[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 78 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6328-S6369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER.
  S. 1179. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
the sale, delivery, or other transfer of any type of firearm to a 
juvenile, with certain exceptions.


                  youth access to firearms act of 1999

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week during consideration of 
the juvenile justice bill, the Senate passed some reasonable, common-
sense proposals to control the proliferation of guns in this country. I 
believe the Senate's action was an important first step. But there is 
more to be done. And, today, I am introducing legislation to prohibit 
the sale and transfer of any gun to a juvenile, unless it comes from a 
parent, grandparent, or legal guardian.
  Let me start, Mr. President, with a review of current law. A 
federally licensed firearms dealer--that is, someone who runs a gun 
store--cannot sell a handgun to someone under the age of 21 and cannot 
sell any other type of gun to someone under the age of 18.
  The law is different, however, for private transactions. Those are 
sales or transfers by unlicensed individuals at gun shows, at flea 
markets, or in a private home. Since 1994, it has been illegal for 
anyone under the age of 18 to buy a handgun in these cases. But it is 
not illegal for a juvenile to buy a long-gun--that is, a rifle, a 
shotgun, or a semiautomatic assault weapon--in a private transaction. 
And, it is not illegal for a long-gun to be transferred--given--to a 
juvenile.
  This is not right. An 18-year-old cannot buy a can of beer. An 19-
year-old cannot buy a bottle of liquor or a bottle of wine. Anyone 
under 18 cannot buy a pack of cigarettes. And, as I mentioned, since 
1994, if you are under 18, you cannot buy a handgun.
  There is a reason for this. There is a reason we keep certain things 
away from juveniles. And, it does not make sense to me to say that it 
is illegal to sell cigarettes, alcohol, and handguns to a kid, but it 
is okay to sell them a rifle or a shotgun or a semiautomatic assault 
weapon.
  So, my bill--the Youth Access to Firearms Act--simply says that it 
would be illegal to sell, deliver, or transfer any firearm to anyone 
under the age of 18.
  Now, in recognition of the culture and circumstances in many areas of 
this country, my bill does contain some exceptions to this prohibition.
  First, the bill would not make possession of a long-gun by a juvenile 
a crime. It would only make the sale or transfer illegal.
  Second, the bill would not apply to a rifle or shotgun given to a 
juvenile by that person's parent, grandparent, or legal guardian.
  Third, it would not apply to another family member giving a juvenile 
a rifle or shotgun with the permission of the juvenile's parent, 
grandparent, or legal guardian.
  Fourth, it would not apply to a temporary transfer--a loan--of a 
rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes.
  And, fifth, it would not apply to the temporary transfer of a gun to 
a juvenile for employment, target shooting, or a course of instruction 
in the safe and lawful use of a firearm, if the juvenile has parental 
permission.
  I have put these exceptions into the bill to make it clear what I am 
trying to do here. I am not trying to stop teenagers from having or 
responsibly using a rifle or a shotgun. I am not trying to stop 
teenagers from going hunting. I am not trying to prevent a parent or 
grandparent from giving a rifle or shotgun as a birthday present. But, 
what I am saying is that juveniles should not be able to buy a gun on 
their own--or be given one without the knowledge of their parents.
  This is precisely what happened in Littleton, Colorado. The two 
teenage boys who shot up Columbine High School used four guns. Three of 
those four guns--two shotguns and a rifle--were given to them by an 18-
year-old female friend. Under federal law, that was perfectly legal.
  I should not be. You should not be able to sell a gun to a juvenile. 
And you should not be able to give a gun to a juvenile, unless you are 
the parent or grandparent.
  As I said earlier, there are certain things that are legally off-
limits to juveniles. Selling and giving them guns, if you are not their 
parent, should be one of those things.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 1180. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, to reauthorize and make improvements to that Act, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


          educational excellence for all children act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce President 
Clinton's proposal for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, the ``Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 
1999,'' along with Senators Dodd, Daschle, Murray, Schumer, Levin, and 
Dorgan. This is another strong step by the President to ensure that all 
children have the benefit of the best possible education.

  Since 1993, President Clinton has consistently led the way on 
improving schools and making sure that all children meet high 
standards.
  Today, as a result, almost every state has established high standards 
for its students. ``High standards'' is no longer just a term for 
academics experts and policy makers--it is becoming a reality for the 
nation's schools and students.
  The recently released National Assessment of Title I shows that 
student achievement is improving--and that the federal government is an 
effective partner in that success. This result is good news for 
schools, good news for parents, and good news for students--and it 
should be a wake up call to Congress. We need to do more to build on 
these emerging successes to ensure that every child has the opportunity 
for an excellent education.
  At dinner tables and boardrooms across America, the topic of 
discussion is education. As a result of the progress we have made the 
past few years, we can look at the education glass on the table and say 
it's ``half full''--not ``half empty'' as critics of public schools 
would have the country believe.
  Since the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, a non-partisan 
Independent Review Panel of twenty-two experts from across the country 
has been overseeing the evaluation of the program. As the largest 
federal investment in improving elementary and secondary schools, Title 
I is improving education for 11 million children in 45,000 schools with 
high concentrations of poverty. It helps schools provide professional 
development for teachers, improve curriculums, and extend learning 
time, so that students meet high state standards of achievement.
  Under the 1994 amendments to Title I, states were no longer allowed 
to set lower standards for children in the poorest communities than for 
students in more affluent communities. The results are clear. Students 
do well when expectations are set high and they are given the support 
they need and deserve.
  Student achievement in reading and math has increased--particularly 
the achievement of the poorest students. Since 1992, reading 
achievement for 9-year- olds in the highest poverty schools has 
increased by one whole grade level nationwide. Between 1990 and 1996, 
math scores of the poorest students also rose by a grade level.
  Students are meeting higher state standards. According to state-
reported results, students in the highest poverty elementary schools 
improved in 5 of 6 states reporting three-year data in reading and in 4 
out of 5 states in math. Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North 
Carolina, and Texas made progress in both subjects.
  Many urban school districts report that achievement also improved in 
their highest-poverty schools. In 10 of

[[Page S6329]]

13 large urban districts that report three-year trend data, more 
elementary students in the highest poverty schools are now meeting 
district or state standards of proficiency in reading or math. Six 
districts, including Houston, Dade County, New York, Philadelphia, San 
Antonio, and San Francisco, made progress in both subjects.
  Federal funds are increasingly targeted to the poorest schools. The 
1994 amendments to Title I shifted funds away from low-poverty schools 
and into high-poverty schools. Today, 95 percent of the highest-poverty 
schools receive Title I funds, up from 80 percent in 1993.
  In addition, Title I funds help improve teaching and learning in the 
classroom. 99 percent of Title I funds go to the local level. 93 
percent of those federal dollars are spent directly on instruction, 
while only 62 percent of all state and local education dollars are 
spent on instruction.
  The best illustrations of these successes are in local districts and 
schools. In Baltimore County, Maryland, all but one of the 19 Title I 
schools increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The 
success has come from Title I support for extended year programs, 
implementation of effective programs in reading, and intensive 
professional development for teachers.
  At Roosevelt High School in Dallas, Texas, where 80 percent of the 
students are poor, Title I funds were used to increase parent 
involvement, train teachers to work more effectively with parents, and 
make other changes to bring high standards into every classroom. 
Student reading scores have nearly doubled, from the 40th percentile in 
1992 to the 77th percentile in 1996. During the same period, math 
scores soared from the 16th to the 73rd percentile, and writing scores 
rose from the 58th to the 84th percentile.
  In addition to the successes supported by Title I, other indicators 
demonstrate that student achievement is improving. U.S. students scored 
near the top on the latest international assessment of reading. 
American 4th graders out-performed students from all other nations 
except Finland.
  At Baldwin Elementary School in Boston, where 80 percent of the 
students are poor, performance on the Stanford 9 test rose 
substantially from 1996 to 1998 because of increases in teacher 
professional development and implementation of a whole-school reform 
plan to raise standards and achievement for all children. In 1996, 66 
percent of the 3rd grade students scored in the lowest levels in math. 
In 1998, 100 percent scored in the highest levels. In 1997, 75 percent 
of 4th graders scored in the lowest levels in reading. In 1998, no 4th 
graders scored at the lowest level, and 56 percent scored in the 
highest levels.

  The combined verbal and math scores on the SAT increased 19 points 
from 1982 to 1997, with the largest gain of 15 points occurring between 
1992 and 1997. The average math score is at its highest level in 26 
years.
  Students are taking more rigorous subjects than ever--and doing 
better in them. The proportion of high school graduates taking the core 
courses recommended in the 1983 report, A Nation At Risk, had increased 
to 52 percent by 1994, up from 14 percent in 1982 and 40 percent in 
1990. Since 1982, the percentage of graduates taking biology, 
chemistry, and physics has doubled, rising from 10 percent in 1982 to 
21 percent in 1994. With increased participation in advanced placement 
courses, the number of students that scored at 3 or above on the AP 
exams has risen nearly five-fold since 1982, from 131,871 in that year 
to 635,922 in 1998.
  Clearly, the work is not done. These improvements are gratifying, but 
there is no cause for complacency. We must do more to ensure that all 
children have a good education. We must do more to increase support for 
programs like Title I to build on these successes and make them 
available to all children.
  President Clinton's ``Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 
1999'' builds on the success of the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, which 
ensured that all children are held to the same high academic standards. 
This bill makes high standards the core of classroom activities in 
every school across the country--and holds schools and school districts 
responsible for making sure all children meet those standards. The bill 
focuses on three fundamental ways to accomplish this goal: improving 
teacher quality, increasing accountability for results, and creating 
safe, healthy, and disciplined learning environments for children.
  This year, the nation set a new record for elementary and secondary 
student enrollment. The figure will reach an all-time high of 53 
million students--500,000 more students than last year. Communities, 
the states, and Congress must work together to see that these students 
receive a good education.
  Serious teacher shortages are being caused by the rising student 
enrollments, and also by the growing number of teacher retirements. The 
nation's schools need to hire 2.2 million public school teachers over 
the next ten years, just to hold their own. If we don't act now, the 
need for more teachers will put even greater pressure in the future on 
school districts to lower their standards and hire more unqualified 
teachers. Too many teachers leave within the first three years of 
teaching--including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas--because they 
don't get the support and mentoring they need. Veteran teachers need 
on-going professional development opportunities to enhance their 
knowledge and skills, to integrate technology into the curriculum, and 
to help children meet high state standards.
  Many communities are working hard to attract, keep, and support good 
teachers--and often they're succeeding. The North Carolina Teaching 
Fellows Program has recruited 3,600 high-ability high school graduates 
to go into teaching. The students agree to teach for four years in the 
state's public schools, in exchange for a four-year college 
scholarship. School principals in the state report that the performance 
of the fellows far exceeds that of other new teachers.
  In Chicago, a program called the ``Golden Apple Scholars of 
Illinois'' recruits promising young men and women into teaching by 
selecting them during their junior year of high school, then mentoring 
them through the rest of high school, college, and five years of actual 
teaching. 60 Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year, 
and 90 percent of them stay in the classroom.
  Colorado State University's ``Project Promise'' recruits prospective 
teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading and 
medicine. Current teachers mentor graduates in their first two years of 
teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits go into teaching, and 80 
percent stay for at least five years.
  New York City's Mentor Teacher Internship Program has increased the 
retention of new teachers. In Montana, only 4 percent of new teachers 
in mentoring programs left after their first year of teaching, compared 
with 28 percent of teachers without the benefit of mentoring.
  New York City's District 2 has made professional development the 
central component for improving schools. The idea is that student 
learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it's 
working. In 1996, student math scores were second in the city.
  Massachusetts has invested $60 million in the Teacher Quality 
Endowment Fund to launch the 12-to-62 Plan for Strengthening 
Massachusetts Future Teaching Force. The program is a comprehensive 
effort to improve recruitment, retention, and professional development 
of teachers throughout their careers.
  Congress should build on and support these successful efforts across 
the country to ensure that the nation's teaching force is strong and 
successful in the years ahead.
  The Administration's proposal makes a major investment in ensuring 
quality teachers in every classroom, especially in areas where the 
needs are greatest. It authorizes funds to help states and communities 
improve the recruitment, retention, and on-going professional 
development of teachers. It will provide states and local school 
districts with the support they need to recruit excellent teacher 
candidates, to retain and support promising beginning teachers through 
mentoring programs, and to provide veteran teachers with the on-going 
professional development

[[Page S6330]]

they need to help all children meet high standards of achievement. It 
will also support a national effort to recruit and train school 
principals.
  In recognition of the national need to recruit 2.2 million teachers 
over the next decade, the Administration's proposal will fund projects 
to recruit and retain high-quality teachers and school principals in 
high-need areas. The Transition to Teaching proposal will continue and 
expand the successful ``Troops to Teachers'' initiative by recruiting 
and supporting mid-career professionals in the armed forces as 
teachers, particularly in high-poverty school districts and high-need 
subjects.
  The proposal holds states accountable for having qualified teachers 
in the classroom. It requires that within four years, 95 percent of all 
teachers must be certified, working toward full certification through 
an alternative route that will lead to full certification within three 
years, or are fully certified in another state and working toward 
meeting state-specific requirements. It also requires states to ensure 
that at least 95 percent of secondary school teachers have academic 
training or demonstrated competence in the subject area in which they 
teach.
  Parents and educators across the country also say that reducing class 
size is at the top of their priorities for education reform. It is 
obvious that smaller class sizes, particularly in the early grades, 
improve student achievement. We must help states and communities reduce 
class sizes in the early grades, when individual attention is needed 
most. Congress made a down-payment last year on helping communities 
reduce class size, and we can't walk away from that commitment now.
  The Educational Excellence for All Children Act authorizes the full 7 
years of this program, so that communities will be able to hire 100,000 
teachers across the country.
  We know qualified teachers in small classes make a difference for 
students. There is also mounting evidence that the President and 
Congress took the right step in 1994 by making standards-based reform 
the centerpiece of the 1994 reauthorization. In schools and school 
districts across the country that have set high standards and required 
accountability for results, student performance has risen, and the 
numbers of failing schools has fallen.
  Nevertheless, 10 to 15 percent of high school graduates today--up to 
340,000 graduates each year--do not continue their education. Often, 
they cannot balance a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card 
company to explain an error on a bill. Even worse, 11 percent of high 
school students never make it to graduation.
  We are not meeting our responsibility to these students--and it is 
unconscionable to continue to abdicate our responsibility. Every day, 
children--poor children, minority children, English language learners, 
children with disabilities--face barriers to a good education, and also 
face the high-stakes consequences of failing in the future because the 
system is failing them now.
  Schools and communities must do more to see that students obtain the 
skills and knowledge they need in order to move on to the next grade 
and to graduate. If students are socially promoted or forced to repeat 
the same grade without changing the instruction that failed the first 
time, they are more likely to drop out. Clearly, these practices must 
end.
  The Administration's proposal makes public schools the centers of 
opportunity for all children--and holds schools accountability for 
providing this opportunity.
  It requires schools, school districts, and states to provide parents 
with report cards that include information about student performance, 
the condition of school buildings, class sizes, quality of teachers, 
and safety and discipline in their schools. These report cards give 
parents the information they need to see that their schools are 
improving and their children are getting the education they deserve.
  The proposal also holds schools and districts accountable for 
children meeting the standards. The bill requires schools and districts 
to end the unsound educational practices of socially promoting children 
or making them repeat a grade. States must collect data on social 
promotion and retention rates as an indicator of whether children are 
meeting high standards, and schools must implement responsible 
promotion policies. The proposal is designed to eliminate the dismal 
choice between social promotion and repeating a grade. It does so in 
several ways--by increasing support for early education programs, by 
improving early reading skills, by improving the quality of the 
teaching force, by providing extended learning time through after-
school and summer-school programs, and by creating safe, disciplined 
learning environments for children.
  Last year in Boston, School Superintendent Tom Payzant ended social 
promotion and traditional grade retention. With extensive community 
involvement, Mayor Menino, Superintendent Payzant, and the School 
Committee implemented a policy to clarify for everyone--schools, 
teachers, parents, and students--the requirements needed to advance 
from one grade to the next, and to graduate from a Boston public 
school.
  The call for a new promotion and retention policy came primarily from 
middle and high schools, where teachers were facing students who had 
not mastered the skills they needed in order to go on to a higher 
grade. Now, all students will have to demonstrate that they have 
mastered the content and skills in every grade. If they fail to do so, 
schools and teachers must intervene with proven effective practices to 
help the students, such as attending summer-school and after-school 
programs, providing extra help during the regular school day, and 
working more closely with parents to ensure better results. In ways 
like these, schools and teachers are held accountable for results.
  The Administration's proposal gives children who have fallen behind 
in their school work the opportunities they need to catch up, to meet 
legitimate requirements for graduation, to master basic skills, and 
meet high standards of achievement. A high school diploma should be 
more than a certificate of attendance. It should be a certificate of 
achievement.
  Finally, the President's proposal helps create safe, disciplined, and 
healthy environments for children. Last year, President Clinton led a 
successful effort to increase funding for after-school programs in the 
current year. But far more needs to be done.
  Effective programs are urgently needed for children of all ages 
during the many hours they are not in school each week and during the 
summer. The ``Home Alone'' problem is serious, and deserves urgent 
attention. Every day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years 
old, are left alone after school. Juvenile crime peaks in the hours 
between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. A recent study of gang crimes by juveniles in 
Orange County, California, shows that 60 percent of all juvenile gang 
crimes occur on schools days and peak immediately after school 
dismissal. Children left unsupervised are more likely to be involved in 
illegal activities and destructive behavior. We need constructive 
alternatives to keep children off the streets, away from drugs, and out 
of trouble.
  We need to do all we can to encourage communities to develop after-
school activities that will engage children. The proposal will triple 
our investment in after-school programs, so that one million children 
will have access to worthwhile activities.
  The Act also requires school districts and schools to have sound 
discipline policies that are consistent with the Individual with 
Disabilities Education Act, are fair, and are developed with the 
participation of the school community. In addition, the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act is strengthened to support research-
based prevention programs to address violence and drug-use by youth.
  In order to develop a healthy environment for children, local school 
districts will be able to use 5 percent of their funds to support 
coordinated services, so that children and their families will have 
better access to social, health, and educational services necessary for 
students to do well in school.
  In all of these ways and more ways, President Clinton's proposal will 
help schools and communities bring high standards into every classroom 
and ensure that all children meet them. Major new investments are 
needed to

[[Page S6331]]

improve teacher quality--hold schools, school districts, and states 
accountable for results--increase parent involvement--expand after-
school programs--reduce class size in the early grades--and ensure that 
schools meet strict discipline standards. With investments like these, 
we are doing all we can to ensure that the nation's public schools are 
the best in the world.
  Education must continue to be a top priority in this Congress. We 
must address the needs of public schools, families, and children so 
that we ensure that all children have an opportunity to attend an 
excellent public school now and throughout the 21st Century.
  President Clinton's proposal is an excellent series of needed 
initiatives, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to make it the heart of this year's ESEA 
Reauthorization Bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999--Section-By-
                            Section Analysis

       Section 2. Table of Contents. Section 2 of the bill would 
     set out the table of contents for the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., 
     hereinafter in the section-by-section analysis referred to as 
     ``the ESEA'') as it would be amended by the bill.
       Section 3. America's Education Goals. Section 3 of the bill 
     would rename the National Education Goals (currently in Title 
     I of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, P.L. 103-227), as 
     ``America's Education Goals'' and update the Goals to reflect 
     our Nation's continuing need for the Goals. Even though all 
     the Goals will not have been reached by the year 2000 as 
     originally hoped, nor accomplished to equal degrees, the 
     Goals were purposely designed to set high expectations for 
     educational performance at every stage of an individual's 
     life, and there is a continued need to reaffirm these Goals 
     as a benchmark to which all students can strive and attain. 
     With policymakers, educators, and the public united in an 
     effort to achieve America's Education Goals, the Nation will 
     be able to raise its overall level of educational 
     achievement.
       Section 3(a) of the bill would contain findings concerning 
     America's Education Goals, as well as descriptions of areas 
     in which the Nation as a whole, as well as individual States, 
     have been successful (or unsuccessful) at making progress 
     toward achieving the various Goals during the last decade.
       In order to reflect the overarching importance to America's 
     Education Goals, section 3(b) of the bill would amend the 
     ESEA to place the Goals in a proposed new section 3 of the 
     ESEA. Proposed new section 3(a) of the ESEA would state the 
     purpose of America's Education Goals as: setting forth a 
     common set of national goals for the education of our 
     Nation's students that the Federal Government and all States 
     and local communities will work to achieve; identifying the 
     Nation's highest education priorities related to preparing 
     students for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 
     the technological, scientific, economic, challenges of the 
     21st century; and establishing a framework for educational 
     excellence at the national, State, and local levels. Proposed 
     new section 3(b) of the ESEA would state the Goals.
       Title I of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the current 
     authority for the National Education Goals, would be repealed 
     by section 1211 of the bill.
       Section 4. Transition. Section 4 of the bill would specify 
     the actions that the Secretary must, and a recipient of ESEA 
     funds may, take as part of the transition between the 
     requirements of the ESEA as in effect the day before the date 
     of enactment of the Educational Excellence for All Children 
     Act of 1999, and the requirements of the ESEA as amended by 
     the bill.
       Under section 4(a) of the bill, the Secretary would be 
     required to take such steps as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to provide for the orderly transition to programs 
     and activities under the ESEA, as amended by the bill, from 
     programs and activities under the ESEA, as it was in effect 
     the date before the date of enactment of the bill.
       Under section 4(b) of the bill, a recipient of funds under 
     the ESEA, as it was in effect the date before the date of 
     enactment of the bill, may use such funds to carry out 
     necessary and reasonable planning and transition activities 
     in order to ensure a smooth implementation of programs and 
     activities under the ESEA, as amended by the bill.
       Section 5. Effective Dates. Section 5 of the bill would set 
     out the effective dates for the bill. The bill would take 
     effect July 1, 2000, except for those amendments made by the 
     bill that pertain to programs administered by the Secretary 
     on a competitive basis, and the amendments made by Title VIII 
     of the bill (Impact Aid), which would take effect with 
     respect to appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and subsequent 
     fiscal years, and amendments made by section 4 of the bill 
     (transition requirements), which would take effect upon 
     enactment.


      TITLE I--HELPING DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN MEET HIGH STANDARDS

       Section 101, declaration of policy and statement of purpose 
     [ESEA, Sec. 1001]. Section 101(a) of the bill would amend the 
     statement of policy in section 1001(a) of the ESEA by 
     deleting paragraph (2), which called for an annual increase 
     in appropriations of at least $750 million from fiscal year 
     1996 through 1999.
       Section 101(b) would amend the statement of need in section 
     1001(b) of the ESEA to reflect the bill's proposal to move 
     the text of the National Education Goals from the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act to section 3 of the ESEA, and to add a 
     paragraph (6) noting the benefits of holding local 
     educational agencies (LEAs) and schools accountable for 
     results.
       Section 101(c) would update the statement, in section 
     1001(c), of what has been learned, to reflect experience and 
     research since that statement was enacted in 1994, including 
     the addition of six new findings.
       Section 101(d) would add, to the list of activities through 
     which Title I's purpose is to be achieved, promoting 
     comprehensive schoolwide reforms that are based on reliable 
     research and effective practices.
       Section 102, authorization of appropriations [ESEA, 
     Sec. 1002]. Section 102 of the bill would restate, in its 
     entirety, section 1002 of the ESEA, which authorizes the 
     appropriation of funds to carry out the various Title I 
     programs. As revised, section 1002 would authorize the 
     appropriations of ``such sums as may be necessary'' for 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for grants to LEAs under Part 
     A, the Even Start program under Part B, the education of 
     migratory children under Part C, State agency programs for 
     neglected or delinquent children under Part D, the Reading 
     Excellence program (to be transferred to Part E from Title 
     II), and certain Federal activities under section 1502 (to be 
     redesignated as section 1602). Funds would no longer be 
     authorized for capital expenses relating to the provision of 
     Title I services to children in private schools. In addition, 
     certain school-improvement activities would be funded by 
     requiring States to dedicate a portion of their Title I 
     grants to those activities, rather than through a separate 
     authorization as in current law.
       Section 103, reservations for accountability and evaluation 
     [ESEA, Sec. 1003]. Section 103 of the ESEA, to require each 
     SEA to reserve 2.5 percent of its annual Basic Grant under 
     Part A of Title I to carry out the LEA and school improvement 
     activities described in sections 1116 and 1117 in fiscal 
     years 2001 and 2002, and 3.5 percent of that amount for that 
     purpose in subsequent fiscal years. This requirement, which 
     is an important component of the bill's overall emphasis on 
     accountability for results, will ensure that each 
     participating State devotes a sufficient portion of its Part 
     A funds to the critical activities described in those 
     sections. In addition, the SEA would have to allocate at 
     least 70 percent of the reserved amount directly to LEAs in 
     accordance with certain specified priorities or use at least 
     that portion of the reserved amount to carry out an 
     alternative system of school and LEA improvement and 
     corrective action described in the State plan and approved by 
     the Secretary.
       Section 1003(b) of the ESEA would permit the Secretary to 
     reserve up to 0.30 percent of each year's Title I 
     appropriation to conduct evaluations and studies, collect 
     data, and carry out other activities under section 1501.
     PART A--basic grants
       Section 111, State plans [ESEA, Sec. 1111). Section 
     111(1)(A) of the bill would amend section 1111(a)(1) of the 
     ESEA, which requires a State that wishes to receive a Basic 
     Grant under Part A of Title I to submit a State plan to the 
     Secretary of Education (the Secretary). Section 111(1)(A)(i) 
     would add language emphasizing that the purpose of a State's 
     plan is to help all children achieve to high State standards 
     and to improve teaching and learning in the State.
       Section 111(1)(A)(ii) would add, to the list of other 
     programs with which the plan must be coordinated, a specific 
     reference to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (IDEA) and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
     Education Act of 1998. This section would also delete a 
     reference to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which 
     another provision of the bill would repeal, and delete a 
     cross-reference to a section in Title XIV that another 
     provision of the bill would repeal.
       Section 111(1)(B) would improve the readability of section 
     1111(a)(2), which permits a State to submit its Part A plan 
     as part of a consolidated plan under section 14302 (to be 
     redesignated as Sec. 11502).
       Section 111(2)(A) would add a reference to accountability 
     to the heading of section 1111(b), to reflect the proposed 
     addition of language on that topic as section 1111(b)(3).
       Section 111(2)(B)(i) would streamline section 
     1111(b)(1)(B), which requires that the challenging content 
     and student-performance standards each State must use in 
     carrying out Part A be the same standards that the State uses 
     for all schools and children in the State, to reflect the 
     progress that States are expected to have made under current 
     law by the effective date of the bill.
       Section 111(2)(B)(ii) would delete outdated language from 
     section 1111(b)(1)(C), which provides that, if a State has 
     not adopted content and student-performance standards for all 
     students, it must have those standards for children served 
     under Part A in subjects

[[Page S6332]]

     determined by the State, which must include at least 
     mathematics and reading or language arts.
       Section 111(2)(C) would delete current section 1111(b)(2), 
     which requires States to describe, in their plans, what 
     constitutes adequate yearly progress by LEAs and schools 
     participating in the Part A program. This requirement would 
     be replaced by the new provisions on accountability in 
     section 1111(b)(3), described below. Section 111(2)(C) would 
     also redesignate paragraph (3) of section 1111(b), relating 
     to assessments, as paragraph (2).
       Section 111(2)(D)(i) would clarify that States must start 
     using the yearly assessments described in current paragraph 
     (3) of section 1111(b) (which the bill would redesignate as 
     paragraph (2)) no later than the 2000-2001 school year.
       Section 111(2)(D)(ii) would amend subparagraph (F) of 
     current section 1111(b)(3), relating to the assessments of 
     limited English proficient (LEP) children. Clauses (iv) and 
     (v) would be added to require, respectively, that: (1) LEP 
     students who speak Spanish be assessed with tests written in 
     Spanish, if Spanish-language tests are more likely than 
     English-language tests to yield accurate and reliable 
     information on what those students know and can do in content 
     areas other than English; and (2) tests written in English be 
     used to assess the reading and language arts proficiency of 
     any student who has attended school in the United States for 
     three or more consecutive years.
       Section 111(2)(E) would add a new provision on 
     accountability as section 1111(b)(3). It would replace the 
     current requirement that States establish criteria for 
     ``adequate yearly progress'' in LEAs and schools with a 
     requirement that they submit an accountability plan as part 
     of their State applications, reflecting the critical role 
     that accountability plays as a component of overall systems. 
     In particular, each State would have to have an 
     accountability system that is based on challenging standards, 
     includes all students, promotes continuous improvement, and 
     includes rigorous criteria for identifying and intervening in 
     schools and districts in need of improvement. This proposal 
     addresses concerns that many current accountability systems 
     focus only on overall school performance and divert attention 
     away from the students who need the greatest help.
       Section 111(2)(F) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1111(b)(4).
       Section 111(2)(G) would delete paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) 
     from section 1111(b). Paragraph (5) requires States to 
     identify languages other than English that are present in the 
     participating school population, to indicate the languages 
     for which assessments are not available, and to make every 
     effort to develop those assessments. This provision is 
     burdensome and unnecessary. Paragraph (6) describes the 
     schedule, established in 1994, for States to develop the 
     necessary standards and assessments, while paragraph (7) 
     governs the transition period during which States were not 
     required to have ``final'' standards and assessments in 
     place. These provisions would be obsolete by the time the 
     bill takes effect. Instead, section 112(2)(G) would enact 
     a new paragraph (5), providing that while a State may 
     revise its assessments at any time, it must comply with 
     the statutory timelines for identifying, assisting, and 
     taking corrective action with respect to, LEAs and schools 
     that need to improve.
       Section 111(2) (H) and (I) would redesignate paragraph (8) 
     of section 1111(b) as paragraph (6) and make conforming 
     amendments to cross-references in that paragraph.
       Section 111(3) of the bill would amend section 1111(c) of 
     the ESEA, to significantly shorten the list of assurances 
     that each State must include in its plan.
       Section 111(4)(A) would delete section 1111(d)(2), relating 
     to withholding of funds from States whose plans don't meet 
     section 1111's requirements. That provision duplicates Part D 
     of the General Education Provisions Act, which establishes 
     uniform procedures and rules for withholding and other 
     enforcement actions across a broad range of programs, 
     including the ESEA programs, administered by the Department 
     of Education.
       Section 111(4)(B) would make technical amendments to 
     section 1111(d)(1).
       Section 111(4)(C) would amend current section 1111(d)(1)(B) 
     to require the Secretary to include experts on educational 
     standards, assessments, accountability, and the diverse 
     educational needs of students in the peer-review process used 
     to review State plans.
       Section 111(5) would amend section 1111(e) to require each 
     State to submit its plan to the Secretary for the first year 
     for which Part A is in effect following the bill's enactment.
       Section 111(6) would replace subsection (g) of section 
     1111, which is obsolete by its terms, with language 
     permitting the Secretary to take any of the actions described 
     in proposed section 11209 if the Secretary determines that a 
     State is not carrying out its responsibilities under the new 
     accountability provisions in section 1111(b)(3). These 
     actions, which apply under section 11209 in the case of a 
     State that fails to carry out its responsibilities under 
     proposed Part B of Title XI (relating to teacher quality, 
     social promotion, LEA and school report cards, and school 
     discipline) would afford the Secretary a broad range of 
     actions, ranging from providing technical assistance to 
     withholding funds.
       Section 112, local educational agency plans [ESEA, 
     Sec. 1112] Section 112(1) of the bill would amend section 
     1112(a)(1) of the ESEA, which requires an LEA that wishes to 
     receive subgrants under Part A of Title I to have a plan on 
     file with, and approved by, the State educational agency. The 
     bill would add, to the list of other programs with which the 
     plan must be coordinated, a specific reference to the IDEA 
     and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 
     Act of 1998. The bill would also delete a reference to the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which another provision of 
     the bill would repeal, and delete an inappropriate cross-
     reference.
       Section 112(2)(A) would add language to section 1112(b) to 
     emphasize that the purpose of an LEA's plan is to help all 
     children achieve to high standards.
       Section 112(2)(B) would amend section 1112(b)(1), relating 
     to any student assessments that the LEA uses (other than 
     those described in the State plan under section 1111), to 
     require the LEA's plan to describe any such assessments that 
     it will use to determine the literacy levels of first graders 
     and their need for interventions and how it will ensure that 
     those assessments are developmentally appropriate, use 
     multiple measures to provide information about the variety of 
     relevant skills, and are administered to students in the 
     language most likely to yield valid results.
       Section 112(2)(C) would amend section 1112(b)(3) to require 
     an LEA's professional development strategy under Part A to 
     also be a component of its professional development plan 
     under the new Title II, if it receives Title II funds.
       Section 112(2)(D) would amend section 1112(b)(4)(B) to 
     remove an obsolete reference; conform that provision to the 
     proposed repeal of Subpart 2 of Part 2 of Title I, relating 
     to local programs for neglected or delinquent children; and 
     include Indian children served under Title IX of the ESEA in 
     the categories of children for whom an LEA's plan must 
     describe the coordination of Title I services with other 
     educational services those children receive.
       Section 112(2)(F) would amend section 1112(b)(9), relating 
     to preschool programs, to replace language in that provision 
     with a cross-reference to new language that the bill would 
     add to section 1120B.
       Section 112(2)(G) would amend section 1112(b) to require 
     LEAs to include two additional items in their plans: (1) a 
     description of the actions it will take to assist its low-
     performing schools, if any, in making the changes needed to 
     educate all children to the State standards; and (2) a 
     description of how the LEA will promote the use of extended 
     learning time, such as an extended school year, before- and 
     after-school programs, and summer programs.
       Section 112(3) would amend section 112(c), which describes 
     the assurances that an LEA must include in its application, 
     to conform to other provisions in the bill and to delete 
     obsolete provisions relating to the Head Start program. 
     Instead, the new Head Start standards would be incorporated 
     into proposed section 1120B. Section 112(3) would also 
     require that an LEA include new assurances that it will: (1) 
     annually assess the English proficiency of all LEP children 
     participating in Part A programs, use the results of those 
     assessments to help guide and modify instruction in the 
     content areas, and provide those results to the parents of 
     those children; and (2) comply with the requirements of 
     section 119 regarding teacher qualifications and the use of 
     paraprofessionals.
       Section 112(4) would amend section 1112(d), relating to the 
     development and duration of an LEA's plan, to require the LEA 
     to submit the plan for the first year for which Part A, as 
     amended by the bill, is in effect, and to require an LEA to 
     submit subsequent revisions to its plan to the LEA for its 
     approval.
       Section 112(5) would amend section 1112(e), relating to 
     State review and approval of LEA plans, to require that 
     States use a peer-review process in reviewing those plans, 
     and to remove some obsolete language.
       Section 113, eligible school attendance areas [ESEA, 
     Sec. 1113]. Section 113(1) of the bill would amend section 
     1113, relating to eligible school attendance areas, to 
     clarify language relating to waivers of the normal 
     requirements for school attendance areas covered by State-
     ordered or court-ordered desegregation plans approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Section 113(2)(C) would restore to section 1112 the 
     authority for an LEA to continue serving an attendance area 
     for one year after it loses its eligibility. This language, 
     which was removed from the Act in 1994, would give LEAs 
     flexibility to prevent the abrupt loss of services to 
     children who can clearly benefit from them, as individual 
     attendance areas move in and out of eligibility from year to 
     year.
       Section 113(3)(A) would add, as section 1113(c)(2)(C), 
     language to clarify that an LEA may allocate greater per-
     child amounts of Title I funds to higher-poverty areas and 
     schools than it provides to lower-poverty areas and schools.
       Section 113(3)(B) would amend section 1113(c)(3) to require 
     an LEA to reserve sufficient funds to serve homeless children 
     who do not attend participating schools, not just when the 
     LEA finds it ``appropriate''. Some LEAs have invoked the 
     current language as a justification for failing to provide 
     services that they should provide.
       Section 114, schoolwide programs [ESEA, Sec. 1114]. Section 
     114(a)(1) and (2) of the bill would amend section 1114(a) of 
     the ESEA, which describes the purposes of, and eligibility 
     for, schoolwide programs under section 1114, by revising the 
     subsection heading to

[[Page S6333]]

     more accurately reflect subsection (a)'s contents, and to 
     delete current paragraph (2), which is obsolete.
       Section 114(a)(3)(A) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1114(a)(4)(A) to reflect the bill's redesignation of 
     section 1114(b)(2) as section 1114(c).
       Section 114(a)(3)(B) would amend the prohibition on using 
     IDEA funds to support a schoolwide program to reflect the 
     fact that section 613(a)(2)(D) of the IDEA, as enacted by the 
     IDEA Amendments of 1997, now permits funds received under 
     Part B of that Act to be used to support schoolwide programs, 
     subject to certain conditions.
       Section 114(a)(4) would delete paragraph (5) of section 
     1114(a), relating to professional development in schoolwide 
     programs. That topic is addressed by other applicable 
     provisions, including the revised statement of the required 
     elements of schoolwide programs. See, especially, proposed 
     sections 1114(b)(2)(C) and 1119.
       Section 114(b)(1) would delete section 1114(c), which 
     duplicates other provisions relating to school improvement, 
     and section 114(b)(2) would redesignate current subsection 
     (b)(2) as subsection (c). Under this revised structure, 
     subsection (b) would list the required components of a 
     schoolwide program, and subsection (c) would describe the 
     contents of a plan for a schoolwide program.
       Section 114(c) would revise the statement of the elements 
     of a schoolwide program in section 1114(b) in its entirety. 
     The revised statement would strengthen current law, to 
     reflect experience and research over the past several years, 
     including significant aspects of the Comprehensive School 
     Reform Demonstration program.
       Section 114(d)(1)-(4) would amend the requirements of 
     section 1114 relating to plans for schoolwide programs 
     (current subsection (b)(2), which the bill would redesignate 
     as subsection (c)), to delete an obsolete reference and make 
     technical and conforming amendments.
       Section 114(d)(5) would add, as section 1114(c)(3), 
     language requiring peer review and LEA approval of a 
     schoolwide plan before the school implements it.
       Section 115, targeted assistance schools [ESEA, Sec. 1115]. 
     Section 115(1)(A)(i)(I) would make a technical amendment to 
     section 1115(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA.
       Section 115(1)(A)(ii) would delete the requirement that 
     children be at an age at which they can benefit from an 
     organized instructional program provided at a school or other 
     educational setting in order to be eligible for services 
     under section 1115. This change would make clear that 
     preschool children of any age may be served under Part A as 
     long as they can benefit from an organized instructional 
     program.
       Section 115(1)(B)(i) would amend section 1115(b)(2), which 
     addresses the eligibility of certain groups of children, by 
     deleting references to children who are economically 
     disadvantaged. The current reference to that category of 
     children is confusing, because it erroneously assumes that 
     there are specific eligibility requirements for them.
       Section 115(1)(B)(ii) would clarify that children who, 
     within the prior two years, had received Title I preschool 
     services are eligible for services under Part A, as are 
     children who participated in a Head Start or Even Start 
     program in that period.
       Section 115(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) would amend section 
     1115(b)(2)(C) and (D) to clarify that certain other groups of 
     children are eligible for services under section 1115.
       Section 115(2)(C) would streamline section 1115(c)(1)(E), 
     relating to coordination with, and support of, the regular 
     education program.
       Section 115(2)(D) would amend section 1115(c)(1)(F) to 
     emphasize that instructional staff must meet the standards 
     set out in revised section 1119.
       Section 115(2)(E) would make a technical amendment to 
     section 1115(c)(1)(G).
       Section 115(2)(F) would correct an error in section 
     1115(c)(1)(H).
       Section 115(3) would delete section 1115(e)(3), relating to 
     professional development, because other provisions of Part A 
     would address that topic.
       Section 115A, school choice (ESEA, Sec. 1115A]. Section 
     115A of the bill would make a conforming change to section 
     1115A(b)(4) of the ESEA.
       Section 116, assessment and local educational agency and 
     school improvement [ESEA, Sec. 1116]. Section 116(a) of the 
     bill would revise subsections (a) through (d) of section 1116 
     of the HSEA, in their entirety, as follows:
       Section 1116(a), relating to LEA reviews of schools served 
     under Part A. would be revised to conform to amendments that 
     the bill would make section 1111 (State plans).
       Section 1116(b) would provide examples of the criteria a 
     State could use in designating Distinguished Schools, and 
     would delete the cross-reference to section 1117, to reflect 
     the bill's streamlining of that section.
       Section 1116(c)(1)-(3), relating to an LEA's obligation to 
     identify participating schools that need improvement, and to 
     take various actions to bring abut that improvement, would be 
     strengthened, consistent with the bill's overall emphasis on 
     greater accountability. In particular, section 1116(c)(3)(A) 
     would require each school so identified by an LEA, within 
     three months of being identified, to develop or revise a 
     school plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, the 
     LEA, and a State school support team or other outside 
     experts. The plan would have to have the greatest likelihood 
     of improving the performance of participating children in 
     meeting the State student performance standards, address the 
     fundamental teaching and learning needs in the school, 
     identify and address the need to improve the skills of the 
     school's staff through effective professional development, 
     identify student performance targets and goals for the next 
     three years, and specify the responsibilities of the LEA and 
     the school under the plan. The LEA would have to submit 
     the plan to a peer-review process, work with the school to 
     revise the plan as necessary, and approve it before it is 
     implemented.
       Section 1116(c)(5)(C) would be revised to make clear that, 
     with limited exceptions, an LEA would have to take at least 
     one of a list of specified corrective actions in the case of 
     a school that fails to make progress within three years of 
     its identification as being in need of improvement. The list 
     would be limited to four possible actions, each of which is 
     intended to have serious consequences for the school, to 
     ensure that the LEA takes action that is likely to have a 
     positive effect.
       Section 116(d), relating to SEA review of LEA programs, 
     would similarly be revised to conform to other provisions of 
     the bill relating to accountability for achievement; to 
     remove obsolete provisions; and to require an LEA that has 
     been identified by the SEA as needing improvement to submit a 
     revised Part A plan to the SEA for peer review and approval. 
     In addition, the bill would strengthen and clarify language 
     relating to the corrective actions that SEAs must take in the 
     case of an LEA that fails to make sufficient progress within 
     three years of being identified by the SEA as in need of 
     improvement.
       Section 117, State assistance for school support and 
     improvement [ESEA, Sec. 1117]. Section 117 of the bill would 
     substantially streamline section 1117 of the ESEA, relating 
     to State support for LEA and school support and improvement. 
     Much of current section 1117 is needlessly prescriptive and 
     otherwise unnecessary, particularly in light of the 
     strengthened provisions on LEA and school improvement and 
     corrective actions in revised sections 1003(a)(2) and 1116.
       Section 1117(a) would retain the requirement of current law 
     that each SEA establish a statewide system of intensive and 
     sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools, in 
     order to increase the opportunity for all students in those 
     LEAs and schools to meet State standards.
       Section 1117(b) would replace the statement of priorities 
     in current section 1117(1) with a 3-step statement of 
     priorities. The SEA would first provide support and 
     assistance to LEAs that it has identified for corrective 
     action under section 1116 and to individual schools for which 
     an LEA has failed to carry out its responsibilities under 
     that section. The SEA would then support and assist other 
     LEAs that it has identified as in need of improvement under 
     section 1116, but that it has not identified as in need of 
     corrective action. Finally, the SEA would support and assist 
     other LEAs and schools that need those services in order to 
     achieve Title I's purpose.
       Section 1117(c) would provide examples of approaches the 
     SEA could use in providing support and assistance to LEAs and 
     schools.
       Section 1117(d) would direct each SEA to use the funds 
     available to it for technical assistance and support under 
     section 1003(a)(1) (other than the 70 percent or more that it 
     reserves under section 1003(a)(2)) to carry out section 1117, 
     and would permit the SEA to also use the funds it reserves 
     for State administration under redesignated section 1701(c) 
     (current section 1603(c)) for that purpose.
       Section 118, parental involvement [ESEA, Sec. 1118]. 
     Section 118 (1), (2), and (3) would make conforming 
     amendments to section 1118, relating to parental involvement 
     in Part A programs.
       Section 118(4) would amend section 1118(f) so that the 
     requirement to provide full opportunities for participation 
     by parents with limited English proficiency and parents with 
     disabilities, to the extent practicable, applies to all Part 
     A activities, not just to the specific provisions relating to 
     parental involvement.
       Section 118(5) would repeal subsection (g) of section 1118, 
     to reflect the bill's proposed repeal of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act.
       Section 119, teacher qualification and professional 
     development [ESEA, Sec. 1119]. Section 119(1) would change 
     the heading of section 1119 to ``High-Quality Instruction'' 
     to reflect amendments made to this section that are designed 
     to ensure that participating children receive high-quality 
     instruction.
       Section 119(2) of the bill would delete subsection (f) of 
     section 1119, which is not needed, and redesignate 
     subsections (b) through (e) and (g) of that section as 
     subsections (d) through (h).
       Section 119(3) would insert a new subsection (a) in section 
     1119 to require that each participating LEA hire qualified 
     instructional staff, provide high-quality professional 
     development to staff members, and use at least five percent 
     of its Part A grant for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 10 
     percent of its grant for each year thereafter, for that 
     professional development.
       Section 119(4) would insert new subsections (b) and (c) in 
     section 1119 to specify the minimum qualifications for 
     teachers and for paraprofessionals in programs supported with 
     Part A funds. These requirements are designed to ensure that 
     participating children receive high-quality instruction and 
     assistance, so that they can meet challenging State 
     standards.

