[Pages H6849-H6890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 31, 1997, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2264.
{time} 1719
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2264) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Goodlatte in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
31, 1997, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his work and to the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston] who has, with great skill and effort, provided strong
support in making this a bipartisan bill. As a result of their efforts,
as well as that of many Members, we have resolved many contentious
issues such as ergonomics regulations issued by OSHA, methylene
chloride regulations and a new Hyde amendment. These initiatives and
agreements are the work of many Members of the subcommittee who labored
very hard to achieve the compromises reflected in this bill and
preserve the broad support for it.
I particularly want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for
their tireless efforts in achieving a compromise on revisions to the
Hyde language in the bill.
The bill I bring to the floor, Mr. Chairman, is the result of a
lengthy process of consideration by the subcommittee. We held 31 days
of hearings spanning some 14 weeks. In addition to our normal practice
of carefully reviewing estimates with the administration, we had 214
public witnesses and 67 Members testify before the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot govern this country by simple agreement
between the congressional leadership and the President. While their
suggestions and recommendations are very helpful, these suggestions are
no substitute for the legislative process that has served this country
well for 200 years. As a result, this bill reflects congressional
priorities while at the same time reflecting many of the President's
concerns and initiatives.
NIH is provided, Mr. Chairman, for example, with a 6 percent
increase. The increased funds are being spent on areas of particular
national concern including cancer, diabetes and heart disease. However,
all Institutes receive an increase over the President's request. The
President's request was for only 1.2 percent; we have provided a 6
percent increase.
The Centers for Disease Control is provided an $87 million increase
as compared with the President's proposal in the budget agreement to
cut CDC by $19 million. Increases in the bill include preventive
health, chronic and environmental disease prevention and infectious
disease surveillance.
The Community Health Center program is increased by $25 million, and
for health professions we rejected the President's proposed cuts and
added $13 million over the last year. Ryan White AIDS treatment is
increased by $172 million over last year and $132 million over the
President's requested level.
In education, the bill provides funding very close to the President's
request, but again reflects congressional priorities. The Chapter VI
program, the former education block grant which provides broad
discretion to local officials to meet local needs, is increased by $40
million to $350 million. The President proposed to terminate it.
IDEA State grant funding, that is, funding for special education, is
increased by $305 million over last year. In fiscal 1997, Members will
recall, we increased funding by $790 million, making for a total
increase of over $1.1 billion in the last 2 years and taking some of
the pressure off local school taxes.
College work-study is increased by $30 million. We have also funded a
``whole school reform'' effort which I believe the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will discuss in his remarks.
We have also tried to reflect the President's priorities in the bill.
Head Start, education technology, job training and the Job Corps are
all fully funded.
The maximum Pell grant is set at $3000.
Funds are set aside for the President's Opportunity Areas for Youth,
Literacy and the expansion of Pell grant eligibility, all pending
separate authorizations.
I would note that with all the rhetoric coming from the
administration on the Results act and performance-based management, not
one of these new initiatives was based on improvements and outcomes and
not one has included the measures by which we will measure these new
programs.
The bill also continues efforts at reform. Funding for block and
State grant programs are increased by $500 million over the President's
requested levels. These programs represent a Republican approach giving
greater local control and fewer Washington strings. Conversely, while
not all I would want, the bill terminates 25 programs with 1997 funding
totaling $250 million.
Programs that cannot justify funding levels on the basis of
effectiveness are frozen or cut in the bill. Goals 2000 State grants
are cut by $18 million below last year and $145 million below the
President's request. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Eisenhower
Professional Development are both frozen at last year's level.
Mr. Chairman, as Members well know, the legislative riders present
the committee with some of the most difficult issues that we face. They
have made passing bills very difficult and have often served to
complicate negotiations with the Senate and with the administration.
They make broad, consensus-based bills like the one we bring to Members
today virtually impossible. As chairman, I worked very hard in
conjunction with the gentleman from
[[Page H6850]]
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston],
as well as other Members, to resolve these many difficult issues.
We have included most of the legislative provisions that were in last
year's bill, including a prohibition on human embryo research, and the
prohibition on the issuance by the NLRB of regulations relating to
single-site bargaining.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the bill also contains
compromise language on ergonomic standards and finally we have reached
an agreement on the Hyde language assuring that Federal payments to
enroll recipients in managed care plans cannot be used to pay for
abortions, except for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of
the mother.
In this regard, I particularly want to express my opposition to the
Istook amendment on family planning. I am a strong supporter of
voluntary family planning. I believe that this amendment, though
different in its drafting from versions offered in the full committee
and last year during consideration of the bill, would have the same
impact. It would undermine voluntary family planning completely.
In deterring teens from seeking family planning services, this
amendment actually will cause unwanted pregnancies and, unfortunately,
abortions. It will discourage these young women from seeking treatment
for sexually transmitted diseases.
There are many other problems with this amendment which I will
discuss when it is offered. I would only note that this provision is,
at its root, an issue for consideration by the authorizing committee
and should be considered there. More importantly, it will disrupt the
potential for the kind of broad support that will allow this bill to
pass, go to conference and give us the ability for the first time to
negotiate with the President from a position of strength.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill represents an example of
bipartisanship working to find the common ground that we need to govern
this country. I commend it to the Members. I think that it is in very
good shape and we have worked very closely together and I believe that
it is a bill that should be adopted by the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in politics and in governance, there is a time to
define differences and there is a time to reconcile those differences.
Over the last 2 years, on this bill perhaps more than any other, we
have certainly defined our differences. They have been defined to a
fare-thee-well, and these bills have been centrally involved in two
government shutdowns, protracted debate between the two parties,
between the White House and the Congress, and between the two Houses of
the Congress.
This year this bill is in quite different shape. It is here because
Members in both parties have tried to listen to each other and tried to
swallow some things that we differ on in the interest of reaching an
ability to reconcile some of the deep differences that we have.
I hope that we can stand here unified on both sides of the aisle and
support the package as it is presented from the committee. It is far
from perfect and it certainly is very different in some ways from what
I would like to see. But in contrast to past years, this is, I think, a
reasonable effort at compromise, and I look forward to supporting it,
if this bill stays together.
This bill provides a total of $80 billion for the Labor-HHS-Education
agencies. The bill is one-tenth of 1 percent below the Clinton request
for this bill. It provides 99 percent of the President's education and
training budget request, which is $257 million more in funding than
would have been possible if the committee had stuck with the 602(b)
allocation for the subcommittee which was sent up by OMB in the first
place.
{time} 1730
This bill is just .2 percent below the total requested for priority
programs. Within that overall total, we have, as is the Congress's
prerogative, rearranged some of the spending priorities. Funding for
the Department of Education is $29.3 billion, $2.8 billion more than in
1997. With the advance funding for the reading initiative, the total
amount provided is $31.56 billion, or .2 percent over the budget
request. The bill fully funds the America Reads Initiative by providing
$260 million in advance funding. It provides $800 million in additional
funding for existing literacy programs consistent with the America
Reads Initiative, including title I, which is increased $150 million
over the request, Head Start, which is funded at the budget request and
afterschool learning centers, which are funded at the budget request.
The bill rejects some reductions suggested by the administration,
including a $122 million suggested cut in community services programs.
It provides an increase for CDC, Centers for Disease Control, of $83
million compared to the President's request to essentially freeze that
budget. It fully funds the Job Corps. It does a lot of good things. It
also falls far short of a lot of the country's needs because of our
lack of resources.
But I would like to talk for a moment about a new initiative which
this committee has included in this bill. Additional resources alone
are not enough to improve the quality of education in this country. I
think we also have reached a bipartisan conclusion that we simply have
to have basic reforms in the way schools are administered, the way they
are organized, the way they are motivated, the way teachers are taught,
the way kids are taught, and the way parents and communities are
involved in the support of education. That is why I am pleased that the
committee is bringing to the floor a new $205 million initiative which
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I have recommended to the
committee, which includes $150 million in additional funding for title
I and $50 million under the fund for the improvement of education, in
order to provide the ability for local schools to apply for start-up
grants so that they can participate in the school reform movement
sweeping the country.
For the last 20 years, we have focused our efforts to improve
education on attempts to improve the performance of individual
children, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also a
considerable body of opinion which tells us that it is not enough to
focus simply on one classroom, or one child at a time unless you have a
total atmosphere of reform present on a school-by-school basis. And so
we are bringing this reform package to the Congress.
In contrast to many other initiatives in many past Congresses, this
is about the only initiative I can think of in the past 15 years which
has united virtually every single group in the education community,
that has united teachers unions with school boards. It has also brought
into the coalition the chief State school officers of the 50 States,
the title I administrators from around the country, the National
Parent-Teachers Association and many other groups in support of this
initiative.
This initiative has in large part been driven by the New American
Schools movement, which originally had its genesis in an effort put
together by a group of nationally known American businessmen headed by
David Kearns who used to run Xerox Corporation. They basically looked
at the problems that we were facing in public education. They
commissioned the Rand Corporation to study the research to determine
what worked and what did not work in the area of school reform, and
they have helped around the country to achieve a situation in which
some 700 schools have been able to use one model or another to try to
improve school performance.
But 1 percent school involvement is not enough, in our view, and this
should help some 4,000 schools get into the act of rethinking from the
bottom up how those schools are organized, how they are administered
and how children are taught within those schools. It is, I think, an
exciting initiative not just because of the promise that it holds for
progress in academic performance, it is also an exciting initiative
because we have bipartisan support for something that can truly move
the reform effort forward on the basis not of political ideology but on
the basis of what works.
I would like to say one other thing. I know that there are a number
of individuals in the caucus of the majority
[[Page H6851]]
party who are concerned about this bill and would like to see it shaped
far more in their image. Let me simply say to those folks, there are a
good many people on this side of the aisle who feel the same way coming
from the opposite direction. There are many provisions in this bill
that I would prefer not be here. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bonilla], for instance, pushed incredibly hard for a provision on
ergonomics with which I strongly disagree and most of us on our side of
the aisle did, but in the interest of accommodation and trying to build
bipartisan consensus, we worked out our differences and the gentleman
from Texas has been able to deliver what he considers progress in that
area.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] was able to persuade the
committee to adopt a proposal, about which I frankly have great
misgivings, with respect to methyl chloride. The gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] was able to convince the committee to include a
provision on the NLRB with which I basically disagree, as do most
members of our subcommittee on this side of the aisle, and other
members of the subcommittee. And the majority caucus were also able to
include provisions that we frankly do not agree with, but as Will
Rogers said a long time ago, ``When two people agree on everything, one
of them is unnecessary.''
The fact is, in a body of 435 people, if we are going to produce a
product which can reach consensus in that body and also receive the
support of the President of the United States, we have to have
compromises. We have them.
I would simply say to people on both sides of the aisle, we can, if
you want, go down last year's road of having division after division
after division demonstrated on this floor, or, having already
demonstrated the great difference of opinion that we have on a number
of these issues, we can try to reach for consensus and produce a bill
which we know will be signed by the President and a bill which we know
can pass by the fiscal year's end so that we do not have to run the
risk of again shutting down government.
I would urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that in
the end this institution will be served best if people recognize that
we have fought out these differences fiercely in the committee and
support the effort that the committee has produced. People are free
obviously to offer any amendments that they want, but I do not believe
that the interest of either party or this institution will be served by
offering amendments for consideration that we know will simply blow up
the bill. We have had too much of that the past years and I hope that
we have reached the time when we will choose to resolve differences,
move forward to new issues and hopefully also in the process produce
something that is useful and good for the workers, for the children and
for the ill of our society who are served by this legislation.
Additional Views Submitted by the Honorable David Obey and the
Honorable John Porter
the road to better american schools
No topic has more consistently been the focus of public
debate over the last two decades than the reform of our
educational system. Parents know that the competition for
jobs and pay which their children will face will be quite
different from what they themselves faced only a few years
ago. How they fare will be determined not just by how their
skills stack up against other workers in their own community
but how those skills compare with those of workers around the
globe. The relationship between living standards and work
skills will become increasingly direct.
As a result, school improvement has been a central agenda
item at local school board meetings across the country. It
absorbs much of the deliberative time of each state
legislature. It is a frequent topic of debate here in
Congress and it is a matter of great concern to not only
parents and students but corporate leaders and tax payers as
well.
Yet the road to school reform has proven elusive. Teachers
in many schools complain with apparent justification that
students are spending so much time taking newly mandated
standardized tests that it has significantly cut back the
time available for instruction. In some classrooms, computers
purchased with the promise of revolutionizing instruction sit
idle day after day serving only as icons of the difficulty of
changing the fundamental problems which face our schools.
Some thoughtful school board members have reluctantly
concluded that the only two things that will really bring
positive change to our schools is an infusion of more
talented teachers and an infusion of more disciplined and
motivated students--two things that they ultimately feel
powerless to change.
But in the midst of this debate and the many failed efforts
to revolutionize public instruction a promising set of ideas
about school organization has taken hold and begun to produce
extremely promising results. There is no single father to
these new ideas. In fact, they include more than a half a
dozen detailed models developed separately by educators at
universities in different parts of the country. Each of these
models for reforming schools has it own special set of
characteristics, but all of the models would significantly
change the way that the overwhelming majority of American
schools now operate. Strikingly, all of these models have a
great deal in common with one another.
Among those who have brought forth proposals for change are
James Comer at Yale, Henry Levin at Stanford, Ted Sizer at
Brown and Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins. Each has his own
special area of emphasis. The Comer School Development
Program for instance focuses on the organization of school
decision making. Levin's Accelerated Schools puts forth a
curriculum proposal for challenging students identified
for remediation. Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools
focuses on the ``triangle of learning,'' the relationship
between students, teachers and curriculum. Slavin's
Success for All and Roots and Wings call for reallocating
resources into the most essential elements for school
success, curriculum, instruction and family support.
While the area of emphasis differs from one model to the
next, all of these models are based on the concept that
effective reform is a school wide proposition. In other
words, you can't make sufficient progress by working on one
classroom or one teacher or the curriculum for one subject
area at a time, the whole school has to be the target for
change. All share the concept that parents have to be
centrally engaged at every step of the decision making and
evaluation process. All concur that a great deal of autonomy
is needed for individual schools and that the current top
down authority structure existing within most schools has got
to go. Each of these concepts requires principals to
significantly redefine their roles. They must become
consensus builders rather than autocratic directors. They
must learn to bring teachers and parents into the decision
making process and create a community wide commitment to the
behavioral and academic standards of the school.
All argue that the school boards, superintendents and other
administrators in the school system have to be aware of the
need for these changes and actively support schools
attempting change. All are supported by an outside set of
experts who are available to advise and help the schools,
teachers and principals to successfully retool their school.
Finally, each of these concepts is far more than an academic
treatise on what people living in the real world should be
doing. Each of these models has been developed into real
functioning programs being used in a cross section of
communities with very specific and detailed guidelines for
approaching the real life--every day problems of teaching and
learning.
Over the last three decades the principle tool for raising
educational performance nationwide has been the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and specifically Title I
of that Act. Through Title I, the federal government has
focused substantial additional resources on underachieving
children in lower income schools. What we have learned from
these new ``whole school'' models is that the improvements in
academic performance of Title I children can be more broadly
based and more long lasting if the focus on individual
children takes place in an environment in which parents and
teachers are working together for goals they both agree with
and played a role in developing.
The most remarkable fact about these models is the extent
to which they have succeeded in improving school and student
performance without becoming better known to the public or
even to many in the education community. Among the
organizations that have recognized the potential such models
hold for improving the effectiveness of American schools are
the Annenberg Foundation, the Edison Project and New
American Schools. New American Schools was created by
business leaders from a number of the nation's largest
corporations and began working with local school districts
in 1992 to help certain selected schools adapt to one or
another of seven selected school reform models--each
representing a different version of ``whole school''
reform. More than 500 schools in 25 states have
participated for much of that period and another 200
schools have been added recently. While that is a tiny
fraction of the more than 100,000 elementary and secondary
schools across the country, it is providing a solid
information base for examining the potential of these
reforms. The Rand Corporation has been hired to evaluate
this information. While understanding the long term impact
of alternate education approaches on student achievement
necessarily takes many years, the early results from these
experiments have in many instances been dramatic.
A number of schools in Prince George's County, Maryland
using the ATLAS model (a variation on the Comer School
Development Program) raised their reading scores by 30% on
the Maryland Performance Assessment Program. The proportion
of students scoring satisfactory or excellent on the exam
tripled
[[Page H6852]]
within a three year period beginning in 1992. Most schools
experienced a dramatic decline in discipline problems and a
dramatic increase in levels of school attendance.
The John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Louisville,
Kentucky increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide
assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math using the
National Alliance reform model. In three years, the school
rose from among the lowest-scoring schools in the state to
the top 10%.
The Success for All model developed at Johns Hopkins
University appears to have been particularly successful in
boosting achievement among language minority students. In six
schools located in Baltimore and Philadelphia, first grade
students were three months ahead of their counterparts in
other elementary schools by the end of their first year. By
the end of second grade they were almost a year ahead of
their counterparts.
The Hansberry Elementary School in the Bronx increased the
percentage of student who passed the New York State essential
skills test from 22% to 50% in reading and from 47% to 82% in
math in only two years beginning in 1993. Hansberry used a
model developed by the Hudson Institute known as the Modern
Red Schoolhouse.
The Rand Corporation noted that ``By any number of
measures, New American Schools has accomplished a great deal
in its first four years of programmatic activity * * * What
began as an effort to create small number of outstanding
designs for schools has expanded to a comprehensive strategy
to reform education.''
While these new approaches to improving schools may
represent fundamental change from the way most schools now
operate, it is important to recognize that these approaches
are very consistent with the kinds of organizational changes
being brought about in numerous other institutions in
society. Just as American business has learned that enhancing
the role and input of workers and suppliers creates a
common commitment that improves the product and boosts
productivity, the full engagement of teachers and parents
in the learning process can and is producing similar
results in schools. In fact, one might well argue that the
standard structure of American schools has changed so
little in the last half century that these types of
institutional reforms can have an even greater impact on
the classroom than businesses have managed to produce in
factories or offices.
We do not know all that we would like to know or should
know in order to fully revolutionize the nation's schools. We
do not know for certain which of these models works best or
which is best suited for particular types of schools or to
meet particular types of problems. But we certainly do know
enough to know that we should begin. We have sufficient
experience to know that many more schools should be
participating--that we should not only be experimenting with
these approaches in all of the states instead of only half,
but that we should have a number of schools working with
these reforms in each region of every state.
That is why we encouraged the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor-Health, Human Services and Education to provide $200
million to start such a whole school reform effort in the
education appropriation bill for the coming school year.
These funds would be apportioned by state education officials
and the Department of Education to school districts
interested in making a serious commitment to school
improvement. Schools with differing ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds would be selected as would schools facing
differing problems in improving academic performance. Each
participating school would receive a grant of at least
$50,000 a year to implement a research tested model for whole
school reform. The funds would be used to help the school get
the necessary outside expertise, hire the staff necessary to
facilitate change and train existing personnel to meet the
challenges of making fundamental changes in the manner in
which the schools operate. The effort would provide a large
number of school districts across the country with first hand
experience and information to determine whether they wish to
provide additional schools with the resources necessary to
make the proposed changes.
We have had an extended debate in this country about school
reform and that debate will no doubt continue. But it is time
to do more than debate. We now have proposals to reform our
schools that are not just academic theories but are producing
real results in real classrooms across America. With a
relatively small amount of outside resources, communities can
restructure schools in ways that make them significantly more
effective. We should now move to insure that a broader
spectrum of our nation's schools have a chance to move
forward with these reforms and determine for themselves the
impact these changes have on student learning and school
effectiveness.
examples of whole school reform models
Accelerated Schools
Accelerated Schools, developed at Stanford University, is a
whole school reform model that focuses on an accelerated
curriculum that emphasizes challenging and exciting learning
activities for students who normally are identified for
remediation. One of the key ideas behind Accelerated Schools
is that rather than remediating students' deficits, students
who are placed at risk of school failure must be
accelerated--given the kind of high-expectations curriculum
typical of programs for gifted and talented students. The
program's social goals include reducing the dropout rate,
drug use, and teen pregnancies.
The Accelerated Schools model is built around three central
principles. One is unity of purpose, a common vision of what
the school should become, agreed to and worked toward by all
school staff, parents, students and community. A second is
empowerment coupled with responsibility, which means that
staff, parents and students find their own way to transform
themselves. A third element, building on strength, means
identifying the strengths of students, of staff and of the
school, and then using these as a basis for reform. School
staff are encouraged to search for methods that help them to
realize their vision. There is an emphasis on reducing all
uses of remedial activities and on adopting engaging teaching
strategies, such as project-based learning. The schools
implement these principles by establishing a set of cadres
which include a steering committee and work on groups focused
on particular areas of concern. Accelerated schools are
located in 39 states, including Colorado, Texas and
California.
ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning and Assessment of All
Students)
The ATLAS Program, builds on concepts embodied in the
School Development Program and the Coalition of Essential
Schools, but adds other unique elements. One of these is a
focus on pathways--groups of schools made up of high schools
and the elementary and middle schools that feed into them--
whose staff work with each other to create coordinated and
continuous experiences for students. Teams of teachers from
each pathway work together to design curriculum and
assessments based on locally defined standards. Teachers
collaborate with parents and administrators to form a
learning community that works together to set and maintain
sound management policies.
The intent of the model is to change the culture of the
school to promote high institutional and individual
performance. The emphasis of the design is on helping school
staffs create classroom environments in which students are
active participants in their own learning. Project-based
learning is extensively used. Assessment in ATLAS schools
emphasize portfolios, performance examinations, and
exhibitions. Community members are active participants on the
school governing teams and the schools develop programs to
encourage parental involvement. ATLAS schools are operating
in Norfolk, Virginia; Prince George's County, Maryland;
Gorham, Maine; Seattle, Washington; and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Audrey Cohen College of System of Education
Audrey Cohen College of System of Education is based on the
teaching methods used at the Audrey Cohen College in New York
City. This whole school reform model focuses student learning
on the study and achievement of meaningful ``purposes'' for
each semester's academic goals. A holistic and purpose-driven
curriculum is the centerpiece of the model. Curriculum and
instruction are organized around a single, developmentally
appropriate purpose for each semester, cumulating to 26
purposes in a K-12 system. Embedded in each purpose are
content areas such as English and math, and essential skills
such as critical thinking and researching. Each purpose
culminates in a ``constructive action'' undertaken by the
class to serve the community. For example, in fourth grade,
one purpose is ``we work for good health.'' Students achieve
their purpose by using their knowledge and skills to plan,
carry out, and evaluate a ``constructive action'' to benefit
the community and larger world. Leadership is emphasized.
These fundamental changes in the curriculum and instruction
become the organizing principles for all other school
activities. The total effect is intended to make the school
and its programs more coherent and focused.
The purposes help the school and its officials identify key
community resources to involve in the educational enterprise.
The constructive actions help to bring the community into the
school and the school into the community--making schools,
parents and children active partners in improving the
community. Schools are implementing the Audrey Cohen model in
San Diego, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida;
Hollandale, Mississippi; Seattle, Washington; and Dade
County, Florida.
Coalition of Essential Schools
The Coalition of Essential Schools is based at Brown
University. The Coalition is not a reform model per se, but
an organization dedicated to ``Nine Common Principles of
Essential Schools''. The Nine Principles involve certain
ideas about school reform that include building support and
collaboration among teachers, students and the families of
those students in the community. The Coalition focuses on the
relationship between students, teachers and the curriculum--
the ``triangle of learning''.
In order to become a member of the Coalition of Essential
Schools, a school submits a statement of its long-term goals
and an action plan. The action plan must state how
structures, pedagogy, curriculum and assessment will change,
and it must include a statement of faculty commitment to
student learning and engagement. Community support must be
solicited throughout the process and a school-site
coordinator is identified
[[Page H6853]]
to work as a liaison between the school, and regional or
state coordinator, and the Coalition. Membership in the
Coalition includes a responsibility to participate in a
network with other Coalition Schools, and to meet
expectations that include commitment, whole-school
involvement, documentation and assessment of progress, and
funds to support school reform activities over a multi-
year period.
Co-NECT Schools
Co-NECT schools focus on complex interdisciplinary projects
that extensively incorporate technology and connect students
with ongoing scientific investigations, information
resources, and other students beyond their own school. Co-
NECT uses technology to enhance every aspect of teaching,
learning, professional development, and school management.
Cross-disciplinary teaching teams work with clusters of
students. Most students stay in the same cluster with the
same teachers for at least two years. Teaching and learning
center of interdisciplinary projects that promote critical
skills and academic understanding. Teams of educators and
parents set goals. Performance-based assessments are
extensively used. In addition to understanding key subject
areas, graduates of the Co-NECT school demonstrate the
acquisition of specific critical skills, identified as sense-
maker, designer, problem-solver, decisionmaker, communicator,
team worker, project-oriented worker, and responsible,
knowledgeable citizen.
A school governance council, which includes teachers,
parents, business/community representatives, and
administrators, runs the school. In addition, the school
design team provides local input concerning the
implementation, performance assessment, and accountability of
the Co-NECT approach at that particular school. The Community
Support Board fosters access to the local community to
support the Council and design team. Mentoring and volunteers
are encouraged and community input sought for standard-
setting. Co-NECT schools are operating in Cincinnati, Ohio;
Dade County, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; San Antonio, Texas; and Worcester,
Massachusetts.
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) is built on ten
design principles and operates on the belief that learning is
an expedition into the unknown. Expeditionary Learning draws
on the power of purposeful, intellectual investigations--
called learning expeditions--to improve student achievement
and build character. Learning expeditions are long-term,
academically rigorous, interdisciplinary studies that require
students to work inside and outside the classroom. In
Expeditionary Learning schools, student and teachers stay
together for more than one year, teachers work
collaboratively through team teaching and shared planning,
and there is no tracking.
Schools using this whole school reform model are in
Baltimore County, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts;
Cincinnati, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Decatur,
Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Dubuque, Iowa; Memphis,
Tennessee; New York City, New York; San Antonio, Texas;
and Portland, Oregon.
Modern Red Schoolhouse
The Modern Red Schoolhouse whole school reform model helps
all students achieve high standards through the construction
of a standards-driven curriculum; employment of traditional
and performance-based assessments; effective organizational
patterns and professional-development programs; and
implementation of effective community-involvement strategies.
The model focuses on high standards in core academic
subjects--English, geography, history, mathematics and
science. Students master a rigorous curriculum designed to
transit common culture, develop character, and promote the
principles of democratic government. Modern Red Schoolhouses
are divided into three divisions, rather than 12 grades:
primary, intermediate and upper. To advance to the next
division, students must meet defined standards and pass
``watershed assessment''. Students complete investigations,
give oral reports, answer essay questions and take multiple
choice exams. Student progress is monitored through an
Individual Education Compact, negotiated by the student,
parent and teacher. This compact establishes goals, details
parent and teacher responsibilities, and lists services the
school, parents or community should provide.
Schools using this model are in Indianapolis, Columbus, and
Beech Grove, Indiana; Franklin and Lawrence, Massachusetts;
New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis,
Tennessee, and San Antonio, Texas.
National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NA)
The National Alliance for Restructuring Education is a
partnership of states, districts, schools and expert
organizations created to change the educational system
through a five-point set of priorities called ``design
tasks'': the design tasks are standards and assessments,
learning environments, high-performance management, community
services and supports, and public engagement. The model uses
results-based, high performance management at the school and
district levels with decentralized decisionmaking to
restructure the learning environment to support student
achievement and provide professional support to teachers and
schools.
Alliance sites adapt for education the principles and
techniques developed by American business known as high-
performance management. These include strategic management,
total quality management, decentralized decisonmaking and
empowerment, and accountability and incentive systems. At the
school level, principals are trained in these areas to better
support the integration and implementation of design tasks.
Alliance sites at the state, district and school levels are
tasked with developing methods for informing and involving
parents and the public in the school and restructuring
process. Schools in the National Alliance are in Arkansas;
Kentucky; Vermont; Rochester, New York; San Diego,
California; and Chicago, Illinois.
Roots and Wings
Roots and Wings is a comprehensive, whole school reform
model for elementary schools to ensure that all children
leave elementary school with the skills required for success.
It is based on the Success For All reading program developed
at Johns Hopkins University and incorporates science,
history, and math to achieve a comprehensive academic
program. The premise of the model is that schools must do
whatever it takes to make sure all students succeed. Roots
and Wings schools provide at-risk students with tutors,
family support, and a variety of other services aimed at
eliminating obstacles to success.
The Roots component of the model is aimed at preventing
failure. It emphasizes working with children and their
families to ensure that children develop the basic skills and
habits they need to succeed. The Wings component emphasizes a
highly motivating curriculum with instructional strategies
that encourage children to grow to their full potential and
aspire to higher levels of learning. The design reallocates
resources into a system of curriculum, instruction and family
support designed to eliminate special education and low
achievement.
Roots and Wings provides schools with innovative curricula
and instructional methods in reading, writing, language arts,
mathematics, social studies, and science. The curriculum
emphasizes the use of cooperative learning throughout the
grades. In each activity, students work in cooperative
groups, do extensive writing, and use reading, mathematics,
and fine arts skills learned in other parts of the program.
Schools using this model are in Anson County, North Carolina;
Memphis, Dade County, Cincinnati, Elyria and Dawson-Bryant,
Ohio; Columbus, Indiana; Everett, Washington, Flint,
Michigan; Modesto, Pasadena and Riverside, CA; Rockford,
Illinois, St. Mary's, Baltimore and Baltimore County,
Maryland.
School Development Program
The School Development program is a comprehensive, whole
school approach to reform based on principles of child
development and the importance of parental involvement. The
program was developed at Yale and implemented initially at
two elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut.
Each school creates three teams that take particular
responsibility for moving the whole school reform agenda
forward. A School Planning and Management Team, made up of
teacher, parents and administration, develops and monitors
implementation of a comprehensive school improvement plan. A
Mental Health Team, composed on school staff concerned with
mental health such as school psychologists, social
workers, counselors and teachers, plans programs focusing
on prevention, building positive child development,
positive personal relations, etc. The third major
component of the model is a Parent Program designed to
build a sense of community among school staff, parents,
and students. The parent Program incorporates existing
parent participation activities (such as the PTA) and
implements additional activities to draw parents into the
school, to increase opportunities for parents to provide
volunteer services, and to design ways for having the
school respect the ethnic backgrounds of its students.
The three teams in School Development Program schools work
together to create comprehensive plans for school reform.
Schools take a holistic approach in looking for ways to serve
children's academic and social needs. The School Development
Program is operating in schools in 25 states, including
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North
Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
Talent Development Model for High Schools
The Talent Development Model for High Schools was developed
at Johns Hopkins University to fill a major current void in
American education--a dearth of proven models of high school
effectiveness. The Talent Development Model provides a
comprehensive package of specific high school changes for at-
risk students based on the proposition that all students can
succeed in school given appropriate school organization,
curriculum, instruction, and assistance as needed to assure
their success. The model focuses on a common core curriculum
of high standards for all students and emphasizes the
creation of small learning communities through the
establishment of career-focused academies as schools-within-
the-school.
Essential components include (1) making schoolwork relevant
by providing a career focus, (2) providing increased
opportunities for academic success, (3) providing a caring
and supportive learning environment
[[Page H6854]]
through enhanced teacher-student interactions, and (4)
providing help with student problems, including academic,
family problems, substance abuse, disciplinary problems, and
employment needs. The Talent Development High School provides
assistance to students from social workers and mental health
professionals on the school staff and by referrals to an
alternative after-hours school in the building designed to
meet the needs of students who present the most difficult
disciplinary problems. The first Talent Development High
School was established at Patterson High School in Baltimore,
Maryland. Additional Talent Development sites are being
evaluated in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los
Angeles.
____
National Association of
State Title I Directors,
Washington, DC, September, 4, 1997.
Hon. David Obey,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: The National Association of State Title I
Directors believes Title I (Compensatory Education) will be
more effective with the reform efforts outlined in the Whole
School Reform initiative approved by the House Subcommittee
on Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education. School reform and improvement
will not occur without specific support. As it stands today,
on average each school teacher annually has over 200,000
interactions with students, parents, and other professionals.
To expect these professionals to be able to teach and reform
their instructional programs and techniques without specific
support is unreasonable. Therefore, we ask that you continue
to push for funding for the Whole School Reform effort and
reject any attempt to transfer funds out of this initiative.
