
     Success for All and control schools relates to changes in 
     effect sizes according to the number of years a school has 
     been implementing the program. Figure 4, which summarizes 
     these data, was created by pooling effect sizes for all 
     cohorts in their first year of implementation, all in their 
     second year, and so on, regardless of calendar year.
       Figure 4 shows that mean reading effect sizes progressively 
     increase with each year of implementation. For example, 
     Success for All first-graders score substantially better than 
     control first-graders at the end of the first year of 
     implementation (ES=+0.49). The experimental-control 
     difference is even higher for first graders attending schools 
     in the second year of program implementation (ES=+0.53), 
     increasing to an effect size of +0.73 for schools in their 
     fourth implementation year. A similar pattern is apparent for 
     second- and third-grade cohorts.
       The data summarized in Figure 4 show that while Success for 
     All has an immediate impact on student reading achievement, 
     this impact grows over successive years of implementation. 
     Over time, schools may become increasingly able to provide 
     effective instruction to all of their students, to approach 
     the goal of success for all.
     Success for All and English Language Learners
       The education of English language learners is at a 
     crossroads. For many years, researchers, educators, and 
     policy makers have debated questions of the appropriate 
     language instruction for students who enter elementary school 
     speaking languages other than English. Research on this topic 
     has generally found that students taught to read their home 
     language and then transitioned to English ultimately become 
     better readers in English than do students taught to read 
     only in English (Garcia, 1991; Willig, 1985; Wong-Fillmore & 
     Valadez, 1986). More recently, however, attention has shifted 
     to another question. Given that students are taught to read 
     their home language, how can we ensure that they succeed in 
     that language? (See, for example, Garcia, 1994.) There is no 
     reason to expect that children failing to read well in 
     Spanish, for example, will later become good readers and 
     successful students in English. On the contrary, research 
     consistently supports the common-sense expectation that the 
     better students in Spanish bilingual programs read Spanish, 
     the better their English reading will be (Garcia, 1991; 
     Hakuta & Garcia, 1989). Clearly, the quality of instruction 
     in home-language reading is a key factor in the ultimate 
     school success of English language learners, and must be a 
     focus of research on the education of these children.
       Francis Scott Key (ESL)--An adaptation of Success for All 
     to the needs of ESL students was evaluated at Philadelphia's 
     Francis Scott Key Elementary School, a majority-Cambodian 
     school in which virtually all children are in poverty. 
     Francis Scott Key was evaluated in comparison to a similar 
     Philadelphia elementary school.
       Results: Asian Students--Success for All Asian students in 
     grades 3-5, most of whom had been in the program since 
     kindergarten, performed far better than control students. 
     Differences between Success for All and control students were 
     statistically significant on every measure at every grade 
     level (p<.001). Median grade equivalents and effect sizes 
     were computed across the three Woodcock scales. On average, 
     Success for All Asian students exceeded control students in 
     reading grade equivalents by almost three years in third 
     grade (median ES=+1.76), more than 2 years in fourth grade 
     (median ES=+1.46), and about three years in fifth grade 
     (median ES=+1.44). Success for All Asian students were 
     reading more than a full year above grade level in grade 3 
     and more than a half-year above in fourth and fifth grade, 
     while similar control students were reading more than a year 
     below grade level at all three grade levels.
       Results: Non-Asian Students.--Outcomes of Success for All 
     non-Asian students were also very positive in grades 3-5. 
     Experimental-control differences were statistically 
     significant (p<.05 or better) on every measure at every 
     level. Effect sizes were somewhat smaller than for Asian 
     students, but were still quite substantial, average +1.00 in 
     grade, +0.96 in grade 4, and +0.78 in grade 5. Success for 
     All students averaged almost two years above grade level in 
     third grade, more than a year above grade level in fourth 
     grade, and about eight months above grade level in fifth 
     grade; at all grade levels, Success for All averaged about 
     2.5 years higher than control students.
       Fairhill (Bilingual)--The bilingual version of Success for 
     All, Lee Conmigo, was first implemented at Fairhill 
     Elementary School, a school in inner-city Philadelphia. 
     Fairhill serves a student body of 694 students of whom 78% 
     are Hispanic and 22% are African-American. A matched 
     comparison school was also selected. Nearly all students in 
     both schools qualified for free lunches. Both schools were 
     Title I schoolwide projects, which means that both had high 
     (and roughly equivalent) allocations of Title I funds that 
     they could use flexibly to meet student needs.
       Results: All students defined by district criteria as 
     limited English proficient at Fairhill and its control school 
     were pretested at the beginning of first grade on the Spanish 
     Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Each following May, 
     these students were tested by native language speakers on 
     three scales of the Spanish Woodcock.
       ANCOVAs controlling for pretests showed that at the end of 
     grade 2 Success for All students scored substantially higher 
     than control on every measure (p<.01 or better). Control 
     second-graders scored far below grade level on all three 
     scales. In contrast, Fairhill students averaged near grade 
     level on all measures. Effect sizes on all measures were 
     substantial. Fairhill students exceeded control by 1.8 
     standard deviations on Letter-Word Identification, 2.2 on 
     Word Attack, and 1.3 on Passage Comprehension. Fremont 
     (Bilingual), Wright (Bilingual) and El Vista (ESL).
       Data from first-graders in three California Success for All 
     schools were analyzed together by Dianda and Flaherty (1995), 
     pooling data across schools in four categories: English-
     dominant students, Spanish-dominant students taught in 
     Spanish (Lee Conmigo in Success for All schools), Spanish-
     dominant students taught in English (``sheltered students''), 
     and speakers of languages other than English or Spanish 
     taught in English. The pooled results are summarized in 
     Figure 5.
       As is clear in Figure 5, all categories of Success for All 
     students scored substantially better than control students. 
     The differences were greatest, however, for Spanish-dominated 
     students taught in bilingual classes (ES=+1.03) and those 
     taught in sheltered English programs (ES=+1.02). The 
     bilingual students scored at grade level, and more than six 
     months ahead of controls. The sheltered students scored about 
     two months below grade level, but were still four months 
     ahead of their controls. Both English-speaking students and 
     speakers of languages other than English or Spanish scored 
     above grade level and about two months ahead of their 
     controls. The effects of Success for All on the achievement 
     of English language learners are substantially positive. 
     Across three schools implementing Lee Conmigo, the Spanish 
     curriculum used in bilingual Success for All schools, the 
     average effect size for first-graders on Spanish assessments 
     was +0.88; for second-graders (at Philadelphia's Fairhill 
     Elementary) the average effect size was +1.77. For students 
     in sheltered English instruction, effect sizes for all 
     comparisons were also very positive, especially for Cambodian 
     students in Philadelphia and Mexican-American students in 
     California.
     Comparing Success for All and Reading Recovery
       Reading Recovery is one of the most extensively researched 
     and widely used innovations in elementary education. Like /
     Success for All, Reading Recovery provides one-to-one 
     tutoring to first graders who are struggling in reading. 
     Research on Reading Recovery has found substantial positive 
     effects of the program as of the end of first grade, and 
     longitudinal studies have found that some portion of these 
     effects maintain at least through fourth grade (DeFord, 
     Pinnell, Lyons & Young, 1988; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & 
     Seltzer, 1991).
       Schools and districts attracted to Success for All are also 
     often attracted to Reading Recovery, as the two programs 
     share an emphasis on early intervention and a strong research 
     base. Increasing numbers of districts