[[Page S6334]]

       Section 119(5)(A) would revise the list of required 
     professional development activities in current section 
     1119(b), which would be redesignated as section 1119(c), to 
     reflect experience and research on the most effective 
     approaches to professional development.
       Section 119(5)(B)(iii) would add child-care providers to 
     those with whom an LEA could choose to conduct joint 
     professional development activities under redesignated 
     section 1119(d)(2)(H) (current section 1119(b)(2)(H)).
       Section 119(6) would make a conforming amendment to section 
     1119(g), which would be redesignated as section 1119(h), 
     relating to the combined use of funds from multiple sources 
     to provide professional development.
       Section 120, participation of children enrolled in private 
     schools [ESEA, Sec. 1120]. Section 120(1)(A) of the bill 
     would add, to section 1120(a)'s statement of an LEA's 
     responsibility to provide for the equitable participation of 
     students from private schools, language to make clear that 
     the services provided those children are to address their 
     needs, and that the teachers and parents of these students 
     participate on an equitable basis in services and activities 
     under sections 1118 and 1119 (parental involvement and 
     professional development).
       Section 120(1)(B) would amend section 1120(a)(4) to give 
     each LEA the option of determining the number of poor 
     children in private schools every year, as under current law, 
     or every two years.
       Section 120(2)(A) (ii) and (iii) would amend section 
     1120(b)(1), relating to the topics on which an LEA consults 
     with private school officials about services to children in 
     those schools, to include: (1) how the results of the 
     assessments of the services the LEA provides will be used to 
     improve those services; (2) the amounts of funds generated by 
     poor children in each participating attendance area; (3) the 
     method or sources of data that the LEA uses to determine the 
     number of those children; and (4) how and when the LEA will 
     make decisions about the delivery of services to those 
     children.
       Section 120(2)(B)(i) would amend section 1120(b)(2) to 
     require that an LEA's consultation with private school 
     officials include meetings. Consultations through telephone 
     conversations and similar methods, while still permissible, 
     would not, by themselves, be sufficient.
       Section 120(2)(B)(ii) would amend section 1120(b)(2) to 
     clarify that LEA-private school consultations are to continue 
     throughout the implementation and assessment of the LEA's 
     Part A program.
       Section 120(3) would revise cross-references in section 
     1120(d)(2) to reflect the redesignation of sections by other 
     provisions of the bill.
       Section 120(4) would delete subsection (e) of section 
     1120(b), which authorizes the award of separate grants to 
     States to help them pay for capital expenses that States and 
     LEAs incur in providing services to children who attend 
     private schools. In light of the Supreme Court's 1997 
     decision in Agostini v. Felton, which allows LEAs to provide 
     Title I services on the premises of parochial schools, this 
     authority is no longer needed.
       Section 120A, fiscal requirements [ESEA, Sec. 1120A]. 
     Section 120A(1) of the bill would make a conforming amendment 
     to a cross-reference in section 1120A(a) of the ESEA, which 
     requires an LEA to maintain fiscal effort as a condition of 
     receiving Part A funds.
       Section 120a(2) would amend section 1120A(c) of the ESEA, 
     which requires a participating LEA to ensure that it provides 
     services in Title I schools, from State and local sources, 
     that are at least comparable to the services it provides in 
     its other schools.
       Section 120a(2)(A) would amend section 1120A(c)(2) to 
     replace the current criteria for determining comparability 
     with three criteria that would capture the concept of 
     comparability more fairly and thoroughly. LEAs would be given 
     until July 1, 2002, to comply with these new criteria.
       Section 120A(2)(B) would amend section 1120A(c)(3)(B) to 
     require LEAs to update their records documenting compliance 
     with the comparability requirement annually, rather than 
     every two years.
       Section 120B, preschool services and coordination 
     requirements [ESEA, Sec. 1120B]. Section 120B(1) of the bill 
     would amend the heading of section 1120B of the ESEA to read 
     ``Preschool Services; Coordination Requirements'' to more 
     accurately reflect its content.
       Section 120B(2) would make a technical amendment to section 
     1120B(c), relating to coordination of Title I regulations 
     with Head Start regulations issued by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, to reflect enactment of the Head 
     Start Amendments of 1998.
       Section 120B(3) would add a subsection (d) to section 1120B 
     to provide additional direction to preschool programs carried 
     out with Part A funds, and to ensure that those programs are 
     of high quality. This language replaces, and builds on, 
     current section 1112(c)(1)(H).
       Section 120C, allocations [ESEA, Sec. Sec. 1121-1127]. 
     Section 120C(a) of the bill would amend section 1121(b) of 
     the ESEA, which authorizes assistance to the outlying areas, 
     to correct an internal cross-reference in paragraph (1) and 
     to make the $5 million total for assistance to the Freely 
     Associated States (FAS) a maximum rather than a fixed annual 
     amount. The Secretary should have the flexibility to 
     determine that an amount less than the full $5 million may be 
     warranted for the FAS in any given year, particularly in 
     light of possible revisions to their respective compacts of 
     free association.
       Section 120C(b) would amend section 1122 of the ESEA, which 
     governs the allocation of Part A funds to the States, by: (1) 
     removing provisions that have expired; (2) describing the 
     amount to be available for targeted assistance grants under 
     section 1125; (3) providing for proportionate reductions in 
     State allocations in case of insufficient appropriations; and 
     (4) retaining the provisions on ``hold-harmless'' amounts 
     that apply to fiscal year 1999. Most of the substance of law 
     that is currently applicable would be retained, but the 
     section as a whole would be significantly shortened.
       Section 120C(c)(1)(A) would clarify (without substantive 
     change) section 1124(a)(1), relating to the allocation of 
     basic grants to LEAs.
       Section 120C(c)(1)(B) would redesignate paragraphs (3) and 
     (4) of section 1124(a) as paragraphs (4) and (5).
       Section 120C(c)(1)(C) would revise, in their entirety, the 
     statutory provisions governing the calculation of LEA basic 
     grants in section 1124(a)(2) and move some of those 
     provisions to section 1124(a)(3) to improve the section's 
     structure and readability. As amended, section 1124(a)(2)(A) 
     would direct the Secretary to make allocations on an LEA-by-
     LEA basis, unless the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce 
     (who is responsible for the decennial census and other 
     activities of the Bureau of the Census) determine the LEA-
     level data on poor children is unreliable or that its use 
     would otherwise be inappropriate. In that case, the two 
     Secretaries would announce the reasons for their 
     determination, and the Secretary would make allocations on 
     the basis of county data, rather than LEA data, in accordance 
     with new paragraph (3).
       For any fiscal year for which the Secretary allocates funds 
     to LEAs, rather than to counties, section 1124(a)(2)(B) would 
     clarify that the amount of a grant to any LEA with a 
     population of 20,000 or more is the amount determined by the 
     Secretary. For LEAs with fewer people, the SEA could either 
     allocate the amount determined by the Secretary or use an 
     alternative method, approved by the Secretary, that best 
     reflects the distribution of poor families among the State's 
     small LEAs.
       For any fiscal year for which the Secretary allocates funds 
     to counties, rather than to LEAs, section 1124(a)(3) would 
     direct the States to suballocate those funds to LEAs, in 
     accordance with the Secretary's regulations. A State could 
     propose to allocate funds directly to LEAs without regard to 
     the county allocations calculated by the Secretary if a large 
     number of its LEAs overlap county boundaries, or if it 
     believes it has data that would better target funds than 
     allocating them initially by counties.
       In general, paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1124(a) would 
     retain current law, while eliminating extraneous or obsolete 
     provisions, and making this portion of the statute much 
     easier to read and understand than current law.
       Section 120C(c)(1)(D) would revise language relating to 
     Puerto Rico's Part A allocation (current section 1124(a)(3), 
     which the bill would redesignate as section 1124(a)(4)) so 
     that, over a 5-year phase-in period, its allocation would be 
     determined on the same basis as are the allocations to the 50 
     States and the District of Columbia.
       Section 120C(c)(2) would amend section 1124(b), relating to 
     the minimum number of poor children needed to qualify for a 
     basic grant, to improve its readability and to delete 
     obsolete language.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(A)(ii) would amend section 1124(c)(1), 
     which describes the children to be counted in determining an 
     LEA's eligibility for, and the amount of, a basic grant, to 
     delete subparagraph (B), which permits the inclusion of 
     certain children whose families have income above the poverty 
     level. The number of these children is now quite small, and 
     collection of reliable data on them is burdensome.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(A)(iii) would amend section 
     1124(c)(1)(C), relating to counts of certain children who are 
     neglected or delinquent, to give the Secretary the 
     flexibility to use the number of those children for either 
     the preceding year (required by current law) or for the 
     second preceding year.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(B)(ii) would delete the 3rd and 4th 
     sentences of section 1124(c)(2), which provide a special, and 
     unwarranted, benefit to a single LEA.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(C) would update section 1124(c)(3), 
     relating to census updates.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(D) would repeal section 1124(c)(4), 
     relating to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, 
     which has been completed, and redesignate paragraphs (5) and 
     (6) of section 1124(c) as paragraphs (4) and (5).
       Section 120C(c)(3)(E)(i) would delete the first sentence of 
     current section 1124(c)(5), which the bill would redesignate 
     as section 1124(c)(4). This language, relating to counts of 
     certain children from families with incomes above the poverty 
     level, would no longer be needed in light of the deletion of 
     these children from the count of children under section 
     1124(c)(1), described above.
       Section 120C(c)(3)(E)(iii) and (F) would move, from current 
     section 1124(c)(6) to current section 1124(c)(5) (to be 
     redesignated as section 1124(c)(4)) a sentence about the 
     counting of children in correctional institutions. This 
     provides a more logical location for this provision.
       Section 120C(c)(4)(B) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1124(d).
       Section 120C(d)(1)(A)(i) would remove obsolete language 
     from section 1124A(a)(1)(A) of

[[Page S6335]]

     the ESEA, which sets eligibility criteria for LEAs to receive 
     concentration grants under section 1124A. The current 
     eligibility criteria would be retained.
       Section 120C(d)(1)(A)(ii) would make conforming amendments 
     to section 1124A(a)(1)(B), relating to minimum allocations to 
     States.
       Section 120C(d)(1)(B) would replace the lengthy and 
     complicated language in section 1124A(a)(4), relating to 
     calculation of LEA concentration grant amounts, with a simple 
     cross-reference to the streamlined allocation provisions in 
     section 1124(a)(3) and (4). Since the applicable rules are 
     the same, there is no need to repeat them. In addition, the 
     revised section 1124A(a)(4)(B) would retain the authority, 
     unique to the allocation of concentration grants, under which 
     a State may use up to two percent of its allocation for 
     subgrants to LEAs that meet the numerical eligibility 
     thresholds but are located in ineligible counties.
       Section 120C(d)(2) would delete subsections (b) and (c) 
     from section 1124A and redesignate subsection (d) as 
     subsection (b). Subsection (b), relating to the total amount 
     available for concentration grants, would be replaced by 
     section 1122(a)(2). Subsection (c), providing for ratably 
     reduced allocations in the case of insufficient funds, 
     duplicates proposed section 1122(c).
       Section 120C(e)(1) would make conforming amendments to 
     section 1125(b) of the ESEA, relating to the calculation of 
     targeted assistance grants under section 1125.
       Section 120C(e)(2) would amend section 1125(c), which 
     establishes weighted child counts used to calculate targeted 
     assistance grants for both counties and LEAs, by deleting 
     obsolete provisions and making technical and conforming 
     amendments.
       Section 120C(e)(3) would replace the lengthy and 
     complicated language in section 1125(d), relating to 
     calculation of targeted assistance grant amounts, with a 
     simple cross-reference to the streamlined allocation 
     provisions in section 1124(a)(3) and (4). Since the 
     applicable rules are the same, there is no need to repeat 
     them.
       Section 120C(e)(4) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1125(e).
       Section 120C(f) would repeal section 1125A(e) of the ESEA, 
     which authorizes appropriations for education finance 
     incentive programs under section 1125A, and make conforming 
     amendments to that section. Appropriations for this provision 
     would be covered by the general authorization of 
     appropriations for Part A of Title I in section 1002(a).
       Section 120C(g) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1126(a)(1), relating to allocations for neglected 
     children.
       Section 120D, program indicators [ESEA, Sec. 1131]. Section 
     120D of the bill would add a new Subpart 3, Program 
     Indicators, to Part A of Title I of the ESEA. Subpart 3 would 
     contain only one section, Sec. 1131, which would identify 7 
     program indicators relating to schools participating in the 
     Part A program, on which States would report annually to the 
     Secretary.
     Part B--Even Start
       Part B of Title I of the bill would amend Part B of Title I 
     of the ESEA, which authorizes the Even Start program.
       Section 121, statement of purpose [ESEA, Sec. 1201]. 
     Section 121 of the bill would amend the Even Start statement 
     of purposes in section 1201 of the ESEA by requiring that the 
     existing community resources on which Even Start programs are 
     built be of high quality, and by adding a requirement that 
     Even Start programs be based on the best available research 
     on language development, reading instruction, and prevention 
     of reading difficulties. These amendments would reflect 
     amendments made to other provisions of the Even Start statute 
     in 1998 and enactment of the Reading Excellence Act (Title 
     II, Part C of the ESEA) in that same year.
       Section 122, program authorized [ESEA, Sec. 1201]. Section 
     122(1) of the bill would amend section 1202(a) of the ESEA, 
     which directs the Secretary to reserve 5 percent of each 
     year's Even Start appropriation for certain populations and 
     areas. As revised, section 1202(a) would emphasize that 
     programs funded under the 5-percent reservation are meant to 
     serve as national models; retain the current requirement to 
     support projects for the children of migratory workers, 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the outlying 
     areas; specify that the amount reserved each year for the 
     outlying areas is one-half of one percent of the available 
     funds; and permit the Secretary to fund projects that serve 
     additional populations (such as homeless families, families 
     that include children with severe disabilities, and families 
     that include incarcerated mothers of young children). The 
     latter provision would replace the current requirement to 
     award a grant for a program in a woman's prison when 
     appropriations reach a certain level.
       Section 122(2) of the bill would amend section 1202(b) of 
     the ESEA, which authorizes the Secretary to reserve up to 3 
     percent of each year's appropriation for evaluation and 
     technical assistance. Because other provisions of the bill 
     would provide a new authority to fund evaluations across the 
     entire range of ESEA programs, the specific reference to 
     evaluations would be deleted here, and the maximum set-aside 
     for technical assistance (the remaining activity under this 
     provision) would be one percent. In addition, section 1202(b) 
     would permit the Secretary to provide technical assistance 
     directly, as well as through grants and contracts.
       Section 122(3) of the bill would amend section 1202(c) of 
     the ESEA, which directs the Secretary to spend $10 million 
     each year on competitive grants for interagency coordination 
     of statewide family literacy initiatives, to make these 
     awards permissive rather than mandatory, and to remove the 
     specific dollar amount that must be devoted to these awards 
     each year. The Secretary should have the flexibility to 
     determine the ongoing need for these awards, as well as the 
     amount devoted to them, and whether program funds should be 
     devoted instead to services to children and families.
       Section 122(4) and (5) would make technical and conforming 
     amendments to section 1202(d) and (e).
       Section 122(5)(A) would amend the definition of ``eligible 
     organization'' in section 1202(e)(2) to permit for-profit, as 
     well as nonprofit, organizations to qualify as providers of 
     technical assistance under section 1202(b). The current 
     limitation unnecessarily limits the pool of providers, 
     excluding some who are highly qualified.
       Section 123, State programs [ESEA, Sec. 1203]. Section 
     123(1) of the bill would redesignate subsections (a) and (b) 
     of section 1203 of the ESEA as subsections (b) and (c) and 
     insert a new subsection (a) relating to State plans. New 
     subsection (a)(1) would require a State that wants an Even 
     Start grant to submit a State plan to the Secretary, 
     including certain key information specified in the bill, 
     including the State's indicators of program quality, which 
     the 1998 amendments require each State to develop. Subsection 
     (a)(2) would parallel language relating to State plans under 
     Part A of Title I by providing that each State's plan would 
     cover the duration of its participation in the program and 
     requiring the State to periodically review it and revise it 
     as necessary.
       Section 123(3) and (4) of the bill would make technical and 
     conforming amendments to section 1203.
       Section 124, uses of funds [ESEA, Sec. 1204]. Section 
     124(1) of the bill would amend section 1204(a) of the ESEA, 
     relating to the permissible uses of Even Start funds, by 
     replacing a reference to ``family-centered education 
     programs'' with ``family literacy services''. ``Family 
     literacy services'' is the term used elsewhere in the statute 
     and defined in section 1202(e)(3).
       Section 124(2) would make a conforming amendment to section 
     1204(b)(1).
       Section 125, program elements [ESEA, Sec. 1205]. Section 
     125 of the bill would restate, in its entirety, section 1205 
     of the ESEA, which lists the required elements of each Even 
     Start program. This restatement would provide helpful 
     clarification and greater readability for some of these 
     elements; reorder the elements in a more logical sequence; 
     add some new elements; and move certain requirements that 
     now apply to local applications and State award of 
     subgrants (under sections 1207(c)(1) and 1208(a)(1)) to 
     the list of program elements, where they more logically 
     belong.
       In particular, career counseling and job-placement services 
     would be added to the examples of services that can be 
     offered as a way to accommodate participants' work schedules 
     and other responsibilities under paragraph (3). Paragraph (4) 
     would be revised to require that instructional programs 
     integrate all the elements of family literacy services and 
     use instructional approaches that, according to the best 
     available research, will be most effective. Paragraph (5) 
     would contain new requirements relating to the qualifications 
     of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that parallel 
     the requirements proposed, under section 1119, for Part A and 
     that are designed to ensure that Even Start participants 
     receive high-quality services. Paragraph (6) (currently (5)) 
     would add a new requirement that staff training be aimed at 
     helping staff obtain certification in relevant instructional 
     areas, as well as the necessary skills. Paragraph (8) 
     (currently (9)) would add (to language incorporated from 
     current section 1207(c)(1)(E)(ii)) a specific reference to 
     individuals with disabilities as included among those who may 
     be most in need of services. Paragraph (9) would clarify and 
     consolidate, into a single element, the various statutory 
     provisions that promote the retention of families in Even 
     Start programs, including the requirement of current 
     paragraph (7) to operate on a year-round basis, the 
     requirement of current section 1208(a)(1)(C) to provide 
     services for at least a 3-year age range, and the language in 
     current section 1207(c)(1)(E)(iii) about encouraging 
     participating families to remain in the program for a 
     sufficient period of time to meet their program goals.
       This updated statement of program elements reflects 
     experience and research over the past several years. It will 
     promote better program planning and higher quality programs, 
     with better results for participating families.
       Section 126, eligible participants [ESEA, Sec. 1206]. 
     Section 126 of the bill would amend section 1206(a)(1)(B) of 
     the ESEA to restore the eligibility of teenage parents who 
     are attending school, but who are above the State's age for 
     compulsory school attendance. As amended in 1994, the current 
     statute terminates a parent's eligibility when he or she is 
     no longer within the State's age range for compulsory school 
     attendance, excluding many teen parents and their children 
     who could benefit from Even Start services.
       Section 127, applications [ESEA, Sec. 1207]. Section 127(a) 
     of the bill would amend section 1207(c) of the ESEA, relating 
     to local Even Start plans, by emphasizing the importance of 
     continuous program improvement; requiring a local program's 
     goals to include outcome goals for participating children and

[[Page S6336]]

     families that are consistent with the State's program 
     indicators; emphasize that the program must address each of 
     the program elements in the revised section 1205; and require 
     each program to have a plan for rigorous and objective 
     evaluation. Current subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 
     1207(c)(1) would be deleted because the substance of those 
     provisions would be addressed in the revised statement of 
     program elements in section 1205.
       Section 127(b) of the bill would delete subsection (d) of 
     section 1207, which purports to allow an eligible entity to 
     submit its local Even Start plan as part of an SEA's 
     consolidated application under Title XIV of the ESEA. This 
     provision has had no practical effect.
       Section 128, award of subgrants [ESEA, Sec. 1208]. Section 
     128(a)(1) of the bill would amend section 1208(a)(1) of the 
     ESEA, relating to a State's criteria for selecting local 
     programs for Even Start subgrants, by deleting subparagraph 
     (C), which refers to a three-year age range for providing 
     services, because that provision would be converted to a 
     program element under section 1205. Section 128(a)(1) would 
     also make technical and clarifying amendments to section 
     1208(a)(1).
       Section 128(a)(2) would amend section 1208(a)(3) to require 
     a State's review panel to include an individual with 
     expertise in family literacy programs, to enhance the quality 
     of the panel's review and selections. Inclusion of one or 
     more of the types of individuals described in section 
     1208(a)(3)(A)-(E) would be made optional, rather than 
     mandatory.
       Section 128(b) of the bill would add a new authority, as 
     section 1208(c), for each State to continue Even Start 
     funding, for up to two years beyond the statutory 8-year 
     limit, for not more than two projects in the State that have 
     been highly successful and that show substantial potential to 
     serve as models for other projects throughout the Nation and 
     as mentor sites for other family literacy projects in the 
     State. This would allow States and localities to learn 
     valuable lessons from well-tested, proven programs.
       Section 129, evaluation [ESEA, Sec. 1209]. Section 129 of 
     the bill would delete paragraph (3) from the national 
     evaluation provisions in section 1209 of the ESEA. That 
     paragraph describes certain technical assistance activities 
     that are more appropriately addressed under section 1202(b).
       Section 130, program indicators [ESEA, Sec. 1210]. Section 
     130 of the bill would amend section 1210 of the ESEA to set a 
     deadline of September 30, 2000 for States to develop the 
     indicators of program quality required by the 1998 
     amendments. Those amendments did not include any deadline for 
     the development of those indicators. In addition, the bill 
     would add, to the current indicators that States are to 
     develop, indicators relating to the levels of intensity of 
     services and the duration of participating children and 
     adults needed to reach the outcomes the States specifies for 
     the currently required indicators.
       Section 130A, repeal and redesignation [ESEA, 
     Sec. Sec. 1211 and 1212]. Section 131(a) of the bill would 
     repeal section 1211 of the ESEA, relating to research. The 
     essential elements of this section would be incorporated into 
     the revised section on evaluations (Sec. 1209). Section 
     131(b) of the bill would redesignate section 1212 of the ESEA 
     as section 1211.
     Part C--Education of migratory children
       Part C of Title I of the bill would amend Part C of Title I 
     of the ESEA, which authorizes grants to State educational 
     agencies to establish and improve programs of education for 
     children of migratory farmworkers and fishers, to enable them 
     to meet the same high academic standards as other children.
       Section 131, State allocations [ESEA, Sec. 1301]. Section 
     131(1) of the bill would amend section 1303(a) of the ESEA, 
     which describes how available funds are allocated to States 
     each year. The bill would replace the current provisions 
     relating to the count of migratory children, which are based 
     on estimates and full-time equivalents (FTE) of these 
     children. These provisions are ambiguous, and require either 
     a burdensome collection of data or the continued use of 
     increasingly dated FTE adjustment factors based on 1994 data. 
     The bill would base a State's child count on the number of 
     eligible children, aged 3 thru 21, residing in the State in 
     the previous year, plus the number of those children who 
     received services under Part C in summer or intersession 
     programs provided by the State. This approach would be simple 
     to understand and administer, minimize data-collection burden 
     on States, and encourage the identification and recruitment 
     of eligible children. The double weight given to children 
     served in summer or intersession programs would reflect the 
     greater cost of those programs, and would encourage States to 
     provide them.
       Section 131(1) would also add, to section 1303(a), a new 
     paragraph (2), which would establish minimum and maximums for 
     annual State allocations. No State would be allocated more 
     than 120 percent, or less than 80 percent, of its allocation 
     for the previous year, except that each State would be 
     allocated at least $200,000. The link to a State's prior-year 
     allocation would ameliorate the disruptive effects of 
     substantial increases and decreases in State child counts 
     from year to year, which are typical among migratory 
     children. The $200,000 minimum would ensure that each 
     participating State receives enough funds to carry out an 
     effective program, including the costs of finding eligible 
     children and encouraging them to participate in the program.
       Section 131(2) would revise subsection (b), which describes 
     the computation of Puerto Rico's allocation, so that, over a 
     5-year phase-in period, its allocation would be determined on 
     the same basis as are the allocations of the 50 States.
       Section 131(3) would delete subsections (d) and (e) of 
     section 1303, relating to certain consortia formed by LEAs 
     and the mehods the Secretary must follow to detemine the 
     estimated number of migratory children in each State, 
     respectively. Subsection (d) is unduly burdensome for States 
     and the Department to administer, and consortia can be 
     addressed more effectively through incentive grants under 
     section 1308(d). Subsection (e) would have no further 
     relevance under the revised child-count provisions of section 
     1303(a)(1).
       Section 132, State applications [ESEA, Sec. 1304]. Section 
     132 of the bill would amend section 1304 of the ESEA, which 
     requires States to submit applications for grants under the 
     Migrant Education program, describes the children who are to 
     be given priority for services, and authorizes the provision 
     of services to certain categories of children who are no 
     longer migratory.
       Section 131(1)(A) would amend section 1304(b)(1) to require 
     the State's application to include certain material that is 
     now required to be in its comprehensive plan (but not in its 
     application) under section 1306(a). This reflects the 
     proposed repeal of the requirement for a comprehensive 
     service-delivery plan that is separate from the State's 
     application for funds, in order to streamline program 
     requirements and reduce paperwork burden on States.
       Section 132(1)(B) would amend section 1304(b)(5) to clarify 
     the factors that States are to consider when making subgrants 
     to local operating agencies.
       Section 132(1)(C) would redesignate paragraphs (5) and (6) 
     of section 1304(b) as paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively.
       Section 132(1)(D) would insert a new paragraph (5) in 
     section 1304(b) to require a State's application to describe 
     how the State will encourage migratory children to 
     participate in State assessments required under Part A of 
     Title I.
       Section 132(2)(A) and (B) would make technical and 
     conforming amendments to section 1304(c)(1) and (2).
       Section 132(2)(C) would strengthen the requirements of 
     section 1304(c)(3) relating to the involvement of parents and 
     parent advisory councils.
       Section 132(2)(D) would make a conforming amendment to 
     section 1304(c)(7) to reflect the bill's amendments relating 
     to child counts.
       Section 133, authorized activities [ESEA, Sec. 1306]. 
     Section 133 of the bill would restate, in its entirety, 
     section 1306 of the ESEA, to delete the requirement that a 
     participating State develop a comprehensive service-
     delivery plan that is separate from its application for 
     funds under section 1304. The important elements of this 
     plan would be incorporated into section 1304, as amended 
     by section 132 of the bill. In addition, section 1306(a) 
     would clarify current provisions regarding priority in the 
     use of program funds; the use of those funds to provide 
     services described in Part A to children who are eligible 
     for services under both the Migrant Education program and 
     Part A; and the prohibition on using program funds to 
     provide services that are available from other sources.
       Section 134, coordination of migrant education activities 
     [ESEA, Sec. 1308]. Section 134 of the bill would amend 
     section 1308 of the ESEA, which authorizes various activities 
     to support the interstate and intrastate coordination of 
     migrant-education activities.
       Section 134(1)(A) would make for profit entities eligible 
     for awards under section 1308(a). The current restriction to 
     nonprofit entities has made it difficult to find 
     organizations with the necessary technical expertise and 
     experience to carry out certain important activities, such as 
     the 1-800 help line and the program support center.
       Section 134(1)(B) would make a technical amendment to 
     section 1308(a)(2).
       Section 134(2) would amend section 1308(b) to remove 
     obsolete provisions relating to the records of migratory 
     children and to conform to the proposed deletion of 
     references in section 1303 to the ``full-time equivalent'' 
     numbers of those students in determining child counts.
       Section 134(3) would increase, from $6,000,000 to 
     $10,000,000, the maximum amount that the Secretary could 
     reserve each year from the appropriation for the Migrant 
     Education program to support coordination activities under 
     section 1308. This increase would be consistent with the 
     Department's appropriations Acts for the two most recent 
     fiscal years, increase the amount available for State 
     incentive grants under section 1308(d), and make funds 
     available to assist States and LEAs in transferring the 
     school records of migratory students.
       Section 134(4) would amend section 1308(d), which 
     authorizes incentive grants to States that form consortia to 
     improve the delivery of services to migratory children whose 
     education is interrupted. These grants would be permitted, 
     rather than required as under current law, so that the 
     Secretary would have the flexibility to determine, from year 
     to year, whether funds ought to be devoted to other 
     activities under section 1308. The maximum amount that could 
     be reserved for these grants would be increased from $1.5 
     million to $3 million so that, in years when these grants are 
     warranted, they can be made to more than a token number of 
     States. The requirement to make these awards on a competitive 
     basis would be deleted because it is needlessly restrictive 
     and

[[Page S6337]]

     results in an unduly complicated process of determining the 
     merits of applications in relation to each other in years 
     when all applications warrant approval and sufficient funds 
     are available. Deleting this requirement would provide the 
     Secretary with flexibility to, for example, award equal 
     amounts to each consortium with an approvable application, or 
     to provide larger awards to consortia including States that 
     receive relatively small allocations under section 1303.
       Section 135, definitions [ESEA, Sec. 1309). Section 135 of 
     the bill would delete two references to a child's guardian in 
     the definition of ``migratory child'' in section 1309(2) of 
     the ESEA, because the term ``parent''. which is also used in 
     that section, is defined in section 14101(22) of the ESEA 
     (which the bill would redesignate as section 11101(22)) to 
     include ``a legal guardian or other person standing in loco 
     parentis''.
     Part D--Neglected and delinquent
       Part D of Title I of the bill would amend Part D of Title I 
     of the ESEA, which authorizes assistance to States and, 
     through the States, to local agencies, to provide educational 
     services to children and youth who are neglected or 
     delinquent.
       Section 141, program name. Section 141 of the bill would 
     amend the heading of Part D of Title I of the ESEA to read, 
     ``State Agency Programs for Children and Youth Who Are 
     Neglected or Delinquent''. This name would more accurately 
     reflect the bill's proposed deletion of the authority for 
     local programs in Subpart 2 of Part D.
       Section 142 findings; purpose; program authorized [ESEA, 
     Sec. 1401]. Section 142(a) of the bill would update the 
     findings in section 1401(a) of the ESEA, and shorten them to 
     reflect the proposed deletion of Subpart 2.
       Section 142(b) would amend the statement of purpose in 
     section 1401(b) to reflect the proposed deletion of Subpart 
     2.
       Section 142(c) would amend the statement of the program's 
     authorization in section 1401(b) to reflect the proposed 
     deletion of Subpart 2.
       Section 143, payments for programs under Part D [ESEA, 
     Sec. 1402]. Section 143 of the bill would delete section 
     1402(b) of the ESEA, which requires that States retain funds 
     generated throughout the State under Part A of Title I (Basic 
     Grants) on the basis of youth residing in local correctional 
     facilities or attending community day programs for delinquent 
     children and youth, and use those Part A funds for local 
     programs under subpart 2 of Part D. This conforms to the 
     bill's proposal to delete Subpart 2. Section 142 would also 
     make other conforming amendments to section 1402.
       Section 144, allocation of funds [ESEA, Sec. 1412]. Section 
     144 of the bill would amend section 1412(b) of the ESEA, 
     which describes the computation of Puerto Rico's allocation 
     under Part D, so that, over a 5-year phase-in period, its 
     allocation would be determined on the same basis as are the 
     allocations of the 50 States. Section 144 would also make 
     conforming and technical amendments to section 1412(a).
       Section 145, State plan and State agency applications 
     [ESEA, Sec. 1414]. Section 145(2)(A) of the bill would amend 
     section 1414(a)(2) of the Act, relating to the contents of a 
     State's plan, to require the plan to provide that 
     participating children will be held to the same challenging 
     academic standards, as well as given the same opportunity to 
     learn, as they would if they were attending local public 
     schools. Section 145 would also correct erroneous citations 
     in section 1414.
       Section 146, use of funds [ESEA, Sec. 1415]. Section 146 of 
     the bill would correct an erroneous citation in section 1415 
     of the ESEA, relating to the permissible use of Part D funds.
       Section 147, local agency programs [ESEA, Sec. Sec. 1412-
     1426]. Section 147 of the bill would repeal Subpart 2 (Local 
     Agency Programs) of Part D and redesignate Subpart 3 (General 
     Provisions) as Subpart 2. The local agency program is unduly 
     complicated for States to administer and does not promote 
     effective services for children who are, or have been, 
     neglected or delinquent. Those services are better provided 
     through other local, State, and Federal programs, including 
     other ESEA programs, such as Basic Grants under Part A.
       Section 148, program evaluations [ESEA, Sec. 1431]. Section 
     148(1) of the bill would amend section 1431(a) of the ESEA, 
     relating to the scope of evaluations under Part D, to conform 
     to the proposed repeal of Subpart 2.
       Section 148(2) would amend section 1431(b) to require that 
     the multiple measures of student progress that a State agency 
     must use in conducting program evaluations, while consistent 
     with section 1414's requirement to provide participating 
     children the same opportunities to learn and to hold them to 
     the same standards that would apply if they were attending 
     local public schools, must be appropriate for the students 
     and feasible for the agency. This modification would 
     recognize that, for a variety of reasons, it may not be 
     appropriate to administer the same tests to students who are, 
     or have been, neglected or delinquent, as are given to 
     children of the same age who are in traditional public 
     schools.
       Section 148(3) of the bill would amend section 1431(c), 
     relating to the results of evaluations, to reflect the 
     proposed repeal of Subpart 2.
       Section 149, definitions [ESEA, Sec. 1432]. Section 149 of 
     the bill would delete the definition of ``at-risk youth'' in 
     paragraph (2) of section 1432, and renumber the remaining 
     paragraphs. The deleted term is used only in Subpart 2, which 
     would be repealed.
     Part E--Federal evaluations, demonstrations, and transition 
         projects
       Section 151, evaluations, management information, and other 
     Federal activities [ESEA, Sec. 1501]. Section 151 of the bill 
     would amend, in its entirety, section 1501 of the ESEA, which 
     authorizes the Secretary to conduct evaluations and 
     assessments, collect data, and carry out other activities 
     that support the Title I programs and provide information 
     useful to those who authorize and administer that title. As 
     revised, section 1501 would support the activities that are 
     essential for the Secretary to carry out over the next 
     several years: evaluating Title I programs; helping States, 
     LEAs, and schools develop management-information systems; 
     carrying out applied research, technical assistance, 
     dissemination, and recognition activities; and obtaining 
     updated census information so that funds are allocated using 
     the most up-to-date information about low-income families. 
     Section 1501 would also provide for the continued conduct of 
     the national assessment of Title I and the national 
     longitudinal study of Title I schools.
       Section 1502, demonstrations of innovative practices. 
     Section 152 of the bill would make conforming amendments to 
     section 1502 of the ESEA.
     Part F--General provisions
       Section 161, general provisions [ESEA, Sec. Sec. 1601-
     1604]. Section 161(1) of the bill would repeal sections 1601 
     and 1602 of the ESEA. Section 1601 sets out highly 
     prescriptive requirements relating to regulations under Title 
     I that should not be retained. Instead, Title I, like other 
     ESEA programs, should remain subject to the rulemaking 
     requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and of 
     section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act. Section 
     1602 requires the Secretary to issue a program assistance 
     manual and to respond to certain inquiries within 90 days. 
     These are similarly inappropriate and unwarranted 
     restrictions on the Secretary's discretion in administering 
     the Title I program.
       Section 161(2) would redesignate sections 1603 and 1604 as 
     sections 1601 and 1602.
     Part G--Reading excellence
       Section 171, reading and literacy grants to State 
     educational agencies [ESEA, Sec. 2253]. Section 171 of the 
     bill would amend section 2253 of the ESEA (which directs the 
     Secretary to award grants to SEAs to carry out the reading 
     and literacy activities described in Part C of Title II of 
     the ESEA), which section 178(B)(1) of the bill would transfer 
     to Part E of Title I, as follows:
       Paragraph (1) would amend the current limit of one grant 
     per State, in section 2252(a)(2)(A), to permit a State to 
     receive sequential, but not simultaneous, grants. Thus, a 
     State could receive a second grant after its first grant 
     period is over.
       Paragraph (2) would add, to the State application 
     requirements in section 2253(b)(2)(B), a clause (ix) to 
     require an SEA's application to include the process and 
     criteria it will use to review and approve LEA applications 
     for the two types of subgrants available under this part: 
     local reading improvement subgrants under section 2255 and 
     tutorial assistance subgrants under section 2256, including a 
     peer-review process that includes individuals with relevant 
     expertise.
       Paragraph (3) would clarify the unclear language in section 
     2253(c)(2)(C), which requires the Federal peer-review panel, 
     in making funding recommendations to the Secretary, to give 
     priority to States that have modified, are modifying, or will 
     modify their teacher certification requirements to require 
     effective training of prospective teachers in methods of 
     reading instruction that reflect scientifically based reading 
     research.
       Paragraph (4) would make a technical amendment to section 
     2253(d)(3), which permits States to use certain consortia or 
     similar entities that it formed before enactment of the 
     Reading Excellence Act on October 21, 1998, in lieu of a 
     partnership that meets that Act's requirements.
       Section 172, use of amounts by State educational agencies 
     [ESEA, Sec. 2254]. Section 172 of the bill would amend 
     section 2254 of the ESEA so that the State's cost of 
     administering the program of tutorial assistance subgrants 
     under section 2256 would be subject to the overall five 
     percent limit on State administrative costs. That amount 
     should be sufficient for all the State's costs of 
     administering the Reading Excellence program. Any amounts set 
     aside under the 15 percent limit in section 2254(2) would 
     have to be used for the actual subgrants to LEAs and not for 
     State administrative expenses.
       Section 173, local reading improvement subgrants [ESEA, 
     Sec. 2255]. Section 173(a) of the bill would amend section 
     2255(a) of the ESEA, which describes the LEAs that are 
     eligible to apply for a local reading improvement subgrant 
     under section 2255, to limit eligibility to LEAs that operate 
     schools for grades 1 through 3. LEAs that serve only middle 
     and/or high school students should not be eligible for this 
     program, which is intended to help children read well and 
     independently by the third grade.
       Section 173(b) would amend section 2255(d)(i), which 
     describes the activities that an LEA may carry out with its 
     subgrant, to require that the schools in which reading 
     instruction is provided serve children in the first through 
     third grades. As with the provision described above relating 
     to LEA eligibility, this amendment will ensure that the

[[Page S6338]]

     program's objective of helping children to read by the 3rd 
     grade is met.
       Section 174, tutorial assistance subgrants [ESEA, 
     Sec. 2256]. Section 174(a) and (b) of the bill would make 
     amendments to section 2256 of the ESEA, which authorizes 
     subgrants to LEAs for tutorial assistance, that correspond to 
     the amendments to section 2255 (local reading improvement 
     subgrants) that ensure that the program focuses on its 
     intended age range, children from pre-kindergarten through 
     3rd grade.
       Section 174(a) would also make the following amendments to 
     section 2256:
       Paragraph (1)(B) would delete subsection (a)(1)(A), which 
     makes an LEA eligible for a tutorial assistance subgrant if 
     any school in its jurisdiction is located in an empowerment 
     zone or enterprise community, because LEAs are not eligible 
     through this route for local reading improvement subgrants 
     under section 2255. Making the eligibility criteria the same 
     for the two types of subgrants, as provided by this 
     amendment, will increase the likelihood that tutorial 
     activities are carried out in the same LEAs that receive 
     local reading improvement subgrants, promoting the 
     coordination of the activities supported by the two types of 
     subgrants.
       Paragraph (5) would delete, from current section 
     2256(a)(2)(B), which the bill would redesignate as section 
     2256(a)(3)(B), language conditioning the receipt of all Title 
     I funds by each LEA that is currently eligible under section 
     2256 on its providing public notice of the tutorial 
     assistance program to parents and possible providers of 
     tutoring services. This provision is grossly disproportionate 
     in its severity and is not logically related to the large 
     amounts of funds it affects under the other Title I programs. 
     Any failure to provide the notice described in this section 
     should be subject to the same range of consequences that 
     attach to possible noncompliance with any other requirement 
     of the statute.
       Paragraph (6) would make conforming amendments to current 
     section 2256(a)(3), which the bill would redesignate as 
     section 2256(a)(4), to reflect the proposed deletion of 
     eligibility of LEAs on the basis of having a school located 
     in an empowerment zone or enterprise community under section 
     2256(a)(1)(A).
       Paragraph (7) would make technical and conforming 
     amendments to current subsection (a)(4), which the bill would 
     redesignate as subsection (a)(5).
       Section 175, national evaluation [ESEA, Sec. 2257). Section 
     175 of the bill would amend section 2257 of the ESEA, which 
     provides for a national evaluation of the program under this 
     part, to remove a cross-reference to a current provision that 
     earmarks funds for the evaluation. Other provisions of the 
     will would provide the Secretary with authority to pay for 
     evaluations of all ESEA programs, removing the need for 
     individual evaluation earmarks.
       Section 176 information dissemination [ESEA, Sec. 2258]. 
     Section 176(1) of the bill would amend section 2258 of the 
     ESEA, which provides for the dissemination of program 
     information, to reflect the transfer of the program's 
     authorization of appropriations to section 1002(e) of the 
     ESEA. It would also add authority for the National Institute 
     for Literacy, which administers section 2258, to use up to 
     five percent of the amount available each year to pay for the 
     costs of administering that section.
       Section 176(2) would add, as subsection (c) of section 
     2258, authority for the Secretary to reserve up to one 
     percent of each fiscal year's appropriation for the Reading 
     Excellence program for technical assistance, program 
     improvement, and replication activities.
       Section 177, authorization of appropriations [ESEA, 
     Sec. 2260]. Section 177 of the bill would repeal section 2260 
     of the ESA, which authorizes appropriations for the program, 
     to reflect the transfer of the program's authorization of 
     appropriations to section 1002(e) of the ESEA.
       Section 178, transfer and redesignations. Section 178 of 
     the bill would transfer the authority for the Reading 
     Excellence program, currently in Part C of Title II of the 
     ESEA, to Part E of Title I, redesignate current Parts E and F 
     of Title I as Parts F and G, and make other technical and 
     conforming amendments.