We understand that Congressman Riggs is considering offering
an amendment to transfer funds for this reform effort, we
hope that this (and any other similar amendments) will be
defeated.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Long, Ed.D.
Executive Director.
____
American Federation of Teachers,
Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 950,000 members of
the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge you to
oppose the amendment sponsored by Mr. Riggs to H.R. 2264, the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill.
The AFT supports the Whole School Reform Initiative
included in H.R. 2264, as reported from committee. The $150
million under Title I--Demonstrations of Innovative Practices
Program and $50 million under the Fund for the Improvement of
Education would provide schools assistance to fund promising
educational strategies, including effective approaches to
whole school reform. The AFT believes the real hope for
improving public education is by expanding known, effective
proven programs and strategies. Parents, the public, and
teachers want ``what works'' in the public schools. They want
schools in which students achieve at high levels in basic
subjects and in which all students are safe and secure.
Providing selected schools across the country with
resources to cover the additional costs of implementing
academic programs that are known to work is an especially
good use of limited resources. The AFT has done considerable
investigation of promising means of school reform and has
determined that the spread of instructional programs that
meet the criteria of having high academic standard, being
strongly research-based, having demonstrated effectiveness in
raising student achievement, being replicable in diverse and
challenging circumstances, and with assistance available from
networks of researchers and practitioners offers the
strongest promise of educational improvement. The Whole
School Reform Initiative in H.R. 2264 would help school adopt
programs that meet these important criteria.
I urge you to support the Whole School Reform Initiative
and vote against the Riggs Amendment.
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Morris,
Director of Legislation.
____
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2.3-million members
of the National Education Association (NEA), we urge you to
oppose the Riggs amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill.
NEA supports the Whole School Reform Initiative included in
H.R. 2264 as reported from committee. The $150 million
targeted to the Demonstrations of Innovative Practices
Program and the $50 million for the Improvement of Education
would provide schools with the assistance needed to fund and
promote innovative and effective approaches to whole school
reform. The Riggs amendment would shift $200 million away
from this excellent proposal.
As you are aware, schools want effective options for
creating high-performance education systems, but they need
targeted resources and expert technical assistance to help
them adopt these reforms. The Whole School Reform Initiative,
as reported from committee, holds out the best promise for
helping schools effect these reforms.
NEA urges you to vote against the Riggs Amendment.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations.
____
National School Boards Association,
Alexandria, VA, September 4, 1997.
Hon. David R. Obey,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of the National School
Boards Association (NSBA) and the 95,000 school board members
we represent through our federation of 53 states and
territories, we strongly endorse the whole school reform
proposal in the FY 1998 appropriations bill. The additional
$200 million in resources to support the adoption by schools
of research-based, whole school reform models is an important
innovation. Research has shown us that for long-lasting
reform to take place, the principal, teachers, parents, and
staff--the entire school--must reflect the reform principles.
The whole school reform proposal in the Labor, HHS, Education
FY 1998 appropriations bill will move this process forward.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and
allowing us to work with you. For further information please
call Laurie A. Westley, Assistant Executive Director, at 703-
838-6703.
Sincerely,
William B. Ingram,
President.
Anne L. Bryant,
Executive Director.
____
National PTA,
National Headquarters,
Chicago, IL, September 4, 1997.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: I am writing to reiterate our support for
your bi-partisan proposal--adopted as part of H.R. 2264, the
House Appropriations Committee FY 1998 funding bill for the
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education--that would direct $200 million to whole-school
reform initiatives.
We understand that Representative Riggs plans to offer an
amendment to redirect this $200 million to Title I basic
grants. While we wholeheartedly would support an increased
funding allocation for Title I basic grants, we cannot afford
to take this money away from whole-school reform initiatives.
We know that effective school reform demands a strong
commitment of financial resources and appropriate technical
assistance to ensure successful implementation. There are
numerous, proven, research-based models of effective schools
that communities can replicate if they have the tools. The
funding set aside for this purpose in H.R. 2264 would provide
the important financial support schools need to implement
these whole-school reforms.
We believe the whole-school reform initiative would nicely
complement Title I in helping economically and educationally
disadvantaged students achieve educational success. We
strongly support the $200 million in supplemental assistance
for whole-school reform and we oppose Mr. Rigg's amendment to
eliminate funding for this purpose.
Sincerely,
Shirley Igo,
Vice President for Legislation.
____
Council of the Great City Schools,
Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Representative: The Council of the Great City Schools,
the coalition of the nation's largest central city school
districts, writes to urge opposition to Congressman Riggs'
amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor, HHS, Education
appropriations bill, which would transfer $200 million for
the F.I.E. and Title I Whole School Reform Demonstration
initiative into Title I Basic Grants.
On July 28, 1997 the Council wrote to the Subcommittee
Chairman Porter and ranking member Obey supporting the Whole
School Reform initiative as an important stimulus to
facilitate the broader use of effective educational practices
and models. The Council is confident that these new School
Reform initiatives will be used in the schools which have the
greatest need for substantive reform.
The Council is concerned that the amendment transfers funds
into a formula vehicle which is no longer authorized by the
House Committee of Education and the Workforce. Additionally,
the transfer amendment does not target the very limited
education funds to high need school districts in a manner
which either Subcommittee Chairman Porter or authorizing
committee Chairman Goodling have encouraged.
The Council, therefore, requests your opposition to the
Riggs transfer amendment.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Simering,
Director of Legislative Services.
[[Page H6855]]
____
New American Schools,
Arlington, VA, July 14, 1997.
Hon. David R. Obey,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Obey: It is our understanding the
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations will be
meeting soon to consider the fiscal year 1998 budget request
for the Department of Education. We also understand that the
Subcommittee will be considering your proposal to provide
approximately $200 million in additional resources to the
Department to support a new school reform initiative.
We are writing to express the strong support of the New
American Schools Development Corporation for this initiative
and for your efforts. As you know, the New American Schools
Development Corporation is a bipartisan, nonprofit
organization launched in 1991 by American corporate and
foundation leaders to help schools adopt systemic reforms to
achieve world class, high performing schools. Utilizing
corporate and foundation support, we financed the research
and development of seven comprehensive, schoolwide reform
designs and tested these designs in schools and districts
across the country. We are currently working with over 700
schools that are implementing these innovative whole school
reform designs with considerable success. Secretary Riley
recently commended our efforts in his 1997 Annual State of
American Education address.
We believe that the results we are seeing in New American
Schools justify a significant public investment at this time
to spur the adoption of these and other proven whole school
reform designs that have the greatest potential to improve
the daily instructional experiences of children on a large
scale. We have found that schools want effective options for
creating high performance education systems, but that they
need targeted resources and expert technical assistance to
help them adopt these reforms. Your proposal to provide
approximately $200 million in start-up funding to support
whole school reform in a significant number of schools would
provide a powerful impetus to effective school reform in this
country.
Sincerely,
David T. Kearns,
Chairman.
John L. Anderson,
President.
____
American Educational Research Association,
Washington DC, July 24, 1997.
Congressman David Obey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education,
2462 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Obey: I am writing you on behalf of IGER,
an informal coalition of groups interested in sound policy
development for the federal education research program. The
groups identified below endorse the central ideas proposed by
the subcommittee as the whole-school reform initiative, and
the general comments offered below. I understanding that
others in our coalition, such as the NEA and AFT, already
have written letters supporting the proposed school reform
strategy.
We note with satisfaction that the Subcommittee on Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations has recommended that substantial
funding be provided for start-up costs associated with whole-
school reform. Many who have studied improvement have
concluded that whole-school reform represents one of the most
promising approaches to sustainable education achievements,
and we applaud the fact that bulk of the funds will be
provided to the most needy schools.
We applaud, also, the emphasis given to development of
sound evaluation plans as a condition of receiving the
grants, as well as the requirements stipulated for on-going
professional development, high academic standards, and
community involvement.
We agree with the committee that there are a number of
whole-school reform programs for which effectiveness is
evidenced by a sound research program, using control groups.
However, we caution the committee that there are many more
reform programs basing their success only on anecdotal
evaluations, than there are programs which have the
demonstrated results demanded in the legislation. This is not
to challenge the promise of the reform efforts sure to be
stimulated by the legislation. Rather, it is to urge that, as
opportunity arises, the committee consider the need for a
continuing program of research--perhaps best conducted
through the institute structure provided by OERI--to
complement this innovation with additional, hard data about
conditions for effective school reform. Similarly, in
addition to providing technical support for schools
undertaking to evaluate their efforts, we urge support for a
substantial third-party evaluation of this exciting national
commitment.
We appreciate the committee's continuing support for
federal research, statistics, and the regional laboratories,
and look forward to working with you to make this exciting
new program a success.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Sroufe,
for the American Educational Research Association.
Howard Silver,
for the Consortium of Social Science Associations.
David Johnson,
for the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and
Cognitive Sciences.
Karen Anderson,
for the National School Boards Association.
Richard Hershman,
for the National Education Knowledge Industry Association.
____
Council of Chief State
School Officers,
Washington, DC, July 25, 1997.
Representative David Obey, Ranking Member, House
Appropriations Committee, 1016 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of the state
commissioners and superintendents of education, I commend
your leadership in securing a $405 million increase for Title
I ESEA in the FY98 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill.
We commend especially your initiative in appropriating $150
million in start up funds for the Whole School Reform
provisions, authorized under Part E, Title I,
``Demonstrations of Innovative Practices,'' with an
additional $50 million for this purpose to the Fund for the
Improvement for Education and $5 million for technical
assistance and evaluation.
Title I is an essential resource to assist the nation's
most economically and educationally disadvantaged students
achieve at the high standards they need to compete in the
global economy. We applaud the bipartisan agreement on FY98
funding for Title I which substantially exceeds the
Administration's request in additional money and provides
first-time funding of Whole School Reform.
Funding of the Whole School Reform program is especially
important. Research establishes clearly the importance of
comprehensive strategies which combine all resources of a
school to raise student achievement. The strategy is
especially true for schools with large proportions of low
achieving students. The Whole School Reform funds will more
than double the resources available for states to assist
Title I schools in refocusing their resources toward better
performance. Combined with Title I provisions for schoolwide
projects in schools with high concentrations of poverty and
the state program improvement funds for technical assistance
to low-performing schools, these funds offer the additional
resource needed to change school practice while other
resources maintain continuing direct services to students.
As the FY98 appropriation for education moves through the
House and to conference with the Senate bill, we support
strongly the Subcommittee's $405 million increase for Title I
and the Whole School Reform funding. Thank you again for your
leadership in achieving the bipartisan commitment to serve
the students most in need of help. An increase in their
performance is essential if our nation's capacity for a high
skills/high wage economy is to be realized. We look forward
to working with you through the process.
Sincerely,
Gordon M. Ambach,
Executive Director.
____
National School
Boards Association,
Alexandria, VA, July 17, 1997.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: On behalf of the National School
Boards Association (NSBA) and the 95,000 school board members
we represent through our federation of 53 states and
territories, we strongly urge the FY 1998 funding for K-12
education programs be a high priority. We applaud the
bipartisan spirit of the subcommittee bill and the attempts
to best the Clinton Administration funding in many programs,
especially Title 6 and IDEA. We also applaud Congressman
David Obey's (D-WI) whole school reform proposal and the
fiscal increase for Title 1. Sadly, these collective
increases will not meet the needs in school districts to
address exploding enrollments of high-needs children.
Our members' strong support for the $1 billion increase for
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has been
nearly matched by the Senate own expressions of the need for
the funds in S. 1, the Majority Leader's highest legislative
priority, and later in the Senate Budget Resolution, as well
as numerous statements throughout the pendency of the IDEA
legislation. Last month the reauthorization of IDEA became
law; it provides both the programmatic framework and the
urgency for the increase. The long-standing federal
commitment to fund IDEA at 40 percent of the excess cost of
special education adds to the importance of a $1 billion
increase.
As you search for ways to increase the IDEA appropriation
to $1 billion, we fervently hope you will not look to other
K-12 education programs. The education of some children
should not be jeopardized to pay for the education of other
children; that would be a travesty.
For further information, please call Laurie A. Westley,
Assistant Executive Director, at 703-838-6703. Thank you for
your support.
Sincerely,
William B. Ingram,
President.
[[Page H6856]]
Anne L. Bryant,
Executive Director.
____
American Federation of Teachers,
555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
Congressman David Obey,
Ranking Member, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
and Related Agencies,
Appropriations Subcommittee.
Dear Congressman Obey: On behalf of the American Federation
of Teachers, I would like to support adoption of your report
language on effective schools as a part of the FY 1998
education appropriations.
The AFT believes there exist in schools throughout the US a
number of rigorous educational programs that are solidly
based on research, have records of demonstrated effectiveness
in improving student achievement of higher academic
standards, are supported by networks of researchers and
experienced practitioners, and are known to be replicable in
diverse and challenging circumstances. The programs meeting
these criteria mark a path that other schools can follow with
confidence. Some examples of these programs are Success for
All, Roots and Wings, Core Knowledge, Direct Instruction,
High Schools that Work, International Baccalaureate, and
Advanced Placement. No doubt other such programs can be
identified, as well.
It is of great importance that schools--especially schools
with high concentrations of disadvantaged students--be
encouraged to adopt high standards, rigorous educational
programs that we know work. Rather than educational fads and
ideologically-driven schemes, it is the research-based,
widely replicated, demonstrably effective, and network
supported programs that will produce solid academic gains for
all children.
Sincerely,
Gerald Morris,
Director of Legislation.
____
National PTA Headquarters,
Chicago, IL, July 22, 1997.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: I am writing in support of your proposal--
adopted as part of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1998--to direct $200 million to the Department of
Education for whole-school reform initiatives.
The nearly 6.5 million members of the National PTA
understand that effective school reform demands a strong
commitment of financial resources and appropriate technical
assistance to ensure successful implementation. We know that
good schools share common elements including strong parental
and community support, challenging academic standards, and
ongoing professional development opportunities. Your
proposal, which considers these factors, would provide
important financial support for schools that are trying to
implement these whole-school reforms.
We believe your initiative would nicely complement proven
programs like Title I in helping economically and
educationally disadvantaged students achieve educational
success. We support an increased Federal funding commitment
for Title I and the supplemental assistance offered in your
whole-school reform initiative.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America's children.
Sincerely,
Shirley Igo,
Vice President for Legislation.
____
The National Association of
Secondary School Principals,
Reston, VA, July 30, 1997.
Hon. David R. Obey,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: The 43,000 members of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals
congratulate you on your success in gaining the approval of
the House Appropriation Committee to provide $200 million for
a new national initiative to develop innovative, successful
schools throughout the country.
Your proposal reflects the recommendations of our report,
Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, that was
prepared by NASSP in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. A copy of this report is
enclosed.
The clear message in this report is that school reform is
not driven by a single person or issue but involves the whole
school and community.
Upon releasing this report, NASSP formed the National
Alliance of High Schools and is conducting seminars and
workshops around the country to assist schools in
implementing the recommendations contained in this report.
Your initiative could be used by high schools around the
country to assist them in restructuring their school to best
serve the needs of the students as recommended in this
report. We applaud your foresight and look forward to working
with you to ensure that our nation's students and schools are
ready for an ever changing world.
If we can be of any assistance, please contact me at (703)
860-7333.
Kind personal regards,
Timothy J. Dyer,
Executive Director
____
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
Hon. David Obey,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: It is NEA's understanding that
the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations will
be meeting soon to consider the FY 1998 budget request for
the Department of Education. NEA also understands that the
Subcommittee will be considering a proposal by you to provide
approximately $200 million in additional resources to the
Department to support a new school reform initiative.
The NEA's more than 2.3 million members labor daily in
schools and communities across America to support and sustain
school reform initiatives. Your proposal would provide
important assistance.
As you are aware, schools want effective options for
creating high-performance education systems, but they need
targeted resources and expert technical assistance to help
them adopt these reforms. Your proposal to provide
approximately $200 million in start-up funding to support
whole school reform in a significant number of schools would
provide a powerful impetus to effective school reform in this
country.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations.
____
National Association of State Title I Directors,
Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association of
State Title I Directors, I urge you to support the goals and
intent of the school reform plan recently approved by the
House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
Appropriations Subcommittee.
The National Association of State Title I Directors
(NASTID) released a study this week assessing the status of
the Title I program. The study entitled ``Title I: A Program
in Transition'' provides information on how the program is
changing based on survey results from 43 states. While the
program is clearly still in transition, the survey responses
are encouraging.
With the passage of the Improving America's School Act in
1994, Congress redefined the Title I program. The program was
refocused to align content and performance standards, hold
all students responsible for meeting those standards, expand
opportunities for professional development, expand parental
participation, and implement schoolwide reform. It is this
last goal--schoolwide reform--that holds the promise for
dramatic school improvements which will enhance student
achievement. Schoolwide reform requires the active
participation of teachers and parents in setting goals and
achieving changes. It involves the dedication of the entire
community to the effort with an emphasis on intensive and
ongoing professional development for administrators, teachers
and staff, increased technical assistance, and other services
needed to achieve the desired changes.
The National Association of State Title I Directors
supports efforts to encourage and facilitate schoolwide
reforms and improvements. Federal support for school reform
initiatives coupled with a continued commitment to proven
programs like Title I would ensure that our neediest students
receive the benefits of improved schools and strong programs
designed to enhance learning.
We hope that you will be able to maintain at least last
year's commitment to serve the same number of children, while
supporting a needed new ``Whole School Reform'' initiative.
Sincerely,
Richard Long,
Executive Director.
____
Council of the Great City Schools,
Washington, DC, July 28, 1997.
Hon. David Obey,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Obey: The Council of the Great City
Schools, the coalition of the nation's largest central city
school districts, support the school improvement approach
using research-based models and effective practices reflected
in your Whole School Reform initiative in the Title I and FIE
accounts of the FY98 appropriations. Virtually every school
district, including the most disadvantaged, have a number of
schools and programs which are documenting success. Yet, the
adaptation and replication of such effective practices in
other schools or systemwide has not been mastered. Your Whole
School Reform demonstrations provide an important stimulus to
facilitating the broader use of effective programs.
Additionally, the Council would like to commend you and the
Subcommittee for investing over $400 million in new funding
for Title I, and for using a targeted funding approach. The
1994 Census update has demonstrated that there are 28 percent
more low-income children in the nation than under the 1990
Census count. Without this additional investment,
particularly for the poorest schools, the per child
purchasing power of each Title I dollar would have dropped by
nearly one-third, based on this increased number of poor
school-age children.
The Council supports your initiative and looks forward to
working with you to enact it.
Sincerely,
Michael Casserly,
Executive Director.
[[Page H6857]]
____
Committee for Education Funding,
Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
Member,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The Committee for Education Funding, a
nonpartisan coalition of 88 organizations representing the
broad spectrum of the education community, commends the
remarkable bipartisan effort of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education on FY98 spending for education. The bill reported
on July 15 takes a solid first step for education funding
within the constraints of the subcommittee's budget
allocation. Considering the degree to which this allocation
falls short of human investment needs and priorities, the
subcommittee made a substantial commitment to education.
We commend particularly the increase in the maximum Pell
grant to $3,000 and the additional funds set aside to expand
access to more students. The bill also makes an important
investment in whole school reform beyond the President's
request for Title I and restores vital Title VI and Impact
Aid funding.
There are areas where the bill falls short which must be
addressed as the process continues. This includes restoration
and increases needed in campus-based student aid; real growth
in programs for professional development, vocational
education and other critical programs; fulfillment of
Congressional commitments to students with disabilities; and
full funding of the budget agreement priorities for
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.
Again, we commend the bipartisan spirit that has produced
this bill and urge the committee to make additional critical
improvements as the appropriations process moves forward to a
final bill.
Sincerely,
Carnie C. Hayes,
President.
Edward R. Kealy,
Executive Director.
____
Whole School Reform Case Study
school development program
The School Development Program uses child development and
relationship theories and principles to improve the academic
and psychosocial functioning of students. The collaboration
of teachers, administrators, staff, families and community
residents, all of whom have a stake in the education of the
community's children, is key to the process. The program
recognizes the importance of adult relationships and the role
of parents and community in schools, while placing children
and their needs at the center of all school decisions.
West Mecklenburg High School, Charlotte, North Carolina
West Mecklenburg High School is one of the oldest schools
in Charlotte, North Carolina. Once regarded as the country
school for the west side of the community, it now serves a
highly transient, commercial and industrial area near the
airport. In the last five years, the student body has grown
by 33% to 1600 students who are largely of middle to lower
economic status. In 1992, the school experienced a major
upheaval, with the addition of over 300 at-risk students from
a competing high school. Incidents with guns and knives rose
sharply. Out of 11 high schools in the district, West
Mecklenburg was in the bottom quartile. When a new principal
introduced the School Development Program in 1992,
transformation of the school became a team effort. Within two
years, SAT scores had risen by an average of 16 percentage
points, the number of students making the honor roll had
jumped 75%, the number of students enrolled in advanced-level
courses had increased 25%, and attendance rates had gone from
89% to almost 94%. In 1996, West Mecklenburg High School won
a Redbook America's Best Schools Project Award for
Significant Improvement and an Outstanding Program Award from
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
Comments
``We recruited a very small nucleus of parents who were
bold enough to go into their neighborhoods, knock on doors,
make telephone calls, look parents eye to eye, and ask for
their involvement.'' West Mecklenburg High School principal.
``If you want to talk about moving from the bottom of the
heap and bring one of only two high schools in the district
that was able to reach its benchmark goals--through using the
SDP process--in two years, then based on the growth pattern,
you would consider West Mecklenburg to be the number one high
school in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.'' SDP Director for the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
atlas (authentic teaching, learning, and assessment for all students)
The ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning, and Assessment for
all Students) whole school reform model is a variation of the
School Development Program. The model focuses on the
organization of school decision making, creating a
personalized learning environment for all students, and
bridging the gap between home, school, neighborhoods and
work. ATLAS communities revolve around pathways--groups of
schools made up of a high school and the elementary and
middle schools that feed into it. Teams of teachers from each
pathway work together to design curriculum and assessments
based on locally defined standards. The teachers in each
pathway collaborate with parents and administrators to form a
learning community that works together to set and maintain
sound management policies.
Norview High School, Norfolk, VA
Norview High School is located in Norfolk, Virginia--an
urban center in the southeastern part of the state--and forms
an ATLAS pathway with Tanners Creek Elementary and Rosemont
Middle School. Norview's 1700 member student body is
predominantly African-American students, where 40% of the
students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The faculty has
successfully revised the class schedule to provide 90 minute
classes, allowing more time for in-depth assignments and
independent projects. Students demonstrate what they have
learned through student portfolios, performance examination,
and exhibitions. Families and community members are
exhibition judges, who ask questions that help determine how
well students understand what they have learned.
Since Norview began with ATLAS in 1992, the number of
students scoring above 1000 on combined SAT scores has
increased over 300%. Parental involvement has increased to
nearly 100 percent. Large numbers of parents are attending
student-led parent conferences and enrolling in literacy
training. In 1996, Norview High School was one of 19 schools
recognized nationally for innovation in the classroom by the
Redbook Magazine Blue Ribbon School Award.
Comments
``I won't go to a traditional program. I work more with
this, but I don't regret it because my kids are taking
responsibility for their own learning.'' ATLAS teacher.
``We have been most impressed with the positive outcomes of
Gorham's involvement in the ATLAS project * * * During
conferences held recently, we had the pleasure of hearing our
son explain what he had learned in school. Most rewarding of
all, we saw evidence of tremendous growth and involvement in
the quality of his work.'' ATLAS parent.
success for all
Success for All is an elementary whole school reform
program designed to ensure that all children are successful
in reading, writing, and language arts from the beginning of
their time in school. It uses innovative curricula and
extensive professional development in grades pre-K to six;
one-to-one tutoring for primary-age children struggling in
reading; and extensive family support activities.
Lincoln elementary School, Palm Beach County, Florida
Lincoln Elementary School, located in the shadow of the
beachfront resort hotels, serves a very impoverished
population of 1,230 students, 94% of whom are African-
American. Eighty-six percent of the students qualify for free
or reduced price lunches. Lincoln was one of the lowest-
achieving schools in Palm Beach County, and was on the
Florida State list of critically low-achieving schools.
However, since implementing Success for All, reading scores
have improved so much that it is no longer on that list. In
1996-97, Lincoln's reading comprehension scores increased an
average of 12 percentage points. Students also made
substantial progress on Florida's writing test.
Comments
``We've bought in. And one of the things that's important
is that the staff does buy in to the program''. Success for
All principal.
``This is the first book I have found that makes a
profound, positive impact on the literacy of a whole school
population. Success for All works. My students are happy,
productive readers.'' Success for All elementary school
principal.
roots and wings
This elementary school reform model builds on the Success
for All reading program and incorporates science, history,
and math to achieve a comprehensive academic program. The
premise of the model is that schools must do what it takes to
make sure all students succeed. To that end, Roots and Wings
schools provide at-risk students with tutors, family support,
and a variety of other strategies aimed at eliminating
obstacles to success. While the ``roots'' of the model refer
to mastery of basics, the ``wings'' represent advanced
accomplishments that students achieve through
interdisciplinary projects and a challenging curriculum.
Lackland City Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas
Lackland City Elementary School, located in the southwest
quadrant of San Antonio, Texas, originally served primarily
military families, but now the community is primarily working
class families employed in the private sector. The student
body is primarily Hispanic; many students live with one
parent and depend on public assistance. Student mobility is
40 percent. Lackland City Elementary successfully implemented
the Success for All reading component in all grades. Special
effort was put into making sure that all students had
opportunities to take books home to read. Additional support
was provided for reading by having older students listen to
younger students read during breakfast served to most
students in the school. The school began implementation of
the Roots and Wings math component in the third, fourth, and
fifth grades in the fall of 1996. The family support
component has been in place since 1994. The school's focus on
community involvement has led to a partnership with a local
hospital to provide immunization services at the school.
[[Page H6858]]
Working with the Roots and Wings model, 84% of students
achieved grade level objectives on the Texas statewide
assessment in reading, and 85% achieved grade level
objectives in math--representing an increase of 35 percentage
points over the previous year. All students read books of
their choice at home for at least 20 minutes each night. The
school reports that 99% of parents listing to or discuss the
reading with their children and sign a reading response form
each week.
Comments
``When using the basal, many students acted like the
dreaded math. After we had begun Math Wings and had gone over
several lessons, there was a change. Now students get ready
very quickly, more students get their homework in, and there
is an enthusiasm for math and teamwork . . . More kids are
excited, working on-task and enjoying it. It's great to see
them enjoying it. I enjoy it more too.'' Roots and Wings
teacher
national alliance for restructuring education
The National Alliance is a partnership of schools, states
and national organizations created to change the educational
system through a five-point set of priorities called ``design
tasks''. The design tasks include: standards and assessments,
learning environments, high-performance management, community
services and supports, and public engagement. This whole
school reform model uses results-based, high performance
management at the school and district levels with
decentralized decision-making to restructure the learning
environment to support student achievement and provide
professional support to teachers and schools. The National
Alliance seeks to enable all graduating high school students
to attain the Certificate of Initial Mastery, a credential
representing a high standard of academic accomplishment.
John F. Kennedy Elementary School, Louisville, Kentucky
Once known for all the wrong reasons, John F. Kennedy
Elementary School--an inner city school in Louisville,
Kentucky--has improved student performance remarkably over
the past five years working with the National Alliance whole
school reform model. Teachers and parents credit the school's
remarkable improvement to its commitment to ensuring that all
children achieve at high levels and a relentless focus on
student achievement.
The school increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide
assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math. Over a three-
year period, the school rose from among the lowest-scoring
schools in the state to the top 10%. The school's principal,
who was once summoned to the superintendent's office to
explain a high kindergarten failure rate, in 1996 received a
visit from the state commissioner of education who came to
present her with a prestigious Milliken Family Foundation
award.
Comments
``No child is lost in the shuffle at Kennedy.'' National
Alliance Parent
``I could see us getting stronger and stronger. We began to
focus on quality work for our students. Our students have
many challenges on a personal level--families in distress,
families where children are displaced, in homeless shelters.
. . . We can give these children extra hugs and love and let
them know we care. But when it comes to academic performance,
there can be no excuses . . . We say, `If you want an A, then
this is what's required.' '' Principal, John F. Kennedy
Elementary School
Modern Red Schoolhouse
The Modern Red Schoolhouse whole school reform model
strives to help all students achieve high standards in core
academic subjects--English, geography, history, mathematics
and science. Modern Red Schoolhouses are divided into three
divisions, rather than 12 grades: primary, intermediate and
upper. To advance to the next division, students must meet
defined standards and pass ``watershed assessments''.
Students complete investigations, give oral reports, answer
essay questions and take multiple choice exams. Student
progress is monitored through an Individual Education
Compact, negotiated by the student, parent and teacher. This
compact establishes goals, details parent and teacher
responsibilities, and lists services the school, parents or
community should provide.
Beech Grove Middle School, Beech Grove, Indiana
Beech Grove Middle School is located in a stable, suburban
community outside of Indianapolis, Indiana. Its 500-student
body is primarily Caucasian. Beech Grove began working with
the Modern Red Schoolhouse model in the fall 1994. Staff have
created a process to review, revise and develop new
interdisciplinary, thematic curriculum units. Teachers track
student work against the curriculum. The school leadership
team works with the principal to make curricular and
budgetary recommendations focused on increased student
achievement. Each classroom is equipped with a phone,
supported by voice mail, that has increased parent to teacher
communication. The school has established a student mentoring
program in partnership with a local high school with help
from the school's community involvement task force.
In 1996, sixth-grade students experienced a 13% increase in
total battery scores over the year before. Administrators and
teachers attribute the increases in student achievement to
enhanced and enriched curriculum content associated with the
Modern Red Schoolhouse.
Comments
``We've been extremely pleased with our daughter's progress
and willingness to learn. She loves the computer workshops. I
would choose the Modern Red Schoolhouse again and again.
Progressing at her pace is great and allows the child to feel
successful. Super is our rating for MRSh!'' Modern Red
Schoolhouse Parent
This is gifted and talented program for all students.''
Modern Red Schoolhouse Parent
Audrey Cohen College System of Education
The Audrey Cohen College System of Education focuses
student learning on the study and achievement of meaningful
``purposes'' for each semester's academic goals. Each purpose
culminates in a ``constructive action'' undertaken by the
class to serve the community. For example, in fourth grade,
one purpose is ``we work for good health''; in grade ten, a
purpose is ``I use science and technology to help shape a
just and projective society''. In the early grades, each
class addresses its ``purpose'' as a group, planning and
implementing a ``constructive action'' in the community with
the guidance of a teacher. Older students plan and implement
their own ``constructive action'' with teacher involvement.
Embedded in each ``purpose'' are content areas such as
English and math, and essential skills such as critical
thinking and researching. Leadership is emphasized and
students are expected to meet high academic standards. These
fundamental changes in the curriculum and instruction become
the organizing principles for all other school activities.
Simmons Elementary School, Hollandale, Mississippi
Simmons Elementary School, an Audrey Cohen College School
of six years, is located in Holandale, a small rural town in
the lower Delta region of western Mississippi. Simmons, which
serves a high percentage of low-income students in one of the
poorest communities in the country, has become a success
story after state test scores were released in 1995. Across
most grades, overall performance rose from the 30-40th
percentile to the 50-60th percentile in the 1995-95 school
year. Student scores continued to increase through 1996 when
fifth grade students ranked third of all districts in the
state in language, ninth in reading and 16th in mathematics.
Comments
``The 1994-95 school year has been very rewarding. I'm very
much pleased with the relationships that have advanced
between the school and the community. The Audrey Cohen
College System of Education is really an asset to our rural,
Delta town. The students in Hollandale have made some
permanent changes in this town due to their Constructive
Actions.'' Simmons Elementary School principal
``Sam is excited about each purpose and wants to
participate in each step. He uses his mind for ideas of his
own. He will be asked to do this to survive in his adult
life. This is usually begun in college of private schools. I
am extremely pleased that you allow this ability to grow at
this young age.'' Audrey Cohen College parent
co-nect
The Co-NECT whole school reform model focuses on complex
interdisciplinary projects that extensively incorporate
technology and connect students with ongoing scientific
investigations, information resources, and other students
beyond their own school. Co-NECT schools use technology to
enhance every aspect of teaching, learning, professional
development, and school management. Cross-disciplinary
teaching teams work with clusters of students. Most students
stay in the same cluster with the same teachers for at least
two years. A school team of teachers, administrators and
parents sets goals for the school and monitors results.
