-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/8353ebf272ab327224b190beacf03aa7.pdf
fd71242a471bfdf5f150cd618ed65f2a
PDF Text
Text
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
STRONG PROTECTION AGAINST PEDERAL INTRUSION IN GOALS 2000
Goals 2000 is designed to provide Pederal support, in the .form of
financial assistance and models or exemplars of outstandinq
practices, to .education reforms designed and initiated at the
local and state levels. Education is a State and local
responsibility, and, over the past decade in particular, the
leadership for raisinq academic standards and.. improvinq education
overall has come from the State and local levels. Goals 2000
will enable participatinq states and local communities to
.strenqthen.these reforms, broaden qrass roots involvement~n
them, and more rapidly involve all schools, parents and educators
in education improvement~
.
Goals 2000 is different from other Pederal education proqrams.
WbilePederal leqislation is often desiqned and intended to
require or encouraqe States, localities or individuals to do
thinqs they would not otherwise do, Goals 2000 .is desiqned to
assist States and localities to undertake education reforms they
are already committed to.
Consequently, the Goals 2000 Act provides maximum flexibility to
States, local education aqencies, and individual schools in
desiqninq their own approaches to improvinq education. The main
( requirements of the law 'are that: (1) these approaches be aimed
at helpinq·all students reach challenqlnqacademic standards set
by each State; (2) these approaches have a reasonable chance of
success; (3) that there is a siqnificant commitment within the
state to implementinq them; and, (4)that they provide for a qood
deal of local flexibility.
Because the Goals 2000 proqram is desiqned to encouraqe and
support reforms initiated at the local and State levels, it does
not in any way seek to impose a "federal" approach to specific
State or local approaches. In addition, it contains the
followinq provisions that limit federal involvement and protect
State and local control:
o
prohibition on Pederal mandates, direction and control.
Nothinq in the Goals 2000 Act authorizes any Pederal
official to mandate, direct or control state, local school
district or individual school curriculum, proqram of
instruction, or allocation of 'resources, or to require any
state, local district or school to incur any costs not
covered by Goals 2000. (Section 318)
o
State and Local Government Control· of Education. Reaffirms
that State and local qovernments have'primary responsibility
for control of education, and ·that the pederal qovernment
shall not directly or indirectly impose standards or
promulqate rules or requlations that would reduce or
undermine state and local control. (Section 319)
400 MARYLAND AVE .. S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence through.out th.e Nation.
�o
Unconditioned state Participation. No state shall be
required to-obtain certification of its standards from the
'National Education Standards and Improvement council
(NESIC), nor participate in Goals 2000 in any way, as a
'condition of participating in any Federal education program,
,such as Chapter ,1, Drug'Free Schools, vocational education,
or G~als 2000. (Section -213(h) (1»
o
voluntary National Standards shall be certified by NESIC
-only if they are sufficiently general to be used by any
State without restricting state and local control of
curriculum. (section 213(e»
o
National Standards do not create legally enforceable rights.
Standards and assessments certified by NESIC do not create
legally enforceable rights against states, school,districts
or individual schools. (section 213(h) (2»
,
o
States participating in Goals 2000 do not submit their
standards for review to NESIC (see above) or to the
secretary of Education for r.view and approval. In order to
receive funds under Goals 2000, States must present plans
for a process to develop state content standards .--They are
not required to submit the actual standards to the Education'
Department for approval. (Section 306 (c) ( 1 » ·
,
o
.
. .
.
Opportunity to learn standards or strategies.. While States
must develop opportunity to learn standards or strategies,
they, only have to include the factors the State itself deems
appropriate to achieve its own content and performance
standards. In other words, opportunity to learn strategies
. or standards are d'etermined by, _ state and focused on
a
improved student learning. (Section 306 (d»
In addition to ,these specific provisi'ons of' the Goals 2000 Act,
the ,U.S •. Department of Education has taken additional steps to
reduce the possibility of inappropriate federal intrusion, and to
preserve all of the State and local discretion incorporated into
Uel~:
'
,
o
The Department of Education has not issued any new
regulatiops to implement Title III of Goals 2000.
The
Education Department intends to implement the program of
grants for State and local education improvement without
issuing additional, complicated-regulations that micromanage
a flexible program.
.
o
The Education Department has designed a streamlined
application procedure for states. that cuts,paperwork
considerably. The initial application for States to request
Goals 2000 funds is only" pages long, asks only for'
information required by law to award funds, and eliminates
numerousforms~
, ,
�UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFiC~ OF,THE
STRONG PROTECTION
AG~INST
SECRETARY
FEDERAL, INTRUSION IN GOALS 2000
'.,Goals 2000 is' designed to provide Federal support., in, the. form of
financial assistance a~d models, or exemplars of outst.anding
,
practices, to education reforms designed and initiated at the
local and state levels. Education'~s a state and local'
responsibili ty, "an'd, over' "the: past,' decade in 'particular, the
leadership for raising academic standards and'improving education
overall has come from the state and local levels. Goals'2000
will enable participating states and local communities t'o
strengthen these reforms, broaden grassroots involvement in
them, and more rapldly iJivolve all schools, parents and educators
in education improvement.· '
',:,
'
Goals 2000' is different from other Fe'deral education programs.
wh'ile Federal legisla.tion is -often designed and ,intended to
require 'or encourage states, localities or individuals to do
things they would not otherwise do, Goals 2000 is designed to
assist states and localities to und'ertake 'education reforms they
are already committe<?- to;.:
'
consequently, the Goals. -2!l00Act provides maximum flexibility to
states, loc~l education 'agencies,' and individual schools in
designing their own approaches ,to 'improving, education.' 'The ,main
requirements, of the law are that: (1) these approaches be 'aimed
at helping' all students reach challenging academic standards set
by each State;, (2) these approaches have a,reasonable chance of
'success; (3) that there is a significant commitment' within the
state to implementi~g them; ,and, ','(4)thatthey provide for a good
de'al of ,local flexibility. "
'
Because the 'Goals, 2000 ;proq~~ "i~ designed 'to' enco~,rage and
support reforms initiated -at ·t~e local and state' levels, it does
,'not in al\Y way seek to impose a ~'federal"approach to specific
state or local approaches. In ,addition, i tco,ntains the
'
following provisions that ,limit fec:ieral invo'lvement and protect
state and local control:,
,
o 'Prohibition on Feder'al' mandates, direction and control.
Nothing in the' Goals 2000 Act authorizes ,'any Federal
official ,to mandate, direct, or control state, local school
district'or individual school curriculum, 'program'of
instr~ction;'or' allocation~of resources,' or to require'any
state, local district or', school to incur any costs not,
covered by Goals ~OOO. (Section, 318)
o
State and Local Government Control" of Education'. Reaffirms
that stat,a,and, local governme~ts have' primax:y re~ponsibility
for control of education,'and that the'Federal government
shall not directly or indirectly impose standards or
'
promulgate rules' or regulations that would reduce or
und.rminestate and local control. '(Section 319) : .
.
.
~
'-
400 MARYLAND AVE ..
, Ou,r mission is to ensu,;e
s:w.
WASHINGTON,D,C, 20202
eq~a,1 access' to e,ct,uC~tidn lInd to promot~ educational excellence throu.ghout the N~ti£?n,
�,
o·
Unconditioned state parti'cipation. No. ~tate ~J:1all be
required to .obtain. certif.ication of its standards from the
National Education standards and Improvement council
'(NESIC), nor participate in Goals 2000 in any way, as a
condition of participatinq in any Federal education proqram,
such as Chapter 1, Druq Free Schools, vocational education,
or Goals 2000~ (Section 213(h) (~»
o
voluntary National Standards shall be. certified by NESIC
only if they are sufficiently qeneral to be: used by any
State without restrictinq state and .local control of
curriculum •.. (Section 213 (e»
o
National Standards do not cr.eate leqally enforceable riqhts.
standards and assessments certified by NESIC do not create
leqally enforceable riqhts aqainst States, school districts
or individual schools. (Section 213(h) (2»
o
States participatinq in Goals 2000 do not submit their
standards for review to NESIC .(see above) or to the
secretary of Education for review and approval. In order to
receive funds under Goals 2000, States must present.plans
for a process to develop state content standards.. They are
not required to submit the actual standards to the Education
Department for approval.(Se~tion 306 .(c) (1»
o
opportunity to learn standards or strateqies. While States
must develop' opportunity to learn standards or strateqies, ,
they only have to include the factors the .State itself deems
appropriate to achieve its own content and performance
. standards. In other words, opportunity to learn strateqies
or standa~ds are determined by a State and focused on
improved student learninq. (Sec~ion 306 (d»
In addi~ion to these specific provisions of the Goals,.2000 .Act,
the U.S. Department of Education has tak~i'1 additiona.l steps' to
reduce the possibility of inappropriate 'federal intrusion, and to
preserve all of· the State and local discretion incorporated into
the law:
.
o
The Department of Education has not issued any new .
regulations to implement Title· III of Goals 2000.
The
Education Department intends to implement the .proqram of
qrants for state and local education improvement without.
issuinq additional, complicated requlations that micromanaqe
a flexible proqram.
.
o
The Education Department has desiqned a streamlined
application procedure for states, that cuts paperwork
considerably. The initial application for States to request
Goals 2000 funds is only 4 paqes lonq, asks only for
information required by law to award funds, and eliminates
numerous forms.
.
.
;
�UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT -OF EDUCATION
..
. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
STRONG PROTECTION AGAINST F'EDERAL~ INTRUSION IN GOALS 2000 ,
'.
"'
..
Goals 2000 .is:.designed to pro'vide Federal support, in t~e form of
financial assistance and mode+s or exemplars of outstanding
'.
practices, to ~ducation reforms designed and initiated at the'",
local and' state levels. Education. is' a ,stat~ and local,
..
re~ponsibi'lity, ,and, over the' past' decade in' particular, the
leadership for raising academic standards and improving education ,
overall has come from the state and local, levels. Goals 2000
will enable participating states and local communities to
strengthe,n these: reforms, broaden g'rass roots involvement' in
them, and more rapidly involve all 'schools, . parents and educators
in education improvement.
. ,.; ';
.:
,
Goals 2000 is different from other Federal education programs.
While Federal legislation is often' designed' and·.intended .to
require or encourage states, localities or individuals to do
things they would not otherwise do, Goals 2000 is designed to
assist states and' localities to undertake education reforms they
are a lready committed to.
."
'
,
.
,
.
.
.
consequently, the Goals 2000, Act provides 'maximum ,flexibility to
states, local education agencies, and individual schools in
designing ,their ,own approaches to improving education.' The main
requirements' of the law ar,e that: (1)' th~se ,approaches be' aimed'
at, helping all students reach challenging academic stalldards set.
by each stat'e; (2) 'these approaches: have, a' reasonable chan'ceof :
success; (l) that there' is a significant commitment within the
'state te: :.U'ilplementing them; and, (4)tha't they provide 'fo.r a good.
deal of local flexibility.. "
.
.Because ,the Goals 2000 program is designed to encourage and
support' reforms initiated at the local an,d state levels, it does
not in any way seek t.o' impose a II fed.era 1" approach to specific.
state or local ~ approaches •. 'In addition, it contains the
.
,following provisions that limit federal involvement and protect'
: state and local control: ,
o
Prohibition oil Federal" mandates ~ direction and control. "
Nothing in the ~oals '2000 'Act' authorizes. ·any 'Federal
,
official to mandate'; ,direct or control .. State, local: school',
. district or indIvidual school. curriculum,'" program' of
.
instruction., or allocation of r,sources, or' to require aJlY
state, iocal district or school. to incur any costs not'.
covered by.
,Goal. 2000.
. .
.
. '
(Section 318)
.
~,'.:
o
state and;, Local Government' controf of' Education. Reaffirms
that state and local'governments have primary responsibility
for control of'e~ucation,'and that the Federal governm,nt
.shall not directly.' or indirectly 'impose standards or '
promulgate rules or regulations that would reduce or
undermine state and local control.
(section. 319)
400 MARYLANDAVE.. S,W. WASHINGTON, D.C, 20202
Our mission is to ensure equal acce~stJ .?ducaUon .:Inll to prom~ie educational excellence throughout the Nation. ,
.,
�o
· ,
Unconditioned state Participation. No state shall,be
required to obtain certification of its standards from the·
National Education standards and Improvement Council
(NESIC), nor participate in Goals 2000 in any way, as a
condition of participating in·any Federal education program,
such as Chapter 1, Drug Free Schools, vocational education,
or Goals 2000. (section 213(h).(1»
.
o
Voluntary National Standards shall be certified by NESIC
on'ly if they are sufficiently .general to be used' by any
State without restricting state and local contr~l of
curriculum. (Section 213 (fa»
o
National "standards do not create legally enforceable rights.
Standards and asses,sments certified by NESIC do not create
legally enforceable rights against states; school districts
or individual schools.' (Section 213(h) (2».
o
States participating in Goals 2000 do not submit their
standards for review to NESIC(see above) or to the
Secretary of Educati~n'fo~ review and,approval. In order to
receive funds under Goals 2000, States must present plans
for a process to develop state content standards. They are.
not required to submit the actual standards to the Education
Departme~t for approval.
(Section 306 (c) (1»
o
,opportunity to learn,standards or strategies. While states'
must de~elop opportunity to lea~nstandards or strategies,
they, only have to include the factors the state itself deems
appropriate to achieve its own content and performance
standards. In. other words, opportunity to learn strategies
.or standards are determined by a State and focus~d on
improved student:. learning. (Section 30.6 .(d·»
,
I
In addition to these specific provisions of the Goals ,2000 Act,
the u.s. Department of Education has taken additional steps to
reduce the possibility of-inappropriate federal intrusion, and'to
'preserve all of the State. and local, discretion incorporated into
the law:
.
o
The Department of Education has not issued any new
regulations to implement Title III of Goals 2000.
The
Education Department intends to implement the program of
grants for State'and local education improvement without
issuing additional, complicated regulations that micromanage
a flexible program.
o
The Education Department has designed a str'eamlined
application procedure for states, that cuts paperwork
considerably. The initial application for States· toreques.t
, Goals 2000 funds is only 4 pages long, asks only for
, information required by law to award funds, and eliminates
numerous forms~
��)
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Legislative Summary
Overview
The Goals 2000 Act, signed into law March 31, 1994, provides resources to states
and communities as they work to improve student academic achievement. States and
communities are u~ing Goals 2000 funds to provide quality professional development .
for teachers, expand the use of computers in classrooms, raise academic standards,
and increase parental and communi~ involvement in education.