               TITLE II--HIGH STANDARDS IN THE CLASSROOM

       Section 201 of the bill would amend Title II of the ESEA in 
     its entirety, as follows:
     Part A--Teaching to high standards
       Part A of Title II would authorize a new program in the 
     ESEA by consolidation the existing Eisenhower State Grants 
     (Title II) and Innovative Education Program Strategies (Title 
     VI) programs in the ESEA and Title III of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act.
       Subpart 1--Findings, purpose and Authorization of 
           appropriations
       Section 2111, findings. Section 2111 would set out findings 
     for Part A.
       Section 2112, purpose. Section 2112 would state that the 
     purpose of Part A is to: (1) Support States and LEAs in 
     continuing the task of developing challenging content and 
     student performance standards and aligned assessments, 
     revising curricula and teacher certification requirements, 
     and using challenging content and student performance 
     standards to improve teaching and learning; (2) ensure that 
     teachers and administrators have access to professional 
     development that is aligned with challenging State content 
     and student performance standards in the core academic 
     subjects; (3) provide assistance to new teachers during their 
     first three years in the classroom; and (4) support the 
     development and acquisition of curricular materials and other 
     instructional aids that are not normally provided as part of 
     the regular instructional program and that will advance local 
     standards-based school reform efforts.
       Section 2113, authorizations of appropriations. Section 
     2113 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the two operational subparts of Part A 
     for fiscal years 2001, through 2005.
       Subpart 2--State and local activities.
       Section 2121, allocations to States. Section 2121 would 
     provide for allocations to the States, including the District 
     of Columbia and Puerto Rico; the outlying areas; and schools 
     operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The 
     Secretary would reserve a total of one percent for the 
     outlying areas and the BIA. The remaining funds would be 
     allocated to States, based one-half on each State's share 
     of funds under Part A of Title I for the previous fiscal 
     year and one-half on each state's relative share of the 
     population aged 5 to 17. No State may receive a grant that 
     is less than one-half of one percent of the amount 
     available for State grants.
       Section 2122, priority for professional development in 
     mathematics and science. Section 2122(a) would establish 
     rules for the use of Part A funds for professional 
     development in mathematics and science at various 
     appropriations levels. A key priority of the Teaching to High 
     Standards proposal is directing Federal sources to support 
     professional development that strengthens instruction in the 
     core academic content areas, instead of professional 
     development that uses general strategies for improving 
     classroom instruction that are not based on academic content. 
     Toward that end, the bill would require States and LEAs to 
     use funds for professional development only in the academic 
     content areas and would increase the current Eisenhower 
     program's $250 million set-aside for professional development 
     in mathematics and science to $300 million. This ``trigger'' 
     means that if the annual appropriation for Part A is $300 
     million or less, each State would be required to devote its 
     entire allocation to supporting professional development in 
     mathematics and science (including all funds retained at the 
     State level and those distributed by the SEA and the State 
     agency for higher education (SAHE) as grants to LEAs). For 
     years in which the appropriation is higher than $300 million, 
     each State would be required to allocate a percentage of its 
     funding toward mathematics and science professional 
     development that is at least as much as the State would have 
     received had the appropriation been $300 million. The SEA and 
     the SAHE would jointly determine how the State would 
     structure the use of State-level funding and grants to LEAs 
     to meet this requirement.
       Section 2122(b) would provide that, for purposes of meeting 
     the priority requirements of subsection (a), professional 
     development in mathematics and science may include 
     interdisciplinary activities, as long as these activities 
     include a strong focus on mathematics and science. Subsection 
     (c) would require that funds in excess of the $300 million 
     appropriation be used in one or more of the core academic 
     subjects, including mathematics and science.
       Section 2123, State application. Section 2123 would require 
     each State to submit an application that is developed by the 
     SEA in consultation with the SAHE, community-based and other 
     nonprofit organizations with experience in 
     providing professional development, and institutions of 
     higher education (IHEs). This section would also describe 
     what States must include in their applications. The 
     Secretary would have to approve a State application if a 
     peer-review panel determines that it satisfactorily 
     addresses the application requirements and holds 
     reasonable promise of achieving the purposes of the 
     program.
       Section 2124, annual State reports. Section 2124 would 
     require a State to submit annual reports to the Secretary 
     that describe its activities under this program, report on 
     the progress of subgrant recipients against program 
     performance indicators that the Secretary identifies and any 
     other indicators that the State requires, and contain other 
     information that the Secretary requires.
       Section 2125, within-State allocations. Section 2125 would 
     allow an SEA to reserve up to 10 percent of the State 
     allocation for State-level activities, program evaluations, 
     and administration. Not more than one third of this 
     reservation could be used for administration. The SEA would 
     also have to make available to the SAHE an amount equal to 
     what the State's allocation would be if the amount of the 
     appropriation for this subpart were $60 million. From the 
     amount remaining, the SEA would make formula and competitive 
     subgant awards to LEAs. Of the amount that is reserved for 
     LEAs, the SEA would allocate 50 percent to LEAs in proportion 
     to the relative numbers of children, aged 5 to 17, from low-
     income families within the LEA and award 50 percent to LEAs 
     on a competitive basis.
       Section 2126, State-level activities. Section 2126 would 
     provide examples of activities that SEAs could carry out with 
     the funds they reserve for State-level activities to promote 
     high-quality instruction.
       Section 2127, subgrants to partnerships of institutions of 
     higher education and local educational agencies. Section 2127 
     would allow

[[Page S6339]]

     SAHEs to reserve not more than 3\1/3\ percent of their 
     allocation for administrative activities and program 
     evaluations and require them, in cooperation with the SEA, to 
     award competitive subgrants to, or enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with, IHEs or nonprofit organizations 
     to provide professional development in the core academic 
     subjects. These awards would be for 3 years (which would be 
     extended for 2 more years if the subgrantee is making 
     substantial progress) and made using a peer-review process. 
     The SAHE would give priority to projects that focus on 
     teacher induction programs and could make awards only to 
     projects that include an LEA, are coordinated with activities 
     carried out under Title II of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (if the LEA or IHE is participating in that program), 
     and involve the IHE's school or department of education and 
     the school or departments in the specific disciplines in 
     which the professional development will be provided.
       Section 2127 would also describe the activities that award 
     recipients must carry out and require them to submit an 
     annual report to the SAHE, beginning with fiscal year 2002, 
     on their progress against indicators of program performance 
     that the Secretary may establish. The SAHE would provide the 
     SEA with copies of these reports.
       Section 2128, competitive local awards. Section 2128 would 
     require SEAs to award competitive subgrants to LEAs from the 
     funds reserved for that purpose under section 2125. The SEA 
     would use a peer-review process that includes reviewers who 
     are knowledgeable in the academic content areas. SEAs would 
     award subgrants based on the quality of the applicants' 
     proposals and their likelihood of success, and on the 
     demonstrated need of applicants, based on specified criteria.
       Section 2128 would also require SEAs to adopt strategies to 
     ensure that LEAs with the greatest need are provided a 
     reasonable opportunity to receive an award. Subgrants would 
     be for a three-year period, which the SEA would extend for an 
     additional two years if it determines that the LEA is making 
     substantial progress toward meeting the goals in the LEA's 
     district-wide plan for raising student achievement against 
     State standards and against the performance indicators 
     identified by the Secretary under section 2136.
       Section 2129, local applications. Section 2129 would 
     require an LEA to submit an application to the SEA in order 
     to be eligible to receive a formula or competitive subgrant. 
     The application would include a district-wide plan that 
     describes how the LEA will raise student achievement against 
     State standards by: (1) supporting the alignment of curricula 
     assessments, and professional development to challenging 
     State and local content standards. (2) providing professional 
     development in the core academic content areas; (3) carrying 
     out activities to assist new teachers during their first 
     three years in the classroom; and (4) ensuring that teachers 
     employed by the LEA are proficient in teaching skills and 
     content knowledge.
       In addition, the LEA application would: (1) identify 
     specific goals for achieving the purposes of the program; (2) 
     describe how the LEA will address the needs of high-poverty, 
     low-performing schools; (3) describe how the LEA will address 
     the needs of teachers of students with limited English 
     proficiency and other students with special needs; (4) 
     include an assurance that the LEA will collect data that 
     measures progress toward the indicators of program 
     performance that the Secretary identifies; (5) describe how 
     the LEA will coordinate funds under this subpart with 
     professional development activities funded through other 
     State and Federal programs; (6) describe how the LEA will use 
     its subgrant funds awarded by formula to address the items in 
     the district-wide plan described above; and (7) describe how 
     it would use the additional funds from a competitive 
     subgrant, if it is applying for one, to implement that plan.
       Section 2130, uses of funds. Section 2130 would describe 
     the activities an LEA may conduct with program funds in order 
     to implement its district-wide plan.
       Section 2131, local accountability. Section 2131 would 
     require each LEA to submit an annual report to the SEA, 
     beginning in fiscal year 2002, that contains: (1) information 
     on its progress against the indicators of program performance 
     that the Secretary identifies and against the LEA's program 
     goals; (2) data disaggregated by school poverty level, as 
     defined by the Secretary; and (3) a description of the 
     methodology the subgrantee used to gather the data.
       Section 2132, local cost-sharing requirement. Section 2132 
     would provide that the Federal share of activities carried 
     out under Subpart 2 with funds received by formula may not 
     exceed 67 percent for any fiscal year. The Federal share of 
     activities carried out under this subpart with funds awarded 
     on a competitive basis could not exceed 85 percent during the 
     first year of the subgrant, 75 percent during the second 
     year, 65 percent during the third year, 55 percent during the 
     fourth year, and 50 percent during the fifth year.
       Section 2133, maintenance of effort. Section 2133 would 
     require each participating LEA to maintain its fiscal effort 
     for professional development at the average of its 
     expenditures over the previous three years.
       Section 2134, equipment and textbooks. Section 2134 would 
     provide that subgrantees may not use program funds for 
     equipment, computer hardware, textbooks, telecommunications 
     fees, or other items, that would otherwise be provided by the 
     LEA or State, or by a private school whose students receive 
     services under the program.
       Section 2135, supplement, not supplant. Section 2135 would 
     require an LEA to use program funds only to supplement the 
     level of funds or resources that would otherwise be made 
     available from non-Federal sources, and not to supplant those 
     non-Federal funds or resources.
       Section 2136, program performance indicators. Section 2136 
     would require the Secretary to identify indicators of program 
     performance against which recipients would report their 
     progress.
       Section 2137, definitions. Section 2137 would define ``core 
     academic subjects'', ``high-poverty local educational 
     agency'', ``low-performing school'', and ``professional 
     development''.
       Subpart 3--National activities for the improvement of 
           teaching and school leadership
       Section 2141, program authorized. Section 2141 would 
     authorize the Secretary to make awards to a wide variety of 
     public and private agencies and entities to support: (1) 
     activities of national significance that are not supported 
     through other sources and that the Secretary determines will 
     contribute to the improvement of teaching and school 
     leadership in the Nation's schools; (2) activities of 
     national significance that will contribute to the recruitment 
     and retention of highly qualified teachers and principals in 
     high-poverty LEAs; (3) a national evaluation of the Part A 
     program; and (4) the National Board for Professional Teaching 
     Standards. Section 2141(b)(5) would direct the Secretary to 
     provide support for the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for 
     Mathematics and Science Education under section 2142.
       Section 2142, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for 
     Mathematics and Science Education. Section 2142 would retain, 
     with few changes, the authority in current section 2102(b) 
     for the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and 
     Science Education, as follows:
       Subsection (a) would provide authority for the 
     Clearinghouse.
       Subsection (b) would authorize activities and establish 
     certain requirements related to the Clearinghouse, including 
     the application and award process, the duration of the grant 
     or contract, the activities the award recipient must carry 
     out, the submission of materials to the Clearinghouse, and 
     the establishment of a steering committee.
     Part B--Transition to teaching; troops to teachers
       Section 2111, findings. Section 2211 of the ESEA would set 
     out the Congressional findings for the new Part B. In the 
     next decade, school districts will need to hire more than 2 
     million teachers, especially in the areas of math, science, 
     foreign languages, special education, and bilingual 
     education. The need for teachers able to teach in high-
     poverty school districts will be particularly high. To meet 
     this need, talented Americans of all ages should be recruited 
     to become successful, qualified teachers.
       Nearly 28 percent of teachers of academic subjects have 
     neither a major nor a minor in their main assignment fields. 
     This problem is even more actuate in high-poverty areas, 
     where the out-of-field percentage is 39.
       Additionally, the Third International Math and Science 
     Study (TIMSS) ranked U.S. high school seniors last among 16 
     countries in physics, and next to last in math. Based mainly 
     on TIMSS data, it is also evident that a stronger emphasis 
     needs to be placed on the academic preparation of our 
     children in math and science.
       Further, one-fourth of high-poverty schools find it very 
     difficult to fill bilingual teaching positions, and nearly 
     half of public school teachers have students in their 
     classrooms for whom English is a second language.
       Many career-changing professionals with strong content-area 
     skills are interested in making a transition to a teaching 
     career, but need assistance in getting the appropriate 
     pedagogical training and classroom experience. The Troops to 
     Teachers model has been highly successful in linking high-
     quality teachers to teach in high-poverty school districts.
       Section 2212, purpose. Section 2212 of the ESEA would 
     establish the statement of purpose for the program, which 
     would be to address the need of high-poverty school districts 
     for highly qualified teachers in subject areas such as 
     mathematics, science, foreign languages, bilingual education, 
     and special education needed by those school districts. This 
     would be accomplished by continuing and enhancing the 
     Transition to Teaching model for recruiting and supporting 
     the placement of such teachers, and by recruiting, preparing, 
     placing, and supporting career-changing professionals who 
     have knowledge and experience that would help them become 
     such teachers.
       Section 2213, program authorized. Section 2213 of the ESEA 
     would establish the program authority and the authorization 
     of appropriations for the Transition to Teaching program. 
     Under section 2213(a), the Secretary would be authorized to 
     use funds appropriated under section 2213(c) for each fiscal 
     year to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 
     institutions of higher education and public and private 
     nonprofit agencies or organizations to carry out programs 
     authorized by this part.
       Section 2213(b)(1)(A) would provide that, before making any 
     awards under section

[[Page S6340]]

     2213(a), the Secretary would be required to consult with the 
     Secretaries of Defense and Transportation with respect to the 
     appropriate amount of funding necessary to continue and 
     enhance the Troops to Teachers program. Additionally, section 
     2213(b)(1)(B) would provide that, upon agreement, the 
     Secretary would transfer the amount under section 
     2213(b)(1)(A) to the Department of Defense to carry out the 
     Troops to Teachers program. Further, section 2213(b)(2) would 
     allow the Secretary to enter into a written agreement with 
     the Department of Defense and Transportation, or take such 
     steps as the Secretary determines are appropriate to ensure 
     effective continuation of the Troops to Teachers program.
       Finally, section 2213(c) would authorize the appropriation 
     of such sums as may be necessary to carry out Part B for 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       Section 2214, application. Section 2214 of the ESEA would 
     establish the application requirements. Section 2214 would 
     provide that an applicant that desires a grant under Part B 
     must submit to the Secretary an application containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require. Applicants would be 
     required to: (1) include a description of the target group of 
     career-changing professionals on which they would focus in 
     carrying out their programs under this part, including a 
     description of the characteristics of that target group that 
     shows how the knowledge and experience of its members is 
     relevant to meeting the purpose of this part; (2) describe 
     how it plans to identify and recruit program participants; 
     (3) include a description of the training program 
     participants would receive and how that training would relate 
     to their certification as teachers; (4) describe how it would 
     ensure that program participants were placed and would teach 
     in high-poverty LEAs; (5) include a description of the 
     teacher induction services that program participants would 
     receive throughout at least their first year of teaching; (6) 
     include a description of how the applicant would collaborate, 
     as needed, with other institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations to recruit, train, place, and support program 
     participants under this part, including evidence of the 
     commitment of the institutions, agencies, or organizations to 
     the applicant's program; (7) include a description of how the 
     applicant would evaluate the progress and effectiveness of 
     its program, including the program's goals and objectives, 
     the performance indicators the applicant would use to measure 
     the program's progress, and the outcome measures that would 
     be used to determine the program's effectiveness; and (8) 
     submit an assurance that the applicant would provide to the 
     Secretary such information as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to determine the overall effectiveness of programs 
     under this part.
       Section 2215, uses of funds and period of service. Section 
     2215 of the ESEA would describe the activities authorized 
     under Part B. Under section 2215(a), Part B funds could be 
     used to: (1) recruit program participants, including 
     informing them of opportunities under the program and putting 
     them in contact with other institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations that would train, place, and support them; (2) 
     authorize training stipends and other financial incentives 
     for program participants, not to exceed $5,000, in the 
     aggregate, per participant; (3) assist institutions of higher 
     education or other providers of teacher training to meet the 
     particular needs of professionals who are changing their 
     careers to teaching; (4) authorize placement activities, 
     including identifying high-poverty LEAs with needs for 
     particular skills and characteristics of the newly trained 
     program participants and assisting those participants to 
     obtain employment in those LEAs; and (5) authorize post-
     placement induction or support activities for program 
     participants.
       Section 2215(b) would establish the required period of 
     service for program participants. Under section 2215(b), a 
     program participant who completes his or her training would 
     be required to teach in a high-poverty LEA for at least three 
     years. Section 2215(c) would allow the Secretary to establish 
     appropriate requirements to ensure that program participants 
     who receive a training stipend or other financial incentive, 
     but fail to complete their service obligation, repay all or a 
     portion of such stipend or other incentive.
       Section 2216, equitable distribution. Section 2216 of the 
     ESEA would require the Secretary, to the extent practicable, 
     to make awards under Part B that support programs in 
     different geographic regions of the Nation.
       Section 2217, definitions. Section 2217 of the ESEA would 
     establish definitions for the program. Section 2217(1) would 
     define the term ``high-poverty local educational agency'' as 
     an LEA in which the percentage of children, ages 5 though 17, 
     from families below the poverty line is 20 percent or 
     greater, or the number of such children exceeds 10,000. 
     Section 2217(2) would define the term ``program 
     participants'' as career-changing professionals who hold at 
     least a baccalaureate degree, demonstrate interest in, and 
     commitment to, becoming a teacher, and have knowledge and 
     experience relevant to teaching a high-need subject area in a 
     high-poverty LEA.
     Part C--Early childhood educator professional development
       Section 2301, purpose. Section 2301 of the ESEA would 
     establish the purpose of the new Part C program, which is to 
     support the national effort to attain the first of America's 
     Education Goals by enhancing school readiness and preventing 
     reading difficulties in young children, through early 
     childhood education programs that improve the knowledge and 
     skills of early childhood educators working in high-poverty 
     communities. The program would help meet the need for early 
     childhood educators in high-poverty communities with limnited 
     acess to early childhood education and to high-quality early 
     childhood education professionals.
       Section 2302, program authorized. Section 2302(a) of the 
     ESEA would authorize the Secretary to make competitive grants 
     to eligible partnerships. An eligible partnership would 
     consist of: (1) at least one institution of higher education 
     that provides professional development for early childhood 
     educators who work with children from low-income families in 
     high-need communities, or another public or private, 
     nonprofit entity that provides that professionals 
     development; and (2) at least one other public or private 
     nonprofit agency or organization, such as an LEA, an SEA, a 
     State human services agency, a State or local agency 
     administering programs under the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990, or a Head Start agency.
       Section 2302(b) would direct the Secretary to give a 
     priority to applications from partnerships that include at 
     least one LEA that operates early childhood programs for 
     children from low-income families in high-need communities.
       Section 2302(c) would authorize grants for up to four 
     years, and limit each grantee to one grant under this 
     program.
       Section 2303, applications. Section 2303 of the ESEA would 
     set out requirements for applications for funds. Among other 
     information, each application would include a description of 
     the high-need community to be served; information on the 
     quaity of the early childhood educator professional 
     development program currently being conducted by a member of 
     the partnership; the results of the applicant's assessment of 
     the professional development needs of early childhood 
     education providers to be served by the partnership and in 
     the broader community and how the project will address those 
     needs; a description of how the proposed project would be 
     carried out; descriptions of the project's specific 
     objectives and how progress toward those objectives will be 
     measured; how the applicant plans to institutionalize 
     project activities once Federal funding ends; an assurance 
     that, where applicable, the project will provide 
     appropriate professional development to volunteer staff, 
     as well as to paid staff; and an assurance that the 
     applicant consulted with, and will consult with, relevant 
     agencies and organizations that are not members of the 
     partnership.
       Section 2304, selection of grantees. Section 2304 of the 
     ESEA would require the Secretary to select grantees according 
     to both the community's need for assistance and the quality 
     of applications, and seek to ensure that communities in urban 
     and rural communities and in difference regions of the Nation 
     are served.
       Section 2305, uses of funds. Section 2305 of the ESEA would 
     require that, in general, grant recipients use grant funds to 
     carry out activities that will improve the knowledge and 
     skills of early childhood educators who are working in early 
     childhood programs serving concentrations of poor children in 
     high-need communities. Allowable professional development 
     activities for early childhood educators include, but would 
     not be limited to, activities that: familiarize early 
     childhood educators with recent research on child, language, 
     and literacy development and on early childhood pedagogy; 
     train them to work with parents, and with children with 
     limited English proficiency, disabilities, and other special 
     needs; assist educators during their first three years in the 
     field; development and implementation of professional 
     development programs for early childhood educators using 
     distance learning and other technologies; and data 
     collection, evaluation, and reporting activities necessary to 
     meet program accountability requirements.
       Section 2306, accountability. Section 2306(a) of the ESEA 
     would require the Secretary to announce performance 
     indicators, designed to measure the quality of the 
     professional development on the early childhood education 
     provided by the individuals trained, and such other measures 
     of program impact as the Secretary determines. Section 
     2306(b) would require projects to report annually on their 
     progress in meeting these performance indicators. The 
     Secretary could terminate a grant if the grantee is not 
     making satisfactory progress against the Secretary's 
     indicators.
       Section 2307, cost-sharing. Section 2307 of the ESEA would 
     require each grantee to contribute at least half of the 
     overall cost of its project, including at least 20 percent in 
     each year, from other sources, which may include other 
     Federal sources. The Secretary could waive or modify this 
     requirement in the case of demonstrated financial hardship.
       Section 2308, definitions. Section 2308 of the ESEA would 
     define the terms ``high-need community'', ``low-income 
     family'', and ``early childhood educator''.
       Section 2309, Federal coordination. Section 2309 of the 
     ESEA would direct the Secretaries of Education and Health and 
     Human Services to coordinate activities of this program and 
     other early childhood programs that they administer.
       Section 2310, authorization of appropriations. Section 2310 
     of the ESEA would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
     may be

[[Page S6341]]

     necessary for fiscal year 2001 and each of the four 
     succeeding fiscal years to carry out Part C.
     Part D--Technical assistance programs
       Section 2401, findings. Section 2401 of the ESEA would 
     state the Congressional findings for Part D as follows: (1) 
     sustained, high-quality technical assistance that responds to 
     State and local demand supported by widely disseminated, 
     research-based information on what constitutes high-quality 
     technical assistance and how to identify high-quality 
     technical assistance providers, can enhance the opportunity 
     for all children to achieve to challenging State academic 
     content and student performance standards; (2) an integrated 
     system for acquiring, using, and supplying technical 
     assistance is essential to improving programs and affording 
     all children this opportunity; (3) States, LEAs, tribes, and 
     schools serving students with special needs, such as 
     educationally disadvantaged students and students with 
     limited English proficiency, have clear needs for technical 
     assistance in order to use funds under the ESEA to provide 
     those students with opportunities to achieve to challenging 
     State academic content standards and student performance 
     standards; (4) current technical assistance and dissemination 
     efforts are insufficiently responsive to the needs of States, 
     LEAs, schools, and tribes for help in identifying their 
     particular needs for technical assistance and developing and 
     implementing their own integrated systems for using the 
     various sources of funding for technical assistance 
     activities under the ESEA (as well as other Federal, State, 
     and local resources) to improve teaching and leaning and to 
     implement more effectively the programs authorized by the 
     ESEA; and (5) the Internet and other forms of advanced 
     telecommunications technology are an important means of 
     providing information and assistance in a cost-effective way.
       Section 2402, purpose. Section 2402 of the ESEA would state 
     the purpose for Part D as being to create a comprehensive and 
     cohesive, national system of technical assistance and 
     dissemination that is based on market principles in 
     responding to the demand for, and expanding the supply of, 
     high-quality technical assistance. This system would support 
     States, LEAs, tribes, schools, and other recipients of funds 
     under the ESEA in implementing standards-based reform and 
     improving student performance through: (1) the provision of 
     financial support and impartial, research-based information 
     designed to assist States and high-need LEAs to develop and 
     implement their own integrated systems of technical 
     assistance and select high-quality technical assistance 
     activities and providers for use in those systems; (2) the 
     establishment of technical assistance centers in areas that 
     reflect identified national needs, in order to ensure the 
     availability of strong technical assistance in those areas; 
     (3) the integration of all technical assistance and 
     information dissemination activities carried out or supported 
     by the Department of Education in order to ensure 
     comprehensive support for school improvement; (4) the 
     creation of a technology-based system, for disseminating 
     information about ways to improve educational practices 
     throughout the Nation, that reflects input from students, 
     teachers, administrators, and other individuals who 
     participate in, or may be affected by, the Nation's 
     educational system; and (5) national evaluations of effective 
     technical assistance.
       Subpart 1--Strengthening the capacity of State and local 
           educational agencies to become effective, informed 
           consumers of technical assistance
       Section 2411, purpose. Section 2411 of the ESEA would state 
     the purposes of Subpart 1 of Part D of Title II. Section 
     2411(1) would state one such purpose as being to provide 
     grants to SEAs and LEAs in order to: (1) respond to the 
     growing demand for increased local decisionmaking in 
     determining technical assistance needs and appropriate 
     technical assistance services; (2) encourage SEAs and LEAs to 
     assess their technical assistance needs and how their various 
     sources of funding for technical assistance under the ESEA 
     and from other sources can best be coordinated to meet those 
     needs (including their needs to collect and analyze data); 
     (3) build the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to use technical 
     assistance effectively and thereby improve their ability to 
     provide the opportunity for all children to achieve to 
     challenging State academic content standards and student 
     performance standards; and (4) assist SEAs and LEAs in 
     acquiring high-quality technical assistance.
       Section 2411(2) would state the other purpose of Subpart 1 
     as being to establish an independent source of consumer 
     information regarding the quality of technical assistance 
     activities and providers, in order to assist SEAs and LEAs, 
     and other consumers of technical assistance that receive 
     funds under the ESEA, in selecting technical assistance 
     activities and providers for their use.
       Section 2412, allocation of funds. Section 2412 of the ESEA 
     would describe how funds appropriated to carry out Subpart 1 
     would be allocated. From those appropriations for any fiscal 
     year, the Secretary would first allocate one percent of the 
     funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Outlying Areas, 
     in accordance with their respective needs for such funds (as 
     determined by the Secretary) to carry out activities that 
     meet the purposes of Subpart 1. The Secretary would 
     allocate two-thirds of the remaining funds to SEAs in 
     accordance with the formula described in section 2413 and 
     allocate one-third of the remaining funds to the 100 LEAs 
     with the largest number of children counted under section 
     1124(c) of the ESEA, in accordance with the formula 
     described in section 2416.
       Section 2413, formula grants to State educational agencies. 
     Section 2413 of the ESEA would set out the formula for 
     awarding grants to States. The Secretary would allocate funds 
     among the States in proportion to the relative amounts each 
     State would have received for Basic Grants under Subpart 2 of 
     Part A of Title I of the ESEA for the most recent fiscal 
     year, if the Secretary had disregarded the allocations under 
     that subpart to LEAs that are eligible to receive direct 
     grants under new section 2416. This allocation would be 
     adjusted as necessary to ensure that, of the total amount 
     allocated to States and to LEAs under section 2416, the 
     percentage allocated to a State under section 2413 and to 
     localities in the State under section 2416 is at least the 
     percentage used for the small-State minimum under section 
     1124(d) for the previous fiscal year. The Secretary would 
     also reallocate to other States any amount of any State's 
     allocation under section 2413 of the ESEA that would not be 
     required to carry out the activities for which such amount 
     has been allocated for a fiscal year.
       Section 2414, State application. Section 2414 of the ESEA 
     would describe the application requirements for State formula 
     grants. Each State seeking a grant under Subpart 1 would be 
     required to submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require. Each such application would be 
     required to describe: (1) the State's need for, and the 
     capacity of the SEA to provide, technical assistance in 
     implementing programs under the ESEA (including assistance on 
     the collection and analysis of data) and in implementing the 
     State plan or policies for comprehensive, standards-based 
     education reform; (2) how the State will use the funds 
     provided under this subpart to coordinate all its sources of 
     funds for technical assistance, including all sources of such 
     funds under the ESEA, into an integrated system of providing 
     technical assistance to LEAs, and other local recipients of 
     funds under the ESEA, within the State and implement that 
     system; (3) the SEA's plan for using funds from all sources 
     under the ESEA to build its capacity, through the acquisition 
     of outside technical assistance and other means, to provide 
     technical assistance to LEAs and other recipients within the 
     State; (4) how, in carrying out technical assistance 
     activities using funds provided from all sources under the 
     ESEA, the State will assist LEAs and schools in providing 
     high-quality education to all children served under the ESEA 
     to achieve to challenging academic standards, give the 
     highest priority to meeting the needs of high-poverty, low-
     performing LEAs (taking into consideration any assistance 
     that the LEAs may be receiving under section 2416), and give 
     special consideration to LEAs and other recipients of funds 
     under the ESEA serving rural and isolated areas. The 
     Secretary would be required to approve a State's application 
     for funds if it meets these requirements and is of sufficient 
     quality to meet the purposes of Subpart 1. In determining 
     whether to approve a State's application, the Secretary would 
     be required to take into consideration the advice of peer 
     reviewers, and could not disapprove any application without 
     giving the State notice and opportunity for a hearing.
       Section 2415, State uses of funds. Section 2415 of the ESEA 
     would describe the permissible uses of State formula grant 
     funds under Subpart 1. The SEA could use these funds to: (1) 
     build its capacity (and the capacity of other State agencies 
     that implement ESEA programs) to use ESEA technical 
     assistance funds effectively through the acquisition of high-
     quality technical assistance, and the selection of high-
     quality technical assistance activities and providers, that 
     meet the technical assistance needs identified by the State; 
     (2) develop, coordinate, and implement an integrated system 
     that provides technical assistance to LEAs and other ESEA 
     recipients within the State, directly, through contracts, or 
     through subgrants to LEAs, or other ESEA recipients of funds, 
     for activities that meet the purposes of Subpart 1, and uses 
     all sources of funds provided for technical assistance, 
     including all ESEA sources; and (3) acquire the technical 
     assistance it needs to increase opportunities for all 
     children to achieve to challenging State academic content 
     standards and student performance standards, and to implement 
     the State's plan or policies for comprehensive standards-
     based education reform.
       A State's integrated system of providing technical 
     assistance could include assistance on such activities as: 
     (1) implementing State standards in the classroom, including 
     aligning instruction, curriculum, assessments, and other 
     aspects of school reform with those standards; (2) 
     collecting, disaggregating, and using data to analyze and 
     improve the implementation, and increase the impact, of 
     educational programs; (3) conducting needs assessments and 
     planning intervention strategies that are aligned with 
     State goals and accountability systems; (4) planning and 
     implementing effective, research-based reform strategies, 
     including schoolwide reforms, and strategies for making 
     schools safe, disciplined, and drug-free; (5) improving 
     the quality of teaching and the ability of teachers to 
     serve students with special needs (including educationally 
     disadvantaged students and students with limited English 
     proficiency); and (6) planning

[[Page S6342]]

     and implementing strategies to promote opportunities for 
     all children to achieve to challenging State academic 
     content standards and student performance standards.
       Section 2416, Grants to large local educational agencies. 
     Section 2416 of the ESEA would describe the formula for 
     providing grants under Subpart 1 to the 100 largest, high-
     need LEAs. Under section 2416, the Secretary would allocate 
     funds among the LEAs described in section 2412(2)(B) in 
     proportion to the relative amounts allocated to each such LEA 
     for Basic Grants under Subpart 2 of Part A of Title I for the 
     most recent fiscal year. As under the State formula in 
     section 2413, the Secretary would be required to reallocate 
     unused LEA allocations.
       Section 2417, local application. Section 2417 of the ESEA 
     would detail the application requirements that the LEAs must 
     meet to receive direct grants under Subpart 1. Each LEA would 
     be required to submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require. Each application would be required to 
     describe: (1) the LEA's need for technical assistance in 
     implementing ESEA programs (including assistance on the use 
     and analysis of data) and in implementing the State's, or its 
     own, plan or policies, for comprehensive standards-based 
     education reform; (2) how the LEA will use the grant funds to 
     coordinate all its various sources of funds for technical 
     assistance, including all ESEA sources and other sources, 
     into an integrated system for acquiring and using outside 
     technical assistance and other means of building its own 
     capacity to provide the opportunity for all children to 
     achieve to challenging State academic content standards and 
     student performance standards implementing programs under the 
     ESEA, and implement that system. In determining whether to 
     approve a State's application, the Secretary would be 
     required to take into consideration the advice of peer 
     reviewers, and could not disapprove any application without 
     giving the State notice and opportunity for a hearing.
       Section 2418, local uses of funds. Section 2418 of the ESEA 
     would describe the ways in which an LEA could use direct 
     grant funds awarded under Subpart 1. The LEA could use those 
     funds to: (1) build its capacity to use ESEA technical 
     assistance funds through the acquisition of high-quality 
     technical assistance and the selection of high-quality 
     technical assistance activities and providers that meet its 
     technical assistance needs; (2) develop, coordinate, and 
     implement an integrated system of providing technical 
     assistance to its schools using all sources of funds provided 
     for technical assistance, including all ESEA sources; and (3) 
     acquire the technical assistance it needs to increase 
     opportunities for all children to achieve to challenging 
     State academic content standards and student performance 
     standards and to implement the State's, or its own, plan or 
     policies for comprehensive standards-based education reform. 
     An LEA may use these funds for technical assistance 
     activities such as those described in section 2415(b) of the 
     ESEA.
       Section 2419, equitable services for private schools. 
     Section 2419 of the ESEA would describe how equitable 
     services would be provided to private schools. First, if an 
     SEA or LEA uses funds under Subpart 1 to provide professional 
     development for teachers or school administrators, the SEA or 
     LEA would be required to provide for professional development 
     for teachers or school administrators in private schools 
     located in the same geographic area on an equitable basis. 
     Similarly, if an SEA or LEA uses funds under Subpart 1 to 
     provide information about State educational goals, standards, 
     or assessments, the SEA or LEA would be required to provide 
     that information, upon request to private schools located in 
     the same geographic area. However, if an SEA or LEA is 
     prohibited by law from meeting these requirements, or the 
     Secretary determines the SEA or LEA has substantially failed 
     or is unwilling to comply with these requirements, the 
     Secretary shall waive these requirements and arrange for the 
     provision of professional development services for the 
     private school teachers or school administrators, consistent 
     with applicable State goals and standards and section 11806 
     of the ESEA.
       Section 2419A, consumer information. Section 2419A of the 
     ESEA would require the Secretary to establish, through one or 
     more contracts, an independent source of consumer information 
     regarding the quality and effectiveness of technical 
     assistance activities and providers available to States, 
     LEAs, and other recipients of funds under the ESEA, in 
     selecting technical assistance activities and providers for 
     their use. Such a contract could be awarded for a period of 
     up to five years, and the Secretary could reserve, from 
     the funds appropriated to carry out Subpart 1 for any 
     fiscal year, such sums as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to carry out section 2419A.
       Section 2419B, authorization of appropriations. Section 
     2419B of the ESEA would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001 and for each of 
     the four succeeding fiscal years to carry out Subpart 1.
       Subpart 2--Technical assistance centers serving special 
           needs
       Section 2421, general provisions. Section 2421 of the ESEA 
     would set out the general provisions applicable to all 
     technical assistance providers that receive funds under 
     Subpart 2, all consortia that receive funds under proposed 
     Subpart 2 of Part B of Title III of the ESEA (as amended by 
     Title III of the bill), and the educational laboratories, and 
     clearinghouses of the Educational Resources Information 
     Center, supported under the Educational Research, 
     Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act. Each 
     provider, consortium, laboratory or clearinghouse would be 
     required to: (1) participate in a technical assistance 
     network with the Department and other federally supported 
     technical assistance providers in order to coordinate 
     services and resources; (2) ensure that the services they 
     provide are high-quality, cost-effective, reflect the best 
     information available from research and practice, and are 
     aligned with State and local education reform efforts; (3) in 
     collaboration with SEAs in the States served, educational 
     service agencies (where appropriate), and representatives of 
     high-poverty, low-performing urban and rural LEAs in each 
     State served, develop a targeted approach to providing 
     technical assistance that gives priority to providing 
     intensive, ongoing services to high-poverty LEAs and schools 
     that are most in need of raising student achievement (such as 
     schools identified as in need of improvement under section 
     1116(c) of the ESEA); (4) cooperate with the Secretary in 
     carrying out activities (including technical assistance 
     activities authorized by other ESEA programs) such as 
     publicly disseminating materials and information that are 
     produced by the Department and are relevant to the purpose, 
     expertise, and mission of the technical assistance provider; 
     and (5) use technology, including electronic dissemination 
     networks and Internet-based resources, in innovative ways to 
     provide high-quality technical assistance.
       Section 2422, centers for technical assistance on the needs 
     of special populations. Section 2422 of the ESEA would 
     authorize the Secretary to award grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements to public or private nonprofit 
     entities (or consortia of those entities) to operate two new 
     centers to provide technical assistance to SEAs, LEAs, 
     schools, tribes, community-based organizations, and other 
     recipients of funds under the ESEA concerning how to address 
     the specific linguistic, cultural, or other needs of limited 
     English proficient, migratory, Indian, and Alaska Native 
     students, and educational strategies for enabling those 
     students to achieve to challenging State academic content and 
     performance standards. An entity could receive an award to 
     operate a center only if it demonstrates, to the satisfaction 
     of the Secretary, that it has expertise in these needs and 
     strategies, and an award under section 2422 could be up to 5 
     years in duration.
       Under section 2422(c), each center would be required to 
     maintain appropriate staff expertise, and provide support, 
     training, and assistance to SEAs, tribes, LEAs, schools, and 
     other ESEA funding recipients in meeting the needs of the 
     students in these special populations, including the 
     coordination of other Federal programs and State and local 
     programs, resources, and reforms. Each center would be 
     required to give priority to providing services to schools, 
     including Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools, that 
     educate the students described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and 
     have the highest percentages or numbers of children in 
     poverty and the lowest student achievement levels.
       Under section 2422(d), the Secretary would be required to: 
     (1) develop a set of performance indicators that assesses 
     whether the work of the centers assists in improving teaching 
     and learning under the ESEA for students in the special 
     populations described; (2) conduct surveys every two years of 
     entities to be served under this section to determine if they 
     are satisfied with the access to, and quality of, the 
     services provided; (3) collect, as part of the Department's 
     reviews of ESEA programs, information about the availability 
     and quality of services provided by the centers, and share 
     that information with the centers; and (4) take whatever 
     steps are reasonable and necessary to ensure that each center 
     performs its responsibilities in a satisfactory manner, which 
     may include termination of an award under this part, the 
     selection of a new center, and any necessary interim 
     arrangements. All of these activities are designed to ensure 
     the quality and effectiveness of the proposed centers.
       Section 2422(e) would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001 and for each of 
     the four succeeding fiscal years to carry out the purposes of 
     section 2422.
       Section 2423, parental information and resource centers. 
     Section 2423 of the ESEA would authorize Parental Information 
     and Resource Centers (PIRCs), which are currently authorized 
     under Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
       Section 2423(a) would authorize the Secretary to award 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to nonprofit 
     organizations that serve parents (particularly those 
     organizations that make substantial efforts to reach low-
     income, minority, or limited English proficient parents) to 
     establish PIRCs. The PIRCs would coordinate the efforts of 
     Federal, State, and local parent education and family 
     involvement initiatives. In addition, the PIRCs would provide 
     training, information, and support to SEAs, LEAs 
     (particularly LEAs with high-poverty and low-performing 
     schools), schools (particularly high-poverty and low-
     performing schools), and organizations that support family-
     school partnerships (such as parent teacher organizations). 
     In making awards, the Secretary would be required, to the

[[Page S6343]]

     greatest extent possible, to ensure that each State is served 
     by at least one award recipient. Currently, there are PIRCs 
     in all 50 States. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 
     each territory.
       Section 2423(b) would establish the application 
     requirements for the PIRCs. Applicants desiring assistance 
     under section 2423 would be required to submit an application 
     at such time, and in such manner, as the Secretary shall 
     determine. At a minimum, the application would include: a 
     description of the applicant's capacity and expertise to 
     implement a grant under section 2423; a description of how 
     the applicant would use its award to help SEAs and LEAs, 
     schools, and non-profit organizations in the State 
     (particularly those organizations that make substantial 
     efforts to reach a large number or percentage of low-income 
     minority, or limited English proficient children) to: (1) 
     identify barriers to parent or family involvement in schools, 
     and strategies to overcome those barriers; and (2) implement 
     high-quality parent education and family involvement programs 
     that improve the capacity of parents to participate more 
     effectively in the education of their children, support the 
     effective implementation of research-based instructional 
     activities that support parents and families in promoting 
     early language and literacy development and support schools 
     in promoting meaningful parent and family involvement; a 
     description of the applicant's plan to disseminate 
     information on high-quality parent education and family 
     involvement programs to LEAs, schools, and non-profit 
     organizations that serve parents in the State; a description 
     of how the applicant would coordinate its activities with the 
     activities of other Federal, State, and local parent 
     education and family involvement programs and with national, 
     State and local organizations that provide parents and 
     families with training, information, and support on how to 
     help their children prepare for success in school and achieve 
     to high academic standards; a description of how the 
     applicant would use technology, particularly the Worldwide 
     Web, to disseminate information; and a description of the 
     applicant's goals for the center, as well as baseline 
     indicators for each of the goals, a timeline for achieving 
     the goals, and interim measures of success toward achieving 
     the goals.
       Section 2423(c) would limit the Federal share to not more 
     than 75 percent of the cost of a PIRC. The non-Federal share 
     may be in cash or in kind. Under current law, a grant 
     recipient must provide a match in each fiscal year after the 
     first year of the grant, but does not specify the amount of 
     the match.
       Section 2423(d)(1) would establish the allowable uses for 
     program funds. Recipients would be required to use their 
     awards to support SEAs and LEAs, schools, and non-profit 
     organizations in implementing programs that provide parents 
     with training, information, and support on how to help their 
     children achieve to high academic standards. Such activities 
     could include: assistance in the implementation of programs 
     that support parents and families in promoting early language 
     and literacy development and prepare children to enter school 
     ready to succeed in school; assistance in developing networks 
     and other strategies to support the use of research-based, 
     proven models of parent education and family involvement, 
     including the ``Parents as Teachers'' and ``Home Instruction 
     Program for Preschool Youngsters'' programs, to promote 
     children's development and learning; assistance in preparing 
     parents to communicate more effectively with teachers and 
     other professional educators and support staff, and providing 
     a means for on-going, meaningful communication between 
     parents and schools; assistance in developing and 
     implementing parent education and family involvement programs 
     that increase parental knowledge about standards-based school 
     reform; and disseminating information on programs, resources, 
     and services available at the national, State, and local 
     levels that support parent and family involvement in the 
     education of their school-age children.
       Section 2423(d)(2) would require that each recipient use at 
     least 75 percent of its award to support activities that 
     serve areas with large numbers or concentrations of low-
     income families. Currently, recipients are required to use 50 
     percent of their funds to provide services to low-income 
     areas.
       Section 2423(e) would authorize the Secretary to reserve up 
     to 5 percent of the funds appropriated for section 2423 to 
     provide technical assistance to the PIRCs and to carry out 
     evaluations of program activities.
       Section 2423(f) of the ESEA would set out three 
     definitions, taken from current law, for purposes of section 
     2423. The term ``parent education'' would be defined to 
     include parent support activities, the provision of resource 
     materials on child development, parent-child learning 
     activities and child rearing issues, private and group 
     educational guidance, individual and group learning 
     experiences for the parent and child, and other activities 
     that enable the parent to improve learning in the home.
       The term ``Parents as Teachers program'' would be defined 
     as a voluntary childhood parent education program that: is 
     designed to provide all parents of children from birth 
     through age 5 with the information and support that such 
     parents need to give their child a solid foundation for 
     school success; is based on the Missouri Parents as Teachers 
     model, with the philosophy that parents are their child's 
     first and most influential teachers; provides regularly 
     scheduled personal visits with families by certified parent 
     educators; provides regularly scheduled developmental 
     screenings; and provides linkage with other resources within 
     the community to provide services that parents may want and 
     need, except that such services are beyond the scope of the 
     Parents As Teachers program.
       The term ``Home Instruction for Preschool Youngsters 
     program'' would be defined as a voluntary early-learning 
     program for parents with one or more children between the 
     ages of 3 through 5 that provides support, training, and 
     appropriate educational materials necessary for parents to 
     implement a school-readiness, home instruction program for 
     their child. Such a program also includes: group meetings 
     with other parents participating in the program; individual 
     and group learning experiences with the parent and child; 
     provision of resource materials on child development and 
     parent-child learning activities; and other activities that 
     enable the parent to improve learning in the home.
       Section 2423(g) would require each PIRC to submit an annual 
     report on its activities. The report would include at least: 
     the number and types of activities supported by the recipient 
     with program funds; activities supported by the recipient 
     that served areas with high numbers or concentrations of low-
     income families; and the progress made by the PIRC in 
     achieving the goals included in its application.
       Section 2423(h) would prohibit any individual from being 
     required to participate in any parent education program or 
     developmental screening supported by program funds. In 
     addition, PIRCs would be prohibited from infringing on the 
     right of a parent to direct the education of their children. 
     Finally, the requirements of section 444(c) of the General 
     Education Provisions Act, relating to procedures protecting 
     the rights of privacy of students and their families in 
     connection with surveys or data-gathering activities, would 
     apply to PIRCs. All of these protections would be continued 
     from current law.
       Section 2423(i) would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 
     to carry out the PIRC program.
       Section 2424, Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science 
     Education Consortia. Section 2424 of the ESEA would authorize 
     the establishment and operation of the Eisenhower Regional 
     Mathematics and Science Education Consortia. The Eisenhower 
     Consortia are currently authorized under Part C of Title XIII 
     of the ESEA. In addition to updating current law to eliminate 
     outdated or unnecessary provisions and making structural 
     changes, section 2424 would eliminate some of the current 
     authorized uses of funds for the Eisenhower Consortia in 
     order to focus the uses of funds more closely on the 
     program's core purposes. Section 2424 would also authorize 
     the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 to carry out the Eisenhower 
     Consortia.
       Subpart 3--Technology-based technical assistance 
           information dissemination
       Section 2431, Web-based and other information 
     dissemination. Section 2431 of the ESEA would authorize the 
     Secretary to carry out, through grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements, a national system, through the 
     Worldwide Web and other advanced telecommunications 
     technologies, that supports interactive information sharing 
     and dissemination about ways to improve educational practices 
     throughout the Nation. In designing and implementing this 
     proposed information dissemination system, the Secretary 
     would be required to create opportunities for the continuing 
     input of students, teachers, administrators, and other 
     individuals who participate in, or may be affected by, the 
     Nation's educational system.
       The proposed new information dissemination would include 
     information on: (1) stimulating instructional materials that 
     are aligned with challenging content standards; and (2) 
     successful and innovative practices in instruction, 
     professional development, challenging academic content and 
     student performance standards, assessments, effective school 
     management, and such other areas as the Secretary determines 
     are appropriate.
       Under section 2431(a)(3)(A), the Secretary could require 
     the technical assistance providers funded under proposed Part 
     D of Title II of the ESEA (as amended by Title III of the 
     bill), or the educational laboratories and clearinghouses of 
     the Educational Resources Information Center supported under 
     the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and 
     Improvement Act, to: (1) provide information (including 
     information on practices employed in the regions or States 
     served by the providers) for use in the proposed information 
     dissemination system; (2) coordinate their activities in 
     order to ensure a unified system of technical assistance; or 
     (3) otherwise participate in the proposed information 
     dissemination system. Under section 2431(a)(3)(B), the 
     Secretary would be required to ensure that these 
     dissemination activities are integrated with, and do not 
     duplicate, the dissemination activities of the Office of 
     Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), and that the 
     public has access, through this system, to the latest 
     research, statistics, and other information supported by, or 
     available from, OERI.
       Section 2431(b) would authorize the Secretary to carry out 
     additional activities, using advanced telecommunications 
     technologies where appropriate, to assist LEAs,

[[Page S6344]]

     SEAs, tribes, and other ESEA recipients in meeting the 
     requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993. This assistance could include information on measuring 
     and benchmarking program performance and student outcomes.
       Section 2432 would authorize the appropriate of such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to 
     carry out Subpart 3.
       Subpart 4--National evaluation activities
       Section 2441, national evaluation activities. Section 2441 
     of the ESEA would require the Secretary to conduct, directly 
     or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, such 
     activities as the Secretary determines necessary to: (1) 
     determine what constitutes effective technical assistance; 
     (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the technical assistance 
     and dissemination programs authorized by, or assisted under, 
     Part E of Title II of the ESEA, and the educational 
     laboratories, and clearinghouses of the Educational Resources 
     Information Center, supported under the Educational Research, 
     Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act, 
     (notwithstanding any other provision of such Act); and (3) 
     increase the effectiveness of those programs.