Performance-based assessments are used extensively.
Riviera Middle School, Dade County, Florida
Riviera Middle School is located in suburban Dade County,
Florida--a community of mostly middle-income families outside
of Miami. The school has primarily Hispanic students, of
which 48% qualify for free or reduced price lunch. In 1995,
the school began working with Co-NECT with a week-long
training session for the staff. During the three years prior
to becoming a Co-NECT school, Riviera had begun the process
of training staff in how to use technology in the classroom,
wiring all classrooms, and setting up a school-wide network.
Working with Co-NECT, Riviera began using the technology to
enhance a rigorous and challenging project-based curriculum.
After only one year of using the Co-NECT model, Riviera
students' reading scores rose by 17% on the Florida statewide
writing test. Riviera students also raised their math and
reading scores by 3 percentile points across all grades.
Faculty and student morale are at an all time high, and the
school continues to be featured in local media as an
outstanding example of the integration of technology into the
classroom.
Comments
``We already had a lot of equipment, and our teachers were
well trained in using complex software programs . . . But the
emphasis in Co-NECT is not the equipment, it's how you use
it''. Riviera Middle School principal
``My kids are straight-A students. There was no reason to
pull them out of a traditional school setting. But I wanted
them to
[[Page H6859]]
do more than just read, memorize and be tested on things they
could forget in six weeks. Co-NECT had more to offer them to
help them become better-rounded students. This program helps
them develop not just academic skills, but also skills to
become self-starters, self-thinkers and self-motivators.''
Co-NECT Parent
expeditionary learning outward bound
The Expeditionary Learning whole school reform model is
based on the belief that learning is an expedition into the
unknown. Expeditionary Learning draws on the power of
purposeful, intellectual investigations, called learning
expeditions, to improve student achievement and build
character. Learning expeditions are long-term, academically
rigorous, interdisciplinary studies that require students to
work inside and outside the classroom. In Expeditionary
Learning schools, students and teachers stay together for
more than one year, teachers work collaboratively through
team teaching and shared planning, and tracking is
eliminated.
Lincoln Elementary School, Dubuque, Iowa
Lincoln Elementary School, a 400-student school located in
a lower, middle class neighborhood in Dubuque, Iowa, has been
working with Expeditionary Learning since 1993. Faculty teach
``learning expeditions'' in every grade as a primary
curriculum vehicle. Students now look forward in each grade
to the ``famous'' expeditions. Teachers plan together by
grade-level or clusters. All students have portfolios. A
ropes course installed in the gym is used in all classes to
develop teamwork and risk-taking for teachers and students.
Test scores have improved significantly--4th graders improved
in the Iowa Test of Basic Skills from the 43rd national
percentile in 1992 to the 80th percentile in 1994. Parental
participation in school affairs has increased dramatically.
Comments
``I felt like a real scientist looking into a microscope,
and when I found the specimen I felt awesome. When you are
done with the expedition, you go home and tell your mom and
dad what you learned and they practically don't even know
what you are talking about. Six weeks ago, I would never have
known about pond life.'' Fifth grade Expeditionary Learning
student, Dubuque, Iowa.
____
Evidence of the Results of Whole School Reform
``Do we need many more models of how we can fix troubled
schools? Yes, of course we do and fortunately, help is
readily available. Dedicated educators like James Comer,
Henry Levin, E.D. Hirsh, Deborah Maier, Ted Sizer, Marc
Tucker and Gene Bottoms are doing the hard work of creating
new models of excellence. The models are each unique in their
own way. But they all have one common denominator--they all
set high standards.'' Fourth Annual State of American
Education Address, Secretary Richard Riley, 1997.
A 1997 study sponsored by the Department of Education found
that students in several schools using schoolwide reforms
began the study far below the national average, yet made
academic gains toward or exceeding national means. In some
schools the gains were dramatic. Progress made by students in
the schools using Success for All and Comer School
Development was particularly encouraging. The initially low-
achieving students in the Success for All and Comer schools
began the study with reading comprehension levels below even
the average for low-achieving students in high-poverty
schools. Yet, over their first three years in school,
students in the Success for All and Comer schools produced
achievement scores that substantially exceeded both those of
other students in high-poverty schools, and equaled or
exceeded those of initially low-achieving students in typical
schools.'' Special Strategies Studies for Educating
Disadvantaged Children: Final Report, 1997.
Since 1992, elementary students from a group of schools in
Prince Georges County, Maryland using the ATLAS model (a
variation of the Comer School Development Program) raised
their reading scores by 30 percent on the Maryland School
Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). The proportion of all
students in the ATLAS pathway scoring satisfactory or
excellent on the exam tripled between 1992 and 1995.
At Norview High School--an ATLAS school in Norfolk,
Virginia, the number of students scoring above 1000 on
combined SAT scores has increased over 300% since the school
began implementing the ATLAS model. In 1996, Norview High
School was one of 19 schools recognized nationally for
innovation in the classroom by the Redbook Magazine Blue
Ribbon School Award.
After the principal at West Mecklenburgh High School in
Charlotte, North Carolina, reorganized the school using the
Comer School Development Program, the number of students on
the honor roll jumped 75%, the number of students enrolled in
advanced classes increased 25%, and attendance rose from 89%
to 94%.
Evaluation of seven years of continuous data on the six
original Success for All schools in Baltimore and
Philadelphia showed that students increase their reading
performance significantly compared to a matched control
school, as measured by reliable and valid instruments.
Researchers found that Success for All students tend to
perform about three months ahead of control students by the
first grade and more than a year ahead by the fifth grade,
indicating that the program has not only an immediate effect
on students' reading performance, but also that the effect
increases over successive years of use by schools. Research
and Development Report, Center for Research on the Education
of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University, October
1996.
Success for All has had particularly promising results for
language minority students. Schools using Lee Conmigo--the
Spanish version of Success for All--in Philadelphia found
that Lee Conmigo students at the end of the 2nd grade were
nearly a grade ahead of students in control schools.
In one review of promising schoolwide reforms, researchers
reported significant achievement gains for students in
schools using several New American School designs, including
Roots and Wings, ATLAS, Co-NECT, Modern Red Schoolhouse,
Expeditionary Learning, and the National Alliance for
Restructuring Education, Promising Programs for Elementary
and Middle Schools: Evidence of Effectiveness and
Replicability, Olatokunbo Fashola and Robert Slavin, January
1997.
Using the Modern Red Schoolhouse model, the Hansberry
Elementary School in the Bronx, New York increased the
percentage of students who passed New York State's essential
skills test from 22% to 50% in reading and from 47% to 82% in
math from 1993 to 1995. In two years, Hansberry School also
doubled its score on the Degrees of Reading Power exam, which
measures how many students are reading at or above the 50th
percentile.
The John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Louisville,
Kentucky increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide
assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math, working with
the National Alliance reform model. Over a three-year period,
the school rose from among the lowest-scoring schools in the
state to the top 10%.
The Riviera Middle School is located in suburban Dade
County, Florida and began working with the Co-NECT reform
model in August 1995. Since 1995, SAT scores are up 3
percentile points in both reading math across all grades, and
the school continues to be featured in local media as an
outstanding example of the integration of technology into the
curriculum.
A group of Expeditionary Learning schools in Dubuque, Iowa
raised test scores in reading and math from 1992 to 1994 on
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. At Lincoln Elementary, 4th
graders improved from the 43rd national percentile in 1992 to
the 80th percentile in 1994. At Table Mound Elementary, 4th
graders' percentiles increased from 39 in 1992 to 80 in 1994
when they were retested in the 6th grade.
Lackland City Elementary School began working with the
Success For All model in the fall of 1994, and implemented
the math component of Roots and Wings in the fall of 1996.
Over 80% of students are achieving grade level objectives in
reading and math, and the school reports that 99% of parents
help their children with reading for 20 minutes each night.
Significant improvement in student outcomes was achieved by
the Central Park East schools in New York City using the
principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Leaders
for Tomorrow's Schools, North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory, Winter 1995.
By developing its own secondary school, Central Park East
in New York City--a member of the Coalition of Essential
Schools--increased the percentage of elementary school
graduates going on to college from two-thirds to 91 percent.
A study of Roots and Wings carried out in four pilot
schools in St. Mary's County, Maryland--where an average of
48 percent of students qualified for free lunch and 21
percent were Title 1 eligible--in rural southern Maryland
found that Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth
on Maryland School Performance Assessment Program 3rd and 5th
grade assessments. The number of Roots and Wings students
achieving satisfactory or excellent increased by twice as
much as the state rate in all subjects tested (reading,
language, writing, math, science, and social studies). Bold
Plans for School Restricting: The New American Schools
Development Corporation Designs, 1996.
From 1993 to 1995, the number of Roots and Wings 3rd
graders scoring satisfactory or better increased by almost
19%, while the percentage of other Maryland 3rd graders
scoring at least satisfactory increased only 8%. Statewide,
5th graders gained an average of 6 percentage points,
compared with a gain of 13 percentage points for Roots and
Wings 5th graders.
Recent data analysis from studies of a New York school
district indicate significant effects on student achievement
in schools using the Comer School Development program.
Sixteen schools were arranged into groups based on the degree
to which they were effectively implementing the Comer model.
In schools implementing Comer to a high degree, 61% of
students were at or above the national average in math scores
and 56% were above in reading scores. In schools implementing
Comer to a low degree, 40% of students were at or above the
national average in math scores and only 36% were above in
reading scores. Researchers found a significant correlation
between the effectiveness of implementation of the Comer
model and student outcomes. Comer School Development Program
Effects: A Ten Year Review, 1986-1996, Norris Haynes and
Christine Emmons, 1997.
[[Page H6860]]
An assessment of Comer effects (1987) in the Prince
George's County Schools revealed that average percentile
gains on the California Achievement Test were significantly
greater for Comer schools than for the district as a whole.
At the third grade level, program schools gained about 18
percentile points in mathematics, 9 percentile points in
reading, and 17 percentile point in language. The district as
a whole registered gains of 11, 4, and 9 percentile points
respectively in math, reading and language. At the fifth
grade level, Comer schools recorded gains of 21, 7, and 12
percentile points in math, reading and language compared to
gains in 11, 4, and 7 percentile points for the district as a
whole. Academic gains were linked to the degree and quality
of implementation of the Comer School Development Program.
Rallying the Whole Village: The Comer Process for Reforming
Education, 1996.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, together with my thanks for the absolutely
wonderful job that he has done in working with the subcommittee to
bring the bill to the floor in its present form.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time. I congratulate him and the gentleman from
Wisconsin for the outstanding job that they have done on bringing this
most extraordinarily difficult bill thus far.
The fact is, as has been just said by the gentleman from Wisconsin,
we currently have a consensus which offers to the Members of the House
a bill which fundamentally intact can be presented to the Senate, and
if it comes back in roughly the same way, we have every expectation
will be signed into law, without all the controversy and the rancor
that has taken place in this bill in years past.
I would urge all Members to consider that we went through an exercise
in the spring on the disaster relief bill to guarantee that government
would stay open and that the Government would be funded at last year's
level if we could not reach an agreement. Because of a Presidential
veto, that discussion became moot. But we do not have to have a
cataclysm. We do not have to disrupt the people's business and erupt
into a major political warfare this year if we would understand that we
do not, any one of us, get everything we want. But, we must work the
magic of this body, in the House of Representatives, and the others do
in the other body, to come together, to reach a consensus and to arrive
at the consensus, thereby sending it to the President of the United
States for his signature in the hopes that he will adopt our consensus.
So far, so good. I am happy that I can say for the most part I think
Members will vote for this bill, in bipartisan fashion. But we do have
a number of Members on both sides who have, as has been indicated by
the gentleman from Wisconsin, who are unhappy with the bill as it
currently stands. About a month ago, some Members were advising that
they might unload 100, 150 amendments on this bill. I am pleased to
report to our friends here that that does not seem to be likely, that
those Members that were interested in just totally transforming the
face of this bill have used their discretion to narrow their
differences. I do not expect a lot of amendments. I expect frankly,
certainly fewer than 15 or 10 on our side, and I do not know how many
on the Democrat side.
That is a step in the right direction. But obviously there are going
to be Members, maybe many Members, who have critical differences with
some provisions that are in the bill and who might be vitally unhappy
that other issues of interest to them are not included in the bill. To
them, regardless of whether they are on the Republican or the Democrat
side, let me simply say that, folks, it takes 218 to pass this bill and
move it to the other body. Over there it takes 51 to pass it. From the
conference, it takes 218 in this body to adopt the conference report,
and again 51 over there to adopt the conference report, whereupon that
final report will go to the President for his signature, and again
currently I expect the President's signature.
That can change. We can decide to dig in. We can opt for total and
absolute conflagration or confrontation, whatever we want to call it. I
do not think that is going to happen. I commend any Members who have
wanted to start out on that road and who have withdrawn that approach
in favor of an isolated, single amendment approach.
But let me simply try to calm the tenor of their vehemence or the
voracious arguments that they might make on behalf of their positions
and say that sooner or later, sooner or later the appropriations bill
governing labor, health, and education and related issues will pass.
That will take place and it will be signed into law. Either within the
next few weeks or the next few months or next year, we are going to get
a 1998 labor, health appropriations bill, because it has got to.
{time} 1745
I hope very strongly that it is not next year, that it is not 3
months from now, and that it will be within the next couple of weeks. I
urge my friends who are thinking that this bill is so defective that
they cannot support it to rethink their position for this reason:
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has, indeed, come a long way
when he approved the compromise, the bipartisan compromise between
those who were fervently pro-life and those who are fervently not, to
adopt the Hyde abortion language to extend HMO, something that has
never been done before. They came together; we have language in this
bill which reaches that compromise.
The ergonomics language pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin
has been fought by the minority not just since 1994, but whenever it
has come up in the past. It has been fought; it has been defeated. We
have language which, small and large business alike emphatically
embraces.
Under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], we
have got the Dickey-Wicker amendment preventing research funds, U.S.
funds expended for embryo research. We have tons of money for medical
research, cancer research. We eliminate 20 new programs. Twenty new
programs are completely terminated because of their inefficiency and
their waste.
In this bill alone, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] did
prevail for the first time, and he has been trying for several years to
help small manufacturers of furniture in the South to overcome the EPA
restrictions on methochloride, and the list goes on and on.
This bill is a consensus. I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I commend
all the staff for working together to bring people together to get a
bill that can pass and can be signed into law. And I urge any Members
who are dissatisfied that it is not a good enough deal to understand
that we in the majority will only prove that we can govern if, in fact,
we can produce a reasonable bill with as little rancor as possible.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to follow up the chairman's
comments by expressing my appreciation for the fact that the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] and the staff have worked intensely hard. They have worked in a
very fair manner, in a very open manner, and the staff has worked
incredibly hard to produce many of the answers that the Members like to
claim credit for, and I simply want to express my appreciation for all
of that work and hope that that spirit can continue.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for yielding to me,
and I rise in support of H.R. 2264.
First, I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], for their joint efforts in producing what I think is an
excellent bill.
Mr. Chairman, this year's bill includes enhanced funding for a number
of critical quality of life programs that we can be especially proud
of. For example, the bill funds for the first time the Youth
Opportunity Areas Initiative. The program would be funded at $125
million.
[[Page H6861]]
This employment training program is long overdue and is absolutely
essential to effectively addressing the continuing double-digit
unemployment and the underemployment among our Nation's out-of-school
youth. These are young people that in many instances have given up on
the system and on themselves and they have been allowed to waste away.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation cannot afford to give up on any of its
citizens. It is for this reason that I am pleased that our colleagues
from the authorizing committee are working to fully authorize this
program.
Members will be interested to note our colleagues in the Senate share
our commitment to out-of-school youth and have provided $250 million
for the youth opportunity areas in their fiscal year 1998
appropriations measure. It is my hope that in conference we can work to
come somewhat closer to the Senate figure.
Mr. Chairman, while more needs to be done to enhance support for this
important program and others in H.R. 2264, communities across the
country will benefit from the $324.4 million increase provided for Head
Start. Our Nation's neediest children will continue to benefit from the
Head Start Program's comprehensive development and early learning
activities.
The $32 million increase provided for the TRIO programs would help to
expand the success of TRIO's activities to additional students. The
Nation's continued investment in the TRIO program is absolutely
essential. This program is specifically designed to improve the
recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of minority and other
disadvantaged students.
For health professions' training programs, the bill restores and
enhances funding by providing an appropriation of $306.5 million, a
$13.7 million increase. Within the appropriations provided, the bill
provides significant increases for minority and disadvantaged health
professions students. For example, the measure includes a $2.6 million
increase for the Centers of Excellence, a $3.2 million increase for the
Health Careers Opportunity Program, and a $2.4 million increase for the
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program.
The bill also includes a $16.4 million increase for Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. These funds will go a long way toward
helping to improve and strengthen academic and related areas of
infrastructure needs in our Nation's historically black colleges and
universities. The $10 million increase for magnet schools would help
communities to better carry out school desegregation plans.
The bill also includes a $172 million increase for the Ryan White
AIDS program; a $24 million increase for consolidated health centers;
$30.4 million increase for substance abuse and mental health services;
and the $764.4 million increase for biomedical research.
Now while we can be encouraged by these enhancements, there are many
important areas of the bill that need to be strengthened, including
youth violence prevention, safe and drug-free schools, magnet schools,
health care and substance abuse services, and employment training. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in conference to strengthen
these very important programs.
Mr. Chairman, I know that in working together we can further
strengthen H.R. 2264. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join together in
voting yes on H.R. 2264.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a valued member of our subcommittee, and I might
add an active member of our subcommittee.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I appreciate the
hard effort that so many people have put into this particular piece of
legislation, but I really rise not as a member of the subcommittee but
as a father because there are so many things in this piece of
legislation that affect so many aspects of our lives, our kids and
their education, our health, our nutrition, the Labor Department, and
all of the impact upon where we work, and, indeed, it also affects
very, very directly the relationship between us and our children.
I have five children, two boys and three girls, and all three of my
girls are teenagers, and I pay attention when a situation happens such
as happened in Illinois recently, when it is disclosed that a 37-year-
old teacher begins an affair with a 13-year-old girl, carries it on for
a year and a half, and, to continue the affair, takes her to a title X
clinic funded by our taxpayers' money to obtain contraception.
Now, if this were to any other type of clinic, they would be required
to report a situation that involves something such as statutory rape or
child abuse or sexual abuse of a minor. Well, see, title X has a
Federal requirement that whatever happens with anyone who comes into a
title X clinic, whether they be 30 or 40 or 20 or 15 or 12 or 11,
nothing will be told to anyone. A total confidentiality requirement is
written into the Federal regulations which supersede State law, and
anyone else that would be required to report this incident to the
parents or the authorities has to stay quiet under title X.
That is why we have an amendment in this particular bill that is
being offered for this particular bill that says providers that are
given Federal funding in these are not exempt and must comply with any
laws regarding the reporting of child abuse, child molestation, sexual
abuse, rape, or incest.
This is a key provision that will be debated, but I think it is one
of the most important things because this bill hits us where we live
and our families, and the Federal Government should not be inducing
people to be able to conduct such activity without even parents being
told.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I fully supported this bill as it was
reported by committee. It was a bipartisan effort of which I am quite
proud.
Since the beginning of the last Congress, the Labor-HHS education
bill has been the focus of contentious debate, which even led to a
Government shutdown. At long last, the committee under the strong
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has
succeeded in producing a bill which reflects our shared priorities.
In keeping with the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the committee
voted to oppose all new controversial legislative riders. I strongly
urge my colleague to oppose the Goodling and Istook amendments. They
are opposed by the administration, highly controversial, and do not
belong in this bill. And let me say at the outset, if these amendments
pass, support for the bill by Members of this body will be jeopardized
and it would be very unfortunate if that occurs.
The bill, as reported by committee, recognizes the clear need for an
increased investment in our children's education, and I am pleased that
we were able to provide $2.8 billion more than last year in
discretionary funds for education. In particular, I am pleased that new
funds have been provided to keep our schools open after hours in order
to improve reading and other academic skills and that we have increased
funding for magnet schools.
I salute the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey],
for developing a school reform proposal that would build upon the most
successful models across the country, including several located in New
York.
I also want to note that we have increased the maximum Pell grant by
$300 per student. We made a number of significant increases in health
programs. We were able to provide NIH with a 6-percent increase over
last year. This will allow NIH to increase funding for breast cancer
research so that advances in prevention and treatment will continue to
move forward. We were also able to provide a modest increase for the
Centers for Disease Control, the agency which safeguards our Nation's
public health.
In the labor area, I am particularly pleased that we provided $170
million more than last year for adult job training. These funds will
help to assist those on welfare so that they can better obtain decent
paying jobs.
Of course there are some programs that I believe should be better
funded than they are in this bill. Specifically, I am disappointed that
there is no money for the State Students Incentive Grant Program and no
increase for teacher training under the Eisenhower
[[Page H6862]]
program. I am also deeply concerned about the inadequacy of funds for
aging services, particularly for senior centers and meal programs, and
I hope that we can move toward the Senate levels on these programs.
I am also concerned that the committee has not provided adequate
funds to cities to care for people with AIDS nor to prevent HIV
infection and the spread of AIDS. Worker protection programs are also
now funded at adequate levels.
But this is a very good bill that meets so many of the important
needs of our constituents. Please let us keep it free of new
controversial riders.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], a very, very able member of our subcommittee.
{time} 1800
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
bill, not that I am overly excited about all the details in the bill,
but as a fiscal conservative, I have some problems with it. But the
bottom line is, with the election last November stating we are going to
have a Democratic President and Republican Congress, we must work
together.
I am concerned that the total amount of money is too much. I wish we
could have frozen the amount of money and forced ourselves here to
reprioritize how money should be spent in the committee.
I wish we were not funding all the new programs. I do not think we
need to fund new programs. We need to get a better handle on the
spending we have to date.
I wish we could zero out some more programs that we do not need any
more. We have over 200 education programs in this bill. Maybe the total
amount of dollars is okay for education, but do we need 200 programs?
A lot of them are small programs. We made a big effort last year to
start reducing those programs. We are moving in the right direction. I
wish we could continue more in that direction to consolidate programs
and not have as many programs.
There are big programs like LIHEAP, and I know that is a major issue
with the ranking member of this committee that I think has outlived its
need in this country. It was started back in the Jimmy Carter days when
he was President. We have changed. That is $1 billion a year. I would
rather put it in the National Institutes for Health.
There are some programs that I think are overfunded in this program,
and I wish we could change them. I think NLRB is almost $200 million
for government lawyers. I do not think we need that much money for the
NLRB.
I think Howard University is getting $18,000 a year subsidy for every
student at the school. I support Howard University, but I wonder, do we
need to provide $18,000 for every student there? I think we could make
a better use of our dollars and spread it out for all the other
minority universities and colleges around the country.
And then there are some programs that I think we should even increase
more. I was delighted that the NIH got an increase of 6 percent. That
is a $764-million increase. The President requested only a 2.6-percent
increase. I think we could do even better. If we are going to have a
goal to go to $25 billion of funding for something that, to me, is a
Federal priority, that is good for this country, that is one of the
crown jewels of the Federal Government, I think we need to continue
pushing that.
But the bottom line is, we need to govern. The President was elected
last November and we need to work out a compromise. This is the best we
can do. I commend the chairman for the work he has done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], also a member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for giving me
this time, and I rise in support of the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill for fiscal 1998, as presented. In particular, I
commend our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston],
chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter]; and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of
the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee, for
negotiating an excellent bipartisan bill, a bill in which the
subcommittee can take considerable pride. I congratulate the gentlemen.
This bill is a refreshing change from the last 2 years when the bill
has been the focus of deep ideological disputes in spite of the good
intentions of our chairmen, and a vehicle for sending objectionable
legislative riders to the President.
Thankfully, we have returned to the bipartisan tradition which has
historically characterized this bill. As our former chairman, Mr.
Natcher, would say, this is a good bill.
As Members know, the bill deals with Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education. With regard to labor programs, the bill makes
significant changes in job training, including the Job Corps, and
increases for job, youth, and adult job training by $237 million over
this year's funding.
At the same time, the bill adequately funds worker protection
programs, and unlike the last 2 years, does not include riders designed
to weaken the protection of American workers.
I am particularly pleased that under an agreement negotiated by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], OSHA will be able to continue its important work in
developing an ergonomic standard and will be able to assist business in
the next year to adopt important changes in the work environment
designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries.
As a recent GAO study concludes, ergonomic programs work, reducing
injuries and reducing workers' compensation costs by 31 to 91 percent.
Of particular note, the bipartisan agreement also provides the
committee will refrain from any further restrictions on issuing
ergonomics standards beyond 1998.
With regard to health, the bill is a significant improvement over the
past agreement, which proposed to phase in a 16-percent reduction in
public health programs.
Remarkably, this bill provides for a 6-percent increase in important
biomedical research programs, including important research on breast
cancer. It expands on our Federal response to new and emerging
infectious diseases, and restores proposed cuts to training programs in
the health professions.
In addition, the bill provides almost $300 million for the AIDS Drug
Assistance program, an increase of $132 million, or 79 percent over
comparable 1997 funding. This funding will make the difference between
life and death for thousands of Americans living with HIV disease.
While I wish we had done more to fund important HIV prevention outreach
activities, my hope is by the time this bill emerges from conference
with the Senate, the problem will be resolved.
With regard to education, I am pleased that so many of the
President's important education priorities have been accommodated in
this bill. In particular, I am very pleased at the increase of $93
million in the bilingual program and with the investment in support
services and professional development to improve the quality of these
programs.
I am also pleased with the high priority placed on direct financial
assistance for students in higher education.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, this bill is a great improvement
over the spending levels assumed in the budget agreement. My hope is
that the careful bipartisan work that has brought us to this point is
not disrupted by hostile amendments during floor consideration. I urge
my colleagues reject amendments that would derail this important
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I commend once again the chairman of the full committee
and our ranking member for their leadership.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Nethercutt] a member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2264, the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill. I know I speak on behalf of the entire
Congressional Diabetes Caucus when I thank Chairman Porter for his
efforts to combat diabetes. Along with Speaker Gingrich, who has drawn
the Nation's attention to this terrible disease, Chairman Porter has
persuaded NIH to examine its funding priorities.
[[Page H6863]]
This bill will do much to help the 16 million diabetics in our
country. It increases funding for NIH by 6 percent and for the National
Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, [NIDDK] by 7.5
percent.
Along with funding provided through the Balanced Budget Act, the
increase in this bill will begin to make up for past funding
discrepancies between NIDDK and the other Institutes of the National
Institutes of Health.
Over the last 10 years, funding for diabetes research has not even
kept place with inflation, despite the increases provided to NIH by
Congress. So it is my hope and my expectation that a significant
portion of the 7.5-percent increase will go toward combating diabetes,
a deadly disease in our country.
The bill also includes legislation I have introduced, the Diabetes
Research Amendments Act, to establish a diabetes working group to
outline future diabetes research priorities. A report under these
amendments will be submitted to Congress within 1 year, which, in
essence, will be a blueprint, a national blueprint, for future diabetes
research. This plan is necessary to best direct the funding dollars and
to begin a redoubling of our effort to advance a cure for diabetes.
So I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and others who had a hand in
crafting this bill, and including the very significant efforts to
assist in combating the disease of diabetes that affects so many people
around our country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer] a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and
want to rise in support of H.R. 2264.
For the past 3 years, the bill that came to this floor had very
controversial riders and did not provide, in my opinion, adequate
funding for education. My colleagues and I have repeatedly argued to
increase the Nation's commitment to education.
This year's bill, by and large, provides funding at levels that are
good for our children, good for our families, and good for our Nation.
The bill does a better job in meeting the needs of children, families,
and schools for quality education.
For example, the bill invests $4.3 billion in Head Start, a $324
million increase over the past fiscal year, a program that Ronald
Reagan said works, with a goal of serving 1 million children by the
year 2002. Not enough, but better.
The bill acknowledges the commitment we must make to our children's
education by funding initiatives such as Even Start and After School
Centers. The bill provides for an 11-percent increase for education
over last year, timely, when we have more students in our public
schools than at any time in our history.
Specifically, the bill gives a much needed increase in funding to
title I, bilingual education and special education. The bill recognizes
important programs that enhance educational resources and improve
professional development, such as the National Board of Professional
Teaching Standards and the National Education Goals Panel.
Unfortunately, however, the bill spends $145 million less than the
President requested on Goals 2000 and provides the $260 million for the
President's America Reads program for fiscal year 1999, rather than
1998.
Additionally, the bill does not fully fund the Eisenhower
Professional Development program, which assists communities in
improving the quality of their teachers, a critical objective.
I would like to have seen the full funding for these important
initiatives in this bill, but I will remain faithful to our bipartisan
agreement and support this bill.
Like my predecessors on my side of the aisle, I will support this
bill with a caveat, and that caveat, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not go
down the road that we went down in 1995 and 1996 and add to this bill
amendments that are clearly unacceptable, not only to the President of
the United States, but to the American people. I would hope we do not
do that.
There are amendments pending which, very frankly, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], courageously, in my opinion, and with wisdom and
in the best traditions of bipartisan leadership, rejected in our
subcommittee. But if they are added on the floor, I am worried that
this bill, with the good provisions in it for labor, for education, and
for the health of the American public will not go forward.
I would hope that we would not see that, and, if we do not see that,
I intend to support this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], my friend and colleague.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Chairman Porter
and the subcommittee have accomplished a true feat, a bipartisan bill
that manages to fund the most critical programs within its
jurisdiction, despite the tight allocation for fiscal year 1998.
I am just going to highlight some of the points in the bill, because
I do not have time to go through the thoroughness of the issues that
are covered so well.
The bill provides a 6-percent increase for the National Institutes of
Health. Chairman Porter has truly been a champion of biomedical
research and has once again demonstrated his commitment to this
critical priority.
The legislation appropriates $1.2 billion for the Ryan White AIDS
Program, 17 percent more than 1997. HIV-AIDS prevention received a $5
million increase, less than 1 percent over last year's level, and we
hope that funding will be increased.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for once again including report
language I submitted on HIV-AIDS in women, STDs, autoimmune diseases,
and violence prevention among youth.
It also appropriates $2.4 billion for the Centers for Disease
Control, an increase of $87 million over last year, including increases
for breast and cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted disease
prevention, preventive health services block grant, chronic and
environmental disease prevention, lead poison prevention and injury
control, among others.
The title X family planning program receives a $5 million increase.
The bill includes full funding for the Violence against Women Act and
provides a $72 million increase for battered women's shelters.
The legislation also provides critical increases in education funding
from Healthy Start to Head Start; Even Start, student financial aid, it
provides an increase in funding over present levels. Students with
disabilities will have programs increased to the tune of $4.3 billion.
As a strong advocate for providing telecommunications service, I am
also pleased the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is also funded and
the Women in Apprenticeship in Nontraditional Occupations.
Mr. Chairman, I could really go on for about 5 more minutes, but
frankly, I will use these last seconds to simply say again, my
commendation, my congratulations, to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking
member, and to members of the subcommittee for their fine work.
While difficult decisions had to be made, I believe that this
subcommittee has crafted a bill worthy of our support. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
{time} 1815
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], also a member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which I
hope to be able to vote in favor at the end of this debate. I
particularly want to commend Chairman Porter and our ranking member,
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for the fine work and the
extraordinary amount of time and effort they have put into putting this
bill together and trying to deal with the numerous interests of
Members, and more than that, with the issues that face this
subcommittee, which face the people of this country.
I am particularly pleased that it contains a substantial increase for
health research at the NIH, for disease prevention work at the Centers
for Disease Control, and for important educational programs, such as
Head Start and IDEA.
[[Page H6864]]
The bill is not ideal. It does not contain funds for breast and
cervical cancer screening, for a program which would serve women
between the ages of 40 to 50 who will become eligible for mammograms,
and I truly do look forward to working with the chairman in conference
to be able to raise this figure.
I would have hoped to have had an opportunity and preferred
additional funding for the Goals 2000 State efforts to raise the
quality of education in our public schools, and am disappointed that it
continues to deny poor women access to abortion services.
I believe overall this is a good bill. My hope is that the bipartisan
agreements will be maintained and there not be controversial changes
made, those that are threatened; and my hope is that those
controversial changes will not jeopardize the bill through unwise
amendments.
