write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

106th Congress (1999-2000)

House Report 106-100

Committee Reports for the 106th Congress
House Report 106-100 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 106-100
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.800     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 106-100' }

EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

69-006

106TH CONGRESS

Report

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1st Session

106-100
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

April, 20, 1999- Ordered to be printed
Mr. GOODLING, from the committee of conference, submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 800]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 800), to provide for education flexibility partnerships, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 4. EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP.

than requirements described in subsection (c), for any local educational agency or school within the State.

requirement described in paragraph (2)(C) and the goals described in paragraph (4)(A)(iii)--

to comment regarding the proposed waiver authority or waiver;

the local educational agency that meets the requirements of such subsections (a) and (b);

SEC. 5. FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

SEC. 6. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL SETTING.

And the Senate agree to the same.
BILL GOODLING,
PETER HOEKSTRA,
MICHAEL N. CASTLE,
JAMES GREENWOOD,
MARK SOUDER,
BOB SCHAFFER,

Managers on the Part of the House.
JIM JEFFORDS,
JUDD GREGG,
BILL FRIST,
MIKE DEWINE,
MICHAEL B. ENZI,
TIM HUTCHINSON,
SUSAN COLLINS,
SAM BROWNBACK,
CHUCK HAGEL,
JEFF SESSIONS,
TED KENNEDY,
CHRIS DODD,
TOM HARKIN,
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,
JEFF BINGAMAN,
PATTY MURRAY,
JACK REED,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility partnerships, submit the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

SHORT TITLE

1. Both the House bill and the Senate amendment are identical in this section.

FINDINGS

2. The findings are identical in both the House bill and the Senate amendment except for finding (6). See note 3.

Descriptive note.

3. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, mentions the important focus on math and science in the Eisenhower Professional Development Program as an example of the intent and purposes of programs to be maintained under Ed-Flex.

The Senate recedes.

DEFINITIONS

4. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, contains two additional definitions. Those are: `attendance area' because this term is mentioned in (c)(F), which defines an unauthorized Title I school eligibility waiver and `Ed-Flex Partnership State' in order to make clear that the term refers to an eligible state. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill includes a definition of `outlying areas'. The House bill refers to this definition under ESEA.

The Senate recedes on attendance area. The House recedes on Ed-Flex Partnership State and the Senate recedes with an amendment to include cross-reference to the definition of `outlying area.'

EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

5. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, in Part (a)(1)(A) does not permit the State to waive requirements on itself.

The House recedes.

ELIGIBLE STATE

6. The House bill requires a state to have implemented more of their Title I plan than the Senate amendment. See Notes 7 and 8. The House bill and the Senate amendment differ in how they measure the performance of local applicants. See Note 9.

7. The Senate amendment but not the House bill, includes the phrase, `including the requirements of that section relating to disaggregation of data.' The House bill refers to disaggregation of data by reference.

The Senate recedes. Provisions regarding disaggregation of data are included in the portion of section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which deals with assessments. These provisions were highlighted in the Senate bill, but specific reference to them was not included in the conference agreement. Conferees were concerned that a specific reference to only one of the requirements of section 1111(b) could create the inaccurate impression that States wanting to participate in the educational flexibility programs would be held to requirements beyond those currently in the law.

8. The House bill requires content standards and interim assessments to be in place, in addition to having made substantial progress towards developing and implementing performance standards and final aligned assessments. The Senate amendment requires substantial progress for content and performance standards as well as final aligned assessments.

The Senate recedes. The Conferees would like to clarify congressional intent with respect to State compliance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A, standards and assessment requirements (Sec. 1111(b)) as an eligibility criterion both for Ed-Flex authority under H.R. 800 and for participation in ESEA, Title 1, Part A. Under both Ed-Flex and Title 1, Part A, uniform State standards and uniform State assessments are not required as a condition for either being granted Ed-Flex authority or continuing to receive financial assistance under Title 1, Part A. However, if a State does not have uniform State standards and assessments, the State must have in effect, or be making substantial progress toward having in effect, local standards and assessments approved by the State in order for the State to be granted Ed-Flex authority. The Conferees expect the Department of Education to maintain its current interpretation of the provisions of ESEA, Title 1, Section 1111(b) as published in the policy guidance in 1997. This guidance reflects the understanding of the Conferees that States, such as Nebraska and Iowa, can comply with section 1111(b) of Title 1, Part A if the State has implemented uniform statewide standards and assessments, has a statewide system with local standards and assessments approved by the State; or has local standards or assessments approved by the State on the basis of models or criteria to ensure challenging standards and high quality, aligned assessments.