                   title iii-technology for education

       Section 301. Short Title. Section 301 of the bill would 
     amend section 3101 of the ESEA to change the short title for 
     Title III of the ESEA to the ``Technology For Education 
     Act.''
       Section 302. Findings. Section 302 of the bill would update 
     the findings in section 3111 of the ESEA to reflect progress 
     that has been made in achieving the four national technology 
     goals and identify those areas in which progress still needs 
     to be made.
       Section 303. Statement of Purpose. Section 303 of the bill 
     would amend section 3112 of the ESEA to better align the 
     purposes of Title III of the ESEA to the national technology 
     goals and the Department's goals for the use of educational 
     technology to improve teaching and learning. The purposes for 
     this title are to: (1) help provide all classrooms with 
     access to educational technology through support for the 
     acquisition of advanced multimedia computers, Internet 
     connections, and other technologies; (2) help ensure access 
     to, and effective use of, educational technology in all 
     classrooms through the provision of sustained and intensive, 
     high-quality professional development that improves teachers' 
     capability to integrate educational technology effectively 
     into their classrooms by actively engaging students and 
     teachers in the use of technology; (3) help improve the 
     capability of teachers to design and construct new learning 
     experiences using technology, and actively engage students in 
     that design and construction; (4) support efforts by SEAs and 
     LEAs to create learning environments designed to prepare 
     students to achieve to challenging State academic content and 
     performance standards through the use of research-based 
     teaching practices and advanced technologies, (5) support 
     technical assistance to State educational agencies, local 
     educational agencies, and communities to to help them use 
     technology-based resources and information systems to support 
     school reform and meet the needs of students and teachers; 
     (6) support the development of applications that make use of 
     such technologies as advanced telecommunications, hand-held 
     devices, web-based learning resources, distance learning 
     networks, and modeling and simulation software; (7) support 
     Federal partnerships with business and industry to realize 
     more rapidly the potential of digital communications to 
     expand the scope of, and opportunities for, learning; (8) 
     support evaluation and research on the effective use of 
     technology in preparing all students to achieve to 
     challenging State academic content and performance standards, 
     and the impact of technology and performance standards, and 
     the impact of technology on teaching and learning; (9) 
     provide national leadership to stimulate and coordinate 
     public and private efforts, at the national, State and local 
     levels, that support the development and integration of 
     advanced technologies and applications to improve school 
     planning and classroom instruction; (10) support the 
     development, or redesign, of teacher preparation programs to 
     enable prospective teachers to integrate the use of 
     technology in teaching and learning; (11) increase the 
     capacity of State and local educational agencies to improve 
     student achievement, particularly that of students in high-
     poverty, low-performing schools; (12) promote the formation 
     of partnerships and consortia to stimulate the development 
     of; and new uses for, technology in teaching and learning; 
     (13) support the creation or expansion of community 
     technology centers that will provide disadvantaged residents 
     of economically distressed urban and rural communities with 
     access to information technology and related training; and 
     (14) help to ensure that technology is accessible to, and 
     usable by, all students, particularly students with 
     disabilities or limited English proficiency.
       Section 304. Prohibition Against Supplanting. Section 304 
     of the bill would repeal section 3113 of the ESEA, which 
     currently contains the definitions applicable to Title III of 
     the ESEA. Definitions would instead be placed in the part of 
     the title to which they apply. In its place, section 304 of 
     the bill would add a new section 3113 to the ESEA that would 
     require a recipient of funds awarded under this title to use 
     that award only to supplement the amount of funds or 
     resources that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, 
     be made available from non-Federal sources for the purposes 
     of the programs authorized under Title III of the ESEA, and 
     not to supplant those non-Federal funds or resources.
     Part A--Federal leadership and national activities
       Section 311. Structure of Part. Section 311 of the bill 
     would make technical changes to Title III of the ESEA to 
     eliminate the current structure of Part A of Title III of the 
     ESEA and add a new heading for Part A, Federal Leadership and 
     National Activities. This section also would repeal the 
     current Product Development program, which has never received 
     funding.
       Section 312. National Long-Range Technology Plan. Section 
     312 of the bill would amend section 3121 of the ESEA, which 
     currently requires the Secretary to publish a national long-
     range technology plan within one year of the enactment of the 
     Improving America's School Act of 1994. Instead, section 
     312(1) of the bill would amend section 3121(a) of the ESEA to 
     require the Secretary to update the national long-range 
     technology plan within one year of the enactment of the bill 
     and to broadly disseminate the updated plan.
       Section 312(2) of the bill would amend section 3121(c) of 
     the ESEA, which establishes the requirements for the national 
     long-range technology plan, by adding the requirements that 
     the plan describe how the Secretary will: promote the full 
     integration of technology into learning, including the 
     creation of new instructional opportunities through access to 
     challenging courses and information that would otherwise not 
     have been available, and independent learning opportunities 
     for students through technology; encourage the creation of 
     opportunities for teachers to develop, through the use of 
     technology, their own networks and resources for sustained 
     and intensive, high-quality professional development; and 
     encourage the commercial development of effective, high-
     quality, cost-competitive educational technology and 
     software.
       Section 313. Federal Leadership. Section 313 of the bill 
     would amend section 3122 of the ESEA, which authorizes a 
     program of Federal leadership in promoting the use of 
     technology in education. Section 313(1) of the bill would 
     amend 3122(a) of the ESEA by eliminating a reference to the 
     United States National Commission on Libraries and 
     Information Systems, and replacing it with the White House 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy, on the list of 
     agencies with which the Secretary consults under this 
     program.
       Section 313(2) of the bill would amend section 3122(b)(1) 
     of the ESEA by removing the reference to the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act, which would be repealed by another 
     section of this bill. The National Education Goals would be 
     renamed America's Education Goals and added to the ESEA by 
     section 2 of the bill.
       Section 313(3) of the bill would amend current 3122(c) of 
     the ESEA by eliminating the authority for the Secretary to 
     undertake activities designed to facilitate maximum 
     interoperability of educational technologies. Instead, the 
     Secretary would be authorized to develop a national 
     repository of information on the effective uses of 
     educational technology, including its use of sustained and 
     intensive, high-quality professional development, and the 
     dissemination of that information nationwide.
       Section 314. Repeals; Redesignations; Authorization of 
     Appropriations. Section 314 of the bill would repeal sections 
     3114 (Authorization of Appropriations), 3115 (Limitation on 
     Costs), and 3123 (Study, Evaluation, and Report of Funding 
     Alternatives) of the ESEA. As amended by the bill, an 
     authorization of appropriations section would be included in 
     the part of Title III of the ESEA to which it applies. These 
     changes would also eliminate the current statutory provision 
     that requires that funds be used for a discretionary grant 
     program when appropriations for current Part A of Title III 
     of the ESEA are less than $75 million, and for a State 
     formula grant program when the appropriation exceeds that 
     amount. This provision must currently be overridden in 
     appropriation language each year in order to operate both the 
     Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology 
     Innovation Challenge Grants program.
       Section 314(b) of the bill would redesignate several 
     sections of the ESEA, and would add new sections 3101 and 
     3104 of the ESEA. Proposed new section 3101 of the ESEA 
     (``National Evaluation of Education Technology'') would 
     require the Secretary to develop and carry out a strategy for 
     an ongoing evaluation of existing and anticipated future uses 
     of educational technology. This national evaluation strategy 
     would be designed to better inform the Federal role in 
     supporting the use of educational technology, in stimulating 
     reform and innovation in teaching and learning with 
     technology, and in advancing the development of more advanced 
     and new types and applications of such technology. As part 
     of this evaluation strategy, the Secretary would be 
     authorized to: conduct long-term controlled studies on the 
     effectiveness of the uses of educational technology; 
     convene panels of experts to identify uses of educational 
     technology that hold the greatest promise for improving 
     teaching and learning, assist the Secretary with the 
     review and assessment of the progress and effectiveness of 
     projects that are funded under this title, and identify 
     barriers to the commercial development of effective, high-
     quality, cost-competitive educational technology

[[Page S6345]]

     and software; conduct evaluations and applied research 
     studies that examine how students learn using educational 
     technology, whether singly or in groups, and across age 
     groups, student populations (including students with 
     special needs, such as students with limited English 
     proficiency and students with disabilities) and settings, 
     and the characteristics of classrooms and other 
     educational settings that use educational technology 
     effectively; collaborate with other Federal agencies that 
     support research on, and evaluation of, the use of network 
     technology in educational settings; and carry out such 
     other activities as the Secretary determines appropriate. 
     The Secretary would be authorized to use up to 4 percent 
     of the funds appropriated to carry out Title III of the 
     ESEA for any fiscal year to carry out national evaluation 
     strategy in that year.
       Proposed new section 3104 of the ESEA (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the national evaluation 
     strategy, national plan, and Federal Leadership activities 
     for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
     PART B--Special projects
       Section 321. Repeals; Redesignations; New Part. Section 321 
     of the bill would make several structural and conforming 
     changes to Title III of the ESEA. Section 321(a) of the bill 
     would repeal Part B, the Star Schools Program, and Part E, 
     the Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment Program. 
     Section 321(b) of the bill would redesignate current Part C 
     of Title III of the ESEA, Ready-To-Learn Television, as 
     Subpart 2 of Part B of Title III of the ESEA, and redesignate 
     current Part D of Title III of the ESEA, Telecommunications 
     Demonstration Project for Mathematics as Subpart 3 of Part B 
     of Title III of the ESEA.
       Section 321(d) of the bill would add a new Subpart 1, Next-
     Generation Technology Innovation Awards, to Part B of Title 
     III of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 3211 of the ESEA (``Purpose; Program 
     Authority'') would state, in subsection (a), that it is the 
     purpose of the program to: (1) expand the knowledge base 
     about the use of the next generation of advanced computers 
     and telecommunications in delivering new applications for 
     teaching and learning; (2) address questions of national 
     significance about the next generation of technology and its 
     use to improve teaching and learning; and (3) develop, for 
     wide-scale adoption by SEAs and LEAs, models of innovative 
     and effective applications in teaching and learning of 
     technology, such as high-quality video, voice recognition 
     devices, modeling and simulation software (particularly web-
     based software and intelligent tutoring), hand-held devices, 
     and virtual reality and wireless technologies, that are 
     aligned with challenging State academic content and 
     performance standards. These purposes would focus the 
     projects funded under this proposed new subpart on developing 
     ``cutting edge'' applications of educational technology.
       Proposed new section 3211(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the Secretary, through the Office of Educational Technology, 
     to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements on a 
     competitive basis to eligible applicants. Proposed new 
     section 3211(c) of the bill would state that  those awards 
     could be made for a period of not more than five years.
       Proposed new section 3212 of the ESEA (``Eligibility'') 
     would specify the eligibility and application requirements 
     for the proposed new program. Under proposed new section 
     3212(a) of the ESEA, in order to be eligible to receive an 
     award an applicant would have to be a consortium that 
     includes: (1) at least one SEA or LEA; and (2) at least one 
     institution of higher education, for-profit business, museum, 
     library, other public or private entity with a particular 
     expertise that would assist in carrying out the purposes of 
     the proposed new subpart.
       Under proposed new section 3212(b) of the ESEA, applicants 
     would be required to provide a description of the proposed 
     project and how it would carry out the purposes of the 
     program, and a detailed plan for the independent evaluation 
     of the program, which must include benchmarks to monitor 
     progress toward the specific project objectives.
       Proposed new section 3212(c) of the ESEA would allow the 
     Secretary, when making awards, to set one or more priorities. 
     Priorities could be provided for: (1) applications from 
     consortia that consist of particular types of the members 
     described in proposed new section 3212(a) of the ESEA; (2) 
     projects that develop innovative models of effective use of 
     educational technology, including the development of distance 
     learning networks, software (including software deliverable 
     through the Internet), and online-learning resources; (3) 
     projects serving more than one State and involving large-
     scale innovations in the use of technology in education; (4) 
     projects that develop innovative models that serve 
     traditionally underserved populations, including low-income 
     students, students with disabilities, and students with 
     limited English proficiency; (5) projects in which applicants 
     provide substantial financial and other resources to achieve 
     the goals of the project; and (6) projects that develop 
     innovative models for using electronic networks to provide 
     challenging courses, such as Advanced Placement courses.
       Proposed new section 3213 of the ESEA (``Uses of Funds'') 
     would require award recipients to use their program funds to 
     develop new applications of educational technologies and 
     telecommunications to support school reform efforts, such as 
     wireless and web-based telecommunications, hand-held devices, 
     web-based learning resources, distributed learning 
     environments (including distance learning networks), and the 
     development of educational software and other applications. 
     In addition, recipients would also be required to use program 
     funds to carry out activities consistent with the purposes of 
     the proposed new subpart, such as: (1) developing innovative 
     models for improving teachers' ability to integrate 
     technology effectively into course curriculum, through 
     sustained and intensive, high-quality professional 
     development; (2) developing high-quality, standards-based, 
     digital content, including multimedia software, digital 
     video, and web-based resources; (3) using telecommunications, 
     and other technologies, to make programs accessible to 
     students with special needs (such as low-income students, 
     students with disabilities, students in remote areas, and 
     students with limited English proficiency) through such 
     activities as using technology to support mentoring; (4) 
     providing classroom and extracurricular opportunities for 
     female students to explore the different uses of technology; 
     (5) promoting school-family partnerships, which may include 
     services for adults and families, particularly parent 
     education programs that provide parents with training, 
     information, and support on how to help their children 
     achieve to high academic standards; (6) acquiring 
     connectivity linkages, resources, distance learning networks, 
     and services, including hardware and software, as needed to 
     accomplish the goals of the project; and (7) collaborating 
     with other Department of Education and Federal information 
     technology research and development programs.
       Proposed new section 3214 of the ESEA (``Evaluation'') 
     would authorize the Secretary to: (1) develop tools and 
     provide resources for recipients of funds under the proposed 
     new subpart to evaluate their activities; (2) provide 
     technical assistance to assist recipients in evaluating their 
     projects; (3) conduct independent evaluations of the 
     activities assisted under the proposed new subpart; and (4) 
     disseminate findings and methodologies from evaluations 
     assisted under the proposed new subpart, or other information 
     obtained from such projects that would promote the design and 
     implementation of effective models for evaluating the impact 
     of educational technology on teaching and learning. This 
     evaluation authority would enable the Department to provide 
     projects with tools for evaluation and disseminate the 
     findings from the individual project evaluations.
       Proposed new section 3215 of the ESEA (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this part of fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005.
       Section 322. Ready To Learn Digital Television. Section 322 
     of the bill would amend the subpart heading for Subpart 2 of 
     Part B of Title III of the ESEA (as redesignated by section 
     321(b) of the bill) to reflect advances in technology by 
     replacing the reference to ``television'' with a reference to 
     ``digital television.''
       In addition, section 322 of the bill would amend the 
     provisions of this subpart to reflect the redesignations made 
     by section 321(c) of the bill, and to authorize the 
     appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subpart for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       Section 323. Telecommunications Program for Professional 
     Development in the Core Content Areas. Section 323(a) of the 
     bill would amend the heading for Subpart 3 of Part B of Title 
     III (as redesignated by section 321(b) of the bill) from the 
     current ``Telecommunications Demonstration Project for 
     Mathematics'' to ``Telecommunications Program for 
     Professional Development in the Core Content Areas.''
       Section 323(b) of the bill would amend section 3231 of the 
     ESEA (as redesignated by section 321(c) of the bill), which 
     currently states the purpose of this part as carrying out a 
     national telecommunications-based demonstration project to 
     improve the teaching of mathematics and to assist elementary 
     and secondary school teachers in preparing all students for 
     achieving State content standards. As amended by section 
     323(b) of the bill, this program would no longer be only a 
     demonstration project, and its purposes would be expanded to 
     assist elementary and secondary school teachers in preparing 
     all students to achieve to challenging State academic content 
     and performance standards through a national 
     telecommunications-based program to improve teaching in all 
     core content areas, not just mathematics.
       Section 323(c) of the bill would amend the application 
     requirements in section 3232 of the ESEA (as redesignated by 
     section 321(c) of the bill) to eliminate references to the 
     program as a demonstration project, update the references to 
     technology, expand the types of entities with which 
     recipients would be required to coordinate their efforts, and 
     make conforming changes.
       Section 323(d) of the bill would amend section 3233 of the 
     ESEA (as redesignated by section 321(c) of the bill) to 
     authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this subpart for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       Section 324. Community Technology Centers. Section 324 of 
     the bill would add a new Subpart 4, Community Technology 
     Centers, to Part B of Title III of the ESEA.

[[Page S6346]]

       Proposed new section 3241 of the ESEA (``Purpose; Program 
     Authority'') would state, in subsection (a), that the purpose 
     of this proposed new subpart is to assist eligible applicants 
     to create or expand community technology centers that will 
     provide disadvantaged residents of economically distressed 
     urban and rural communities with access to information 
     technology and related training and provide technical 
     assistance and support to community technology centers.
       Proposed new section 3241(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the Secretary, through the Office of Educational Technology, 
     to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements on a 
     competitive basis to eligible applicants to carry out the 
     purposes of the proposed new subpart. The Secretary could 
     make these awards for a period of not more than three years.
       Proposed new section 3242 of the ESEA (``Eligibility and 
     Application Requirements'') would set out the eligibility and 
     application requirements for the proposed new subpart. Under 
     proposed new section 3242(a) of the ESEA, to be eligible an 
     applicant must: (1) have the capacity to expand significantly 
     access to computers and related services for disadvantaged 
     residents of economically distressed urban and rural 
     communities (who would otherwise be denied such access); and 
     (2) be an entity such as a foundation, museum, library, for-
     profit business, public or private nonprofit 
     organizations, community-based organization, an 
     institution of higher education, an SEA, and LEA, or a 
     consortium of these entities.
       Under the application requirements in proposed new section 
     3242(b) of the ESEA, an applicant would be required to submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, and containing 
     such information, as the Secretary may require, and that 
     application must include: (1) a description of the proposed 
     project, including a description of the magnitude of the need 
     for the services and how the project would expand access to 
     information technology and related services to disadvantaged 
     residents of an economically distressed urban or rural 
     community; (2) a demonstration of the commitment, including 
     the financial commitment, of entities such as institutions, 
     organizations, business and other groups in the community 
     that will provide support for the creation, expansion, and 
     continuation of the proposed project, and the extent to which 
     the proposed project establishes linkages with other 
     appropriate agencies, efforts, and organizations providing 
     services to disadvantaged residents of an economically 
     distressed urban or rural community; (3) a description of how 
     the proposed project would be sustained once the Federal 
     funds awarded under this subpart end; and (4) a plan for the 
     evaluation of the program, including benchmarks to monitor 
     progress toward specific project objectives.
       Under proposed new section 3242(c) of the ESEA, the Federal 
     share of the cost of any project funded under the proposed 
     new subpart could not exceed 50 percent, and the non-Federal 
     share of such project may be in cash or in kind, fairly 
     evaluated, including services.
       Proposed new section 3243 of the ESEA (``Uses of Funds'') 
     would describe the required and permissible uses of funds 
     awarded under the proposed new subpart. Under proposed new 
     section 3243(a) of the ESEA, a recipient would be required to 
     use these funds for creating or expanding community 
     technology centers that expand access to information 
     technology and related training for disadvantaged residents 
     of distressed urban or rural communities, and evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the project.
       Under proposed new section 3243(b) of the ESEA, a recipient 
     could use funds awarded under the proposed new subpart for 
     activities that it described in its application that carry 
     out the purposes of this subpart such as: (1) supporting a 
     center coordinator, and staff, to supervise instruction and 
     build community partnerships; (2) acquiring equipment, 
     networking capabilities, and infrastructure to carry out the 
     project; and (3) developing and providing services and 
     activities for community residents that provide access to 
     computers, information technology, and the use of such 
     technology in support of pre-school preparation, academic 
     achievement, lifelong learning, and workforce development job 
     preparation activities.
       Proposed new section 3244 of the Act (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the proposed new 
     subpart for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
     Part C--Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology
       Section 331. New Part. Section 331 of the bill would amend 
     Title III of the ESEA by adding a new Part C, Preparing 
     Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology.
       Proposed new section 3301 of the ESEA (``Purpose; Program 
     Authority'') would state, in subsection (a), that the purpose 
     of the proposed new part is to assist consortia of public and 
     private entities in carrying out programs that prepare 
     prospective teachers to use advanced technology to foster 
     learning environments conducive to preparing all students to 
     achieve to challenging State and local content and student 
     performance standards.
       Proposed new section 3301(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the Secretary, through the Office of Educational Technology, 
     to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements on a 
     competitive basis to eligible applicants in order to assist 
     them in developing or redesigning teacher preparation 
     programs to enable prospective teachers to use technology 
     effectively in their classrooms. The Secretary could make 
     these awards for a period of not more than five years.
       Proposed new section 3302 of the ESEA (``Eligibility'') 
     would detail the eligibility, application, and matching 
     requirements for the proposed new part. To be eligible under 
     proposed new section 3302(a), an applicant must be a 
     consortium that includes at least one institution of higher 
     education that offers a baccalaureate degree and prepares 
     teachers for their initial entry into teaching, and at least 
     one SEA or LEA. In addition, each consortium must include at 
     least one of the following entities: an institution of higher 
     education (other than the institution described above); a 
     school or department of education at an institution of higher 
     education; a school or college of arts and sciences at an 
     institution of higher education; a private elementary or 
     secondary school; or a professional association, foundation, 
     museum, library, for-profit business, public or private 
     nonprofit organization, community-based organization, or 
     other entity with the capacity to contribute to the 
     technology-related reform of teacher preparation programs.
       The application requirements in proposed new section 
     3302(b) of the ESEA would require an applicant to submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, and containing 
     such information, as the Secretary may require, and that 
     application would be required to include: a description of 
     the proposed project, including how the project would ensure 
     that individuals participating in the project would be 
     prepared to use technology to create learning environments 
     conducive to preparing all students to achieve to challenging 
     State and local content and student performance standards; a 
     demonstration of the commitment, including the financial 
     commitment, of each of the members of the consortium to the 
     proposed project; a demonstration of the active support of 
     the leadership of each member of the consortium for the 
     proposed project; a description of how each member of the 
     consortium would be included in project activities; a 
     description of how the proposed project would be sustained 
     once the Federal funds awarded under this part end; and a 
     plan for the evaluation of the program, which shall include 
     benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project 
     objectives.
       Proposed new section 3302(c)(1) of the ESEA would limit the 
     Federal share of any project funded under this part to no 
     more than 50 percent of the cost of the project. The non-
     Federal share may be in cash or in kind, except as required 
     under proposed new section 3302(c)(2) of the ESEA, which 
     would limit, to not more than 10 percent of the funds awarded 
     for a project under this part, the amount that may be used to 
     acquire equipment, networking capabilities or infrastructure, 
     and would require that the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     any such acquisition be in cash.
       Proposed new section 3303 of the ESEA (``Uses of Funds'') 
     would establish the required and permissible uses of funds 
     awarded under the proposed new part. Under proposed new 
     section 3303(a) of the ESEA, recipients would be required to: 
     create programs that enable prospective teachers to use 
     advanced technology to create learning environments conducive 
     to preparing all students to achieve to challenging State and 
     local content and student performance standards; and evaluate 
     the effectiveness of the project.
       Under proposed new section 3303(b), recipients would be 
     permitted to use funds for activities such as: developing and 
     implementing high-quality teacher preparation programs that 
     enable educators to learn the full range of resources that 
     can be accessed through the use of technology, integrate a 
     variety of technologies into the classroom in order to 
     expand students' knowledge, evaluate educational 
     technologies and their potential for use in instruction, 
     and help students develop their own digital learning 
     environments; developing alternative teacher development 
     paths that provide elementary and secondary schools with 
     well-prepared, technology-proficient educators; developing 
     performance-based standards and aligned assessments to 
     measure the capacity of prospective teachers to use 
     technology effectively in their classrooms; providing 
     technical assistance to other teacher preparation 
     programs; developing and disseminating resources and 
     information in order to assist institutions of higher 
     education to prepare teachers to use technology 
     effectively in their classrooms; and acquiring equipment, 
     networking capabilities, and infrastructure to carry out 
     the project.
       Proposed new section 3304 of the ESEA (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the proposed new part 
     for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
     Part D--Regional, State, and local educational technology 
         resources
       Section 341. Repeal; New Part. Section 341 of the bill 
     would add a new Part D, Regional, State, and Local 
     Educational Technology Resources, to Title III of the ESEA 
     that would consist of two subparts: Subpart 1, the Technology 
     Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF), and Subpart 2, Regional 
     Technology in Education Consortia (RTECs).
       Proposed new section 3411 of the ESEA (``Purpose'') would 
     state that it is the purpose of the TLCF to increase the 
     capacity of

[[Page S6347]]

     SEAs and LEAs to improve student achievement, particularly 
     that of students in high-poverty, low-performing schools, by 
     supporting State and local efforts to: (1) make effective use 
     of new technologies and technology applications, networks, 
     and electronic resources; (2) utilize research-based teaching 
     practices that are linked to advanced technologies; and (3) 
     promote sustained and intensive, high-quality professional 
     development that increases teacher capacity to create 
     improved learning environments through the integration of 
     educational technology into instruction. These purposes would 
     focus program efforts on activities that have been proven to 
     improve teaching and learning.
       Section 342. Allotment and Reallotment. Section 342 of the 
     bill would amend section 3131(a)(2) of the ESEA, which 
     pertains to the allotment and reallotment of TLCF funds. 
     First, for purposes of section 3131 of the ESEA, ``State 
     educational agency'' would be defined to include the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs (BIA). This change is necessary because the 
     current definition is in section 3113 of the ESEA, which is 
     proposed for repeal in section 3004 of the bill.
       Next, section 342 of the bill would amend section 
     3131(a)(2) of the ESEA by modifying the minimum TLCF State 
     grant amount in two ways. First, the minimum amount would be 
     the lesser of one-half of one percent of the appropriations 
     for TLCF for a fiscal year, or $2,250,000. Second, the new 
     minimum amount would apply in the aggregate to the amount 
     received by the Outlying Areas. Currently, this aggregate 
     minimum amount for the Outlying Areas is accomplished through 
     appropriations language each year.
       Section 343. Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Section 
     343 of the bill would amend current 3132(a)(2) of the ESEA to 
     require an SEA to award not less than 95 percent of its 
     allocation to eligible local applicants (from which up to 2 
     percent of its total allocation could be used for planning 
     subgrants to LEAs that need assistance in developing local 
     technology plans). An SEA could use the remainder of its 
     allocation for administrative costs and technical assistance. 
     This change is necessary because section 314 of the bill 
     would repeal current 3115 of the ESEA, which limited the 
     amount of any grant that could be used for administrative 
     expenses.
       Section 343 of the bill would also require an SEA to 
     provide a priority for eligible local applicants that are 
     partnerships. (``Eligible local applicant'' is defined in 
     proposed new section 3417 of the ESEA, as added by section 
     348 of the bill.)
       Section 343(3) of the bill would amend 3132(b)(2) of the 
     ESEA, which currently requires SEAs to provide technical 
     assistance in developing applications for program funds to 
     LEAs with high concentrations of poor children and a 
     demonstrated need for such assistance. In addition to this 
     requirement, the amended section 3132(b)(2) of the ESEA would 
     also require that an SEA provide an eligible local applicant 
     with assistance in forming partnerships to apply for program 
     funds and developing performance indicators.
       Section 344. State Application. Section 344 of the bill 
     would completely revise the application requirements for the 
     State formula grant program in section 3133 of the ESEA. As 
     revised, section 3133 of the ESEA would require an SEA to: 
     (1) provide a new or updated State technology plan that is 
     aligned with the State plan or policies for comprehensive 
     standards-based education reform; (2) describe how I will 
     meet the national technology goals; (3) describe its long-
     term strategies for financing educational technology, 
     including how it would use other Federal and non-Federal 
     funds, including E-Rate funds; (4) describe and explain its 
     criteria for identifying an LEA as high-poverty and having a 
     substantial need for technology; (5) describe its goals for 
     using educational technology to improve student achievement; 
     (6) establish performance indicators for each of its goals 
     described in the plan, baseline performance data for the 
     indicators, a timeline for achieving the goals, and interim 
     measures of success toward achieving the goals; (7) describe 
     how it would ensure that grants awarded under this subpart 
     are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to meet the 
     purposes of this subpart effectively; (8) describe how it 
     would provide technical assistance to eligible local 
     applicants and its capacity for providing that assistance; 
     (9) how it would ensure that educational technology is 
     accessible to, and usable by, all students, including 
     students with special needs, such as students who have 
     disabilities or limited English proficiency; and (10) how it 
     would evaluate its activities under the plan. The application 
     requirements would better align the information required from 
     States with the purposes for the program.
       Section 345. Local Uses of Funds. Section 345 of the bill 
     would amend section 3134 of the ESEA, which describes the 
     local uses of funds under the TLCF. These local uses of funds 
     would be: adapting or expanding existing and new applications 
     of technology; providing sustained and intensive, high-
     quality professional development in the integration of 
     advanced technologies into curriculum; enabling teachers to 
     use the Internet to communicate with other teachers and to 
     retrieve web-based learning resources; using technology to 
     collect, manage, and analyze data for school improvement; 
     acquiring advanced technologies with classroom applications; 
     acquiring wiring and access to advanced telecommunications; 
     using web-based learning resources, including those that 
     provide access to challenging courses such as Advanced 
     Placement courses; and assisting schools to use technology to 
     promote parent and family involvement, and support 
     communications between family and school.
       Section 346. Local Applications. Section 346 of the bill 
     would amend section 3135 of the ESEA to make an ``eligible 
     local applicant,'' rather than an LEA, the entity eligible to 
     apply for TLCF subgrants. This change is aligned with the 
     proposed change to target program funds to LEAs with large 
     numbers or percentages of poor children and a demonstrated 
     need for technology, or a consortium that includes such an 
     LEA. Eligible local applicants that are partnerships would 
     also be required to describe the membership of the 
     partnership, their respective roles, and their respective 
     contributions to improving the capacity of the LEA.
       In addition to making several updating and conforming 
     changes, section 346 of the bill would also amend section 
     3135 of the ESEA regarding what must be included in the 
     subgrant application. An applicant would be required to 
     describe how the applicant would use its funds to improve 
     student achievement by making effective use of new 
     technologies, networks, and electronic learning resources, 
     using research-based teaching practices that are linked to 
     advanced technologies, and promoting sustained and intensive, 
     high-quality professional development. This requirement would 
     focus local efforts on activities that have demonstrated the 
     greatest potential for improving teaching and learning.
       In addition, an applicant would also be required to 
     describe: its goals for educational technology, as well as 
     timelines, benchmarks, and indicators of success for 
     achieving the goals; its plan for ensuring that all teachers 
     are prepared to use technology to create improved classroom 
     learning environments; the administrative and technical 
     support it would provide to schools; its plan for financing 
     its local technology plan; how it would use technology to 
     promote communication between teachers; how it would use 
     technology to meet the needs of students with special needs, 
     such as students with disabilities or limited English 
     proficiency; how it will involve parents, public libraries, 
     and business and community leaders in the development of the 
     local technology plan; and if the applicant is a partnership, 
     the members of the partnership and their respective roles and 
     contributions.
       Finally, an applicant would be required to provide an 
     assurance that, before using any funds received under this 
     subpart for acquiring wiring or advanced telecommunications, 
     it would use all the resources available to it through the E-
     Rate. This would ensure that districts were using their E-
     Rate funds, which have more limited uses than TLCF funds, for 
     wiring and telecommunications fees before using TLCF funds 
     for those purposes.
       Section 347. Repeals; Conforming Changes; Redesignations. 
     Section 347 of the bill would repeal current sections 3136 
     and 3137 of the ESEA. Section 3136 of the ESEA currently 
     authorizes the National Challenge Grants for Technology in 
     Education, and its purposes would be accomplished under the 
     Next-Generation Technology Innovation Awards program proposed 
     as the new Subpart 1 of Part C of Title III of the ESEA. 
     Section 3137 of the ESEA contains now outdated evaluation 
     requirements. Section 347 of the bill would also make several 
     conforming changes to, and redesignations of, provisions in 
     Title III of the ESEA.
       Section 348. Definitions; Authorization of Appropriations. 
     Section 348 of the bill would add two new sections to Title 
     III of the ESEA. Proposed new section 3417 of the ESEA 
     (``Definitions'') would define ``eligible local applicant'' 
     and ``low-performing school.'' The definitions would be 
     included to better target funds on high-poverty schools with 
     the greatest need for educational technology.
       An ``eligible local applicant'' would be defined as: (1) an 
     LEA with high numbers or percentages of children from 
     households living in poverty, that includes one or more low-
     performing schools, and has a substantial need for 
     educational technology; or (2) a partnership that includes at 
     least one LEA that meets those requirements and at least one 
     LEA that can demonstrate that teachers in schools served by 
     that agency are using technology effectively in their 
     classrooms; institution of higher education; for-profit 
     organization that develops, designs, manufactures, or 
     produces technology products or services, or has substantial 
     expertise in the application of technology; or public or 
     private non-profit organization with demonstrated experience 
     in the application of educational technology.
       A ``low-performing school'' would be defined as a school 
     identified for school improvement under section 1116(c) of 
     the ESEA, or in which a substantial majority of students fail 
     to meet State performance standards.
       Proposed new section 3418 of the ESEA (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005.
       Section 349. Regional Technology in Education Consortia. 
     Section 349(a) of the bill would add a new subpart heading 
     and designation, Subpart 2, Regional Technology In Education 
     Consortia (RTECs), to Part B of Title III of the ESEA. This 
     proposed new subpart is based on current section 3141 of

[[Page S6348]]

     the ESEA, as amended by this section of the bill.
       Section 349(b) of the bill would amend section 3141 of the 
     bill in several ways. First, section 349(b)(1) of the bill 
     would amend section 3141(a) of the ESEA to authorize the 
     Secretary to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, 
     in addition to the Secretary's current authority to award 
     grants, to carry out the purposes of the proposed new 
     subpart. In addition, the priority for various regional 
     entities would be eliminated, although the Secretary would 
     still be required to ensure, to the extent possible, that 
     each geographic region of the United States is served by a 
     project funded under this program.
       Section 349(b)(1)(C) of the bill would add a new section 
     3141(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA that would require the RTECs to 
     meet the generous provisions relating to technical assistance 
     providers contained in proposed new section 2421 of the ESEA. 
     Section 349(b) of the bill would also make several conforming 
     changes and update the references in section 3141 of the 
     ESEA, including updating provisions to reflect recent 
     advances in technology.
       Section 349(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the bill would amend section 
     3141(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA, which currently requires RTECs, to 
     the extent possible, to develop and implement technology-
     specific, ongoing professional development. Section 
     349(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the bill would revise that requirement to 
     require the consortia to develop and implement sustained and 
     intensive, high-quality professional development that 
     prepares educators to be effective developers, users, and 
     evaluators of educational technology. As amended, this 
     section of the ESEA also would require that the professional 
     development is to be provided to teachers, administrators, 
     school librarians, and other education personnel.
       Section 349(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the bill would amend section 
     3141(b)(2)(F) of the ESEA, which currently requires the RTECs 
     to assist colleges and universities to develop and implement 
     preservice training programs for students enrolled in teacher 
     education programs. As amended, this provision would require 
     the RTECs to coordinate their activities in this area with 
     other programs supported under Title III of the ESEA. This 
     coordination is particularly important with respect to the 
     Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology program 
     (proposed new part C of Title III of the ESEA, as added by 
     section 331 of the bill).
       Section 349(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the bill would amend 
     3141(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA, which currently requires the RTECs 
     to work with local districts and schools to develop support 
     from parents and community members for educational technology 
     programs. The amendments made by section 349(b)(2)(B)(v) of 
     the bill would require the RTECs to work with districts and 
     schools to increase the involvement and support of parents 
     and community members for educational technology programs.
       Section 349(b)(2)(C)(iv) of the bill would amend section 
     3141(b)(3) of the ESEA by eliminating the requirement that 
     the RTECs coordinate their activities with organizations and 
     institutions of higher education that represent the interests 
     of the region served as such interests pertain to the 
     application of technology in teaching, learning, and other 
     activities.
       Section 349(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the bill would amend section 
     3141(b)(3) of the ESEA by adding a new requirement that each 
     RTEC maintain, or contribute to, a national repository of 
     information on the effective uses of educational technology, 
     including for professional development, and to disseminate 
     the information nationwide.
       Section 349(b)(2)(D) would revise section 3141(b)(4) of the 
     ESEA, which requires the RTECs to coordinate their activities 
     with appropriate entities. As revised, section 3141(b)(4) of 
     the ESEA would require each consortium to: (1) collaborate, 
     and coordinate the services that it provides, with 
     appropriate regional and other entities assisted in whole or 
     in part by the Department; (2) coordinate activities and 
     establish partnerships with organizations and institutions of 
     higher education that represent the interests of the region 
     regarding the application of technology to teaching, 
     learning, instructional management, dissemination, the 
     collection and distribution of educational statistics, and 
     the transfer of student information; and (3) collaborate with 
     the Department and recipients of funding under other 
     technology programs of the Department, particularly the 
     Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Next-Generation 
     Technology Innovation Grant Program (as added by sections 343 
     and 341(d) of the bill, respectively), to assist the 
     Department and those recipients as requested by the 
     Secretary.
       Finally, section 349(c) of the bill would redesignate 
     section 3141 of the ESEA as section 3421 of the ESEA, 
     and section 349(d) of the bill would amend Title III of 
     the ESEA by inserting proposed new section 3422 of the 
     ESEA (``Authorization of Appropriations''), which would 
     authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be 
     necessary for this subpart for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.


        TITLE IV--SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT

       Section 401. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities. 
     Section 401 of the bill would amend and restate Title IV of 
     the ESEA, which authorizes assistance to States, LEAs, and 
     other public entities and nonprofit organizations for 
     programs to create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly 
     schools, as described below.
       Proposed new section 4001 (``Short Title'') of the ESEA 
     would rename Title IV of the ESEA as the ``Safe and Drug-Free 
     Schools and Communities Act'' to update the short title of 
     ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994'' in 
     the current law.
       Proposed new section 4002 (``Findings'') of the ESEA would 
     update the findings in section 4002 of the current law to 
     focus on the need for program quality and accountability.
       Proposed new section 4003 (``Purpose'') of the ESEA would 
     revise the statement of purpose in section 4003 of the 
     current law to reflect the following overarching changes 
     proposed in Title IV of the bill: (1) a more focused program 
     emphasis on supporting activities for creating and 
     maintaining drug-free, safe, and orderly environments for 
     learning in and around schools, as compared to the more 
     current, general emphasis on supporting activities to prevent 
     youth from using drugs and engaging in violent behavior any 
     time, anywhere; (2) improved targeting of resources, through 
     the requirement that SEAs award funds competitively to LEAs 
     with a demonstrated need for funds and the highest quality 
     proposed programming, as compared to the current 
     noncompetitive awarding of funds to all LEAS in the State, 
     based on student enrollment; and (3) stronger coordination 
     between programs funded by the Governors and the SEAs, by 
     requiring that programs funded by the Governors directly 
     complement and support LEA programs, and by requiring 
     Governors and SEAs to reserve funds at the State level for 
     joint capacity-building and technical assistance, and 
     accountability services, to improve the effectiveness of, and 
     institutionalize, State and local Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
     and Communities (SDFSC) programs.
       Proposed new section 4004 (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') of the ESEA would authorize 
     the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to carry out 
     proposed new Title IV of the ESEA.
     Part A--State grants for drug and violence prevention 
         programs
       Proposed new section 4111 (``Reservations and Allotments'') 
     of the ESEA would describe the way in which funds would be 
     distributed under this title. Proposed new section 4111(a) 
     would retain the requirements in the current law for the 
     Secretary to reserve, from each fiscal year's appropriation 
     for SDFSC (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities) State 
     grant funds, 1 percent for the Outlying Areas, 1 percent for 
     programs for Indian youth, and 0.2 percent for programs for 
     Native Hawaiians, and would increase the amount of SDFSC 
     State Grant funds the Secretary may reserve each fiscal year 
     for evaluation to $2 million (up from $1 million under the 
     current law) to support more intensive evaluations that are 
     needed to demonstrate program outcomes and effectiveness.
       Proposed new section 4111(a)(2)(A)(i) of the ESEA would 
     prohibit the Outlying Areas from consolidating their SDFSC 
     funds with other Department of Education program funds, as 
     would otherwise be permitted under Insular Areas Consolidated 
     Grant Authority in Title V of P.L. 95-134. This language 
     would ensure that the ESEA and Governor of each Outlying Area 
     can coordinate their SDFSC programs as required elsewhere in 
     this part. Without this prohibition, a Governor or SEA may 
     choose to spend its SDFSC funds on other eligible program(s), 
     making it impossible for the Governor and SEA to meet these 
     SDFSC program coordination requirements. This section would, 
     however, permit the Governor of an Outlying Area to 
     consolidate its SDFSC funds with the Area's SDFSC SEA funds, 
     and allow the Outlying Area to administer both SDFSC funding 
     streams under the statutory requirements applicable to SDFSC 
     SEA programs. This provision would address the reduced 
     program flexibility and increased administrative burden the 
     Outlying Areas may experience from the prohibition in 
     proposed new section 4111(a)(2)(i) of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4111(a)(2) would also: (1) explicitly 
     make applicable to the Outlying Areas the same SDFSC 
     requirements concerning authorized programs and activities, 
     applications for funding, and coordination between the 
     Governor and the SEA that are applicable to the States; (2) 
     explicitly make applicable to the Secretary of the Interior 
     the same SDFSC requirements concerning authorized programs 
     and activities for SDFSC programs for Indian youth that 
     are applicable to the States; and (3) authorize SDFSC 
     programs for Native Hawaiians (which are currently 
     authorized under section 4118 of the ESEA) and explicitly 
     make applicable to these programs the same SDFSC 
     requirements concerning authorized programs and activities 
     that are applicable to the States. This section would also 
     delete the language in section 4118 of the ESEA requiring 
     the Governor of the State of Hawaii to recognize 
     organizations eligible for funding under the SDFSC Native 
     Hawaiian set-side, and add language requiring that 
     programs funded under this set-aside by coordinated with 
     the Hawaii SEA.
       Proposed new section 4111(b) of the ESEA would retain the 
     provisions in current law; (1) requiring the Secretary to 
     allocate State grant funds half on the basis of school-aged 
     population, and half on the basis of State shares of ESEA 
     Title I funding for the preceding year; (2) that no State 
     receive less than one-half of one percent of all State grant 
     funding; (3) permitting the Secretary