Components of the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act"
Title I: The National Education Goals
•
•
•
This title formalizes in law the original six National Education Goals~ These goals
concern: readiness for school; increased school graduation rates; student academic
achievement and citizenship; mathematics and science performance; adult literacy; and
safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. The Act adds two new goals that encourage
parental participation and improved professional development for teachers.
These goals are symbolic expressions of what the President, the nation's Governors,
and now the U.S. Congress, hope we will accomplish as a nation by the year 2000.
Some states and communities have adopted the original goals, others have adapted
them to their own circumstances. Neither the Goals 2000 Act nor any other federal
legislation requires states to adopt or implement the National Education Goals as a
condition of receiving federal funding.
The National Education Goals are not mandates, and there are no enforcement or
compliance monitoring mechanisms written into law.
Title D: National Education Reform Leadership, Standards, and
Assessments
•
The bipartisan National Education Goals panel, was originally created by President
Bush and the nation's governors in 1990 to monitor the nation's progress toward the
National Education Goals. The Goals Panel is comprised of eight Governors, four
state legislators, four members of Congress, the Secretary of Education and the
President's Domestic Policy Advisor.
.
,,'
\
,.,' .
-.
,
�•
The National Education Standards and ImprovementCouncil is made'up of a
bipartisan, broad base of citizens, employees, and educators,to examine and certify
voluntary national and state standards submitted on a voluntary basis by states and
organizations working on particular academi~subjects.
(NOTE: Despite the carefully delineated authoritY provided to NESIC under the
Goals 2000 Act, concerns have been raised about ~ny certification of standards ..
Upon recommendation of the National Education Goals Panel on January 28, 1995,
the Secretary of Education has asked the President not to appoint NESIC. Legislation
has passed in the House. and is pending in the Senate to eliminate NESIC.) :
.
•
This title also authorizes grants to support the development' of 'voluntary student
assessment systems aligned to state· standards, and for the development of model
opportunity-to-Iearn standards. Funds have not been available for the development of
model opportunity-to-Ieam standards. Nine assessment grants have been awarded to a
total of twenty-five states to develop or field test new student assessment systems
aligned to high standards.
Title ill: State and Local Education Improvement
.,
Forfrrst-year funding, states submitted a brief application that described how a broad-based
citizen panel will develop a plan to improve schools. states have the option to use plans that
already have been developed. The application also described how subgrants were to be made
for local education improvement and better teacher pre service and continuing .professional .
development.
Broad-BaSed Citizeri Involvement in State Improvement Efforts
.•
The Governor and the Chief State School Officer each. appoint half the members of a
broad-based school improvement panel. This panel is comprised of teachers"
principals, administrators, parents, representatives of business, labor, and higher
education, and members of the public, as well as the charr of the state board of
education and the chairs of the appropriate authorizing committees of the state
legislature.
•
States that already have a broad-based panel in place that has made substantial progress
in developing a education improvement plan may request that the Secretary of .
Education recognize the existing panel.
'. .
.
Comprehensive Improvement Plan Geared to High Standards of Achievement
•
The State Planning Panel is responsible for developing a comprehensiv~ reform plan.
The plan must be approved by the state education agency and be consistent with state
2
�law.
•
States with improvement plans already in place will not have to develop new plans for
Goals 2000. The U.S. Secretary of Education may approve plans, or portions of plans,
already adopted by the state. To date, six states have submitted preexisting plans: '
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah, Michigan, and Oregon. All these plans have
been approved.
•
In order to receive Goals 2000 funds after the first year, states submit their school
improvement plan or an application that indicates they have made substantial progress
in its plan development.
•
A peer review panel .is brought together to review the state improvement plans. This
panel, comprised of non-federal educators, employers, parents, and state and local
officials, offers guidance to' states and recommends to the Secretary of Education
whether the education improvement plan should be approved:' .
•
The purpose of reviewing and approving state education reform plans is to ensure that
federal funds are invested only in state education reforms with a reasonable chance of
success.
•
As of November 14, 1995, fourteen states have submitted and had their education'
improvement plans approved. No state has had their plan rejected, nor has any state
been required to modify its plan.
In general, the plans address:
•
Strategies for the development or· adoption of student academic standards, assessments,
and plans for improving the preparation and advanced professional training of teachers.
•
Strategies to involve parents and the community in helping all students meet
challenging state standards and to promote grass-roots, bottom-up involvement in
'
education.
•
Strategies for ensuring that all local educational agencies and schools in the state are
involved in developing and implementing needed improvements.
•
Strategies for improved management and governance, and for promoting accountability
for results, flexibility, site-based management, and other principles of high-performance,
management.,
•
Strategies for providing all studentS an opportunity to learn at higher academic levels.
While these strategies have to be outlined in the plan, the implementation of the
strategies is voluntary.
3
�•
Strategies for assisting local educational agencies and schools to meet the needs of school
age students who have dropped out of school.
•
Strategies fOf bringing technology into the classroom to increase learning.
Funds are also available to states to support the development of a state technology plan, to be
integrated with the overall reform plan.
Brqad-Based Involvement in Local Education Improvement Efforts
•
Each local school district, applying to the state for Goals 2000 funds will be asked to
develop a broad consensus regarding a local improvement plan.
•
Local districts encourage and assist schools in developing and implementing
improvements that best meet the particular needs of the schools. The local plan would
include strategies for ensuring that students .meet higher academic standards.
•
All of these strategies focus on improving student achievement. Decisions regarding
the content of curriculum, assessments, and social services r~main local decisions.
Sec~ion 318 of the Act specifically prohibits federal manda~s, direction and control of
education.
.
Waivers and Flexibility
•
States with approved Goals 2000 plans may request from the Secretary of Education
waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements in most other federal education
programs, if these requirements interfere with ,implementation of the state's approach to
. education improvement. Local school districts and individual schools working on
education inlprovement may similarly request waivers through their state regardless of
whether they receive goals 2000 funds.
.
•
Certain requirements, such as the allocation of funds to school districts, and certain
laws, such as civil rights and special education laws, may not be waived. .
•
Up to six states will participate in the "Ed-Flex Demonstration Program," in which the
Secretary of Education delegates his· waiver auth<?rity to the state education agency.
This permits state officials to waive federal requirements for local school districts and
schools if they impede education reform efforts.
•
To date, Oregon, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Ohio have been selected as Ed Flex.
states.
•
Prior to the enactment of Goals 2000, no U.S. Secretary of Education had the authority
4
�to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements for any reason.
Timetable and Funding
.
In 1994, $105 million was appropriated for Goals 2000. Congress appropriated $372
million for 1995. The Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed .$310 million for
1996 while the House of Representatives eliminated funding for Goals 2000. The
veto any bill that substantially reduces funding for
President has stated that he
education.
'
,
will
Goals 2000 funds are available to states on a formula basis. Attached is a chart with
the state funding levels for 1994 and 1995..
During the ftrst year of participation, at least 60 percent of each state's funds were
awarded to local school districts. Seventy-ftve percent of those funds went directly to
schools.
, During years 2-5, at least ~O percent of each state's funds will be awarded to school
districts. At least 85 percent of those funds are awarded to schools.
Title IV. Parental Assistance
•
This title creates parental information and resource centers to increase parents'
knowledge about child-rearing and to strengthen partnerships between parents and
educators in meeting the educational needs of children. '
•
Local non-proftt agencies serving parents are eligible to receive funds to establish
parent resource centers. These grants are awarded independent of state participation in
Title III of Goals 2000. Agencies in states not participating in Goals 2000 can, and
have received grants under this title. Their activities are not necessarily related to the
state's Goals 2000 activities.
.
•
Twenty-eight parent resource centers were funded by theV.S. Department of
Education in 1995.
Title V. National Skill Standards Board
•
This title creates a National Skill Standards Board to support the development and
adoption of voluntary occupational skill standards and certiftcation. The Board is
responsible for identifying major occupations' in the V. S. to facilitate voluntary ,
partnerships to develop skill standards for each occupation. The Board will endorse
those skill standards submitted by the partnerships that meet certain criteria.
5
�Other Provisions Contained in PL· 103-227, but not related to Goals
.
'.
,
,
20~0
Title VI. International. Education Program
.•
This title authorizes international' exchange activities d~signed to promote democracy
and free market economies. Through grants or contracts awarded by the Secretary,
curricula and teacher professional development programs in civics and economics .
developed in the United States are made available to eligible countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Two grants were awarded in 1995, one
focusing on civics education, the other on. econotilics education.
. ..
Title VII.
•
Title VII creates the Safe Schools Act of 1994, which provides funds to help local
school districts achieve Goal Six of the National ~ucation Goals. Nineteen grants
were awarded in.1995, to help ~chools develop programs to address drugs and violence.
Title vm.
•
Safe Schools
.Minority~focused Civics Education
This title authorizes the award of grants for seminars in American government and
civics for elementary and secondary school teachers and other educators who work with
minority and Native American students. The program consists of summer institutes
followed by inservice training programs during the acadenllc year. No funds have
been made available for this title.
,
Title IX. Educational Research and Improvement
.
•
'
This title, the "Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement
Act," reauthorizes the Department's research and dissemination unit. It establishes five
research inStitutes, an office for reform assistance, the National Library of Education, a
research policies and priorities board, and administrative structures to support them.
This title does not directly relate to Goals 2000.
Title X.
Miscellaneous '
•
Sections in this title include authorization 'for a study on' how well students with
disabilities are represented in school improvement efforts funded under Goals 2000.
The title also contains other provisions uni'el~ted to, Goals 2000.
11129/95
.
6
�, 11/20/95
•
Goals 2000 • Title JIJ
FY 1994
Final
Allotment
State
TOTAL, 52 STATES:
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
'IOWA
KANSAS,
KENTUCKY
, LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS , '
'MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEWHAMPSHIRE
NEW.JERSEY
NEW.MEXICO
NEW.YORK
NORTH.CAROLINA
NORTH.DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE.lSLAND
SOUTH. CAROLINA
SOUTH.DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST.VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING,
DISTRICT.OF.COLUMBIA
PUERTO.RICO
$91,480.000
']
1.604.625
460,574
1.364,600 '
993,175
10,514.198
1,086.789
962,265
406.278
4.022.211
2,358.215
417,745
458.232
4,138,448
1,737.392
888.162
865,991
1,479.642
2.064.025
506,617
1,450.703
1.884.961
3.622.852
1.389,913
' 1,361.751
1.694,086
449.712
568,280
410,679
0
2,445,502
742,764,
7,166,140
2.060.116
406.852
3,711,499
1.155,879
1,048,333
4,070,640
442,901
1,276,721
427.589
1,680,252
7.286,644
710.199
407,301 .
'0
1,583.754
179.620
1.685.573
370.640
477.300
2,381.661
FY 1995
Final
Allotment
$358,251.300
$5.941.766
1.547,345
5,450.582
3.650,495
42,111,705
4,288,514
3,460,756
1,291,544
15,861,034
8.959,402
1.381,641
1,568,397
15,992.571
6,557,145
3.219.618
3,193,916
5.775.274
7;968.128
1.647.540
5.379.938
6,990.859
14.371,488
5.317.078
5.094,972
6.525,935
1.560.150
1,986,104
1.419.052
1.290,294
8.792,536
,'2,782.261
27,112,295
7.745,087
1,340,576
14,833,684
4,396,613
4,012,392
15,529,194
1,480,004
4,710,359
1,412,549
6,387,802
29,228,278
2.587.039
1,272.847
6,658,924
. 6,328.974
2,799.259
6.582.097
1.262.907 ,
1,523,409
9.608.968
�Goals 2000: Educate America Act'
Legislative Summary
Overview
The Goals 2000 Act, signed into law March 31, 1994, provides resources to states
and communities as they work to improve student academic achievement. States and
communities are using Goals 2000 funds to provide quality, professional development
for teachers, expand the use of computers in classrooms, raise academic standards,
and increase parental and community involvement in education.
Components oj[ the "Goals 2000:
Educ~te
,America Act"
Title I: The National Education Goals
•
This title formalizes in law the original six National Ed~cation Goals. These goals
concern: readiness for school; incre~sed school graduation rates; student academic
achievement and citizenship; mathematics and science performance; adult literacy; and
safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. The Act adds two new goals that encourage
parental participation and improved professional development for teachers.
•
These goals are symbolic expressions of what the President, the nation's Governors,
and now the U.S. Congress, hope we will accomplish as a nation by the year 2000.
Some states and communities have adopted the original goals, others have adapted
them to their own circumstances. Neither the Goals 2000 Act nor any other federal
legislation. requires states to adopt or implement the National Education Goals as a
condition of receiving federal funding.
•
The National Education Goals are not mandates, and there are no enforcement or
compliance monitoring mechanisms written into law.
/
.
Title II: National Education Reform Leadership, Standards, and
Assessments
•
The bipartisan National Education Goals panel, was originally created by President
Bush and the nation's governors ~ 1990 to monitor the nation's progress toward the
National Education Goals. The Goals Panel is comprised of eight Governors, four
state legIslators, four members of Congress, the Secretary of Education and the
President's Domestic Policy Advisor.
.
�•
The National Education StandardS and Improvement Council is made up of a
bipartisan, broad base of citizens, employees, and educators, to examine and certify
voluntary national and state standards submitted on a voluntary basis by states and
organizations working on particular academic subjects.
(NOTE: Despite the carefully delineated authority provided to NESIC under the
Goals 2000 Act, concerns have been raised about any certifi9ation of standards.
Upon recommendation ofthe National Education Goals Panel on January 28, 1995,
, ,the Secretary of Education has asked the President not to appoint NESIC. Legislation
,haspassed in the House and is pending ~ the Senate to el~inate NESIC.)
•
This title als6 authorizes grants to support the development of voluntary student
aSsessment systems aligned to state standards, and for the development of mOdel
opportunity-to-Iearn standards. Funds have' not been available for the development of
model opportunity-to-Ieam standards. Nine assessment grants have been awarded to a
total of twenty-five states to develop or field test new student assessment systems
aligned to high standards.