There have been several amendments which will be proposed which
undermine national, State and local efforts to bring our schools up to
meet the highest education standards. I hope my colleagues will join me
in strenuous opposition to these amendments. The Whole School Reform
initiative of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will ensure that
our schools teach our children to read, write, and to do basic
mathematics, giving them the tools they need to compete in a global
economy. Our children will compete for jobs in a national and even a
global marketplace. We must be sure that our local school systems are
given the tools that they need to meet those national and global
expectations.
I will oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] of the title XV Family Planning Program. There is no doubt this
parental notification amendment will increase teen pregnancy, teen
abortion, and sexually transmitted disease. Similar amendments were
defeated by bipartisan votes on the floor last year and in full
committee this year. I urge my colleagues to vote against these
amendments, which would undermine the fine work that was done by the
chairman and the ranking member and other members of the subcommittee.
What we need to have and what we need to support is a clean
bipartisan bill of which we can all be proud, and which helps to meet
the needs of the American people who so desperately depend on the work
we do in this committee, which addresses almost every aspect of
people's lives in this country.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to noting and thanking the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, for the key role he has played, and my ranking member
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the ranking member on the
full committee for the excellent work he has done to make this a
bipartisan bill.
I want to note that we have two new members this year on our
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Kentucky, Ms. Anne Northup, on our
side, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, on the
Democratic side, in a reprise. We are glad to have both of them with
us.
In addition, I want to thank the staff of our full Committee on
Appropriations. They have been extremely helpful to us every step of
the way, led by Jim Dyer, as they have been to all of the other
subcommittees during this very difficult appropriation season on the
House floor. They really do a tremendous job for our country and for
the House of Representatives.
I also want to thank Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith of the minority
staff of the committee for the excellent cooperation and courtesy they
have extended to us, and I want to thank my own subcommittee staff,
Tony McCann, the clerk, Bob Knisely, Sue Quantius, Mike Myers, Francine
Mack, and Laura Stephens. Each of them do excellent work, and I do not
know how we could possibly bring this bill forward without the kind of
attention to detail that they have had. Laura is on detail to the
committee from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and she has been a
great help to us recently.
I would also thank our previous detailee, Gloria Corral, from the
Department of Education. Gloria was with us for several months earlier
in the year and did a fine job, as well.
Finally, I want to thank Julie DeBolt and David Sander of my own
personal staff for the fine job and hard work they have done all year
long in reference to this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding in the
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for
historically black colleges and universities in the United States. I am
also elated to note that this bill appropriates more funding to
historically black colleges and universities than what was officially
requested in the President's budget proposal. In all, this funding is
indicative of Congress' commitment to the preservation of educational
opportunity for students of color in our Nation.
Among many universities, Howard University, my alma mater, here in
Washington, DC, will stand to receive approximately $210 million. This
money will be used for the continued procurement of academic and
educational programming, and to fund much needed renovation efforts
throughout various dormitories. I graduated phi beta kappa from Howard
in 1973. The wonderful experience and enriching environment of Howard
shaped the way in which I view and live in today's world. It is because
of Howard University and funding for historically black colleges and
universities that I am able to address this distinguished body as a
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, historically black colleges and universities have
graduated many leaders in the world of law, finance, ministry, and
government. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall led a fight to end the
vestiges of racial segregation. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a
leader in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. People not just in
the United States, but around the world, have benefited from the
contributions and efforts of many graduates of historically black
colleges and universities.
Mr. Chairman, as we stand on the brink of the 21st century, it is
readily apparent that education is the means by which success is
achieved. In our increasingly technical and sophisticated world
economy, it is exorbitantly important that we launch an indefatigable
initiative toward educational success for all Americans. I believe that
the mission of historically black colleges and universities throughout
our Nation comport with the mission.
So in conclusion, I exhort my colleagues to vote in support of
increased funding for historically black colleges and universities in
America. Let us say yes to our children's futures, say yes to our
children's success, and say yes to the success of our nation for the
years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the chairman of
our subcommittee, my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, for his
leadership on this bill because this is a good bill that will have an
impact on virtually every American family.
Our subcommittee worked hard to prioritize the resources for the many
important health and education programs included in this legislation.
High priority was given to continued funding for the National
Institutes of Health, which receives a $764.5 million or a 6 percent
increase over the 1997 level and $427.1 million more than requested by
the President. As I have said many times, NIH remains the preeminent
biomedical research program of its kind anywhere in the world. Our
investment in unlocking the mysteries of diseases and identifying new,
life-saving therapies are repaid many times over in lower health care
costs, a higher quality of life, and a cure for many diseases for which
there was no successful treatment just a few years ago.
We have continued to make great strides in the war on cancer
including breast and prostate cancer, in addition to heart disease,
stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsons disease, mental
illness, sickle cell anemia, arthritis, osteoporosis, and other
diseases that rob the young and old of years of life and lead to much
pain and suffering. When we are so close to winning the battle on so
many fronts, this is not the time to retreat from our commitment to
remain the world leader in biomedical research.
A health care area of special interest to our committee, where a
small continuing investment over the past few years has paid off, is
the National Marrow Donor Program. Established by Congress in 1986, we
are celebrating the 10th anniversary of a working national marrow donor
registry that matches potential donors with patients in need of a
transplant who would otherwise die from leukemia or any one of 60 other
fatal blood disorders.
Since bringing to my colleagues attention the need for a national
registry to provide access to a large pool of prospective unrelated
individuals who might have matching bone marrow for patients in need of
transplants, I have had nothing but unwavering support from the members
of this committee and my colleagues in the House and Senate. The result
[[Page H6865]]
of this effort is a program that is a true medical miracle which is
saving lives every day throughout our Nation and around the world.
Later this year, The National Marrow Donor Program will register it
three millionth prospective donor. My colleagues may recall that early
in my search for a home for the national registry, some Federal
officials told me we would never recruit more than 50,000 volunteers
who were willing to donate their bone marrow to a complete stranger.
We proved them wrong and in doing so have given a second chance at
life to thousands of men, women, and children. As the registry
continues to grow, so do the number of transplants. More importantly,
we have given hope to thousands of families who otherwise would have
faced the prospect of certain death for a loved one.
This hope circles the globe as we exchange bone marrow on a regular
basis with 14 other nation's who have patterened their national
registeries after our own. Because genetics play such a crucial role in
a successful match, this access to potential bone marrow donors from
throughout the world has helped save the lives of patients here who
were unable to find a matched donor in our national registry. Indeed,
bone marrow is crossing international borders on a weekly basis, saving
lives here and abroad. Nothing I can think of will help bring the
nation's of the world closer together.
Our committee has included in the bill $15,270,000 for the continued
operations of the national registry under the oversight of the Health
Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]. Responsibility for the
registry was transferred in 1995 from NIH to HRSA. The Navy continues
to play a leading role in providing operational support and direction
to the program with additional funding made available by our
Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.
Other small, but significant health care programs established and
supported by our subcommittee are also saving lives throughout our
Nation. With the $13 million included in this legislation for the
Emergency Medical Services Program for Children we are increasing
public awareness and training health care professionals for the unique
emergency medical needs of acutely ill and seriously injured children.
More than 40 States have now established training programs to improve
the quality of care available for children. The leading cause of death
for them continues to be accident and injury.
We have made a significant investment in this bill in other areas of
preventative health care. Notably, we have included $145 million for
the Centers for Disease Control's breast and cervical cancer screening
program to provide early cancer detection for many low- and middle-
income women who otherwise would not receive life-saving early
warnings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, within the Department of Health and Human
Services, we have included $14 million for the National Youth Sports
Program, which gives many disadvantaged youth their first exposure to a
college campus. In addition to inspiring these children to stay in
school so they can one day attend college, the program also provides
health care screening, hot meals, math and science enrichment, and a
strong anti-drug and anti-violence message.
Our subcommittee has also provided for the educational needs of our
Nation's children from their preschool years through college. Once
again we have increased Head Start funding, this year by $324 million
to more than $4.3 billion. This is good news for Pinellas County, FL,
which I am proud to say is home to a nationally recognized Head Start
program that does an outstanding job in preparing our youngest students
for their entry into elementary school.
Also included in this legislation is $7.7 billion in grants to State
and local education agencies for disadvantaged youth. This is $395
million more than is available for the current year. We have provided
an additional $350 million for school improvement programs, $556
million for safe and drug free school programs, and $4.3 billion for
special education.
In the area of higher education, our committee has maintained its
emphasis on providing direct assistance to college students. The bill
includes funding to allow the maximum Pell Grant to rise to $3,000. In
addition, we have increased funding for Federal work-study programs,
TRIO, and minority institutions.
Among the myriad of Federal agencies funded in this bill, we continue
our support for the Social Security Administration and the Medicare
contractors, to allow them to process claims in a timely manner and to
update their technological base to improve service to older Americans.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, this is one appropriations bill
which touches virtually every American family. It is also one that
makes major investments in improving quality of life through health
care services, important biomedical research, educating our children,
and providing for the needs of our older Americans. It is a bill that
deserves the support of every Member of this House because it will
improve the way of life for every congressional district.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 31, 1997, the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
Amendments printed in House Report 105-214 may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, are considered as read, are not subject to
amendment except as specified in the report or pro forma amendments for
the purpose of debate, and are not subject to a demand for a division
of the question.
The amendment at the desk offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde] shall be considered in lieu of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the
report and shall be considered as though printed as amendment No. 1.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be
considered as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2264
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
training and employment services
For necessary expenses of the Job Training Partnership Act,
as amended, including the purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real
property for training centers as authorized by the Job
Training Partnership Act; the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and
Nontraditional Occupations Act; the National Skill Standards
Act of 1994; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act;
$5,162,601,000 plus reimbursements, of which $3,872,463,000
is available for obligation for the period July 1, 1998
through June 30, 1999; of which $118,491,000 is available for
the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 for necessary
expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of
Job Corps centers; of which $200,000,000 shall be available
from July 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, for carrying
out activities of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; and
of which $100,000,000 shall be available for obligation for
the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 for
Opportunity Areas for Out-of-School Youth only if
specifically authorized by subsequent legislation:
Provided, That $52,502,000 shall be for carrying out
section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act,
$69,285,000 shall be for carrying out section 402 of such
Act, $7,300,000 shall be for carrying out section 441 of
such Act, $5,000,000 shall be for all activities conducted
by and through the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee under such Act, $1,063,990,000
shall be for carrying out title II, part A of such Act,
and $129,965,000 shall be for carrying out title II, part
C of such Act: Provided further, That no funds from any
other appropriation shall be used to provide meal services
at or for Job Corps centers: Provided further, That funds
provided for title III of the Job Training Partnership Act
shall not be subject to the limitation contained in
subsection (b) of section 315 of such Act; that the waiver
described in section 315(a)(2) may be granted if a
substate grantee demonstrates to the Governor that such
waiver is appropriate due to the availability of low-cost
retraining services, is necessary to facilitate the
provision of needs-related payments to accompany long-term
training, or is necessary to facilitate the provision of
appropriate basic readjustment services; and that funds
provided for discretionary grants under part B of such
title III may be used to provide needs-related payments to
participants who, in lieu of meeting the enrollment
requirements under section 314(e) of such Act, are
enrolled in training by the end of the sixth week after
grant funds have been awarded: Provided further, That
service delivery areas may transfer funding provided
[[Page H6866]]
herein under authority of titles II, parts B and C of the
Job Training Partnership Act between the programs
authorized by those titles of the Act, if the transfer is
approved by the Governor: Provided further That service
delivery areas and substate areas may transfer up to 20
percent of the funding provided herein under authority of
title II, part A and title III of the Job Training
Partnership Act between the programs authorized by those
titles of the Act, if such transfer is approved by the
Governor: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any proceeds from the sale of Job
Corps center facilities shall be retained by the Secretary
of Labor to carry out the Job Corps program: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Labor may waive any of the statutory or
regulatory requirements of titles I-III of the Job
Training Partnership Act (except for requirements relating
to wage and labor standards, worker rights, participation
and protection, grievance procedures and judicial review,
nondiscrimination, allocation of funds to local areas,
eligibility, review and approval of plans, the
establishment and functions of service delivery areas and
private industry councils, and the basic purposes of the
Act), and any of the statutory or regulatory requirements
of sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (except for
requirements relating to the provision of services to
unemployment insurance claimants and veterans, and to
universal access to basic labor exchange services without
cost to job seekers), only for funds available for
expenditure in program year 1998, pursuant to a request
submitted by a State which identifies the statutory or
regulatory requirements that are requested to be waived
and the goals which the State or local service delivery
areas intend to achieve, describes the actions that the
State or local service delivery areas have undertaken to
remove State or local statutory or regulatory barriers,
describes the goals of the waiver and the expected
programmatic outcomes if the request is granted, describes
the individuals impacted by the waiver, and describes the
process used to monitor the progress in implementing a
waiver, and for which notice and an opportunity to comment
on such request has been provided to the organizations
identified in section 105(a)(1) of the Job Training
Partnership Act, if and only to the extent that the
Secretary determines that such requirements impede the
ability of the State to implement a plan to improve the
workforce development system and the State has executed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary requiring
such State to meet agreed upon outcomes and implement
other appropriate measures to ensure accountability:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor shall
establish a workforce flexibility (work-flex) partnership
demonstration program under which the Secretary shall
authorize not more than six States, of which at least
three States shall each have populations not in excess of
3,500,000, with a preference given to those States that
have been designated Ed-Flex Partnership States under
section 311(e) of Public Law 103-227, to waive any
statutory or regulatory requirement applicable to service
delivery areas or substate areas within the State under
titles I-III of the Job Training Partnership Act (except
for requirements relating to wage and labor standards,
grievance procedures and judicial review,
nondiscrimination, allotment of funds, and eligibility),
and any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of
sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (except for
requirements relating to the provision of services to
unemployment insurance claimants and veterans, and to
universal access to basic labor exchange services without
cost to job seekers), for a duration not to exceed the
waiver period authorized under section 311(e) of Public
Law 103-227, pursuant to a plan submitted by such States
and approved by the Secretary for the provision of
workforce employment and training activities in the
States, which includes a description of the process by
which service delivery areas and substate areas may apply
for and have waivers approved by the State, the
requirements of the Wagner-Peyser Act to be waived, the
outcomes to be achieved and other measures to be taken to
ensure appropriate accountability for federal funds.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Evans
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Evans:
Page 2, line 15, after ``reimbursements,'' insert ``of
which $2,500,000 shall be available for purposes of carrying
out section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (relating to homeless veterans' reintegration
projects);''
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, my
colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking
Democratic member of the subcommittee, for their efforts in producing
this bill.
Likewise, I appreciate the hard work of all members on the
subcommittee on this legislation, and I also want to thank the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full
committee, for his most important contributions, and likewise members
of the full committee as well.
In particular, I am very pleased that the full committee has provided
$2 million in funding for the National Veterans Training Institute.
This is a sound investment and money well spent, which will enable the
continued provision of essential training. Again, I am most thankful to
this committee for its actions.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offered for myself and my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], provides an
additional $2.5 million for the homeless, the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Project, a program administered by the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.
I understand $2.5 million has already been designated in H.R. 2264
for homeless veterans under the Department of Labor pilots and
demonstrations, and I appreciate the committee's concern for veterans.
Nonetheless, the problem of homeless veterans is so severe that
additional funding is necessary.
There is virtually no disagreement that one-third of the homeless men
in this country are veterans, and that approximately 60 percent of
those individuals are veterans of the Vietnam war. This means, Mr.
Chairman, that every night in this great country of ours more than
280,000 veterans are sleeping in homeless shelters or on our streets.
Since 1987, this program, a modest, cost-effective program designed
to help homeless veterans reenter and succeed in the job market, has
proven its worth. More than 41,000 homeless veterans have received help
and support from the community-based organizations funded under this
program, and many were placed in jobs at a cost of less than $15,000
per veteran.
Few government programs can claim to have achieved so much with so
little. Our amendment provides $2.5 million for this needed program,
the funding level authorized under section 11448 of title 42, United
States Code. Rather than increasing spending in order to fund this
important program, our amendment would simply earmark this $2.5 million
of the more than $5 billion provided for the Department of Labor's
Employment and Training Administration.
Earlier this year the Committee on Veterans' Affairs voted without
dissent to fund this program. Republicans and Democrats came together,
as they are doing tonight, to show their support for the men and women
who served honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces.
I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment to America's
veterans and support the Evans-Filner amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Filner], and to wish him a happy birthday, as well.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I thank him for his service to our Nation's veterans as ranking
member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, a source of particular satisfaction to me as a Member
of Congress has been my service on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Veterans are special and unique members of our American family, and it
has been an honor to work on their behalf.
I am also privileged to represent the extraordinary residents of San
Diego, CA, who have earned a nationwide reputation as a community
committed to service to homeless veterans. It was the city of San Diego
that created the Stand Down, a program which provides health care,
legal assistance, dental treatment, clothing, and employment assistance
for homeless veterans. This program has been replicated all over the
country, and thousands of veterans have benefited because of the
creativity and commitment of the veteran community in San Diego.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Evans] and myself extends this kind of benefits to homeless
veterans all over this Nation. So on behalf of the good and caring
citizens of San Diego, on behalf of America's homeless veterans, I urge
my colleagues to support the Evans-Filner amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
[[Page H6867]]
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman has indicated that the committee would
like to accept this amendment. Let me say that in addition to this
amendment, I have very serious reservations about this bill. I think
this is a question of philosophy about which direction the Republican
Party should lead this country.
Mr. Chairman, this bill increases spending dramatically over the
balanced budget bill that we brought forth in 1995. It increase funding
in many categories beyond what President Clinton had asked for in his
own budget submission to this Congress. It has policy implications in
the area of education, where we will be directing schools, that they
have the opportunity now at the Federal level to enter into some new
program called a Whole Learning Reform program.
The Federal Government should not be involved in making those
decisions. We should not have the Federal Government funding a national
test for education. That is the beginning of the problems with this
bill.
It also goes into social policy, which many of us would find
unacceptable in this Congress, not what we asked for in the Contract
With America, or when Republicans went to the American people and asked
them for a mandate to be the majority party in this Congress.
One example of that would be a provision in the bill that would allow
funds to be used for the distribution of needles to drug users. That is
not a Republican platform. It does not help us to reduce drug use in
this country. It is not something that we as a Republican Congress
should be passing and sending to the President.
I think the philosophy of this bill is to some extent dictated by the
budget agreement that our leaders and the President entered into
earlier this year, but it goes beyond the general agreement that we
would expand Government rather than shrink the Departments of Health,
Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department
of Labor. It goes beyond the notion that their budgets would increase,
and starts to make very liberal decisions in terms of social policy of
the funding within those budgets.
{time} 1830
I think it would be time for this Republican Congress to have a
debate on what is the direction we want to take. Do we want to continue
on this budget agreement that expands the role of government? Or do we
want to take time and correct the work of this committee and reduce the
size of government in some areas, and at least say those areas where we
are spending more money, we are going to turn over control to the
States and take it away from the bureaucracy here in Washington?
Now, this is not to say that there are not some very good provisions
in this bill. And I do say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
that I commend his efforts in the areas of ergonomics, for example,
where the committee has stated there is a lot of bad science that is
being foisted upon us in an effort to create more regulations at the
Department of Labor. The chairman's bill does put a moratorium for a
year on that misguided regulation going into effect.
But, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do in the course of the debate on
this bill is have a debate about fundamental principles in the
Republican Party, address some very serious questions in this bill, and
attempt to lead rather than capitulating to leadership from 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
McIntosh] that, yes, this bill does increase spending over last year,
and I am not happy with that. But the leadership of the Republican
Party and the Democratic Party, and the President, agreed earlier this
year that there would be tax cuts and that there would be restraints on
entitlement spending. In return for those changes in policy, they also
agreed that there would be increases in programs that the President
considered his priorities.
Mr. Chairman, we have gotten the tax cuts and we have gotten the
restraints on entitlement spending. Those bills have been passed and
signed into law by the President. Like it or not, an agreement has to
be at least substantially carried out, and this bill contains many of
the President's priorities.
Mr. Chairman, when Republicans took control of the Congress, this
bill carried major cuts in programs when it passed the House of
Representatives; a total of $9 billion. While many of the cuts were not
in the enacted bill that year, nor did it survive in last year's bill,
we certainly have restrained the rate of increase in spending in these
accounts over what it might have otherwise been.
With respect to the whole school reform that the gentleman mentions,
I would urge the gentleman very, very strongly to look at exactly how
this works. It does not put the Government in the reform business. It
allows local schools operating under State law, if they wish, to apply
for funds on a competitive basis so that they may engage in whole
school reform. I believe this is a far better expenditure of money than
our present title I program from which the funds derive.
Other issues are going to be shaped on the floor of the House of
Representatives as they should be. I would like to be able to please
every single Member of the House of Representatives and offer a bill
that everyone instantly said, ``I agree with.'' That obviously is not
possible. But what we have to do is try to find the center, try to work
with one another and find the common ground on which to govern, and to
pass a bill that can meet the expectations of the American people. That
is what this process is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have done some good things, things that the
gentleman from Indiana and others would support very strongly. But
obviously there is a certain price to pay for the things that we get.
We have to also give something. We have attempted to do both and to
find that common ground.
I believe that we have done that in this bill. And while it will not
please everyone, and never can, I believe it is a bill that can please
the majority of Members in the House and I would very definitely
commend it to them.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not in the slightest going to get into a debate
about the philosophy of the Republican Party. I simply want to take
this time to indicate that on this side of the aisle, we would also
accept the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], if
that is indeed what is before us at this point.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me address the point of the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], because I do think there is a philosophical
difference between whether we should seek the center or stand for
principles that are outside the center. Principles of a smaller
government, less Federal intrusion into our school systems and into our
State levels, and perhaps that is the core question that we should be
debating as we talk about the problems that we have with this bill.
Mr. Chairman, one of the problems, for example, that I encountered in
the last week as I toured schools throughout central Indiana and
visited with the students and teachers and parents, is I asked them
what are the concerns that they have that I, as a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, would like to address. They
time and time again said that they were chasing Federal dollars. They
spent a lot of their time filling out forms in order to get the few
dollars that they desperately needed, and then found they could not use
them for the needs in their classroom.
Mr. Chairman, one school needed additional computers and they found
they did not qualify for the computer grant, and so they had to chase
other dollars. Another school said, we want to teach the basics but we
found that we have to apply for these fancy programs coming out of
Washington. And
[[Page H6868]]
then once we apply to them, we have to spend all of our time filling
out forms rather than teaching our children what they need to know in
math, reading, writing, the basic knowledge and skills that Congress
says they want us to teach.
The message they sent to me to bring back here was: Get out of the
way in Washington. Stop having most of the money have strings attached
to it and send it to us in a block grant to the schools where we can
decide how it would best be used.
One of the things that I think we have to correct in this bill are
provisions like the Whole School Reform Act that comes with strings.
They have to apply under that program to take certain actions in order
to receive the money; 200 million dollars' worth of funding is now tied
to new strings. They wanted old strings from the previous Congress, or
the Congress before that, that had authorized them but they had never
been funded. So we will be creating a brandnew spending program as a
result of that.
There are other questions that I hope we can engage in this debate
with the chairman. In some cases we seem to have decided that not only
would we agree and compromise and take the President's budget number,
we would outdo the President and spend more in certain categories. I do
not think that should be our position as we move forward with this
bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say I have a great deal of respect for
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. He is a leader in our party
and on this committee. But I do have to fundamentally disagree on that
philosophical question of whether we should approach the center or
whether we should govern from a conservative, principled approach in
this Congress.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I was in the Cloakroom and I heard the
discussions of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and I wanted
to tell him that I know I have been discussing, and many members of the
committee have been discussing for many years, trying to enhance the
ability of local providers of education who have the primary
responsibility with greater opportunities to access Federal dollars
without having to go through so many hoops.
Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a bill which is called the Family
Services Improvement Act. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is
a cosponsor. Senator Hatfield had a bill in the last Congress which
tried to simplify the way in which communities access dollars.
If I can make a very crude analogy, a funnel at the top where there
are a lot of individual programs, but the child at the bottom of the
funnel that we all want to serve, either for health reasons or social
service or educational reasons, they have to figure out how to access
all of these dollars.
What the bill essentially tries to do is to get the Feds to
facilitate that service being performed in a funnel type where it comes
in here, but it comes out in a spout at the end not exactly the way the
gentleman from Indiana would want it, but in a form that does not put
local education or social service agencies or other agencies to the
unbelievable difficulty of trying to figure out how we help Mary Jane
or Charlie Brown.
So, Mr. Chairman, although it is not directly on point, I wanted to
call the gentleman's attention to that, because I think it would be
something that perhaps in a bipartisan way we could work on to
facilitate what I think both of us want done, although we may have
different perspectives on exactly what the ways and means of doing it
would be.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
comments of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and would hope to
be able to address them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Porter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McIntosh was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer], but I think we have to be careful we do not keep the old
encumbered form of bureaucracy and say that we are going to give a
roadmap at the local level on how to go through the paperwork, because
they still have to go through the paperwork and spend the time and the
money and the resources to do that.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
what the gentleman will like about the bill is that it eliminates most
of the paperwork and says that there is one form for all of these
programs, and it will be the Federal problem of figuring out. But we
would only have one form.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, see, what I
would hope we could do is move to something like title VI where we
don't have to justify on a form; we would say that we are going to
provide the resources and those at the local level decide how they want
to spent them.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I heard the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] correctly. But if I can say so, I think the role
of the Federal Government in education is to supplement or complement
the primary role of local schools in educating our children. It is not
to supplant them in any way or to require a certain curricula or
anything else. And it is not, very definitely, to provide a separate
tax source removed from local control simply to funnel money to local
schools. That is not the purpose.
Mr. Chairman, if it is the basics that the gentleman wants to
emphasize, that should be done, and is done, in every school in America
by State and local school districts using State and local funds. That
is where it ought to be. We should not be putting the Federal
Government into the business of raising the money to provide for basics
to be taught. That is done by the State and local school districts.
Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the money spent in this country is spent
by State and local school districts on education. That is the way it
ought to be. The Federal Government's role should be to provide
national encouragement on things of national interest. And that is
exactly what we are doing in this program.
I think the gentleman from Indiana would agree that we are not
attempting in any way to supplant local schools or to provide a taxing
source removed from the people at the local level to support basics.
That is not the role of the Federal Government at all.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, in response to
the gentleman from Illinois, I agree that is not the role of the
Federal Government. The concern I have with this bill is that there is
a new program that creates a carrot and says if schools want to get
some of these Federal dollars, they have to start teaching the way we
think they should teach. And we are going to have a situation where we
have got, as my wife says, folks jumping over dimes to go for a nickel
because they are going to end up spending a great deal of money trying
to apply for those programs.
We would be much better off if we let them spend their money on the
basics and we said, ``We have got this $200 million. We are going to
give it to you to spend as you see fit on improving the teaching of the
basics.'' I think if we are going to spend money at the Federal level,
we should always say we are going to send it with the least amount of
restrictions and strings attached to it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say first off that I think the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] is well-conceived in the sense
of if there is any group in America that has been neglected in the
homeless population, it has been the veterans and people who have
sacrificed for our country and put their lives at risk deserve that
special attention, and I support that.
We have a homeless shelter particularly targeted for veterans that a
few Vietnam veterans have put together in Ft. Wayne, and I have been
proud to help them and I know that it has been very difficult for them
to get attention, because often they get ignored in the process.
[[Page H6869]]
{time} 1845
I want to address a broader question off of that. That is, in areas
where the Federal Government has not been, there is this temptation to
say that every time we see a needy group or every time we see a problem
that we are going to plunge into that. As we debate tonight and
tomorrow and probably into next week this bill, this bill is at the
heart of the differences between the two parties and how we are going
to govern, and differences in our own party as to what the role of the
Federal Government should be in education, what the role of the Federal
Government should be in abortion, what the role of the Federal
Government should be in labor policy, what the role of the Federal
Government should be in health policy.
Many of us are concerned, and I say this as someone who supported the
budget agreement. Understanding that at times you have to have
compromises and at times you have to move forward because the President
is of a different party, the Senate may not agree with the House, and
in the House we have a very narrow majority, there are pragmatic things
that enter into getting what you can, but many of us feel we went too
far in this bill. We were willing to live with many of the funding
dollars in that, begrudgingly, and many of us were very divided over
that subject.
But there is also the matter, if we are going to spend the money, how
are we going to spend the money and in what areas?
We made many pledges. Many of them probably were, needless to say,
overdramatic or probably unrealistic; nevertheless, many millions of
American people believed that when we said we were going to eliminate
the Department of Education and we were going to eliminate the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we were going to eliminate this
organization or that organization, that we were at least going to fight
for that.
Now we are faced with a bill that in many of these cases is not
eliminating, it is increasing its funding, something that surely we did
not run on and say we were going to do. It has caused a lot of grief.
And this bill consolidates many of these things; and now not only are
we looking at increasing the money in some of the things that many of
us came here very concerned about. I myself can hardly believe that we
have a real dollar increase in Title X which, while we have many
abortion issues that we face in this Congress, is the most
controversial because it has the most money going to the organizations
that do most of the abortions. Yet, it increases.
We see increases in other categories. We see whole new programs. We
can have a debate and we certainly will have a debate on the Whole
School program. You have got some of the discussion here and we will
have that in the education section.
As I have talked with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] today,
and as I have visited schools around the country, first when I was a
staff director on the Republican side with the children-families
committee, then working with Senator Coats in the Senate, and now being
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have seen the merits
of some of the ideas in this, school-based management, more flexibility
in the schools to make determinations. But what I do not think is
appropriate is to have something come in without having gone through
the authorizing committee.
The point is that it is authorized, but it was authorized dormant; in
other words, it has no funds in it. This Republican-controlled Congress
never passed this bill, never moved this bill. Furthermore, it was put
in at the tail end in the appropriations subcommittee process and did
not get fully aired because even if some of us and, for example, we
will hear in this debate that the Heritage Foundation thinks that this
is a good idea. The Heritage Foundation has no position on this. The
Heritage Foundation has done reports that suggest that it is a good
idea at the local level. They do not have a position on Federal
initiative.
And while we say we are not controlling local schools, the fact is
that when we put the money out, particularly if you have a State law
that says you cannot override local union contracts, if you have a
State law that says you cannot do some of the things in the Little Red
Schoolhouse reform and other types of things like that, and you have 50
to 100 districts that want to get into this pool of money, there will
be tremendous pressure on the State legislatures to change their State
law.
It is a tad cute to say we are not doing these things from the
Federal level when, in fact, we are dumping $200 million into a program
that was not funded, that was dormant, has never passed a Republican
Congress. And all of a sudden when we say we are reducing Goals 2000,
this is much more sweeping than Goals 2000.
In Indiana, it may indeed be a good program. Why not debate it and go
through a regular process similar to the National Literacy Initiative?
We will be debating a number of these. We feel there should be a
whole debate on this process. We are not trying to be obstructionist.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I rise to speak on behalf of the Evans amendment to H.R. 2264. This
is a positive proposal which is bipartisan, which helps to assist the
homeless veterans and increases from $2.5 million to $5 million this
very important program which is section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homes Assistance Act, named for a former member of Congress who
actually initiated this program and deserves a great deal of credit as
a former Member from Connecticut.
I believe that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] has shown
again his great leadership for veterans; and working with the gentleman
from California [Mr. Filner] and others on both sides of the aisle, I
had the pleasure of working with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], I know how important this
issue is to people in my home State of Pennsylvania where many veterans
have resided. And some are not only looking for proper health care from
this Congress, proper vocational assistance, but now, where we can help
those who are homeless, making a big difference.
This will certainly go a long way, I think, in making those steps in
a positive way to help our veterans, many of whom gave their lives for
others, who are now trying to still make a go of it and are trying to
make sure that they have the quality of life that they deserve for the
sacrifice they made for this country.
I rise in strong support of the Evans amendment. I believe it really
makes this bill even more positive. I thank the gentleman for his
leadership and look forward to working with him again on other pro-
veteran bills.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the American people in my district are deeply concerned
about a number of issues, and I am deeply concerned about some issues
that we address in this legislation, issues which have not come to the
fore until just the last few hours of this debate.
Parents in America want their children educated. One of the things we
do in this country is we pay taxes in the hopes that we will give our
children the best possible education. Yet what is happening in
education in America today is that there is a great debate going on
about how we improve education.