[[Page S6349]]

     to redistribute to other States, on the basis of the formula 
     in section 4111(b)(1), any amount of State grant funds the 
     Secretary determines a State will be unable to use within two 
     year of the initial award; and (4) defining ``State'' and 
     ``local educational agency.''
       Proposed new section 4112 (``State Applications'') of the 
     ESEA would set forth the State grant application procedure 
     for this title. Proposed new section 4112(a) of the ESEA 
     would change the current State grant application requirements 
     to require that the Governor and SEA apply jointly for funds, 
     to ensure increased coordination between the Governor and 
     SEA, consistent with the new program requirements in proposed 
     new sections 4113(b)(4) and 4115(b)(3) of the ESEA.
       This jointly submitted application would contain: (1) a 
     description of how SDFSC State grant funds will be 
     coordinated with other Federal education and drug prevention 
     programs; (2) a list of the State's outcome-based performance 
     indicators for drug and violence prevention that are selected 
     from a core set of indicators to be developed by the 
     Secretary in consultation with State and local officials; and 
     (3) a description of the procedures the State will use to 
     inform its LEAs of the State's performance indicators under 
     this program and for assessing and publicly reporting 
     progress toward meeting those indicators (or revising them as 
     needed), and how the procedures the State will use to select 
     LEAs and other entities for SDFSC State grant funding will 
     support the attainment of the State's results-based 
     performance indicators. These changes would address the 
     program that, under current law, many States have weak goals 
     and objectives for their SDFSC programs that are entirely 
     process-oriented and do not tie strategically to the State's 
     needs in this area.
       The proposed new State grant application would also contain 
     a description of the procedures the SEA will use for 
     reviewing applications and awarding funds to LEAs 
     competitively, based on need and quality as required by 
     proposed new section 4113(c)(2) of the ESEA, as well as a 
     description of the procedures the SEA will use for reviewing 
     applications and awarding funds to LEAs non-competitively, 
     based on need and quality as permitted by section 4113(c)(3) 
     of the ESEA. These changes constitute a significant departure 
     from current law, under which SEAs award funds to LEAs on the 
     basis of student enrollment and on State-determined 
     ``greatest need'' criteria.
       Under proposed new section 4112(a) of the ESEA, the 
     Governor must include in its SDFSC State grant applications a 
     description of the procedures the Governor will use for 
     reviewing applications and awarding funds to eligible 
     applicants competitively, based on need and quality, as 
     required by section 4115(c) of the ESEA. These changes would 
     significantly strengthen the current law, which does not 
     specify any criteria for how Governors must award their funds 
     under this program.
       States would also be required to include in their 
     applications a description of how the SEA and Governor will 
     use the funds reserved under proposed new sections 4113(b) 
     and 4115(b) of the ESEA for coordinated capacity-building, 
     technical assistance, and program accountability services and 
     activities at the State and local levels, including how they 
     will coordinate their activities with law enforcement, 
     health, mental health, and education programs and officials 
     at the State and local levels.
       The proposed new State grant application would add a new 
     requirement for States to describe in their applications how 
     the SEA will provide technical assistance to LEAs not 
     receiving SDFSC State grant funds to improve their 
     programs, consistent with the requirement in proposed new 
     section 4113(b)(4)(B)(ii) that, to the extent practicable 
     SEAs and Governors use a portion of the funds they reserve 
     for State-level activities to provide capacity building 
     and technical assistance and accountability services to 
     all LEAs in the State, including those that do not receive 
     SDFSC State grant funds. Finally, this proposed new 
     section would retain the assurances in current law that: 
     (1) States develop their applications in consultation and 
     coordination with appropriate State officials and 
     representatives of parents, students, and community-based 
     organizations; and (2) States will cooperate with, and 
     assist the Secretary in conducting national impact 
     evaluations of programs required by proposed new section 
     4117(a).
       Proposed new section 4112(b) of the ESEA would retain the 
     language in the current law under section 4112(d) requiring 
     the Secretary to use a peer review process in reviewing SDFSC 
     State grant applications.
       Proposed new section (``State and Local Educational Agency 
     Programs'') of the ESEA would describe the SEA and LEA 
     programs to be carried our under this part. Proposed new 
     section 4113(a) of the ESEA would retain the requirement in 
     current law that 80 percent of the funds allocated to each 
     State under section 4111(b) of the ESEA be awarded to SEAs 
     for use by the SEAs and LEAs, with minor changes in language 
     conforming with the revised statement of purpose in proposed 
     new section 4003 of the ESEA that the funds be used to carry 
     out programs and activities that are designed to create and 
     maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments 
     for learning in and around schools.
       Proposed new section 4113(b) of the ESEA would depart from 
     the current statute by establishing a new authority requiring 
     SEAs to reserve between 10 percent and 20 percent of their 
     allocations under proposed new section 4113(a) for State-
     level activities. Under this new authority, SEAs may use the 
     reserved funds to plan, develop, and implement, jointly with 
     the Governor, capacity building and technical assistance and 
     accountability services to support the effective 
     implementation of local drug and violence prevention 
     activities throughout the State and promote program 
     accountability and improvement. Within this 20 percent cap, 
     but in addition to the 10 percent minimum for State-level 
     activities, SEAs may also use up to 5 percent of their 
     funding (i.e., up to 25 percent of the amount they reserve 
     for State-level activities) for program administration. This 
     increased allowance for SEA State administrative costs is 
     provided to accommodate the increased administrative 
     responsibilities of running a State grant competition under 
     proposed new section 4113(c) of the ESEA, and would provide 
     greater assistance to LEAs for program improvement than under 
     the current law.
       Proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(A) of the ESEA would 
     require SEAs and Governors to jointly use the amount reserved 
     under sections 4113(b)(3) and 4114(b)(3) to plan, develop, 
     and implement capacity building and technical assistance and 
     accountability services designed to support the effective 
     implementation of local drug and violence prevention 
     activities throughout the State, as well as promote program 
     accountability and prevention.
       Proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(B)(i) of the ESEA would add 
     new language to the statute clarifying that the SEA and 
     Governor may carry out the services and activities required 
     under proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(A) directly, or through 
     subgrants or contracts with public and private organizations, 
     as well as individuals.
       Proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(B)(ii) of the ESEA would 
     add new language to the statute requiring that, to the extent 
     practicable, SEAs and Governors use funds under proposed new 
     section 4113(b)(4)(A) to provide capacity building and 
     technical assistance and accountability services and 
     activities to all LEAs in the State, not just those that 
     receive SDFSC State grants, in order to ensure that: (1) LEAs 
     receiving SDFSC funds receive adequate help to implement and 
     institutionalize high-quality programs; and (2) States can 
     provide at least some program assistance to LEAs that will no 
     longer receive SDFSC awards once funding is limited to 50 
     percent of LEAs in each State under the targeting provisions 
     proposed in new section 4113(c)(2)(D) of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(B)(iii) of the ESEA would 
     permit he SEA and Governor to provide emergency intervention 
     services to schools and communities following a traumatic 
     crisis, such as a shooting or major accident that has 
     disrupted the learning environment.
       Proposed new section 4113(b)(4)(C) of the ESEA would add 
     definitions of ``capacity building'' and ``technical 
     assistance and accountability services'' to clarify the 
     meaning of these terms in the statute.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(1) of the ESEA would specify 
     that SEAs must use at least 80 percent of their funding for 
     local-level activities, as described in proposed new sections 
     4113(c)(2) and (3), rather than awarding at least 91 percent 
     of their funding to LEAs as is required under current law.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA would 
     require SEAs to use at least 70 percent of their total SDFSC 
     State grant funding for competitive awards to LEAs that the 
     SEA determines have need for assistance, rather than the 
     current law approach of awarding at least 91 percent of their 
     funding to LEAs in the State by formula, based on enrollment 
     (70 percent) and ``greatest need'' (30 percent).
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(B) of the ESEA would make 
     minor wording changes to the nine ``need'' factors in the 
     current statute, and add three additional factors relating to 
     local fiscal capacity to fund drug and violence prevention 
     programs without Federal assistance; the incidence of drug 
     paraphernalia in schools; and the high rates of drug-related 
     emergencies or deaths.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(C) of the ESEA would depart 
     from the current statute to require SEAs to base their 
     competition under proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(A) on the 
     quality of an LEA's proposed program and how closely it is 
     aligned with the following principles of effectiveness: (1) 
     the LEA's program is based on a thorough assessment of 
     objective data about the drug and violence problems in the 
     schools and communities to be served; (2) the LEA has 
     established a set of measurable goals and objectives aimed at 
     ensuring that all schools served by the LEA have a drug-free, 
     safe, and orderly learning environment, and has designed its 
     program to meet those goals and objectives; (3) the LEA has 
     designed and will implement its programs for youth based on 
     research or evaluation that provides evidence that the 
     program to be used will prevent or reduce drug use, violence, 
     delinquency, or disruptive behavior among youth; and (4) the 
     LEA will evaluate its program periodically to assess its 
     progress toward achieving its goals and objectives, and will 
     use evaluation results to refine, improve, and strengthen its 
     program, and refine its goals and objectives, as needed.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(D) of the ESEA would 
     require SEAs to make competitive awards under proposed new 
     section 4113(c)(2)(A) to no more than 50 percent of the LEAs 
     in the State, unless the State demonstrates in its 
     application that the SEA can

[[Page S6350]]

     make subgrants to more than 50 percent of the LEAs in the 
     State and still comply with proposed new subparagraph (E) of 
     this section.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(E) of the ESEA would 
     require SEAs to make their competitive awards to LEAs under 
     proposed new section 4113(c)(2) of sufficient size to support 
     high-quality, effective programs and activities that are 
     designed to create safe, disciplined, and drug-free learning 
     environments in schools and that are consistent with the 
     needs, goals, and objectives identified in the State's plan 
     under proposed new section 4112.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA would depart 
     from the current statute to permit SEAs to use up to 10 
     percent of their total SDFSC State grant funding for non-
     competitive awards to LEAs with the greatest need for 
     assistance, as described in proposed new section 
     4113(c)(2)(B), that did not receive a competitive award under 
     section 4113(c)(2)(A). LEAs would be eligible to receive only 
     one subgrant under this paragraph.
       Proposed new section 4113(c)(3)(B) of the ESEA would 
     require, for accountability purposes, that in order for an 
     SEA to make a non-competitive award to an LEA under proposed 
     new section 4113(c)(3)(A), the SEA must assist the LEA in 
     meeting the information requirements under proposed new 
     section 4116(a) of the ESEA pertaining to LEA needs 
     assessment, results-based performance measures, comprehensive 
     safe and drug-free schools plan, evaluation plan, and 
     assurances, and provide continuing technical assistance to 
     the LEA to build its capacity to develop and implement high-
     quality, effective programs consistent with the principles of 
     effectiveness in proposed new section 4113(c)(2)(C)(ii) of 
     the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4113(d) of the ESEA would provide that 
     LEA awards under section 4113(c) be for a project period not 
     to exceed three years, and require that, in order to receive 
     funds for the second or third year of a project, the LEA 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SEA that the LEA's 
     project is making reasonable progress toward its performance 
     indicators under proposed new section 4116(a)(3)(C) of the 
     ESEA. This proposed new section would also make technical 
     changes to the local allocation formula in current law.
       Proposed new section 4114 (``Local Drug and Violence 
     Prevention Programs'') of the ESEA would describe the local 
     drug and violence prevention services and activities that may 
     be carried out under this title. Proposed new section 4114(a) 
     of the ESEA would require that each LEA that receives SDFSC 
     funding use those funds to support research-based drug and 
     violence prevention services and activities that are 
     consistent with the principles of effectiveness in proposed 
     new section 4113(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4114(b) (``Other Authorized 
     Activities'') of the ESEA would permit an LEA that receives 
     an SDFSC subgrant to use those funds for activities other 
     than research-based programming, so long as the LEA meets the 
     requirements in proposed new section 4114(a), and those 
     additional activities are carried out in a manner that is 
     consistent with the most recent relevant research and with 
     the purposes of this title. Proposed new section 4114(b)(1) 
     of the ESEA would also include an illustrative list of 13 
     such activities.
       Proposed new section 4114(b)(2) of the ESEA would retain 
     the 20 percent cap on SDFSC subgrant funds that LEAs may 
     spend for the acquisition or use of metal detectors and 
     security personnel, but would permit SEAs to waive this cap 
     for an LEA that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of its SEA, 
     in its application for funding under proposed new section 
     4116 of the ESEA, that it has a compelling need to do so.
       Proposed new section 4115 (``Governor's Program'') of the 
     ESEA would establish the Governor's Program. Proposed new 
     section 4115(a) would retain the requirement in the current 
     law that 20 percent of the funds allocated to each State 
     under proposed new section 4111(b) be awarded to the 
     Governor, but require the Governor to use these funds to 
     support community efforts that directly complement the 
     efforts of LEAs to foster drug-free, safe, and orderly 
     learning environments for learning in and around schools.
       Proposed new section 4115(b) of the ESEA would establish a 
     new authority requiring Governors to reserve between 10 
     percent and 20 percent of their allocations under proposed 
     new section 4115(a) for State-level activities to plan, 
     develop, and implement, jointly with the SEA, capacity 
     building, technical assistance, and accountability services 
     to support the effective implementation of local drug and 
     violence prevention activities throughout the State and 
     promote program accountability and improvement, as described 
     in proposed new section 4113(b)(4) of the ESEA. Within this 
     20 percent cap, but in addition to the 10 percent minimum for 
     State-level activities, the Governors could use up to 5 
     percent of their total funding (i.e., up to 25 percent of the 
     amount they reserve for State-level activities) for direct or 
     in direct administrative costs.
       Proposed new section 4115(c) of the ESEA would specify that 
     a Governor must use at least 80 percent of SDFSC State grant 
     funding under proposed new section 4111(b) to make 
     competitive subgrants to community-based organizations, LEAs, 
     and other public entities and private non-profit 
     organizations to support community efforts that directly 
     complement the efforts of LEAs to foster drug-free, safe, and 
     orderly learning environments in and around schools. Proposed 
     new section 4115(c)(1)(B) of the ESEA would require that, to 
     be eligible for a subgrant, an applicant (other than a LEA 
     applying on its own behalf) must include in its application 
     its written agreement with one or more LEAs, or one or more 
     schools within an LEA, to provide services and activities in 
     support of these LEAs or schools, as well as an explanation 
     of how those services and activities will complement or 
     support the LEAs' or schools' efforts to provide a drug-free, 
     safe, and orderly school environment. Proposed new section 
     4115(c)(1)(C) of the ESEA would require a Governor to base 
     the competition for these subgrants on: (1) the quality of 
     the applicant's proposed program and how closely it is 
     aligned with the principles of effectiveness described in 
     section 4113(c)(2)(C)(ii); and (2) on objective criteria, 
     determined by the Governor, on the needs of the schools for 
     LEAs to be served.
       Subgrants made by Governors under proposed new section 
     4115(c) of the ESEA may support community efforts on a 
     Statewide, regional, or local basis and may support the 
     efforts of LEAs and schools that do not receive subgrants. 
     Recipients of these subgrants would use these funds generally 
     to support research-based drug and violence prevention 
     services and activities that are consistent with the 
     principles of effectiveness, and may use subgrant funds for 
     activities other than research-based programming, provided 
     that these additional activities are carried out in a manner 
     that is consistent with the most recent relevant research and 
     with the purposes of this title. Proposed new section 
     4115(c)(2)(B) of the ESEA also includes an illustrative list 
     of 5 such activities.
       Proposed new section 4116 (``Local Applications'') of the 
     ESEA would: (1) retain language in the current statute, with 
     minor technical changes, requiring applicants for subgrants 
     from the SEA to submit an application to the SEA at such 
     time, and include such other information, as the SEA may 
     require; and (2) add a corresponding requirement not in the 
     current statute, requiring applicants for subgrants from the 
     Governor to submit an application to the Governor at such 
     time, and includes such other information, as the Governor 
     may require.
       Proposed new section 4116(a)(2)(A) of the ESEA would retain 
     the current law requirement that LEAs applying for SEA 
     subgrants under proposed new section 4113(c)(2), 4113(c)(3), 
     or 4115(c) of the ESEA develop their applications in 
     consultation with a local or regional advisory council that 
     includes, to the extent possible, representatives of local 
     government, business, parents, students, teachers, public 
     school personnel, mental health service providers, 
     appropriate State agencies, private schools, law enforcement, 
     community-based organizations, and other groups interested 
     in, and knowledgeable about, drug and violence prevention. 
     Proposed new section 4116(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA would add 
     similar consultation requirements for the development of 
     applications by entities other than LEAs seeking subgrants, 
     under the Governor's program authorized by proposed new 
     section 4115(c) of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4116(a)(3) of the ESEA would: (1) make 
     technical changes to strengthen the current LEA application 
     requirements for the SEA formula grant program by increasing 
     the emphasis on the applicant's need for assistance and the 
     quality of its proposed programming; and (2) make these 
     strengthened requirements applicable to LEAs seeking 
     subgrants under the proposed new competitive subgrant 
     authority in proposed new section 4113(c)(2) of the ESEA, or 
     the non-competitive subgrant authority in proposed new 
     section 4113(c)(3) of the ESEA, as well as to LEAs that apply 
     to Governors under the subgrant authority in proposed new 
     section 4115(c) of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4116(a)(4) of the ESEA would add a 
     requirement that each LEA (or consortium of LEAs, if applying 
     jointly) that applies to its SEA under the competitive 
     subgrant authority in proposed new section 4113(c)(2) of the 
     ESEA, or the non-competitive subgrant authority in proposed 
     new section 4113(c)(3) of the ESEA, include in its 
     application assurances that it: (1) has a policy, consistent 
     with State law, that requires the expulsion of students who 
     posses a firearm at school consistent with the Gun-Free 
     Schools Act; (2) has, or will have, a full- or part-time 
     program coordination whose primary responsibility is 
     planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating the 
     applicant's programs (unless the applicant demonstrates in 
     its application, to the satisfaction of the SEA, that such a 
     program coordinator is not needed); (3) will evaluate its 
     program every two years to assess its progress toward meeting 
     its goals and objectives, and will use the results of its 
     evaluation to improve its program and refine its goals and 
     objectives, as needed; and (4) has, or the schools to be 
     served have, a comprehensive Safe and Drug-Free Schools plan 
     that includes: (a) appropriate and effective discipline 
     policies that prohibit disorderly conduct, the possession of 
     firearms and other weapons, and the illegal use, possession, 
     distribution, and sale of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs 
     by students, and that mandates predetermined consequences, 
     sanctions, or interventions for specific offenses; (b) school 
     security procedures at school and while students are on the 
     way to and from school which may include the use of metal 
     detectors and the development and implementation of formal 
     agreements with law enforcement officials; (c) early 
     intervention and

[[Page S6351]]

     prevention activities of demonstrated effectiveness designed 
     to create and maintain safe, disciplined, and drug-free 
     environments; (d) school readiness and family involvement 
     activities; (e) improvements to classroom management and 
     school environment, such as efforts to reduce class size 
     or improve classroom discipline; (f) procedures to 
     identify and intervene with troubled students, including 
     establishing linkages with, and referring students to, 
     juvenile justice, community mental heath, and other 
     service providers; (g) activities that connect students to 
     responsible adults in the community, including activities 
     such as after-school or mentoring programs; and (h) a 
     crisis management plan for responding to violent or 
     traumatic incidents on school grounds which provides for 
     addressing the needs of victims, and communicating with 
     parents, the media, law enforcement officials, and mental 
     health service providers.
       Proposed new section 4116(a)(5) of the ESEA would add a 
     requirement that any eligible entity that applies to the 
     Governor for a subgrant under proposed new section 4115(c) 
     include in its application: (1) a description of how the 
     services and activities to be supported will be coordinated 
     with relevant SDFSC State grant programs that are supported 
     by SEAs, including how recipients will share resources, 
     services, and data; (2) a description of how the applicant 
     will coordinate its activities under this part with those 
     implemented under the Drug-Free Communities Act, if any; and 
     (3) an assurance that it will evaluate its program every two 
     years to assess its progress toward meeting its goals and 
     objectives, and will use the results of its evaluation to 
     improve its program and refine its goals and objectives as 
     needed (if the applicant is not an LEA), or the assurances 
     under proposed new section 4116(a)(4) of the ESEA (if the 
     applicant is an LEA.)
       Proposed new section 4116(b) of the ESEA would modify the 
     current requirement that Governors use a peer review process 
     in reviewing local applications for SDFSC subgrants, by 
     giving Governors the flexibility to use other methods to 
     ensure that applications under proposed new section 4116 of 
     the ESEA are funded on the basis of need and quality, while 
     requiring SEA to use a peer review process.
       Proposed new section 4117 (``National Evaluations and Data 
     Collections'') of the ESEA would authorize the Secretary to 
     provide for national evaluations on the quality and impact of 
     programs under this title, make minor technical changes to 
     current law to give the Secretary increased flexibility in 
     meeting the national evaluation and data collection 
     requirements in this section, and add a new requirement for 
     the Secretary and the Attorney General to publish an annual 
     report on school safety.
       Proposed new section 4117(b) of the ESEA would make minor 
     technical changes to the current law to refocus the State 
     reports required by this section on the State's progress 
     toward attaining its performance indicators for achieving 
     drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments in its 
     schools, consistent with the changes proposed throughout 
     proposed new Part A of Title IV of the ESEA. This section 
     would also add a new requirement for States to report, in 
     such form as the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, may require, all 
     school-related suicides and homicides within the State, 
     whether at school or at a school sponsored function, or on 
     the way to or from school or a school-sponsored function, 
     within 30 days of the incident. This requirement will enable 
     the Federal Government to collect longitudinal data on this 
     statistic more cost-effectively, and will impose little 
     administrative burden on the States.
       Proposed new section 4117(c)(1)(A) of the ESEA would make 
     minor technical changes to the current law to refocus the 
     local reports required by this section on the LEA's progress 
     toward attaining its performance indicators for achieving 
     drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments in its 
     schools, consistent with the changes proposed for the 
     corresponding State reports under proposed new section 
     4117(a) of the ESEA, would add a new requirement that the LEA 
     include in this report a statement of any problems the LEA 
     has encountered in implementing its program that warrant the 
     provision of technical assistance by the SEA, to assist the 
     SEA in planning its technical assistance activities. These 
     changes would apply to LEAs that receive SDFSC subgrants 
     through their SEA under proposed new sections 4113(c)(2) or 
     4113(c)(3).
       Proposed new section 4117(c)(1)(B) of the ESEA would add a 
     new requirement that SEAs review the annual LEA reports, and 
     terminate funding for the second or third year of an LEA's 
     program unless the SEA determines that the LEA is making 
     reasonable progress toward meeting its objectives.
       Proposed new section 4117(c)(2) of the ESEA would add new 
     language to the ESEA requiring that Governors' award 
     recipients under proposed new section 4115(c) of the ESEA 
     submit an annual progress report to the Governor and to the 
     public containing the same type of information required for 
     LEA progress reports under proposed new section 4117(c)(1)(A) 
     of the ESEA. The Governor would be required to review the 
     annual progress reports, and to terminate funding for the 
     second or third year of a subgrantee's program unless the 
     Governor determines that the subgrantee is making reasonable 
     progress toward meeting its objectives.
     PART B--National programs
       Proposed new section 4211 (``National Activities'') of the 
     ESEA would authorize national programs. Proposed new section 
     4211(a) of the ESEA would, with only minor changes, authorize 
     the Secretary to use national programs funds for programs to 
     promote drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments 
     for students at all educational levels, from preschool 
     through the postsecondary level and for programs that promote 
     lifelong physical activity. The Secretary would be authorized 
     to carry out the national programs authorized under proposed 
     new section 4211(a) directly, or through grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements with public and private 
     organizations and individuals, or through agreements with 
     other Federal agencies, and to coordinate with other Federal 
     agencies as appropriate.
       Proposed new section 4211(b)(2) of the ESEA would 
     streamline the list of authorized national programs 
     activities to the following examples: (1) one or more centers 
     to provide training and technical assistance for teachers, 
     school administrators and staff, and others on the 
     identification and implementation of effective strategies to 
     promote safe, orderly, and drug-free learning environments; 
     (2) programs to train teachers in innovative techniques and 
     strategies of effective drug and violence prevention; (3) 
     research and demonstration projects to test innovative 
     approaches to drug and violence prevention; (4) evaluations 
     of the effectiveness of programs funded under this title, and 
     of other programs designed to create safe, disciplined, and 
     drug-free environments; (5) direct services and technical 
     assistance to schools and schools systems, including those 
     afflicted with especially severe drug and violence problems; 
     (6) developing and disseminating drug and violence prevention 
     materials and information in print, audiovisual, or 
     electronic format, including information about effective 
     research-based programs, policies, practices, strategies, and 
     curriculum and other relevant materials to support drug and 
     violence prevention education; (7) recruiting, hiring, and 
     training program coordinators to assist school districts in 
     implementing high-quality, effective, research-based drug and 
     violence prevention programs; (8) the development and 
     provision of education and training programs, curricula, 
     instructional materials, and professional training for 
     preventing and reducing the incidence of crimes or conflicts 
     motivated by bullying, hate, prejudice, intolerance, or 
     sexual harassment and abuse; (9) programs for youth who 
     are out of the education mainstream, including school 
     dropouts, students who have been suspended or expelled 
     from their regular education program, and runaway or 
     homeless children and youth; (10) programs implemented in 
     conjunction with other Federal agencies that support LEAs 
     and communities in developing and implementing 
     comprehensive programs that create safe, disciplined, and 
     drug-free learning environments and promote healthy 
     childhood development; (11) services and activities that 
     reduce the need for suspension and expulsion in 
     maintaining classroom order and discipline; (12) services 
     and activities to prevent and reduce truancy; (13) 
     programs to provide counseling services to troubled youth, 
     including support for the recruitment and hiring of 
     counselors and the operation of telephone help lines; and 
     (14) other activities that meet emerging or unmet national 
     needs consistent with the purposes of this title.
       Proposed new section 4211(c)(1) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the Secretary to carry out programs for students that promote 
     lifelong physical activity directly, or through grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and private 
     organizations and individuals, or through agreements with 
     other Federal agencies, and to coordinate with the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, the President's Council 
     on Physical Fitness, and other Federal agencies as 
     appropriate. Such programs could include: conducting 
     demonstrations of school-based programs that promote lifelong 
     physical activity, with a particular emphasis on physical 
     education programs that are a part of a coordinated school 
     health programs; training, technical assistance, and other 
     activities to encourage States and LEAs to implement sound 
     school-based programs that promote lifelong physical 
     activity; and activities designed to build State capacity to 
     provide leadership and strengthen schools' capabilities to 
     provide school-based programs that promote lifelong physical 
     activity.
       Proposed new section 4211(d) of the ESEA would retain the 
     requirement in the current statute that the Secretary use a 
     peer review process in reviewing applications for funds under 
     proposed new section 4211(a) of the ESEA.
     Part C--School emergency response to violence
       Proposed new section 4311 (``Project SERV'') of the ESEA 
     would authorize Project SERV, a program designed to provide 
     education-related services to LEAs in which the learning 
     environment has been disrupted due to a violent or traumatic 
     crisis, such as a shooting or major accident. The Secretary 
     would be authorized to carry out Project SERV directly, 
     through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with 
     public and private organizations, agencies, and individuals, 
     or through agreements with other Federal agencies.
       Under proposed new section 4311(b) of the ESEA, Project 
     SERV would provide: (1) assistance to school personnel in 
     assessing a crisis situation, including assessing the 
     resources available to the LEA and community

[[Page S6352]]

     in response to the situation, and developing a response plan 
     to coordinate services provided at the Federal, State, and 
     local level; (2) mental health crisis counseling to students 
     and their families, teachers, and others in need of such 
     services; (3) increased school security; (4) training and 
     technical assistance for SEAs and LEAs, State and local 
     mental health agencies, State and local law enforcement 
     agencies, and communities to enhance their capacity to 
     develop and implement crisis intervention plans; (5) services 
     and activities designed to identify and disseminate the best 
     practices of school- and community-related plans for 
     responding to crises; and (6) other needed services and 
     activities that are consistent with the purposes of Project 
     SERV.
       Proposed new section 4311(b) of the ESEA would require the 
     Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to 
     establish criteria and application requirements as may be 
     needed to select which LEAs are assisted under Project SERV, 
     and permit the Secretary to establish reporting requirements 
     for uniform data and other information from all LEAs assisted 
     under Project SERV.
       Proposed new section 4311(c) of the ESEA would require the 
     establishment of a Federal Coordinating Committee on school 
     crises comprised of the Secretary (who shall serve as chair 
     of the Committee), the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, the Director of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, the Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy, and such other members as 
     the Secretary shall determine. This committee would be 
     charged with coordinating the Federal responses to crises 
     that occur in schools or directly affect the learning 
     environment in schools.
     Part D--Related provisions
       Proposed new section 4411 (``Gun-Free Schools Act'') of the 
     ESEA would authorize the Gun-Free Schools Act as proposed new 
     Part D of Title IV of the ESEA because of its close 
     relationship with the SDFSC program. The Gun-Free Schools Act 
     is currently authorized under Part F of Title XIV of the 
     ESEA.
       Proposed new section 4411(b) of the ESEA would continue, 
     with minor technical changes, the current requirement that 
     each State receiving Federal funds under the ESEA have in 
     effect a State law requiring LEAs to expel from school, for a 
     period of not less than one year, a student who is determined 
     to have possessed a firearm at school under the jurisdiction 
     of the LEA in that State, and that such State law allow the 
     chief administering officer of that LEA to modify the 
     expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis. 
     It would also define the term `firearm' as that term is 
     defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code (which 
     includes bombs).
       Proposed new section 4411 of the ESEA would contain: (1) a 
     special rule that the provisions of this section be construed 
     in a manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act; (2) local reporting requirements requiring 
     each LEA requesting assistance from the SEA under the ESEA to 
     provide to the State in its application: (a) an assurance 
     that such LEA is in compliance with the State law required by 
     proposed new section 4411(b); (b) a description of the 
     circumstances surrounding any expulsions imposed under the 
     State law required by proposed new section 4411(b), including 
     the name of the school concerned, the number of students 
     expelled from such school (disaggregated by gender, race, 
     ethnicity, and educational level); and (c) the type of 
     weapons concerned; (3) the number of students referred to the 
     criminal justice or juvenile justice system as required in 
     section 4412(a)(1), and the instances in which the chief 
     administering officer of an LEA modified the expulsion 
     requirement described in section 4411(b)(1) on a case-by-case 
     basis; and (4) a requirement that each State report the 
     information described in proposed new section 4411(d) to the 
     Secretary on an annual basis.
       Proposed new section 4412 (``Local Policies'') of the ESEA 
     would restate, with minor technical changes, the current 
     prohibition against ESEA funds being awarded to any LEA 
     unless it has a policy ensuring referral to the criminal 
     justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who 
     possesses a firearm at a school served by such agency. It 
     would also add two new additional requirements that no 
     funds may be made available under the ESEA to any LEA 
     unless: (1) it has a policy ensuring that a student who 
     possesses a firearm at school is referred to a mental 
     health professional for assessment as to whether he or she 
     poses an imminent threat of harm to himself, herself, or 
     others and needs appropriate mental health services before 
     readmission to school; and (2) it has a policy that a 
     student who possesses a firearm at school who has been 
     determined by a mental health professional to pose an 
     imminent threat of harm to himself, herself, or others 
     receive, in addition to appropriate services under section 
     11206(9) of the ESEA, appropriate mental health services 
     before being permitted to return to school.
       Proposed new section 4412(b) of the ESEA would restate the 
     current Gun-Free Schools Act requirement that proposed new 
     section 4412 be construed in a manner consistent with the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and proposed new 
     section 4413(c) of the ESEA would restate the current 
     definitions of the terms ``firearm'' and ``school.''
       Proposed new section 4413 (``Materials'') of the ESEA would 
     restate the current requirement that drug prevention programs 
     supported under Title IV of the ESEA convey a clear and 
     consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other 
     drugs is wrong and harmful.
       Proposed new section 4413(b) of the ESEA would continue, 
     with minor changes, the current law provision that the 
     Secretary shall not prescribe the use of particular curricula 
     for programs under Title IV of the ESEA, but may evaluate and 
     disseminate information about the effectiveness of such 
     curricula and programs.
       Proposed new section 4414 (``Prohibited Uses of Funds'') of 
     the ESEA would restate the current prohibition against the 
     use of Title IV ESEA funds for: (1) construction (except for 
     minor remodeling needed to accomplish the purposes of this 
     part; and (2) medical services, drug treatment or 
     rehabilitation, except for pupil services or referral to 
     treatment for students who are victims of, or witnesses to, 
     crime or who use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.
       Proposed new section 4415 (``Drug-Free, Alcohol-Free, and 
     Tobacco-Free Schools'') of the ESEA would add a new 
     requirement that each SEA and LEA that receives Title IV, 
     ESEA funds have a policy that prohibits possession or use of 
     tobacco, and the illegal use of drugs or alcohol, in any 
     form, at any time, and by any person, in school buildings, on 
     school grounds, or at any school-sponsored event. Each LEA 
     requesting assistance under the ESEA must include in its 
     application for funding an assurance that it is in compliance 
     with this new requirement, and each SEA would be required to 
     report annually to the Secretary if any of its LEAs is not in 
     compliance with this new requirement.
       Proposed new section 4416 (``Prohibition on Supplanting'') 
     of the ESEA would require that funds under this title be used 
     to increase the level of State, local, and other non-Federal 
     funds that would, in the absence of funds under this title, 
     be made available for programs and activities authorized 
     under this title, and in no case to supplant such State, 
     local, and other non-Federal funds.
       Proposed new section 4417 (``Definitions of Terms'') of the 
     ESEA would restate the current law definitions for the terms 
     ``drug and violence prevention'' and ``hate crime,'' and 
     definitions for the terms ``drug treatment'' and ``drug 
     rehabilitation'' and ``medical services.''


    Title V--promoting equity, excellence, and public school choice

       Among other things, proposed new Title V of the Educational 
     Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would: (1) improve 
     the Magnet Schools Assistance program by adding emphasis on 
     projects that consider the diversity of the student 
     populations and that have the capacity to continue after the 
     Federal grant has run out; (2) reauthorize the Women's 
     Educational Equity program, currently in Part B of Title V of 
     the ESEA, but move it to Part D of Title V of the ESEA; (3) 
     repeal the Assistance to Address School Dropout Problems 
     program, currently in Part C of Title V of the ESEA; (4) move 
     Charter Schools, from Part C of Title X of the ESEA, to Part 
     B of Title V of the ESEA; and (5) add a new initiative, 
     ``Options: Opportunities to Improve Our Nation's Schools'', 
     to be new Part C of that Title that would provide a flexible 
     authority to support SEAs and LEAs in experimenting with 
     different kinds of public elementary and secondary schools, 
     such as worksite and college-based schools.
       Section 501. Renaming the Title. Section 501 of the bill 
     would change the name of Title V of the ESEA to ``Promoting 
     Equity, Excellence, and Public School Choice''.


                        magnet school assistance

       Section 502. Findings. Section 502 of the bill would amend 
     Part A (Magnet School Assistance) of Title V of the ESEA. 
     Section 502(a) of the bill would make editorial changes to, 
     and update, section 5101 of the ESEA, the findings for the 
     Magnet School Assistance Program.
       Section 502(b) of the bill would amend section 5102(3) of 
     the ESEA (Statement of Purpose) to clarify that the purpose 
     of providing financial assistance to develop and design 
     innovative educational methods and practices is to promote 
     diversity and increase choices in public elementary and 
     secondary schools and educational programs.
       Section 502(c) of the bill would amend section 
     5106(b)(1)(D) of the ESEA (Information and Assurances), a 
     part of the application requirements, to eliminate reference 
     to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and to make an 
     editorial change.
       Section 502(d) of the bill would amend section 5107 of the 
     ESEA (Priority) to eliminate the current priorities for 
     greatest need and new, or significantly revised, projects. 
     These priorities are not well defined and have not helped to 
     determine which grant applications are most deserving. 
     Section 502(d) would also add a new priority for projects 
     that propose activities, which may include professional 
     development, that will build local capacity to operate the 
     magnet program once Federal assistance has ended.
       Section 502(e) of the bill would amend section 5108(a) of 
     the ESEA (Uses of Funds) to: (1) revise paragraph (3) to 
     allow for the payment, or subsidization of the compensation, 
     of elementary and secondary school teachers who are certified 
     or licensed by the State, and instructional staff who have 
     expertise and professional skills necessary for the conduct 
     of programs in magnet schools or who

[[Page S6353]]

     demonstrate knowledge, experience, or skills in the relevant 
     field of expertise; and (2) allow grantees to use funds for 
     activities, including professional development, that will 
     build the applicant's capacity to operate the magnet program 
     once Federal assistance has ended.
       Section 502(f) of the bill would repeal section 5111 of the 
     ESEA (Innovative Programs). Activities are subsumed under the 
     new Public School Choice program.
       Section 502(g) of the bill would redesignate current 
     section 5112 of the ESEA (Evaluation, Technical Assistance, 
     and Dissemination) as section 5111, and incorporate its 
     requirements into proposed new section (``Evaluation, 
     Technical Assistance, and Dissemination'') that would 
     authorize the Secretary to reserve not more than five percent 
     (rather than two percent) of appropriated funds in any fiscal 
     year to evaluate magnet schools programs, as well as provide 
     technical assistance to applicants and grantees and collect 
     and disseminate information on successful magnet school 
     programs. Section 502(g) of the bill would also require each 
     evaluation, in addition to current items, to address the 
     extent to which magnet school programs continue once grant 
     assistance under this part ends.
       Section 502(h) of the bill would amend section 5113(a) of 
     the ESEA (Authorization) to authorize such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 2001 and for each of the four 
     succeeding fiscal years to be appropriated to carry out the 
     part. Section 501(h) of the bill would also redesignate 
     section 5113 as section 5112.


                       women's educational equity

       Section 503. Amendments to the Women's Educational Equity 
     Program. Section 503(a)(1)(A) of the bill would amend section 
     5201(a) of the ESEA (Short Title) to update and change the 
     short title from the ``Women's Educational Equity Act of 
     1994'' to the ``Women's Educational Equity Act.''
       Section 503(a)(1)(B) of the bill would amend section 
     5201(b) of the ESEA (Findings) to make it clear, in paragraph 
     (3)(B), that classroom textbooks and other educational 
     materials continue not to reflect sufficiently the 
     experiences, achievements, or concerns of women and girls. 
     Little progress has been made in this area since 1994. 
     Section 5201(b) of the ESEA would also be amended by slightly 
     editing paragraph (3)(C) and adding a recent finding to that 
     paragraph that girls are dramatically underrepresented in 
     higher-level computer science courses.
       Section 503(a)(2)(A) of the bill would amend section 5204 
     of the ESEA (Applications) to change several internal section 
     references to conform section numbers to the part 
     redesignation and to clarify that the application 
     requirements in which these references appeal apply only to 
     implementation grants. Section 503(a)(2)(B) of the bill would 
     amend section 5204(b)(2) of the ESEA to change a reference to 
     ``the National Education Goals'' to ``America's Education 
     Goals.'' Section 503(a)(2)(C) of the bill would eliminate 
     section 5204(4) of the ESEA, which requires an application 
     description of how program funds would be used in a 
     consistent manner with the School-to-Work Opportunities Act 
     of 1994. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act sunsets in 
     2001, and this reference will be obsolete. Paragraphs (5) 
     through (7) in the section would be redesignated.
       Section 503(a)(3) of the bill would conform a section 
     reference to a later redesignation.
       Section 503(a)(4) of the bill would repeal section 5206 of 
     the ESEA (Report). The report required by this section will 
     be submitted soon, satisfying the requirement and making it 
     obsolete.
       Section 503(a)(5) of the bill would amend section 5207 of 
     the ESEA (Administration) by eliminating subsection (a), 
     requiring the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of materials 
     and programs developed under the program and to submit a 
     report to Congress by January 1, 1998. Congress did not 
     provide funding for the mandated evaluation, and the report 
     was not done.
       Section 503(a)(6) of the bill would amend section 5208 of 
     the ESEA to authorize appropriations of such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 2001 and for each of the four 
     succeeding fiscal years to carry out this part. Because the 
     appropriation for the Women's Educational Equity program has 
     been small in recent years, using two thirds of this 
     appropriation for local implementation grants (rather than 
     national research and development grants) has not been the 
     most effective and development grants) has not been the most 
     effective use of program resources.
       Section 503(b) of the bill would redesignate Part B of 
     Title V of the ESEA as Part D of the Title and redesignate 
     sections 5201, 5202, 5203, 5204, 0505, 5207, and 5208 of the 
     ESEA as sections 5401, 5402, 5403, 5404, 5405, 5406, and 
     5407, respectively.


             assistance to address school dropout problems

       Section 504. Repeal of the Assistance to Address School 
     Dropout Problems Program. Section 504 of the bill would 
     repeal the ``Assistance to Address School Dropout Problems'' 
     program in Part C of Title V of the ESEA.


                         public charter schools

       Section 505. Redesignation of the Public Charter Schools 
     Program. Section 505 of the bill would redesignate the Public 
     Charter Schools Program, which is currently Part C of Title X 
     of the ESEA, as Part B of Title V of the ESEA. Section 505 
     would also make necessary conforming changes to carry out the 
     redesignation.


         OPTIONS: OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS

       Section 506. Options: Opportunities to Improve Our Nation's 
     Schools. Section 506 of the bill would amend Title V of the 
     ESEA to add a proposed new Part C (``Options: Opportunities 
     to Improve Our Nation's Schools'') that would authorize a 
     flexible, competitive grant program to help SEAs and LEAs 
     provide innovative, high-quality public public school choice 
     programs.
       Proposed new section 5301 of the ESEA would set forth the 
     findings of the proposed new part and state that its purpose 
     is to identify and support innovative approaches to high-
     quality public school choice by providing financial 
     assistance for the demonstration, development, 
     implementation, and evaluation of, and dissemination of 
     information about, public school choice projects that 
     stimulate educational innovation for all public schools 
     and contribute to standards-based school reform efforts.
       Proposed new section 5302(a) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the Secretary, from funds appropriated under section 5305(a) 
     and not reserved under section 5305(b), to make grants to 
     SEAs and LEAs to support programs that promote innovative 
     approaches to high-quality public school choice. Proposed new 
     section 5302(b) of the ESEA would prohibit grants under this 
     part from exceeding three years.
       Proposed new section 5303(a) of the ESEA would authorize 
     funds under the part to be used to demonstrate, develop, 
     implement, evaluate, and disseminate information on 
     innovative approaches to broaden public school choice. 
     Examples of such approaches at the school, district, and 
     State levels would be: (1) inter-district approaches to 
     public school choice, including approaches that increase 
     equal access to high-quality educational programs and 
     diversity in schools; (2) public elementary and secondary 
     programs that involve partnerships with institutions of 
     higher education and that are located on the campuses of 
     those institutions; (3) programs that allow students in 
     public secondary schools to enroll in postsecondary courses 
     and to receive both secondary and postsecondary academic 
     credit; (4) worksite satellite schools, in which SEAs or LEAs 
     form partnerships with public or private employers, to create 
     public schools at parents' places of employment; and (5) 
     approaches to school desegregation that provide students and 
     parents choice through strategies other than magnet schools.
       Proposed new section 5303(b) of the ESEA would require that 
     funds under this part: (1) supplement, and not supplant, non-
     federal funds expended for existing programs; (2) not be used 
     for transportation; and (3) not be used to fund projects that 
     are specifically authorized under Part A or B of the title.
       Proposed new section 5304(a) of the ESEA would require a 
     SEA or LEA desiring to receive a grant under this part to 
     submit an application to the Secretary, in such form and 
     containing such information, as the Secretary may require. 
     Each application would be required to include a description 
     of the program for which funds are sought and the goals for 
     such program, a description of how the program funded under 
     this part will be coordinated with, and will complement and 
     enhance, programs under other related Federal and non-federal 
     projects, and, if the program includes partners, the name of 
     each partner and a description of its responsibilities. Also, 
     each application would be required to include a description 
     of the policies and procedures the applicant will use to 
     ensure its accountability for results, including its goals 
     and performance indicators, and that the program is open and 
     accessible to, and will promote high-academic standards for, 
     all students. This will help ensure broad access to high-
     quality schools, while allowing, for example, public-private 
     partnerships to create public worksite schools that allow 
     children of employees at the worksite to attend such a 
     school. The Secretary would be required to give a priority to 
     applications for projects that would serve high-poverty LEAs, 
     and would be authorized to give a priority to applications 
     demonstrating that the applicant will carry out its project 
     in partnership with one or more public and private agencies, 
     organizations, and institutions, including institutions of 
     higher education and public and private employers.
       Proposed new section 5305(a) of the ESEA would authorize 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001 and for 
     each of the four succeeding fiscal years to carry out the 
     part. Proposed new section 5305(b) of the ESEA would, from 
     amounts appropriated for any fiscal year, authorize the 
     Secretary to reserve not more than five percent to carry out 
     evaluations, provide technical assistance, and disseminate 
     information. Proposed new section 5305(c) of the ESEA would 
     authorize the Secretary to use funds reserved under 
     subsection (b) to carry out one or more evaluations of 
     programs assisted under this part. Those evaluations would, 
     at a minimum, address: (1) how and the extent to which the 
     programs supported with funds under the part promote 
     educational equity and excellence; and (2) the extent to 
     which public schools of choice supported with funds under the 
     part are held accountable to the public, effective in 
     improving public education, and open and accessible to all 
     students.


                     title vi--class-size reduction

       Section 601, class-size [ESEA, Title VI]. section 601 of 
     the bill would replace Title VI of

[[Page S6354]]

     the ESEA with a multi-year extension of the 1-year 
     initiative, enacted in the Department's appropriations Act 
     for fiscal year 1999, to help States and LEAs improve 
     educational outcomes through reducing class sizes in the 
     early grades, as follows:
       ESEA, Sec. 6001, findings. Section 6001 of the ESEA would 
     set out 8 findings in support of the new Title VI.
       ESEA, Sec. 6002, purpose. Section 6002 of the ESEA would 
     provide that the purpose of Title VI is to help States and 
     LEAs recruit, train, and hire 100,000 additional teachers, in 
     order to: (1) reduce class sizes nationally, in grades 1 
     through 3, to an average of 18 students per regular 
     classroom; and (2) improve teaching in the early grades so 
     that all students can learn to read independently and well by 
     the end of the third grade.
       ESEA, Sec. 6003, authorization of appropriations. Section 
     6003 of the ESEA would authorize the appropriations of such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out Title VI for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005.
       ESEA, Sec. 6004, allocations to States. Section 6004(a) of 
     the ESEA would direct the Secretary to reserve a total of not 
     more than 1 percent of each year's appropriation for Title VI 
     to make payments, on the basis of their respective needs, to 
     the several outlying areas and to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for activities in schools operated or supported by 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
       After reserving funds for the outlying areas and the BIA, 
     section 6004(b) would direct the Secretary to allocate the 
     remaining amount among the States on the basis of their 
     respective shares under Part A of Title I of the ESEA or 
     under Title II of the ESEA, whichever was greater, for the 
     previous fiscal year. Because these allocations would exceed 
     the amount available, they would then be proportionately 
     reduced. If a State chooses not to participate in the 
     program, or fails to submit an approvable application, the 
     Secretary would reallocate that State's allocation to the 
     remaining States.
       ESEA, Sec. 6005, applications. Section 6005(a) of the ESEA 
     would require the SEA of each State desiring to receive a 
     Title VI grant to submit an application to the Secretary.
       Subsection (b) would require each application to include: 
     (1) the State's goals for using program funds to reduce 
     average class sizes in regular classrooms in grades 1 through 
     3; (2) a description of the SEA's plan for allocating program 
     funds within the State; (3) a description of how the State 
     will use other funds, including other Federal funds, to 
     reduce class sizes and improve teacher quality and reading 
     achievement within the State; and (4) an assurance that the 
     SEA will submit such reports and information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       Subsection (c) would direct the Secretary to approve a 
     State's application if it meets the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b) and holds reasonable promise of 
     achieving the program's purposes.
       ESEA, Sec. 6006, within-State allocations. Section 6006(a) 
     of the ESEA would permit participating States to reserve up 
     to one percent of each year's Title I allocation for the cost 
     of administering the program, and direct them to distribute 
     all remaining funds to LEAs. A State would distribute 80 
     percent of its allocation on the basis of the relative number 
     of children from low-income families in LEAs, and the 
     remaining 20 percent on the basis of school-age children 
     enrolled in public and private nonprofit schools in LEAs.
       Subsection (b) would provide for the reallocation of an 
     LEA's award to other LEAs if it chooses not to participate or 
     fails to submit an approvable application.
       ESEA, Sec. 6007, local applications. Section 6007 of the 
     ESEA would require each LEA that wishes to receive Title VI 
     funds to submit an application to its SEA that describes its 
     program to reduce class size by hiring qualified teachers.
       ESEA, Sec. 6008, uses of funds. Section 6008(a) of the ESEA 
     would permit each participating LEA to use up to 3 percent of 
     its subgrant for the costs of administering its Title VI 
     program.
       Subsection (b) would permit each LEA to use up to a total 
     of 15 percent of each year's Title VI funds to: (1) assess 
     new teachers for their competency in content knowledge and 
     teaching skills; (2) assist new teachers to take any tests 
     required to meet State certification requirements; and (3) 
     provide professional development to teachers.
       Subsection (c) would require each LEA to use the rest of 
     its Title IV funds to recruit, hire, and train certified 
     teachers for the purpose of reducing class size in grades 1 
     through 3 to 18 children.
       Subsection (d) would prohibit an LEA from using its Title 
     VI funds to increase the salary of, or to provide benefits 
     to, a teacher who it already employs (or has employed).
       Subsection (e) would permit an LEA that has already reduced 
     class size in grades 1 through 3 to 18 or fewer children to 
     use its Title VI funds to make further class-size reductions 
     in grades 1 through 3, reduce class sizes in other grades, or 
     for activities, including professional development, to 
     improve teacher quality.
       Subsection (f) would permit and LEA whose subgrant is too 
     small to pay the starting salary for a new teacher to use its 
     subgrant funds to form a consortium with one or more other 
     LEAs for the purpose of reducing class size; to help pay the 
     salary of a full-time or part-time teacher hired to reduce 
     class size; or, if the subgrant is less than $10,000, for 
     professional development.
       ESEA, Sec. 6009, cost-sharing requirement. Section 6009(a) 
     of the ESEA would allow program funds to pay the full cost of 
     local programs under the Act in LEAs with child-poverty rates 
     greater than 50 percent. The maximum Federal share for LEAs 
     with child-poverty rates below 50 percent would be 65 
     percent.
       Subsection (b) would require an LEA to provide the non-
     Federal shares of a project through cash expenditures from 
     non-Federal sources. However, an LEA operating one or more 
     schoolwide programs under section 1114 of the ESEA could use 
     funds under Part A of Title I of that Act to pay the non-
     Federal share of activities under this program that benefit 
     those schoolwide programs, so long as the LEA meets the Title 
     I requirement to ensure that services provided with State and 
     local funds in Title I schools are at least comparable to 
     services provided with State and local funds in non-Title I 
     schools. This option would not, however, be available with 
     respect to schools operating schoolwide programs through a 
     waiver of the normal eligibility rules governing schoolwide 
     programs (current section 1114(a)(1)(B), which the bill would 
     re-enact as section 1114(a)(2)).
       ESEA, Sec. 6010, nonsupplanting. Section 6010 of the ESEA 
     would require each participating LEA to use its Title VI 
     funds to increase the overall amount of its expenditures for 
     the combination of: (1) teachers in regular classrooms in 
     schools receiving assistance; (2) assessing new teachers and 
     assisting them to take tests required for State 
     certification; and (3) professional development for teachers.
       ESEA, Sec. 6011, annual State reports. Section 6011 of the 
     ESEA would require each participating state to submit an 
     annual report to the Secretary on its activities under Title 
     VI.
       ESEA, Sec. 6012, participation of private school teachers. 
     Section 6012 of the ESEA would require each LEA to provide 
     for the equitable participation of teachers from private 
     schools in professional development activities it carriers 
     out with program funds.
       ESEA, Sec. 6013, definition. Section 6013 of the ESEA would 
     define ``State'', for the purpose of Title VI, as meaning 
     each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
     Rico. The outlaying areas, which would otherwise be treated 
     as States under the definition in current Sec. 14101(27) (to 
     be redesignated as Sec. 11101(27)), would be funded through 
     the special reservation in section 6004(a), rather than 
     through the formula allocations to States in section 6004(b).


  title vii--bilingual education, language enhancement, and language 
                          acquisition programs

       Title VII of the bill would revise Title VII (Bilingual 
     Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition 
     Programs) of the ESEA to enhance and make more effective the 
     accountability provisions for those receiving grants under 
     Subpart 1 of the title and improve the professional 
     development programs under Subpart 2 of Title VII by 
     eliminating overlap among the different authorized activities 
     and targeting activities on specific areas where assistance 
     is most needed. Other program improvements are also proposed.