Title ill: State and Local Education Improvement '
For first-year funding, states submitted a brief application that described how a broad-based
citizen panel will develop a plan to improve schools.' States have the option to use plans that
already have been developed. The application'also described how subgrants were to be made
for local education improvement and better teacher preservice and continuing professional
developmen~,
Broad-Based Citizen Involvement in State Improvement Efforts
•
•
The Governor and the Chief,State School Officer each appoint half the members of a
. broad-based school improvement panel. This panel is comprised of teachers,
principals, administrators, parents, representatives of business, labor, and higher
education, and 'members of the public, as well as the chair of the state' board of
education and the chairs of the appropriate authorizing committees of the state
legislature.
.
States that already have a broad-based panel in place that has made substantial progress
in developing a education improvement plan may request that the Secretary of
.
Education recognize the existing paneL"
Comprehensive Improvement Plan Geared to High Standards of Achievement
•
The State Planning Panel is responsible for developing a comprehensive reform plan.
The plan must be approved by the state education agency and be consistent with state
2
�law.
•
States with improvement plans already in place will not have to develop new plans for
Goals 2000. The U.S. Secretary of Education may approve plans, or portions of plans,
already adopted by the state. To date, six states have submitted preexisting plans:
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah, Michigan, and Oregon. All these plans have
been approved.
•
In order to receive' Goals 2000 funds after the first year, states submit their school
improvement plan or an application that indicates they have made substantial progress
in its plan development.
•
A peer review panel is brought Jogether to review the state improvement plans ..This .
panel, comprised of non-federal educators, employers, parents, and state and local
officials, offers guidance to states and recommends to the Secretary of Education
whether the education improvement plan .should be approved.
•
The purpose of reviewing and approving state education reform plans is to ensure that
federal funds are invested only in state education reforms with a reasonable chance of
success.
.
..
As of November 14, 1995~ fourteen states have submitted and had their education
improvement plans approved. No state has had their plan rejected, nor has any state
been required to modify its plan.
•
In general, the plans address:
•
Strategies for the development or adoption of student academic standards, assessments,
and plans for improving the preparation and advanced professional training of teachers.
•
Strat~gies to involve parents and the community in helping all students meet
challenging state .standards and to promote grass-roots, bottom-up involvement in
education.
•
Strategies for ensuring that all local educational agencies and schools in the state are
involved in developing and implementing needed improvements.
•
Strategies for improved management and governance, and for p~omoting accountability
for results, flexibility, site-based management, and other principl~s of high-performance
management.
•
Strategies for providing all students an opportunity to learn at higher academic levels.
While these strategies have to be outlined in the plan, the implementation of the
strategies is voluntary.
3
�.•
•
Strategies for assisting local educational agencies and schools to meet the needs of school
. age students who have dropped out of school.
Strategies for bringing technology into the classroom to increase learning.
.
.
Funds are also available to states to support the development of a state technology plan, to be
integrated with the overall refonn plan.
Broad-Based Involvement in Local Education Improvement Efforts
•
Each local school district, applying to the state for Goals -2000 funds will be asked to
develop a broad consensus regarding a local improvement plan.
.
•
Local districts encourage and assist schools in developing and implementing
improvements that best meet .the particular needs of the schools. The local plan would
include strategies for ensuring that students meet higher academic standards.
.
•
, . . . . , .
All of these strategies focus on improving student achievement. Decisions regarding
the content of curriculum, assessments, and social services remain local decisions.
Section 318 of the Act specifically prohibits federa! mandates, direction and control of
education.
.
Waivers and Flexibility
•
States with approved Goals 2000 plans may request from the Secretary of Education
waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements in most other federal education
programs, if these requirements interfere with iinplementation of the state's approach to
education improvement. Local school districts and individual schools working on
education improvement may similarly request waivers. through their state regardless of
whether they receive goals 2000 funds.
•
Certain requirements, such as the allocation of funds to school districts, and certain
laws, such as civil rights and special education laws, may not be waived.
•
Up to siX states will participate in the "Ed-Flex Demonstration Program," in. which the
Secretary of Education delegates his waiver authority to the state education agency.
This pennitsstate officials to waive federal requirements for local school districts and
·schools if they .impede education refonn efforts.
•
To date, Oregon, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Ohio have been selected as Ed Flex
states.
•
Prior to the enactment of Goals 2000, no U.S. Secretary of Education had the authority
4
�, to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements for any reason.
Timetable and Funding
.
In 1994, $105 million was appropriated for Goals 2000. 'Congress appropriated $372
million for 1995. The Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed $310 million for
1996 while the House of Representatives eliminated' funding for Goals 2000. The
President has stated that he will veto any bill that substantially reduces funding for
education.
'
to
, Goals 2000 funds are available states on a formula basis: 'Attached is a chart with
the state funding levels, for 1994 and 1995.
During the fIrst year of participation, at least 60 percent of each state's funds were
awarded to local school districts. Seventy-fIve percent of those funds went directly to
schools.
During years 2-5, at least 90 percent of each state's funds will be awarded to school,
districts. At least 85 percent of those funds are awarded to 'schools.
Title IV. Parental Assistance
•
This title creates parental information and resource centers to increase parents'
knowledge about child-rearing and to strengthen partnerships between parents and
educators ~ meeting the educational needs of children.
•
Local non-profIt agencies serving parents are eligible to receive funds' to establish
parent resource centers. These grants are awarded independent of state participation in
Title III of Goals 2000. Agencies in states not participating in Goals 2000 can and
have received grants under this title. Their activities are not necessarily related, to the
state's Goals 2000 activities.
•
Twenty-eight parent resource centers were funded by the U.S. Department of
Education in 1995.
, r
Title V. National Skill Standards Board
•
a
This title' creates National Skill Standards Board to support the development and
adoption of voluntary occupational skill standards and certifIcation. The Board is
responsible for identifying major occupations in the 'tJ .S. to facilitatevoluniary
partnerships to develop skill standards for each occupation. The Board will endorse
those skill standards submitted by the partnerships that meet certain criteria.
5
�Other ~ovisions
Title VI.
•
Intema~ional Edu~ation
in PL 103-227, but not related to Goals 2000
Program
This title authorizes international exchange. activities designed to promote democracy
and free market economies. Through grants or contracts awarded by the Secretary,
curricula and teacher professional development programs in civics and economics
developed in the United States are made available to eligible countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Two grants were awarded in 1995, one
focusing on civics education, the other on economics education.
Title VII.
•
Co~tained
Safe Schools
Title VII creates the Safe Schools Act of 1994, which provides funds to help local
school districts achieve Goal Six of the National Education Goals. Nineteen grants
were awarded in 1995 to help schools develop programs to address drugs and violence.
Title vm. Minority-focused Civics Education
•
This title authorizes the award of grants for seminars in American government and
civics for elementary and secondary school teachers and. other educators who work with
minority and Native American students. The program consists of summer instinites
followed by inservice training programs during the academic year. No funds have
.been made available for this title ..
Title IX. Educational Research and. Improvement
•
This' title, the "Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement
Act," reauthorizes the Department's research and dissemination unit. It establishes five
research institutes, an office for reform assistance,' the National Library of Education, a
research policies and priorities board, and administrative structures to support them.
This title does not directly relate to Goals 2000.
.
Title X.
Miscellaneous
•
Sections in this title include authorization for a study on how well students with
disabilities are represented in school improvement efforts funded und~r Goals 2000.
The title also contains other provisions unrelated to Goals 2000.
11/29/95
.
6
�"
)
11/20/95
Goals 2000 - Title III
FY 1994
Final
Allotment
Slate
TO~ AL,
52 STATES:
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
, HAWAII
IDAHO
. ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS •
MICHIGAN
, MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEWHAMPSHIRE
NEWJERSEY
NEW.MEXICO
NEWYORK
NORTH. CAROLINA
NORTH. DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE.lSLAND '
SOUTH.CAROLINA
SOUTH.DAKOTA
, TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST.VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WVOMING'
DISTRICT.OF.COLUMBIA
PUERTO.RICO
FY1995
Final
Allotment
$~58,251.300
$91,480.000
1,604,625
460.574
1,364,600
993,175
,'10,514,198
1,086,789
962.265
406.278
4.022.211
2,358,215
417,745
458,232
4,138.448
1,737,392
888.162
865.991
1,479,642
2,064,025
506,617
1.450.703
1.884.961
3.622.852
1;389.913
1.361.751
1.694,086
449.712
568.280
410.679
0
2,445.502
742.764
7.166,140
2.060,116
406.852
3.711.499
1.155.879
1,048.333
4.070,640
442.901
1,276,721
427.589
1.680.252
7,286.644
710,199
407.301
0
1.583.754
779,620
1.685,"573
3'Z0.640
477,300
2,381.661
$5,941,766
1,547.345
5,450,582
3,650.495
42.111.705
4,288,514
3,460.756
1.291.544
15,861.034
8.959,402
1,381,641
1,568,397
15,992,571
6,557.145
3,219,618
3.193,916
5,775,274
7,968,128
1.647.540
'5,379,938
6.990.859
14,371.488
' ,5.377,078
5,094,972
6.525,935
1.560.150
1.986.104
1,419.052
1.290.294
8,792.536
2,782,261 "
27,112.295
7,745.087
1.340.576
-
\
14.83~.684
4.396,613
4.012.392
15,529.194
1,480.004
4,710.359
1,412,549
6.387.802
29.228,278
2.587.039
1,272.847
6.658,924
6,328.974
2.799,259
6,582.097
1,262.907
1,523,409
9.608,968
�,
,
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Legislative Summary
Overview
The Goals 2000 Act, signed into law March 31, 1994, provides resources to states
and communities as they work to improve student aca~emic achievement. States and
communities are using Goals 2000 funds to provide quality professional development
for teachers, expand the use of computers in classrooms, raise academic standards,
and increase parental and community involvement in education.
Components .of the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act".
Title I: The National Education Goals
•
This title formalizes in law the original six National Education Goals. These goals
concern: readiness for school; increased school graduation rates; student academic
achievement and citizenship; mathematics and science performance; adult literacy; and
safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. The Act adds two new goals that encourage
parental participation and improved professional' dev~lopment for teachers.
•
Tbesegoals are symbolic expressions of what the President, the nation's Governors,
and now the U.S. Congress, hope we will accomplish as a nation by the year 2000.
Some states and communities have adopted the original goals, others have adapted
them to their own circumstances .. Neither the Goals 2000 Act nor any other federal
legislation requires states to adopt or implement the Nadona I Education Goals as a
condition of receiving federal funding.
•
The National.Education Goals are not mandates, and there are no enforcement or
compliance monitoring mechanisms written mto law.
Title D: National Education Reform Leadership, Standards, and
Assessments
..
•
The bipartisan National Education Goals panel, was· originally created by President
Bush and the nation's governors in 1990 to monitor the·nation's progress toward the
National Education Goals. The Goals Panel is comprised of eight Governors, four
state legislators, four members of Congress, the Secretary of Education and the
President's Domestic Policy, Advisor.
�•
The National Education Standards and Improvement Council is made up of a
bipartisan, broad base of citizens, employees, and educators, ,to examine and certify
voluntary national and state standards submitted on a voluntary basis by states and
organizations working on particular academic subjects.
(NOTE: Despite the carefully delineated authority provided to NESIC under. the ,
Goals 2000 Act, concerns have been raised about any certification of standards.
Upon recommendation of the National Education Goals Panel on January 28, 1995,
the Secretary of Education has' asked the President not to appoint NESIC. Legislation
.has passed in the'House and is pending in the Senate to eliminate NESIC.)
•
This title also authorizes grants to support the development.of voluntary student
assessment systems aligned to state standards, and for the development of mOdel
opportunity-to-Iearn standards. Funds have not been available for the development of
model opportunity-to-Ieam standards. Nine assessment grants have been awarded to a
total of twenty-five states to develop or field test new student assessment systems
aligned to high standards.
' ;
.....
r
Title ill: State and Local Education Improvement.
For first-year funding, states submitted a brief application: that described how a broad-based
citizen panel will develop a plan to improve schools. States have the option to use plans that
already have been developed. The application also described how subgrants were to be made
for local education improvement and better teacher preservice and continuing professional
development.
..
Broad-Based Citizen Involvement in State Improvement Efforts
•
The Governor and the Chief state School Officer each appoint half the members of a
broad-based school improvement panel. TIlls panel is comprised of teachers, .
principals, administrators, parents, representatives of business, labor, and higher
education, and members of the public, as well.as the chair of the state board of
education and. the chairs of the appropriate authorizing committees of the .state
legislature.
•
States that already have a broad-based panel in place that has made substantial progress
in developing a education improvement plan may request that the Secretary of
Education recognize t1!e existing panel.
Comprehensive Improvement Plari Geared t'? High Standards of Achievement
•
The State Planning Panel is responsible for developing' a comprehensive reform plan.
. The plan must be approved by the state education agency and be consistent with state
2·
�law.
•
States with improvement plans already in place will not have to develop new plans for
Goals 2000. The U.S. Secretary of Education may approve plans, or portions of plans,
already adopted by the state. To date, six states have submitted preexisting plans:
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah, Michigan, and Oregon. All these plans have
been approved.
•
In order to receive Goals 2000 funds after the flrst year, states submit their school
improvement plan· or an application that indicates they have made substantial progress
in its plan development.
•
A peer review panel is brought together to review the state improvement plans. This
panel, comprised of non-federal educators, employers, parents, and state and local
offIcials, offers guidance to states and recommends to the Secretary of Education
.
whether the education improvement plan should be approved.
•
The purpose of reviewing and approving state education reform plans is to ensure that
federal funds are invested only in state education reforms with a reasonable chance of
success.
•
As of November 14, 1995, fourteen states have submitted and had their education
improvement plans approved. No state has had their plan rejected, nor has any state
been required to modify its plan.
In general, the plans address:
•
Strategies for the development or adoption of student academic standards, assessments,
and plans for improving the preparation and advanced professional training of teachers.
•
Strategies to involve parents and the community in helping all students meet.
challenging state standards and to promote grass-roots, bottom-up involvement in
education.
'
•
Strategies for ensuring that all local educational agencies' and schools in the state are
involved in developing and implementing needed improvements.