[[Page H7162]]

     have both programs in operation in different schools. One of 
     the districts in the Success for All evaluation, Caldwell, 
     Idaho, happened to be one of these. Ross, Smith, Casey, & 
     Slavin (1995) used this opportunity to compare the two 
     programs.
       In Caldwell, two schools are using Success for All and one 
     is using Reading Recovery. All three are very similar rural 
     schools with similar ethnic make-ups (10-25% Hispanic, with 
     the remainder Anglo), proportions of students qualifying for 
     free lunch (45-60%), and sizes (411-451). The Success for All 
     schools were somewhat higher than the Reading Recovery school 
     in poverty and percent Hispanic. In 1992-93, one of the 
     Success for All schools was in its second year of 
     implementation and the other was a new school that was in its 
     first year (but had moved a principal and some experienced 
     staff reassigned from the first school). Reading Recovery was 
     in its second year of implementation.
       The study compared first-graders in the three schools. 
     Figure 6 summarizes the results. As is clear from the figure, 
     students in the Success for All schools performed somewhat 
     better than students in the Reading Recovery school overall 
     (ES=+.17). Differences for special education students were 
     substantial, averaging an effect size of +.77. Special 
     education students were not tutored in the Reading Recovery 
     school and were primarily taught in a separate resource room. 
     These students scored near the floor on all tests. In 
     contrast, Success for All special education students were 
     fully mainstreamed and did receive tutoring, and their 
     reading scores, though still low, showed them to be on the 
     way toward success in reading.
       Excluding the special education students, there were no 
     differences in reading performance between tutored students 
     in the Success for All and Reading Recovery schools (ES=.00). 
     In light of earlier research, these outcomes suggest that 
     both tutoring programs are highly effective for at-risk first 
     graders.
       A second comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery 
     was carried out by Ross, Nunnery, & Smith (1996) in the 
     Amphitheater School District of Tucson, Arizona. Three high-
     poverty schools (about 25% Mexican American students) were 
     compared. One used Success for All, one used Reading Recovery 
     with a whole-language curriculum, and a control school used a 
     whole-language approach without tutoring.
       In this study, tutored as well as non-tutored first-graders 
     scored substantially higher in Success for All than in 
     Reading Recovery. For tutored students the difference 
     averaged an effect size of 1.08, with mean grade equivalents 
     of 1.85 for tutored students in Success for All, 1.20 for 
     Reading Recovery students. For all students, Success for All 
     students had an average grade equivalent of 2.18, the Reading 
     Recovery school 1.73, and the control school 1.80, with mean 
     effect sizes of +.68 comparing Success for All and the 
     Reading Recovery school and +.39 comparing Success for All 
     and control.
       The comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery 
     supports a common-sense conclusion. Success for All, which 
     affects all students, has positive effects on all students. 
     Reading Recovery focuses on tutoring and therefore produces 
     its effects only on tutored students. These results suggest 
     that Success for All may be most appropriate in schools 
     serving many at-risk students, while Reading Recovery may be 
     more practical when the number of students at risk of reading 
     failure is small. Some schools have merged the two programs, 
     combining the breadth and comprehensiveness of Success for 
     All with the outstanding professional development for tutors 
     provided by Reading Recovery. Such mergers of Success for All 
     and Reading Recovery are being started in about a dozen 
     schools located around the United States.
     Success for All and Special Education
       Perhaps the most important goal of Success for All is to 
     place a floor under the reading achievement of all children, 
     to ensure that every child performs adequately in this 
     critical skill. This goal has major implications for special 
     education. If the program makes a substantial difference in 
     the reading achievement of the lowest achievers, then it 
     should reduce special education referrals and placements. 
     Further, students who have IEPs indicating learning 
     disabilities or related problems are typically treated the 
     same as other students in Success for All. That is, they 
     receive tutoring if they need it, participate in reading 
     classes appropriate to their reading levels, and spend the 
     rest of the day in age-appropriate, heterogeneous homerooms. 
     Their tutor and/or reading teacher is likely to be a special 
     education teacher, but otherwise they are not treated 
     differently.
       The philosophy behind that treatment of special education 
     issues in Success for All is called ``neverstreaming'' 
     (Slavin et al. 1991). That is, rather than waiting until 
     students fall far behind, are assigned to special education, 
     and then may be mainstreamed into regular classes, Success 
     for All schools intervene early and intensively with students 
     who are at risk to try to keep them out of the special 
     education system. Once students are far behind, special 
     education services are unlikely to catch them up to age-
     appropriate levels of performance. Students who have already 
     failed in reading are likely to have an overlay of anxiety, 
     poor motivation, poor behavior, low self-esteem, and 
     ineffective learning strategies that are likely to interfere 
     with learning no matter how good special education services 
     may be. Ensuring that all students succeed in the first place 
     is a far better strategy if it can be accomplished. In 
     Success for All, the provision of research-based preschool, 
     kindergarten, and first grade reading, one-to-one tutoring, 
     and family support services are likely to give the most at-
     risk students a good chance of developing enough reading 
     skills to remain out of special education, or to perform 
     better in special education than would have otherwise been 
     the case.
       That data relating to special education outcomes clearly 
     support these expectations. Several studies have focused on 
     questions related to special education. One of the most 
     important outcomes in this area is the consistent finding of 
     particularly large effects of Success for All for students in 
     the lowest 25% of their classes. While effect sizes for 
     students in general have averaged around +0.50 on 
     individually administered reading measures, effect sizes for 
     the lowest achievers have averaged in the range of +1.00 to 
     +1.50 across the grades. Across five Baltimore schools, only 
     2.2% of third-graders averaged two years behind grade level, 
     a usual criterion for special education placement. In 
     contrast, 8.8% of control third-graders scored this poorly. 
     Baltimore data have also shown a reduction in special 
     education placements for learning disabilities of about half 
     (Slavin et al., 1992). A study of two Success for All schools 
     in Ft. Wayne, Indiana found that over a two year period 3.2% 
     of Success for All students in grades K-1 and 1-2 were 
     referred to special education for learning disabilities or 
     mild mental handicaps. In contrast, 14.3% of control students 
     were referred in these categories (Smith, Ross, & Casey, 
     1994).
       Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that 
     Success for All both reduces the need for special education 
     services (by raising the reading achievement of very low 
     achievers) and reduces special education referrals and 
     placements.
       Another important question concerns the effects of the 
     program on students who have already been assigned to special 
     education. Here again, there is evidence from different 
     sources. In the Ross et al. (1995) study comparing Reading 
     Recovery and Success for All described above, it so happened 
     that first-graders in special education in the Reading 
     Recovery group were not tutored, but instead received 
     traditional special education services in resource rooms. In 
     the Success for All schools, first-graders who had been 
     assigned to special education were tutored one-to-one (by 
     their special education teachers) and otherwise participated 
     in the program in the same way as all other students. As 
     noted earlier (recall Figure 6), special education students 
     in Success for All were reading substantially better 
     (ES=+.77) than special education students in the comparison 
     school. In addition, Smith et al. (1994) combined first grade 
     reading data from special education students in Success for 
     All and control schools in four districts: Memphis, Ft. 
     Wayne, Indiana, Montgomery, Alabama, and Caldwell, Idaho). 
     Success for All special education students scored 
     substantially better than controls (mean ES=+.59).