I have listened to that debate and I have listened to the citizens of
my district talk about it. They want their children to get the best
possible education because they care deeply about their children's
success as they go forward. But they discovered one thing that is
vitally important. It is something that I thought we heard in
Washington, D.C., but it appears maybe we have not.
They have discovered out in America that education policy cannot be
set in Washington, D.C., that it is simply too far away from the living
rooms and the family rooms and the bedrooms of the children studying at
home to set education policy thousands of miles away here in
Washington, D.C.
So when I ran for the United States Congress, I ran on the promise
that I would work to return to the local parents, teachers, students
and administrators in the schools in my district
[[Page H6870]]
the control of their education and their education dollars, so that
those parents working beside the administrators in their schools could
decide education policy for their children.
For that reason, I got elected and I am pleased about that. But I
have discovered in this bill something that gives me great concern. In
this bill, we have decided that that is the wrong policy. In this bill,
we have decided once again that the Federal Government should do the
carrot-and-stick routine, that the Federal Government should decide
what form of education reform works.
Here is what we say in the bill: We say that we are going to reward
those schools who pursue what is called Whole School Reform. And we
even specify in report language that we will make this $150 million
available, but only available to those schools who will follow the
Whole School Reform model.
And in report language, we set forth that they should either follow
the school development program developed by Yale University
psychiatrist James Comer, or the Success for All and Roots and Wings
programs developed by Johns Hopkins University, or the Modern Red
Schoolhouse program developed by Hudson Institute.
So here we are saying, you local parents, you local administrators,
those of you that are charged with educating your children and care
most about their education, we will give you $150 million. You just
have to jump through one Federal hoop. You have to agree to abide by
one of these three programs. You have to spend the $150 million as we
in Washington say it should be spent.
Let me tell you, that is not what I was sent to Washington to do.
That is not the kind of legislation that I believe America wants. I do
not care if you are Republican or Democrat. I do not care if you are a
liberal or conservative. I think this is an issue which transcends
politics.
I think American parents, whether they are liberal or conservative,
Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, believe they know better how to
educate their kids than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away in
Washington, D.C., or some professor at the Hudson Institute or Yale
University or Johns Hopkins.
Yet we are saying, as a United States Congress, there is $150 million
in this bill which you parents may have, but only if you let us decide
on the education policy. I think that is wrong. I think we are making a
grave mistake by including that kind of policy in this bill.
It is not what the American parents want. They trust their teacher.
You sit back and think about it: The one person you have to trust in
your life is the teacher that your child spends a good portion of every
day with.
This last Tuesday was the first day of school for my kids. I took
them both to school. I have a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. I had met
their teachers before. I care about them, and I trust their teachers,
but I have never met a single professor from Yale University or Hudson
Institute that I want deciding how my children get educated.
I trust the PTA at my school and the administrators at my school, but
I thought we, as a Nation, had moved beyond this idea of dictating
Federal education policy in Washington, D.C. Yet in this bill, I hope
that my colleagues are listening and I hope their constituents are
listening to them, we break that promise and we set education policy in
Washington, D.C. That is dead wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:
School Development Program
Mission and Vision of the School Development Program
The School Development Program is committed to the total
development of all children by creating learning environments
that support children's physical, cognitive, psychological,
language, social and ethical development.
Our vision is to help create a just and fair society in
which all children have the educational and personal
opportunities that will allow them to become successful and
satisfied participants in family and civic life.
Core Beliefs of the School Development Program
We believe that ``it takes a whole village to raise a
child,'' noting especially that: children's most meaningful
learning occurs through positive and supportive relationships
with caring and nurturing adults; parents are children's
first teachers; all parents, and staff members, and community
member, regardless of position, has an important contribution
to make towards improving students' education; and in order
to bring out the best in children, adults must interact more
collaboratively and sensitively with each other on behalf of
children.
We believe children: should be at the center of the
educational enterprise; are capable of higher learning; learn
through various pathways: physical, cognitive, psychological,
language, social, and ethical; and who develop well learn
well.
We believe that teachers: work in supportive environments
which maximize their ability to teach and prepare students
for life beyond school; and develop positive relationships
with parents to make the necessary bonds for effective
teaching and learning.
We believe school communities: must be structured to
promote collaborative decision making in order to create a
culture of inclusion; should promote learning as a lifelong
process; should embrace cultural, linguistic and ethnic
differences to enhance the educational process for all
people; use data from all levels of the system--student,
school, and district to inform educational policies and
practices; should view change as an ongoing process guide by
continuous constructive feedback; design curriculum,
instruction and assessment to align with and promote child
and community development and high content area standards;
provide administrators with the support they need to lead and
manage schools; and promote organizational synergy among
school boards, educators, and parents.
A Brief History and Summary of the School Development Program
The School Development Program (SDP) was established in
1968 in two elementary schools as a collaborative effort
between the Yale University Child Study Center and the New
Haven Public Schools. The two schools involved were the
lowest achieving in the city, had poor attendance, and had
serious relationship problems among students, staff, and
parents. Staff morale was low. Parents were angry and
distrustful of the schools. Hopelessness and despair were
pervasive.
The Child Study Center staff--social worker, psychologist,
special education teacher, and child psychiatrist--provided
the traditional support services from these disciplines but
focused more on understanding the underlying problems and how
to correct them. Problems were identified on both sides--
family stress and student underdevelopment in areas necessary
for school success, as well as organizational, management and
child development knowledge and skill needs on the part of
the school staff.
Because of pre-school experiences in families under stress,
a disproportionate number of low-income children presented
themselves to the schools in ways that were understood as
``bad,'' under-motivated, and demonstrating low academic
potential. The behavior, in fact, reflected underdevelopment,
or else development that was appropriate on the playground,
at home or other places outside of school, but inappropriate
at school.
The school staffs lacked training in child development and
behavior, and understood school achievement solely as a
function of genetically determined intellectual ability and
individual motivation. Because of this, the schools were ill-
prepared to modify behavior or close the developmental gaps
of their students. The staffs usually responded with
punishment and low expectations. Such responses were
understandable given the circumstances, but they usually led
to more difficult staff-student interactions and, in turn,
to difficult staff-parent and community interactions,
staff frustration, and a lower level of performance by
students, staff and parents.
Even when there was a desire to work differently, there was
no mechanism at the building level to allow parents,
teachers, and administrators first to understand the needs,
then to collaborate with and help each other address them in
an integrated, coordinated way. This led to blame-finding,
fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and frustration. There
was no sense of ownership and pride in the school. The kind
of synergism that develops when people work together to
address problems and opportunities could not exist.
The model took shape in response to the conditions in the
schools. Dr. Comer and his colleagues, working
collaboratively with parents and staff, gradually developed
the current nine-component process model (3 mechanisms, 3
operations, and 3 guiding principles). In the first category
is (1) a School Planning and Management Team representative
of the parents, teachers, administrators and support staff;
(2) a Student and Staff Support Team (formerly called the
Mental Health Team; and (3) Parent Team.
The School Planning and Management Team carries out three
critical operations: the development of a (4) Comprehensive
School Plan with specific goals in improving school climate
and academic areas; (5) staff development activities based on
building-level goals in these areas; and (6) periodic
assessment which allows the staff to modify the program to
meet identified needs and opportunities.
Successful implementation of the School Development Program
requires several important guiding principles and agreements.
All the adult stakeholders agree to use (7) a ``no fault''
approach to solving problems. This allows school teams to use
all their time and energy on problem solving. Many
[[Page H6871]]
groups get bogged down and are unable to move forward because
blame creates defensive behavior and conflict. When people
use ``no fault,'' they can speak up without fear of attack or
blame.
The School Development Program uses (8) consensus decision
making rather than voting as the way to make decisions.
Discussions keep the developmental needs of children in mind.
One of the principal benefits of consensus decision making is
that it minimizes ``winner-loser'' behavior and a variety of
negative feelings that are common when decisions are made by
voting.
Participants on the School Planning and Management Team (9)
collaborate with the principal who is often the team's
leader. Team members cannot paralyze the principal and on the
other hand the principal cannot use the group as a ``rubber
stamp.'' In some cases, a staff member rather than the
principal serves as a leader of the governance and management
team. When this happens, it is often after all involved have
become comfortable with the process, but sometimes it occurs
at the outset. This works when it is a genuine arrangement to
promote leadership from within the staff, and not as an act
of disengagement. With this arrangement, it is important for
the principal to be present and fully involved both in
meetings and in facilitating the process. These nine
components, developed in the 1968-69 school year, continue to
make up the essential elements of the School Development
Program.
a brief summary of school development program effects
Past efforts to document the effects of the School
Development Program have been consistent with our philosophy
that educational improvement embodies academic as well as
personal and social growth. To document the effects, a
combination of three research strategies are used: (1)
quantitative (e.g., Surveys), (2) qualitative (e.g., our
ethnographic protocols), and (3) theory development. These
strategies have been employed to document academic effects,
behavior and school adjustment effects, self-concept, and our
school climate.
Studies conducted by the School Development Program and
other researchers provide evidence of significant SDP effects
on school climate, student attendance, and student
achievement. SDP effects are usually first manifested in the
improvement of the school climate, indicated by improved
relationships among the adults in the school, better
collaboration among staff members, and greater focus on the
child as the center of the education process. Research showed
that schools in which the SDP guiding principles (``no
fault'' problem solving, consensus decision making and
collaboration) were followed consistently, there was a
significantly greater decline in absenteeism and suspension
rates compared to the district as a whole. Comparative
studies of SDP and non-SDP schools reported significantly
higher self competence, self-concept, and achievement for SDP
students than for non-SDP students.
Qualitative analyses of more than 130 interviews of
parents, students, teachers, principals, and other school
personnel from ten schools indicated (a) improved parental
and community involvement, (b) strong, positive climate, (c)
increased team work and greater coordination, (d) greater
focus on child-centered issues for comprehensive school
planning, and (e) greater top-down and bottom-up management.
These analyses also showed that the Student and Staff Support
Teams (formerly called Mental Health Teams) focused primarily
on prevention rather than crisis management. These teams
established stronger linkages between schools and communities
in order to better facilitate services to students. The three
SDP structures (School Planning and Management Team, Student
and Staff Support Team and the Parent Team) and the three
guiding principles served as vehicles for bringing the school
and community together to resolve conflicts and reach
solutions.
____
Hudson Institute's Modern Red Schoolhouse To Move to Nashville
Indianapolis, IN.--Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees
announced today that its highly-touted education project, The
Modern Red Schoolhouse, will become an independent entity and
relocate to Nashville, TN. Named ``Modern Red Schoolhouse
Institute,'' the new organization will receive funding from
Alternative Public Schools, Inc., a Nashville-based
educational services firm.
Designed and tested over the past five years, Hudson's
critically-acclaimed program strives to make all students
high achievers in core academic subjects by building upon the
virtues of traditional American education while incorporating
modern technology in the classroom. It also relies on proven
student learning techniques, the wisdom of teachers and
parental involvement.
Hudson's Modern Red Schoolhouse was one of eleven plans
funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation in
1992 to design ``break-the-mold'' schools that would
revitalize American education. Hudson worked in partnership
with school districts in Indiana, Arizona and New York to
reinvent the qualities and virtues of ``little red
schoolhouses'' within a contemporary context.
In making the announcement, Hudson Institute's president
Leslie Lenkowsky; Ph.D. emphasized, ``Since Hudson began the
Modern Red Schoolhouse, the program has grown from a glimmer
in the minds of Hudson's researchers to a well-tested and
favorably-evaluated blueprint for comprehensive school
restructuring. The Nashville-based managers of the program
will bring new resources and marketing `know-how' necessary
for the program to become a model that schools throughout the
United States will adopt as well.''
He further remarked, ``The evolution of Modern Red
Schoolhouse into its own Institute is an outstanding example
of how Hudson can best utilize its talent, expertise and
resources for research and development--then turn over
finely-tuned and successful products to other organizations
for implementation.''
Specifically in Indiana, the following school districts
collaborated in the Modern Red Schoolhouse program design:
select Indianapolis Public Schools, the Metropolitan School
District of Lawrence Township in Marion County, Beech Grove
City Schools, Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation in
Columbus, and Eastern Howard School Corporation in Greentown.
Schools in Evansville and Michigan City were also included.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Hudson Institute's
experience in education policy research dates to the 1977
publication of Our Children's Crippled Future: How American
Education Has Failed. Hudson scholars continue to contribute
a number of major books and reports to the debate over the
state of American education, including current research on
America's charter schools.
In addition, Hudson Institute operates the Educational
Excellence Network, a nationally-known clearinghouse on
educational issues for scholars and policymakers. Hudson
Senior Fellows Carol D'Amico, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Bruno
Manno, who each played a critical role in developing Modern
Red Schoolhouse, will remain at Hudson where they have a full
agenda of new education-related projects currently underway
or planned for the future. In addition, former Modern Red
Schoolhouse co-director Denis P. Doyle will rejoin Hudson to
develop a new set of school reform efforts centered on the
use of technology.
Additional information covering Hudson Institute's
education programs and on-going research is available on
Hudson's website, WWW.HUDSON.ORG/HUDSON.MEDIA ADVISORY: To
arrange an interview with Dr. Lenkowsky, contact Gail
McDaniel at (317) 549-4115.
This Modern Red Schoolhouse Homepage has been moved to:
http://www.mrsh.org
Modern Red Schoolhouse on the World-Wide Web
preface
The little red schoolhouse of yesteryear, at least as
idealized in American memory, was an institution that drew
people together for common purposes, to share in one of the
most important responsibilities of any community: readying
the next generation to take its place in that community by
socializing the young, transmitting the culture, and
equipping future workers, citizens, and parents with
essential knowledge, skills, and habits. The Modern Red
Schoolhouse intends to reinvent some of the key virtues of
the little red schoolhouse in a modern context and with a
modern mission to be a place where all children will learn
and achieve academic standards that are truly world class.
This is not to say that all children will learn in the same
way, or at the same time, or at the same pace. To this
challenge, Modern Red Schoolhouse offers a set of teaching
methods tailored to identify and nurture the potential that
exists in every child. The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards
are high. But they come with the expectation that all
children will be afforded many routes towards their
attainment. Like its nineteenth-century namesake, the Modern
Red Schoolhouse does not lose sight of the fact that mastery
of subject matter is the only acceptable goal for all
children, wherever they may come from and however they may
learn.
The standards documented here will be met by Modern Red
Schoolhouse students in eight core subjects defined as
English language arts, geography, history, mathematics,
science, the arts, foreign languages, and health and physical
education. The Modern Red Schoolhouse curriculum consists of
Hudson Units both Foundation Units and Capstone Units.
Foundation Units are developed or selected at each school for
the primary purpose of instruction, although Foundation Units
also include some built-in assessment. Capstone Units are
developed by Advanced Systems, Inc., assessment contractor
for the Modern Red Schoolhouse, in collaboration with
teachers at cooperating schools. Their primary purpose is to
assess students' academic progress, but because they are
integral to curriculum, they also include some built-in
instruction. Schools will arrange a series of Hudson Units to
meet the individual learning needs of each student. All the
performance objectives of all the Hudson Units successfully
completed by each student will lead that student to
achievement of the standards. All the Capstone Units,
supplemented by examinations in each subject, form a
Watershed Assessment of the standards which signal students'
readiness to move to the next level of schooling.
All Modern Red Schoolhouse students are expected to meet
the standards that follow with a few modest qualifications.
The foreign language standards assume that students will
become proficient speakers of two languages: English and one
other. This does
[[Page H6872]]
not preclude students from pursuing study of a third
language; in fact, they are encouraged to do so. The arts
encompass three arts disciplines: visuals areas, music, and
drama. Students are expected to meet standards for all three
through the intermediate level. Advanced level students will
achieve the advanced standards for one arts discipline of the
student's own choosing.
The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are the result of two
years of the combined thinking of teachers, administrators,
community members, and national subject specialists. During
the design phase, representatives of participating school
districts began to identify high standards in eight core
subjects. The College Board's Advanced Placement standards
were used as an initial benchmark to help participants
articulate what students should know and be able to do at the
time of graduation from high school. Although students in the
Modern Red Schoolhouse will reach these standards at
different rates and therefore at different ages, the three
levels are roughly equivalent to what students should know
and be able to do at the end of grades 4, 8, and 12.
Successive drafts of the standards were reviewed by the
Modern Red Schoolhouse Standards and Assessment Task Force.
This document is the result of considerable revision by a
team of subject specialists, all with broad experience in
setting high standards and helping students to achieve them.
Their joint experience includes work for the Advanced
Placement program, the Council for Basic Education, the
National Council of Teachers of English, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the Mathematical Association of
America, the National Science Teachers Association, and a
combined hundred years in classrooms at all levels. Drafts of
the standards have been reviewed by subject specialists at
Advanced Systems, Inc. and teachers in member schools,
whose suggestions have prompted additional revisions. The
greatest challenge offered by these standards raising
student achievement to meet them will be addressed through
innovative curriculum and not by lowered expectations.
While the Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are unique, they
are not inconsistent with the recommendations of professional
associations striving for excellence in education. We have
borrowed heavily from other sets of standards developed in
recent years in the great national effort to reform America's
schools. We are indebted to the work of the National
Assessment Governing Board whose National Assessments of
Educational Progress in language arts, geography,
mathematics, science, and the arts helped inform the
standards. We drew from the College Board's various teacher's
guides to their Advanced Placement courses. Publications from
the following professional associations informed the
development of the standards in their respective disciplines:
the Association of American Geographers, the Bradley
Commission on History in Schools; the National Center for
History in the Schools (UCLA-NEH); the National Council for
Teachers of Mathematics; the American Association for the
Advancement of Science; National Standards in Foreign
Language Education project; and the National Association for
Sports and Physical Education.
In addition to these, the standards have been informed by
the U.S. Department of Education's ``James Madison'' series
and the U.S. Department of Labor's SCANS reports. Standards
for the primary and intermediate levels were also informed by
E.D. Hirsch's ``Cultural Literacy'' inventory and Smart Start
by Patte Barth and Ruth Mitchell.
We are indebted especially to the work of the following
authors and associations:
In English language arts:
Barth, P. and R. Mitchell. Smart Start. North American
Press, 1992.
Gadda, G., E. Jensen, F. McQuade, and H. Wilson. Teacher's
Guide to Advanced Placement Courses in English Language and
Composition. The College Board, 1985.
McQuade, F. Teacher's Guide to Advanced Placement Courses
in English Literature and Composition. The College Board,
1993.
Reading Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National Assessment
of Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board,
U.S. Dept. of Education.
Reading and Thinking: A New Framework for Comprehension.
Massachusetts Department of Education, 1987.
Writing Framework for the 1992 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board,
U.S. Dept. of Education.
In Geography:
Geography Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Dept. of Education,
1992.
Geography (K-6 and 7-12): Themes, Key Ideas, and Learning
Opportunities. Geography Education National Implementation
Project, 1989.
Guidelines for Geographic Education. Association of
American Geographers, 1984.
In History:
Historical Literacy. Bradley Commission on History in the
Schools, 1989.
History-Social Science Framework. California Department of
Education, 1988.
Holt, T. Thinking Historically. The College Board, 1990.
National History Standards Project. National Center for
History in the Schools, UCLA-NEH Research Program, ongoing.
In Mathematics:
Edwards, E.L. Algebra for Everyone. National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989.
Mathematics Assessment: 1994 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Submitted to the National Assessment
Governing Board by The College Board, 1992.
Meiring, S.P., R.N. Rubenstein, J.E. Schultz, J. de Lange,
and D.L. Chambers. A Core Curriculum: Making Mathematics
Count for Everyone: Addenda Series, Grades 9-12. National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
Silver, E., J. Kilpatrick, and B. Schlesinger. Thinking
through Mathematics: Fostering Inquiry and Communication in
Mathematics Classrooms. The College Board, 1990.
In Science:
Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's
Schools. National Research Council, 1991.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and
Assessment. National Research Council, 1993 (draft).
Project 2061: Science for all Americans. American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
Science Framework for the 1994 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board,
U.S. Dept. of Education.
Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years.
National Center for Improving Science Education, 1989.
Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School
Science. The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers.
National Science Teachers Association, 1986.
The Modern Red Schoolhouse has also integrated character
education into the academic curriculum of its students. In
his essay ``Character Education in Our Schools'' (published
separately by Modern Red Schoolhouse), Kevin Ryan of Boston
University discusses the need for character education and the
attempt by the Modern Red Schoolhouse to effectively address
this issue. However, discussions about dealing with this
subject are best made with the community. Therefore,
individual schools are advised to develop their character
education programs with the help and guidance of the school's
parents and communities. In preparing the curriculum,
especially in health and physical education, we encourage
educators to review not only the standards enumerated here,
but also Kevin Ryan's essay. It discusses in more detail the
reasons for character education and the specific goals of the
Modern Red Schoolhouse program. This essay can be obtained
separately from the Hudson Institute.
The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are anchored in
beliefs and principles that most Americans today as they did
a century ago know to be true and valid. We believe that
standards can serve as an anchor for those principles while
at the same time preparing graduates to take their place in
the communities of the twenty-first century.
Sally B. Kilgore, Ph.D.,
Director.
____
Welcome to the Home of Success For All<sup>TM</sup> and Roots &
Wings<sup>TM</sup>
Success For All<sup>TM</sup> (SFA) and Roots &
Wings<sup>TM</sup> are comprehensive school restructuring
programs for students in grades Pre-K to Six.
The idea behind the SFA<sup>TM</sup> program is to organize
resources to focus on prevention and early intervention, to
ensure that virtually every student will succeed in reading
throughout the elementary grades--and no student will be
allowed to ``fall between the cracks.'' This highly
successful model is currently in use in 750 schools in 37
states.
The goal of Roots & Wings<sup>TM</sup> is to ensure every
child a firm foundation in the knowledge and skills needed to
succeed in today's world, and to go far beyond this to
higher-order learning and integration of knowledge.
Roots refers to strategies designed to ensure that every
child meets world class standards--effective instructional
programs in reading, writing, and language arts; tutoring for
children struggling with reading; integrated health, mental
health, and social services; and family support. These
elements are based on Success for All<sup>TM</sup>.
Wings refers to improvements in curriculum and instruction
designed to let children soar. A key component of Wings is a
science and social studies program called
WorldLab<sup>TM</sup>, which includes a set of simulations in
which students will be able to apply knowledge and skills in
flexible, creative, and integrated ways to solve problems.
Children in WorldLab<sup>TM</sup> design and test efficient
vehicles, explore African culture and agriculture, write a
new U.S. Constitution, or investigate sources of pollution in
local waterways.
MathWings<sup>TM</sup>, based on NCTM standards, provides
practical constructivist approaches to math emphasizing
cooperative learning, complex problem solving, games, and
discovery.
success for all<sup>TM</sup>
Tutors
In grades 1-3, specially trained, certified teachers work
one-on-one with any students who are failing to keep up with
their classmates in reading. Firs grade students have
priority for tutoring.
Eight-week assessments
Students in grades 1-5 are assessed every eight weeks to
determine whether they are making adequate progress in
reading. This information is used to assign students to
tutoring, to suggest alternative teaching strategies in the
regular classroom, and to make
[[Page H6873]]
changes in reading group placement, family support
interventions, or other means of meeting students' needs. The
school facilitator coordinates this process with the active
involvement of teachers in grade-level teams.
Early learning (preschool and kindergarten)
Whenever possible, a half-day preschool program is provided
for all four-year-olds. The program emphasizes language
development, readiness, and positive self-concept. A full-day
kindergarten program continues the emphasis on language,
using children's literature and big books, as well as oral
and written composition, activities promoting the development
of concepts about print, alphabet games, and math concept
development. Peabody Language
Reading and writing programs
During reading periods, students are regrouped across age
lines for 90 minutes so that each reading class contains
students reading at one level. This eliminates the need to
have reading groups within the class and increases the amount
of time for direct instruction. Also, use of tutors as
reading teachers during reading time reduces the size of most
reading classes. The reaching program in grades K-1
emphasizes the development of language skills and launches
students into reading using phonetically regular storybooks
supported by careful instruction that focuses on phonemic
awareness, auditory discrimination, and sound blending as
well as meaning, context, and self-monitoring strategies.
Students become fluent as they read and reread to one another
in pairs.
At the second through fifth grade levels, students use
school or district selected reading materials, basals, and/or
trade books in a carefully structured set of interactive
opportunities to read, discuss, and write. This program
emphasizes cooperative learning activities built around
partner reading, identification of characters, settings, and
problem solutions in narratives, story summarization,
writing, and direct instruction in reading comprehension
skills. At all levels, students read books of their choice
for twenty minutes each evening as homework. Classroom
libraries of books are developed for this purpose. For
schools with Spanish bilingual programs, Success For All
<sup>TM</sup> provides a Spanish reading curriculum, Exito
ParaTodos, in grades 1-5.
Writing is emphasized throughout the grades. Writing
instruction uses a writer's workshop format in which students
plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish compositions with
feedback at each stage from teachers and peers.
Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is the vehicle that drives the Success
For All <sup>TM</sup> curriculum. Students work together in
partnerships and teams, helping one another to become
strategic readers and writers. Emphasis is placed on
individual accountability, common goals, and recognition of
group success.
Family support team
The family support team works with parents in ensuring the
success of their children. The team focuses on promoting
parent involvement, developing plans to meet the needs of
individual students having difficulty, implementing
attendance plans, and integrating community and school
resources. The team is composed of the principal or assistant
principal, facilitator, social worker, and other personnel.
Facilitator
A full-time facilitator works with teachers in each Success
For All <sup>TM</sup> school to help them implement the
reading program. In addition, the facilitator coordinates
eight-week assessments, assists the Family Support Team,
facilitates staff support teams, plans and implements staff
development, and helps all teachers make certain that every
child is making adequate progress.
Staff support teams
Teachers in the Success For All <sup>TM</sup> program
support one another through the training and implementation
process in coaching partnerships, grade level teams, and
other staff team configurations. These teams become a
catalyst for the dissemination of new material, goal setting,
and problem solving, and they provide a supportive forum for
discussion around new instructional strategies.
Professional development
Professional development for Success For All <sup>TM</sup>
requires three days for all teachers before the program
begins. Success For All <sup>TM</sup> consultants return to
the school for three two-day visits during the school year to
work with principal, facilitators, and teachers to build a
strong implementation. Success For All <sup>TM</sup>
facilitators are available for telephone consultation during
the year. Building facilitators follow up on initial training
with classroom visits, coaching, and team meetings.
for all/roots & wings<sup>TM</sup> frequently asked questions
Where is the program used?
What are the results?
What are the costs?
How do schools adopt Success for All<sup>TM</sup>?
Where can I get more information?
Where is the program used?
As of the 1996-97 school year, Success For All<sup>TM</sup>
is being implemented in more than 473 schools in over 126
districts in more than 37 states in all parts of the United
States.
What are the results?
Success For All<sup>TM</sup> has been evaluated in several
school districts. In each, matched Success For
All<sup>TM</sup> and control schools have been compared on
individually administered reading scales and other measures.
The results have consistently favored Success For
All<sup>TM</sup>. In average grade equivalents, Success For
All<sup>TM</sup> students perform approximately three months
ahead of comparison students by the first grade, and more
than a year ahead by fifth grade. Effects are particularly
strong for students who are most at risk, those in the lowest
25% of their grades. Effects of the Spanish version of
Success For All<sup>TM</sup>, Lee Conmigo, have also been
strong. Positive effects have also been found on district-
administered standardized tests. Success For All<sup>TM</sup>
has produced substantial reductions in retentions and special
education referrals and placements.
What are the costs?
Cost is based on the size and location of the individual
school, and number of schools collaborating in training.
Sample costs for a school of about 500 students in Pre-
kindergarten through fifth grade range from $45,000 to
$58,000 for Year 1; $45,000 to $52,000 for Year 2; and
$45,000 to $52,000 for Year 3. (Add approximately $55 for
each student over 500.) These estimates include training,
materials, follow-up visits, and other services. Actual costs
will vary for different situations, depending in part on
distances from training centers and local capacity to provide
some training and follow-up and will be calculated for the
individual school. (For more information see Considerations
for Adoption)
How do schools adopt Success For All<sup>TM</sup>?
We encourage district and school staff to review program
materials, view video tapes, and visit nearby Success For
All<sup>TM</sup> sites. Schools must apply to become a
Success For All<sup>TM</sup> or Roots & Wings school. The
application process insures that the school staff are aware
of the elements of the program, have the resources to
implement the program successfully, and agree as a staff to
make the commitment to implement the program. A positive vote
of 80% or more of all teachers is required.
Where can I get more information?
For awareness materials or information on training, school
visits, or other assistance, contact us at: Success For
All<sup>TM</sup> Program, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N.
Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, Phone: 410-516-8896 (in
Maryland), or 1-800-548-4998, fax us at: 410-516-8890, or you
can browse our Web site.
____
Success for All/Roots and Wings
Summary of Research on Achievement Outcomes
(By Robert E. Slavin, Nancy A. Madden, and Barbara A. Wasik)
Ms. Martin's kindergarten class has some of the brightest,
happiest, friendliest, and most optimistic kids you'll ever
meet. Students in her class are glad to be in school, proud
of their accomplishments, certain that they will succeed at
whatever the school has to offer. Every one of them is a
natural scientist, a storyteller, a creative thinker, a
curious seeker of knowledge. Ms. Martin's class could be
anywhere--in suburb or ghetto, small town or barrio--it
doesn't matter. Kindergartners everywhere are just as bright,
enthusiastic and confident as her kids are.
Only a few years from now, many of these same children will
have lost the spark they all started with. Some will have
failed a grade. Some will be in special education. Some will
be in long-term remediation, such as Title I or other
remedial programs. Some will be bored or anxious or
unmotivated. Many will see school as a chore rather than a
pleasure and will no longer expect to excel. In a very brief
span of time, Ms. Martin's children will have defined
themselves as successes or failures in school. All too often,
only a few will still have a sense of excitement and positive
self-expectations about learning. We cannot predict very well
which of Ms. Martin's students will succeed and which will
fail, but we can predict--based on the past--that if nothing
changes, far too many will fail. This is especially true if
Ms. Martin's kindergarten happens to be located in a high-
poverty neighborhood, in which there are typically fewer
resources in the school to provide top-quality instruction to
every child, fewer forms of rescue if children run into
academic difficulties, and fewer supports for learning at
home. Preventable failures occur in all schools, but in high
poverty schools failure can be endemic, so widespread that it
makes it difficult to treat each child at risk of failure as
a person of value in need of emergency assistance to get back
on track. Instead, many such schools do their best to provide
the greatest benefit to the greatest number of children
possible, but have an unfortunately well-founded expectation
that a certain percentage of students will fall by the
wayside during the elementary years.
Any discussion of school reform should begin with Ms.
Martin's kindergartners. The first goal of reform should be
to ensure that every child--regardless of home background,
home language, or learning style--achieves the success that
he or she so confidently expected in kindergarten, that all
children maintain their motivation, enthusiasm, and optimism
because they are objectively succeeding at the school's
tasks. Any reform that does less than this is hollow and
self-defeating. What does it mean to succeed in the early
grades? The elementary schools' definition of success, and
therefore the parents'
[[Page H6874]]
and children's definition as well, is overwhelmingly success
in reading. Very few children who are reading adequately are
retained. assigned to special education, or given long-term
remedial services. Other subjects are important, of
course, but reading and language arts form the core of
what school success means in the early grades.
When a child fails to read well in the early grades, he or
she begins a downward progression. In first grade, some
children begin to notice that they are not reading
adequately. They may fail first grade or be assigned to long
term remediation. As they proceed through the elementary
grades, many students begin to see that they are failing at
their full-time jobs. When this happens, things begin to
unravel. Failing students begin to have poor motivation and
poor self-expectations, which lead to continued poor
achievement, in a declining spiral that ultimately leads to
despair, delinquency, and dropout.
Remediating learning deficits after they are already well
established is extremely difficult. Children who have already
failed to learn to read, for example, are now anxious about
reading, and doubt their ability to learn it. Their
motivation to read may be low. They may ultimately learn to
read but it will always be a chore, not a pleasure. Clearly,
the time to provide additional help to children who are at
risk is early, when children are still motivated and
confident and when any learning deficits are relatively small
and remediable. The most important goal in educational
programming for students at risk of school failure is to try
to make certain that we do not squander the greatest resource
we have--the enthusiasm and positive self-expectations of
young children themselves.