                          bilingual education

       Section 701. Findings, Policy, and Purpose. Section 701 of 
     the bill would amend sections 7102(a) (Findings) and (b) 
     (Policy) of the ESEA to incorporate recent research findings 
     and to add the policy that limited English proficient 
     students be tested in English after three consecutive years 
     in United States' schools. This requirement is consistent 
     with the school accountability requirements associated with 
     limited English proficient students in section 
     1111(b)(2)(F)(v) of Title I of the ESEA. Section 701 of the 
     bill would also amend section 7102(c) (Purpose) of the ESEA 
     to add helping to ensure that limited English proficient 
     students master English as a stated purpose and to make minor 
     editorial changes.
       Section 702. Authorization of Appropriations for Part A. 
     Section 702 of the bill would amend section 7103(a) of the 
     ESEA to authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out programs under Part A of the Title 
     from fiscal year 2001 through 2005.
       Section 703. Program Development and Enhancement Grants. In 
     order to simplify and improve administration of instructional 
     services grants, section 703 of the bill would amend section 
     7113 of the ESEA (Enhancement Grants) to consolidate the 
     activities of the Program Development and Implementation 
     Grants program (currently in section 7112 of the ESEA and 
     repealed in section 730 of the bill) and the Enhancement 
     Grants program into a new three-year grant program, ``Program 
     Development and Enhancement Grants.''
       Section 703(3) of the bill would require grants to be used 
     to: (1) develop and implement comprehensive, preschool, 
     elementary, or secondary education programs for children and 
     youth with limited English proficiency, that are aligned with 
     standards-based State and local school reform efforts and 
     coordinated with other relevant programs and services; (2) 
     provide high-quality professional development; and (3) 
     require annual assessment of student progress in learning 
     English. Section 703(3) of the bill would also amend current 
     language on allowable activities to emphasize effective 
     instructional practice and the use of technology in the 
     classroom.
       Section 703(4) of the bill would authorize the Secretary to 
     give priority to applicants that enroll fewer than 10,000 
     students and

[[Page S6355]]

     that have limited or no experience in serving limited English 
     proficient students.
       Section 704. Comprehensive School Grants. Section 704 of 
     the bill would amend section 7114 of the ESEA that authorizes 
     five-year Comprehensive School Grants for school-wide 
     instructional programs. Section 704(1) of the bill would 
     revise the purpose of the program. The purpose would be to 
     implement school-wide education programs, in coordination 
     with Title I of the ESEA, for children and youth with limited 
     English proficiency to assist such children and youth to 
     learn English and achieve to challenging State content and 
     performance standards, and to improve, reform, and upgrade 
     relevant programs and operations in schools with significant 
     concentrations of such students or that serve significant 
     numbers of such students.
       Section 704(2) of the bill would amend section 7114(b)(2) 
     of the ESEA to replace the termination provisions with a 
     clearer system of accountability requiring the Secretary, 
     before making a continuation award for the fourth year of a 
     program under this section, to determine if the program is 
     making continuous and substantial progress in assisting 
     children and youth with limited English proficiency to learn 
     English and achieve to challenging State content and 
     performance standards. The Secretary would base such 
     determination on the indicators established and data and 
     information collected under the annual evaluations under 
     section 7118 (as redesignated) and such other data and 
     information as the Secretary may require. If the Secretary 
     determines that a recipient requesting a fourth-year 
     continuation award under this section is not making 
     continuous and substantial progress, the recipient would 
     be required to promptly develop and submit to the 
     Secretary a program improvement plan for its program. The 
     Secretary would be required to approve a program 
     improvement plan only if he or she determines that it held 
     reasonable promise of enabling students with limited 
     English proficiency participating in the program to learn 
     English and achieve to challenging State content and 
     performance standards. If the Secretary determines that 
     the recipient is not making substantial progress in 
     implementing the program improvement plan, the Secretary 
     would be required to deny a continuation award.
       Section 704(3) of the bill would establish required 
     activities. The required activities would, among other 
     things, include the annual assessment of student progress in 
     learning English. Section 704(3) of the bill would also amend 
     current language on allowable activities to, among other 
     things, emphasize effective instructional practice and the 
     use of technology in the classroom.
       Section 704(4) of the bill would limit the period during 
     which grant funds may be used for planning to 90 days and 
     limit the number of schools that may be included in the grant 
     to two. These changes would ensure more effective use of 
     Federal assistance.
       Section 705. Systemwide Improvement Grants. Section 705 of 
     the bill would amend section 7115 (Systemwide Improvement 
     Grants) of the ESEA that authorizes five-year grants for 
     projects within an entire school district. Section 705(1) of 
     the bill would amend section 7115(a) of the ESEA to make 
     editorial and conforming changes to that subsection.
       Section 705(2) of the bill would amend section 7115(b)(2) 
     of the ESEA to replace the termination provisions with a 
     clearer system of accountability requiring the Secretary, 
     before making a continuation award for the fourth year of a 
     program under this section, to determine if the program is 
     making continuous and substantial progress in assisting 
     children and youth with limited English proficiency to learn 
     English and achieve to challenging State content and 
     performance standards. The Secretary would base such 
     determination on the indicators established and data and 
     information collected under the annual evaluations under 
     section 7118 (as redesignated), and such other data and 
     information as the Secretary may require. If the Secretary 
     determines that a recipient requesting a fourth-year 
     continuation award under this section is not making 
     continuous and substantial progress, the recipient would be 
     required to promptly develop and submit to the Secretary a 
     program improvement plan for its program. The Secretary would 
     be required to approve a program improvement plan only if he 
     or she determines that it held reasonable promise of enabling 
     students with limited English proficiency participating in 
     the program to learn English and achieve to challenging State 
     content and performance standards. If the Secretary 
     determines that the recipient is not making substantial 
     progress in implementing the program improvement plan, the 
     Secretary would be required to deny a continuation award.
       Section 705(3) of the bill would establish required 
     activities, including building school district capacity to 
     continue to operate similar instructional programs once 
     Federal funding is no longer available, aligning programs for 
     limited English proficient students with school, district, 
     and State reform efforts and coordinating with other relevant 
     programs (such as Title I), and annually assessing student 
     progress in learning English. The required activities would 
     help ensure that projects effectively promote educational 
     reform for limited English proficient students. Section 
     705(3) of the bill would also amend current language on 
     allowable activities to, among other things, emphasize 
     effective instructional practice, developing student 
     proficiency in two languages, and the use of technology in 
     the classroom.
       Section 706. Applications for Awards under Subpart 1. 
     Section 706 of the bill would amend section 7116 of the ESEA 
     (Applications) to make changes designed to increase program 
     accountability.
       Section 706(1) of the bill would amend section 7116(b) of 
     the ESEA (State Review and Comments) to clarify that SEAs 
     must not only review Subpart 1 applications, but also 
     transmit that review in writing to the Department.
       Section 706(2) of the bill would amend section 7116(f) of 
     the ESEA (Required Documentation) to require documentation 
     that the leadership of each participating school had been 
     involved in the development and planning of the program in 
     the school.
       Section 706(3) of the bill would amend section 7116(g) of 
     the ESEA (Contents) to reorganize paragraph (A) and to add to 
     the list of data to be included in the application, data on: 
     (1) current achievement data of the limited English 
     proficient students to be served by the program (and in 
     comparison to their English proficient peers) in reading or 
     language arts (in English and in the native language if 
     applicable) and in math; (2) reclassification rates for 
     limited English proficient students in the district; (3) the 
     previous schooling experiences of participating students; and 
     (4) the professional development needs of the instructional 
     personnel who will provide services for limited English 
     proficient students, including the need for certified 
     teachers; and (5) how the grant would supplement the basic 
     services provided to limited English proficient students. 
     Many school districts already collect such data and its 
     collection would help ensure that data submitted with the 
     application could be used to establish a baseline against 
     which instructional progress could be measured.
       Section 706(3) of the bill would also make editorial 
     changes to section 7116(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA and require, in 
     section 7116(g)(1)(E) of the ESEA, an assurance that the 
     applicant will employ teachers in the proposed program who 
     individually, or in combination, are proficient in the native 
     language of the majority of students they teach, if 
     instruction in the program is also in the native language.
       Section 706(4) of the bill would amend section 7116(i) of 
     the ESEA (Priorities and Special Rules) to add two new 
     priorities for applicants that experience a dramatic increase 
     in the number of limited English proficient students enrolled 
     and demonstrate that they have a proven record of success in 
     helping children and youth with limited English proficiency 
     learn English and achieve to high academic standards and make 
     editorial revisions.
       Section 707. Evaluations under Subpart 1. Section 707(1) of 
     the bill would amend current section 7123(a) of the ESEA 
     (Evaluation) to require that grantees conduct an annual, 
     rather than biennial, evaluation. This change would enhance 
     the Department's ability to hold projects accountable for 
     teaching English to limited English proficient students and 
     to determine the extent to which these students are achieving 
     to State standards.
       Section 707(2) of the bill would revise the list of 
     evaluation components, in section 7123(c) of the ESEA, to 
     require a recipient to: (1) use the data provided in the 
     application as baseline data against which to report academic 
     achievement and gains in English proficiency for students in 
     the program; (2) report on the validity and reliability of 
     all instruments used to measure student progress; and (3) 
     enable results to be disaggregated by such relevant factors 
     as a student's grade, gender, and language group and whether 
     the student has a disability. Evaluations would be required 
     to include: (1) data on the project's progress in achieving 
     its objectives; (2) data showing the extent to which all 
     students served by the program are achieving to the State's 
     student performance standards; (3) program implementation 
     indicators that address each of the program's objectives and 
     components, including the extent to which professional 
     development activities have resulted in improved classroom 
     practices and improved student achievement; (4) a description 
     of how the activities funded under the grant are coordinated 
     and integrated with the overall school program and other 
     Federal, State, or local programs serving limited English 
     proficient children and youth; and (5) such other information 
     as the Secretary may require. This revision is necessary to 
     ensure that grantees submit data needed to make a 
     determination on whether the project should be continued at 
     the end of the third year or at the end of the fourth year, 
     and also provide the Department with data needed to assess 
     grantee progress towards meeting goals established for the 
     Bilingual Education program under the Government Performance 
     and Results Act (GPRA).
       Section 707(3) of the bill would add a new subsection (d) 
     (Performance Measures) that would require the Secretary to 
     establish performance indicators to determine if programs 
     under sections 7113 and 7114 (as redesignated) are making 
     continuous and substantial progress, and allow the Secretary 
     to establish such indicators to determine if programs under 
     section 7112 (as redesignated) are making continuous and 
     substantial progress, toward assisting children and youth 
     with limited English proficiency to learn English and achieve 
     to challenging State content and performance standards.
       Section 708. Research. Section 708 of the bill would amend 
     current section 7231 of the ESEA (Research) to support the 
     use of the

[[Page S6356]]

     research authority to gather data needed to assess the 
     Department's progress in meeting goals established for the 
     Bilingual Education program under GPRA.
       Section 708(1) of the bill would amend sections 7132 (a) 
     (Administration) and (b) (Requirements) of the ESEA to 
     eliminate the requirement that research be conducted through 
     the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in 
     collaboration with the Office of Bilingual Education and 
     Minority Languages Affairs and also to provide a list of 
     allowable research activities (including data collection 
     needed for compliance with GPRA and identifying technology-
     based approaches that show effectiveness in helping limited 
     English proficient students reach challenging State 
     standards).
       Section 708(3) of the bill would make conforming changes to 
     sections 7321 (c)(1) and (2) of the ESEA and eliminate the 
     authorization for grantees under Subparts 1 and 2 to submit 
     research applications at the same time as their applications 
     under Subparts 1 and 2. The current provision unnecessarily 
     complicates the conduct of these grant competitions. Section 
     708(4) of the bill would eliminate section 7132(e) (Data 
     Collection) since data collection is an activity authorized 
     in subsection (a).
       Section 709. Academic Excellence Awards. Section 709 of the 
     bill would replace current section 7133 of the ESEA (Academic 
     Excellence) that authorizes grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements to promote the adoption of promising 
     instructional and professional development programs, with a 
     State discretionary grant program. Under the new program, the 
     Secretary would be authorized to make grants to SEAs to 
     assist them in recognizing LEAs and other public and non-
     profit entities whose programs have demonstrated significant 
     progress in assisting limited English proficient students to 
     learn English and to meet the same challenging State content 
     standards expected of all children and youth, within three 
     years. The expanded State role proposed in these amendments 
     is designed to encourage and reward exceptional programs and 
     help disseminate information on effective instructional 
     practices for serving limited English proficient students.
       Section 710. State Grant Program. Section 710 of the bill 
     would amend subsection (c) (Uses of Funds) of section 7134 
     (State Grant Program) of the ESEA to require State to use 
     funds under the section to: (1) assist LEAs with program 
     design, capacity building, assessment of student performance, 
     program evaluation, and development of data collection and 
     accountability systems for limited English proficient 
     students that are aligned with State reform efforts; and (2) 
     collect data on limited English proficient populations in the 
     State and the educational programs and services available to 
     such populations. This amendment is designed to improve the 
     quality of data collected by LEAs relating to services for 
     limited English proficient students.
       Section 711. National Clearinghouse on the Education of 
     Children and Youth with Limited English Proficiency. Section 
     711 would amend section 7135 of the ESEA (National 
     Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education) to rename the 
     Clearinghouse the ``National Clearinghouse for the Education 
     of Children and Youth with Limited English Proficiency'', and 
     to eliminate ambiguous and burdensome requirements that the 
     Clearinghouse be administered as an adjunct to the 
     Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse 
     system, develop a data base management and monitoring system, 
     and develop, maintain, and disseminate a listing of bilingual 
     education professionals.
       Section 712. Instructional Materials Development. Section 
     712 of the bill would amend section 7136 of the ESEA 
     (Instructional Materials) to expand the current authorization 
     for grants to develop, publish, and disseminate instructional 
     materials. The current authorization is limited to Native 
     American, Native Hawaiian, Native Pacific Islanders, and 
     other languages of outlying areas. The amendment would add 
     other low-incidence languages in the United States for which 
     instructional materials are not readily available. The kinds 
     of materials that may be developed would also be expanded to 
     include materials on State content standards and assessments 
     for dissemination to parents of limited English proficient 
     students. The proposed amendment recognizes that 
     instructional materials may be needed in languages other than 
     those listed in the current statute and that materials may be 
     needed to prepare parents to become more involved in the 
     education of their children.
       Section 712 of the bill would also require the Secretary to 
     give priority to applications for developing instructional 
     materials in languages indigenous to the United States or to 
     the outlying territories and for developing and evaluating 
     instructional materials that reflect challenging State and 
     local content standards, in collaboration with activities 
     assisted under Subpart 1 and section 7124.
       Section 713. Purpose of Subpart 3. Section 713 of the bill 
     would amend section 7141 (Purpose) of Subpart 3 (Professional 
     Development) of Part A of the title to eliminate a reference 
     to dissemination of information. This activity is not 
     directly related to professional development.
       Section 714. Training for all Teachers Program. Section 714 
     of the bill would amend section 7142 of the ESEA (Training 
     for all Teachers Program) to limit grants to ongoing 
     professional development. This change would provide greater 
     focus to the activity since the current statute covers both 
     inservice and preservice professional development. The 
     Secretary would be authorized to award grants to LEAs or to 
     one or more LEAs in consortium with one or more institutions 
     of higher education, SEAs, or nonprofit organizations. This 
     change would help ensure that the professional development 
     supported by the grant directly addresses the staffing needs 
     of one or more LEAs.
       Section 7142 of the ESEA would be further amended to reduce 
     the grant period from 5 to 3 years, thus allowing the program 
     to assist a greater number of communities. Also, funded 
     professional development activities would be required to be 
     of high-quality and long-term in nature, thus no longer could 
     they be simply a few weekend seminars. The list of allowable 
     activities would be expanded to, among other things, include 
     induction programs, clarifying that grantees may use grants 
     to cover the costs of coaching by teachers experienced in 
     serving limited English proficient students for teachers who 
     are preparing to serve these students, and support for 
     teacher use of education technologies. The proposed 
     amendments reflect current research findings on effective 
     professional development practices.
       Section 715. Bilingual Education Teachers and Personnel 
     Grants. Section 715 of the bill would amend section 7143 of 
     the ESEA (Bilingual Education Teachers and Personnel Grants) 
     to limit grants to institutions of higher education for 
     preservice professional development. This change would 
     provide greater focus to the activity since the current 
     statute covers both inservice and preservice professional 
     development.
       Also, section 715(3) of the bill would add a new subsection 
     (d) to section requiring that funds be used to put in place a 
     course of study that prepares teachers to serve limited 
     English proficient students, integrate course content 
     relating to meeting the needs of limited English proficient 
     students into all programs for prospective teachers, assign 
     tenured faculty to train teachers to serve limited English 
     proficient students, incorporate State content and 
     performance standards into the institution's coursework, and 
     expand clinical experiences for participants. The new 
     subsection would also authorized grantees to use funds for 
     such activities as supporting partnerships with LEAs, 
     restructuring higher education course content, assisting 
     other institutions of higher education to improve the quality 
     of relevant professional development programs and expanding 
     recruitment efforts for students who will participate in 
     relevant professional development programs.
       The proposed amendments recognize that all prospective 
     teachers should have a basic understanding of effective 
     methods for serving limited English proficient students. 
     Because of the rapid growth in this population, all teachers 
     can expect to have limited English proficient students in 
     their classrooms at some point in their teaching career. 
     These amendments also recognize the importance of creating a 
     closer link between schools of education that produce new 
     teachers and the schools that hire them.
       Section 716. Bilingual Education Career Ladder Program. 
     Section 716 of the bill would amend section 7144 of the ESEA 
     (Bilingual Education Career Ladder Program) to authorize 
     grants to a consortia of one or more institutions of higher 
     education and one or more institutions of higher education 
     and one or more SEAs or LEAs to develop and implement 
     bilingual education career ladder programs. A bilingual 
     education career ladder program would be a program designed 
     to provide high-quality, pre-baccalaureate coursework and 
     teacher training to educational personnel who do not have a 
     baccalaureate degree and that would lead to timely receipt of 
     a baccalaureate degree and certification or licensure of 
     program participants as bilingual education teachers or 
     other educational personnel who serve limited English 
     proficient students. Recipients of grants would be 
     required to coordinate with programs under title II of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, and other relevant programs, 
     for the recruitment and retention of bilingual students in 
     postsecondary programs to train them to become bilingual 
     educators, and make use of all existing sources of student 
     financial aid before using grant funds to pay tuition and 
     stipends for participating students.
       Also, section 716(4) of the bill would amend section 
     7144(d) of the ESEA (Special Considerations) to eliminate the 
     current special considerations and require the Secretary, 
     instead, to give special consideration to applications that 
     provide training in English as a second language, including 
     developing proficiency in the instructional use of English 
     and, as appropriate, a second language in classroom contexts.
       Section 717. Graduate Fellowships in Bilingual Education 
     Program. Section 717 of the bill would amend section 7145(a) 
     of the ESEA (Authorization) in the Graduate Fellowships in 
     Bilingual Education Program, to eliminate the authorization 
     for fellowships at the post-doctoral level and the 
     requirement that the Secretary make a specific number of 
     fellowship awards in any given year. Masters and doctoral 
     level fellows are more likely to provide a direct benefit to 
     classroom instruction than fellows at the post-doctoral 
     level.
       Section 718. Applications for Awards under Subpart 3. 
     Section 718 of the bill would amend section 7146 of the ESEA 
     (Application) to clarify that the State educational agency 
     must review and submit written comments on all applications 
     for professional development grants, with the exception of 
     those for fellowships, to the Secretary.

[[Page S6357]]

       Section 719. Evaluations under Subpart 3. Section 719 of 
     the bill would amend section 7149 of the ESEA (Program 
     Evaluations) to require an annual evaluation and to clarify 
     evaluation requirements. The purpose of these proposed 
     amendments is to increase project accountability and ensure 
     that the Department receives data from grantees that is 
     required to address performance goals established under the 
     GPRA.
       Section 720. Transition. Section 720 of the bill would 
     amend section 7161 of the ESEA (Transition) to provide that a 
     recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of Part A of this title 
     that is in its third or fourth year of the grant on the day 
     preceding the date of enactment of the Educational Excellence 
     for All Children Act of 1999 shall be eligible to receive 
     continuation funding under the terms and conditions of the 
     original grant.


                 emergency immigrant education program

       Section 721. Findings of the emergency Immigrant Education 
     Program. Section 721 of the bill would amend section 7301 
     (Findings and Purpose) of Part C (Emergency Immigrant 
     Education Program) of Title VII of the ESEA to add an 
     additional finding to better justify the program.
       Section 722. State Administrative Costs. Section 722 of the 
     bill would amend section 7302 of the ESEA (State 
     Administrative Costs) to authorize States to use up to 2 
     percent of their grant for administrative costs if they 
     distribute funds to LEAs within the State on a competitive 
     basis. The current provision caps State administrative costs 
     at 1.5 percent, which is insufficient to cover the costs of 
     holding a State discretionary grant competition.
       Section 723. Competitive State Grants to Local Educational 
     Agencies. Section 723 of the bill would amend section 
     7304(e)(1) of the ESEA to eliminate the $50 million 
     appropriations trigger on, and the 20 percent cap for, 
     allowing States each year to reserve funds from their program 
     allotments and award grants, on a competitive basis, to LEAs 
     with the State. This change reflects current budget policy 
     and practice of allowing State recipients the opportunity to 
     allow LEAs to compete for funds.
       Section 724. Authorization of Appropriations for Part C. 
     Section 724 of the bill you amend section 7309 of the ESEA 
     (Authorizations of Appropriations) to authorize the 
     appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to carry out Part C of Title 
     VII.


                           general provisions

       Section 725. Definitions. Section 725 of the bill would 
     amend section 7501 (Definitions; Regulations) of Part E 
     (General provisions) of Title VII of the ESEA to add a 
     definition of ``reclassification rate,'' a term used in the 
     proposed amendments to the Applications and Evaluations 
     sections of Subpart 1 of Part A of Title VII of the ESEA. The 
     term would mean the annual percentage of limited English 
     proficient students who have met the State criteria for no 
     longer being considered limited English proficient. Also, the 
     current definition of ``Special Alternative Instructional 
     Program'', would be eliminated.
       Section 726. Regulations, Parental Notification, and Use of 
     Paraprofessionals. Section 726 of the bill would amend 
     section 7502 (Regulations and Notification) of Part E to add 
     requirements for projects funded under subpart 1 of Part A of 
     the title relating to parental notification and the use of 
     instructional staff who are not certified in the field in 
     which they teach. Section 726(1) of the bill would amend the 
     section heading to read: ``REGULATIONS, PARENTAL 
     NOTIFICATION, AND USE OF PARAPROFESSIONALS''.
       Section 726(2) of the bill would amend section 7502(b) 
     (Parental Notification) of the ESEA by making conforming 
     amendments in paragraphs (1)(A) and (C) of the subsection and 
     amending paragraph (2)(A) of the subsection to change the 
     paragraph heading to ``Option to Withdraw'' and to require a 
     recipient of funds under Subpart 1 of Part A to provide a 
     written notice to parents of children who will participate in 
     the programs under that subpart, in a form and language 
     understandable to the parents, that informs them that they 
     may withdraw their child from the program at any time.
       Section 726(3) of the bill would add a new subsection (c) 
     to require that, on the date of enactment of the Educational 
     Excellence for All Children Act of 1999, all new staff hired 
     to provide academic instruction in programs supported under 
     Part A, Subpart 1, will be in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 1119(c) of the ESEA, relating to the 
     employment of paraprofessionals. These amendments are 
     designed to lead to an improvement of the professional skills 
     of instructional staff providing services to limited English 
     proficient students.


           repeals, redesignations, and conforming amendments

       Section 727. Terminology. Section 727 of the bill would 
     amend subparts 1 and 2 of Part A and section 7501(6) of the 
     ESEA to conform references to bilingual education and special 
     alternative instruction programs to instructional programs 
     for children and youth with limited English proficiency.
       Section 728. Repeals. Section 730 of the bill would repeal 
     current sections 7112, 7117, 7119, 7120, 7121, 7147 and Part 
     B of Title VII of the ESEA.
       Section 7112 would no longer be needed since the authorized 
     activity would be consolidated with the activity authorized 
     by Section 7113.
       Section 7117 (Intensified Instruction), 7119 (Subgrants), 
     7120 (Priority on Funding), and 7121 (Coordination) of the 
     ESEA would be repealed since these sections repeat language 
     appearing elsewhere in the statute or cover situations that 
     are unlikely to occur.
       Section 7147 (Program Requirements) of the ESEA would be 
     repealed because it requires that all professional 
     development grants assist educational personnel in meeting 
     State and local certification requirements. This requirement 
     is not relevant to all of the authorized professional 
     development activities.
       Part B of Title VII of the ESEA would be moved to new Part 
     I of Title X of the ESEA.
       Section 729. Redesignations and Conforming Amendments. 
     Section 731 of the bill would provide for the redesignation 
     of various sections of the ESEA and for conforming references 
     to those sections and to other sections of the ESEA that have 
     been changed.


                         TITLE VIII--IMPACT AID

       Title VIII of the bill would amend Title VIII of the ESEA, 
     which authorizes the Impact Aid program.
       Section 801, purpose [ESEA, Sec. 8001]. Section 801 of the 
     bill would amend section 8001 of the ESEA to provide that the 
     purpose of the Impact Aid program is to provide assistance to 
     certain LEAs that are financially burdened as a result of 
     activities of the Federal Government carried out in their 
     jurisdictions, in order to help those LEAs provide 
     educational services to their children, including federally 
     connected children, so that they can meet challenging State 
     standards. This will provide a succinct statement of the 
     program's purpose, as is typical of other programs, in place 
     of the statement in the current statute, which is overly long 
     and which refers to certain categories of eligibility that 
     other provisions of the bill would repeal.
       Section 802, payments relating to Federal acquisition of 
     real property [ESEA, Sec. 8002]. Section 802 of the bill 
     would amend section 8002 of the ESEA, which authorizes the 
     Secretary to partially compensate certain LEAs for revenue 
     lost due to the presence of non-taxable Federal property, 
     such as a military base or a national park, in their 
     jurisdictions. The amendments made by section 8002 would 
     better target funds on the LEAs most burdened by the presence 
     of Federal property, so that appropriations for section 8002, 
     which are not warranted under current law, may be justified 
     in the future.
       Section 802(a)(1) of the bill would delete unneeded 
     language in section 8002(a) of the ESEA that refers to the 
     fiscal years for which payments under section 8002 are 
     authorized. That issue is fully covered by the authorization 
     of appropriations in section 8014 of the ESEA.
       Section 802(a)(2) would delete an alternative eligibility 
     criterion (current section 8002(a)(1)(C)(ii)), which was 
     enacted to benefit a single LEA, and would add a requirement 
     that the Federal property claimed as the basis of eligibility 
     have a current aggregate assessed value (as determined under 
     section 8002(b)(3)) that is at least 10 percent of the total 
     assessed value of all real property in the LEA. (The current 
     statutory requirement that Federal property constituted 10 
     percent of the total assessed value when the Federal 
     Government acquired it would be retained.) The new provision 
     will ensure that payments under section 8002 are made only to 
     LEAs in which the presence of Federal property continues to 
     have a significant effect on the local tax base.
       Section 802(b) would repeal subsections (d) through (g) and 
     (i) through (k) of section 8002. Each of these provisions was 
     enacted for the benefit of a single LEA (or a limited number 
     of LEAs) and describes a situation in which the burden, if 
     any, from Federal property is not sufficient to warrant 
     compensation from Federal taxpayers. The presence of these 
     provisions reduces the amount of funds available to LEAs that 
     legitimately request funds under this authority.
       Section 802(c) would replace the soon-to-be obsolete ``hold 
     harmless'' language in section 8002(h) of the ESEA with 
     language providing for a three-year phase-out of payments to 
     LEAs that received section 8002 payments for FY 1999, but 
     that would no longer be eligible because of the new 
     requirement, discussed above, that Federal property 
     constitute at least ten percent of the current assessed value 
     of all real property in the LEA. This phase-out will provide 
     a fair and reasonable period for these LEAs to adjust to the 
     loss of their eligibility, while making more funds available 
     to those LEAs whose local tax bases continue to be affected 
     by the presence of Federal property.
       Section 802(d) would make minor conforming amendments to 
     section 8002(b)(1).
       Section 803, payments for eligible federally connected 
     children [ESEA, Sec. 8003]. Section 803(a)(1) of the bill 
     would amend the list of categories of children who may be 
     counted for purposes of basic support payments under section 
     8003(a), by deleting the various categories of so-called 
     ``(b)'' children, whose attendance at LEA schools imposes a 
     much lower burden that does not warrant Federal compensation. 
     As amended, these payments would be made on behalf of 
     approximately 300,000 ``(a)'' students throughout the Nation, 
     i.e.: (1) children of Federal employees who both live and 
     work on Federal property; (2) children of military personnel 
     (and other members of the uniformed services) living on 
     Federal property; (3) children living on Indian lands; and 
     (4) children of foreign military officers living on Federal 
     property.
       Section 803(a)(2) would conform the statement of weighted 
     student units in section

[[Page S6358]]

     8003(a)(2) to reflect the elimination of ``(b)'' students 
     from eligibility.
       Section 803(a)(3) would delete section 8003(a) (3) and (4), 
     each of which relates to categories of children whose 
     eligibility would be ended under paragraph (1)
       Section 803(b)(1)(B) would delete the requirement that an 
     LEA have at least 400 eligible students (or that those 
     students constitute at least three percent of its average 
     daily attendance) in order to receive a payment. Thus, any 
     LEA with ``(a)'' children would qualify for a basic support 
     payment.
       Section 803(b)(1)(D) would amend section 8003(b)(1)(C) 
     (which would be redesignated as subparagraph (B)) to delete 
     two of the four options for determining an LEA's local 
     contribution rate (LCR), which is used to compute its maximum 
     payment, and to add a third method to the remaining two. 
     These changes would make payments more closely reflect the 
     actual local cost of educating students because each of the 
     three options, unlike the two options that would be deleted, 
     would include a measure of the amount or proportion of funds 
     that are provided at the local level.
       Section 803(b)(1)(E) would add a new subparagraph (C) to 
     section 8003(b)(1) to provide that, generally, local 
     contribution rates would be determined using data from the 
     third preceding fiscal year. This is the most recent fiscal 
     year for which satisfactory data on average per-pupil 
     expenditures are usually available.
       Section 803(b)(2)(B) would amend section 8003(b)(2)(B), 
     which describes how the Secretary computes each LEA's 
     ``learning opportunity threshold'' (LOT), a factor used in 
     determining actual payment amounts when sufficient funds are 
     not available, as is the norm, to pay the maximum statutory 
     amounts. Under current law, an LEA's LOT is a percentage, 
     which may not exceed 100, computed by adding the percentage 
     of its students who are federally connected and the 
     percentage that its maximum payment is of its total current 
     expenditures. Under the amendments, an LEA's LOT would be 50 
     percent plus one-half of the percentage of its students who 
     are federally connected. The proposed LOT would consistently 
     favor LEAs with high concentrations of federally connected 
     students, which face a disproportionately high burden as a 
     result of Federal activities, unlike the current statute, 
     which allows an LEA to reach a LOT of 100 percent even though 
     the federally connected students constitute considerably less 
     than 100 percent of its total student body. The revised LOT 
     would also remove the current incentive for LEAs to reduce 
     their local tax effort in order to earn a higher LOT.
       Section 803(b)(2)(B)(i) would delete section 
     8003(b)(2)(B)(ii), which would no longer be needed in light 
     of the changes to the LOT calculation described above. This 
     section would also delete section 8003(b)(2)(B)(iii), which 
     inappropriately benefits a single LEA by providing a 
     different method of calculating its LOT that is not available 
     to any other LEA.
       Section 803(b)(2)(C) would amend section 8003(b)(2)(C) to 
     clarify that payments are proportionately increased from the 
     amounts determined under the LOT provisions (but not to 
     exceed the statutory maximums) when available funds are 
     sufficient to make payments above the LOT-based amounts.
       Section 803(b)(3) would delete section 8003(b)(3), which 
     provides an unwarranted benefit to a particular State in 
     which there is only one LEA by requiring the Secretary to 
     treat each of the administrative districts of that LEA as if 
     they were individual LEAs. As with other LEAs (many of which 
     have more students than the State in question and that also 
     have internal administrative districts), this LEA's 
     eligibility for a payment, and the amount of any payment, 
     should be determined with regard to the entire LEA, not its 
     administrative units.
       Section 803(c) would make a technical amendment to section 
     8003(c) of the ESEA, which generally requires the use of data 
     from the immediately preceding fiscal year in making 
     determinations under section 8003, to reflect the addition of 
     section 8003(b)(1)(C), which provides for the use of data 
     from the third preceding fiscal year in determining LEA local 
     contribution rates.
       Section 803(d) would amend section 8003(d) of the ESEA, 
     which authorizes additional payments to LEAs on behalf of 
     children with disabilities, to conform to the deletion of 
     ``(b)'' children from eligibility for basic support payments, 
     and to reflect the fact that some of these children may be 
     eligible for early intervention services, rather than a free 
     appropriate public education, under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act.
       Section 803(e) would delete the ``hold-harmless'' 
     provisions relating to basic support payments in section 
     8003(e) of the ESEA. By guaranteeing that certain LEAs 
     continue to receive a high percentage of the amounts they 
     received in prior years, without regard to current 
     circumstances, these provisions inappropriately divert a 
     substantial amount of funds from LEAs that have a greater 
     need, based on the statutory criteria.
       Section 803(f) of the bill would amend section 8003(f) of 
     the ESEA, which authorizes additional payments to LEAs that 
     are heavily impacted by the presence of federally connected 
     children in their schools. In general, the amendments to this 
     provision are designed to ensure that eligibility for these 
     additional payments is restricted to those relatively few 
     LEAs for whom it is warranted, and that the amounts of 
     those payments accurately reflect the financial burden 
     caused by a large Federal presence in those LEAs.
       Under section 8003(f)(2), an LEA would have to meet each of 
     three criteria to qualify for a payment. First, federally 
     connected children (i.e., ``(a)'' children) would have to 
     constitute at least 40 percent of the LEA's enrollment and 
     the LEA would have to have a tax rate for general-fund 
     purposes that is at least 100 percent of the average tax rate 
     of comparable LEAs in the State. Any LEA whose boundaries are 
     the same as those of a military installation would also 
     qualify. Second, the LEA would have to be exercising due 
     diligence to obtain financial assistance from the State and 
     from other sources. Third, the State would have to make State 
     aid available to the LEA on at least as favorable a basis as 
     it does to other LEAs.
       Section 8003(f)(3) would replace the highly complicated 
     provisions of current law relating to the computation of 
     payment amounts for heavily impacted LEAs, including its 
     multiple formulas, with a single formula that, for each 
     eligible LEA, would factor in per-pupil expenditures, the 
     number of its federally connected children, the amount 
     available to it from other sources for current expenditures, 
     and the amount of basic support payments it receives under 
     section 8003(b) and the amount of supplemental payments for 
     children with disabilities it receives under section 8003(d).
       Section 8003(f)(4) would direct the Secretary, in 
     determining eligibility and payment amounts for heavily 
     impact LEAs, to use data from the second preceding fiscal 
     year, if those data are provided by the affected LEA (or the 
     SEA) within 60 days of being requested by the Secretary to do 
     so. If any of those data are not provided by that time, the 
     Secretary would use data from the most recent fiscal year for 
     which satisfactory data are available. This should provide 
     ample time for LEAs (and States, as may be necessary for 
     certain data) to provide that information so that the 
     Secretary can make payments to LEAs, for whom these funds 
     constitute a substantial portion of their budgets, on a 
     timely basis.
       Section 803(g) of the bill would delete section 8003(g) of 
     the ESEA, which authorizes additional payments to LEAs with 
     high concentrations of children with severe disabilities. 
     (These payments are separate from the payments for children 
     with disabilities under section 8003(d), which the bill would 
     continue to authorize.) This complicated authority has never 
     been funded.
       Section 803(h) would amend section 8003(h) of the ESEA to 
     prohibit an LEA from receiving a payment under section 8003 
     on behalf of federally connected children if Federal funds 
     (other than Impact Aid funds) provide a substantial portion 
     of their educational program. This provision, which would 
     codify the Department's regulations (see 34 CFR 
     222.30(2)(ii)), recognizes that the responsibility for the 
     costs of a child's basic education rests with an LEA and 
     that, if the Federal Government is already paying a 
     substantial portion of those costs through some other 
     program, it should provide additional funds on behalf of that 
     child through the Impact Aid program.
       Section 803(i) of the bill would delete the requirement, in 
     section 8003(i) of the ESEA, that LEAs maintain their fiscal 
     efforts for education from year to year as a condition of 
     receiving a payment under either section 8002 or section 
     8003. While appropriate in other Federal education programs 
     that are meant to provide funds for supplemental services, or 
     to benefit children with particular needs, a maintenance-of-
     effort requirement is not appropriate for the Impact Aid 
     program, which is intended to help LEAs meet the local costs 
     of providing a free public education to federally connected 
     children.
       Section 804, policies and procedures relating to children 
     residing on Indian lands [ESEA, Sec. 8004]. Section 804(1) of 
     the bill would change the heading of section 8004 of the ESEA 
     to ``Indian Community Participation'', to reflect amendments 
     the bill would make to this section.
       Section 804(2) would retain the current requirements of 
     section 8004(a) of the ESEA under which an LEA that claim 
     children residing on Indian lands in its application for 
     Impact Aid funds must ensure that the parents of Indian 
     children and Indian tribes are afforded an opportunity to 
     present their views and make recommendations on the unique 
     educational needs of those children and how those children 
     may realize the benefits of the LEA's educational programs 
     and activities. Section 804(2) would also add language 
     providing that an LEA that receives an Indian Education 
     Program grant under Subpart 1 of Part A of Title IX shall 
     meet the requirements described in the previous sentence 
     through activities planned and carried out by the Indian 
     parent committee established under the Indian Education 
     program, and could choose to form such a committee for that 
     purpose if it is not participating in the Title IX program. 
     An LEA could meet its obligations under section 8004(a) by 
     complying with the parental involvement provisions of Title 
     I and must comply with those provisions for Indian 
     children who it serves under Title I. Finally, an LEA 
     could use any of its section 8003 funds (except for the 
     supplemental funds provided on behalf of children with 
     disabilities) for activities designed to increase tribal 
     and parental involvement in the education of Indian 
     children.

[[Page S6359]]

       Section 804(3) would streamline the language in section 
     8004(b), relating to LEA retention of records to demonstrate 
     its compliance with section 8004(a), without changing the 
     substance of that provision.
       Section 804(4) would delete subsection (c) of section 8004, 
     which automatically waives the substantive requirement of 
     subsection (a) and the record-keeping requirement of 
     subsection (b) with respect to the children of any Indian 
     tribe that provides the LEA a written statement that it is 
     satisfied with the educational services the LEA is providing 
     those children. The proposed amendments relating to community 
     involvement are sufficiently important that all affected LEAs 
     should comply with them and keep records to document their 
     compliance. Removing this waiver provision would also be 
     consistent with the prohibition on waiving any statutory or 
     regulatory requirements relating to parental participation 
     and involvement that applies to the Secretary's general 
     authority to issue waivers across the entire range of ESEA 
     programs. See Sec. 14401(c)(6) of the ESEA.
       Section 805, applications for payments under sections 8002 
     and 8003 [ESEA, Sec. 8005]. Section 805 of the bill would 
     amend section 8005 of the ESEA, relating to applications for 
     payments under sections 8002 and 8003, by: (1) conforming a 
     reference to the amended section 8004 in subsection (b)(2); 
     (2) deleting a reference in subsection (d)(2) to section 
     8003(e), to reflect the proposed repeal of that ``hold-
     harmless'' provision; and (3) deleting subsection (d)(4), 
     which provides an unwarranted benefit to a single State.
       Section 806, payments for sudden and substantial increases 
     in attendance of military dependents [ESEA, Sec. 8006]. 
     Section 806 of the bill would repeal section 8006 of the 
     ESEA, which authorizes payments to LEAs with sudden and 
     substantial increases in attendance of military dependents. 
     This authority has never been used and is not needed.
       Section 807, construction [ESEA, Sec. 8007]. Section 807 of 
     the bill would amend, in its entirety, section 8007 of the 
     ESEA, which authorizes grants to certain categories of LEAs 
     to support the construction or renovation of schools. As 
     amended, section 8007(a) would authorize assistance only to 
     an LEA that receives a basic support payment under section 
     8003 and in which children residing on Indian lands make up 
     at least half of the average daily attendance (one of the 
     current eligible categories). This limitation on eligibility 
     would target limited construction funds on LEAs with 
     substantial school-construction needs and severely limited 
     ability to meet those needs.
       Subsection (b) of section 8007 would require an interested 
     LEA to submit an application to the Secretary, including an 
     assessment of its school-construction needs.
       Subsection (c) would provide that available funds would be 
     allocated to qualifying LEAs in proportion to their 
     respective numbers of children residing on Indian lands.
       Subsection (d) would set the maximum Federal portion of the 
     cost of an assisted project at 50 percent, and give an LEA 
     three years after its proposal is approved to demonstrate 
     that it can provide its share of the project's cost.
       Subsection (e) would clarify that an LEA could use a grant 
     under this section for the minimum initial equipment 
     necessary for the operation of the new or renovated school, 
     as well as for construction.
       Section 808, facilities [ESEA, Sec. 8008]. Section 808 
     would make a conforming amendment to section 8008 of the 
     ESEA, relating to certain school buildings that are owned by 
     the Department but used by LEAs to serve dependents of 
     military personnel, to reflect the revised authorization of 
     appropriations in section 8014.
       Section 809, State consideration of payments in providing 
     State aid [ESEA, Sec. 8009]. Section 809 of the bill would 
     amend section 8009 of the ESEA, which generally prohibits a 
     State from taking an LEA's Impact Aid payments into account 
     in determining the LEA's eligibility for State aid (or the 
     amount of that aid) unless the Secretary certifies that the 
     State has in effect a school-finance-equalization plan that 
     meets certain criteria.
       Section 809(2) would add, to section 8009(b)(1)'s statement 
     of preconditions for State consideration of Impact Aid 
     payments, a requirement that the average per-pupil 
     expenditure (APPE) in the State be at least 80 percent of the 
     APPE in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. This will 
     help ensure that LEAs in States with comparatively low 
     expenditures for education receive adequate funds before the 
     State reduces State aid on account of Impact Aid payments.
       Section 809 would also make technical and conforming 
     amendments to section 8009.
       Section 810, Federal administration [ESEA, Sec. 8010]. 
     Section 810 of the bill would repeal subsection (c) of 
     section 8010 of the ESEA. Subsection (c)(1) sets out a 
     special rule that does not apply after fiscal year 1995. 
     Subsections (c)(2) and (3) provide an unwarranted special 
     benefit to a single LEA.
       Section 811, administrative hearings and judicial review 
     [ESEA, Sec. 8011]. Section 811 of the bill makes a technical 
     amendment to section 8011(a) to streamline that provision.
       Section 812, Forgiveness of overpayments [ESEA, Sec. 8012]. 
     Section 812 of the bill makes a technical amendment to 
     section 8012 to streamline that provision.
       Section 813, definitions (ESEA, Sec. 8013]. Section 813(1) 
     of the bill would conform the definition of ``current 
     expenditures'' in section 8013(4) of the ESEA to conform to 
     the proposed repeal of current Title VI and to a 
     corresponding amendment to a similar definition of the term 
     in current section 1410(11).
       Section 813(2) would amend the definition of ``Federal 
     property''(an important basis of eligibility for Impact Aid 
     payments) in section 8013(5) to delete references to certain 
     property that would not normally be regraded as Federal 
     property; these references were enacted for the special 
     benefit of a small number of LEAs. This property does not 
     merit payment under the Impact Aid program.
       Section 813(3) through (7) would make technical and 
     conforming amendments to other definitions in section 8013, 
     and delete the definitions of ``low-rent housing'' and 
     ``revenue derived from local sources'', which are 
     respectively, no longer needed and an unwarranted special-
     interest provision.
       Section 814, authorization of appropriations [ESEA, 
     Sec. 8014]. Section 814 of the bill would amend section 8014 
     of the ESEA to authorize the appropriation of funds to carry 
     out the various Impact Aid authorities through fiscal year 
     2005. New subsection (b) of section 8014 would provide that 
     funds appropriated for school construction under section 8007 
     and for facilities maintenance under section 8008 would be 
     available to the Secretary until expended. However, if 
     appropriations acts, which normally contain provisions 
     governing the applicability of the funds they appropriate, 
     provide a different rule than the one in proposed section 
     8014(b), the appropriations acts would govern.