•
Strategies for improved management and governance, and for promoting accountability
for results, flexibility, site-based management, and other principles of high-performance
management.
•
Strategies for providing all students an opportunity to learn at higher academic levels.
While these strategies have to be outlined in the plan, the implementation of the
. strategies. is voluntary.
3
�;
•
Strategies for assisting local educational agencies and schools to meet the needs of school
age students who have dropped out of school.
•
Strategies for bringing technology into the classroom to increase learning.
Funds ar:e also available to states to support the development of a 'state technology plan, to be
integrated with the overall, refopn plan.
'
Broad-:Based Involvement in Local Education Improvement Efforts '
•
Each local school. district, applying to the state' for Goals 2000 funds will be asked to '
develop a broad consensus regarding a local improvement plan.
•
Local districts encourage and assist schools in developing and implementing
improvements that best meet the particular needs of the schools. The local plan would
include strategies for ensuring that students meet higher academic standards.
•
All of these strategies focus on improving student achievement .. Decisions regarding
the content of curriculum, assessments, and social services remain local decisions.
Sec~ion 318 of Ule Act specifically prohibits federal mandates, direction and control of
education.
'
'
Waivers and Flexibility·'
~tates
•
with approved Goals 2000 plans may request from the Secretary of Education
waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements fu'most other federal education
.programs, if these requirements interfere with· implementation of the state ~ s approach to
education improvement. Local school districts and individual schools working on
education improvement may similarly request waivers through their state regardless of
whether they receive goals 2000 funds ..
•
Certain requirements, such as the allocation of funds to school districts, and certain
laws, such as civil rights and special education laws, may not be waived.
•
Up to six states will participate in the "Ed-Flex Demonstration Program," in which the
Secretary of Education delegates his waiver authoritY to the state education agency.
This permits state officials to waive federal requirements for local· school districts and
schools if they impede education reform efforts.
•
To date, Oregon,Massachusetts, Kansas, and Ohio have been selected as Ed Flex
states.' '
•
Prior to the enactment of Goals 2000, no U.S. Secretary of Educa~~on ,had the authority
4
�to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements for any reason.
Timetable and Funding
.
In 1994, $105 million was appropriated for Goals 2000. Congress appropriated $372
million for 1995. The Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed $310 million for
1996 while the House of Representatives eliminated funding for Goals 2000. The
President has stated that he will veto any bill that substantially reduces funding for
education.
Goals 2000 funds are available to states on a formula basis. Attached is a chart with
the state funding levels for 1994 and 1995.
During the first year of participation, at least 60 percent of each sta~e' s funds were
awarded to local school districts. Seventy-five percent of those funds went directly to
schools.
During years 2-5, at least 90 percent of each state's funds will be awarded to school
districts. At least 85 percent of those funds are awarded to schools.
Title IV. Parental Assistance
•
This title creates parental information and resource centers to increase parents'
knowledge about child-rearing and to strengthen partnerships between parents and
.
educators in meeting the educational needs of children.
•
Local non-profit agencies serving parents are eligible to receive funds to establish
parent resource centers. These grants are awarded independent of state participation in
Title III of Goals 2000. Agencies in states not participating in Goals 2000 can and
have received grants under this title. Their activities are not necessarily related to the
state's Goals 2000 activities.
•
Twenty-eight parent resource centers were funded by the U.S. Department of
Education in 1995.
.
Title V. National Skill Standards Board
•
This title creates a National Skill Standards Board to support the development and
adoption of voluntary occupational skill sumdards and certification. The Board is
responsible for identifying major occupations in the U.S. to facilitate voluntary
partnerships to develop skill standards for each occupation. The Board will endorse
those skill standards submitted by the partnerships that meet certain criteria.
5
�Other Provisions
Co~tained
in PL 103-227, but not related to Goals 2000
Title VI. International Education Program,
•
This title authorizes international exchange activities designed to promote democracy
~nd free market economies. Through grants or contracts awarded by the Secretary.
curricula and teacher professional development programs in civics and economics
developed in theUmted States are made available to eligible countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Two grants were awarded in 1995, one
focusing on civics education,the other on economics·education.
Title VII.
Safe Schools
(
•
Title VII creates the Safe Schools Act of 1994, whIch provides funds to help local
school districts achieve .Goal, Six of the National Education Goals. Nineteen grants
were awarded in 1995 to help schools develop programs to address drugs and violence.
Title VIll. Minority-focused Civics Education
•
This title authorizes the award of grants for seminars in American goverrunent and
civics for elementary and secondary school teachers and other educators who work with
minority and Native American students, The program consists of summer institutes
followed by inservice training programs during the academic year. No funds have
been made available for this title.
Title IX. Educational Research and Improvement
,
"
•
This title, the "Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement
Act,,'" reauthorizes the Department's research and dissemination unit. It establishes five
research institutes, an office for reform assistance, the National Library of Education, a,
research policies and priorities board, and administrative structures to support them.
This title does not directly'relate to Goals 2000.
Title X.
Miscellaneous
•
Sections in this title include authorization for a study on how well students with
disabilities are represented in school improvement efforts t:unded under Goals 2000.
The title also contains other provisions unrelated to Goals 2000.
11129/95
6
�. 11/20/95
Goals 2000 • Title III
State
TOTAL. 52 STATES:
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIfORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
. HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
. MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS . .
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
.NEW.HAMPSHIRE
NEW.JERSEY
NEW.MEXICO
NEW.YORK
NORTH.CAROLINA
. NORTH.DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE.lSLAND
SOUTH. CAROLINA
SOUTH. DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
weST.VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
DISTRICT.Of.COLUMBIA
PUERTO.RICO
FY 1994
final
Allotment
FY1995
final
Allotment
$91,480.000
1.604.625
460.574
1.364.600
993.175
10.514.198
1.086.789
962.265·
406.278
4.022.211
2.358,215
417.745
458.232
4,138,448
1.737.392
888.162
865.991
1,479.642
2.064.025
506.617.
1.450.703
1.884,961
3.622.852
1.389.913
1,361.751.
1.694,086
449.712
568.280
410,679
0
2.445.502
742.764
7.166.140
2.060.116
406.852
3.711,499
1.155.879
1.048.333
4.070.640
442,901
1.276,721
427.589
1.680.252
7,286.644
710,199
407.301
0
1.583.754
779.620
1.685.573
370.640
477.300
2.381,661
$358.251.300
.
$5.941.766
1.547.345
. 5.450.582
3.650.495
42.111.705
·4.288,514
3.460.756
1,291.544
15.861,034
8.959.402
1,381,641
1.568.397
15.992.571 .
6.557,145
3,219.618
3.193.916
- 5.775.274
7.968.128
1.647,540
5.379.938
6.990,859
14.371,488
5.377.078
5.094.972
6.525.935
1.560.150
1.986.104
1,419.052
1.290.294
8.792,536
2.782.261
27.112,295
7.745.087
.1.340.576
14,833,6'84
4.396.613
4.012,392
15.529,194
1,480,004
4.710,359
1.412.549
6,387.802
29.228.278
2.587.039
1.272,847
·6,658.924
6.328,974
2.799.259
6.582.097
1.262.907
1.523,409
9.608,968
��C"l
o
»
t"'
CI'l
f',j
o
o
o
§
-l
tTl
C/.l
��GOALS 2000: Supporting State and Local Strategies to Improve Student Achievement '
To fully appreciate the depth of refonn called for in Goals 2000, it helps to examine a couple
of states that launched similar efforts prior to the enactment of the Act. lit both Maryland
and Kentucky. - after siX years of sustained effort and commitment to high standards -
students are showing achievement gains.
'.
. ""
..
In 1990, the Kentucky State Legislature passed the comprehensive Kentucky Education
,
Refonn Act. A central part of the Act is high standards for all students: each strategy is tied
to achieving ,high standards so that,all activities complement and reinforce one another. For
example, a curriculum franlework provides schools the tools to develop a .curricu1um based
on the state's high standards, as well as assessments to measure student progress. ,
New state assessments tied to high standards have been designed and in place since 1992.
Every year, students, educators, and policymakers are held accountable for student learning
through a school perfonnance reporting system that includes rewards for outstanding schools,
and interventions for low performing ones -- ranging from technical assistance to state
takeover. At the same time, schools have been given greater autonomy and, authori,ty to
manage themselves through school-based decision ma.k:iitg councils that include t~chers,
parents and community members.
,
,
A new financing system brought greater equity across districts. Teachers now get more
training to teach to high standafds, and schools have greater access to educational technology
in their classrooms. Also,more ,students enter school ready to learn due to expanded
\preschool programs, family resource centers, and extended school services for those who
need additional support to achieve high standards. Kentucky has targeted its Goals 2000
funds toward accelerating local refonns,. with a particular emphasis on strengthening parent
involvement in schools.
Comprehensive refonn is beginning to payoff in Kentucky. '. Students are showing gains in
academic achievement. The state's 4th, 8th, and 12th graders made substantial improvement
on the .1993-94 state assessment and Continued improvement on the 1994-95 assessment, with
the most dramatic gains experie~ced by 4th graders. In all grades, the percentage of students
performing at the proficient/distinguished level in mathematics, reading, science,and social
studies increased over time. In grade 4 the average of the scores across all subjects tested
rose from 24 in 1993 to 3$ points in 1995, on a scale from 0 to 140. In reading, the
percentage of 4th graders scoring at the profi~ient/distinguished level increased from 8% in
1993 to 30"~iik199S.s
Similarly, Miiijllmd launched a comprehensive' refonn effort -- Schools for Success -- after
the National EdUcation Summit in 1989; The cornerstone of Maryland's refonn effort is its
accountability system that establishes high standards for student achievement and related
statewide assessments of student progress. toward meeting the high standards. Over 3,000
teachers have been involved in designing and sCoring test items for grades 3, 5, and 8 as part
of the Maryland School Perfonnance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Every year the state
reports school progress along such indicators as student achievement in relation to the state's
standards and school attendance and dropout rates. Low perfonning schools receive such
interventions as training, consultations and grants, and, if perfonnance does not ,improve, can
A Goals 2()()() Progress Repon
DRAFT 4118/96
�ultimately face reconstitution which may involve changing a school's administration, staff,
organization, and/or instructional program.
The state has also developed curricular frameworks in subject areas that are designed to
assist administrators and teachers in planning, developing, and implementing local curricula
and, assessments that' support the achievement of state standards. Schools are now governed
by School Improvement Teams -- comprised of the principal, school staff, parents, and
business and community members -- that develop and implement school· improvement plans
with objectives, strategies, and activities to achieve the state standards.
Maryland chose to use Goals 2000 to comprehensively review and refine its Schools for
Success initiative. A 54-member statewide planning panel -- co-chaired by a local educator
. and a business partner -- met for over a year'to review current school reform activities, and
develop strategies to fill in gaps. In particular, Goals 2000 funds were used to make awards
to districts for lOcal improvement initiatives, increase public involvement in education,
accelerate development of a high school performance assessment, and develop strategies to
improve educational technology throughout schools.
Maryland reforms are also showing positive results. In comparison ,with 1994 state
assessment results, in 1995 52 % more schools. met or approached the standards for
satisfactory performance at the third grade level.. Th~ number of schools similarly improving
has increased by 13% at the fifth grade level and by 32% at the 8th grade. SttIdents have
also made gains: 40% of-all students statewide met the state standards -- a 25% gain over
1993. 6
Both Maryland and Kentucky are examples of the depth of activity and long-term
commitmentto standards that is required to raise student achievement. Both states set high
targets for performance, measure progress, and continually refine their strategies. They still
have a long way to go - but their gains are mounting.
Vermont's Green Mountain Cha..l.lenp?
Goals 2000 builds on Vermont's comprehensive reform effort - the Green Mountain Challenge
that was launched in 1991. Vermont's challenge is simply stated: high skills for every student, no
exceptions, no excuses. Recognizing that such a vision would require dramatic changes, the state
has actively engaged citizens throughout Vemiont in school improvement.
The Green Mountain Challenge calls for the development of world-class academic standards,
comprebensive assessments, and an education system' that provides every student an opportunity to
meet the standards. In 1993 Vermont adopted the Common Core ofLearning that describes 20
~vita1 results~ (learning goals), after more than 4,000 Vermonters actively provided input. Work
is underway to develop a framework for curriculum and assessment that includes concrete
standards of performance as well as suggested types of learning experiences. Local districts will
determine how best to reach the state standardS. Vermont also has an annual' school report night
. when parents and community members are invited into schools for a presentation and discussion of
student performance.
.
Goals 2000 has afforded Vermont an opportunity to review, assess, and improve itS reform activity
to date. The. state used Goals 2000 to target three areas of weakness in its education system:
dropout prevention, accountability, and local reform activity. The state designed a comprebensive
prevention program to reduce its dropout rat&t~ It also developed a F~ework: of Standards and
Learning Opportunities, indicators to measure educational progress at the school, distri~ and state
levels. Now a report is available that compares all schools in Vermont on 24 indicators. Local
Goals 2000 grants have focused on developing and implementing school plans that support the
achievement of high standards by all. students and address weak school indicators.
�' .. :
"1:l
S
~
~
H
Z
C)
'Tl
r-'
rn
x
H
o::l
H
r-'
H
~
--<
"'.
�. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF t;:DUCATION
WASHINGTON.
b,e.
20202·_ __
..
Promoting Flexibility to Support· State and Community
. Education Reform Efforts: .An Overview .
.
.
.
.
. A.Waiversfrom federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
.
.
State$, ,school districts and schools may now request waivers from the vast majority of statutory
and regulatory requirements in the reauthorized Elementary arid Secondary Education Act, and
.. cenain other federal education programs. The Departmerit is prepared to work with yout State
to· remove federal requirements impeding your ability lO help ~ll children reach challenging
academic standards. States or school districts considering requesting waivers may contact Bill
Kincaid on the Department's waiver assistance line, on (202) 401-7801 or 1-800-USA-LEARN,
,or they may contact the relevant program~ffice.
B. Ed-Flex Demonstration Program~' authority jor states to grant federal waiver{··
The Go.als 2000: Educate America Act establishes an educational flexibility demonstration
program (Ed-Flex program) under which the Secretary may delegate up to six State educational
agencies (SEAs) the authority to waive cenain Federal statutory or regulatory requirements
affecting .the State, its districts and schools. To t>e eligible lO apply for Ed-Flex status, an SEA
must have an approved State improvement plan under Goals 2000. In addition. the SEA must.
waive its own related statutory or regulatory education requir:ements, while ·holding LEAs and
schools affected by the waivers accountable for the perfonnance of their students.