                               conclusion

       The results of evaluations of twenty-three Success for All 
     schools in nine districts in eight states clearly show that 
     the program increases student reading performance. In every 
     district, Success for All students learned significantly more 
     than matched control students. Significant effects were not 
     seen on every measure at every grade level, but the 
     consistent direction and magnitude of the effects show 
     unequivocal benefits for Success for All students. Effects on 
     district-administered standardized tests reinforce the 
     findings of the studies using individually administered 
     tests. This report also adds evidence showing particularly 
     large impacts on the achievement of limited English 
     proficient students in both bilingual and ESL programs, and 
     on both reducing special education referrals and improving 
     the achievement of students who have been assigned to special 
     education. It compares the outcomes of Success for All with 
     those of another early intervention program, Reading 
     Recovery. It also summarizes outcomes of Roots and Wings, the 
     next stage in the development of Success for All.
       The Success for All evaluations have used reliable and 
     valid measures, individually administered tests that are 
     sensitive to all aspects of reading--comprehension, fluency, 
     word attack, and word identification. Performance of Success 
     for All students has been compared to that of matched 
     students in matched control schools, who provide the best 
     indication of what students without the program would have 
     achieved. Replication of high-quality experiments in such a 
     wide variety of schools and districts is extremely unusual. 
     The equally consistent and dramatic impact of Success for All 
     and Roots and Wings on district standardized tests and state 
     performance assessments are further evidence of the broad 
     impact of these programs.
       An important indicator of the robustness of Success for All 
     is the fact of the more than 300 schools that have used the 
     program for periods of 1-8 years, only eight have dropped out 
     (in all cases because of changes of principals). Many other 
     Success for All schools have survived changes of 
     superintendents, principals, facilitators, and other key 
     staff, major cuts in funding, and other serious threats to 
     program maintenance.
       The research summarized here demonstrates that 
     comprehensive, systemic

[[Page H7163]]

     school-by-school change can take place on a broad scale in a 
     way that maintains the integrity and effectiveness of the 
     model. The 23 schools in nine districts that we are studying 
     in depth are typical of the larger set of schools currently 
     using Success for All and Roots and Wings in terms of quality 
     of implementation, resources, demographic characteristics, 
     and other factors. Program outcomes are not limited to the 
     original home of the program; in fact, outcomes tend to be 
     somewhat better outside of Baltimore. The widely held idea 
     based on the Rand study of innovation (Berman & McLaughlin, 
     1978; McLaughlin, 1990) that comprehensive school reform must 
     be invented by school staffs themselves is certainly not 
     supported in research on Success for All or Roots and Wings. 
     While the program is adapted to meet the needs of each 
     school, and while school staffs must agree to implement the 
     program by a vote of 80 percent or more, Success for All and 
     Roots and Wings are externally developed programs with 
     specific materials, manuals, and structures. The observation 
     that these programs can be implemented and maintained over 
     considerable time periods and can be effective in each of 
     their replication sites certainly supports the idea that 
     every school staff need not reinvent the wheel.
       There is nothing magic about Success for All or Roots and 
     Wings. None of their components are completely new or unique. 
     Obviously, schools serving disadvantaged students can have 
     great success without a special program if they have an 
     outstanding staff, and other prevention/early intervention 
     models, such as Reading Recovery (Pinnell, 1989) and the 
     School Development Program (Comer, 1988) also have evidence 
     of effectiveness with disadvantaged children. The main 
     importance of the research on Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings is not in validating a particular model or in 
     demonstrating that disadvantaged students can learn. Rather, 
     its greatest importance is in demonstrating that success for 
     disadvantaged students can be routinely ensured in schools 
     that are not exceptional or extraordinary (and were not 
     producing great success before the program was introduced). 
     We cannot ensure that every school has a charismatic 
     principal or every student has a charismatic teacher. 
     Nevertheless, we can ensure that every child, regardless of 
     family background, has an opportunity to succeed in school.
       The demonstration that an effective program can be 
     replicated and can be effective in its replication sites 
     removes one more excuse for the continuing low achievement of 
     disadvantaged children. In order to ensure the success of 
     disadvantaged students we must have the political commitment 
     to do so, with the funds and policies to back up this 
     commitment. Success for All and Roots and Wings do require a 
     serious commitment to restructure elementary schools and to 
     reconfigure uses of Title I, special education, and other 
     funds to emphasize prevention and early intervention rather 
     than remediation. These and other systemic changes in 
     assessments, accountability, standards, and legislation can 
     facilitate the implementation of Success for All, Roots and 
     Wings, and other school reform programs. However, we must 
     also have methods known not only to be effective in their 
     original sites, but also to be replicable and effective in 
     other sites. The evaluations presented in this report provide 
     a practical demonstration of the effectiveness and 
     replicability of one such program.


                               References

     Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs 
     supporting educational change: A model of education change, 
     Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa 
     Monica, CA: Rand.
     Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. 
     Scientific American, 259, 42-48.
     DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., & Young, P. (1987). 
     Ohio's Reading Recovery program: Vol. VII, Report of the 
     follow-up studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
     Dianda, M.R., & Flaherty, J.F. (April 1995). Effects of 
     Success for All on the reading achievement of first graders 
     in California bilingual programs. Paper presented at the 
     annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
     Association, San Francisco.
     Dianda, M.R., Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993, April). Lee 
     Conmigo: Success for All in schools serving limited English 
     proficient students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 
     the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
     Garcia, E.E. (1991). Bilingualism, second language 
     acquisition, and the education of Chicano language minority 
     students. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and 
     success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990's. New 
     York: Falmer.
     Garica, E.E. (1994, April). The impact of linguistic and 
     cultural diversity on America's schools: A need for new 
     policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
     GAO, 1994. Limited English proficiency: A growing and costly 
     educational challenge facing many school districts. 
     Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
     Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Ivory, G., & Calderon, M. (1993). The 
     Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition 
     (BCIRC) project in the Ysleta Independent School District: 
     Standardized test outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 
     University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for 
     Disadvantaged Students.
     Horwitz, R.I. (1987). Complexity and contradiction in 
     clinical trial research. American Journal of Medicine, 82, 
     498-510.
     Levin, H.M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged 
     students. Educational Leadership, 44 (6), 19-21.
     Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., & 
     Wasik, B.A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of 
     a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. 
     American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
     Matt, G.E., & Cook, T.D. (1994). Threats to the validity of 
     research and syntheses. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), 
     The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503-520). New York: 
     Russell Sage.
     McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand change agent study 
     revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. 
     Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
     Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk 
     children learn to read: Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-
     182.
     Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & 
     Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the 
     literacy education of high risk first graders. Reading 
     Research Quarterly, 29, 8-38.
     Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & 
     Seltzer, M. (1991). Studying the effectiveness of early 
     intervention approaches for first grade children having 
     difficulty in reading. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 
     Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center.
     Ross, S.M., Nunnery, J., & Smith, L. (1996). Evaluation of 
     Title I reading programs: Amphitheater Public Schools. Year 
     1: 1995-96. Memphis: University of Memphis, Center for 
     Research in Educational Policy.
     Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. 
     (1994, April). Using ``Success for All'' to restructure 
     elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at 
     the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
     Association, New Orleans.
     Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). 
     Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An 
     examination of alternative early intervention programs. 
     American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773-800.
     Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the 
     American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
     Slavin, R.E. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative 
     to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Education 
     Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
     Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement 
     in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of 
     Educational Research, 57, 347-350.
     Slavin, R.E. (1994). School and classroom organization in 
     beginning reading: Class size, aides, and instructional 
     grouping. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, B.A. Wasik, & N.A. 
     Madden (Eds.), Preventing early school failure: Research on 
     effective strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, 
     and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1992/93). 
     Preventing early school failure: What works? Educational 
     Leadership, 50(4), 10-18.
     Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1994). Preventing 
     early school failure: Research on effective strategies. 
     Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1993, April). Multi-site 
     replicated experiments: An application to Success for All. 
     Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
     Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1994). Implementing Success for 
     All in the Philadelphia Public Schools (Final report to the 
     Pew Charitable Trusts). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 
     University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for 
     Disadvantaged Students.
     Slavin, R.E. & Madden, N.A. (1995, April). Effects of Success 
     for All on the Achievement of English language learners. 
     Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A. Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, 
     B.A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to 
     prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. 
     Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L. Dolan, L., & Wasik, 
     B.A. (1996b). Every child, every school: Success for All. 
     Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994) ``Whenever and 
     wherever we choose . . . .:'' The replication of Success for 
     All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639-647.
     Slavin, R.E. Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994, April). Success for 
     All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform 
     in seven districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 
     the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. & Dianda, M. (1996a). Success 
     for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for 
     Students Placed at Risk, 1 (1), 41-76.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L. Wasik, 
     B.A., Shaw, A., Mainzer, K.L., & Haxby B. (1991). 
     Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as 
     alternatives to special education. Journal of Learning 
     Disabilities, 24, 373-378.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Stevens, R.J. (1989/90). 
     Cooperative learning models for the 3 Rs. Educational 
     Leadership, 47 (4), 22-28.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Roots and 
     Wings. In S. Stringfield S. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold 
     plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools 
     Designs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Slavin, R.E., & Yampolsky, R. (1991). Effects of Success for 
     All on students with limited English proficiency: A three-
     year evaluation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 
     Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged 
     Students.
     Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., & Casey, J.P. (1994). Special 
     education analyses for Success for All in four cities. 
     Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in 
     Educational Policy.
     Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., & Farnish, A.M. 
     (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two 
     field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
     Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading 
     failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. 
     Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.
     Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on 
     the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of 
     Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
     Wongbundhit, Y. (1995). Evaluation of Success for All in the 
     Dade County Public Schools. Miami: Dade County Public 
     Schools.
     Wong-Fillmore, L., & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual 
     learners. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on 
     teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
                                                                    ____