9. The House bill requires states to hold LEAs and schools accountable for meeting goals listed in waiver applications to be eligible. The Senate amendment has an additional requirement that States are implementing corrective action measures under Title I for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress.

The Senate recedes with an amendment to insert the words `and for engaging in the technical assistance and corrective actions consistent with section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, for the local educational agencies and schools that do not make adequate yearly progress as described in section 1111(b) of that Act' after `paragraph (4)'

STATE APPLICATION

10. The House bill and Senate amendment differ in how States are to measure and set objectives. See Note 11-14.

11. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, requires states to describe specific objectives in their application.

The Senate recedes with an amendment to delete `specific' and insert `clear.'

12. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill requires state applications to reference State comprehensive plans or Section 1111(b) of ESEA (Title I standards and assessments).

The House recedes.

13. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, requires local progress to be measured by using the local applicants' objectives, as defined by the section of the bill (a)(4)(A)(iii) requiring local applicants to set specific and measurable goals for schools and groups of students affected by waivers. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, requires States to evaluate the performance of local applicants and students affected by waivers in general, not defined by local applications.

The House recedes.

14. Both the House bill and the Senate amendment require States to describe how they will notify the public of waivers granted. The House bill requires States to provide assurances that it will provide notice with a minimum requirement of 30 days or in accordance with state law. The Senate amendment requires `adequate and efficient' notice and opportunity for comment. See note 18 for local comment and notice.

The House recedes.

APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATIONS

15. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, explicitly requires the Secretary to consider a state's eligibility for Ed-Flex in approving their application. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment requires the Secretary to evaluate their objectives according to their specificity and their connection to students, schools and districts.

The Senate recedes with an amendment to add (B)(i) from the Senate bill and to revise (B)(iii) of the House bill to read as follows: `(iii) the degree to which the State's objectives described in subparagraph (A)(iii)--

LOCAL APPLICATION

16. Both the House bill and the Senate amendment are identical with the exception of (iii) and (v). See notes 17 and 18.

17. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, requires goals for each group of students affected by a proposed waiver, in addition to the LEA or school.

The Senate recedes with an amendment to revise `(iii)' to read as follows:

(iii) describe, for each school year, specific, measurable, educational goals for each local educational agency or school affected by the proposed waiver and their students;

18. Local public notice and comment: See Note 14.

The House recedes.

EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS

19. Both the House bill and the Senate amendment are identical.

20. The Senate amendment stipulates that the SEA should consider how a waiver will help improve school and student performance when evaluating applications. The House bill requires the SEA to be satisfied that the LEA or school will continue to meet the underlying purposes of the statues included in this legislation.

The House and Senate recede taking both provisions.

21. The House bill requires a statistically significant decrease for two consecutive years until waivers can be terminated. The Senate amendment requires termination if performance has been `inadequate' to justify continuing the waiver.

The House recedes with an amendment to have the title read `Termination' and to insert at the end of (5)(B) of the Senate bill the following: `or has decreased for two consecutive years (unless the State educational agency determines that the decrease in performance was justified due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances).'

OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING

22. The House bill entitles this section OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING. The Senate amendment entitles this section `MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW.'

The Senate recedes.

23. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, stipulates that monitoring `shall include a review of relevant audit, technical assistance, evaluation, and performance reports.' Both the House bill and the Senate amendment require states to submit an annual report, but the House bill states this in (ii) and the Senate amendment states this in (i).

The Senate recedes with an amendment to strike `Such monitoring shall include a review of relevant audit, technical assistance, evaluation, and performance reports.' While not listing in statute the specific reports to be reviewed, the conferees anticipate that State educational agencies will utilize these resources in their monitoring of local educational agencies and schools which have received waivers.

24. The House bill and the Senate amendment require states to submit performance data. However, the House bill, but not the Senate amendment, requires States to submit performance data after two years of being an Ed-Flex state.