The Secretary is prepared to reviewEd-flex applications as soon as they are received, ·and· to
grant Ed;..Flex waiver authority to a Stille. whose application demonstrates substantial promise of
assisting that State, its communities, and schools in carrying out comprehensive education ..
refonn.. Those States desiring to panicipate.in the program are encouraged to submit their
applications as soon as possible. Attachment A is an invitation for States to participate in EdFlex. For additionalinfonnation, contact Tom Fagan on (202) 401-0039.
.
C. Charter Schools Demonstration Program.
. .
.,
The development of public charter schools is· an important new strategy to promote 'local
innovation and results-based accountability in education. Because one of the greatest cnallenges
facing charter school developers is getting started~ the new Improving America's School~ Act
(IASA) provides start-up grants to public charter schools, in S'tates with chaner school laws, for
up to three years; Moreover, the Charter Scho()ls program in the IASA gives the Secretary
broad authority to waive, for public charter schools, most federal.education laws and regulations.
o
Our mission is to
en~ure equal access /0 education ~~d to pr~mole educational excellence throughoul the ....~llon.
�.
-
.
.' The Admirustration asked for $15 million to fund this grant program in FY 1995, and Congress
appropriated $6 million. In addition to these funds, States can use funds under Goals 2000. the
lA-SA. and other federal programs to support the development and operations of charter schools.
Attachment B provides a description of how States,andcharter schools, may apply for these
'.
",
-
.
.
funds.
.
..
.
"
.
..
'
-D: Other provisions promot'ing flexibility in the imp;oving America's Schools Act.
The Improving AmeriCa's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), which reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA);promotesnew flexibility for comprehenSiveschooi reform
-efforts in States, communities, and schools. New opportunities for flexibility under theIASA .
inClude the following:
.
-
SChoolwide programs.
Title I significantly expands the number of schools eligible to become .. schoolwide"
programs. By the 1996.school year, schools with at least 50% low-income children will
be eligible for schoolwide status, increasing -the total number of potential schoolwide
programs from 8,000 to 20,000 schools nationwide.
.
- Moreover, for the first time, these schools will be able to combine most of'theirfederal
funds, not solety their Title I funds, to' support schoolwide reform. In addition, they will
be free from most federal requirements. In return, these s~hools will develop
comprehensive plans to improve teaching and learning in thetrentire school and meet the
needs of all children served.
.
,
,
.
. .
.
.
':
Elimination of many federal requiremenrs for Chapter 1 resring and reponing.
The IASA eluninates burdensome Title I testing' and reporting requirements. No longer
will the federal government require schools to give annual norm-referenced tests to all
'participating students in grades 2-12. Nor will the federal government require States to
corriply with burdensome annual reporting requirements. Instead, States will use their
own assessments to evaluate the progress of schools. and districts served by Title, I
programs. Moreover, assessment resultS· will be used to inform parents, teachers,
principals and others of progress, rather than be reported to the federal government.
Submitting a single (consolidated) plan to receive mosrfederal funds.
.
.
.
The Improving America's'Schools Act allows the Secretary of Education to accept a
single State plan for most federal funds supportingelemeritary and secondary educ(l(ion.
The development of·a single plan eliminates the need to develop separate, often
overlapping, plans for many federal programs. A consolidated plan can reduce program .
. fragmentation and improve the use of federal funds to. support State and local reform
2
�efforts. Under the IASA, State~ may also enable school' districts (0 develop a single plan"
for many federal programs.
"
. .
,
A copy of the Federal Register notice, published on january J3, 1994, which outlines
how States arid schooi districts may take full advantage of this opportunity, is being
mailed to you under separate cover. If you .are interested in discussing this further.
please contact BiB Wooten on (202)260-1922~ .'
.,
Consolidation of State and iocaladministrative funds, .
,
.
. '
.
.
.
An SEA may consolidate funds available for State administration under Title I, other
major IASAprograms, and Goals 2000. In addition~ an SEA may authoriie LEAs to .'
consolidate administrative funds ..
i
3
��\
_ _ .... _ w ..
~_
..
~_
....
~_M_"
......
~
... .... , __
~,
.~
_. __ ., ___ __._." .............. _ ..... ,.-__ - - -_____
.~.
___ • __ .. __ • __ • __ .____ : ___ ..... ___ ....
_._~
.... __ •__....
~
_; ' •• , .• ".." • __ ,'0'
~
'\
J
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S EDUCATION ACCOMPLISHME;NTS
March 15, 1996
"
1.
Encouraging High Standards and Accountability in the Basics and Core Academics
The Clinton Administration has overhauled the federal role in elementary and secondary education
to focus on supporting state efforts to establish challenging academic standards with assessments
and accountability geared to those standards: '
'.
Goals 2000: Forty~eight states received funding underrthe Goals 2000: EducateAmerica
Act to develop and implement their own'challenging academic standards. Themajoriiyof
the funds available through Goals 2000 are assisting local districts and schools, with the
implementation of ~halleIigiIig standards. Almost 10,000 schools are currently benefitting
from Goals 2000.
•
,With CJoals 2000 funds, nine assessment grants were awarded in 1995 to a total o.f
twenty-five states to develop or field test new student assessment systems aligned to
the state's standards.
.
'
•
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Title I of ESEA provides 50,000
schools with extra resources to strengthen ac~evement in the basics. It was completely
overhauled in 1994 to focus on high'standards and state assessments to measure progress
toward the standards.
•
School-to-Work Opportunities' Act: The' Administration's School-to-Work Act also
enc0l.lrages the use of challenging state academ!c standards in school as well as skill
standards.
•
National Skill Standards Board: Created u~der the Goals 2000 Act, this board helps to
stimulate the development of voluntary occupational skill standards and certification ,in such,
fields as bio-science, advanced manufacturing, and health care. These'skill standards will
help students know what skifls are needed in these fields and provide a voluntary industry
certification that lets employers knbw that the skills have been obtained.
, '2.
Increasmg Flexibility and Providing New Waiver Authority ,
Under the Clinton Administration, the U. S. Department of Education has eliminated 79% or 3/4 of
the regulations affecting elementary and secondary education programs. Prior to 1993;the U.S.
Secretary ofEducation did not have the authority to waive rules and regtilationsof federal
,.
~:
,
f.
"
,
�~;,".
"'~"--""""---""-"-----'.~~""~-----""-'----"""--""""'-'------------.-.~ .. -~-.-.-.-----.---.------.. -~--.~
.'
education laws. Upon passageof the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 'Act, the Secretary was granted
broad waiver authority.
.
•
No new regulations were issued to carry out the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the
School-ta-Work Opportunities Act.
•
Close to 100 waivers have been approved in little more than a year under the authority
granted in the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act,and the Improving
..
America's Schools Act.
•
Si){ states have been designated "Ed-Flex" states, where the Secretary of Education delegates
his waiver authority over certain federal programs t6 the states.
•
All of the Administration's elementary and secondary programs now encourage streamlining
and building on state reform efforts through consolidated applications and planning.
3.
Expanding Charter Schools and Public School Choice
The Clinton Administration has supported a variety of public school choice options including charter
schools and the expansion of magnet schools:
•
In 1993, the President proposed, as part ofth,e Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
a program to provide start-up funds for public charter. schools around the nation. This
program is now providing start-up funds to charter schools in II states.
•
The Department has encouraged states and school districts to considei" using Goals 2000,
Title I and other federal funds to support charter schools. Already, at least three states -
Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts -- are'using Goals 2000 funds for charter schools.
\
'
.
.•
The: President also continues to support rp.agnet schools, another important form of public
school choice. Th~. magnet schools program is .tying magnet schools to overall school
reform efforts and to challenging state standards in 25 states.
•
The Department of Education is funding the nation's most comprehensive study of charter
schools. This 4-yeat study will provide important information for educators, governors and
'other policy-makers, and communities, interested in the success of, and challenges facing,
charter schools.
'2
.
�,
,
'
; .
4.
Supporting the Use of Technology in Education
The Administra~on's Technology Initiative supports technology planning, infraStructure
.. development, classroom connections to the information highway with affordable access, computers
and software for teaching and learriing, and professional develop~ent for teachers. Bringing every
school and classroom into the 21st century is a national effort that includes every sector of
government, community leaders 'and the private sector. The elements include:
•
Partnerships of local school. systeIps, universities, and private businesses to create new
applications of technology' for learning across the curriculum. Nineteen Technology ..
Challenge Grants were awarded .in. 1995 to consortia of districts in 23 states. Other
educational arid community partnerships in educational telecommunications are supported
.' through the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program. The
Star Schools Program, another example of partnerships between.' education and
telecommunications entities, helps over one million students and their teachers in all 50
states improve instruction in math, science, foreign language, and literacy skills.
•
Five million dollars was provided to 48 states for state technology infrastructure
development under the Goals 2000 Act. In addition, many states are using portions of their
Goals 2000 funds to integrate technology into professional development, assessment; and
student learning.
•
Most of the federal goverinnent's 'larg~st education and training ptograms, including Goals .'
2000, Head Start, Elementary and Secondary . Education Act,· the School-to-Work
Opportunities' Act, the Perkjns Vocational Education Act, and the . Individuals with
. Disabilities Education Act allow funds to be used for educational technology, including
training for teachers to incorporate technology into their classrooms and purchasing
hardware and software.
..
•
Helping states, school districts, schools, teachers, parents, professional organizations and the
private sector know and share what works in educational technology is a major function of
the six regional technology centers, the ERIC clearinghouses, the Regional Education Labs,
and other entities.
..
On March 9, 1996 the President, Vice President and other administration officials joined
20,000 volunteers and more than a hundred industry sponsors, to lay 6 million feet of cable
in California Schools for NetDay '96. This was the first of such efforts in California and
.plans are to hold NetDay in. other states.
.
•
The Administration will provide leadership and work with Governors, educational leaders,
parents, industry providers, and regulators to carry out the provisions in the 1996
Telecommunications Act. This Act promotes affordable access and connections to the
internet and other technology resources to schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics.
3
�- --' ._-
.~~--.-~-,..
-.
\,
,
,,
•
,The Technology Literacy Challenge is a challenge to the Nation to provide all teachers with
the training and support they need to help students learn through technology, develop _
effective and engaging software and on-line learning resources, provide access to modem
GQmputers for all teachers and studentS, and connect every school and classroom in America
to the information highway~ The President has proposed a $2 billion, 5-year fund that will
catalyze and leverage state, local, and private sector effortsto meet these goals.
5.
. Making Investments in Edycation a Top Pr,iority
The Clinton Administration has made investing in education an.top priority of its Administration.
•
From 1993 to 1995, the Clinton Administration increased investments in education programs
from $23.7 billion to $24.5 billion, an increase of $,800 million.
•
The President has presented a seven year balanced budget proposal that invests in education
priorities. .Over the neXt seven, years, the President's budget proposes $311 billion for
education and training, $61 billion more than the 1996 congressional budget resolution.
6.
Supporting the American Family in Cliildren's Learning
The most important teachers in any child's life are her parents. The ,Cliriton Administration
recognizes this and has helped to encourage and suppOJ.1 parent and family involvement in learning
.
through a variety of initiatives:
•
The Family Involvement Partnership for Learning, which was launched in September 1994,
brings together over 250 national education, family, and civic organizations and employers
to encourage more family involvement in education. The partnership includes thirty-five
. national religious denominat,ions representing over 75% of church-going Americans.
There are two major projects of this partnership:
.
'
'
,
.
,
READ*WRITE*NOW!, launched in the spring ,of 1995;feached over 425,000
children last summer. Over 125,000 reading partners provided mentoring and
literacy support.
AMERICA GOES BACK TO SCHOOL, organized each September since 1994 to
encourage Americans to get involved' in education. This. 'effort has- included
celebrities, community leaders, parents and thousands of volunteers who went back
to school to higblighnhe importance of educatio~.
•
National and local en;tployers all over the ~untry, including Disney, Marriott, HBO,
Hewlett-Packard, John Hancock Financial Services, are signing the "Employer's Promise"
4
�,
'.
f" .
\'
,
;.
,
.
to adopt family-friendly business practices that encourage employees to help their own
children learn and to volunteer time in schools.
•
Nonprofit organizations in 28 states were awarded $9.9 million in 1995 to establish parent
information and reSource centers. These centers are co!laborating with schools, institutions
of higher education, social service agencies, and other nonprofit organizations to help
children learn.
.•
The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act emphasizes parental
involvement in education through school-parent compacts io increase student achievement.
The Goals 2000 Act also encourages parental involvement in all aspects of education refotm '
and improvement efforts from setting'standards to developing school improvement plans.
7.
PreparinG YounG People for a StronG Transition from School to' Work
Seventy.;five percent of students do not attend college directly after completing high school. The
Clinton Adminstration recognized how important it is that these young people have opportunities
to develop the skills they need to get good paying jobs and be productive, responsible citizens. ' The
Administration and Congress passed the School-to-Work Opporturuties Act in 1994 to help support
local partnerships--among businesses, schools, community organizations and state "and local
govemments--and to create opportunities for young people to receive the skills and training they
need. '
•
In 1994 all 50 stat~s received School-to-Work planning grants to begin to produce
comprehensive plans for helping' students develop the skills they need to successfully
transition from school to work.
•
,To date, 27 states have received multi-million dollar implementation grants totaling over
$215 million.
•
Local School-to-Work grants have also been awarded to 37 communities,
8,
,ExpandinG Access to College
,
\
.
Since 1992, the President has substantially increased, the level of Federal fmancial assistance
actually available to students. In 1992, $22.5 billion (graIits, loans and work-study) was available
to help students pay for the costs of higher education. 'The 1997 budget proposes $41.5 billion in
aid available, an increase of $1? billion, or 84 percent since 1992.
••
The Direct Student Loan, proposed by President Clinton, simplifies the process for recei~ing .
student loan arid provides more flexible repayment options. -The Direct Loan program has
, been successfully implemented at 1,330 institUtioris and borrowers and schools have
indicated overwhelming support.
a
5
�t,
.
'
•
9.