              Modern Red Schoolhouse on the World-Wide Web

                    (A project of Hudson Institute)


                                preface

       The little red schoolhouse of yesteryear, at least as 
     idealized in American memory, was an institution that drew 
     people together for

[[Page H7164]]

     common purposes, to share in one of the most important 
     responsibilities of any community: readying the next 
     generation to take its place in that community by socializing 
     the young, transmitting the culture, and equipping future 
     workers, citizens, and parents with essential knowledge, 
     skills, and habits. The Modern Red Schoolhouse intends to 
     reinvent some of the key virtues of the little red 
     schoolhouse in a modern context and with a modern mission to 
     be a place where all children will learn and achieve academic 
     standards that are truly world class.
       This is not to say that all children will learn in the same 
     way, or at the same time, or at the same pace. To this 
     challenge, Modern Red Schoolhouse offers a set of teaching 
     methods tailored to identify and nurture the potential that 
     exists in every child. The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards 
     are high. But they come with the expectation that all 
     children will be afforded many routes towards their 
     attainment. Like its nineteenth-century namesake, the Modern 
     Red Schoolhouse does not lose sight of the fact that mastery 
     of subject matter is the only acceptable goal for all 
     children, wherever they may come from and however they may 
     learn.
       The standards documented here will be met by Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse students in eight core subjects defined as 
     English language arts, geography, history, mathematics, 
     science, the arts, foreign languages, and health and physical 
     education. The Modern Red Schoolhouse curriculum consists of 
     Hudson Units both Foundation Units and Capstone Units. 
     Foundation Units are developed or selected at each school for 
     the primary purpose of instruction, although Foundation Units 
     also include some built-in assessment. Capstone Units are 
     developed by Advanced Systems, Inc., assessment contractor 
     for the Modern Red Schoolhouse, in collaboration with 
     teachers at cooperating schools. Their primary purpose is to 
     assess students' academic progress, but because they are 
     integral to curriculum, they also include some built-in 
     instruction. Schools will arrange a series of Hudson Units to 
     meet the individual learning needs of each student. All the 
     performance objectives of all the Hudson Units successfully 
     completed by each student will lead that student to 
     achievement of the standards. All the Capstone Units, 
     supplemented by examinations in each subject, form a 
     Watershed Assessment of the standards which signal students' 
     readiness to move to the next level of schooling.
       All Modern Red Schoolhouse students are expected to meet 
     the standards that follow with a few modest qualifications. 
     The foreign language standards assume that students will 
     become proficient speakers of two languages: English and one 
     other. This does not preclude students from pursuing study of 
     a third language; in fact, they are encouraged to do so. The 
     arts encompass three arts disciplines: visuals areas, music, 
     and drama. Students are expected to meet standards for all 
     three through the intermediate level. Advanced level students 
     will achieve the advanced standards for one arts discipline 
     of the student's own choosing.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are the result of two 
     years of the combined thinking of teachers, administrators, 
     community members, and national subject specialists. During 
     the design phase, representatives of participating school 
     districts began to identify high standards in eight core 
     subjects. The College Board's Advanced Placement standards 
     were used as an initial benchmark to help participants 
     articulate what students should know and be able to do at the 
     time of graduation from high school. Although students in the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse will reach these standards at 
     different rates and therefore at different ages, the three 
     levels are roughly equivalent to what students should know 
     and be able to do at the end of grades 4, 8, and 12.
       Successive drafts of the standards were reviewed by the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse Standards and Assessment Task Force. 
     This document is the result of considerable revision by a 
     team of subject specialists, all with broad experience in 
     setting high standards and helping students to achieve them. 
     Their joint experience includes work for the Advanced 
     Placement program, the Council for Basic Education, the 
     National Council of Teachers of English, the National 
     Endowment for the Humanities, the Mathematical Association of 
     America, the National Science Teachers Association, and a 
     combined hundred years in classrooms at all levels. Drafts of 
     the standards have been reviewed by subject specialists at 
     Advanced Systems, Inc. and teachers in member schools, whose 
     suggestions have prompted additional revisions. The greatest 
     challenge offered by these standards raising student 
     achievement to meet them will be addressed through innovative 
     curriculum and not by lowered expectations.
       While the Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are unique, they 
     are not inconsistent with the recommendations of professional 
     associations striving for excellence in education. We have 
     borrowed heavily from other sets of standards developed in 
     recent years in the great national effort to reform America's 
     schools. We are indebted to the work of the National 
     Assessment Governing Board whose National Assessments of 
     Educational Progress in language arts, geography, 
     mathematics, science, and the arts helped inform the 
     standards. We drew from the College Board's various teacher's 
     guides to their Advanced Placement courses. Publications from 
     the following professional associations informed the 
     development of the standards in their respective disciplines: 
     the Association of American Geographers, the Bradley 
     Commission on History in Schools; the National Center for 
     History in the Schools (UCLA-NEH); the National Council for 
     Teachers of Mathematics; the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science; National Standards in Foreign 
     Language Education project; and the National Association for 
     Sports and Physical Education.
       In addition to these, the standards have been informed by 
     the U.S. Department of Education's ``James Madison'' series 
     and the U.S. Department of Labor's SCANS reports. Standards 
     for the primary and intermediate levels were also informed by 
     E.D. Hirsch's ``Cultural Literacy'' inventory and Smart Start 
     by Patte Barth and Ruth Mitchell.
       We are indebted especially to the work of the following 
     authors and associations:
       In English language arts:
       Barth, P. and R. Mitchell. Smart Start. North American 
     Press, 1992.
       Gadda, G., E. Jensen, F. McQuade, and H. Wilson. Teacher's 
     Guide to Advanced Placement Courses in English Language and 
     Composition. The College Board, 1985.
       McQuade, F. Teacher's Guide to Advanced Placement Courses 
     in English Literature and Composition. The College Board, 
     1993.
       Reading Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       Reading and Thinking: A New Framework for Comprehension. 
     Massachusetts Department of Education, 1987.
       Writing Framework for the 1992 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       In Geography:
       Geography Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Dept. of Education, 
     1992.
       Geography (K-6 and 7-12): Themes, Key Ideas, and Learning 
     Opportunities. Geography Education National Implementation 
     Project, 1989.
       Guidelines for Geographic Education. Association of 
     American Geographers, 1984.
       In History:
       Historical Literacy. Bradley Commission on History in the 
     Schools, 1989.
       History-Social Science Framework. California Department of 
     Education, 1988.
       Holt, T. Thinking Historically. The College Board, 1990.
       National History Standards Project. National Center for 
     History in the Schools, UCLA-NEH Research Program, ongoing.
       In Mathematics:
       Edwards, E.L. Algebra for Everyone. National Council of 
     Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.
       Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. 
     National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989.
       Mathematics Assessment: 1994 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress.  Submitted to the National Assessment 
     Governing Board by The College Board, 1992.
       Meiring, S.P., R.N. Rubenstein, J.E. Schultz, J. de Lange, 
     and D.L. Chambers. A Core Curriculum: Making Mathematics 
     Count for Everyone: Addenda Series, Grades 9-12. National 
     Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
       Silver, E., J. Kilpatrick, and B. Schlesinger. Thinking 
     through Mathematics: Fostering Inquiry and Communication in 
     Mathematics Classrooms. The College Board, 1990.
       In Science:
       Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's 
     Schools. National Research Council, 1991.
       National Committee on Science Education Standards and 
     Assessment. National Research Council, 1993 (draft).
       Project 2061: Science for all Americans. American 
     Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
       Science Framework for the 1994 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years. 
     National Center for Improving Science Education, 1989.
       Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School 
     Science. The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers. 
     National Science Teachers Association, 1986.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse has also integrated character 
     education into the academic curriculum of its students. In 
     his essay ``Character Education in Our Schools'' (published 
     separately by Modern Red Schoolhouse), Kevin Ryan of Boston 
     University discusses the need for character education and the 
     attempt by the Modern Red Schoolhouse to effectively address 
     this issue. However, discussions about dealing with this 
     subject are best made with the community. Therefore, 
     individual schools are advised to develop their character 
     education programs with the help and guidance of the school's 
     parents and communities. In preparing the curriculum, 
     especially in health and physical education, we encourage 
     educators to review not only the standards enumerated here, 
     but also Kevin Ryan's essay. It discusses in more detail the 
     reasons for character education and the specific goals of the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse program. This essay can be obtained 
     separately from the Hudson Institute.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are anchored in 
     beliefs and principles that most Americans today as they did 
     a century ago know to be true and valid. We believe that 
     standards can serve as an anchor for those principles while 
     at the same time preparing graduates to take their place in 
     the communities of the twenty-first century.
                                          Sally B. Kilgore, Ph.D.,
                                                         Director.