In practical terms, what this perspective implies is that
schools, and especially Title I, special education, and other
services for at-risk children, must be shifted from an
emphasis on remediation to an emphasis on prevention and
early intervention. Prevention means providing
developmentally appropriate preschool and kindergarten
programs so that students will enter first grade ready to
succeed, and it means providing regular classroom teachers
with effective instructional programs, curricula, and
professional development to enable them to see that most
students are successful the first time they are taught. Early
intervention means that supplementary instructional services
are provided early in students' schooling and that they are
intensive enough to bring at-risk students quickly to a level
at which they can profit from good quality classroom
instruction.
The purpose of this report is to describe the current state
of research on the achievement outcomes of Success for All, a
program built around the idea that every child can and must
succeed in the early grades, no matter what this takes. The
idea behind Success for All is to use everything we know
about effective instruction for students at risk to direct
all aspects of school and classroom organization toward the
goal of preventing academic deficits from appearing in the
first place; recognizing and intensively intervening with any
deficits that do appear; and providing students with a rich
and full curriculum to enable them to build on their firm
foundation in basic skills. The commitment of Success for All
is to do whatever it takes to see that all children become
skilled, strategic, and enthusiastic readers as they progress
through the elementary grades. In addition, this report
describes research on Roots and Wings, a program that adds to
Success for All programs in mathematics, science, and social
studies (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996).
Program Description
Success for All
Success for All exists as a separate program and also
serves as the reading/writing/language arts component for
Roots and Wings. Success for All is built around the
assumption that every child can read. We mean this not as
wishful thinking or as a philosophical statement, but as a
practical, attainable reality. In particular, every child
without organic retardation can learn to read. Some children
need more help than others and may need different approaches
than those needed by others, but one way or another every
child can become a successful reader.
Success for All began in one Baltimore elementary school in
1987-1988, and since then has expanded each year of
additional schools. As of Fall, 1996, it is in about 450
schools in 120 districts in 31 states throughout the United
States. The districts range from some of the largest in the
country, such as Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Philadelphia,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, and Miami, to such
middle-sized districts as Richmond, Virginia; Rockford,
Illinois; and Modesto and Riverside, California, to tiny
rural districts, including two on the Navajo reservation in
Arizona. Success for All reading curricula in Spanish have
been developed and researched and are used in bilingual
programs in California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois,
New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. Almost all Success
for All schools are high-poverty title I schools, and the
great majority are schoolwide projects. Otherwise, the
schools vary widely.
Success for All and Roots and Wings have somewhat different
components at different sites, depending on the school's
needs and resources available to implement the program
(Slavin et al., 1996b). However, there is a common set of
elements characteristic of all Success for All and Roots and
Wings schools. These are described on the following pages.
Reading Program
Sucess for All and Roots and Wings use a reading curriculum
based on research, on effective practices in beginning
reading (e.g., Adams, 1990), and on effective use of
cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995; Stevens, Madden, Slavin,
& Farnish, 1987).
Reading teachers at every grade level begin the reading
time by reading children's literature to students and
engaging them in a discussion of the story to enhance their
understanding of the story, listening and speaking
vocabulary, and knowledge of story structure. In kindergarten
and first grade, the program emphasizes the development of
oral language and pre-reading skills through the use of
thematically-based units which incorporate areas such as
language arts and writing under a science or social studies
topic. A component called Story Telling and Retelling (STaR)
involves the students in listening to, retelling, and
dramatizing children's literature. Big books as well as oral
and written composing activities allow students to develop
concepts of print as they develop knowledge of story
structure. There is also a strong emphasis on phonemic
awareness activities which help develop auditory
discrimination and support the development of reading
readiness strategies.
Reading Roots is typically introduced in the second
semester of kindergarten or in first grade. This K-1
beginning reading program uses as its base a series of
phonetically regular but meaningful and interesting minibooks
and emphasizes repeated oral reading to partners as well as
to the teacher. The minibooks begin with a set of ``shared
stories,'' in which part of a story is written in small type
(read by the teacher) and part is written in large type (read
by the students). The student portion uses a phonetically
controlled vocabulary. Taken together, the teacher and
student portions create interesting, worthwhile stories. Over
time, the teacher portion diminishes and the student portion
lengthens, until students are reading the entire book. This
scaffolding allows students to read interesting literature
when they only have a few letter sounds. Letters and letter
sounds are introduced in an active, engaging set of
activities that begins with oral language and moves into
written symbols. Individual sounds are integrated into a
context of words, sentences, and stories. Instruction is
provided in story structure, specific comprehension skills,
metacognitive strategies for self-assessment and self-
correction, and integration of reading and writing.
Spanish bilingual programs use an adaptation of Reading
Roots called Lee Conmigo (``Read With Me''). Lee Conmigo
employs the same instructional strategies as Reading Roots,
but uses Spanish reading materials.
When students reach the primer reading level, they use a
program called Reading Wings, an adaptation of Cooperative
Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Stevens, Madden,
Slavin, & Farnish, 1987). Reading Wings uses cooperative
learning activities built around story structure, prediction,
summarization, vocabulary building, decoding practice, and
story-related writing. Students engage in partner reading and
structured discussion of stories or novels, and work toward
mastery of the vocabulary and content of the story in teams.
Story-related writing is also shared within teams.
Cooperative learning both increases students' motivation and
engages students in cognitive activities known to contribute
to reading comprehension, such as elaboration, summarization,
and rephrasing (see Slavin, 1995). Research on CIRC has found
it to significantly increase students' reading comprehension
and language skills (Stevens et al., 1987).
In addition to these story-related activities, teachers
provide direct instruction in reading comprehension skills,
and students practice these skills in their teams. Classroom
libraries of trade books at students' reading levels are
provided for each teacher, and students read books of their
choice for homework for 20 minutes each night. Home readings
are shared via presentations, summaries, puppet shows, and
other formats twice a week during ``book club'' sessions.
Materials to support Reading Wings through the sixth grade
(or beyond) exist in English and Spanish. The English
materials are built around children's literature and around
the most widely used basal series and anthologies. Supportive
materials have been developed for more than 100 children's
novels and for most current basal series. Spanish materials
are similarly built around Spanish-language novels and
basals.
Beginning in the second semester of program implementation,
Success for All and Roots and Wings schools usually implement
a writing/language arts program based primarily on
cooperative learning principles (see Slavin, Madden, &
Stevens, 1989/90).
Students in grades one to three (and sometimes 4 to 5 or 6)
are regrouped for reading. The students are assigned to
heterogeneous, age-grouped classes most of the day, but
during a regular 90-minute reading period they are regrouped
by reading performance levels into reading classes of
students all at the same level. For example, a 2-1 reading
class might contain first-, second-, and third-grade students
all reading at the same level. The reading classes are
smaller than home rooms because tutors and other certified
staff (such as librarians or art teachers) teach reading
during this common reading period. Regrouping allows
teachers to teach the whole
[[Page H6875]]
reading class without having to break the class into
reading groups. This greatly reduces the time spent in
seatwork and increases direct instruction time,
eliminating workbooks, dittos, or other follow-up
activities which are needed in classes that have multiple
reading groups. The regrouping is a form of the Joplin
Plan, which has been found to increase reading achievement
in the elementary grades (Slavin, 1987).
Eight-Week Reading Assessments
At eight-week intervals, reading teachers assess student
progress through the reading program. The results of the
assessments are used to determine who is to receive tutoring,
to change students' reading groups, to suggest other
adaptations in students' programs, and to identify students
who need other types of assistance, such as family
interventions or screening for vision and hearing problems.
The assessments are curriculum-based measures that include
teacher observations and judgments as well as more formal
measures of reading comprehension.
Reading Tutors
One of the most important elements of Success for All and
Roots and Wings is the use of tutors to promote students'
success in reading. One-to-one tutoring is the most effective
form of instruction known (see Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The
tutors are certified teachers with experience teaching Title
I, special education, and/or primary reading. Often, well-
qualified paraprofessionals also tutor children with less
severe reading problems. In this case, a certified tutor
monitors their work and assists with the diagnostic
assessment and intervention strategies. Tutors work one-on-
one with students who are having difficulties keeping up with
their reading groups. The tutoring occurs in 20-minute
sessions during times other than reading or math periods.
In general, tutors support students' success in the regular
reading curriculum, rather than teaching different
objectives. For example, the tutor will work with a student
on the same story and concepts being read and taught in the
regular reading class. However, tutors seek to identify
learning problems and use different strategies to teach the
same skills. They also teach metacognitive skills beyond
those taught in the classroom program. Schools may have as
many as six or more teachers serving as tutors depending on
school size, need for tutoring, and other factors.
During daily 90-minute reading periods, certified tutors
serve as additional reading teachers to reduce class size for
reading. Reading teachers and tutors use brief forms to
communicate about students' specific problems and needs and
meet at regular times to coordinate their approaches with
individual children.
Initial decisions about reading group placement and the
need for tutoring are based on informal reading inventories
that the tutors give to each child. Subsequent reading group
placements and tutoring assignments are made using the
curriculum-based assessments described above. First-graders
receive priority for tutoring, on the assumption that the
primary function of the tutors is to help all students be
successful in reading the first time, before they fail and
become remedial readers.
Preschool and Kindergarten
Most Success for All and Roots and Wings schools provide a
half-day preschool and/or a full-day kindergarten for
eligible students. The preschool and kindergarten programs
focus on providing a balanced and developmentally appropriate
learning experience for young children. The curriculum
emphasizes the development and use of language. It provides a
balance of academic readiness and non-academic music, art,
and movement activities in a series of thematic,
interdisciplinary units. Readiness activities include use of
the Peabody Language Development Kits and Story Telling and
Retelling (STaR) in which students retell stories read by the
teachers. Pre-reading activities begin during the second
semester of kindergarten.
Family Support Team
Parents are an essential part of the formula for success in
Success for All and Roots and Wings. A Family Support Team
works in each school, serving to make families feel respected
and welcome in the school and become active supporters of
their child's education as well as providing specific
services. The Family Support Team consists of the Title I
parent liaison, vice-principal (if any), counselor (if any),
facilitator, and any other appropriate staff already present
in the school or added to the school staff.
The Family Support Team first works toward good relations
with parents and to increase involvement in the schools.
Family Support Team members may complete ``welcome'' visits
for new families. They organize many attractive programs in
the school, such as parenting skills workshops. Most schools
use a program called ``Raising Readers'' in which parents are
given strategies to use in reading with their own children.
The Family Support Team also intervenes to solve problems.
For example, they may contact parents whose children are
frequently absent to see what resources can be provided to
assist the family in getting their child to school. Family
support staff, teachers, and parents work together to solve
school behavior problems. Also, family support staff are
called on to provide assistance when students seem to be
working at less than their full potential because of problems
at home. Families of students who are not receiving adequate
sleep or nutrition, need glasses, are not attending school
regularly, or are exhibiting serious behavior problems, may
receive family support assistance.
The Family Support Team is strongly integrated into the
academic program of the school. It receives referrals from
teachers and tutors regarding children who are not making
adequate academic progress, and thereby constitutes an
additional stage of intervention for students in need above
and beyond that provided by the classroom teacher or tutor.
The Family Support Team also encourages and trains the
parents to fulfill numerous volunteer roles within the
school, ranging from providing a listening ear to emerging
readers to helping in the school cafeteria.
Program Facilitator
A program facilitator works at each school to oversee (with
the principal) the operation of the Success for All and Roots
and Wings models. The facilitator helps plan the program,
helps the principal with scheduling, and visits classes and
tutoring sessions frequently to help teachers and tutors with
individual problems. He or she works directly with the
teachers on implementation of the curriculum, classroom
management, and other issues, helps teachers and tutors deal
with any behavior problems or other special problems, and
coordinates the activities of the Family Support Team with
those of the instruction staff.
Teachers and Teacher Training
The teachers and tutors are regular certified teachers.
They receive detailed teacher's manuals supplemented by three
days of inservice at the beginning of the school year. In
Roots and Wings schools, this level of inservice continues
over a three-year period as the main program elements are
phased in.
Throughout the year, follow-up visits are made to the
school by project staff, who visit classrooms, meet with
school staff, and conduct inservice presentations on such
topics as classroom management, instructional pace, and
cooperative learning. Facilitators also organize many
informal sessions to allow teachers to share problems and
problem solutions, suggest changes, and discuss individual
children. The staff development model used in Success for All
and Roots and Wings emphasizes relatively brief initial
training with extensive classroom follow-up, coaching, and
group discussion.
Advisory Committee
An advisory committee composed of the building principal,
program facilitator, teacher representatives, parent
representatives, and family support staff meets regularly to
review the progress of the program and to identify and solve
any problems that arise. In most schools existing site-based
management teams are adapted to fulfill this function. In
addition, grade-level teams and the Family Support Team meet
regularly to discuss common problems and solutions and to
make decisions in their areas of responsibility.
Special Education
Every effort is made to deal with student's learning
problems within the context of the regular classroom, as
supplemented by tutors. Tutors evaluate student's strengths
and weaknesses and develop strategies to teach in the most
effective way. In some schools, special education teachers
work as tutors and reading teachers with students identified
as learning disabled as well as other students experiencing
learning problems who are at risk for special education
placement. One major goal of Success for All and Roots and
Wings is to keep students with learning problems out of
special education if at all possible, and to serve any
students who qualify for special education in a way that does
not disrupt their regular classroom experience (see Slavin,
Madden, Karweit, Dolan, Wasik, Shaw, Mainzer, & Haxby, 1991).
Roots and Wings
Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1994;
Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996) is a comprehensive reform
design for elementary schools that adds to Success for All
innovative programs in mathematics, social studies, and
science.
Roots and Wings schools begin by implementing all
components of Success for All, described above. In the second
year of implementation they typically begin to incorporate
the additional major components. MathWings is the name of the
mathematics program used in grades 1-5. It is a
constructivist approach to mathematics based on NCTM
standards, but designed to be practical and effective in
schools serving many students placed at risk. MathWings makes
extensive use of cooperative learning, games, discovery,
creative problem solving, manipulatives, and calculators.
WorldLab is an integrated approach to social studies and
science that engages students in simulations and group
investigations. Students take on roles as various people in
history, in different parts of the world, or in various
occupations. For example, they work as engineers to design
and test efficient vehicles, they form a state legislature to
enact environmental legislation, they repeat Benjamin
Franklin's experiments, and they solve problems of
agriculture in Africa. In each activity students work in
cooperative groups, do extensive writing, and use reading,
mathematics, and fine arts skills learned in other parts of
the program.
As of Fall 1996, approximately sixty schools in fifteen
states are adding either
[[Page H6876]]
MathWings or WorldLab to their implementations of Success for
All, making themselves into Roots and Wings schools.
Demonstration sites for the program are being established in
many parts of the United States.
Research on Success for All and Roots and Wings
From the very beginning, there has been a strong focus in
Success for All on research and evaluation. We began
longitudinal evaluations of the program in its earliest
sites, six schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Later,
third-party evaluators at the University of Memphis--Steven
Ross, Lana Smith, and their colleagues--added evaluations in
Memphis, Houston, Tucson, Montgomery, Alabama, Ft. Wayne,
Indiana, and Caldwell, Idaho. Most recently, studies focusing
on English language learners in California have been
conducted in Modesto and Riverside by the Southwest Regional
Laboratory. Each of these evaluations has compared Success
for All schools to matched comparison schools on measures of
reading performance, starting with cohorts in kindergarten or
in first grade and continuing to follow these students as
long as possible (details of the evaluations design appear
below). Vaguaries of funding and other local problems have
ended some evaluations prematurely, but most have been able
to follow Success for All schools for many years. As of this
writing, there are seven years of continuous data from the
six original schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and
varying numbers of years of data from seven other districts,
a total of twenty-three schools (and their matched control
schools). Information on these schools and districts is shown
in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESS FOR ALL SCHOOLS IN THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Ethnicity by Date began Data
District/school Enrollment free lunch percent SFA collected Pre-school? Full-day K? Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore:
B1......................... 500 83 B-96 W-4 1987 88-94 yes............ yes........... First SFA school;
had additional
funds first 2
years.
B2......................... 500 96 B-100 1988 89-94 some........... yes........... Had additional
funds first 4
years.
B3......................... 400 96 B-100 1988 89-94 some........... yes........... .................
B4......................... 500 85 B-100 1988 89-94 some........... yes........... .................
B5......................... 650 96 B-100 1988 89-94 some........... yes........... .................
Philadelphia:
P1......................... 620 96 A-60 W-2 B-20 1988 89-94 no............. yes........... Large ESL program
for Cambodian
children.
P2......................... 600 97 B-100 1991 92-93 some........... yes........... .................
P3......................... 570 96 B-100 1991 92-93 no............. yes........... .................
P4......................... 840 98 B-100 1991 93 no............. yes........... .................
P5......................... 700 98 L-100 1992 93-94 no............. yes........... Study only
involves
students in
Spanish
bilingual
program.
Charleston, SC:
CS1........................ 500 40 B-60 W-40 1990 91-92 no............. no............ .................
Memphis, TN:
MT1........................ 350 90 B-95 W-5 1990 91-94 yes............ no............ Program
implemented only
in grades K-2.
MT2........................ 530 90 B-100 1993 94 yes............ yes........... .................
MT3........................ 290 86 B-100 1993 94 yes............ yes........... .................
MT4........................ 370 90 B-100 1993 94 yes............ yes........... .................
Ft. Wayne, IN:
F1......................... 330 65 B-56 W-44 1991 92-94 no............. yes........... SFA schools (&
controls) are
part of
desegregation
plan.
F2......................... 250 55 B-55 W-45 1991 92-94 no............. yes........... SFA schools (&
controls) are
part of
desegregation
plan.
Montgomery, AL:
MA1........................ 450 95 B-100 1991 93-94 no............. yes........... .................
MA2........................ 460 97 B-100 1991 93-94 no............. yes........... .................
Caldwell, ID:
CI1........................ 400 20 W-80 L-20 1991 93-94 no............. no............ Study compares 2
SFA schools to
Reading Recovery
school.
Modesto, CA:
MC1........................ 640 70 W-54 L-25 A-17 1992 94 yes............ no............ Large ESL program
B-4 for students
speaking 17
languages.
MC2........................ 560 98 L-66 W-24 A-10 1992 94 yes............ no............ Large Spanish
bilingual
program.
Riverside, CA:
R1......................... 930 73 L-54 W-33 B-10 1992 94 yes............ no............ Large Spanish
bilingual & ESL
programs;
year=round
school.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: B--African American; L--Latino; A-Asian American; W--White.
Evaluation Design
A common evaluation design, with variations due to local
circumstances, has been used in all Success for All
evaluations. Every Success for All school involved in a
formal evaluation is matched with a control school that is
similar in poverty level (percent of students qualifying for
free lunch), historical achievement level, ethnicity, and
other factors. Schools are also matched on district-
administered standardized test scores given in kindergarten
or (starting in 1991 in six districts) on Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores given by the project in the
fall of kindergarten or first grade. The measures used in the
evaluations were as follows:
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.--Three Woodcock scales--Word
Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension--were
individually administered to students by trained testers.
Word Identification assesses recognition of common sight
words, Word Attack assesses phonetic synthesis skills, and
Passage Comprehension assesses comprehension in context.
Students in Spanish bilingual programs were given the Spanish
versions of these scales.
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty.--The Durrell Oral
Reading scale was also individually administered to students
in grades 1-3. It presents a series of graded reading
passages which students read aloud, followed by comprehension
questions.
Gray Oral Reading Test.--Comprehension and passage scores
from the Gray Oral Reading Test were obtained from students
in grades 4-5.
Analyses of covariance with pretests as covariates were
used to compare raw scores in all evaluations, and separate
analyses were conducted for students in general and for
students in the lowest 25% of their grades.
The figures presented in this report summarize student
performance in grade equivalents (adjusted for covariates)
and effect size (proportion of a standard deviation
separating the experimental and control groups), averaging
across individual measures. Neither grade equivalents nor
averaged scores were used in the analyses, but they are
presented here as a useful summary.
Each of the evaluations summarized in this report follows
children who began in Success for All in first grade or
earlier, in comparison to children who had attended the
control school over the same period. Students who start in it
after first grade are not considered to have received the
full treatment (although they are of course served within the
schools).
Results for all experimental-control comparisons in all
evaluation years are averaged and summarized in the following
graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in
Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994''
using a method called multi-site replicated experiment
(Slavin et al., 1996a,b; Slavin & Madden, 1993).
For more details on methods and findings, see Slavin et al.
(1996a,b) and the full site reports.
Reading Outcomes
The results of the multi-site replicated experiment
evaluating Success for All are summarized in the following
graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in
Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994''
for each grade level, 1-5. The analyses compare cohort means
for experimental and control schools; for example the Grade 1
graph compares 55 experimental to 55 control cohorts, with
cohort (50-150 students) as the unit of analysis. In other
words, each bar is a mean of scores from more than 5000
students. Grade equivalents are based on the means, and are
only presented for their informational value. No analyses
were done using grade equivalents.
Statistically significantly (p=.05 or better) positive
effects of Success for All (compared to controls) were found
on every measure at every grade level, 1-5. For students in
general, effect sizes averaged around a half standard
deviation at all grade levels. Effects were somewhat higher
than this for the Woodcock Word Attack scale in grades 1 and
2, but in grades 3-5 effect sizes were more or less
equivalent on all aspects of reading. Consistently, effect
sizes for students in the lowest 25% of their grades were
particularly positive, ranging from ES=+1.03 in first grades
to ES=+1.68 in fourth grade. Again, cohort-level analyses
found statistically significant differences favoring low
achievers in Success for All on every measure at every grade
level.
Roots and Wings
A study of Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996)
was carried out in four pilot schools in rural southern
Maryland. The Roots and Wings schools serve populations that
are significantly more disadvantaged than state averages.
They average 48% free and reduced-price lunch eligibility,
compared to 30% for the state; 21% of Roots and
[[Page H6877]]
Wings students are Title I eligible, in comparison to 7% for
the state. The assessment tracked growth over time on the
Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP),
compared to growth in the state as a whole. The MSPAP is a
performance measure on which students are asked to solve
complex problems, set up experiments, write in various
genres, and read extended text. It uses matrix sampling,
which means that different students take different forms of
the test.
In both third- and fifth-grade assessments in all subjects
tested (reading, language, writing, math, science, and social
studies), Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth,
as shown in the following graphs.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphs were not reproduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Maryland gained in average performance on the
MSPAP over the same time period, but the number of Roots and
Wings students achieving at satisfactory or excellent
increased by more than twice the state's rate on every
measure at both grade levels.
Effects on District-Administered Standardized Tests
The formal evaluations of Success for All have relied on
individually administered assessments of reading. The
Woodcock and Durrell scales used in these assessments are far
more accurate than district-administered tests, and are much
more sensitive to real reading gains. They allow testers to
hear children actually reading material of increasing
difficulty and responding to questions about what they have
read. The Woodcock and Durrell are themselves nationally
standardized tests, and produce norms (e.g., percentiles,
NCEs and grade equivalents) just like any other standardized
measure.
However, educators often want to know the effects of
innovative programs on the kinds of group administered
standardized tests they are usually held accountable for. To
obtain this information, we have sometimes requested
standardized test data for students in experimental and
control schools, and some districts have done their own
evaluations on their own measures. The following sections
briefly summarize findings from these types of evaluations.
Baltimore, Maryland--Through the 1992-93 school year we
collected CTBS scores for our five Success for All and
control schools. On average, Success for All schools exceeded
control schools at every grade level. The differences were
statistically and educationally significant. By fifth grade,
Success for All students were performing 75% of a grade
equivalent ahead of controls (ES=+0.45) on CTBS Total Reading
scores (see Slavin, Madden, Dolan, Wasik, Ross, & Smith,
1994).
Memphis, Tennessee--A longitudinal evaluation of three
Memphis Success for All schools (now becoming Roots and Wings
schools) by Ross, Smith, & Casey (1995) included an
assessment of program effects on the Tennessee Comprehensive
Assessment Program's (TCAP) Vocabulary and Reading
Comprehension tests. On average, the three Success for All
schools exceeded the three controls by an effect size of
+0.38 in first grade and +0.45 in second grade. Again, these
effects are educationally and statistically significant.
Flint, Michigan--Two schools in Flint, Michigan began
implementation of Success for All in 1992. The percentage of
students passing the Michigan Educational Assessment Program
(MEAP) in reading at fourth grade has increased dramatically.
Homedale Elementary had a pass rate of 2% in 1992, placing it
last among the district's 32 elementary schools. In 1995,
48.6% of students passed, placing it first in the district.
Merrill Elementary, 27th in the district in 1992 with only
9.5% of students passing, was 12th in 1995 with 22% passing.
Over the same period the average for all Flint elementary
schools only increased from 18.3% passing to 19.3%.
Ft. Wayne, Indiana--An evaluation in two schools in Ft.
Wayne, Indiana (Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1995) found positive
effects of Success for All on the reading comprehension scale
of the ISTEP, Indiana's norm-referenced achievement test. In
first grade, the effect size was +0.49 for students in
general and +1.13 for the lowest-performing 25%. In second
grade, effect sizes were +0.64, and in third grade, ES=+.13.
Miami, Florida--(Dade County) An evaluation of three
Success for All schools (currently becoming Roots and Wings
schools) was carried out by Yuwadee Wongbundhit (1995) of the
Dade County Public Schools. In comparison to three control
schools, the Success for All schools gained seven percentile
points from grades 1-2 while matched control schools lost
five points on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8). In
grades 2.3, Success for All students gained only one
percentile point, but controls lost eight.
Wichita Falls, Texas--Fannin Elementary School, the
highest-poverty school in Wichita Falls, Texas, began
implementation of Success for All in 1991. Its scores on the
1992 Texas Assessments of Academic Skills (TAAS) showed a
dramatic improvement. The percentage of third-graders meeting
minimum expectations in reading increased from 48% to 70%
(during the same year, the district percentage declined by
3%). Fannin students also increased from 8% to 53% in the
percentage of students meeting minimum expectations in
writing.
Modesto, California--Two schools in Modesto, California
have been implementing Success for all since 1991. Each year,
their average NCE's in reading comprehension have increased
significantly. In 1993, El Vista Elementary showed an NCE
gain of 10.8; in grades two and three, the gains were 14.7
and 13.5, respectfully. Orville Wright Elementary showed
gains averaging 4.6 in grades 2-3. On the Spanish Aprenda,
Orville Wright students using the Lee Conmigo program gained
9.5 NCEs. On the CLAS, California's experimental performance
measure, both schools significantly exceeded their matched
comparison group in 1993. Principals report that among
students who have remained in the program since first grade,
no third graders are reading below grade level.
Charleston, West Virginia-- Chandler Elementary School
began implementing Success for All in 1990. In the two
years before the program was introduced, the school
averaged an NCE score of 34. This increased to 43 in the
first year after implementation and to 54 by the third
year.
Changes in Effect Sizes over Years of Implementation
One interesting trend in outcomes from comparisons of
Success for All and control schools relates to changes in
effect sizes according to the number of years a school has
been implementing the program. Figure 4, which summarizes
these data, was created by pooling effect sizes for all
cohorts in their first year of implementation, all in their
second year, and so on, regardless of calendar year.
Figure 4 shows that mean reading effect sizes progressively
increase with each year of implementation. For example,
Success for All first-graders score substantially better than
control first-graders at the end of the first year of
implementation (ES=+0.49). The experimental-control
difference is even higher for first graders attending schools
in the second year of program implementation (ES=+0.53),
increasing to an effect size of +0.73 for schools in their
fourth implementation year. A similar pattern is apparent for
second- and third-grade cohorts.
The data summarized in Figure 4 show that while Success for
All has an immediate impact on student reading achievement,
this impact grows over successive years of implementation.
Over time, schools may become increasingly able to provide
effective instruction to all of their students, to approach
the goal of success for all.
Success for All and English Language Learners
The education of English language learners is at a
crossroads. For many years, researchers, educators, and
policy makers have debated questions of the appropriate
language instruction for students who enter elementary school
speaking languages other than English. Research on this topic
has generally found that students taught to read their home
language and then transitioned to English ultimately become
better readers in English than do students taught to read
only in English (Garcia, 1991; Willig, 1985; Wong-Fillmore &
Valadez, 1986). More recently, however, attention has shifted
to another question. Given that students are taught to read
their home language, how can we ensure that they succeed in
that language? (See, for example, Garcia, 1994.) There is no
reason to expect that children failing to read well in
Spanish, for example, will later become good readers and
successful students in English. On the contrary, research
consistently supports the common-sense expectation that the
better students in Spanish bilingual programs read Spanish,
the better their English reading will be (Garcia, 1991;
Hakuta & Garcia, 1989). Clearly, the quality of instruction
in home-language reading is a key factor in the ultimate
school success of English language learners, and must be a
focus of research on the education of these children.
Francis Scott Key (ESL)--
An adaptation of Success for All to the needs of ESL
students was evaluated at Philadelphia's Francis Scott Key
Elementary School, a majority-Cambodian school in which
virtually all children are in poverty. Francis Scott Key was
evaluated in comparison to a similar Philadelphia elementary
school.
Results: Asian Students--Success for All Asian students in
grades 3-5, most of whom had been in the program since
kindergarten, performed far better than control students.
Differences between Success for All and control students were
statistically significant on every measure at every grade
level (p<.001). Median grade equivalents and effect sizes
were computed across the three Woodcock scales. On average,
Success for All Asian students exceeded control students in
reading grade equivalents by almost three years in third
grade (median ES=+1.76), more than 2 years in fourth grade
(median ES=+1.46), and about three years in fifth grade
(median ES=+1.44). Success for All Asian students were
reading more than a full year above grade level in grade 3
and more than a half-year above in fourth and fifth grade,
while similar control students were reading more than a year
below grade level at all three grade levels.
Results: Non-Asian Students. Outcomes of Success for All
non-Asian students were also very positive in grades 3-5.
Experimental-control differences were statistically
significant (p<.05 or better) on every measure at every
level. Effect sizes were somewhat smaller than for Asian
students, but were still quite substantial, average +1.00 in
grade, +0.96 in grade 4, and +0.78 in grade 5. Success for
All students averaged almost two years above grade level in
third grade, more
[[Page H6878]]
than a year above grade level in fourth grade, and about
eight months above grade level in fifth grade; at all grade
levels, Success for All averaged about 2.5 years higher than
control students.
Fairhill (Bilingual)--The bilingual version of Success for
All, Lee Conmigo, was first implemented at Fairhill
Elementary School, a school in inner-city Philadelphia.
Fairhill serves a student body of 694 students of whom 78%
are Hispanic and 22% are African-American. A matched
comparison school was also selected. Nearly all students in
both schools qualified for free lunches. Both schools were
Title I schoolwide projects, which means that both had high
(and roughly equivalent) allocations of Title I funds that
they could use flexibly to meet student needs.
Results: All students defined by district criteria as
limited English proficient at Fairhill and its control school
were pretested at the beginning of first grade on the Spanish
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Each following May,
these students were tested by native language speakers on
three scales of the Spanish Woodcock.
ANCOVAs controlling for pretests showed that at the end of
grade 2 Success for All students scored substantially higher
than control on every measure (p<.01 or better). Control
second-graders scored far below grade level on all three
scales. In contrast, Fairhill students averaged near grade
level on all measures. Effect sizes on all measures were
substantial. Fairhill students exceeded control by 1.8
standard deviations on Letter-Word Identification, 2.2 on
Word Attack, and 1.3 on Passage Comprehension. Fremont
(Bilingual), Wright (Bilingual) and El Vista (ESL).
Data from first-graders in three California Success for All
schools were analyzed together by Dianda and Flaherty (1995),
pooling data across schools in four categories: English-
dominant students, Spanish-dominant students taught in
Spanish (Lee Conmigo in Success for All schools), Spanish-
dominant students taught in English (``sheltered students''),
and speakers of languages other than English or Spanish
taught in English. The pooled results are summarized in
Figure 5.
As is clear in Figure 5, all categories of Success for All
students scored substantially better than control students.
The differences were greatest, however, for Spanish-dominated
students taught in bilingual classes (ES=+1.03) and those
taught in sheltered English programs (ES=+1.02). The
bilingual students scored at grade level, and more than six
months ahead of controls. The sheltered students scored about
two months below grade level, but were still four months
ahead of their controls. Both English-speaking students and
speakers of languages other than English or Spanish scored
above grade level and about two months ahead of their
controls. The effects of Success for All on the achievement
of English language learners are substantially positive.