     TITLE IX--INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION

     Part A--Indian Education
       Part A of Title IX of the bill would make various 
     amendments to Part A of Title IX of the ESEA, which 
     authorizes a program of formula grants to LEAs, as well as 
     certain demonstration programs and related activities, to 
     increase educational achievement of American Indian and 
     Alaska Native students.
       Section 901, findings and purpose [ESEA, Sec. 9101 and 
     9102]. Section 901 of the bill would amend the statements of 
     findings and purpose in sections 9101 and 9102 of the ESEA by 
     changing references to the ``special educational and 
     culturally related academic needs'' of American Indian and 
     Alaska Native students to refer instead to their ``unique 
     educational and culturally related academic needs.''
       Section 902, grants to local educational agencies [ESEA, 
     Sec. 9112]. Section 902 of the bill would amend section 9112 
     of the ESEA, which authorizes formula grants to certain LEAs 
     educating Indian children. Current section 9112(b) provides 
     that when an eligible LEA does not establish the Indian 
     parent committee required by the statute, an Indian tribe 
     that represents at least half of the LEA's Indian students 
     may apply for the LEA's grant and is to be treated by the 
     Secretary as if it were an LEA. The amendment would codify 
     the Department's interpretation that, in that situation, the 
     tribe is not subject to the statutory requirements relating 
     to the parent committee, maintenance of effort, or submission 
     of its grant application to the State educational agency for 
     review. These requirements would be inappropriate to apply to 
     an Indian tribe, as they are, under section 9113(d), for 
     schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     (BIA).
       Section 903, amount of grants [ESEA, Sec. 9113]. Section 
     903(1) of the bill would make a technical amendment to 
     section 9113(b)(2) of the ESEA, which allows consortia of 
     eligible LEAs to apply for grants.
       Section 903(2) would revise section 9113(d), relating to 
     grants to schools operated or supported by the BIA, to 
     clarify that those schools must submit an application to the 
     Secretary and that they are generally to be treated as LEAs 
     for the purpose of the formula grant program, except that 
     they are not subject to the statutory requirements relating 
     to parent committees, maintenance of effort, or submission of 
     grant applications to the SEA for review. These requirements 
     would be inappropriate to apply to these schools, as they 
     would be for Indian tribes that receive grants (in place 
     of an eligible LEA) under section 9112(b).
       Section 904, applications [ESEA, Sec. 9114]. Section 904(1) 
     of the bill would amend section 9114(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA, 
     relating to the consistency of an LEA's comprehensive program 
     to meet the needs of its Indian children with certain other 
     plans, to remove a reference to the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act (which would be consolidated into the new Title 
     II of the ESEA) and to require that the LEA's plan be 
     consistent with State and local plans under other provisions 
     of the ESEA, not just plans under Title I.
       Section 904(2) would amend section 9114(c) of the ESEA to 
     require that the local assessment of the educational needs of 
     its Indian students be comprehensive. This should help ensure 
     that these assessments provide useful guidance to LEAs and 
     parent committees in planning and carrying out projects.
       Section 904(3)(A) would amend ambiguous language in section 
     9114(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA to clarify that a majority of each 
     participating LEA's parent committee must be parents of 
     Indian children.
       Section 904(3)(B) would modify the standard for an LEA's 
     use of funds under this program to support a schoolwide 
     program under Title I of the ESEA, as is permitted by section 
     9115(c). Under the amendment, the parent committee would have 
     to determine that using program funds in that manner would 
     enhance, rather than simply not diminish, the availability of 
     culturally related activities for American Indian and Alaskan 
     Native students.

[[Page S6360]]

       Section 905, authorized services and activities [ESEA, 
     Sec. 9115]. Section 905(1) of the bill would make a 
     conforming amendment to section 9115(b)(5) of the ESEA to 
     reflect the renaming of the Perkins Act by P.L. 105-332.
       Section 905(4) would add four activities to the examples of 
     authorized activities in section 9115(b). These additions 
     would encourage LEAs to address the needs of American Indian 
     and Alaskan Native students in the areas of curriculum 
     development, creating and implementing standards, improving 
     student achievement, and gifted and talented education.
       Section 906, student eligibility forms [ESEA, Sec. 9116]. 
     Section 906(1) of the bill would make technical amendments to 
     section 9116(f) of the ESEA.
       Section 906(2) would amend section 9116(g) to permit tribal 
     schools operating under grants or contracts from the BIA to 
     use either their child counts that are certified by the BIA 
     for purposes of receiving funds from the Bureau or to use a 
     count of children for whom the school has eligibility forms 
     (commonly referred to as ``506 forms'') that meet the 
     requirements of section 9116. This choice would allow these 
     schools to avoid the burden of two separate child counts.
       Section 906(3) of the bill would add a new subsection (h) 
     to section 9116 of the ESEA to allow each LEA to select 
     either a particular date or period (up to 31 days) to count 
     the number of children it will claim for purposes of 
     receiving a grant.
       Section 907, payments [ESEA, Sec. 9117]. Section 907 of the 
     bill would delete obsolete language from section 9117 of the 
     ESEA, relating to payment of grants to LEAs.
       Section 908, State educational agency review [ESEA, 
     Sec. 9118]. Section 908 of the bill would rewrite section 
     9118 of the ESEA, relating to the submission of applications 
     to the Secretary and the review of those applications by 
     SEAs, in its entirety. As revised, section 9118 would not 
     contain current subsection (a), which requires LEAs to submit 
     applications to the Secretary, since that duplicates the 
     requirement in section 9114(a) of the ESEA, where it 
     logically belongs. The revised section would also improve the 
     clarity of the requirement that an LEA submit its application 
     to the SEA for its possible review.
       Section 909, improvement of educational opportunities for 
     Indian children [ESEA, Sec. 9121]. Section 909 of the bill 
     would amend section 9121 of the ESEA, which authorizes 
     support for a variety of projects, selected on a competitive 
     basis, to develop, test, and demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     services and programs to improve educational opportunities 
     for Indian children. In particular, the bill would amend 
     section 9121(d)(2), relating to project applications, to: (1) 
     clarify that certain application requirements do not apply in 
     the case of applicants for dissemination grants under 
     subsection (d)(1)(D); and (2) require applications for 
     planning, pilot, and demonstration projects to include 
     information demonstrating that the program is either a 
     research-based program or that it is a research-based program 
     that has been modified to be culturally appropriate for the 
     students who will be served, as well as a description of how 
     the applicant will incorporate the proposed services into the 
     ongoing school program once the grant period is over.
       Section 910, professional development [ESEA, Sec. 9122]. 
     Section 910 of the bill would amend section 9122 of the ESEA, 
     which authorizes training of Indian individuals in profession 
     in which they can serve Indian peoples. Section 910(1) of the 
     bill would repeal section; 9122(e)(2) of the Act, which 
     affords a performance to projects that train Indian 
     individuals. This provision, which was carried over from a 
     related program authorized before the 1994 amendments, has no 
     practical effect, since the only projects that have been 
     eligible since 1994 are those that train Indians.
       Section 910(2) would amend section 9122(h)(1), which 
     requires individuals who receive training under section 9122 
     to perform related work that benefits Indian people or repay 
     the assistance they received, so that it would continue to 
     apply to preservice training, but would not apply to in-
     service training. Individuals receiving in-service training 
     are already serving Indian people, and that training is 
     relatively inexpensive to the taxpayers, is generally of 
     short duration, and frequently does not involve an 
     established per-person cost of participating, such as the 
     substantial tuition and fees that are charged by colleges for 
     preservice degree courses and programs.
       Section 910(3) of the bill would add to section 9122 a new 
     authority for grants to consortia to provide in-service 
     training to teachers in LEAs with substantial numbers of 
     Indian children in their schools, so that these teachers can 
     better meet the needs of Indian children in their classrooms. 
     An eligible consortium would consist of a tribal college and 
     an institution of higher education that awards a degree in 
     education, or either or both of those entities along with one 
     or more tribal schools, tribal educational agencies, or LEAs 
     serving Indian children. This new authority will help ensure 
     that classroom teachers are aware of, and responsive to, the 
     unique needs of the Indian children they teach.
       Section 911, repeal of authorities [ESEA, Sec. Sec. 9123, 
     9124, 9125, and 9131]. Section 911 of the bill would repeal 
     various sections of Part A of Title IX of the ESEA that have 
     not been recently funded and for which the Administration is 
     not requesting funds for fiscal year 2000. The goals of these 
     provisions (fellowships for Indian students, gifted and 
     talented education, tribal administrative planning and 
     development, and adult education) are more effectively 
     addressed through other programs. Because Subpart 3 of Part A 
     would be repealed, section 911 would also redesignate the 
     remaining subparts.
       Section 912, Federal administration [ESEA, Sec. Sec. 9152 
     and 9153]. Section 912 of the bill would make technical 
     amendments to sections 9152 and 9153 of the ESEA, to reflect 
     the proposed repeal of Subpart 3 and the redesignation of the 
     remaining subparts.
       Section 913, authorization of appropriations [ESEA, 
     Sec. 9162]. Section 913 of the bill would amend section 9162 
     of the ESEA to authorize appropriations for the Indian 
     education program under Part A of Title IX of the ESEA 
     through fiscal year 2005.
     Part B--Native Hawaiian Education Act
       Sec. 921, Native Hawaiian Education. Section 901 of the 
     bill would amend Part B of title IX of the ESEA in order to 
     replace a series of categorical programs serving Native 
     Hawaiian children and adults with a single, more flexible 
     authority to accomplish those purposes. In addition to 
     technical and conforming changes, section 901 of the bill 
     would repeal sections 9204 through 9210 of the ESEA. In place 
     of the repealed sections, section 901 of the bill would 
     insert a new section 9204 of the ESEA that would permit all 
     of the types of activities currently carried out under the 
     program to continue. However, it would give the Department 
     more flexibility in operating the program in a manner that 
     meets the educational needs of Native Hawaiian children and 
     adults.
       Proposed new section 9204 (``Program Authorized'') of the 
     ESEA would authorize the new Native Hawaiian Education 
     program. Proposed new section 9204(a) would authorize the 
     Secretary to award grants or enter into contracts with, 
     Native Hawaiian educational organizations, Native Hawaiian 
     community-based organizations, public and private non-profit 
     organizations, agencies, or institutions that have experience 
     in developing Native Hawaiian programs of instruction in the 
     Native Hawaiian language, and consortia of these 
     organizations, agencies, or institutions to carry out Native 
     Hawaiian Education programs.
       Permissible Native Hawaiian Education programs under Part B 
     of Title IX of the ESEA would include: (1) the operation of 
     one or more councils to coordinate the provisions of 
     education and related services and programs available to 
     Native Hawaiians; (2) the operation of family-based education 
     centers; (3) activities to enable Native Hawaiians to enter 
     and complete programs of postsecondary education; (4) 
     activities that address the special needs of gifted and 
     talented Native Hawaiian students; (5) activities to meet the 
     special needs of Native Hawaiian students with disabilities; 
     (6) the development of academic and vocational curricula to 
     address the needs of Native Hawaiian children and adults, 
     including curriculum materials in the Hawaiian language and 
     mathematics and science curricula that incorporate Native 
     Hawaiian tradition and culture; (7) the operation of 
     community-based learning centers that address the needs of 
     Native Hawaiian families and communities through the 
     coordination of public and private programs and services; and 
     (8) other activities, consistent with the purposes of this 
     part, to meet the educational needs of Native Hawaiian 
     children and adults.
       Proposed new section 9204(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to carry out Part B of 
     Title IX of the ESEA.
     Part C--Alaska Native Education
       Sec. 931, Alaska Native Education. Section 902 of the bill 
     would amend Part C of title IX of the ESEA in order to 
     replace a series of categorical programs serving Alaska 
     Natives with a single, more flexible authorization to 
     accomplish those purposes. In addition to technical and 
     conforming changes, section 902 of the bill would repeal 
     sections 9304 through 9306 of the ESEA. In place of the 
     repealed sections, section 902 of the bill would insert a new 
     section 9304 of the ESEA that would permit all of the types 
     of activities currently carried out under the program to 
     continue. However, it would give the Department more 
     flexibility in operating the program in a manner that meets 
     the educational needs of Alaska Native children and adults.
       Proposed new section 9304 (``Program Authorized'') of the 
     ESEA would authorize the new Alaska Native Education program. 
     Proposed new section 9304(a) would authorize the Secretary to 
     make grants to, or enter into contracts with, Alaska Native 
     organizations, educational entities with experience in 
     developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of 
     instruction conducted in Alaska Native languages, and to 
     consortia of these organizations and entities to carry out 
     programs that meet the purposes of this part.
       The activities that would be carried out under this section 
     include: (1) the development and implementation of plans, 
     methods, and strategies to improve the education of Alaska 
     Natives; (2) development of curricula and educational 
     programs to address the educational needs of Alaska Native 
     students; (3) professional development activities for 
     educators; (4) the development and operation of home 
     instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children; 
     (5) the development and operation of student enrichment 
     programs in science and mathematics; (6) research and data-
     collection activities to determine the educational status and 
     needs of

[[Page S6361]]

     Alaska Native children and adults; and (7) other activities, 
     consistent with the purposes of this part, to meet the 
     educational needs of Alaska Native children and adults.
       Proposed new section 9304(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to carry out Part C of 
     Title IX of the ESEA.


               title x--programs of national significance

       Section 1001. Fund for the Improvement of Education. 
     Section 1001 of the bill would amend Part A of Title X of the 
     ESEA, which authorizes funds to support nationally 
     significant programs and projects to improve the quality of 
     elementary and secondary education, to assist students to 
     meet challenging State content standards and challenging 
     State performance standards, and to contribute to the 
     achievement of America's Education Goals.
       Section 1001(1)(A) of the bill would amend section 10101(a) 
     of the ESEA to emphasize that the Fund for the Improvement of 
     Education (FIE) is a program focused on improving elementary 
     and secondary education.
       Section 1001(1)(B) of the bill would amend section 10101(b) 
     of the ESEA to strengthen the program by focusing the 
     authorized use of funds more narrowly. Authorized activities 
     would include: (1) development, evaluation, and other 
     activities designed to improve the quality of elementary and 
     secondary education; (2) the development, implementation, and 
     evaluation of programs designed to foster student community 
     service, encourage responsible citizenship; and improve 
     academic learning; (3) the identification and recognition of 
     exemplary schools and programs, such as Blue Ribbon Schools; 
     (4) activities to study and implement strategies for creating 
     smaller learning communities; (5) programs under section 
     10102 and section 10103; (6) activities to promote family 
     involvement in education; and (7) other programs that meet 
     the purposes of this section.
       Section 1001(1)(C) of the bill would amend section 10101(c) 
     of the ESEA to require an applicant for an award to establish 
     clear goals and objectives for its project and describe the 
     activities it will carry out in order to meet these goals and 
     objectives. It would also require recipients of funds to 
     report to the Secretary such information as may be required, 
     including evidence of its progress towards meeting the goals 
     and objectives of its project, in order to determine the 
     project's effectiveness. This change would emphasize the 
     Department's desire to ensure that the effectiveness of all 
     funded projects can be fully assessed. This language is also 
     aligned with the performance indicators in the FIE plan under 
     GPRA.
       This section of the bill would also allow the Secretary to 
     require recipients of awards under this part to provide 
     matching funds from sources other than Federal funds, and to 
     limit competitions to particular types of entities, such as 
     State or local educational agencies.
       Section 1001(1)(D) of the bill would amend section 10101(d) 
     of the ESEA to authorize such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this part through fiscal year 2005.
       Section 1001(1)(E) of the bill would redesignate section 
     10101(d) of the ESEA as section 10101(e) and add a new 
     requirement that each recipient of a grant under this section 
     to submit a comprehensive evaluation on the effectiveness of 
     its program in achieving its goals and objectives, including 
     the impact of the program on students, teachers, 
     administrators, and parents, to the Secretary, by the mid-
     point of the program, and no later than one year after 
     completion of the program.
       Section 1001(2) of the bill would repeal section 10102 of 
     the ESEA.
       Section 1001(3) of the bill would make substantial changes 
     to section 10103 of the ESEA, relating to Character 
     Education. It would provide for more funding flexibility by 
     removing the limit of 10 character education grants per year 
     and maximum award of $1 million to SEAs, and instead 
     authorize the Secretary to make up to 5-year grants to SEAs, 
     LEAs, or consortia of educational agencies for the design and 
     implementation of character education programs. These 
     programs would be required to be linked to the applicant's 
     overall reform efforts, performance standards, and activities 
     to improve school climate. Allowing LEAs and consortia of 
     educational agencies to apply would increase flexibility to 
     fund innovative programs in school districts where the State 
     is not interested in making an application.
       Section 1001(3) of the bill would also streamline the 
     application requirements under current law. The application 
     would include: (1) a description of any partnership and other 
     collaborative effort between the applicant and other 
     educational agencies; (2) a description of the program's 
     goals and objectives; (3) a description of activities to be 
     carried out by the applicant; (4) a description of how the 
     programs will be linked to broader educational reforms being 
     instituted by the applicant and applicable State and local 
     standards for student performance; (5) a description of how 
     the applicant will evaluate its progress in meeting its goals 
     and objectives; and (6) such other information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       Finally, section 1001(3) of the bill would require the 
     Secretary to make awards that serve different areas of the 
     Nation, including urban, suburban, and rural areas.
       Section 1001(4) of the bill would redesignate section 10103 
     of the ESEA, as amended by section 1001(3), as section 10102, 
     and add a proposed new section 10103 of the ESEA. 
     Specifically, proposed new section 10103 (``State and Local 
     Character Education Program'') of the ESEA would authorize a 
     new program, under which the Secretary could make awards to 
     SEAs, LEAs, institutions of higher education (IHEs), tribal 
     organizations, and other public or private agencies to carry 
     out research, development, dissemination, technical 
     assistance, and evaluation activities that support character 
     education programs under new section 10102 of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 10103(b) of the ESEA would authorize 
     funds under this section to be used to: (1) conduct research 
     and development activities; (2) provide technical assistance 
     to the agencies receiving awards under the program, 
     particularly on matters of program evaluation; (3) conduct a 
     national evaluation of the character education program; and 
     (4) compile and disseminate information on model character 
     education programs, character education materials and 
     curricula, research findings in the area of character 
     education, and any other information that would be useful to 
     character education program participants, and to other 
     educators and administrators, nationwide.
       Section 1001(5) of the bill would repeal sections 10104, 
     10105, 10106, and 10107 of the ESEA.
       Section 1002. Gifted and Talented Children. Section 1002 of 
     the bill would reauthorize and make minor improvements to 
     Part B of Title X of the ESEA, which provides financial 
     assistance to State and local educational agencies, 
     institutions of higher education, and other public and 
     private agencies to build a nationwide capability in 
     elementary and secondary schools to meet the special 
     educational needs of gifted and talented students.
       Section 1002(1) would make a technical change to the 
     program's short title.
       Section 1002(2) of the bill would amend section 10204(c) of 
     the ESEA to require the National Center for Research and 
     Development in the Education of Gifted and Talented Children 
     to focus the dissemination of the results of its activities 
     to schools with high percentages of economically 
     disadvantaged students. This modification would help to 
     overcome the Center's current lack of targeting on low-income 
     schools and school districts.
       Section 1002(3) of the bill would amend section 10206(b) of 
     the ESEA to require the Secretary to use a peer-review 
     process in reviewing applications under this part, and ensure 
     that the information on the activities and results of 
     programs and projects funded under this part is disseminated 
     to appropriate State and local agencies and other appropriate 
     organizations.
       Section 1002(4) of the bill would amend section 10207 of 
     the ESEA to authorize such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out the Gifted and Talented Children program through fiscal 
     year 2005.
       Section 1003. International Education Exchange. Section 
     1003 of the bill would: (1) move the International Education 
     Exchange program from Title VI of the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act (P.L. 103-227) to Part C of Title X of the ESEA; 
     (2) authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this program through fiscal year 2005; 
     and (3) add the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and 
     any other emerging democracy in a developing country to the 
     definition of ``eligible country.''
       Section 1004. Arts in Education. Section 1004 of the bill 
     would reauthorize and streamline Part D of Title X of the 
     ESEA, which provides financial assistance to support 
     education reform by strengthening arts education as in 
     integral part of the elementary and secondary school 
     curriculum.
       Section 1004(1) of the bill would strike out the heading 
     and designation of Subpart 1 of Part D of Title X of the 
     ESEA.
       Section 1004(2)(A) of the bill would amend section 10401(d) 
     of the ESEA by adding a new authorized activity, model arts 
     and cultural programs in the arts for at-risk children and 
     youth, particularly programs that use arts and culture to 
     promote students' academic progress, to the list of 
     authorized activities of the Arts in Education program.
       Section 1004(2)(B) of the bill would amend section 10401(f) 
     of the ESEA to authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this part through fiscal year 
     2005.
       Section 1004(3) of the bill would repeal Subpart 2 of Part 
     D of Title X of the ESEA. This subpart has never been funded, 
     and the addition of the authorized activity in section 
     10401(d) of the ESEA, noted above, would provide a more 
     flexible authorization for projects serving at-risk children 
     and youth.
       Section 1005. Inexpensive Book Distribution Program. 
     Section 1005 of the bill would reauthorize without change 
     Part E of Title X of the ESEA through fiscal year 2005. This 
     program supports Reading is Fundamental, under which 
     inexpensive books are distributed to students to motivate 
     them to read.
       Section 1006. Civic Education. Section 1006 of the bill 
     would reauthorize and streamline Part F of Title X of the 
     ESEA, which authorizes a program to educate students about 
     the history and principles of the Constitution of the United 
     States, including the Bill of Rights, and to foster civic 
     competence and responsibility.
       Section 1006 of the bill would repeal the unfunded 
     instruction in Civics, Government, and the Law program under 
     section 10602 of the ESEA, authorize the appropriation of 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this part through 
     fiscal year 2005, and make conforming changes.

[[Page S6362]]

       Section 1007. Allen J. Ellender Program. Section 1007 of 
     the bill would repeal Part G of Title X of the ESEA.
       Section 1008. 21st Century Community Learning Centers. 
     Section 1008 of the bill would reauthorize and improve Part I 
     of Title X of the ESEA, which authorizes grants to rural and 
     inner-city public schools to plan, implement, or expand 
     projects that benefit the educational, health, social 
     service, cultural, and recreational needs of a rural or 
     inner-city community.
       Section 1008(1) of the bill would amend section 10902 of 
     the ESEA to update the findings.
       Section 1008(2)(A) of the bill would amend section 10903(a) 
     of the ESEA by adding language to current law to clarify that 
     the Secretary may award grants to LEAs and community based 
     organizations (CBOs) (with up to 10% of the funds 
     appropriated to carry out this part for any fiscal year) on 
     behalf of public elementary or secondary schools in inner-
     cities, rural areas, and small cities. In both cases, awards 
     would be limited to schools or CBOs that serve communities 
     with a substantial need for expanded learning opportunities 
     due to: their high proportion of low-achieving students; lack 
     of resources to establish or expand community learning 
     centers; or other needs consistent with the purposes of this 
     part.
       Section 1008(2)(B) of the bill would retain the current 
     requirement in section 10903(b) for equitable distribution 
     among the States and urban and rural areas of the United 
     States, but would delete the provision requiring equitable 
     distribution among urban and rural areas of a State.
       Section 1008(2)(C) of the bill would amend section 10903(c) 
     of the ESEA to change the duration of grants awarded under 
     this part from 3-years to 5-years.
       Section 1008(3)(A) of the bill would amend section 10904 of 
     the ESEA to change the eligible applicant for a grant under 
     this part from a school to an LEA (which would apply on 
     behalf of one or more schools) or a community-based 
     organization. This provision of the bill would also add a new 
     requirement that the applicant provide information that it 
     will provide at least 50 percent of the cost of the project 
     from other sources, which may include other Federal funds and 
     may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated. The 
     applicant would also be required to provide an assurance that 
     in each year of the project, it will expend, from non-Federal 
     sources, at least as much for the services under this part as 
     it expended for the preceding year and information 
     demonstrating how the applicant will continue the project 
     after completion of the grant.
       Paragraph (3)(B) of section 1008 of the bill would amend 
     section 10904(b) of ESEA to require the Secretary to give 
     priority, in all competitions, to applications that offer a 
     broad selection of services that address the needs of the 
     community, and applications that offer significant expanded 
     learning opportunities for children and youth in the 
     community. This provision of the bill would also add a new 
     requirement to section 10904 of the ESEA that an application 
     submitted by a CBO must obtain evidence that affected LEAs 
     concur with the project.
       Section 1008(4) of the bill would amend section 10905 of 
     the ESEA to require that applicants provide expanded learning 
     opportunities and eliminate the requirement that applicants 
     include at least four of the activities listed in this 
     section. Instead, applicants must provide educational 
     activities and may provide a range of other services to the 
     community.
       Section 1008(5) of the bill would amend section 10906 of 
     the ESEA to clarify the definition of ``community learning 
     center'' as an entity that provides expanded learning 
     opportunities, and may also provide services that address 
     health, social service, cultural, and recreational needs of 
     the community. It would also add a special rule to require a 
     community learning center operated by a local educational 
     agency (but not a CBO) to be located within a public 
     elementary or secondary school building.
       Section 1008 (6) of the bill would amend section 10907 of 
     the ESEA to authorize the appropriation of such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this part through fiscal year 2005.
       Section 1008(7) of the bill would add a proposed new 
     section 10908 (``Continuation Awards'') to the ESEA 
     that would allow the Secretary to use funds appropriated 
     under this part to make continuation awards for projects 
     that were funded with fiscal year 1999 and 2000 funds, 
     under the terms and conditions that applied to the 
     original awards. This provision would have the effect of 
     allowing the Department to provide continuous funding for 
     the last year of 3-year grants made in fiscal year 1998 
     under the provisions of current law.
       Section 1008(8) of the bill would redesignate Part I of 
     Title X of the ESEA as Part G of that title and make 
     conforming changes.
       Section 1009. Urban and Rural Education Assistance. Section 
     1009 of the bill would repeal Part J of Title X of the ESEA.
       Section 1010. High School Reform. Section 1010 of the bill 
     would add a new Part H, High School Reform, to Title X of the 
     ESEA.
       Proposed new section 10801 (``Purposes'') of the ESEA would 
     state the congressional findings that support this new 
     program. Subsection (b) would provide that the purposes of 
     Part H are to: (1) support the planning and implementation of 
     educational reforms in high schools, particularly in urban 
     and rural high schools that educate concentrations of 
     students from low-income families; (2) support the further 
     development of educational reforms, designed specifically for 
     high schools, that help students meet challenging State 
     standards, and that increase connections between students and 
     adults and provide safe learning environments; (3) create 
     positive incentives for serious change in high schools, by 
     offering rewards to participating schools that achieve 
     significant improvements in student achievement; (4) increase 
     the national knowledge base on effective high school reforms 
     by identifying the most effective approaches and 
     disseminating information on those approaches so that they 
     can be adopted nationally; and (5) support the implementation 
     of reforms in at least 5,000 American high schools by the 
     year 2007.
       Proposed new section 10802 (``Grants to Local Education 
     Agencies'') of the ESEA would authorize the Secretary to make 
     competitive grants to LEAs to carry out the program's 
     purposes in their high schools. Subsection (b) would 
     establish a maximum grant period of three years for each 
     grant. Subsection (c) would provide that a particular high 
     school could not be assisted by more than one grant. An LEA 
     could thus serve one or more of its high schools with one 
     grant and one or more different high schools with a 
     subsequent grant.
       Proposed new section 10803 (``Applications'') of the ESEA 
     would require an LEA that desires a grant to submit an 
     application and describe the information that must be 
     included.
       Proposed new section 10804 (``Selection of Grantees'') of 
     the ESEA would establish the procedures and criteria the 
     Secretary would use in selecting grantees.
       Proposed new section 10805 (``Principles and Components of 
     Educational Reforms'') of the ESEA would describe the 
     outcomes that participating high schools are expected to 
     achieve, and would identify the components of the educational 
     reforms that would have to be carried out in those schools in 
     order to attain those outcomes.
       Proposed new section 10806 (``Private Schools'') of the 
     ESEA would provide for the equitable participation of 
     personnel from private schools in any professional 
     development carried out with Part H funds. A grantee that 
     uses Part H funds to develop curricular materials would also 
     be required to make information about those materials 
     available to private schools at their request.
       Proposed new section 10807 (``Additional Activities'') of 
     the ESEA would direct the Secretary to reserve funds from 
     each year's appropriation for Part H to carry out certain 
     activities relating to the program's purpose, including 
     testing the effect of offering financial rewards to teachers 
     and administrators in high schools if their students 
     demonstrate significant gains in educational outcomes.
       Proposed new section 10808 (``Definition'') of the ESEA 
     would define the term ``high school'' as used in part H.
       Finally, proposed new section 10809 (``Authorization of 
     Appropriations'') of the ESEA would authorize the 
     appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 to carry out Part H.
       Section 1011. Elementary School Foreign Language Assistance 
     Program. Section 1011 of the bill would revise and move the 
     ``Foreign Language Assistance Program'', currently in Part B 
     of Title VII of the ESEA, to Title X of the ESEA, as new Part 
     I. Proposed new Part I would seek to expand, improve the 
     quality of, and enhance foreign language programs at the 
     elementary school level by supporting State efforts to 
     encourage and support such programs, local implementation of 
     innovative programs that meet local needs, and identification 
     and dissemination of information on best practices in 
     elementary school foreign language education.
       Proposed new section 10901 of the ESEA (``Findings; 
     Purpose'') would set forth the findings and purpose of the 
     part.
       Proposed new section 10902 of the ESEA (``Elementary School 
     Foreign Language Assistance Program'') would authorize the 
     Elementary School Foreign Language Assistance Program. 
     Proposed new section 10902(a) of the ESEA would authorized 
     the Secretary, from funds appropriated under subsection (g) 
     for any fiscal year, to make grants to SEAs and to LEAs for 
     the Federal share of the cost of the activities set forth in 
     subsection (b). Each grant under paragraph (1) would be 
     awarded for a period of three years.
       Under proposed new section 10902(a)(3), an SEA could 
     receive a grant under the section if it: (1) has established, 
     or is establishing, State standards for foreign language 
     instruction; or (2) requires the public elementary schools of 
     the State to provide foreign language instruction.
       Under proposed new section 10902(a)(4), an LEA could 
     receive a grant under the section if the program in its 
     application: (1) shows promise of being continued beyond the 
     grant period; (2) would demonstrate approaches that can be 
     disseminated to, and duplicated by, other LEAs; (3) would 
     include performance measurements and assessment systems that 
     measure students' proficiency in a foreign language; and (4) 
     would use curriculum that is aligned with State standards, if 
     the State has such standards.
       Proposed new section 10902(b)(1) would require that grants 
     to SEAs under this section be used to support programs that 
     promote the implementation of high-quality foreign language 
     programs in the elementary schools of the State, which may 
     include: (1) developing foreign language standards and 
     assessments that are aligned with those standards; (2) 
     supporting the efforts to institutions of higher education 
     within the State

[[Page S6363]]

     to develop programs to prepare the elementary school foreign 
     language teachers needed in schools within the State and to 
     recruit candidates to prepare for, and assume, such teaching 
     positions; (3) developing new certification requirements for 
     elementary school foreign language teachers, including 
     requirements that allow for alternative routes to 
     certification; (4) providing technical assistance to LEAs in 
     the State in developing, implementing, or improving 
     elementary school foreign language programs, including 
     assistance to ensure effective coordination with, and 
     transition for students between, elementary, middle, and 
     secondary schools; (5) disseminating information on promising 
     or effective practices in elementary school foreign language 
     instruction, and supporting educator networks that help 
     improve that instruction; (6) stimulating the development and 
     dissemination of information on instructional programs that 
     use educational technologies and technology applications 
     (including such technologies and applications as multimedia 
     software, web-based resources, digital television, and 
     virtual reality and wireless technologies) to deliver 
     instruction or professional development, or to assess 
     students' foreign language proficiency; and (7) collecting 
     data on and evaluating the elementary school foreign language 
     programs in the State and the activities carried out with the 
     grant.
       Proposed new section 10902(b)(2) would require that grants 
     to LEAs under this section be used for activities to develop 
     and implement high-quality, standards-based elementary school 
     foreign language programs, which may include: (1) curriculum 
     development and implementation; (2) professional development 
     for teachers and other staff; (3) partnerships with 
     institutions of higher education to provide for the 
     preparation of the teachers needed to implement programs 
     under this section; (4) efforts to coordinate elementary 
     school foreign language instruction with secondary-level 
     foreign language instruction, and to provide students with a 
     smooth transition from elementary to secondary programs; (5) 
     implementation of instructional approaches that make use of 
     advanced educational technologies; and (6) collection of data 
     on, and evaluation of, the activities carried out under the 
     grant, including assessment, at regular intervals, of 
     participating students' proficiency in the foreign 
     language studied. Proposed new section 10902(b)(3) would 
     allow efforts under the fourth LEA activity described 
     above to include support for the expansion of secondary 
     school instruction, so long as that instruction is part of 
     an articulated elementary-through-secondary school foreign 
     language program that is designed to result in student 
     fluency in a foreign language.
       Proposed new section 10902(c)(1) would require any SEA or 
     LEA desiring to receive an grant under this section to submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, 
     and containing such information and assurances, as the 
     Secretary may require. Each application would be required to 
     include a description of: (1) the goals that the applicant 
     will attempt to accomplish through the project; (2) the 
     activities to be carried out through the project; and (3) how 
     the applicant will determine the extent to which the project 
     meets its goals.
       Proposed new section 10902(d) would authorize the 
     secretary, in awarding grants under this section, to 
     establish one or more priorities consistent with the purpose 
     of this part, including priorities of projects carried out by 
     LEAs that include immersion programs in which instruction is 
     in the foreign language for a major portion of the day or 
     that promote the sequential study of a foreign language for 
     students, beginning in elementary schools.
       Proposed new section 10902(e) would require an SEA or LEA 
     that receives a grant under this section to submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report that provides information on the 
     project's progress in reaching its goals. An LEA that 
     receives a grant under this section would be required to 
     include in its report information on students' gains in 
     comprehending, speaking, reading and writing a foreign 
     language, and compare such educational outcomes to the 
     State's foreign language standards, if such State standards 
     exist.
       Proposed new section 10902(f) would require that the 
     Federal share of a program under this section for each fiscal 
     year be not more than 50 percent. The Secretary would be 
     authorized to waive the requirement of cost sharing for any 
     LEA that the Secretary determines does not have adequate 
     resources to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     activities assisted under this section.
       Proposed new section 10902(g)(1) would authorize 
     appropriations of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2001 and for each of the four succeeding fiscal years 
     for the purpose of carrying out this section. Proposed new 
     section 10902(g)(2) would, for any fiscal year, authorize the 
     Secretary to reserve up to five percent of the amount 
     appropriated to: (1) conduct independent evaluations of the 
     activities assisted under this section; (2) provide technical 
     assistance to recipients of awards under this section; and 
     (3) disseminate findings and methodologies from evaluations 
     required by, or funded under, this section and other 
     information obtained from such programs.
       Section 1012. National Writing Project. Section 1012 of the 
     bill would reauthorize and improve Part K of Title X of the 
     ESEA, which authorizes a grant to the National Writing 
     Project for the improvement of the quality of student writing 
     and learning, and the teaching of writing as a learning 
     process.
       Section 1012 of the bill would: (1) amend section 10991 of 
     the ESEA to update the findings; (2) amend section 10992 of 
     the ESEA to authorize the Secretary to conduct an independent 
     evaluation of the National Writing Project program; (3) 
     authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out his program through fiscal year 2005; and (4) 
     make conforming changes.


     Title XI--General Provisions, Definitions, and Accountability

       Title XI of the bill would amend Title XIV of the ESEA 
     containing general provisions relating to that Act.
       Section 1101. Definitions. Section 1101 of the bill would 
     amend various provisions of Part A of Title XIV of the ESEA 
     to: (1) amend the definition of the term ``covered program;'' 
     (2) add a new definition for the term ``family literacy 
     services;'' and (3) make a number of cross-reference changes 
     from provisions and parts in Title XIV of the ESEA to 
     provisions and parts in Title XI of the ESEA to reflect the 
     redesignation of Title XIV as Title XI by section 1109 of the 
     bill. As amended, covered programs would be: Part A of Title 
     I; Part C of Title I; Part A of Title II; Subpart 1 of Part D 
     of Title III; Part A of Title IV (other than section 4115), 
     the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program, and 
     Title VI of the ESEA. The term ``family literacy services'' 
     would mean services provided to eligible participants on a 
     voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity, both in 
     hours and duration, to make sustainable changes in a family, 
     and that integrate interactive literacy activities between 
     parents and their children, training for parents on how to be 
     the primary teachers for their children and full partners in 
     the education of their children, parent literacy training 
     leading to self-sufficiency, and an age-appropriate education 
     to prepare children for success in school and life 
     experiences.
       Section 1102. Administrative Funds. Section 1102 of the 
     bill would amend various provisions of Part B of Title XIV of 
     the ESEA to: (1) revise the list of programs that are subject 
     to the authority to consolidate State administrative funds; 
     (2) expand the list of additional uses for consolidated 
     administrative funds; (3) clarify that local consolidated 
     administrative funds may be used at the school district and 
     school level; and (4) clarify the circumstances under which 
     an LEA may transfer a portion of its funds under one covered 
     program to another covered program.
       Paragraph (1)(A) of section 1102 of the bill would revise 
     the list of programs in section 14201(a)(2) of the ESEA whose 
     administrative funds may be consolidated to include programs 
     under Title I, Part A of Title II, Subpart 1 of Part D of 
     Title III, and Part A of Title IV (other than section 4115) 
     of the ESEA, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration 
     Program, Title VI of the ESEA (Class Size Reduction), the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998, and such other programs as the Secretary may designate.
       Paragraph (1)(B) of section 1102 of the bill would amend 
     section 14201(b)(2) of the ESEA to revise the list of 
     additional uses for the consolidated administrative funds to 
     include: (1) State level activities designed to carry out 
     Title XI (the redesignated general provisions title) 
     including Part B (accountability); (2) coordination of 
     included programs with other Federal and non-Federal 
     programs; (3) the establishment and operation of peer-review 
     mechanisms under the ESEA; (4) collaborative activities with 
     other State educational agencies to improve administration 
     under the Act; (5) the dissemination of information regarding 
     model programs and practices; (6) technical assistance under 
     the included programs; (7) training personnel engaged in 
     audit and other monitoring activities; and (8) implementation 
     of the Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative. 
     (Items (1), (4), (7), and (8) provide new authority.)
       Paragraph (1)(C) of section 1102 of the bill would 
     eliminate an outdated cross-reference to the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act.
       In addition to making conforming changes, section 1102(2) 
     of the bill would make a clarifying change to section 14203 
     of the ESEA (Consolidation of Funds for Local Administration) 
     to make clear that an LEA may use local consolidated funds at 
     the school district and school levels for uses comparable to 
     those described above for consolidated State administrative 
     funds.
       Paragraph (3) of section 1102 of the bill would repeal 
     section 14204 of the ESEA (Administrative Funds Studies). 
     Paragraph (4) of section 1102 of the bill would make 
     conforming amendments.
       Paragraph (5) of section 1102 of the bill would make 
     conforming amendments, and would also amend section 14206(a) 
     of the ESEA to authorize an LEA that determines for any 
     fiscal year that funds under one covered program (other than 
     Part A of Title I) would be more effective in helping all 
     its students achieve the State's challenging standards if 
     used under another covered program, to use such funds (not 
     to exceed five percent of the LEA's total allotment under 
     that program) to carry out programs or activities under 
     the other covered program. The LEA would be required to 
     obtain the approval of its SEA for this use.
       Section 1103. Coordination of Programs. Section 1103 of the 
     bill would amend provisions of Part C of Title XIV of the 
     ESEA relating to consolidated State plans and consolidated 
     local plans and add a new section on consolidated State 
     reporting.

