[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.
____________________