Across three schools implementing Lee Conmigo, the Spanish
curriculum used in bilingual Success for All schools, the
average effect size for first-graders on Spanish assessments
was +0.88; for second-graders (at Philadelphia's Fairhill
Elementary) the average effect size was +1.77. For students
in sheltered English instruction, effect sizes for all
comparisons were also very positive, especially for Cambodian
students in Philadelphia and Mexican-American students in
California.
Comparing Success for All and Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery is one of the most extensively researched
and widely used innovations in elementary education. Like /
Success for All, Reading Recovery provides one-to-one
tutoring to first graders who are struggling in reading.
Research on Reading Recovery has found substantial positive
effects of the program as of the end of first grade, and
longitudinal studies have found that some portion of these
effects maintain at least through fourth grade (DeFord,
Pinnell, Lyons & Young, 1988; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, &
Seltzer, 1991).
Schools and districts attracted to Success for All are also
often attracted to Reading Recovery, as the two programs
share an emphasis on early intervention and a strong research
base. Increasing numbers of districts have both programs in
operation in different schools. One of the districts in the
Success for All evaluation, Caldwell, Idaho, happened to be
one of these. Ross, Smith, Casey, & Slavin (1995) used this
opportunity to compare the two programs.
In Caldwell, two schools are using Success for All and one
is using Reading Recovery. All three are very similar rural
schools with similar ethnic make-ups (10-25% Hispanic, with
the remainder Anglo), proportions of students qualifying for
free lunch (45-60%), and sizes (411-451). The Success for All
schools were somewhat higher than the Reading Recovery school
in poverty and percent Hispanic. In 1992-93, one of the
Success for All schools was in its second year of
implementation and the other was a new school that was in its
first year (but had moved a principal and some experienced
staff reassigned from the first school). Reading Recovery was
in its second year of implementation.
The study compared first-graders in the three schools.
Figure 6 summarizes the results. As is clear from the figure,
students in the Success for All schools performed somewhat
better than students in the Reading Recovery school
overall (ES=+.17). Differences for special education
students were substantial, averaging an effect size of
+.77. Special education students were not tutored in the
Reading Recovery school and were primarily taught in a
separate resource room. These students scored near the
floor on all tests. In contrast, Success for All special
education students were fully mainstreamed and did receive
tutoring, and their reading scores, though still low,
showed them to be on the way toward success in reading.
Excluding the special education students, there were no
differences in reading performance between tutored students
in the Success for All and Reading Recovery schools (ES=.00).
In light of earlier research, these outcomes suggest that
both tutoring programs are highly effective for at-risk first
graders.
A second comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery
was carried out by Ross, Nunnery, & Smith (1996) in the
Amphitheater School District of Tucson, Arizona. Three high-
poverty schools (about 25% Mexican American students) were
compared. One used Success for All, one used Reading Recovery
with a whole-language curriculum, and a control school used a
whole-language approach without tutoring.
In this study, tutored as well as non-tutored first-graders
scored substantially higher in Success for All than in
Reading Recovery. For tutored students the difference
averaged an effect size of 1.08, with mean grade equivalents
of 1.85 for tutored students in Success for All, 1.20 for
Reading Recovery students. For all students, Success for All
students had an average grade equivalent of 2.18, the Reading
Recovery school 1.73, and the control school 1.80, with mean
effect sizes of +.68 comparing Success for All and the
Reading Recovery school and +.39 comparing Success for All
and control.
The comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery
supports a common-sense conclusion. Success for All, which
affects all students, has positive effects on all students.
Reading Recovery focuses on tutoring and therefore produces
its effects only on tutored students. These results suggest
that Success for All may be most appropriate in schools
serving many at-risk students, while Reading Recovery may be
more practical when the number of students at risk of reading
failure is small. Some schools have merged the two programs,
combining the breadth and comprehensiveness of Success for
All with the outstanding professional development for tutors
provided by Reading Recovery. Such mergers of Success for All
and Reading Recovery are being started in about a dozen
schools located around the United States.
Success for All and Special Education
Perhaps the most important goal of Success for All is to
place a floor under the reading achievement of all children,
to ensure that every child performs adequately in this
critical skill. This goal has major implications for special
education. If the program makes a substantial difference in
the reading achievement of the lowest achievers, then it
should reduce special education referrals and placements.
Further, students who have IEPs indicating learning
disabilities or related problems are typically treated the
same as other students in Success for All. That is, they
receive tutoring if they need it, participate in reading
classes appropriate to their reading levels, and spend the
rest of the day in age-appropriate, heterogeneous
homerooms. Their tutor and/or reading teacher is likely to
be a special education teacher, but otherwise they are not
treated differently.
The philosophy behind that treatment of special education
issues in Success for All is called ``neverstreaming''
(Slavin et al. 1991). That is, rather than waiting until
students fall far behind, are assigned to special education,
and then may be mainstreamed into regular classes, Success
for All schools intervene early and intensively with students
who are at risk to try to keep them out of the special
education system. Once students are far behind, special
education services are unlikely to catch them up to age-
appropriate levels of performance. Students who have already
failed in reading are likely to have an overlay of anxiety,
poor motivation, poor behavior, low self-esteem, and
ineffective learning strategies that are likely to interfere
with learning no matter how good special education services
may be. Ensuring that all students succeed in the first place
is a far better strategy if it can be accomplished. In
Success for All, the provision of research-based preschool,
kindergarten, and first grade reading, one-to-one tutoring,
and family support services are likely to give the most at-
risk students a good chance of developing enough reading
skills to remain out of special education, or to perform
better in special education than would have otherwise been
the case.
That data relating to special education outcomes clearly
support these expectations. Several studies have focused on
questions related to special education. One of the most
important outcomes in this area is the consistent finding of
particularly large effects of Success for All for students in
the lowest 25% of their classes. While effect sizes for
students in general have averaged around +0.50 on
individually administered reading measures, effect sizes for
the lowest achievers have averaged in the range of +1.00 to
+1.50 across the grades. Across five Baltimore schools, only
2.2% of third-graders averaged two years behind grade level,
a usual criterion for special education placement. In
contrast, 8.8% of control third-graders scored this poorly.
Baltimore data have
[[Page H6879]]
also shown a reduction in special education placements for
learning disabilities of about half (Slavin et al., 1992). A
study of two Success for All schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana
found that over a two year period 3.2% of Success for All
students in grades K-1 and 1-2 were referred to special
education for learning disabilities or mild mental handicaps.
In contrast, 14.3% of control students were referred in these
categories (Smith, Ross, & Casey, 1994).
Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that
Success for All both reduces the need for special education
services (by raising the reading achievement of very low
achievers) and reduces special education referrals and
placements.
Another important question concerns the effects of the
program on students who have already been assigned to special
education. Here again, there is evidence from different
sources. In the Ross et al. (1995) study comparing Reading
Recovery and Success for All described above, it so happened
that first-graders in special education in the Reading
Recovery group were not tutored, but instead received
traditional special education services in resource rooms. In
the Success for All schools, first-graders who had been
assigned to special education were tutored one-to-one (by
their special education teachers) and otherwise participated
in the program in the same way as all other students. As
noted earlier (recall Figure 6), special education students
in Success for All were reading substantially better
(ES=+.77) than special education students in the comparison
school. In addition, Smith et al. (1994) combined first grade
reading data from special education students in Success for
All and control schools in four districts: Memphis, Ft.
Wayne, Indiana, Montgomery, Alabama, and Caldwell, Idaho).
Success for All special education students scored
substantially better than controls (mean ES=+.59).
conclusion
The results of evaluations of twenty-three Success for All
schools in nine districts in eight states clearly show that
the program increases student reading performance. In every
district, Success for All students learned significantly more
than matched control students. Significant effects were not
seen on every measure at every grade level, but the
consistent direction and magnitude of the effects show
unequivocal benefits for Success for All students. Effects on
district-administered standardized tests reinforce the
findings of the studies using individually administered
tests. This report also adds evidence showing particularly
large impacts on the achievement of limited English
proficient students in both bilingual and ESL programs, and
on both reducing special education referrals and improving
the achievement of students who have been assigned to special
education. It compares the outcomes of Success for All with
those of another early intervention program, Reading
Recovery. It also summarizes outcomes of Roots and Wings, the
next stage in the development of Success for All.
The Success for All evaluations have used reliable and
valid measures, individually administered tests that are
sensitive to all aspects of reading--comprehension, fluency,
word attack, and word identification. Performance of Success
for All students has been compared to that of matched
students in matched control schools, who provide the best
indication of what students without the program would have
achieved. Replication of high-quality experiments in such a
wide variety of schools and districts is extremely unusual.
The equally consistent and dramatic impact of Success for All
and Roots and Wings on district standardized tests and state
performance assessments are further evidence of the broad
impact of these programs.
An important indicator of the robustness of Success for All
is the fact of the more than 300 schools that have used the
program for periods of 1-8 years, only eight have dropped out
(in all cases because of changes of principals). Many other
Success for All schools have survived changes of
superintendents, principals, facilitators, and other key
staff, major cuts in funding, and other serious threats to
program maintenance.
The research summarized here demonstrates that
comprehensive, systemic school-by-school change can take
place on a broad scale in a way that maintains the integrity
and effectiveness of the model. The 23 schools in nine
districts that we are studying in depth are typical of the
larger set of schools currently using Success for All and
Roots and Wings in terms of quality of implementation,
resources, demographic characteristics, and other factors.
Program outcomes are not limited to the original home of the
program; in fact, outcomes tend to be somewhat better outside
of Baltimore. The widely held idea based on the Rand study of
innovation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; McLaughlin, 1990) that
comprehensive school reform must be invented by school staffs
themselves is certainly not supported in research on Success
for All or Roots and Wings. While the program is adapted to
meet the needs of each school, and while school staffs must
agree to implement the program by a vote of 80 percent or
more, Success for All and Roots and Wings are externally
developed programs with specific materials, manuals, and
structures. The observation that these programs can be
implemented and maintained over considerable time periods and
can be effective in each of their replication sites certainly
supports the idea that every school staff need not reinvent
the wheel.
There is nothing magic about Success for All or Roots and
Wings. None of their components are completely new or unique.
Obviously, schools serving disadvantaged students can have
great success without a special program if they have an
outstanding staff, and other prevention/early intervention
models, such as Reading Recovery (Pinnell, 1989) and the
School Development Program (Comer, 1988) also have evidence
of effectiveness with disadvantaged children. The main
importance of the research on Success for All and Roots and
Wings is not in validating a particular model or in
demonstrating that disadvantaged students can learn.
Rather, its greatest importance is in demonstrating that
success for disadvantaged students can be routinely
ensured in schools that are not exceptional or
extraordinary (and were not producing great success before
the program was introduced). We cannot ensure that every
school has a charismatic principal or every student has a
charismatic teacher. Nevertheless, we can ensure that
every child, regardless of family background, has an
opportunity to succeed in school.
The demonstration that an effective program can be
replicated and can be effective in its replication sites
removes one more excuse for the continuing low achievement of
disadvantaged children. In order to ensure the success of
disadvantaged students we must have the political commitment
to do so, with the funds and policies to back up this
commitment. Success for All and Roots and Wings do require a
serious commitment to restructure elementary schools and to
reconfigure uses of Title I, special education, and other
funds to emphasize prevention and early intervention rather
than remediation. These and other systemic changes in
assessments, accountability, standards, and legislation can
facilitate the implementation of Success for All, Roots and
Wings, and other school reform programs. However, we must
also have methods known not only to be effective in their
original sites, but also to be replicable and effective in
other sites. The evaluations presented in this report provide
a practical demonstration of the effectiveness and
replicability of one such program.
References
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs
supporting educational change: A model of education change,
Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand.
Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children.
Scientific American, 259, 42-48.
DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., & Young, P. (1987).
Ohio's Reading Recovery program: Vol. VII, Report of the
follow-up studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Dianda, M.R., & Flaherty, J.F. (April 1995). Effects of
Success for All on the reading achievement of first graders
in California bilingual programs. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Dianda, M.R., Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993, April). Lee
Conmigo: Success for All in schools serving limited English
proficient students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Garcia, E.E. (1991). Bilingualism, second language
acquisition, and the education of Chicano language minority
students. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and
success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990's. New
York: Falmer.
Garica, E.E. (1994, April). The impact of linguistic and
cultural diversity on America's schools: A need for new
policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
GAO, 1994. Limited English proficiency: A growing and costly
educational challenge facing many school districts.
Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Ivory, G., & Calderon, M. (1993). The
Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition
(BCIRC) project in the Ysleta Independent School District:
Standardized test outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for
Disadvantaged Students.
Horwitz, R.I. (1987). Complexity and contradiction in
clinical trial research. American Journal of Medicine, 82,
498-510.
Levin, H.M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged
students. Educational Leadership, 44 (6), 19-21.
Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., &
Wasik, B.A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of
a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
Matt, G.E., & Cook, T.D. (1994). Threats to the validity of
research and syntheses. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503-520). New York:
Russell Sage.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand change agent study
revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities.
Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk
children learn to read: Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-
182.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., &
Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the
literacy education of high risk first graders. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29, 8-38.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., &
Seltzer, M. (1991). Studying the effectiveness of early
intervention approaches for first grade children having
difficulty in reading. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University,
Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center.
Ross, S.M., Nunnery, J., & Smith, L. (1996). Evaluation of
Title I reading programs: Amphitheater Public Schools. Year
1: 1995-96. Memphis: University of Memphis, Center for
Research in Educational Policy.
Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C.
(1994, April). Using ``Success for All'' to restructure
elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans.
Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995).
Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An
examination of alternative early intervention programs.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773-800.
[[Page H6880]]
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the
American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Slavin, R.E. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative
to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Education
Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement
in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 57, 347-350.
Slavin, R.E. (1994). School and classroom organization in
beginning reading: Class size, aides, and instructional
grouping. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, B.A. Wasik, & N.A.
Madden (Eds.), Preventing early school failure: Research on
effective strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research,
and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1992/93).
Preventing early school failure: What works? Educational
Leadership, 50(4), 10-18.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1994). Preventing
early school failure: Research on effective strategies.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1993, April). Multi-site
replicated experiments: An application to Success for All.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1994). Implementing Success for
All in the Philadelphia Public Schools (Final report to the
Pew Charitable Trusts). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for
Disadvantaged Students.
Slavin, R.E. & Madden, N.A. (1995, April). Effects of Success
for All on the Achievement of English language learners.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A. Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., & Wasik,
B.A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to
prevention and early intervention in elementary schools.
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L. Dolan, L., & Wasik,
B.A. (1996b). Every child, every school: Success for All.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik,
B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994) ``Whenever and
wherever we choose . . . .:'' The replication of Success for
All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639-647.
Slavin, R.E. Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik,
B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994, April). Success for
All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform
in seven districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik,
B.A., Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. & Dianda, M. (1996a). Success
for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 1 (1), 41-76.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L. Wasik,
B.A., Shaw, A., Mainzer, K.L., & Haxby B. (1991).
Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as
alternatives to special education. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24, 373-378.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Stevens, R.J. (1989/90).
Cooperative learning models for the 3 Rs. Educational
Leadership, 47 (4), 22-28.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Roots and
Wings. In S. Stringfield S. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold
plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools
Designs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slavin, R.E., & Yampolsky, R. (1991). Effects of Success for
All on students with limited English proficiency: A three-
year evaluation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University,
Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged
Students.
Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., & Casey, J.P. (1994). Special
education analyses for Success for All in four cities.
Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in
Educational Policy.
Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., & Farnish, A.M.
(1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two
field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading
failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.
Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on
the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of
Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
Wongbundhit, Y. (1995). Evaluation of Success for All in the
Dade County Public Schools. Miami: Dade County Public
Schools.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual
learners. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Let me simply say that this debate is supposed to be on the Evans
amendment. We have already accepted the amendment on both sides. There
is obviously a little filibuster going on here. As long as there is,
let me correct some of the misstatements that have been made on the
House floor.
With respect to the school reform initiative contained in this bill,
this is the exact opposite of control from Washington. What this bill
attempts to do is to recognize that a whole group of American
businessmen have tried to figure out what it is that makes schools work
and what does not make them work. So instead of following their own
individual political philosophy, they simply examined all of the
research around the country to see what had been proven to improve
student performance and what had not. And they simply came to the
conclusion that there were roughly seven different models which helped
to achieve much greater student performance.
The fact is that there are, in addition to a New American Schools
Movement, there are a broad number of other efforts around the country
to try to determine what works to improve schools. A number of Members
have said, Gee, if school districts want to apply for this money, they
have to fit into one of these molds or they cannot get the money.''
That is absolutely not the case.
What this legislation says is simply that we are making money
available not to the Washington bureaucrats, but we are making money
available primarily to the State chief school officers, and they will
simply receive applications from school districts that want to get a
little extra seed money to try to figure out how to improve the
operation and organization of their local schools.
If they are not interested in doing it, they do not have to apply. If
they are interested in applying, they do not have to follow anybody's
single model. They do not have to follow the model of the Little Red
Schoolhouse. They do not have to follow Professor Comer's model or
anybody else's. These are simply seven illustrative models which the
New American Schools Movement feels merit a look-see. But there are
many others around the country, and if schools want to add their own
wrinkles, they are perfectly free to do so.
In the end, State superintendents of public instruction will simply
determine which grants seem to have the best chance to demonstrate
success and they will provide these start-up grants. That will simply
enable local schools to put together whatever program is agreed to at
the local level to reform their schools.
{time} 1900
We have people in this Congress who do not like Goals 2000. We have
people in this Congress who do not like testing. What we are saying is,
``All right, if you don't like that, let's find some other way to
encourage school reforms without Washington itself dictating what those
reforms are going to be.'' I doubt very much that we would have the
Fortune 500 corporate leaders who have encouraged this approach, I
doubt very much that we would find any of them in favor of any approach
being imposed from Washington. What we are simply trying to do is to
assist local school districts, who often do not have the money
available, to step back and reexamine their operations from top to
bottom. We are simply trying to offer them some assistance.
We have had 20 years of research in this field. It is about time, it
seems to me, that we start applying the results of that research. We
spend billions of dollars on title I trying to deal with the problems
of individual children, but we often approach that without having an
atmosphere that is conducive to learning in the very schools where we
are trying to improve individual child performance. And so this is
simply an effort to allow local people to design whatever approach they
want to take and get a little money to get some outside help, if they
want it, to put together a program that works. That is all it is, and I
would urge the Members if they are going to oppose this program to at
least understand what it is they are opposing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. MILLER of California. I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to say anything more than that.
There are evidently some Members of the House who would prefer to
create an argument for whatever reason they have. But to suggest that
this is a model that imposes a solution on local schools is exactly the
reverse from what it in fact is, and I doubt very much that we would
find either the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] or me supporting
anything which required local districts to produce anything but what
they wanted to produce in order to improve their own local schools.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in an argument on the
[[Page H6881]]
issue. I am interested in the policy behind it. Perhaps I am misreading
either the bill's language or the bill report. But let me tell the
gentleman what they say. Because lots of times we have these general
debates where we talk in great banal generalities but we never get down
to the specifics. His proposition is that this language does not
mandate any specific type of school reform.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. That may be his intent, but that is in fact not what
either the bill or the report says. If I might just quote from the bill
and the report, we will talk about why I believe what he is doing is
exactly that, mandating from Washington DC the specific kind of reform
which will be acceptable. By the way, he says it is important that we
go forward with school reform. I will tell the gentleman school reform
is going forward in Arizona.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman does not have a question, I would like to
take back the time.
Mr. SHADEGG. I have a question.
Mr. OBEY. What is it?
Mr. SHADEGG. I will tell the gentleman that school reform is going
forward aggressively in Arizona. On page 65 of the bill, it says quite
specifically at lines 21 through 23, ``$150 million shall be available
under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective approaches to whole
school reform.'' Whole school reform is a term of art. We look then to
the report and the report repeats that same language twice. At two
different points it says, this money is to be appropriated, actually it
is a total of $200 million, for whole school reform initiatives.
He says whole school reform initiatives let them do anything they
want. Yet they do not.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, if
I might, and let the gentleman respond to the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, the gentleman can define whole school
reform any way he wants. So can any local school district.
Mr. SHADEGG. Then the gentleman has no objection to striking the
words ``whole school reform''?
Mr. OBEY. We have not yielded. I would like to point out to the
gentleman that I doubt that the Parent-Teachers Association of America,
I doubt that the School Boards Association of America, I doubt that the
School Administrators Association of America, I doubt that the title I
administrators in the various 50 States, I doubt that the chief school
officers of the 50 States would endorse a proposition which mandates on
them requirements from Washington. They are supporting this because
they believe this is the best way to make title I work. They believe
that schools need the opportunity to review the way they are
administered, the way teachers are trained and the way children are
taught, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. One percent of
schools in the country have already worked through the New American
Schools model. There are other schools pursuing other models, and that
is fine with me.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I
would like to join this debate and say I think the gentleman from
Wisconsin is quite correct. If we are going to spend $150 million of
the public's money, we have some obligation to spend it in that area
where we have some evidence that it will be an effective expenditure of
the moneys. These kinds of reforms that are suggested in this
legislation are those reforms that have years of research and
demonstration behind them as to their effectiveness. There may be
districts that want to reform in some other manner. Fine. Go ahead. But
for those who believe, because this is not a matter of a demonstration.
There are hundreds of school districts and hundreds of schools that are
engaging in one or another of these programs, a total of thousands,
where local communities, local school boards, local school
administrators have initiated the effort and are reaping the benefits.
If you want to do something else, you can do something else.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has again expired.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. MILLER of California. We yield time to you and then you object to
cut off the debate on a subject that you say is terribly important.
Mr. MANZULLO. I do not want to cut it off.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend.
Mr. MILLER of California. Is the gentleman objecting to my using the
time? I was yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] so they could carry on, and I
would just like to have the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will suspend.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection to the request of
the gentleman from Illinois for unanimous consent.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] may restate
his request.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if
I am correct, that the mechanism by which this works is that the funds
are made available from the Secretary of Education to State education
agencies. That would be the State Department of Education, let us say.
No State has to apply for these funds. They can decide they do not want
anything to do with this program and not apply. If they do apply, then
they are granted funds and then the State parcels these funds out to
the school districts that apply to them.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. PORTER. On a competitive basis. Then the school district can then
decide what type of reform they wish to engage in and who they wish to
hire to give them advice and counsel in that reform; is that correct?
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PORTER. From this Republican's perspective, this is exactly the
kind of thing that we need to have in the public schools that I see
problems in, where we have entrenched bureaucracies, often teachers
unions, I have to say, sometimes entrenched administrators, people that
are incompetent that we cannot get rid of, things that we need to
address in a broad way to make the school work better. It seems to me
that this is exactly the kind of program that will help the inner city
schools that need the most help to push away all of that dead weight
and get on with a program that works for their kids.
I believe very frankly that this will work extremely well from my
philosophical and I think the philosophical standpoint of the gentleman
from Arizona as well. This does not impose anything on the States. It
does not impose anything on the school districts. It allows the school
districts to make their own decisions as to how they want to reform,
and it seems to me it gives them every opportunity to do so. This money
is money that would otherwise be spent, in my judgment, on a program
that does not work well, title I. It simply throws money at inner city
schools without any real guidance as to how they use it and it is often
used in ways that do not give a better opportunity to the kids. So I
think it is good reform.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Let me speak very frankly about this. I have had some
considerable difference with my own administration on the issue of
testing, as has
[[Page H6882]]
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], on the issue of Goals
2000. There is great debate about the value of either of those
programs. I do not know whether Goals 2000 is going to turn out to be
worth much or not, and I do not know whether their testing program is
going to turn out to be worth much or not. What we have been trying to
do is to find some way to encourage school reform on a neutral basis so
that we can help local schools develop their own ideas, to have the
time to think through what it is they want to do to improve teacher
performance with only one requirement: that they agree afterward to
have that approach evaluated so that we can determine which approaches
really produce results and which ones do not. Because otherwise the
administration can make its claims till the cows come home, so can its
philosophical opponents, and we never reach a conclusion in this
country although we spend billions of dollars on title I and billions
of dollars on research. I supported title I for many years, but I have
come to the conclusion that unless it is buttressed with whole school
reform, it is not going to produce the kind of improved performance we
need from children. I would think every conservative in this body would
agree with that conclusion.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I
thank my friend the gentleman from California for at least yielding me
some time. We did not get to continue in that dialogue, which I would
like to. It seems to me quite clear that if the words ``whole school
reform'' had no meaning and if the schools were then free to do what
they wanted to do, then there would be no objection to striking those
words. But those words are replete in the report and they are specified
in the bill. What I think they say and what I think you cannot deny is
that this money, this $150 million is going to be controlled from
Washington. No, it is quite true that no one has to apply for the
money, but that is the way Washington gets into public policy from the
beginning and, that is, if you want the money, you must apply to the
Federal Government and if you apply to the Federal Government, you must
do whole school reform.
Mr. PORTER. Absolutely.
Mr. SHADEGG. The parents in my school districts do not want that. If
the gentleman is genuine in saying that parents and teachers and
students and local school administrators should control this money,
then let me ask the gentleman, is he willing to strike from both the
bill itself and from the report language all references to whole school
reform?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, [Mr. Porter] was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I hear this
gentleman saying and what the gentleman from Indiana seemed to say
earlier was that what you want the Federal Government to do is through
taxation to raise the funds and then simply pass it to the local school
districts to spend as they wish.
Mr. SHADEGG. It is called block grants.
Mr. PORTER. We went through that debate earlier with revenue sharing,
and pretty much I think the country decided that it was the most
irresponsible thing you could possibly ever do, to raise tax moneys at
one level of government and have another level of government spend it
in any way they wish. It seems to me that if the Federal Government
wishes to encourage whole school reform and the States want to engage
in it, we are providing that opportunity. Just to pass the money
through and say spend it any way you want, that is the money that they
ought to be raising at the local level, in fact are raising at the
local level. They can spend that money any way they want.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Let me just make this point clear. I do not want the
money to be raised at the States, sent to Washington and given back
with no controls. I want the money to stay in the States, because my
parents want that. They believe they can spend it better than any
Washington program. Short of getting to that, short of getting to
leaving those moneys at home in Arizona, or Illinois, or Wisconsin or
California, then I like the concept of block grants, because there is a
simple point here. I do not know that whole school reform is the right
idea, and I trust the parents in Arizona to shape education in Arizona.
That was an issue when I campaigned. It was an issue before the 104th
Congress and it is an issue before the 105th Congress. That issue is,
are we going to control education reform and education policy from
Washington or are we going to let parents in America, out there working
with their teachers and their school administrators, decide? This bill
has Washington deciding that. If it did not, then it would not say you
get the money if you pursue a whole school reform initiative.
Mr. PORTER. If I could reclaim my time, just to respond to that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona
that if every school district out there had the kind of money that my
school districts had, that would be a fine concept.
{time} 1915
We are dealing with school districts that are being provided a great
deal of their tax money through title I that is basically
unaccountable, and we are saying that we want to encourage them because
they are producing students that are not achieving at the level of the
rest of the country, we want to encourage them to really reform their
schools to give these kids a real chance.
Mr. SHADEGG. I am not objecting to giving them the money, I support
giving the money, but I do not support adding the strings which say,
``You'll get the money only if you do whole school reform, i.e.
Washington decides.''
Mr. PORTER. OK, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is against all Federal
involvement in education, and that is fine philosophically, and I can
understand. I assume the gentleman is against special education for
handicapped students.
Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely not.
Mr. PORTER. Math and science which is a Federal program and category.
Mr. SHADEGG. I am not even against all Federal involvement in
education. What I am against is us telling schools how they have to
reform.
We have public schools in Arizona, and they are a tremendous success.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make one point about
the term ``whole school reform.''
We see some people in this country who say the only answer is to
bring in computers. We see other people who look at a school and they
say the only answer is to have the teacher retrained. We have someone
else say the only answer is some other partial approach to the problem.
What our leading American businessmen have discovered through
research that they financed on their own is that schools usually
produce better performance if they think through how the entire school
works rather than just thinking single shot, such as whether we need
more computers or whether we need retraining for reading teachers and
things like that.
That is all whole school reform means. It means to take a look at the
way the entire school operates rather than having some single shot,
slap-dash approach at which we have usually thrown money through the
years,
[[Page H6883]]
and it seems to me that conservatives would be far more interested in
promoting this than they would be in simply continuing to shovel out
large amounts of money without reviewing the way, in fact, we produce
the best results for the children we are supposed to be here working
for.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this gentleman from Oregon is a bit confused by the
debate between the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from
California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California to perhaps
expand on this and elucidate to the many Members out there who are now
listening with rapt attention what is at hand.
Mr. MILLER of California. Let me just say I think the gentleman from
Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin have put it quite properly.
We have spent, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I
who sit on the committee, billions and billions of dollars in title I
funds, and we have not exactly gotten the return that we think we
should on that dollar.
A number of these programs, not all of them, but a number of these
programs are about the reorganization of those dollars where we get a
better bang for the buck. The John Hopkins program comes in because
schools invite them in, and they go into low-income schools, and they
take that title I money, and they reorganize it along some management
techniques, along the wise use of resources, they get the school headed
off in the right direction, and the fact of the matter is they get
kids, a much, much higher percentage of kids, reading at grade level.
They did not do that because we told them to do that; they did that
because the local school board could no longer face the parents with
the results that they were getting.
That is what these programs are about, and the fact of the matter is
that these programs have research and pragmatic experience in
districts, and there are thousands of districts and schools that are
inviting these programs in because they work. So, if we are going to
spend $150 million, we ought to, as stewards of the taxpayers' money,
put it where we think we can get the best return on their investment.
This is not an exclusive list. This is a illustrative list of
programs that have some substance to them. I guess the flip side of
whole school reform would be partial school reform; take that home to
parents: Oh, we are going to reform part of the school.
The point is this: If they do not want to do it, do not come get the
Federal money. We think we should put the money where there is a
strong, strong demonstration that we are getting the results we want
for these children, and that is what this amendment is about.
It is an alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, to some of the
things the administration wanted to do. We thought, the committee
thought they would go with some of the empirical evidence, and the fact
of the matter is that these are being demonstrated over and over again
in all different types of schools in all geographical locations that
they are leading to effective change and they are improving the ability
of children to compute and to read and to critically think and they are
getting parents involved. But the first step has to come from a school
district, from a school administrator or from the parents who are
seeking to improve their schools and then they go to their States and
make application.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. One principal in Maryland explained that what he was doing
under his, and it is a Comer school; he explained he was spending about
30 percent of his time simply in the parking lot getting parents as
they bring their kids to school every day, talking to the parents to
tell them to get involved, to show them how they can get involved in
volunteer programs in the schools, how they can get involved in
programs that track what their own kids are doing so that we can
involve the parents in buttressing what it is the children are
learning.
I would like to ask what in God's name is wrong with that?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say one of the Hopkins'
programs, again one of the successes they have is they now have parents
coming to the school, participating in their education. If they work,
the parents are coming to the school, dropping their children off,
spending time there, and a novel idea, they are serving them coffee so
they can hang around and talk to the teachers.
The point of the matter is that these programs, in fact, work, and
that is where we ought to be putting the dollars, and for those school
districts that are turned off by the notion that they might have to
reform the whole school, then they should go elsewhere and look for
dollars.
In my area, in the San Francisco Bay area, the funding now to try to
replicate this program is being picked up by industry who are
announcing for the first time that they can improve the schools by an
investment by the private sector in these very same programs. I mean,
that is the kind of credibility we have in terms of the expansion and
the workability of these programs.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. To the gentleman from Arizona, I just address one point
that he made about the fact that these were specific programs that had
to be identically followed. I mention the words, as my colleagues know,
of a school in Salem, MA, which is in fact, a whole school concept.
With the help of Salem State College, the community got together,
teachers got together, parents came on board, they developed a
curriculum, they developed a mission, they have a school that goes an
hour longer every day, goes all year around, is successful and has 145
volunteers a week.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has
expired.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words on the Evans amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the debate here
tonight. I am from Kentucky, which I believe is the only State that
enacted whole school reform statewide, and I have talked for many, many
times about the benefits of whole school reform. But I do not believe
that it is something that we can enact at the Federal level and have it
be effective. The truth is it is very difficult to enact at a State
level so that it is effectively implemented by the schools in that
State.