[[Page H7165]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  With all due respect to the colloquy that just occurred, this funding 
cannot be used to provide gifted and talented funding. The purpose of 
title I under which this program is funded is to promote the raising of 
standards in schools and the raising of performance by improving the 
performance of disadvantaged children. There is a separate program for 
gifted and talented. We cannot use an exchange between two Members to 
rewrite what, in fact, is the basic authorization, irrespective of 
their efforts to do so.
  I would also point out with respect to Comer schools, people can have 
whatever ideological reaction they want to it. The key element in Comer 
schools is family involvement, parental involvement, and often not just 
with your own child but deep involvement in the operation of the school 
itself and collaborative decisionmaking so that you do not have an 
additional round of finger pointing every time a problem develops at 
school, to emphasize forcing people to work together to make collective 
decisions which everybody takes their fair share of responsibility for.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I do not follow the comments of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] because it seems to me perfectly 
plausible that a poor and educationally disadvantaged child could also 
be gifted and talented.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify. It was not my intention 
to say this program could be used for a separate program, the Jacob 
Javits program, but under title I we could have students who are 
participating in a gifted and talented educational program and they 
would not be excluded from this simply because it is not expressly 
mentioned.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, I was just explaining to 
several of the gentleman's Members, one of these models involves taking 
so-called slow learners, and instead of dealing with them by putting 
them in remediation programs, it deals with them by in fact putting 
them in highly advanced intensive programs, much as you would a gifted 
and talented student. That is totally counterintuitive to me. But the 
evaluation of those programs demonstrates that it has produced some 
very dramatic results with those kids. In that sense, what the 
gentleman is saying might have some relevance to the situation, I would 
grant that.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the point I would just like to make is 
that someone does not have to be labeled ``disadvantaged.'' They simply 
have to meet the requirements for title I. They do not have to be 
labeled as ``slow learners'' to be shifted into that highly talented 
program. They could be gifted and talented students who are eligible 
for title I programs.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, we have not just made 
the funds available to title I schools, we have made $50 million of 
this available to non-title-I schools, because we think that all 
schools will be interested in this, not just schools that have a high 
percentage of disadvantaged students.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to reiterate 
an important point that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] made 
that bears mentioning to our colleagues.
  Again, we are talking about $200 million, which is the subject of the 
en bloc amendment. Of that amount, $50 million is actually for grants 
to local education agencies. That is money that, just as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] suggested, is being driven down to the local 
level.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think if we had more debate like 
this, I find this very refreshing, I think we are talking to issues, we 
are talking about education, we are not talking politics. I would like 
to thank Members on both sides.
  In the 104th Congress, as chairman of a subcommittee basically 
responsible for K through 12 education, we had several hearings. One of 
those hearings, or all five of the hearings in one area, showed that 
our children were not competing for entry level jobs. The fact is that 
they could not read, they could not write, they could not speak the 
English language, or did not have the high-technical skills available.
  In my own district, there are two gentlemen, both immigrants. One is 
named Paul Ecke who donates large amounts of money and his passion is 
education, as is a Hispanic friend of mine, Ralph Peskera, recently 
tasked to look at education on school entrance into college. The sad 
thing is many of those students were not prepared to meet the college 
level education. Many of us feel that more of the resources should be 
focused on the lower levels instead of so much on the higher levels. 
Again, I think that is why this debate is very refreshing.
  Mr. Chairman, when we talk about things that we would like to look at 
in school reform, the President asked for $3 billion in a literacy 
program.
  Currently, we have 14 Federal literacy programs. Mr. Hoekstra and the 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], are looking into saying, well, 
I think it is reasonable for both sides of the aisle to say, let's find 
one or two that really work and let's fully fund them in the public 
schools and make sure we get the resources and the funds available for 
those and eliminate the bureaucracy, without saying, hey, we are 
cutting education but actually enhancing education because we are 
getting more money down to the level.
  I think that reform is very important.
  Damaging public education, I think, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], if we get into a fight, public versus private, I think we both 
lose. I think the whole value is taking our public schools with the 
problems that many of them have, and looking to bring them up to 
private level standards across the board.
  Not all private schools are that good, either. But many of them you 
go to, you see the parents, the teachers, the children all lauding each 
other. Go to public schools across the Nation and in many of those 
public schools we do not see that.
  My wife has a doctorate degree in education. She is an elementary 
school principal with two schools. You think somebody works hard? A 
good night for her is when she gets out at 9 or 10 o'clock. She is a 
very good principal. She has dedicated teachers. Yet, in our State of 
California we have just slipped from 45 to 50 in literacy.
  Now, this is a nation where we have large amounts of resources that 
we do not apply. We have less than 12 percent of our schools that have 
even a single phone jack. We have so many Federal programs and get so 
little of the money. The average is 48 cents; in some States 23 cents. 
We need also in this reform to look to be able to focus the majority of 
money down to the ZIP Code, and where the parents and the teachers and 
the families can have a better say of what that education is.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]. This is one of the better debates that I think 
has occurred and a debate we can be proud of on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the agreement worked out. 
Individual schools that elect to participate in this program identify 
an effective research-based whole school reform model that has the 
support of their community.
  In my district in Cleveland, OH, eight schools are using the Comer 
reform model. This model involves shared decisionmaking, focuses on 
parental involvement, and includes student-staff-support team. 
Together, these teams develop the policies that are used to guide the 
school.
  The Comer model has been used in Cleveland since 1990, and includes 
seven elementary and one middle school. Plans are under way to expand 
the use of this concept to a high school.
  The Cleveland effort is a collaborative partnership with the Harvard 
Business School alumni that live in Cleveland, the Applewood Center,