[[Page S6364]]

       Section 1103(1) of the bill would make an editorial change 
     to the heading for the Part. Section 1103(2) of the bill 
     would substantially revise section 14302 of the ESEA 
     (Optional Consolidated State Plans), which provides authority 
     for an SEA to submit a consolidated State plan instead of 
     separate State plans for the programs covered by that 
     section.
       Proposed new section 14302(a)(1) of the ESEA would direct 
     the Secretary to establish procedures and criteria under 
     which a State educational agency may submit a consolidated 
     State plan meeting the requirements of proposed new section 
     14302. An SEA would be authorized to submit a consolidated 
     State plan for any or all of the covered programs in which 
     the State participates and the additional programs described 
     in proposed new section 14302(a)(2) of the ESEA. These 
     additional programs include: (1) the Even Start program under 
     Part of Title I; (2) the Neglected or Delinquent program 
     under Part D of Title I; (3) programs under Title Part A of 
     Title II of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
     Education Act of 1998; and (4) such other programs as the 
     Secretary may designate.
       Proposed new section 14302(a)(3) of the ESEA would provide 
     for the State development and submission of a consolidated 
     State plan. Under proposed new section 14302(a)(3)(A), an SEA 
     desiring to receive a grant under two or more programs to 
     which the section applies would be authorized to submit a 
     consolidated State plan. Under proposed new section 
     14302(a)(3)(B) of the ESEA, that agency would not be required 
     to submit a separate State plan for the programs included in 
     the consolidated State plan. Proposed new section 
     14302(a)(3)(C) of the ESEA would provide that the SEA must 
     comply with all legal requirements applicable to the programs 
     included in the consolidated State plan as if it had 
     submitted separate State plans.
       Proposed new section 14302(a)(4) would specify that an SEA 
     desiring to receive funds under a program subject to section 
     14302 of the ESEA for fiscal year 2001 and the succeeding 
     four fiscal years must submit a new consolidated State plan 
     meeting the requirements of that section.
       Proposed new section 14302(b) of the ESEA would provide for 
     the content of a consolidated State plan. Proposed section 
     14302(b)(1) would direct the Secretary to collaborate with 
     SEAs and other named parties in establishing criteria and 
     procedures. Through this collaborative process, the Secretary 
     would establish for each program the descriptions and 
     information that must be included in the plan. Proposed new 
     section 14302(b)(1) of the ESEA would further direct the 
     Secretary to ensure that a consolidated State plan contains, 
     for each program included in the plan, the descriptions and 
     information needed to ensure proper and effective 
     administration of that program in accordance with its 
     purposes. This provision is designed to strengthen the 
     consolidated plan as an instrument of effective 
     administration of each program included.
       Proposed new section 14302(b)(2) of the ESEA would require 
     an SEA to describe in its plan how funds under the included 
     programs will be integrated to best serve the needs of the 
     students and teachers intended to benefit and how such funds 
     will be coordinated with other covered programs not included 
     in the plan and related programs.
       Proposed new section 14302(c) of the ESEA would require an 
     SEA to include in its consolidated State plan any information 
     required by the Secretary under proposed new section 11912 of 
     the ESEA regarding performance indicators, benchmarks and 
     targets and any other indicators or measures that the State 
     determines are appropriate for evaluating its performance.
       Proposed new section 14302(d) would require an SEA to 
     include in its consolidated State plan a description of the 
     strategies it will use under proposed new sections 11503(a) 
     (4) and (5) (relating to State monitoring and data 
     integrity).
       Proposed new section 14302(e) of the ESEA would establish 
     procedures for peer review and Secretarial approval. The 
     Secretary would be required to establish a peer review 
     process to assist in the review of consolidated State plans 
     and provide recommendations for revision. To the extent 
     practicable, the Secretary would be directed by proposed new 
     section 14302(e)(1) to appoint individuals who: (1) are 
     knowledgeable about the programs and target populations; (2) 
     are representative of SEAs, LEAs, and teachers and parents of 
     students served under the programs, and (3) have expertise on 
     educational standards, assessment, and accountability.
       Proposed new section 14302(e)(2) of the ESEA would direct 
     the Secretary to approve a plan if it meets the requirements 
     of the section and would authorize the Secretary to accompany 
     such approval with one or more conditions. Under proposed new 
     section 14302(e)(3) of the ESEA, if the Secretary determines 
     that the plan does not meet those requirements, the Secretary 
     would be required to notify the State of that determination 
     and the reasons for it. Proposed new section 14302(e)(4) of 
     the ESEA would require the Secretary, before disapproving a 
     plan, to offer the State an opportunity to revise the plan, 
     provide technical assistance, and provide a hearing.
       Proposed new section 14302(f) of the ESEA would provide for 
     revision and amendment of a consolidated State plan.
       Section 1103(3) of the bill would amend section 14303(a) of 
     the ESEA to provide for uniform State assurances regarding 
     monitoring and data integrity. Paragraph (3)(B) of section 
     1103 of the bill would insert a new paragraph (4) in section 
     14303(a) of the ESEA, requiring the State to assure that it 
     will monitor performance by LEAs to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements of the ESEA and, in so doing, will: (1) 
     maintain proper documentation of monitoring activities; (2) 
     provide technical assistance when appropriate and undertake 
     enforcement activities when needed; and (3) systematically 
     analyze the results of audits and other monitoring activities 
     to identify trends in funding and develop strategies to 
     correct problems.
       Paragraph (3)(B) of section 1103 of the bill would further 
     amend section 14303(a) of the ESEA by adding a new paragraph 
     (5) requiring the State to assure that the data the State 
     uses to measure its performance (and that of its LEAs) under 
     the ESEA are complete, reliable, an accurate, or, if not, the 
     State will take such steps as are necessary to make those 
     data complete, reliable and accurate.
       Section 1103(4) of the bill would repeal section 14304 of 
     the ESEA (Additional Coordination). Section 1103(5) of the 
     bill would amend section 14305 of the ESEA (``Consolidated 
     Local Plans''). Proposed new sections 14305(a) through (d) of 
     the ESEA would clarify and modify current law. Under proposed 
     section 14305(a), and LEA receiving funds under more than one 
     covered program may submit plans to the SEA under such 
     programs on a consolidated basis. Proposed new section 
     14305(b) of the ESEA would authorize an SEA that has an 
     approved consolidated State plan to require its LEAs that 
     receive funds under more than one program included in the 
     consolidated State plan to submit consolidated local plans 
     for such programs.
       Proposed new section 14305(c) of the ESEA would require an 
     SEA to collaborate with LEAs in the State in establishing 
     criteria and procedures for the submission of the 
     consolidated local plans. For each program under the ESEA 
     that may be included in a local consolidated plan, proposed 
     new section 14305(d) of the ESEA would authorize the 
     Secretary to designate the descriptions and information that 
     must be included in a local consolidated plan to ensure that 
     each program is administered in a proper and effective manner 
     in accordance with its purposes.
       Section 1103(6) of the bill would make conforming 
     amendments to section 14306 of the ESEA (General Assurances), 
     and section 1103(7) of the bill would repeal section 14307 of 
     the ESEA (Relationship of State and Local Plans to Plans 
     under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act).
       Section 1103(8) of the bill would amend Part C of Title XIV 
     of the ESEA by adding a new section 14307 (``Consolidated 
     Reporting'') authorizing the Secretary to establish 
     procedures and criteria under which an SEA must submit a 
     consolidated State annual performance report. Proposed new 
     section 14307 of the ESEA would require that the report 
     include information about programs included in the report, 
     including the State's performance under those programs, 
     and other matters, as the Secretary determines. Submission 
     of a consolidated performance report would take the place 
     of individual performance reports for the programs subject 
     to its.
       Section 1104. Waivers. Section 1104 of the bill would amend 
     section 14401 of the ESEA (Waivers).
       Section 1104(1) of the bill would amend section 14401(a) of 
     the ESEA to add the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
     Education Act of 1998 and Subtitle B of Title VII of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act as programs to 
     which section 14401 applies. Section 1104(2) of the bill 
     would amend section 14401(b)(1) of the ESEA to require that 
     an SEA, LEA, or Indian tribe that desires a waiver submit an 
     application to the Secretary containing such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application 
     would be required to: (1) indicate each Federal program 
     affected and the statutory or regulatory requirements 
     requested to be waived; (2) describe the purpose and expected 
     results of the waiver; (3) describe, for each school year, 
     specific, measurable goals for the SEA and for each LEA, 
     Indian tribe, or school that would be affected; and (4) 
     explain why the waiver would assist in reaching these goals. 
     Section 1104(3) of the bill would make conforming amendments 
     to section 14401(c) of the ESEA, relating to restrictions on 
     the waiver authority, and would add health and safety to the 
     list of requirements that may not be waived. Section 1104(4) 
     of the bill would make conforming changes to section 
     14401(e)(4) of the ESEA, relating to reports to Congress.
       Section 1105. Uniform provisions. Section 1105 of the bill 
     would amend various provisions of Part E of Title XIV of the 
     ESEA relating to uniform provisions concerning maintenance of 
     effort and participation by private school children and 
     teachers.
       Section 1105(1) of the bill would amend section 14501(a) of 
     the ESEA, relating to maintenance of effort, to make that 
     section inapplicable to Part C of Title I of that Act.
       Section 1105(2) of the bill would also amend section 
     14503(a)(1) of the ESEA, relating to the provision of 
     equitable services to students in private schools, by adding 
     language to clarify that those services should address the 
     needs of those students.
       Section 1105(2) of the bill would amend section 14503(b) to 
     make it apply to programs under: Part C of Title I; Part E of 
     Title I; Subpart 2 of Part A of Title II; Title III, Part A 
     of Title IV-A (other than section 4115), and Part A of Title 
     VII of the ESEA.

[[Page S6365]]

       Section 1105(2) of the bill would also amend section 
     14503(c)(1) of the ESEA, with respect to the issues to be 
     covered by consultation between designated public educational 
     agencies and appropriate private school officials. Section 
     1105(2) of the bill would add two issues to be covered by 
     such consultation: (1) to the extent applicable, the amount 
     of funds received by the agency that are attributable to 
     private school children; and (2) how and when the agency will 
     make decisions about the delivery of services to these 
     children.
       Section 1105(2) of the bill would also amend section 
     14503(c)(2) of the ESEA to clarify the timing of such 
     consultation. Under proposed new section 14503(c)(2) of the 
     ESEA, such consultation would be required to include meetings 
     of agency and private school officials, to occur before the 
     LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunities of 
     eligible private school children or their teachers to 
     participate in programs under the ESEA, and to continue 
     throughout the implementation and assessment of activities 
     under section 14503 of the ESEA.
       Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 1105 of the bill would 
     amend sections 14504 and 14506 of the ESEA to make conforming 
     amendments to cross-references. Paragraph (5) of section 1105 
     of the bill would repeal sections 14513 and 14514 of the 
     ESEA.
       Section 1106. Gun Possession. Section 1106 of the bill 
     would repeal Part F of Title XIV of the ESEA, the ``Gun-Free 
     Schools Act''. These provisions, in modified form, would be 
     included in proposed new title IV of the ESEA.
       Section 1107. Evaluation and Indicators. Section 1107 of 
     the bill would amend Part G of Title XIV to revise section 
     14701 of the ESEA (Evaluation) and to add a new section 14702 
     of the ESEA (``Performance Measures''), authorizing the 
     Secretary to establish performance indicators for each 
     program under the ESEA and Title VII-B of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
       Section 1107(1) of the bill would amend the heading of Part 
     G to read: ``EVALUATION AND INDICATORS.'' Section 1107(s) of 
     the bill would add to section 14701(a)(1) of the ESEA new 
     subparagraphs that would authorize the Secretary, with the 
     funds reserved under the section, to: (1) conduct evaluations 
     to carry out the purposes of the Government and Performance 
     Results Act of 1993, and (2) work in partnership with the 
     States to develop information relating to program performance 
     that can be used to help achieve continuous improvement at 
     the State, school district, and school level. Proposed new 
     section 14701(b) of the ESEA would direct the Secretary to 
     use reserved funds to conduct independent studies of programs 
     under the ESEA and the effectiveness of those programs in 
     achieving their purposes, to determine whether the programs 
     are achieving the standards set forth in the subsection. 
     Proposed new section 14701(c) of the ESEA would direct the 
     Secretary to establish an independent panel to review these 
     studies, to advise the Secretary on their progress, and to 
     comment, if it so chooses, on the final report under proposed 
     new section 14701(d).
       Proposed new section 14701(d) would direct the Secretary to 
     submit an interim report on the evaluations within three 
     years of enactment of the Educational Excellence for All 
     Children Act of 1999 and a final report with four years to 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor and Pensions of the Senate. Proposed new section 
     14701(e) of the ESEA would authorize the Secretary to provide 
     technical assistance to recipients under the ESEA to 
     strengthen the collection and assessment of information 
     relating to program performance and quality assurance at 
     State and local levels. This proposed new subsection would 
     require that the technical assistance be designed to promote 
     the development, use and reporting of data on valid, 
     reliable, timely, and consistent performance indicators, 
     within and across programs, with the goal of helping 
     recipients make continuous program improvement.
       Section 1107(3) would add proposed new section 14702 
     (``Performance Measures'') to the ESEA. Proposed new section 
     14702(a) of the ESEA would authorize the Secretary to 
     establish performance indicators, benchmarks, and targets for 
     each program under the Act and Subtitle B of Title VII-B of 
     the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, to assist in measuring 
     program performance. It would further require that the 
     indicators, benchmarks, and targets be consistent with the 
     Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, strategic 
     plans adopted by the Secretary under that Act, and section 
     11501 of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 14702(b) of the ESEA would direct the 
     Secretary to collaborate with SEAs, LEAs and other recipients 
     under the ESEA in establishing performance indicators, 
     benchmarks, and targets. Proposed new section 14702(c) of the 
     ESEA would authorize the Secretary to require an applicant 
     for funds under the ESEA or the McKinney Act to (1) include 
     in its plan or application information relating to how it 
     will use the indicators, benchmarks and targets to improve 
     its program performance and (2) report data relating to such 
     performance indicators, benchmarks and targets to the 
     Secretary.
       Section 1108. Coordinated Services. Section 1108 of the 
     bill would transfer Title XI of the ESEA, relating to 
     coordinated services, to Part I of Title XI and would make 
     conforming and other amendments to Title XI of current law.
       Section 1108(b)(1) of the bill would revise section 11903 
     of the new Part I, as redesignated, (current section 11004 of 
     the ESEA, relating to project development and 
     implementation). Proposed new section 11903(a) would require 
     each eligible entity desiring to use funds under section 
     11405(b) of the ESEA (for coordinated services) to submit an 
     application to the appropriate SEA. Proposed new section 
     11903(b) of the ESEA would require an eligible entity that 
     wishes to conduct a coordinated services project to maintain 
     on file: (1) the results of its assessment of economic, 
     social, and health barriers to educational achievement 
     experienced by children and families in the community and of 
     the services available to meet those needs; (2) a description 
     of the entities operating coordinated services projects; (3) 
     a description of its coordinated services project and other 
     information related to the project; and (4) an annual 
     budget that indicates the sources and amounts of funds 
     under the Act that will be used for the project, 
     consistent with section 11405(b) and the purposes for 
     which the funds will be used.
       Proposed new section 11903(b) of the ESEA would also 
     require such an eligible entity to evaluate annually the 
     success of the project; train teachers and appropriate 
     personnel; and ensure that the coordinated services project 
     addresses the health and welfare needs of migratory families. 
     Proposed new section 11903(c) of the ESEA would provide that 
     an SEA need not require eligible entities to submit an 
     application under subsection (a) in order to permit them to 
     carry out coordinated services projects under section 11903 
     of the ESEA.
       Section 1108(b)(2) of the bill would make conforming 
     amendments to section 11904 of the ESEA, as redesignated. 
     Section 1108(b)(3) of the bill would amend section 11905 of 
     the ESEA, as redesignated (current section 11004 of the 
     ESEA), to make clear that the authority under that section is 
     placed in the SEA, rather than the Secretary, and to make 
     other conforming changes.
       Section 1109. Redesignations. Section 1109 of the bill 
     would redesignate Title XIV of the ESEA as Title XI of the 
     ESEA and would make conforming amendments to its parts and 
     sections.
       Sec. 1110. (ED-Flex Partnerships). Section 1110 of the bill 
     would make minor revisions to the recently enacted Education 
     Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-25) and 
     redesignate it as Part G of Title XI of the revised ESEA.
       Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of section 1110(a) would 
     make minor changes to the short title, findings, and 
     definitions of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 
     1999 to reflect its incorporation into the ESEA.
       Paragraph (5) of section 1110(a) would, in addition to 
     making minor editorial revisions, make State eligibility for 
     ED-Flex status turn, in part, on whether the State has an 
     approved accountability plan under proposed new section 11208 
     of the ESEA and is making satisfactory progress, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in implementing its policies 
     under proposed new sections 11204 (Student Progress and 
     Promotion Policy) and 11205 (Ensuring Teacher Quality) of the 
     ESEA. (A State would also have to be in compliance with 
     various Title I accountability requirements and waive State 
     statutory and regulatory requirements.) Paragraph (5) of 
     section 1110(a) of the bill would also revise the conditions 
     under which the Secretary may grant an extension of ED-Flex 
     authority, beyond five years, to provide, in part, that the 
     Secretary may grant such an extension only if he or she 
     determines that the State has made significant statewide 
     gains in student achievement and is closing the achievement 
     gap between low- and high-performing students.
       In addition, paragraph (5) of section 1110(a) of the bill 
     would revise the list of Federal education programs that are 
     subject to ED-Flex authority to reflect the amendments that 
     would be made to the ESEA by the bill and to include Subtitle 
     B of Title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act. Paragraph (5) would also clarify that, while States may 
     grant waivers with respect to the minimum percentage of 
     children from low-income families needed to permit a 
     schoolwide program under section 1114 of the ESEA, in doing 
     so they may not go below 40 percent. Finally, paragraph (5) 
     would add a transition provision that makes clear that 
     waivers granted under applicable ED-Flex authority prior to 
     the effective date of proposed new Part G of Title XI of the 
     ESEA would remain in effect in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions that applied when those waivers were granted, and 
     that waivers granted on or after the effective date of Part G 
     would be subject to the provisions of Part G.
       Paragaphs (6) and (7) of section 1110(a) of the bill would 
     make editorial revisions and repeal, as no longer needed, 
     certain amendatory provisions to other Acts (but without un-
     doing the substantive changes to those other Acts made by 
     those amendatory provisions). Finally, section 1110(b) of the 
     bill would make appropriate redesignations and add a part 
     heading.
       Section 1111. Accountability. Section 1111 of the bill 
     would amend Title XI of the Act by adding a new Part B, 
     Improving Education Through Accountability.
       Proposed new section 11201 (``Short Title'') of the ESEA 
     would establish the short title of this part as the 
     ``Education Accountability Act of 1999.''
       Proposed new section 11202 (``Purpose'') of the ESEA would 
     set out the statement of

[[Page S6366]]

     purpose for the new part. Under proposed new section 11202, 
     the purpose of the part would be to improve academic 
     achievement for all children, assist in meeting America's 
     Education Goals under section 2 of the ESEA, promote the 
     incorporation of challenging State academic content and 
     student performance standards into classroom practice, 
     enhance accountability of State and local officials for 
     student progress, and improve the effectiveness of programs 
     under the ESEA and the educational opportunities of the 
     students that they serve.
       Proposed new section 11203 (``Turning Around Failing 
     Schools'') of the ESEA would require a State that receives 
     assistance under the ESEA to develop and implement a 
     statewide system for holding its LEAs and schools accountable 
     for student performance, including a procedure for 
     identifying LEAs and schools in need of improvement; 
     intervening in those agencies and schools to improve teaching 
     and learning; and implementing corrective actions, if those 
     interventions are not effective.
       Proposed new section 11204 (``Student Progress and 
     Promotion Policy'') of the ESEA would require any State that 
     receives assistance under the ESEA to have in effect, at the 
     time its submits its accountability plan, a State policy that 
     is designed to ensure that students progress through school 
     on a timely basis, having mastered the challenging material 
     needed for them to reach high standards of performance and is 
     designed to end the practices of social promotion and 
     retention. Proposed new subsection (a)(2) would also define 
     the terms ``social promotion'' and ``retention.''
       Proposed new section 11204(b) would outline specific 
     requirements for the State's policy under subsection (a). 
     Under proposed new section 11204(b), a State policy must: (1) 
     require its LEAs to implement continuing, intensive and 
     comprehensive educational interventions as may be necessary 
     to ensure that all students can meet the challenging academic 
     performance standards required under section 1111(b)(A) of 
     the ESEA, and require all students to meet those challenging 
     standards before being promoted at three key transition 
     points (one of which must be graduation from secondary 
     school), as determined by the State, consistent with section 
     1111(b)(2)(D); (2) require the SEA to determine, through the 
     collection of appropriate data, whether LEAs and schools are 
     ending the practices of social promotion and retention; (3) 
     require its LEAs to provide to all students educational 
     opportunities in classrooms with qualified teachers who use 
     proven instructional practices that are aligned to the 
     State's challenging standards and who are supported by high-
     quality professional development; and (4) require its LEAs to 
     use effective, research-based prevention and early prevention 
     strategies to identify and support students who need 
     additional help to meet those promotion standards.
       Proposed new subsection (b) would also require the State 
     policy to provide, with respect to students who have not 
     demonstrated mastery of challenging State academic standards 
     on a timely basis, for continuing, intensive, and age-
     appropriate interventions, including, but not limited to, 
     extended instruction and learning time, such as after-school 
     and summer programs that are designed to help students master 
     such material; for other specific interventions, with 
     appropriate instructional strategies, to enable students with 
     limited English proficiency and students with disabilities to 
     master such material; for the identification of the knowledge 
     and skills in particular subject areas that students have not 
     mastered, in order to facilitate remediation in those areas; 
     for the development, by schools, of plans to provide 
     individualized attention to students who have not mastered 
     such material; for full communication between the school and 
     parents, including a description and analysis of the 
     students' performance, how it will be improved, and how 
     parents will be involved in the process; and, in cases in 
     which significant numbers of students have failed to master 
     such material, for a State review of whether corrective 
     action with respect to the school or LEA is needed.
       Finally, proposed new subsection (b) of section 11204 of 
     the ESEA would require the State policy to require its LEAs 
     to disseminate widely their policies under this subsection in 
     language and in a format that is concise and that parents can 
     understand and ensure that any assessments used by a State, 
     LEA, or school for the purpose of implementing a policy under 
     this subsection are aligned with the State's challenging 
     academic content and student performance standards and 
     provide coherent information about student progress 
     towards attainment of such standards; include multiple 
     measures, including teacher evaluations, no one of which 
     may be assigned determinative weight in making adverse 
     decisions about individual students; offer multiple 
     opportunities for students to demonstrate that they meet 
     the standards; are valid and reliable for the purposes for 
     which they are used, and fairly and accurately measure 
     what students have been taught; provide reasonable 
     adaptations and accommodations for students with 
     disabilities and students with limited English 
     proficiency; provide that students with limited English 
     proficiency are assessed, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield 
     accurate and reliable information about what those 
     students know and can do; and provide that Spanish-
     speaking students with limited English proficiency are 
     assessed using tests written in Spanish, if Spanish-
     language assessments are more likely than English-language 
     tests to yield accurate and reliable information on what 
     those students know and can do.
       Proposed new section 11204(c) of the ESEA would establish 
     what a State must include in its accountability plan under 
     proposed new section 11208 of the ESEA with respect to its 
     promotion policy. A State would be required to include in its 
     accountability plan a detailed description of its policy 
     under proposed new subsection (b). Additionally, a State 
     would be required to include in its plan the strategies and 
     steps (including timelines and performance indicators) it 
     will take to ensure that its policy is fully implemented no 
     later than four years from the date of the approval of its 
     plan. Finally, a State would also be required to address in 
     its plan the steps that it will take to ensure that the 
     policy will be disseminated to all LEAs and schools in the 
     State and to the general public.
       Proposed new section 11205 (``Ensuring Teacher Quality'') 
     of the ESEA would establish provisions to ensure teacher 
     quality. Specifically, proposed new section 11205(a) would 
     provide that a State that receives funds under the ESEA must 
     have in effect, at the time it submits its accountability 
     plan, a policy designated to ensure that there are qualified 
     teachers in every classroom in the State, and that meets the 
     requirements of proposed new sections 11205(b) and (c).
       Proposed new section 11205(b) of the ESEA would establish 
     requirements for the contents of the State's policy on 
     teacher quality. Under proposed new section 11205(b), a 
     policy to ensure teacher quality must include the strategies 
     that the State will carry out to ensure that, within four 
     years from the date of approval of its accountability plan, 
     certain goals are met. Proposed new section 11205(b)(1) would 
     require that a State include strategies to ensure that not 
     less than 95% of the teachers in public schools in the State 
     are either certified, have a baccalaureate degree and are 
     enrolled in a program, such as an alternative certification 
     program, leading to full certification in their field within 
     three years, or have full certification in another State and 
     are establishing certification where they are teaching. 
     Proposed new section 11205(b)(2) would require the State to 
     include strategies to ensure that not less than 95% of the 
     teachers in public secondary schools in the State have 
     academic training or demonstrated competence in the subject 
     area in which they teach. A State would also have to include 
     strategies to ensure that there is no disproportionate 
     concentration in particular school districts of teachers who 
     are not described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of proposed new 
     section 11205(b). Additionally, a State would be required to 
     include in its teacher quality policy strategies to ensure 
     that its certification process for new teachers includes an 
     assessment of content knowledge and teaching skills aligned 
     with State standards.
       Proposed new section 11205(c) of the ESEA would require a 
     State to include in its accountability plan the performance 
     indicators by which it would annually measure progress in two 
     areas. Under proposed new section 11205(c)(1)(A), a State 
     would be required to include the benchmarks by which it will 
     measure its progress in decreasing the percentage of teachers 
     in the State teaching without full licenses or credentials. 
     Proposed new section 11205(c)(1)(B) would require a State to 
     include the benchmarks by which it will measure its progress 
     in increasing the percentage of secondary school classes in 
     core academic subject areas taught by teachers who either 
     have a postsecondary-level academic major or minor in the 
     subject area they teach or a related field, or otherwise 
     demonstrate a high level of competence through rigorous tests 
     in their academic subject.
       Finally, proposed new section 11205(c)(2) of the ESEA would 
     require a State to assure in its accountability plan that in 
     carrying out its teacher quality policy, it would not 
     decrease the rigor or quality of its teacher certification 
     standards.
       Subsection (a) of proposed new section 11206 (``Sound 
     Discipline Policy'') of the ESEA would require a State that 
     receives assistance under the ESEA; to have in effect, at the 
     time it submits its accountability plan, a policy that would 
     require its LEAs and schools to have in place and implement 
     sound and equitable discipline policies, to ensure a safe, 
     and orderly, and drug-free learning environment in every 
     school. A State would also be required under section 11206(c) 
     to include in its accountability plan an assurance that it 
     has in effect a policy that meets the requirements of this 
     section.
       Under proposed new section 11206(b) of the ESEA, the 
     required disciplinary policy would require LEAs and schools 
     to implement disciplinary policies that focus on prevention 
     and are coordinated with prevention strategies and programs 
     under Title IV of the ESEA. Additionally, LEA and school 
     policies would have to: apply to all students; be enforced 
     consistently and equitably; be clear and understandable; be 
     developed with the participation of school staff, students, 
     and parents; be broadly disseminated; ensure that due process 
     is provided; be consistent with applicable Federal, State and 
     local laws; ensure that teachers are adequately trained to 
     manage their classrooms effectively; and, in case of students 
     suspended or expelled from school, provide for appropriate 
     supervision, counseling, and educational

[[Page S6367]]

     services that will help those students continue to meet the 
     State's challenging standards.
       Subsection (a) of proposed new section 11207 (``Education 
     Report Cards'') of the ESEA would require a State that 
     receives assistance under the ESEA, to have in effect, at the 
     time it submits its accountability plan, a policy that 
     requires the development and dissemination of annual report 
     cards regarding the status of education and educational 
     progress in the State and in its LEAs and schools. Under 
     proposed new section 11207(a), report cards would have to be 
     concise and disseminated in a format and manner that parents 
     could understand, and focus on educational results.
       Proposed new section 11207(b) of the ESEA would establish 
     the information that, at a minimum, the State must include in 
     its annual State-level report card. Under proposed new 
     section 11207(b)(1), a State would be required to include 
     information regarding student performance on statewide 
     assessments, set forth on an aggregated basis, in both 
     reading (or language arts) and mathematics, as well as any 
     other subject area for which the State requires assessments. 
     A State would also be required under proposed new section 
     11207(b)(1) to include in its report card information 
     regarding attendance and graduation rates in the State's 
     public schools, as well as the average class size in each of 
     the State's school districts. A State would also be required 
     to include information with respect to school safety, 
     including the incidence of school violence and drug and 
     alcohol abuse and the number of instances in which a student 
     has possessed a firearm at school, subject to the Gun-Free 
     Schools Act. Finally, a State would be required under 
     proposed new section 11207(b)(1) to include in its report 
     card information regarding the professional qualifications of 
     teachers in the State, including the number of teachers 
     teaching with emergency credentials and the number of 
     teachers teaching outside their field of expertise.
       Proposed new section 11207(b)(2) of the ESEA would require 
     that student achievement data in the State's report card 
     contain statistically sound, disaggregated results with 
     respect to the following categories: gender; racial and 
     ethnic group; migrant status; students with disabilities, as 
     compared to students who are not disabled; economically 
     disadvantaged students, as compared to students who are not 
     economically disadvantaged; and students with limited English 
     proficiency, as compared to students who are proficient in 
     English. Under proposed new section 11207(b)(2), a State 
     could also include in its report card any other information 
     it determines appropriate to reflect school quality and 
     student achievement. This could include information on: 
     longitudinal achievement scores from the National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress or State assessments; parent 
     involvement, as determined by such measures as the extent of 
     parental participation in school parental involvement 
     activities; participation in extended learning time programs, 
     such as after-school and summer programs; and the performance 
     of students in meeting physical education goals.
       Under proposed new section 11207(c) of the ESEA, a State 
     would be required to ensure that each LEA and each school in 
     the State includes in its annual report, at a minimum, the 
     information required by proposed new sections 11207(b) (1) 
     and (2). Additionally, a State would be required under 
     proposed new section 11207(c) to ensure that LEAs include in 
     their annual report cards the number of their low-performing 
     schools, such as schools identified as in need of improvement 
     under section 1116(c)(1) of the ESEA, and information that 
     shows how students in their schools performed on statewide 
     assessments compared to students in the rest of the State 
     (including such comparisons over time, if the information is 
     available), and schools include in their annual report cards 
     whether they have been identified as a low-performing school 
     and information that shows how their students performed on 
     statewide assessments compared to students in the rest of the 
     LEA and the State (including such comparisons over time, if 
     the information is available). LEAs and schools could also 
     include in their annual report cards the information 
     described in proposed new section 11207(b)(3) and other 
     appropriate information.
       Proposed new section 11207(d) of the ESEA would establish 
     requirements for the dissemination and accessibility of 
     report cards. Under proposed new section 11207(d), State-
     level report cards would be required to be posted on the 
     Internet, disseminated to all schools and LEAs in the State, 
     and made broadly available to the public. LEA report cards 
     would have to be disseminated to all their schools and to all 
     parents of students attending these schools, and made broadly 
     available to the public. School report cards would have to be 
     disseminated to all parents of students attending that school 
     and made broadly available to the public.
       Under proposed new section 11207(e) of the ESEA, a State 
     would be required to include in its accountability plan an 
     assurance that it has in effect an education report card 
     policy that meets the requirements of proposed new section 
     11207.
       Proposed new section 11208 (``Education Accountability 
     Plans'') of the ESEA would establish the requirements for a 
     State's education accountability plan. In general, each State 
     that received assistance under ESEA, on or after July 1, 
     2000, would be required to have on file with the Secretary, 
     an approved accountability plan that meets the requirements 
     of this section.
       Proposed new section 11208(b) would establish the specific 
     contents of a State accountability plan. A State would be 
     required to include a description of the State's system under 
     proposed new section 11203; a description of the steps the 
     State will take to ensure that all LEAs have the capacity 
     needed to ensure compliance with this part; the assurances 
     required by proposed new sections 11204(c), 11205(c), 
     11206(6), and 11207(e); information indicating that the 
     Governor and the SEA concur with the plan; and any other 
     information that the Secretary may reasonably require to 
     ensure the proper and effective administration of this part.
       Proposed new section 11208(c) of the ESEA would require a 
     State to report annually to the Secretary, in such form and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, on 
     its progress in carrying out the requirements of this Part, 
     and would be required to include this report in the 
     consolidated State performance report required under proposed 
     new section 11506 of the ESEA. Additionally, in reporting on 
     its progress in implementing its student progress and social 
     promotion policy under proposed new section 11204 of the 
     ESEA, a State would be required to assess the effect of its 
     policy, and its implementation, on improving academic 
     achievement for all children, and otherwise carrying out the 
     purpose specified in proposed new section 11202 of the ESEA.
       Proposed new section 11208(d) of the ESEA would require a 
     State that submits a consolidated State plan under section 
     11502 to include in that plan its accountability plan under 
     this section. If a State does not submit a consolidated State 
     plan, a State must submit a separate accountability plan.
       Under proposed new section 11208(e) of the ESEA, the 
     Secretary would approve an accountability plan under this 
     section if the Secretary determined that it substantially 
     complied with the requirements of this part. Additionally, 
     the Secretary would have the authority to accompany the 
     approval of a plan with conditions consistent with the 
     purpose of this part. In reviewing accountability plans under 
     this part, proposed new section 110208(e) of the ESEA would 
     require that the Secretary use the peer review procedures 
     under section 11502(e) of the ESEA. Finally, under 
     proposed new section 11208(e) of the ESEA, if a State does 
     not submit a consolidated State plan under section 11502 
     of the ESEA, the Secretary would, in considering that 
     State's separate accountability plan under this section, 
     use procedures comparable to those in section 11502(e).
       Proposed new section 11209 (``Authority of Secretary to 
     Ensure Accountability'') of the ESEA would establish the 
     Secretary's authority to ensure accountability. If the 
     Secretary determines that a State has failed substantially to 
     carry out a requirement of this part or its approved 
     accountability plan, or that its performance has failed 
     substantially to meet a performance indicator in its 
     accountability plan, proposed new section 11209(a) of the 
     ESEA would authorize the Secretary to take one or more of the 
     following steps to ensure prompt compliance: (1) providing, 
     or arranging for, technical assistance to the State 
     educational agency; (2) requiring a corrective action plan; 
     (3) suspending or terminating authority to grant waivers 
     under applicable ED-Flex authority; (4) suspending or 
     terminating eligibility to participate in competitive 
     programs under the ESEA; (5) withholding, in whole or in 
     part, State administrative funds under the ESEA; (6) 
     withholding, in whole or in part, program funds under the 
     ESEA; (7) imposing one or more conditions upon the 
     Secretary's approval of a State plan or application under the 
     ESEA; (8) taking other actions under Part D of the General 
     Education Priorities Act; and (9) taking other appropriate 
     steps, including referral to the Department of Justice for 
     enforcement.
       Proposed new section 11209(b) of the ESEA would require the 
     Secretary to take one or more additional steps under proposed 
     new section 11209(a) of the ESEA to bring the State into 
     compliance if he determines that previous steps under that 
     provision have failed to correct the State's non-compliance.
       Proposed new section 11210 (``Recognition and Rewards'') of 
     the ESEA would require the Secretary to recognize and reward 
     States that the Secretary determines have demonstrated 
     significant, statewide achievement gains in core subjects, as 
     measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     for three consecutive years, are closing the achievement gap 
     between low- and high-performing students, and have in place 
     strategies for continuous improvement in reducing the 
     practices of social promotion and retention. Such recognition 
     and rewards would take into account all the circumstances, 
     including the size of the State's gains in statewide 
     achievement.
       Proposed new section 11210(b) of the ESEA would require the 
     Secretary to establish, through regulation, a system for 
     recognizing and rewarding States described under proposed new 
     section 11210(a) of the ESEA. Rewards could include 
     conferring a priority in competitive programs under the ESEA, 
     increased flexibility in administering programs under the 
     ESEA (consistent with maintaining accountability), and 
     supplementary grants or administrative funds to carry out the 
     purposes of the ESEA. Proposed new section 11210(c) of the 
     ESEA would authorize, for fiscal year 2001 and each of the

[[Page S6368]]

     four succeeding fiscal years, the appropriation of whatever 
     sums are necessary to provide such supplementary funds.
       Proposed new section 11211 (``Best Practices Model'') of 
     the ESEA would require the Secretary, in implementing this 
     part, to disseminate information regarding best practices, 
     models, and other forms of technical assistance, after 
     consulting with State and LEAs and other agencies, 
     institutions, and organizations with experience or 
     information relevant to the purposes of this part.
       Finally, proposed new section 11212 (``Construction'') of 
     the ESEA would provide that nothing in this Part may be 
     construed as affecting home schooling, or the application of 
     the civil rights laws or the Individuals with Disabilities.
       Section 1112. America's Education Goals Panel. Section 1112 
     of the bill would move the authority for the National 
     Education Goals Panel from Title II of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act to a new Part C of Title XI of the ESEA, 
     and rename the panel the ``America's Education Goals Panel.'' 
     This conforms to the renaming of the National Education Goals 
     as ``America's Education Goals'' and their placement in 
     proposed new section 2 of the ESEA, as added by section 2(b) 
     of the bill.
       The statutory authority for the Goals Panel would be 
     largely unchanged from current law, apart from some minor 
     stylistic changes, updates, clarifications, and the 
     elimination of current provisions relating to voluntary 
     National content standards, voluntary National student 
     performance standards and the work of the Panel's Resource 
     and Technical Planning Groups on School Readiness.
       The current authority for the National Education Goals 
     Panel, Title II of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, would 
     be repealed by section 1201 of the bill.
       Section 1113. Repeal. Section 1112 of the bill would repeal 
     Title XII of the ESEA.


              title xii--amendments to other laws; repeals

     Part A--Amendments to other laws
       Section 1201. Amendments to the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act. Section 1201 of the bill would set 
     forth amendments to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.; hereinafter referred 
     to in this section as the ``Act''). Among other things, these 
     amendments would improve the McKinney program by: (1) helping 
     ensure that students are not segregated based on their status 
     as homeless; (2) enhancing coordination at the State and 
     local levels; (3) facilitating parental involvement; (4) 
     clarifying that subgrants to LEAs are to be awarded 
     competitively on the basis of the quality of the program and 
     the need for the assistance; and (5) enhancing data 
     collection and dissemination at the national level. The 
     program would also be reauthorized for five years.
       Section 1201(a) of the bill would amend section 721(3) of 
     the Act (Statement of Policy), by changing the current 
     statement to make it clear that homelessness alone is not 
     sufficient reason to separate students from the mainstream 
     school environment. This language, which is reflected in 
     amendments that follow make a strong statement against 
     segregating homeless children on the basis of their 
     homelessness. This responds to some local actions being taken 
     around the country to create separate, generally inferior, 
     schools for homeless children. Homeless advocacy groups and 
     State coordinators have strongly encouraged this action.
       Section 1201(b) of the bill would amend section 722 of the 
     Act (Grants for State and Local Activities for the Education 
     of Homeless Children and Youth). Section 1201(b)(1) of the 
     bill would amend sections 722(c)(2) and (3) of the Act, 
     reserving funds for the territories and defining the term 
     ``State,'' to remove Palau from those provisions. Palau does 
     not participate in the program since its Compact of Free 
     Association was ratified. Section 1201(b)(2) of the bill 
     would amend section 722(e) of the Act (State and Local 
     Grants), to add a new paragraph (3) that would prohibit a 
     State receiving funds under this subtitle from segregating a 
     homeless child or youth, either in a separate school or in a 
     separate program within a school, based on that child or 
     youth's status as homeless, except as is necessary for short 
     periods of time because of health and safety emergencies or 
     to provide temporary, special supplementary services to meet 
     the unique needs of homeless children and youth.
       Section 1201(b)(3) of the bill would amend section 722(f) 
     of the Act (Functions of the State Coordinator). Section 
     1201(b)(3)(A) of the bill would amend section 722(f)(1) of 
     the Act to eliminate the requirement that the coordinator 
     estimate the number of homeless children and youth in the 
     State and the number of homeless children and youth served by 
     the program. Section 1201(b)(3)(B) of the bill would amend 
     section 722(f)(4) of the Act to eliminate the requirement 
     that the Coordinator report on certain specific information 
     and replace it with a more general requirement that the 
     Coordinator collect and transmit to the Secretary such 
     information as the Secretary deems necessary to assess the 
     educational needs of homeless children and youth within the 
     State. Section 1201(b)(3)(C) of the bill would amend section 
     722(f)(6) of the Act to make editorial changes and require 
     the Coordinator to collaborate, as well as to coordinate, 
     with certain currently listed entities, as well as with LEA 
     liaisons and community organizations and groups representing 
     homeless children and youth and their families.
       Section 1201(b)(4) of the bill would amend section 722(g) 
     of the Act (State Plan). Paragraph (4)(A) of the bill would 
     amend section 722(g)(1)(H) of the Act to require States to 
     provide assurances in their plans that SEAs and LEAs adopt 
     policies and practices to ensure that homeless children and 
     youth are not segregated or stigmatized and that LEAs in 
     which homeless children and youth reside or attend school 
     will: (1) post public notice of the educational rights of 
     such children and youth in places where such children and 
     youth receive services under this Act; and (2) designate an 
     appropriate staff person, who may also be a coordinator for 
     other Federal programs, as a liaison for homeless children 
     and youth. Section 1201(b)(4)(B) of the bill would amend 
     section 722(g)(3)(B) of the Act to require LEAs, in 
     determining the best interest of the homeless child or youth, 
     to the extent feasible, to keep a homeless child or youth in 
     his or her school of origin, except when doing so is contrary 
     to the wishes of his or her parent or guardian, and to 
     provide a written explanation to the homeless child's or 
     youth's parent or guardian when the child or youth is sent to 
     a school other than the school of origin or a school 
     requested by the parent or guardian.
       Section 1201(b)(4)(C) of the bill would amend section 
     722(g)(6) of the Act to consolidate the coordination 
     requirements currently in paragraphs (6) and (9) and require 
     that the mandated coordination be designed to: (1) ensure 
     that homeless children and youth have access to available 
     education and related support services, and (2) raise the 
     awareness of school personnel and service providers of the 
     effects of short-term stays in a shelter and other challenges 
     associated with homeless children and youth. Section 
     1201(b)(4)(D) of the bill would amend section 722(g)(7) of 
     the Act to require each LEA liaison, designated pursuant to 
     section 722(g)(1)(H)(ii)(II) of the Act, to ensure that: (1) 
     homeless children and youth enroll, and have a full and equal 
     opportunity to succeed, in schools of that agency; (2) 
     homeless families, children, and youth receive educational 
     services for which such families, children, and youth are 
     eligible; and (3) the parents or guardians of homeless 
     children and youth are informed of the education and related 
     opportunities available to their children and are provided 
     with meaningful opportunities to participate in the education 
     of their children. Section 722(g)(7) of the Act would be 
     further amended by adding a new subparagraph (C) requiring 
     LEA liaisons, as a part of their duties, to coordinate and 
     collaborate with State coordinators and community and school 
     personnel responsible for the provision of education and 
     related services to homeless children and youth. Section 
     1201(b)(4)(E) of the bill would eliminate section 722(g)(9) 
     of the Act, which would be combined with section 722(g)(6) of 
     the Act.
       Section 1201(c) of the bill would amend section 723 of the 
     Act (Local Educational Agency Grants for the Education of 
     Homeless Children and Youth). Section 1201(c)(1) of the bill 
     would amend section 723(a) of the Act to: (1) make certain 
     editorial changes; (2) clarify that where services under the 
     section are provided on school grounds, schools may use funds 
     under this Act to provide the same services to other children 
     and youth who are determined by the LEA to be at risk of 
     failing in, or dropping out of, schools; and (3) prohibit 
     schools from providing services, including those to at-risk 
     children and youth, in settings within a school that 
     segregate homeless children and youth from other children and 
     youth, except as is necessary for short periods of time 
     because of health and safety emergencies or to provide 
     temporary, special supplementary services to meet the unique 
     needs of homeless children and youth.
       Section 1201(c)(2) of the bill would amend section 723(b) 
     of the Act to require local applications for State subgrants 
     to contain an assessment of the educational and related needs 
     of homeless children and youth in their district (which may 
     be undertaken as a part of needs assessments for other 
     disadvantaged groups). Section 1201(c)(3) of the bill would 
     amend section 723(c)(1) of the Act to clarify that State 
     subgrants are to be awarded competitively on the basis of the 
     need of such agencies for assistance under this subtitle and 
     the quality of the application submitted. Section 1201(c)(3) 
     of the bill would also add a new paragraph (3) to section 
     723(c) of the Act, requiring a SEA, in determining the 
     quality of a local application for a subgrant, to consider: 
     (1) the applicant's needs assessment and the likelihood that 
     the program presented in the application will meet those 
     needs; (2) the types, intensity, and coordination of the 
     services to be provided under the program; (3) the 
     involvement of parents or guardians; (4) the extent to which 
     homeless children and youth will be integrated within the 
     regular education program; (5) the quality of the applicant's 
     evaluation plan for the program; (6) the extent to which 
     services provided under this subtitle will be coordinated 
     with other available services; and (7) such other measures as 
     the SEA deems indicative of a high-quality program.
       Section 1201(d) of the bill would amend section 724 of the 
     Act (Secretarial Responsibilities). Section 1201(d) of the 
     bill would replace current subsection (f) (Reports), with a 
     new subsection (f) (``Information''), and a new subsection 
     (g) (``Report''). Proposed new section 724(f) of the Act 
     would require the Secretary, from funds appropriated under 
     section 726 of the Act, and either directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative

[[Page S6369]]

     agreements, to periodically collect and disseminate data and 
     information on the number and location of homeless children 
     and youth, the education and related services such children 
     and youth receive, the extent to which such needs are being 
     met, and such other data and information as the Secretary 
     deems necessary and relevant to carry out this subtitle. The 
     Secretary would also be required to coordinate such 
     collection and dissemination with the other agencies and 
     entities that receive assistance and administer programs 
     under this subtitle. Proposed new section 724(g) of the 
     Act would require the Secretary, not later than four years 
     after the date of the enactment of the bill, to prepare 
     and submit to the President and appropriate committees of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on 
     the status of education of homeless youth and children.
       Section 1201(e) of the bill would amend section 726 of the 
     Act to authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to 
     carry out the subtitle.
       Section 1202. Amendments to Other Laws. Section 1202 of the 
     bill would make conforming amendments to other statutes that 
     reflect the changes to the ESEA that are proposed in this 
     bill.
       Section 1202(a) of the bill would eliminate an outdated 
     cross-reference in section 116(a)(5) of the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 
     2326(a)(5)).
       Section 1202(b) of the bill would update a cross-reference 
     in section 317(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1059d(b)(10)).
       Section 1202(3) of the bill would amend the Pro-Children 
     Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6081 et seq.) to eliminate references 
     to kindergarten, elementary, and secondary education services 
     from the prohibition against smoking contained in that Act. 
     Proposed new Title IV of the ESEA, as amended by Title IV of 
     the bill, contains a comparable prohibition against smoking 
     in facilities used for education services, and the education 
     references in the Pro-Children Act are no longer necessary.
     Part B--Repeals
       Section 1211. Repeals. Section 1211 of the bill would 
     repeal Title XIII of the ESEA, several parts and titles of 
     the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227), and Title 
     III of the Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C. 
     3901 et seq.). These provisions have either accomplished 
     their purpose, authorize activities that are more 
     appropriately carried out with State and local resources, or 
     have been incorporated into the ESEA as amended by the bill.
       Title XIII, Support and Assistance Programs to Improve 
     Education, of the ESEA would be repealed. Proposed new Part D 
     of Title II of the ESEA contains the new ESEA technical 
     assistance and information dissemination programs.
       In the Goals 2000 statute, Title I, National Education 
     Goals; Title II, National Education Reform Leadership, 
     Standards, and Assessments, Title III, State and Local 
     Education Systemic Improvement; Title IV, Parental 
     Assistance; Title VII, Safe Schools; and Title VIII, 
     Minority-focused Civics Education, would be repealed. Part B, 
     Gun-free Schools, of Title X of the Goals 2000 statute would 
     also be repealed.
       Next, the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, 
     and Improvement Act of 1994 (Title IX of P.L. 103-227) would 
     be amended by repealing Part F, Star Schools; Part G, Office 
     of Comprehensive School Health Education; Part H, Field 
     Readers; and Part I, Amendments to the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Applied Technology Act.
       Title III, Partnerships in Education for Mathematics, 
     Science, and Engineering, of the Education for Economic 
     Security Act would also be repealed by section 1211 of the 
     bill.
                                 ______