The fact is schools succeed school by school. They succeed as they
develop their own plans, address what their teachers and what the needs
are of their students, what the talents are of their teachers and how
they best can meet the needs of their students.
When we have whole school reform, it requires a whole system of
support. It requires a school to be able to overcome the provisions of
the teacher contract. We cannot do that, Mr. Chairman, here tonight. We
cannot do this at the Federal level because we see in this country that
the responsibility for the organization and the efficient management of
our schools is done in 50 States.
And so in every State we build up an expertise, an understanding of
what the needs are and the way to address those needs. I personally do
not believe that in every community in Wyoming the needs of schools are
the same as in Louisville, Kentucky, and that is why we need each
legislature to be able to freely address those needs.
The support for block grants and what we hear from superintendents
around this country, and certainly in local districts, is, please, do
not keep trying to push the direction and the way we organize our
schools by the money that is trickled down to us; what we need is to be
able to fill in the blanks and meet the needs of each neighborhood
school based on the talents in that school and the needs that they
have.
This bill and this whole school reform pushes schools to go in a very
specific direction. The bill in the language
[[Page H6884]]
mentions the examples of whole school reform that would be accepted.
Many of the things that exist in current State laws would not allow
real whole school reform.
And, finally, let me say that in Kentucky whole school reform where
it is successful is successful because our universities are training
teachers in a different way. We have rewards and sanctions for schools
that are not successful, and just because they adopted whole school
reform, their scores have not all gone up; in fact, some have gone
down. And so what we need is a State Department that can intervene in
those schools, we need to adopt it as a whole support system, and for
us in the Federal level to apply that on every State and every school,
if they want the money, would be a terrible mistake.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. It is my understanding, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the States can
structure this in any way they want to restrict the schools in their
States to apply only in certain ways or in any way they wish to
structure. I do not see that it interferes whatsoever in State
direction on whole school reform, or they can choose not to participate
in it at all.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Reclaiming my time to respond, please, Mr. Chairman,
the problem is that whole school reform only works if there are the
liberties to truly reform it. As my colleagues know, if a school says
we would like to apply for this $50,000 grant and they get it, but the
State does not allow the provisions of this, say, to override teacher
contracts, to change the size of classes, to do other things that are
necessary for whole school reform, the effectiveness of it does not
exist.
Mr. PORTER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the State has
complete authority over the method under which the application is made.
If they want to put those restrictions in place, they can certainly do
so. I do not see the problem.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if it is so clear that whole school
reform is good, everyone of the 50 States could enact it today. They
spend billions. In fact, they spend 95 percent of every dollar in the
classroom they appropriate and spend at the State and local government.
There is nothing that prohibits them from passing whole school reform
in their school.
So if the evidence is so overwhelming, why has only one State in this
country passed it, and why would we seek at the Federal level to
override the wisdom of those States?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that 5-minute debate by pro forma
amendment may continue, but at this point the Chair will put the
question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Evans].
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1930
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was looking for the appropriate juncture to join this
debate and did not want to help us digress even further from the debate
on the underlying amendment, but I have to say that this has been a
remarkable discussion on something called Whole School Reform, a
program that has never been reviewed or authorized by the majority
party of the Congress, the Republican Party. I can say that from a
position of authority, since I chair the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families.
I am looking through the statute now, trying to understand what the
previous Democratic-controlled Congress that authorized something
called Whole School Reform might have meant by Whole School Reform, and
I think I have figured out what is going on in this debate: pure
politics, educational payola, in an effort to craft, quote-unquote, a
bipartisan bill that can get enough Democrat votes to pass the House of
Representatives.
Now, my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who
is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, did get it right. He said, this is new money. This $150
million for Whole School Reform is really new money, because again it
was authorized by a previous Democratically controlled Congress, and it
goes along with the other new money in this bill, an increase of $40
million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education, an increase of
almost $50 million for something called 21st Century Community Learning
Centers.
All I can conclude, Mr. Chairman, from all of this is that the advice
that we gave the appropriators when we went and testified before them
to try to further increase Federal taxpayer funding for special
education, given the fact that the Federal special education and civil
rights statute has already been reauthorized by this Congress and
signed into law by the President to try to increase funding to expand
vocational and technical educational opportunities for our young
people, especially the two-thirds of our young people who are not
college-bound, or will not complete college, to try to drive technology
down into the local schools, that advice was largely ignored in the
desire to accommodate the request of the distinguished ranking member
of the subcommittee and the full committee and others who want money to
promote Whole School Reform. Again, whatever that might be.
This money could be a lot better spent if in no other area of this
bill than on improving education for children with learning
disabilities. And what happened to the idea? I say to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller], who was a key participant in crafting
that bipartisan legislation, what happened to the idea that we would
make a good-faith effort of trying to come closer to that original 40
percent obligation on the part of Federal taxpayers for special
education?
So I am strongly opposed, as an education subcommittee chairman, to
all this new money, this payola being spread around this bill to try
and get some sort of bipartisan agreement, when I know that we have
greater priorities at the Federal level, and when I know that money is
ultimately best spent driven down to the local level, because that is
in keeping with the long-standing American tradition of public
education, of local control and decentralized decision-making.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
I would just say that in a number of these programs, one of the
interesting by-products we are having is that the number of children
that are later eligible for special education is substantially reduced
because, by concentrating on basic skills at the earliest level, the
grade level, we find it was really a reading problem that these
children had that later caused them to be classified as eligible for
special education. Those children are being maintained in the regular
classrooms.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not doubt that at
all. I will point out to the gentleman that we put an emphasis on early
intervention in the IDEA amendments and, again, the money could be
better spent there.
Mr. Chairman, I really question this money coming into this bill,
being spent for, I think, very questionable or nebulous purposes,
particularly when again those of us who serve on the authorizing
committee were not consulted about this money, and this money again is
apparently being made available in an effort to, if you will pardon the
expression, buy Democrat votes for this bill.
I might also point out, and I do not usually get personal in debate,
but we are attempting to do this now to accommodate one individual
Member of the House out of 435 Members of the House, the distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee, who is opposed
to us on the majority side of the aisle on every single major policy
initiative in this Congress, whether we are talking about welfare
reform in the last Congress, the bipartisan agreement to balance the
budget in this Congress, or tax relief for American families and
businesses.
So I again have to really question what the thinking and philosophy
is behind the crafting of this legislation,
[[Page H6885]]
and suggest to my colleagues that we can find better ways to spend this
money on Republican education priorities.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LARGENT. Just a question to the Chair: We just had a voice vote
on the previous amendment while there were still Members standing at a
microphone under an open rule, under the 5-minute rule, and the
Chairman closed debate.
I am just wondering what the parliamentary procedure is on that, and
could we expect that to occur on any of the other amendments that will
be debated this evening and tomorrow?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was unaware of any other Members who were
intending to debate that particular amendment. Members can be heard
under the 5-minute rule to proceed, as the gentleman from California
just did, to continue to debate other particular issues, but it was not
pertinent or relevant to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that under normal
circumstances the Chair will ask the question, ``Are there any other
Members that want to be heard on this particular amendment?'' and that
opportunity was not given to the House previously or to the Committee
of the Whole.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state again that the Chair was unaware
of any Members who wished to debate the issue involving the Evans
amendment. The Chair will continue to recognize those Members under the
5-minute rule to debate issues, but the Chair has the prerogative to
put the question on an amendment if no Member seeks recognition to
further debate that amendment.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, is it parliamentary procedure for the
Chair to ask the question, ``Are there any other Members that desire to
be heard on this amendment?'' Is that part of the parliamentary
procedure, ``yes or no?''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair ascertains that by whatever proper means the
Chair chooses to use.
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Goodling
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment
No. 17, printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Goodling:
On page 2, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
On page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $23,000,000)''.
On page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
On page 23, line 20, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
On page 68, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $25,000,000) and after the second dollar
amount insert ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
On page 78, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
On page 78, line 19, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,500,000''.
On page 85, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me preface my remarks in
relationship to this amendment by indicating that there are no Federal
mandates dealing with curriculum in any local school district. There is
only one Federal mandate dealing with curriculum in relationship to the
States, and that is the one that I want to talk about, and that is the
one to which my amendment applies.
IDEA is a Federal mandate, the only curriculum mandate from the
Federal Government. It is a mandate on the State, who then mandates to
the local level what they must carry out in relationship to IDEA.
When it was passed many years ago, 30 years ago, the Federal
Government said we are giving the mandate and we are going to give you
40 percent of the money. Unfortunately, they gave 99 percent of the
mandate, but about 8 percent of the money. Local school districts now
are finding it very, very difficult to fund the special education
mandate that comes from the Federal Government.
As a minority member working on the Committee on the Budget for 6
years in a bipartisan way, we tried to change that, and it did not
work. Last year I said thank you to this committee, because as long as
the mandate is there and we have the responsibility to put the money
where our mouth is, this committee that is on the floor today saw fit
to raise that amount rather dramatically. The idea was that we would
keep doing that, hopefully until we got to the 40 percent.
We reformed IDEA this year, and I think we will bring about savings
at the local level. We say, first of all, that when you get to a
certain figure, the local level can reduce their expenditures. The
State cannot, but the local government can.
We also have introduced in that legislation avenues to bring savings
to the local government, because we try to get the attorneys out of the
business in the beginning so that the school district is not spending
the money on attorneys' fees, the parent is not spending money on
attorneys' fees.
It was my hope, as I said, that we could get more. That was not
possible with the way the budget agreement was written, and the
committee did the best they could.
They have agreed to increase that amount, and I am very thankful for
that. The increase that they would give us at the present time is $25
million. That is taken from other programs in order to deal with this
one unfunded mandate from the Federal Government in relationship to
curriculum.
They also have agreed that they would seek the higher figure that the
Senate has in their legislation, and for that, I am also very thankful.
So again we had one mandate from the Federal level. It is the largest
unfunded mandate in the history of the Federal Government, I am sure.
This will take us one step closer to, as a matter of fact, doing what
was promised to local school districts many years ago, that we would
put up 40 percent of the money from Federal funds in order to deal with
that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee, the chairman and the ranking
member, for this effort, and again indicate that they have indicated to
me that they would go for the higher figure in conference, the Senate
figure.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] that I have the highest respect for the chairman of the
authorizing committee, that we attempt to work together very closely,
that this is a mandate upon local districts that takes local tax funds,
that in the last fiscal year we raised spending for IDEA by $790
million, and this year by $325 million in the bill as it comes to the
floor. This is an additional amount of $25 million.
We are attempting to do everything we can to make this a high
priority and to relieve local school districts of the cost of the
program. It has been made, with the leadership of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, a high priority in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say also that on this side of
the aisle, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce [Mr. Goodling] for his tireless efforts on
behalf of the children with special needs in our school system.
We worked and moved through this body unanimously a bill on IDEA that
we had worked through the Senate. We had many differences as we worked
through this process, and the gentleman deserves tremendous credit for
that.
One of our concerns, as a party that ran on and was committed to not
having unfunded mandates, was we set goals that unless we put adequate
funding in cannot be met. I think this is an important step.
But one of the things that we will be debating as we go through this
bill the next few days is, we believe that rather than creating new
Federal programs,
[[Page H6886]]
like there are several in this bill, one we have been debating tonight,
that have not gone through the committee process, that have not gone
through a hearing process, that the money, if we agree, as we did in
the budget agreement to spend the money on education, it should be
spent in programs that we have already passed by this Congress, that we
already have agreement in this Congress on, that we agree on as an
appropriate Federal role.
There may be other pieces of legislation where we can work out a
compromise, like we did on IDEA. How can we know, if we never have a
hearing? How do we know, if we never move it through?
We, as Republicans, were sent here by the American people to say,
hey, we want some changes in Washington; and many of the people who
voted for us want to see a change in education policy.
As we go through this, I assume that they at least want to see when
there are changes in education policies, that we go through a process
of debate and we debate the proper role of the Federal Government and
the State government and the local government; that we try to have
parents involved in as many places as possible.
Like on IDEA, many people throughout America felt people with
disabilities were not being treated fairly at the local level. As this
bill has a constituency nationwide and as we looked at the failure of
the local school systems to meet those needs, there was a decision made
by the U.S. Congress, after many hearings and a process, to have a bill
passed.
{time} 1945
Then we moved to funding of that bill. Then we increased that. This
time we fine-tuned it again, made some changes in the overlying bill,
but now we are putting more funds into that.
If we are going to spend more money on education, many of us feel it
should be spent in areas where we have this consensus, where we have
this agreement, where people know what we are doing, not some kind of
last-minute attempt to put something into a bill to circumvent what the
party has stood for, and quite frankly, which we do not really know, as
the chairman of the subcommittee said, of which I also serve on that
subcommittee, it is not particularly comforting to all of a sudden hear
there is this brand new program that went clear around the process.
I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for
his willingness on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling], and I commend Chairman Goodling for his tremendous
efforts on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony before the subcommittee this past June,
I referenced some revolutionary findings on how children learn to read
that have recently come out of the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, which is part of the National Institutes of
Health. I am embarrassed to say that I did not realize that since 1985
they have been doing such research. Dr. Reid Lyons, of course, is the
individual who has done this, and I think it would put to rest any
debate between the phonics and whole language reading methods.
At that time I asked the subcommittee to set aside the $500,000 to
the Fund for Improvement of Education, to fund a special teacher
training initiative in the district which would help train teachers
consistent with Dr. Lyons' findings. There is no reason for him to put
the money in from NIH, as a matter of fact, if the teachers are not
trained.
I understand that such a set-aside has been included in the report to
accompany H.R. 2264. I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee whether it is his intention to include this as a statutory
set-aside in the conference report to accompany this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his inquiry, and for bringing this important research to our attention.
As the gentleman has noted, we have included language in our report
referencing this research, and instructing the Secretary of Education
to give high priority to training D.C. teachers in these methods.
Conferences are always difficult, but I will do all I can to include
the $500,000 in this activity as bill language in the conference.
Mr. GOODLING. I thank the chairman.
Mr. PITT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on
the issue that has come before members of the Amish community who
reside in 20 States in this country. The Amish are a very committed,
hard-working community who do not contribute to the social ills of our
society. The Amish are not dependent on government programs.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned that their lifestyle has been
threatened by recent actions taken by the Federal Department of Labor.
As Members may know, the Amish have received fines for having their
youth under the age of 18 working on their family farms and businesses.
This has received attention at both the local and national level.
The Amish wish to have their youth work in vocational settings after
completion of Amish school, which is equal to the eighth grade. I,
along with several other colleagues in the Congress, have been working
with the Department of Labor to find an administrative solution so the
Amish can remain in their community and begin their professional
training.
Mr. Chairman, it would greatly benefit the Amish communities in
Pennsylvania and across the Nation if we found a solution to this
problem. I request that the chairman include conference report language
in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill urging the Department of Labor to
continue its negotiations with the Members who have Amish
constituencies, and to come to a compromise by the end of this year
which will allow young Amish workers to continue to work in supervised
settings.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania. The Amish who also live in my State have unique
family values and have a unique situation, since they complete their
formal schooling after the eighth grade. Accordingly, the Department of
Labor has a responsibility to evaluate the Amish in that light. It is
my hope that the Department of Labor will alleviate the problems that
have been created for the Amish.
Moreover, I will work to include language in the conference report
urging the Department of Labor to resolve this issue by the end of the
year.
Mr. PITT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman
regarding our efforts to move people from welfare to work. I and many
others fear that last year's welfare reform effort will not do enough
to ensure that the goal we all share, a smooth transition into the job
market for people now on welfare, would be achieved.
I am glad to see that the recently concluded bipartisan budget
agreement includes a welfare-to-work jobs program to help make welfare
reform a success, but it will take a great deal of work and resources
for the Department of Labor to design and to implement welfare-to-work
so it will be in place by October 1, 1997.
On July 17, 1997, the President sent to Congress a budget amount for
$6.2 million for the Labor Department to administer the $3 billion
welfare-to-work program. As we prepare to go to conference with the
other body, it is important that these funds be provided to the
Department of Labor.
I appreciate the chairman's recognition in the committee report of
the likelihood that these funds would be
[[Page H6887]]
needed. Now that the budget agreement has been reached, I want to ask
the gentleman if he would be willing to work with me as we go to the
conference on this bill to ensure that the Labor Department has the
resources it needs to administer this vital welfare-to-work effort.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is a very valued member of
our subcommittee. I appreciate very much her interest in the welfare-
to-work efforts during the committee hearings this year, and I share
her commitment to making welfare reform work. I want to let her know I
will do everything in my power to make sure welfare-to-work is
implemented successfully.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman's interest and
efforts during the committee hearings this year. I share his commitment
to making welfare reform work, and I will do everything in my power to
make sure welfare-to-work is implemented successfully. I thank the
chairman.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the colloquy of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, with Chairman Porter, chairman
of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I have a unique background probably in this Congress in
the sense that my great-grandfather was actually Amish; that he left
the Amish faith in the 1860's, but up until that point, the Souder
family, of which there are many in Pennsylvania and Ohio, many of them
have an Amish background.
It is a question of religious liberty in this country as to whether
people are going to have some flexibility within our laws, as long as
they do not affect other people, to be able to practice professions and
do things to earn a living, as we see the land values up, particularly
in the areas they live, or whether they have to keep going and trying
to find wilderness, of which there is less and less of in America,
places where they do not bump into each other or where they can find
land of a good price, which is why we see many of them going to South
America.
As I see many of these people, many relatives of mine, squeezed as
the urban area expands, many of them go into woodworking professions.
As we combine this with the flexibility we have given them in the
school system, we have run into real problems with the Department of
Labor.
I have supported the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and
other Members from Pennsylvania where the problem has been highlighted
in these meetings with the Labor Department, but it has also spread
into Ohio and Indiana, and certainly very easily can spread further
into other regions in Illinois and Iowa, where there are many Amish.
I want to make one other point with this, in addition to commending
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. That is, as we debate this bill, there have been
a lot of discussions as to whether we are going to be obstructionists
and offer lots of amendments. I had an amendment on this bill
addressing this question. At the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and working with the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter], we felt that this colloquy would be a good first step to
move this issue forward.
What we are doing tonight and tomorrow and whatever time is necessary
is to have an honest debate on the issues. I wish we would work out
most things like what has happened with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Pitts] in his effort with the chairman. I want to commend them for
their efforts, thank them on behalf of many people who are relatively
defenseless, who do not have a lot of monetary power, who do not even
generally vote. I want to thank them for their efforts, and I hope the
Labor Department will hear their voices as they are crying out for how
they can live with their religious freedom in our society.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
community service employment for older americans
(transfer of funds)
To carry out the activities for national grants or
contracts with public agencies and public or private
nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section
506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, or to carry out older worker activities as
subsequently authorized, $343,356,000.
To carry out the activities for grants to States under
paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older
worker activities as subsequently authorized, $96,844,000.
The funds appropriated under this heading shall be
transferred to and merged with the Department of Health and
Human Services, ``Aging Services Programs'', for the same
purposes and the same period as the account to which
transferred, following the enactment of legislation
authorizing the administration of the program by that
Department.
federal unemployment benefits and allowances
For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I, and
for training, for allowances for job search and relocation,
and for related State administrative expenses under part II,
subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, $349,000,000, together with such amounts as
may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent
appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to
September 15 of the current year.
state unemployment insurance and employment service operations
For authorized administrative expenses, $173,452,000,
together with not to exceed $3,332,476,000 (including not to
exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments
to States which had independent retirement plans in their
State employment service agencies prior to 1980, and
including not to exceed $2,000,000 which may be obligated in
contracts with non-State entities for activities such as
occupational and test research activities which benefit the
Federal-State Employment Service System), which may be
expended from the Employment Security Administration account
in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of
administering section 1201 of the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser
Act, as amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the
Immigration Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended, and of which the sums available in the
allocation for activities authorized by title III of the
Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the
sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative
expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be
available for obligation by the States through December 31,
1998, except that funds used for automation acquisitions
shall be available for obligation by States through September
30, 2000; and of which $173,452,000, together with not to
exceed $738,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from
said trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the
period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, to fund activities
under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost
of penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made
available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose,
and of which $200,000,000 shall be available solely for the
purpose of assisting States to convert their automated State
employment security agency systems to be year 2000 compliant,
and of which $206,333,000 shall be available only to the
extent necessary for additional State allocations to
administer unemployment compensation laws to finance
increases in the number of unemployment insurance claims
filed and claims paid or changes in a State law: Provided,
That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured
Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 1998 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 2,789,000 an additional
$28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every
100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata
amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the
Employment Security Administration Account of the
Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a
national one-stop career center network may be obligated in
contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for
activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be
used by the State to fund integrated Employment Service and
Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding
cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-87.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
On page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
On page 9, line 22, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 9 line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 42, line 22, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $32,835,000 for community based resource
centers)''.
On page 64, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert
the following: ``(reduced by $12,835,000)''.
[[Page H6888]]
On page 64, line 7, after the second dollar amount insert
the following: ``(reduced by $12,835,000)''.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling] offered an amendment to correct a misjudgment in the
bill, and I am doing the same thing in this instance. I understand the
amendment will be accepted by the majority.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. This would simply restore $32
million for the child abuse prevention and treatment program, for the
community-based family resource and support grant program within that
program. It would pay for it with offsetting reductions in computers,
in the contingency fund, and in Goals 2000 of $12,800,000.
I do not think there is any controversy associated with the
amendment. We are simply trying to provide the same level of funding
that was provided last year to support community-based efforts at
preventing child abuse.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is the only, only Federal money that goes directly
to support State, local, and private coordinated efforts to prevent the
growing epidemic of child abuse in this country. We had 1.4 million
reported cases of child abuse in 1986, up to 3 million in 1996.
In my hometown of Springfield a precious little girl 3 years old,
Tessa Lynn, needed some help, and that help never came. One day the
police came in response to some calls by neighbors, and they checked
her, and they were told she was asleep.
{time} 2000
Well, now, she is asleep forever. She was horribly abused and
murdered. We need more community-based programs to prevent child abuse,
and this is the only one that receives any Federal funding.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support it. It is not a
new program. It is an authorized program. It is not an unfunded
mandate. And it is a program which involves States, communities, and
private organizations in a coordinated effort to save the lives of
precious youth in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:
State of Oregon,
John A. Kitzhaber, Governor,
July 29, 1997.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
House of Representatives, 2134 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman DeFazio: Congressman Peter DeFazio is
proposing an amendment to restore funding for local child
abuse prevention grants to the states. The budget for the
Federal Community-Based Family Resource Support Grant (CBFRS)
was eliminated in the House version of the Health and Human
Services budget. The Senate version continues the grant at
last year's funding level. Congressman DeFazio's amendment
will restore the CBFRS budget and increase it by one million
dollars. The offset comes from the office of the director of
the National Institute of Health and by reducing funding for
new buildings to last year's levels.
I strongly urge your support of the DeFazio amendment.
The CBFRS resources will play a very important role in
preventing child abuse and neglect in Oregon. One of the most
profound gaps in our service system is that of families who
are at high-risk of and have an unfounded or undocumented
case of child abuse or neglect. This gap lies along the
continuum of services between the ``wellness'' (or primary
prevention) role of the Commission on Children and Families
and the role of the Department of Human Resources in
protecting children through its Services to Children and
Families division (SCF).
Oregon will use the CBFRS resources to address this gap by
establishing ``community safety nets'' at the community and
the state levels. These safety nets will be strong community
and interagency partnerships designed to respond to the needs
of those children and families who fall through the cracks.
At my direction work has already begun to lay the foundation
for the safety net project.
The restoration of the CBFRS grant will help get Oregon on
the road to addressing one of the most serious gaps in our
service system for children and families.
I urge your support of the DeFazio amendment. If you need
further information, please contact Pam Curtis in my office
at 378-6895.
Sincerely,
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we accept the
amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-Fox amendment
to the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations. This amendment would
restore funding for the important community-based family resource and
support grant program to prevent child abuse. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] for his leadership in this issue.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, instances
of child abuse continue to increase sharply. In this environment I
believe that it would be irresponsible for Congress to cut funding for
child abuse prevention and treatment.
This program establishes a system of safety nets in our communities.
These safety nets provide intervention services to at-risk children and
their families. These are provided through counseling, training, and
treatment services to local communities, including domestic violence
prevention.
But unfortunately, funding for this program has been eliminated in
the House version of the bill. I believe the program has had an
outstanding positive effect. We cannot turn our back on our Nation's
defenseless children.
As a former assistant DA in Pennsylvania, I have seen too many
victims of child abuse, whether it be shaken-baby syndrome or other
victims of abuse in other ways we have seen, whether, as the gentleman
from Oregon talked about, the death of child abuse victims or those who
have been starved.
Mr. Chairman, this will help reduce child abuse, help agencies
identify child abuse, and increase prosecution of violent child
abusers. The program provides such a large return for such a small
investment we would be remiss in eliminating it, and we must,
obviously, eliminate wasteful spending in any form and focus on funding
programs that truly make a difference in the lives of our children and
families, as this DeFazio-Fox amendment will.
Mr. Chairman, the program was authorized in the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996 for 3 years. The U.S. Senate has
seen the wisdom to continue this important bill, and I thank the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his agreement to this
amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to say that I was offering the
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. I apologize and I appreciate the
gentleman's activity on the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox] for his support and his work on this amendment. This will
save some children from the horrible fate that Tessa Lynn suffered in
my own hometown.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
might answer a few questions about this amendment for me. I know it has
been accepted, but I think it is important to clarify. The money and
the goal I fully agree with. I think it is worthwhile. Mr. Chairman,
could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me again where this money
is coming from and why we chose to take it from those various programs?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the money is to continue as the
existing funding level, the community-based family resource and support
grant program.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what it is
for.
[[Page H6889]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is funded by taking $12.8 million out of the administration's Goals
2000 program, and $10 million out of the UI contingency fund, and $10
million out of the UI computers fund.
Both of these accounts are very amply funded and neither account will
be damaged by the reduction.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:
advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds
For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as
authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to
the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of
title 5, United States Code, section 104(d) of Public Law
102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the
``Federal unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to
remain available until September 30, 1999, $392,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 1998, for costs incurred by the Black Lung
Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums
as may be necessary.
program administration
For expenses of administering employment and training
programs, $84,308,000, together with not to exceed
$41,285,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, $82,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall remain
available through September 30, 1999 for expenses of
completing the revision of the processing of employee benefit
plan returns.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
pension benefit guaranty corporation fund
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to
make such expenditures, including financial assistance
authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits
of funds and borrowing authority available to such
Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government
Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may
be necessary in carrying out the program through September
30, 1998, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed
$10,433,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of
the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such
Corporation in connection with the termination of pension
plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and
investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration
services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses
for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above
limitation.
Employment Standards Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal,
and local agencies and their employees for inspection
services rendered, $298,007,000, together with $993,000 which
may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance with
sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act: Provided, That $500,000 shall be for the
development and implementation of the electronic submission
of reports required to be filed under the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, and for a
computer database of the information for each submission that
is indexed and easily searchable by the public via the
Internet: Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is
authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in
the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of money
ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance
with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No.
91-0027 of the United States District Court for the District
of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided
further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized to
establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and
deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications and
issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and
214) and for processing applications and issuing
registrations under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
special benefits
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses
(except administrative expenses) accruing during the current
or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of
the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided
for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal
Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees'
Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections
4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App.
2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and
benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $201,000,000
together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to
August 15 of the current year: Provided, That amounts
appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 5,
United States Code, by the Secretary to reimburse an
employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, for
portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary:
Provided further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated
on September 30, 1997, shall remain available until expended
for the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses:
Provided further, That in addition there shall be transferred
to this appropriation from the Postal Service and from any
other corporation or instrumentality required under section
8147(c) of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for
its fair share of the cost of administration, such sums as
the Secretary of Labor determines to be the cost of
administration for employees of such fair share entities
through September 30, 1998: Provided further, That of those
funds transferred to this account from the fair share
entities to pay the cost of administration, $7,269,000 shall
be made available to the Secretary of Labor for expenditures
relating to capital improvements in support of Federal
Employees' Compensation Act administration, and the balance
of such funds shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary
may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a
claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code, or 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such
notice and claim, such identifying information (including
Social Security account number) as such regulations may
prescribe.
black lung disability trust fund
(including transfer of funds)
For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund,
$1,007,000,000, of which $960,650,000 shall be available
until September 30, 1999, for payment of all benefits as
authorized by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on
advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and
of which $26,147,000 shall be available for transfer to
Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses,
$19,551,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries
and Expenses, $296,000 for transfer to
Departmental Management, Office of Inspector General, and
$356,000 for payment into miscellaneous receipts for the
expenses of the Department of Treasury, for expenses of
operation and administration of the Black Lung Benefits
program as authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act:
Provided, That, in addition, such amounts as may be
necessary may be charged to the subsequent year
appropriation for the payment of compensation, interest,
or other benefits for any period subsequent to August 15
of the current year.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $336,205,000, including not to exceed
$77,941,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than
fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and
health programs required to be incurred under plans approved
by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of
training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized
by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for
occupational safety and health training and education grants:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary
of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, to collect and retain fees for services
provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and
may utilize such sums, in accordance with the provisions of
29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and international
laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of
equipment and products used by workers in the workplace:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe,
issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation,
or order
[[Page H6890]]
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is
applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming
operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and
employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no
funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule,
regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer
employees who is included within a category having an
occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most
precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which
such data are published, less than the national average rate
as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance
with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
(1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation,
technical assistance, educational and training services, and
to conduct surveys and studies;
(2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response
to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations
found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for
violations which are not corrected within a reasonable
abatement period and for any willful violations found;
(3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to imminent dangers;
(4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to health hazards;
(5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one
or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two
or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such
investigation authorized by such Act; and
(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to complaints of discrimination against employees for
exercising rights under such Act: Provided further, That the
foregoing proviso shall not apply to any person who is
engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a
temporary labor camp and employs ten or fewer employees.
Mine Safety and Health Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $199,159,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and
Health Administration is authorized to promote health and
safety education and training in the mining community through
cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety
associations; and any funds available to the Department may
be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for
the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event
of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of
section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement
of any training requirements, with respect to shell
dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel, surface
stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface
limestone mine.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and
local agencies and their employees for services rendered,
$327,609,000, of which $15,430,000 shall be for expenses of
revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available
until September 30, 1999, together with not to exceed
$52,848,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for Departmental Management,
including the hire of three sedans, and including up to
$4,402,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of
People With Disabilities, $152,199,000; together with not to
exceed $282,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review
in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by
the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where
such participation is precluded by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S.
Ct. 1278 (1995): Provided further, That no funds made
available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor
to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been
appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review
Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any
such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board
for more than one year shall be considered affirmed by the
Benefits Review Board on that date, and shall be considered
the final order of the Board for purposes of obtaining a
review in the United States courts of appeals: Provided
further, That these provisions shall not be applicable to the
review of any decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits
Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
working capital fund
The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 85-67 (29
U.S.C. 563) is amended by striking the last period and
inserting after ``appropriation action'' the following: ``:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor may transfer
annually an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 from unobligated
balances in the Department's salaries and expenses accounts,
to the unobligated balance of the Working Capital Fund, to be
merged with such Fund and used for the acquisition of capital
equipment and the improvement of financial management,
information technology and other support systems, and to
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
unobligated balance of the Fund shall not exceed
$20,000,000.''
assistant secretary for veterans employment and training
Not to exceed $181,955,000 may be derived from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 4100-4110A and 4321-4327, and Public Law 103-353, and
which shall be available for obligation by the States through
December 31, 1998.
office of inspector general
For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $43,105,000, together with
not to exceed $3,645,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of $125,000.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this Act
may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 103. Funds shall be available for carrying out title
IV-B of the Job Training Partnership Act, notwithstanding
section 427(c) of that Act, if a Job Corps center fails to
meet national performance standards established by the
Secretary.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
to promulgate or issue any proposed or final standard
regarding ergonomic protection before September 30, 1998:
Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to
limit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from
issuing voluntary guidelines on ergonomic protection or from
developing a proposed standard regarding ergonomic
protection: Provided further, That no funds made available in
this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration to enforce voluntary ergonomics guidelines
through section 5 (the general duty clause) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654).
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the remainder of title I?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, are we still on title I of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The remainder of title I, from page 11 through page 25.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that response. Are we
now at the end of title I of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. This is the last call for title I.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2264)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________