[[Page H7166]]

Cleveland public schools, the community, and Cleveland State 
University.
  In my district, the Comer model has been successful in that it has 
changed the climate of the participating schools. It has made the 
schools more friendly to parents, a better place for teachers to work, 
and, in turn, a better place for students to learn.
  Cleveland State University has provided staff development and 
training for teachers and parents in the Comer program-participating 
schools and has helped to implement the Comer model. Cleveland State 
University is now involved in helping to measure and evaluate the 
projects, and to examine how the program can best be replicated.
  With respect to gains in academic achievement, seven of the eight 
Comer program-participating schools have shown improvements in 
students' achievement and/or attendance.
  With respect to the State proficiency test, there is now definite 
evidence that students in the Comer model school improved performance. 
This is especially good to be noted because in many of the other 
schools, young people taking the State proficiency test have been 
unable to pass that test, particularly in the fourth and eighth grades 
where they are taking tests in math and reading.
  So the whole school reform program is a success for communities that 
wanted to improve their schools, and I support the agreement that has 
been worked out between both sides on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman and the chairman of the 
committee for working out this agreement. This will enable those school 
districts who are truly interested in not only reforming their 
districts but providing improved results for their students an 
opportunity to draw upon the best programs that we have in this Nation 
with the best research and, to date, the best outcomes.
  I have a school in my own district, Peres School in the city of 
Richmond, that had invited in the John Hopkins program, Success For 
All, the Wings and Roots program, and redesigned a school that serves 
the poorest children in my district. Not only is this program hopefully 
going to provide better results for these children, but it also 
provided a means of a circuit breaker from just doing the same old 
thing that has failed these children year in and year out.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out earlier, it 
had to be done by bringing the teachers, bringing the administrators, 
the school board, together to vote in an 80 percent ratio in favor of 
going in this direction. Those teachers who felt that they could not do 
it or did not want to do it were able to go to another school they were 
more comfortable with for whatever reason. But they have put together a 
team and are heading in the same direction.
  It is very much like when you have a football program at the high 
school. You try to get the freshman squad and the junior varsity squad 
and the varsity squad heading in the same direction so they are able to 
understand what is taking place, instead of having a lot of ad hoc 
programs started based upon somebody's notion of what works or what 
will succeed or what will not.
  Here we will have hard research. This is a bottoms up approach. They 
were invited in by the Richmond school district, by the parents, to see 
if they could help.
  I notice that our State Department of Education has invited in four 
schools to take a look at all of these programs this last summer, to 
let them explain where they might be helpful and let the districts pick 
that which they think is the best fit for them. But, again, the common 
element is a strong research as to the effectiveness of these programs, 
parental involvement, and a new commitment, a new commitment to 
excellence by both parents and teachers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank again the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and even the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and all of those who worked on this 
amendment, and my dear friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. Chairman, I would say I rise in support of the agreement that has 
been reached. The whole school reform effort, as we have heard from 
Members attesting today, has had a profound and, in many ways, enormous 
positive impact on districts throughout this Nation.
  I speak with personal point from the Ninth District in Tennessee, at 
Charjean Elementary, principaled by Ms. King, and certainly Manor Lake 
by Mr. Woladin, and Mr. Harrison at Dunn Elementary. They have 
experienced tremendous success using the Success for All model, 
resulting in improved reading scores and math scores, and even parental 
involvement from parents throughout the community.
  One of the great things about the whole school reform initiative, Mr. 
Chairman, and I say this to my dear colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], is that it empowers teachers and certainly 
school administrators and parents, and it incorporates high standards, 
and at the same time that it provides us all autonomy, it also calls 
for more accountability.
  So I applaud the agreement that has been reached, and would certainly 
say we are well on our way to preparing a new generation of workers, a 
new generation of scientists and astronauts, and those who will help 
lead this great Nation into the next millennium.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]), the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], for their leadership on this issue and other educational 
matters.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that as a Representative of Illinois with 
a district very close to the city of Chicago, I have seen, and continue 
to see, comprehensive school reform like perhaps no other in the 
history of this country.
  Last year, the Illinois General Assembly, a Republican body, and a 
Republican Governor, said we have seen years and years and years of 
entrenched bureaucracies in the city of Chicago school system, 
overbloated with personnel, no standards, nothing happening to serve 
the children, and we are simply going to abolish the Chicago school 
board. They put the mayor of the city of Chicago, Richard J. Daley, in 
charge of the Chicago school system.
  The mayor of Chicago took charge of that school system, and if you 
want to see comprehensive school reform happening in a big city and a 
school system being turned around, you want to look at Chicago.
  Social advancement was gone in 1 day; accountability became ``in'' 
immediately; innovation, parental involvement, standards for students, 
standards for teachers, discipline, kicking out the druggies and the 
people that bring weapons on to school property, all were implemented.
  We are seeing the kind of comprehensive school reform in Chicago that 
ought to happen in all of the systems in this country where the kids 
are not performing up to standards and where we can do much, much 
better.
  Mr. Chairman, I went to a conference very early this year, and 
listened to Professor Comer of Yale and others, and was very intrigued 
with this concept that he was talking about.
  When the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] suggested that this 
ought to be a part of this bill, I thought he is exactly right. We can 
perhaps give some resources to school systems that do not have them, 
and encourage them to do the kind of thing that is being done in the 
city of Chicago to make a system work for the kids and raise our 
standards.
  So I would compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], with 
whom I work very closely, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup]. This is a good concept. It is 
going to work