"
The President has proposed a substantial increase in the maximum Pell grant ~ward to
$2,700--an increase or $360 of 15 percent above the current 1995 level.
Making Schools Safe and Disciplined
The Clinton Administration has supported a number of initiatives and programs to reduce violence
and drugs in the schools. For example:
•
Since 1994, more than $18 million has been awarded under the Safe Schools Act to local.
education agencies for violence prevention programs·.,.including conflict'resolution, peer'
mediation, and teach training--and for metal detectors and security personnel:
•
This program was expanded in 1994. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act will provide nearly $500 million to communities and states fora wide variety of
violence and drug prevention programs.
•
In his State ofthe Union address, the President encouraged communities to explore the
option of implementing uniform policies as one approach to reducing violetice and, focus
students back on learning the basics.
'
10.
Helping Children Start School Ready to Learn
One of the top priorities of the Clinton Administration has been to help ensure that young chiidren
in America start school prepared to lean;t. The 1994 Head Start reauthoriiation mcluded efforts to
improve Head Start programs, including professional development for teachers, expansion ill
enrolIment, and extended days for children with working parents. The administration has proposed
consistent 'growth in Head Start funding, and Congress has- pro'vided for continual increases in
.appropriations since 1992. Over 730,000 children are served by Head Start every year.
,11.
National ~d Com~unit.y 'Service
The national service program is creating opportunities for young people allover the country to earn
or pay back cOllege tuition through commuIiity service. Through this initiative, more than 25,000
Americans are atwork'in schools and neighborhoods across the country helping to reduce youth
gang/violence, providing after school mentoring and tutoring, helping children learn computer skills,
and offering other educational services.
.,
'
6
��Setting the Record Straight: Responding
to the Claremont Institute Report on
Goals 2000 and Education in California
The Goals 2000 Act provides resources to states and local communities to improve academic
achievement. States and school districts set standards for basic and advanced skills in academic
subject areas. They undertake education reforms to improve teaching and learning, provide
training to teachers, expand the use of computers in the classroom, increase parental and
community involvement, and make other locally designed education improvements. The federal
government supports these efforts by providing funding, and by providing expanded flexibility
in how these funds, as well as all federal education funds, can be used to support locally
designed reforms.
This document responds to the erroneous assertions made by Izumi and Williams about Goals
2000 and its potential to assist California's educational improvement efforts in Goals 2000 and
California Education: Devolution in Retreat?, a report from the Claremont Institute. That
paper attempts to cast Goals 2000 (along with related federal programs) as a mechanism for
substantially increasing federal control over education, at the expense of local and state control.
Indeed, as a review of the legislation and the U.S. Department of Education's track record will
show, the paper displays a shocking ignorance of both new and longstanding federal education
programs, and a complete misunderstanding of key provisions of the law.
More specifically, the paper makes the following assertions:
Assertion:
"The original six goals were expanded to eight by Clinton and his new Secretary
ofEducation" (p. 3). Title I ofGoals 2000, which contains the National Education
Goals, "indicates a greater willingness by the federal government to impose its will than
it would have the public believe . ... [TJhe Act uses the command word 'will' at least
forty-five times . .. such as: All children will have access to high-quality and
developmentally appropriate preschool programs" (p. 5).
Response:
The authors are confused. They can't tell the difference between Congressional
endorsement of a vision for the future of American education and federal mandates. The
rest of the analysis in the paper reflects equally glaring misunderstandings of the Act and
of what its provisions actually mean.
•
Through Goals 2000, Congress endorsed-on a bipartisan basis-the
goals initially developed by the nation's governors and President Bush.
While Congress added two goals (parental involvement and teacher
professional development) to the original six, the wording of the goals and
objectiv~s is virtually the same as when the goals were initially developed
by the governors and President Bush. The goals use the word "will"
1
�precisely because they are goals-descriptions of what the governors and
President hoped would occur in the future.
•
The authors may have bean counted the verbs, but they missed the main
point. The goals are not requirements, and there are no federal funds tied
to adopting or meeting them. The goals have always enjoyed broad,
bipartisan support, both before and after they were incorporated into the
Goals 2000 Act. The wording the authors dissect and criticize has already
been widely accepted by governors and legislators of both parties, parents,
employers, state and local education officials, and civic groups of all
stripes.
In addition, states and communities all across the country have adopted, or
adapted them to fit their particular circumstances.
Assertion:
"The minute any state decides to accept any part ofthe Goals 2000 largesse, the
supposedly 'voluntary' goals become mandatory" (p. 9). In order to receive funds under
Title III ofGoals 2000, states have to meet federal requirements, including developing a
state education improvement plan and submitting it to the Secretary for approval.
"[TJhe federal Secretary has significant discretionary power to accept or reject a state's
application based on the state's adherence to Washington's policies . .. [TJhere will be
powerful and irresisti/;lle pressure on states to conform to federal education policies" (p.
12).
Response:
These criticisms reflect another fundamental misunderstanding of the Act. They
are strongly contradicted by the experience of states participating in Goals 2000.
•
These criticisms are based on misinformed interpretations of specific
provisions of the Act, taken completely out of context, and conveniently
overlook the track record established over the past 15 months. Forty-eight
states and hundreds of local school districts have received Goals 2000
funds. No state or school district has been told what policies, practices, or
education improvement strategies to adopt as a result of participating in
Goals 2000. Not one local school district has even submitted an education
improvement plan to the federal government, nor will they. Fourteen
states have submitted completed Goals 2000 plans. All have been
approved, and not one state has been asked to change even a single word
in its education reform plan.
•
Neither Title III of the Goals 2000 Act nor any other federal legislation
requires states to adopt or implement the National Education Goals as a
condition of receiving federal funding. The provisions describing what
state Goals 2000 plans must address do not require any particular
2
�strategies for achieving the goals, and the reviews of state plans have not
looked at this at all. The paper's warnings of federal intrusion and
increased federal control are myths, designed to play on the fears of
parents and, in this case, to pressure Governor Wilson into turning down
funds that can help California schools.
•
The federal government was a partner in establishing the goals. The
agreement between the governors and President Bush at the 1989
Charlottesville Education Summit, as well as the goals themselves,
explicitly acknowledge that the federal government must support state and
local efforts to achieve these goals. It would make no sense to establish
widely endorsed national goals and then make the federal government
irrelevant to achieving them, Yet to have no relationship between federal
education programs and the goals would do just that. Designing federal
education programs to assist states in their own efforts to achieve the
National Education Goals should be applauded, not criticized. Failure to
do this would mean that the federal government was failing to do its
. limited and carefully defined share in helping to achieve the goals.
•
The requirement that states develop education improvement plans is based
on (1) the lessons state leaders themselves learned about how to improve
education; and (2) the fact that every governor in the country committed
to develop education improvement plans when they participated in the
Charlottesville education summit.
•
The requirement for Secretarial approval of state plans is for the purpose
of responsible federal use of taxpayer funds, not for federal intrusion into
state and local education matters. The review of state plans is conducted
by educators, employers and parents, not federal officials. The purpose is
simply to determine if the plans are promising enough to invest in. The
Secretary does not approve academic standards, tests, or any specific part
of a state plan. The law doesn't allow for an intrusive approach, the
Secretary doesn't want an intrusive approach and the U.S. Department of
Educat,ion has not used an intrusive approach-the track record since the
enactment of Goals 2000 leaves no room for doubt.
•
The Goals 2000 legislation incorporates the best features of an
accountable block grant-providing unprecedented flexibility in how
funds are spent in exchange for states and districts setting higher standards
for results.
•
Goals 2000 Act requirements are minimal and focus on achieving better
results for students. In addition, the legislation authorizes states, local
3
�districts, and schools to apply for waivers of requirements in elementary
and secondary programs, when regulations hinder reform efforts.
Moreover, the Education Department has issued no new regulations for
the Goals 2000 Act.
Assertion:
The paper claims (supposedly quoting Gov. Roy Romer) that "parents and voters
oppose" Goals 2000 (p. 7).
Response:
In fact, parent'organizations, business groups, and educational organizations
representing states and local communities have endorsed and continue to support Goals
2000. It supports their efforts to set challenging standards that will strengthen education
in their states-teaching, curriculum, and testing aligned with the higher standards. The
Goals 2000 Act provides support for effective change. It creates a partnership with states
and local school systems to help our students achieve the high standards they will need if
they are to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Assertion:: Goals 2000 "lists the strategies that they [states} mustjollow in order to meet the
goals, " including 'one-stop shopping' and other ways ofproviding social services, health
care, and other nonacademic activities in schools (p. 11).
Response::
The Goals 2000 Act provides a broad and very flexible framework for state
education improvement plans. It does not, however, in any way determine the specific
content of the plans. Nor does it require any specific practices, such as provision of
social services or the use of particular types of textbooks or instructional materials. The
authors are simply wrong about this. These are local or state decisions.
Goals 2000 does not r:equire any particular strategies; this is up to state and local
discretion. Children who are hungry, need eye glasses or are encountering other
problems do not learn well; ignoring these problems only leads to more problems in
educating children. Fragmenting and duplicating bureaucracies is not a very effective
way to solve such problems; many states and localities have found that coordination of
services is a key to solving complex problems and using tax dollars more effectively.
This legislation simply encourages states to build on what they have already decided
works for them,
.
Goals 2000 creates "new bureaucracies" to advance federal control over
Assertion:
education; "resistingfederal 'advice' will not be as easy as it may seem" (p. 6). They
include:
-the National Education Goals Panel ["charged with an advocacy mission" (p. 6) to
ensure that local leaders are "educated andpropagandized until they come around. The
federal goals will drive local reforms, not the other way around" (p. 7)},
-the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) ["the NESIC's
possible demise does not eliminate the national standards themselves, or the fact that
4
�states receivingfederalfunds will have to meet those standards" (p. 7)],
-the Regional Laboratories ["another group ofbureaucracies created by the Act, which
have so far received little attention"; they "have the potential to impose their will on
local schools" (p. 8)], and
-the federal research institutes ["the mission outlined for them . .. contains provisions
that would turn them into advocacy organizations" andprevent efforts to develop single
sex schools for African American males from receiving "a fair hearing and analysis" (p.
8)].
Response:
Once again, the authors demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of various
provisions of the Act and the extent to which they interrelate. They also demonstrate
ignorance of ongoing national activities in support of educational improvement by states
and localities-some dating back three decades or more.
•
None of these entities has authority over state and local matters; they are a
set of resources that can be used at the discretion of states, local
communities or individual schools,
•
The National Education Goals Panel was established in 1990 by President
Bush as a result of the Presidenfs education summit with the nation!s
govern·ors. This independent, bipartisan panel has 18 members, nine
Democrats and nine Republicans, Of the eight governors who are
members, five of them (David Beasley of South Carolina, John Rowland
of Connecticut, John Engler of Michigan, Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, and
Christine Whitman of New Jersey) are Republicans, The Paners primary
purpose is to measure the nation!sand states! progress toward the National
Education Goals and to highlight successful community and state efforts
to improve student performance.
•
Concerning national standards, the authors have done what they accuse
others of doing: confusing a national effort to improve education with a
federal mandate. The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging states
to set their own standards for what students should know and be able to do
in core academic areas, While there are national efforts under way by
various organizations to establish model standards, in many cases
supported by funds provided by the Bush Administration, these are
nationally-developed models, not federal standards, The Department will
not promulgate or endorse them, and states and localities are not under
any obligation to adopt them, regardless of whether or not they participate
in Goals 2000,
•
The regional labs and research institutes are part of the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement-which has been in existence for
5
�over 30 years, and which is independent of Goals 2000 or any other
federal education program. Their role in schools is determined by local
and state needs, not federal dictates. They provide assistance only upon
request.
The National Skills Standards Board creates 'Jederal entanglement in local
Assertion:
education and the private sector job market" (p. 14). Furthermore, "the education
standards created by the National Education Goals Panel will be incorporated into the
national skills standards. ... [T}he Clinton administration wants the business community
to pressure local schools to use the education standards contained in the Act" (p. 14).
Response:
Once again, the authors are confused. The National Education Goals Panel is not
creating standards and imposing them on states, and the business community is not being
deputized to enforce federal changes to local school curricula. Federal funds are not
contingent upon the use of skill standards in any way. Educational improvement is an
issue of national importance and interest, and there is need for national leadership-from
governors, legislators, educators, employers, and the public-on various aspects of
education reform. The Goals Panel and the National Skills Standards Board provide the
structure for this leadership, using modest amounts of federal funds to provide tools for
supporting local and state education reform, with limited involvement of federal officials.
Response:
The National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) and the business community's
support for education standards are not about pressuring local schools to use a specific set
of standards. NSSB is a group of private citizens -- business, education, and labor
leaders -- that will facilitate a process whereby employers can articulate the skills they
need from workers. Local schools can use that information to chose the curriculum and
programs they think will prepare their students to meet the demands of employers. There
is no federal entanglement. Local schools want the best futures for their children, and
skill standards will provide them more information they can use to better prepare their
students for their futures.
Assertion:
If the government is handing out skill certificates to select students, then these
students will have an advantage [over students who attend private schools, home schools,
and schools not participating in Goals 2000} in getting ajob or perhaps getting into
college.
Response:
Skill certificates give industry an opportunity to let students, parents, and teachers
know what skills are required for employment. Skill certificates give students an
opportunity to let potential employers know what skills they have. The
government does not hand out skill certificates. A skill certificate is a credential
issued by the local school-to-work program. What kinds of credentials to issue
are decided on by the state through its planning process. Skill certificates only
matter if employers look for them in hiring and employers will only look for
6
�them if they certify the skills employers are looking for anyway. Therefore,
students benefit from the opportunity to acquire the skills that industries are
demanding. Individuals will also have the opportunity to acquire skill certificates
through postsecondary education, union and apprenticeship programs,
professional associations, and from employers -- not just from public schools.
Assertion:
School-to-work exists in large part simply to further the reach of Goals 2000.
Response:
The School-to-Work Act exists to provide states and communities resources to
help their youth develop the skills they need for citizenship, career opportunities,
and higher education. It is part of the Act's purpose to support academic
achievement and, to that end, it simply says that state school-to-work activities
should not operate at cross purposes with state academic requirements: if there are
state academic standards, school-based school-to-work activities should be
consistent with them. None of these provisions specify what those standards must
be.