The Senate recedes.

PROGRESS REPORTS

25. The House bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on an annual basis the impact of Ed-Flex on performance objectives and to make state reports available to Congress. The Senate amendment requires a report to Congress after the first year and biennially thereafter. In general, the Senate amendment requires the Secretary to report what the House bill prescribes for the states. The Senate amendment in (1) requires the Secretary to describe the federal statutes and regulations for which they have received waiver authority. The House bill but not the Senate amendment specifies the type of information to be reported on waivers granted. The Senate amendment only requires information on waivers of state regulations and statutes. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment requires specific data on types of waivers granted and requires a report on the relationship between the waivers and meeting objectives. The Senate amendment in 3 and 4 requires that they describe `the effect' on implementation of reforms and student performance. (cf. Note 38).

The Senate recedes with an amendment to: (a) change (B)(i)(II) to read as follows--`information describing the effect of waivers granted on the implementation of State and local educational reforms pertaining to school and student performance;' (b) add a new (B)(i)(III) to read as follows--`information describing the relationship of waivers granted to the performance of schools and students affected by the waivers.' (c) add a new (B)(i)(IV) `an assurance from State program managers that the data reported under this section are reliable, complete, and accurate, as defined by the State, or a description of a plan for improving the reliability, completeness, and accuracy of such data as defined by the State.' (d) change (B)(ii)(II) to read as follows--`submit to Congress a report that summarizes the State reports ensuring that such reports address the effect that the educational flexibility program under this section has had on the implementation of State and local educational reforms and on the performance of students affected by the waivers.'

DURATION OF FEDERAL WAIVERS

26. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, requires that states `continue to meet the accountability requirements described in subsection (a)(2)(B), and has improved student performance' in order for authority to be extended.

The House recedes.

PERFORMANCE REVIEW

27. The House bill requires that the Secretary review the performance of States after three years of being an Ed-Flex State. The Senate amendment requires the Secretary to review the performance of States `periodically.'

The House recedes with an amendment specifying that the review be conducted three years after designation and to insert `, including meeting the objectives described in paragraph (3)(A)(iii),' after `performance'.

AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WAIVERS

28. The House bill authorizes this program beginning in FY 1999. The Senate amendment begins this authorization in FY 2000.

The Senate recedes.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT

29. See Notes 14 and 18.

The House recedes with an amendment to insert after `waiver' in line 6 `, including a description of any improved performance of students that is expected to result from the waiver authority or waiver,' and to insert after `received' on line 11 `and made available for review by any member of the public,'.

INCLUDED PROGRAMS

30. The House bill and the Senate amendment are identical except that subsection 4(b)(1) of the Senate amendment excludes the Local Review and School Improvement sections of Title I.

The House recedes. It is the intent of the conferees that, if an LEA has higher standards than the State standard, then locally approved standards may be used for purposes of determining schools in need of improvement or need for corrective action.

WAIVERS NOT AUTHORIZED

31. The Senate amendment specifies that the Secretary and the State may not waive these provisions. The House bill only addresses the Secretary.

The House recedes.

TITLE I WAIVERS

32. The House bill prohibits Title I school eligibility waivers unless they are marginally below the necessary poverty level. The Senate amendment prohibits waivers of Title I rank-order requirements for schools with more than 75% poverty.

The House recedes on Senate language and the Senate recedes on House language with an amendment changing the low-income percentage from within 5 percentage points to 10 percentage points, and clarifying the applicable subsections of section 1113 of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

TREATMENT OF EXISTING ED-FLEX STATES

33. The House bill protects the authority of current Ed-Flex States by stating that this Act does not apply to them until they apply to renew their authority. The Senate amendment permanently exempts existing Ed-Flex States from being affected by this statute.

The Senate recedes with an amendment which makes clear that the performance of the current 12 Ed-Flex States will be judged, when they re-apply for Ed-Flex status at the end of their current 5 year period, on the basis of section 311(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The application itself, must conform to the new requirements of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. The amendment also provides that, upon enactment of this Act, the 12 existing Ed-Flex States may exercise Ed-Flex waiver authority with respect to the technology programs under subpart 2 of part A of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (other than section 3136 of such Act).