[[Page H7167]]

well. It is going to help change school systems that are dysfunctional 
into ones that really work for the American children. I think this is a 
very, very good reform.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would like to also compliment 
the chairman of the subcommittee for being open-minded enough to review 
these proposals and to recognize that this offers us an opportunity for 
a nonideological way to get at school reform.
  I also appreciate the constructive efforts of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the education authorizing committee chair, 
for his efforts, to see to it that we can proceed on a project that 
will help raise school performance and school standards around the 
country.
  I think we underestimate often what our kids can do if they are 
challenged and if the schools in which they learn are imaginative 
enough and well organized enough. I hope this initiative will lead to 
that day.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to point out that again this has 
been, I think, a very genuine, good-faith effort at bipartisan 
compromise. Perhaps whole school reform, as it is now modified to mean 
comprehensive school reform, will do some good. At least $50 million of 
the $200 million is being driven down right to the local level, block-
granted or not block-granted, but in grants to local school districts.
  However, I want to make it clear, I do not quite share this 
enthusiasm for the whole school reform model. I personally am a little 
wary, as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, of the reform de 
jour in education. Somebody always has a better idea; we are going to 
come up with a panacea to solve our educational woes in America today, 
to improve and bootstrap reform at the local school district level.
  But if it were up to me, if I could play the benevolent dictator for 
a day, I would leave those tax dollars in the local communities. I 
would let local taxpayers and local elected educational decisionmakers 
decide how to spend that money, rather than have to have it sent to 
Washington, recycled through the bureaucracy. And let us be honest 
about it here, we have a large bureaucracy here in Washington, the 
Department of Education. We have bureaucracies in the State houses, the 
State capitols around the country that siphon off so much money.
  We heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] talk about 
half, and I actually think it was less than 50 cents, or 50 percent of 
every dollar, going down to the local level. We have a resolution 
coming to the floor soon, Mr. Chairman, that is going to stipulate that 
we ought to, as a matter of bipartisan policy at the national level, 
try to get 90 percent, 90 cents of every Federal education tax dollar, 
down into the classroom, ideally used to pay someone who knows that 
child's name.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to again just hope, and we will be examining 
this in the authorizing committee, I think that is part of our 
legitimate oversight responsibility, how this money is spent. If we had 
this, again if we could do it any other way, I would say send it to 
meet the one mandate we impose on every State and local school 
district, and that is to comply with IDEA, the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, to provide special education to children 
with learning disabilities.
  If we really want to try a novel idea of educational reform, why do 
we not do this: We will grant the $200 million, but let us take $200 
million to put it in scholarships for these same children, for low-
income families whose children attend unsafe or underperforming 
schools.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say in response that this is not the 
reform de jour. This proposal is the result of 20 years of research to 
determine what works and what does not, what is effective and what is 
bull gravy, to be blunt about it.
  I would also say that I do not expect that this is going to be the be 
all and end all in terms of improving school performance. If I had my 
way, I think the most important thing the Federal Government could do 
is to say that there would not be a single dime in Federal money to any 
State for education purposes until they reform their State aid 
distribution formulas.
  It is outrageous that my own State, for instance, has a State aid 
formula that gives Maple, WI, one of the poorest rural districts in my 
State, pennies in comparison to the huge amount of aid or the huge 
amount of money that Maple Bluff and Maple Grove, two very wealthy 
suburbs in my State, can spend, in part because of the unjust school 
aid formula.
  I would also point out with respect to special education that these 
programs have been demonstrated to greatly reduce the need for 
placement of people in special education by attacking the problem up 
front, and I think that is the way we ought to go.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is 
recognized for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the agreement, and 
thank the ranking member and the chairman for really putting forth this 
incredibly wise decision in terms of comprehensive school reform.
  Parents and students know that the key to a good job is a good 
education. We know our schools need to be held to the highest 
educational standards. We know that years of educational reform have 
produced mixed results.
  We do not know all that we need to do to bring our schools up to 
scratch, but we know what does not work. That is trying to fix one 
classroom, one course and one group of kids at a time. We know what we 
need is school-wide comprehensive reform.
  That is why these funds are needed, to give struggling schools an 
opportunity to learn about and implement school-wide models which can 
bring school levels up all over, and achievement levels up all over the 
country.
  I am very proud of the Comer model of schools. Jim Comer is from my 
district. Jim Comer produced and developed the school-wide model that 
is being used not just in New Haven, CT, but in schools in 25 States 
across the country, and in other countries around the world. It has 
proved particularly effective for schools with higher than average 
numbers of disadvantaged and poor-performing students.
  The New Haven schools are reaffirming their commitment to the Comer 
model. With only 16 schools in the district participating in the Comer 
renewal so far, scores on the Connecticut master test have risen 
district-wide between 3 and 16 percent. Participating schools scored 
300 percent higher in measures of school climate improvement, including 
school safety, than nonparticipating schools.
  Just last week Yale University announced the findings of a study of 
schools which have participated in the Comer renewal from 1992 to 1996. 
Researchers found significant improvement in students' attitudes toward 
school and a sense of safety on campus. Teens in Comer renewal schools 
showed improvements in race relations, reduced violence, declines in 
drug use, and less high-risk sexual activity.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on this side and the other side of 
the aisle, I would love to have them come to New Haven, CT, to visit 
the Comer schools. I have sat in the planning and management meetings, 
I have sat with the parent teams, I have sat with the staff support and 
the mental health teams as they go about trying to create overall 
comprehensive reform and to turn the climate of these schools around.
  If we provide $200 million for scholarships all over the country, 
that is a good and noble cause. In fact, it has an effect on an 
individual child. It does not get at what we must do in fact to do 
something about public education in this country, make it what it has 
been in the past.
  This model is not only working in New Haven, CT. Prince Georges 
County, MD, is represented by my colleagues, the gentlemen from 
Maryland, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Wynn, where they have implemented the Comer 
model there, which has tripled the number of students scoring 
satisfactory or excellent on State exams in the last 3 years.

[[Page H7168]]