{
Assertion:
"Even though compliance with Goals 2000 is 'voluntary 'for states, the law holds
disadvantaged children hostage to its dictates" (p. 2) because states that receive funds
under the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) must align their curriculum,
assessments, and teacher professional development with Goals 2000 standards.
Response:
Neither disadvantaged students nor states are "held hostage" by either Goals
2000 or the Improving America's Schools Act, which provides assistance to
disadvantaged students under the Title 1 program. Quite to the contrary, the provisions
in both Goals 2000 and Title 1 clearly place the states and local school districts in charge
of determining academic standards and educational policy. They also both serve to
encourage states and local communities to set more rigorous academic standards for all
students, including economically disadvantaged students.
•
Goals 2000 requires that participating states establish their own academic
standards in basic and advanced skills for students, and develop tests to
measure student progress toward achieving there standards. The Title 1
program also requir~s that states set their own academic standards in basic
and advanced skills for participating students, and test to determine
progress toward achieving those standards. When the two programs
operate together, the result will be that disadvantaged students served by
the Title 1 program will be expected to reach for the same academic
standards as are other students in the state. Rather than being "held
hostage", disadvantaged students are freed from a tyranny of low
expectations, and will be challenged to work harder and learn more.
7
�•
There are no "goals 2000" standards. only state or local standards
determined by state or local authorities. The same is true of curriculum,
assessments, and ways of preparing and upgrading the skills of teachers.
These are all determined. at the state and local level, without federal
direction or control.
•
According to a recent report by the American Federation of Teachers, 49
states are setting their own academic standards for its students. The U.S.
Department of Education independently counts all 50 states engaged in
this process. For states participating in Goals 2000 and Title 1, they too
will use the standards they are setting themselves. In either case, the
academic standards that student will be held to are determined by the
state, not by the federal government. And standards used for Goals 2000
and Title 1 are those saine standards.
•
No state is required to participate in Goals 2000 in order to continue to
receive Title 1 funds or funds under IASA or any other federal education
programs. This is stated explicitly in Section 213 of the Goals 2000 Act.
•
This situation represents an increase in state and local control and a
decrease in federal requirements. The federal government exercises no
control over the resources that states and communities spend on education
or over school and classroom practices. Therefore, if federal programs are
to be effective, they must work in tandem with state and local reform
efforts. The new legislation recognizes this and responds to concern that
in the past compliance with rules and regulations surrounding federal
education programs has often constrained the flexibility necessary to
achieve improvement. For example, reliance on nationally-normed testing
in the Title I program was often redundant with state testing and
consequently cut into instructional time for students who needed extra
help the most. The new Title I allows states to use their own state
assessments that measure performance in attaining the skills and standards
they deem to be important.
"The objectives ofGoals 2000 are already mirrored in California's subject
Assertion:
frameworks and its statewide assessment" (pe 2). California's math and English
frameworks "have resulted in the de-emphasis of basic math skills and phonics" (p. 21).
The "connection between these state Math and English frameworks and the Goals 2000
debate over measuring standards . .. lies with the California Learning Assessment
8
�System (CLAS). ... The link is that the CLAS test was designed to measure the
effectiveness ofeducation reforms envisioned under Goals 2000 programs" (p. 22). This
type of "performance-based" test "bases its scoring on non-academic benchmarks" not
"right and wrong answers" (p. 22).
Response:
Standards and testing procedures are determined by the state and by local school
districts and schools, not by the federal government. This has been true in the past and
will continue to be true under Goals 2000.
•
Any flaws in previous curriculum frameworks and assessments in
California were the complete responsibility of the state, not of the federal
govern'ment, and correcting any problems is also California's
responsibility, without regard to whether or not California participates in
Goals 2000. California is in the midst of revising its curriculum
frameworks, and Governor Wilson has just signed legislation calling for
the development of a new testing program. The state can use Goals 2000
funds to supports its own activities in these areas, if it chooses to.
Because education is so important, some aspects of reform are bound to
generate controversy, but how these issues are addressed in California will
be determined by the citizens of California, not by federal
requirements-whether or not the state participates in Goals 2000.
•
Goals 2000 promotes assessments that are aligned with each state's
content standards in academic subjects. These use valid and reliable
academic performance measures to provide coherent information about
student attainments relative to the state content standards.
Goals 2000 promotes outcomes-based education: (1) The Regional Laboratories
Assertion:
have "a primary duty" to promote school restructuring, which is "a buzz word in many
education circles . .. for promoting the controversial principles ofoutcomes-based
education" (pp. 8-9); (2) One purpose ofthe Act is to provide "a nationalframeworkfor
education reform" and "the term 'frameworks' . .. is the buzzwordfor California's
troubled experiment with outcome-based education" (p. 20).
Response:
These are transparent and illogical attempts to generate objections to Goals 2000
by purporting to find a link to the outcomes-based education controversy. To set the
record straight: (1) The provision that allows the labs to respond to a school's request for
help with its restructuring efforts is not intended to promote outcomes-based education;
(2) A national "framework" for education reform means a structure of support and is not
a secret code for OBE.
Goals 2000 doesn't promote any particular education philosophy or approach; that is a
local decision. GOALS 2000 focuses on upgrading academic achievement and
9
�preparing students for the world of work. Each state, school district, and school
determines what content it wants students to learn, and whether that content should focus
strictly on core academic and baslc skills or should also include other areas. The federal
government will not ~e involved in those kinds of local decisions.
One California school district plans to use its Goals 2000 funds to hire school
Assertion:
counselors to address "the supposed emotional and social needs ofdistrict children" and
focus on "'soft' areas ofschool management and school environment" rather than
academics (po 23). Therefore, Goals 2000 "will mean a significant expansion" in these
areas, "with no assurance as to improved student performance or a higher quality
classroom instruction" (po 23).
Response:
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the program in this one district, it
effectively illustrates the ability of local schools and communities to use Goals
2000 resources in ways not required by the statute or imposed by the federal
government. By providing flexibility for states and localities to decide how best
to use their Goals 2000 funds, the Act supports local control and decision making,
rather than federal mandates. When control is decentralized, funds will be used
to support a variety of initiatives. The point of establishing state standards and
carrying out a state and local planning process, as Goals 2000 calls for, is to allow
individuals and groups who are concerned about education reform to help decide
how best to improve instruction and student performance.
It is ironic that the authors call for local control of education, and at the same
time they criticize a local district's use of the authority and resources at it
disposal. Supporters of local control in theory should also support it in practice.
Rigorous academic standards will only be established by involving the public
Assertion:
in a broad-based deliberation on the subject, thereby building a genuine and informed
consensus. Goals 2000 obfuscates and delays that public debate by purveying the myth
that new federal goals, standards, and strategies are meeting these needs.
Response:
We agree completely that academic standards must be established through a
broad-based process, and rest on an 'informed consensus. That is precisely what Goals
2000 supports-broad-based, grass roots involvement in the development of academic
standards and the necessary education reforms so that students can reach those standards.
It is the authors of this report who have been purveying myths and obfuscating the public
debate. While their attacks are aimed at the federal law, if successful they will deny
resources and opportunities to students, teachers and parents in California.
10
�, Settillg the Record Straight: Responding
to the Claremont Institute Report on '
Goals 2000 and Education in California
The Goals 2000 Act provides resources to states and 'l()cal communities to improve academic'
achievem,ent Stat~s and school districts set standards for basic and advanced skills in academic
subject areas, They undertake education reforms to improve teaching and learning, provide
training to teachers, expand the use of computers in the classroom, increase parental and
community involvement, and make other locally d~signededucation improvements, The federal '
,government supports these efforts by providing funding, and by providing expanded flexibility
in how these funds, as well as all federal education funds, can be used to support locally
designed reforms.
This docllmentresponds to the erroneous assertions made by Izumi and Williams about Goals
2000 and its potential to assist California's educational improvement efforts in Goals 2000 and
California Education' Devolution in Retreat?, a report from the Claremont Institute, That
paper attempts to cast Qoals 2000 (along with'related federal programs) as a mechanism for
, substantially increl;l.Sirig federal control over education, at the expense of local and state controL
Indeed, as a review of the legislation and the U. S. Department of Education's track record will
show, the paper displays a shocking ignorance of both new and longstanding federal education
programs, and a complete misunderstanding of key provisions of the law,
,More specifically, the paper makes the following assertions:
Assertion:
"The original six goals were expanded to eight by Clinton and his new Secretary
ofEducation" (p. 3). Title I ofGoals 2000, which contains the National Education
Goals, "indicates a greater willingness by the federal government to impose its will than
it would have the public bel~eve . ... [TJhe Act uses the command word 'will' at least
forty-five times . .. such as: All children will hlJ.l!e access to high-quality and
developmentally approprIate preschool program~" (p. 5):
Response:
The authors are confused, They can't tell the difference between Congressional
endorsement of a vision for the futUre of American education and federal mandates. The
rest of the analysis in the paper reflects equally glaring misunderstandings of the Act and
of what its provisions actually mean,
•
Through Goals 2000, Congress endorsed-ona bipartisan basis-the
goals initially developed by the nation's governors. and President Bush.
While Congress added two goals (parental involvement and teacher
professiomil development) to the original six, the wording of the goals and
objectives is virtually the same as when the goals were initially developed
by the governors and:rresident Bush. The goals use the word "will"
�precisely because they are goals-descriptions of what the governors and
.
President hoped would occur in the future. .
•
The authors may have beancounted the ~erbs: but they missed the main
point. The goals are not requirements, and there are no federal funds tied
to adopting or meeting them. The goals have always enjoyed broad,
bipartisan support, both before and after they w~re incorporated into the
Goals' 2000 Act. The wording the authors dissect and criticize has already
been widely accepted by governors and legislators of both parties, parents:
employers, state and local education officials, and civic groups of all
stripe~.
In addition, states and communities all across the country have adopted, or.
adapted them to fit their. particular circumstances.
Assertion:
"The minute any state decides to accept any part ofthe Goals 2000 largesse, the
supposedly 'voluntary' goals become mandatory" (p. 9). In order to receive funds under
Title III ofGoals 2000, states have to meet federal requirements, including developing a
state education improvement plan and submitting it to the Secretaryfor approval.
'lTJhe federal Secretary has significant discretionary power to accept or reject a state's
. application based on the ~tate 's' adherence to Washington's. policies . .. [TJhere will be
powerful arid irresistible pressure on states to conform to federal education policies" (p:
12).
Response:
These criticisms reflect another fundamental misunderstanding of the Act. They
are strongly contradicted by the experience of states participating in Goals ~OOO.
•
These criticisms are based on misinformed interpretations of specific
provisions of the Act, taken completely out of context, and conveniently
overlook the track record established over the past 15 months. Forty-eight
s~ates and hundreds of local school districts have received Goals 2000
funds .. No state or school district has been told what policies, practices, or
.education imp~ovement strategie~ to adopt as a result of participating in
Goals 2000. Not one local school district has even submitted an education
improvement plan to the federal government, nor will they. Fourteen
states have submitted completed Goals 2000 plan~. All have been
approved, and not one state has been asked to change even a single word
in its education reform plan. . .
.
•
Neither Title III of the Goals 2000 Act nor any other federal legislation
requires states to adopt or implement the National Education Goals as a
condition of receiving federal funding. The provisions describing what
state Goals 2000 plans must address do not require any particular
.2
�strategies for achieving the goals, and th'e reviews of state plans have not
looked at this at alL The paper's warnings of federal intrusion and
increased federal control are myths, designed to play on the fears of
parents and, in this case, to pressure Governor W,ilson into turning down
funds that can help California schOOls.
•
The federal 'government was a partner in establishing the goals. The
agreement between the governors and President Bush at the 1989
Charlottesville Education Summit, as well as the goals themselves,
explicitly acknowledge that the federal government must support state and
local efforts to achieve these goals. It would make no sense to .establish
widely endorsed national goals and then make the federal government
irrelevant to achieving them. Yet to have no relationship between federal
education programs and the goals would do just that. Designing federal
education programs to assist states in their own efforts to achieve the
National Education Goals shoVld be applauded, not criticized. Failure to
do this would mean that the federal government was fa~ling·to do its
limited and carefully defined share in helping to ,achieve the goals.
•
The requirement that states develop education improvement plans is based' .
, on (1). the,lessons state leaders themselves learned about how to improve
education; and (2) the fact that every governor in the country committed
to develop education improvement plans when they participated in the'
Charlottesville education summit.
•
The requirement for Secretarial approval of state plans is for the purp~se
of responsible federal use of taxpayer funds, not for federal intrusion into
state and local education matters. The review of state plaris' is conducted
by educators, employers and parents, not federal officials. The purpose is '
simply to determin~ if the plans are promising enough to invest in. The
Secretary does not approve academic standards, tests, or any specific part
, of a state plan. The law doesn't allow for an intrusive approach, the
Secretary doesn't want an intrusive approach and the U.S. Department of
Educat,ion has not used an intrusive approa~h-the track record since the
'.
enactment of Goals 2000 leaves.no room for doubt.
•
The Ooals' 2000 legislation incorporates the best features of an
accountable block grant-providing unprecedented flexibility in how
funds are spent in exchange for states and districts setting higher standards
for results.
•
Goals 2000 Act requirements are minimal and focus on achieving better
results for students. In addition, the legislation authorizes states, local
3
�.
.
.
.
distri~ts, and schools to apply for waivers of requirements in elementary
and secondary programs, when regulations hinder reform efforts.
Moreover, the Education Department has issued no new regulations for
the Goals 2000 Act.
Assertion:
The paper claims ($upposedly quoting Gov. Roy Romer) that "parents and voters
oppose" Goals 2000 (p. 7).
Response:
In fact, parent'organizations, business groups, and educational organizations
representing states and local communities have endorsed and continue to support Goals
2000. It supports their efforts to set challenging standards that will strengthen education
in their states-teaching, curriculum,and testing aligned with the higher standards. The
Goals 2000 Act provides support for effective change. It creates a partnership with states
and local school systems to help bur stuqents achieve th~ high standards they will need if
they- are to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Assertion:: Goals, 2000 "lists the strategies that they [states] must follow in order to meet the
. goals, " including 'one-stop shopping' and other ways ofproviding social services, health
care, and other nonacademic activities in schools (p. 11).