RENEWAL

34. The House bill stipulates when renewing Ed-Flex Authority, the Secretary must determine whether SEAs have made measureable progress in accordance with their measurable objectives, as well as whether SEAs demonstrate that LEAs or schools have made measurable progress. The House bill also exempts current Ed-Flex States (see Note 33). The Senate amendment requires the Secretary to review generally the progress of those affected by Ed-Flex authority or waivers towards meeting goals set in local applications.

The Senate recedes with an amendment striking the word `measurable' in (e)(1)(A) and (B) and changing the word `Accountability' in the heading to `Renewal'.

35. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, clarifies that when current Ed-Flex States apply to renew their authority, their progress should be measured in accordance with the terms under which they were granted their authority. However, when their authority expires and they receive renewed authority this law will apply to them.

The Senate recedes. The conferees have addressed renewal for the 12 Ed-Flex States in note 33.

PUBLICATION

36. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, requires the Secretary to include the rationale for granting a State Ed-Flex authority when publishing notice in the Federal Register.

The House recedes.

EFFECTIVE DATE

37. The House bill, but not the Senate amendment, sunsets this law when ESEA reauthorization is enacted.

The House recedes. The Conferees believe that when the Congress considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act it will have to take into consideration the changes made to this Act and make whatever changes and adjustments are required to ensure that both laws operate in a coordinated fashion so as to provide as much flexibility as possible to States and local educational agencies.

FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

38. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, includes findings stating the impact of fully funding IDEA and amends the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act to allow LEAs to use class size reduction funds for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes with an amendment providing that, if a local educational agency has a class size in grades 1 through 3 of 18 or fewer children, the local educational agency may use the funds made available for class-size reduction under the Department of Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 for professional development without entering into a consortia.

Currently, a local educational agency that is eligible for amounts less than the starting salary for a teacher must form a consortium in order to receive any class-size reduction funds. Under the conference agreement, such an agency would still have to form a consortium if it does not meet the criteria of having a class size in grades 1 through 3 of 18 or fewer children or if it plans to use the funds to reduce class size. Such an agency would not have to form a consortium if it has a class size in grades 1 through 3 of 18 or fewer children and plans to use the funds for professional development.

In addition, the conferees note that--under current law--any local educational agency that has a class size of 18 or fewer children may use class-size-reduction funds made available to take further class size reductions in grades 1 through 3, to reduce class size in kindergarten, or other grades, or to carry out activities to improve teacher quality--including professional development.

FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN DROPOUT PREVENTION PROGRAMS

39. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill includes findings stating that fully funding IDEA would free up funds at the local level to develop dropout programs to best address their needs and amends the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act to allow LEAs to use class size reduction funds for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

40. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill authorizes $150 million in additional funds for IDEA.

The Senate recedes.

FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

41. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill includes findings stating that fully funding IDEA would free up funds at the local level to develop after-school programs to best address their needs and amends the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act to allow LEAs to use class size reduction funds for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes.

ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

42. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, authorizes $600 million in additional appropriations for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes.

FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO REDUCE SOCIAL PROMOTION AND ESTABLISH SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES

43. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill includes findings stating that fully funding IDEA would free up funds at the local level to develop programs to reduce social promotion, establish school accountability programs or any other programs to best address their needs and amends the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act to allow LEAs to use class size reduction funds for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes.

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL SETTING

44. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, includes an amendment to IDEA that subjects a child with a disability to the discipline provisions if they possess a weapon at school, in addition to carrying a weapon to school (current law) and applies this new provision to conduct occurring not earlier than the date of enactment of this Act.

The House recedes.

FURTHER AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

45. The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, authorizes $500 million in additional appropriations for IDEA part B.

The Senate recedes.
Bill Goodling,
Peter Hoekstra,
Michael N. Castle,
James Greenwood,
Mark Souder,
Bob Schaffer,

Managers on the Part of the House.
Jim Jeffords,
Judd Gregg,
Bill Frist,
Mike DeWine,
Michael B. Enzi,
Tim Hutchinson,
Susan Collins,
Sam Brownback,
Chuck Hagel,
Jeff Sessions,
Ted Kennedy,
Chris Dodd,
Tom Harkin,
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Jeff Bingaman,
Patty Murray,
Jack Reed,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.



This Report:     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF
Search Results  > House Report 106-100
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
1 of 1