 It has brought dramatic decreases in attendance and discipline 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this model may not work for all schools, but all 
schools should have the opportunity to learn about it and to decide if 
it in fact is right for their community. That is what the opportunity 
is in these funds. It is our responsibility to help ensure that every 
child in this Nation has a shot at the American dream.
  I compliment my colleagues, and I compliment the chairman and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
appreciate the work of Mr. Riggs and Ms. Northup in working out this 
compromise that will give greater education resources to local and 
State agencies.
  This amendment goes to the heart of the debate over our Nation's 
education system. Shall we waste taxpayer's money on untested programs 
or shall we return money to State and local agencies that will give 
parents the resources they need to educate their children? Shall we 
return to the days of new math and open classrooms, where untested 
theories from so-called education experts confused countless school 
children? Or shall we give parents the tools they need to educate their 
children for the next century?
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that all of us, on the right and on the left, 
share a desire to improve our Nation's education system. But we 
disagree on the best way to achieve that result. Liberals believe that 
money can best be spent at the national level. That is why they support 
increased funding for the Department of Education, national testing, 
and this program establishing whole school reform. Conservatives 
believe that education reform can best be achieved at the local level, 
with maximum parental involvement. We believe that each child deserves 
the best education possible and that sacrificing some children in the 
name of reform is a terrible mistake.
  Whole school reform has had some success at the local level, 
especially in Kentucky, as my colleague, Ms. Northup, has explained. 
But it has had some notable failures as well. To now invest millions of 
dollars on a reform program that has had mixed success at best is a 
risk I am not willing to take, and I am pleased that we have succeeded 
in replacing this provision with one that favors State flexibility.
  Why am I reluctant to fund the whole school program created in this 
bill? Let me give you two reasons.
  First, the program comes disguised as a carrot, but it would act as a 
stick that would force local school districts to try this untested 
theory. School districts struggling to make budgets, buy books, and pay 
teachers would look at this pot of money as manna from heaven. But 
actually this money would prove to be fool's gold for school districts 
that are reluctant to try one more Washington-backed education theory. 
I would much rather return this money back to States and local 
agencies, through block grants, and let them improve education as the 
see fit.
  Second, Congress would again be spending money without the necessary 
oversight and review process. We have had no hearings on this program 
in the authorizing committee. In fact, this program was authorized in 
1994 with one line in the Improving America's Schools Act. That's it. 
One line. Now, 3 years later, this bill proposes to fund such a 
program, with little debate or scrutiny. Has the whole school reform 
approached worked? The jury is still out.
  In Kentucky, public school enrollment has decreased dramatically and 
some schools have actually had to advertise to attract students. And 
some of what I have read makes me nervous. In one model, ``staff, 
parents and students find their own way to transform themselves.'' In 
another, a purpose for a fourth grade class was defined as ``we work 
for good health.''
  One expert describes Kentucky's experiment this way: ``Kentucky's 
restructured education system frowns on such things as memorization, 
drill and review, textbooks, desks in rows, structure of any sort, 
lectures by teachers--they are now called `guides' and `facilitators'--
and basic academic skills which are now disdainfully referred to as 
`lower order thinking skills.' '' In my view, the reasons our schools 
are in their current mess is because too many students haven't mastered 
the lower order thinking skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the Federal Government should be 
promoting new age education at the expense of traditional approaches. 
Reforming and improving our schools is an ongoing process, based on 
common sense and parental involvement.
  The Whole Schools Reform Program in this bill is a poster child for 
big government, full of untested theories, and unnecessary Federal 
mandates. I am pleased that we are rejecting this approach, and urge my 
colleagues to support the Riggs amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments at this point in the 
bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                               impact aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $796,000,000, 
     of which $667,000,000 shall be for basic support payments 
     under section 8003(b), $40,000,000 shall be for payments for 
     children with disabilities under section 8003(d), 
     $62,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for 
     payments under section 8003(f), $7,000,000 shall be for 
     construction under section 8007, and $20,000,000 shall be for 
     Federal property payments under section 8002.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 40.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       Page 66, line 7, after ``$796,000,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 12, after ``$7,000,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 6, after ``$174,661,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $18,000,000)''.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering a bipartisan 
amendment with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, 
Mr. Gene Taylor, that will benefit some of the poorest children in 
America. The amendment will increase funding for the section 8007 
program of the Impact Aid Program which funds school construction, and 
it will increase that aid from $7 million to $25 million. To offset 
this increase, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and I 
propose to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board, or 
NLRB, by $18 million.
  Mr. Chairman, as many Members know, Impact Aid funds children's 
education on military bases and on Indian lands. Because these areas 
lack an adequate tax base or bonding capacity, they often cannot meet 
the educational needs of their children, and that is just wrong. The 
Federal Government has an obligation to educate children who reside on 
Federal land.
  Indeed, helping to meet those needs is the purpose of the Impact Aid 
Program. Yet, the funding level in this bill will bring this vitally 
important program only to its fiscal year 1979 level. One section of 
Impact Aid that has received woefully inadequate funding is the school 
construction program or section 8007. While the bill does increase 
construction funding from $4 million to $7 million, and let me thank my 
colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] for that, the fact remains this will hardly make 
a dent in the sad state of federally impacted schools in my district 
and in other districts across the United States.
  As the chairman knows, I represent the Sixth District of Arizona, a 
unique district because it has the distinction of being the most 
federally impacted congressional district. Indeed, it also is unique 
because it has the largest Native American population in the 48 
contiguous States.
  The Navajo Nation, which stretches across portions of four States and 
is roughly the size of the State of West Virginia, is the largest and 
one of the poorest sovereign Indian nations, with staggering 
unemployment rates, which can be as high as 50 percent, depending on 
the season. It is apparent that education is the only way for the 
children of the Navajo Nation to build economic empowerment and escape 
a life of poverty.
  Moreover, educating the children on our reservations is a moral 
obligation we simply cannot ignore. The other seven tribes I represent 
in my sprawling district face similar hardships and depend on Impact 
Aid to help educate their youth. The sad fact is that many of the 
schools on military bases and Indian lands are in decrepit condition. 
Many school buildings on the Navajo Nation are cracking, leaking, or 
falling apart and would be condemned if it were not for the fact that 
students need to be educated and are required by law to attend classes. 
Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the construction budget for 
schools that desperately need to be replaced or renovated.

[[Page H7169]]

  I would note that the average school in the United States costs 
nearly $6 million to build. This bill's funding for school construction 
of $7 million would only allow us to build the equivalent of one school 
each year.
  Mr. Chairman, there is need for more than one school a year in my 
district alone. Section 8007 must be increased substantially if we are 
to effectively educate our children on Federal lands in a safe and 
healthy environment. Indeed, when Congress reauthorized the Impact Aid 
law in 1994 and created section 8007, it envisioned this part of the 
Impact Aid Program to be funded at a minimum of $25 million each year.
  Section 8007 has only been appropriated to $5 million in each of the 
last few years, and the money has yet to be distributed to any school 
districts. Not only that, but a study by the National Association of 
Federally Impacted Schools, or NAFIS, recently concluded that $25 
million is the amount needed to help address the construction needs of 
federally impacted school districts. So full funding of section 8007 
would compensate for the inability of heavily impacted districts to 
raise construction funds on their own.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, Mr. Chairman, let us compare the situation of these federally 
impacted schoolchildren with the bureaucracy of the NLRB from which we 
propose to offset the funding increase for school construction.
  As I said before, Mr. Chairman, on the Navajo reservation in my 
district, school buildings are literally falling down around students. 
I am sure that many of my colleagues from other federally impacted 
districts could make similar claims.
  The NLRB, on the other hand, occupies a posh building in one of the 
most prestigious parts of Washington, DC, at a cost of $21 million a 
year. Children on the reservation are often underfed and malnourished.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hayworth was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, children on the reservation are often 
underfed and malnourished and lack the proper books and supplies. But 
at the NLRB, all five Board members have their own showers, kitchens, 
libraries, and are provided with clean linen weekly.
  And get this, Mr. Chairman, while the schools on our military bases 
and reservations struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers, 
each Board member of the NLRB has 18 to 22 lawyers on his staff, while 
the NLRB general counsel employs 628 lawyers at an average salary of 
more than $76,000 a year.
  Mr. Chairman, in almost every survey I have seen, the American people 
list education as their top priority. We have a chance to do something 
to improve education today in a very helpful way by increasing funding 
for the construction of schools on some of our Federal lands to serve 
some of the poorest children in America.
  By contrast, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen one survey citing clean 
linen for high-priced lawyers as a pressing national problem. In short, 
Mr. Chairman, is there anyone in this Chamber who really believes that 
the NLRB needs the $18 million more than the children on our 
reservations and military bases? Because, Mr. Chairman, that is the 
simple choice before us today.
  I do not want to make it sound as if this Congress has not tried to 
tighten the reins on the NLRB. On the contrary, I am pleased that the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has 
frozen funding for the NLRB over the past few years. Nevertheless, the 
NLRB can and should get by on less. This proposal is not a drastic cut. 
It is merely a way for us to set our priorities for our scarce Federal 
dollars in a more human way.
  Mr. Chairman, we are confronted with a stark but simple choice: 
lawyers or children, bureaucrats or schools. Mr. Chairman, again I 
would say this amendment is a straightforward choice: Lawyers or 
children, bureaucracy or schools. I implore the Members to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________