Response::
The Goals 2000 Act provides a broad and very flexible framework for state
education improvement plan~. It does not, however, in any way determine the specific
content of the pians. Nor does it require any specific practices, such as provision of
social services or the' use of particular types qf textbooks or 'instructional materials. The
authors are simply wrong about this. These are local or state decisions.
Goals 2000 does not r.equire any particular strategies; this is up to state and local
discretion. 'Children who are hungry, need eye glasses or are encountering other
problems do not learn well; ignoring these problems only leads to more problems in
, educating children. Fragmenting and duplicating bureaucracies is not a very effective
way to solve such problems; many states and localities have found that coordination of
services is a key to solving complex problems and using tax dollars more effectively.
This legislation simply encourages states to build on what they have already decided
works for them.
.
Assertion: ' Goals 2000 creates "new bureaucracies" to advance federal control over
education; "resistingfederal 'advice' will not be as easy as it may seem" (p. 6). They
include:
-the National Educa,tion Goals Panel ["charged with an advocacy mission" (p. 6) to
, ensure that local leaders are "educated andpropagandized until they come around. ,The
federal goals will drive local reforms, not the other way around" (p. 7)],
. -the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) ["the NESIC's
possible demise does not eliminate the national standards themselves, or the fact that
4
�states receivingfederalfunds will have to meet those standards" (p. 7)},
~the Regional Laboratories ["another group ofbureaucracies cre'ated by the Act, which
'have so far received little attention"; they "have the potential to impose their will on
local schools" (p. 8)], and
-the federal research institutes ["the mission outlinedfor them . .. contains provisions
that would turn them into advocacy organizations" and prevent efforts to develop single;'
, sex schools for African American males from receiving, "a fair hearing and analysis" (p.
8)).
Response:
Once again, the authors demonstrate a fundarri~.mtal misunderstanding of various
provisions of the Act and the extent to which they interrelate. They also demonstrate
ignorance of ongoing national.activities in support of educational improvement by states
.
and localities-some dating back three decades or more.
,
•
None of these entities has authority over state and'local matters; they are a
set of resources that can be used at the discretion of states, local
communities or individual schools.
..
•
The National Education Goals Panel was established in 1990 by President
, Bush as a result of the President's education summit with the nation's
governors. This independent, bipartisan panel has 18 members, nine
Democrats and nine Republicans. Of the eight governors who are
members, five of them (David Beasley of South Carolina, JC?hn Rowland
of Connecticut, John Engler of Michigan, Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, and
Christine Whitman of New Jersey) are RepUblicans. The Panel's primary
purpose is to measure'the nation's and states' progress toward the National
Education Goals and to highlight successful community and state efforts
to improve student performance.
•
Concernirlg national standards, the authors have done what they accus.e
others o(doing: confusing a national effort to improve education with a
federal mandate. The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging states
to set their own standards for what students should know and be able to do
in core academic areas, While there are national efforts under way by
various organizations to establish model standards, in many cases
supported by funds provided by the Bush Administration, these are
nationally-developed models, not federal standards. The Department will
, not promulgate or ~Iidorse them, and states and localities are not under
any obligation to adopt them, regardless of whether or not they participate
in Goals 2000.
•
The regionallabs,and research institutes are part of the Office of
Educational Research ,and Improvement-which has been in: existence for
�,'over ;0 years, and which is independent of Goals 2000 or any other'
federal education program, Their role in schools is determined by local
and state needs, not federal dictates, They provide assistance only upon '
request.
Assertion:
The National Skills Standards Board creates "federal entanglement in local
, education and the private sectorjob market" (p. 14). Furthermore, "the education
standards created by the National Education Goals Panel will be incorporated into the
national skills standards. .' .. [T]he Clinton adm..inistration wants the business community
,,to pressure local schools to use the education standards contained in the Act" (p. 14). ,
Response:
Once again, the authors are confused. the National Education Goals Panel is not
creating 'standards and imposing them on states, and the business community is not being
deputized to enforce federal changes to local school curricula. Federal funds are not.
contingent upon the use of skill standards in any way. Educational improvement is an
issue of national importance and inter~st, and there is need fornationalleadership-'from
governors, legislators, educators,employers, and the public-on various aspects of
education reform. The Goals Panel arid the National Skills Standards Board provide the
structure for this leadership, using modest amounts of federal funds to provide tools for ,
supporting local and state education reform, with limited involvement of federal officials.
Response:
The National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) and the business community's
support for education standards are not about pressuring 'tocal schools to use a specific set
" of standards. NSSB is a group of private citizens -- business, education, and labor
leaders -- that will facilitate a process whereby employers can articulate the skills they
need from workers. Local schools can use that information to chose the curriculum and
'programs they think will prepare their students to meet the demands ofemployers. There
is no federal entangle·meIit. Local schools want the' best futures for their children, and
skill standards will provide ,them more information they can use to better prepare their
students for their futures.
'
Assertion:
If the government is handing out skill certificates to select students, then these
students will have an (uivantage [over students who attend private schools, home schools,
and schools not participating in Goals 2000] in getting ajob or perhaps getting into'
college.
Response:
Skill certificates give industry an opportunity to let students, parents, .and teachers
know what skills are required for, employment. Skill certificates give students an
opportunity to let potential employers know what skill~ they have, The
government does not hand out skill certificates. A skill certificate is a credential
issued by the local scho<?l-to-work program. 'What kinds of credentials to, issue
are decided on by the state through its planning process. Skill certificates only
matter if employers look for them in hiring and employers will only look for
, 6
�them if they certify the skills employers are looking for anyway. Therefore,
students benefit from the opportunity to acquire the skills that industries are
demanding. Individuals will also have the opportunity to acquire skill certificates
through postsecondary education, union and apprenticeship programs,
professional associations, and from employers -- not just from public schools.
Assertion:
School-to-wo~kexists in large part simply to further the reach of Goals 2900 ..
Response:
The School-to-Work Act exists to provide states and communities resources to
help their youth develop the skills they need for citizenship, career opportunities,
and higher education. It is part of the Act's purpose to support academic
achievement and, to that end, it simply says that state school-to-work activities
should not operate at cross purppses with state academic requirements: if there are
state academic standards, school-based school-to-work activities should be
.
.
consistent with them. None of these provisions specify what those standards must
be.
Assertion:
"Even though compliance with Goals 2000 is 'voluntary' for states, the law holds
disadvantaged children hostage to its dictates" (p. 2) because states that receive funds
under the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) must align their curriculum.
assessments, and teacher professional development with Goals 2000 standards.
Response:
Neither disadvantaged students nor states are "held hostage" by either Goals
2000 or the Improving America's Schools Act, which provides assistance to
disadvantaged students under the Title 1 program. Quite to the contrary, the provisions
in both Goals 2000 and Title 1 clearly place the states and local school districts in charge
of determining academic standards and eoucational policy. They also both serve to
encourage states and local communities to set more rigorous academic standards for all
students, including economically disadvantaged students.
.
•
,
.
. '
Goals 2000 requires that participating states establish their owri academic
standards in basic and advanced skills for students, and develop tests to·
. measure student progress toward achieving there standards. The Title 1
program also requires that states set their own academic standards in basic
. and advanced skills for participating students, and test to determine
progress toward achieving those standards. WheJ? the two programs
.operate together, the result will be that disadvantaged stUdents served by
the Title'l program will be expected to reach for the same academic.
standards as are other students in the state. Rather than being "held
hostage", disadvantaged students are freed from a tyranny of low
expectations, and will be challenged to wo* harder and learn more.
7
�•
There are no "goals 2000" standards only state or local standards.
determined by state or local authorities. The same is true of curriculum,
assessments, and ways of preparing and upgrading the skills 9f teachers.
These are all determined at the state and local level, without federal
direction or controL
• '
, According to a recent report by the American Federation of Teachers, 49 '
states are setting their own academic standards for its students. The U.S,
Department of Education independently counts all 50 states engaged in
. this process. For states participating in Goals 2000 and Title 1, they too
, will use the standards they are setting themselves. In either case, the
academic standards that student will be held to are determined by the
,state, not by the fed'eral government. And standards used for Goals 2000
and Title 1 are those same standards.
•
No state is required to participate in Goals 2000 in order to continue to
receive Title 1 funds or funds under IASA or any other federal education
programs. This is stated. explicitly jn, Section .213 of the Goals 2000 Act.
•
This situation represents an increase in state and local control and a
decrease in federal requirements.' The federal government exercises no
, control over the resources that states and communities spend on education
or over school and classroom practices. Therefore, iffederal programs are
tobe effective, they must work in tandem with state and local reform
efforts. The new legislation recogniz~s this and responds to concern that
in the past cOmpliance with rules and regulations surrounding federal
education programs has often constrained the flexibility necessary to
achieve improvement. For example, reliance on nationally-normed testing
in the Title I program was often redundant with state testing and
consequently cut into instructional time for s~dents who needed extra
help the most. The new Title I allows states to use their own state
assessments that measure perforinance in attaining the skills and standards'
they deem to be important. :
Assertion:
;'The objectives ofG~als 2000 are already mirrored in California's subject'
frameworks and it.$ statewide assessment "(p. '2). California's math and English
frameworks "have resulted in the de-emphasis ofbasic math skills andphonies" (p. 21).
The "connection between these state Math and Englishframeworks and the Goals2000
debate over measuring standards . .. lies with the California Learning Assessment
8
�.System (CLAS). ... The link is t~at the CLAS test was design~d to measure the
effectiveness ofeducation reforms envisioned under Goals 2000 programs" (p. 22). This
type of "performr:znce-based" test "bases its scoring on non-academic benchmarks" not
"right and wrong answers" (p. 22).
Response:
Standards and testing procedures are determined by the state and by local school
districts and.schools, not by the feder~l government.' This has been true in the past and
will continue to be true under Goals 2000..
•
Any flaws in prev~ous cu{riculum frameworks and assessments in
California were the complete responsibility of the state, not of the federal
. goverrinitmt, and correcting any problems is also California's
responsibility, without regard to:whether or not California participates in
Goals 2000. California is in the midst of revising its curriculum
frameworks, and Governor Wilson has just signed legislation calling for
the development of a new testing program, The state can use Goals 2000
funds to supports its own activities in these areas, if it chooses to ...
Because education is so important, some aspects of reform are bound to
generate controversy, but how these issues are addressed in California will
be determined by the citizens of California, not by federal
requirements-whether or not the state participates in Goals 2000. .
•
Goals 2000 promotes assessments that are aligned with each' state's
content standards in academic subjects. These use valid and reliable
academic performance measures to provide coherent information about
'
student attainments relative to the state content standards.
Assertion:
Goals 2000 promotes outcomes-based education: (ij The Regional Laboratories
have ."a primary duty" to promote school restructuring, which is "a buzz word in many .
education circles . .. for promoting the controversial principles ofoutcomes-based
.
.
education" (pp. 8-9); (2) One purpose ofthe Act is to provide "a nationalframeworkfor
education reform" and "the term 'frameworks' . .. is th.e buzzwordfor CC!lifornia's
troubled experiment with outcome-basededucqtion "(p. 20).
Response:
These are transparent and illogical attempts to generate objections to Goals 2000
by purporting to find a link to the outcomes-based education controversy. To set the
record straight: (1) The provision that allows the labs to respond to a school's request for
help with its restructuring efforts is not intended to promote outcomes-based education; .
. (2) A national "framework" for education reform .means a structure of support and is not
a secret code for OBE.
.
Goals 2000 doesn't promote ,any particular education philosophy or approach; that is a
local decision. GOALS 2000 focuses on upgradirig academic achievement and
9
�preparing students for the world of work. Each state, school district, and school
.
determines what content it wants students to learn, .and whether that content should focus
strictly on core academic and basic skills or should also include other areas. The federal.
government will not ~e involved in those kinds of local decisions.
Assertion: ... 'One California school district plans to use it~ Goals 2.0.0.0 funds to hire school
counselors to address "thesuppo:<;ed emotional and social needs ofdistrict children" and
focus on "'soft' areas ofschool management and school environment" rather than
academics (p. 23). Therefore, Goals 2.0.0.0 "will mean a significant expansion" in these'
. areas, "with no assurance as to if!1proved student performance or a higher quality
classroom instruction" (p. 23).
Response:
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the program in this one district, it
effectively illustrates the ability of lo~al schools and communities to use Goals
2000 resources in ways not required by the statute or imposed by the federal
government. By providing flexibility for states and localities to decide how best
to use their Goals 2000 funds, the Act supports local control and 'decision making,
rather than federal mandates. When control is decentralized, funds will be used.
to support a variety of initiatives. The point of establishing state standards and
·carrying out ~f state and local planning process, ,as Goals 2000 calls for, is to allow
·individuals and groups who are concerned about education reform to help decide
how best to improve instruction and student performance.
It is ironic that the authors call for local control of education, and at the same
time they criticize a local district's use. of the authority and resources at it
disposaL Supporters of local ~ontrol in theory should also support it in practice.
·
.
Assertion:
Rigorous academic standards will only be established by involving the p~blic
in a broad-based deliberation on the subject,thereby building a genuine and informed·
consensus. Goals 2.0.0.0 obfuscates and delays that public debate by purveying/he myth
. that new federal goals, standards, and strategies are meeting these needs.
.
.
Response:
We agree completely that academic standards must be established through a
broad-based process, and rest on an informed consensus. That is precisely what Goals
2000 supports-broad-based, grass roots involvement in the development of academic
standards and the necessary education reforms so that students can reach those standards.
Itis the authors of this report who have been purVeying myths and obfuscating the public
debate. While their attacks are aimed at the federal law, if successful they will deny
resources and opportunities to students, teachers and parents in California.
.
10
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Cohen - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36062">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Cohen held the position of Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy within the Domestic Policy Council from 1996 to 1999. Prior to being detailed to the White House, he served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.</p>
<p>This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to education reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), America Reads initiative, bi-lingual education and the ballot initiative in California which proposed to eliminate bi-lingual instruction and limit the amount of time for bi-lingual students to transition to English only, test standards, teachers, tribal schools, school safety and school violence. The records include correspondence, reports, faxes, emails, handwritten notes, schedules, publications, and memoranda.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
318 folders in 24 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[United States Department of Education]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 22
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0160-S-Cohen.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/12/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0160-S-united-states-department-of-education
7763316