-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/191bf130f7f90c8f0fc05b0298078e54.pdf
8191355656e10f3053df241178e50051
PDF Text
Text
TITLE VII
THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT
.What'sNew
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Emphasizes the importance of ensuring that students with limited English proficiency (LEP)
learn English and r·each the same challenging academic standards as all other children;
)
•
Improves the quality of professional development and teacher education programs supported
by the E,SEA to help LEP students progress toward high academic standards;
•
Requires programs to administer annual assessments of English language proficiency;
•
Helps local school districts that have rapidly expanding numbers 6f LEP students and schools·
that have little experience in serving LEP students teach these students to high standards by
establishing a competitive priority for these districts;
•
Strengthens program accountability by (1) giving priority to districts with track records of.
success; (2) requiring more specific data in the grant application; (3) requiring annual
evaluation reports to better measure progress and determine grant continuation; and, (4) .
requiring grantees to meet program objectives or carry out all improvement plan in order to
receive continued fmiding;
•
Empowers families ofLEP children by requiring grantees to give parents clear program
descriptions and information about their right to withdraw their children from a Title VII
.
program at any time; and.
•
Promotes learning ofa second language by continuing the funding priority for programs that
develop proficiency in more than one language.
The Bilingual Education Act assists states, school districts, institutions of higher .education, and
nonprofit organizations in developing and implementing quality instructional programs for
linguistically dIverse students as part of standards-based education reforms: In 1998, over one
million students were served by Title VII programs.
What We've Learned
The numberofLEP students in our nation's schools is large and growing. Between 1990 and
1997, the number of LEP students increased by 57 percent, to roughly 3.4 million. I
Title VII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 103
�LEP students and their families are incre'asingly living in places that have not previously served
large numbers ofLEP students. Between 1989-90 and 1996-97, the LEP population more than
doubled in 18 states: Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Minnesota,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Tennessee, and Washington?
. .
LEP students arrive at their schools at various ages and often with little or no prior formal
schooling. Twelve percent of LEP students iIi. middle school and 20 percent in high school have
missed more than two years of schooling since age six. Twenty-three percent ofLEP students
.
. .
have limited skills in their native language. 3
A 1998 National Research Council report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Childr~n,
concluded that LEP students should be taught to read first in their native language. If nativelanguage instruction is impossible because of a lack of materials or resources, the report
recommended that LEP should attain some fluency in oral English ,before they receive formal
reading instruction in English.4
. .
In 1998, 54 percent of all teachers taught LEP or culturally diverse students, yet only 20 percent
.
felt very well prepared to meenhe needs of these studer1ts.5.
What We Propose
One of America's greatest strengths is its,diversi,ty. Ensuring that all children have the
opportunity to succeed is a central purpose of the ESEA. However, the dramatic demographic
changes that our schools have witn~ssed over the lastseveralyears have created new challenges
to teaching and learning. Our proposal for reauthorization will sharpen the focus on helping all
students with Bmited English proficiency learn English and achieve, tohigh standards.
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Emphasize the importance of helping LEP students learn English. Under both Title I and
Title VII, schools would be required to annually administer assessments of student progress in
developing English proficiency. The test results would be used to improve instruction and
inform parents about student progress.
•
Help ensure that all teachers are well-trained't6 teach LEP students. Because the number of
students with limited English proficiency is increasing in all classrooms, the proposal would
help develop teachers' ability to teach LEP students, both through teacher education programs
for new and prospective teachers and through professional development for current teachers.
The Bilingual Education Teachers and Personnel Grants would improve the capacity of
teacher education programs to prepare prospective teachers to serve LEP students
effectively. Grantees not only train new teachers of English as a second language and
bilingual teachers, but would also work with other teacher education programs to· improve
coursework and support training to help all new teachers better serve LEP students.
Title VII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 104
�'i
The Training for All Teachers program would provide ongoing, intensive professional
development aligned to the same principles of high-quality professional development
described in Title II.
Finally, our proposal would authorize grants to develop and implement career ladder
programs to help paraprofessionals without baccalaureate degrees earn those degrees and
become certified bilingual educators.
)
•
Create incentives for successful programs by authorizing a priority for grant applicants with
demonstrated effectiveness in helping LEP students learn English and achieve to high
standards. In addition, under Title VII, the Secretary would be authorized to make Academic J
Excellence Awards to allow states to recognize districts that have made significant progress in
reaching these goals.
•
,Strengthen program accountability for the achievement ofLEP students. Schools and
districts would be accountable both for helping LEP students learn English and for helping
LEP students master the same chitllenging state academic standards as all other students. Title
VII grantees would be required to submit specific, baseline data in the grant application and
provide annual, rather than biennial, performance reports on student progress. At the end' of ,
second year of an award, projects that failed to demonstrate continuous and substantial
'
progress would be required to submit a plan for project improvement for the Secretary's,
revie'Y. If grantees failed to make improvements after implementing the new plan, the
Secretary would terminate the grant.
•
Assist local school districts with rapidly growing numbers of LEP students. Some states and
communities with little experience in serving LEP students have been strained by rapidly
growing LEP populations. The proposal authorizes a competitive priority for school 'districts
with these needs.
•
Require schools to p'rovide clear program descriptions to families ofLEP children and'inform
them of their option to withdraw their children from the Title VII program at any time.
•
Promote learning of a second language. Our proposal would continue to give priority to Title
VII applications that would develop proficiency in more than one language and require that
applicants have a plan to support their program after the grant period ends.
Title VII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 105
�.
~.
NOTES
I Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). State education. indicators with a focus on
.
Title L Washington, DC: Author.
2Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998).' State education indicators with a focus on
.
Title 1. Washington, DC: Author..
3 U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Descriptive study ofservices to limited English
.
.
projicient students. Washington, DC:Author.
4 ~now, C.E., Burns, M.S:, & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5 U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher
quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications ofpublkschoolteachers. Washington,'
DC: Author.
.
Title VII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 106.
�TITLE· VIII
IMPACT AID
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Simplifies the funding formula and concentrates federal funds on school districts most
genuinely burdened by federal'activities, such as districts that include Indian lands or
educate the children of families who live on military bases and thus do not pay local
property taxes;
•
Eliminates payments for children who either live on federal property or whose parents
work on federal property (but not both), often referred to as "b" children;
•
Updates school districts' eligibility for "Payments for Federal Property" by considering the
current value of federal property;
•
Encourages more effective participation by parents of American Indian children; and
•
Prevents states from withholding necessary aid from districts by requiring states to meet a
minimum per-pupil expenditure before reducing state grants to school districts receiving
Impact Aid,
.
. '
"
First enacte'd in 1950, the Impact Aid program compensates school districts for Federal burdens
on their resources due t o : '
.
•
The presence of federally connected students in their schools. Because communities may not
may increase the number of
tax federal lands, federal activity .such as a military base
students that a school district must educate without generating suffiCient tax revenue to
support their education. The Impact Aid program recognizes two categories of federallyconnected children:
- "a" children, who (1) live on Indian lands or (2) live on federal property and have parents
who work on Federal property or are in the uniformed services; and
- "b" children, who either live on f~deral property or have parents who work on federal
property, but not both.
•
Federal ownership oflocal property. Federal property, such as military bases, national parks,
and government offices, is tax-exempt and therefore may reduce school districts' tax revenue ..
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 107
�What We've Learned
('
Approximately1:S00 school districts nationwide receive Basic Support PaIments on behalf of
· federally connected children. Many of these school districts depend on Impact Aid for a
significant portion of their general operating expenses. In a few districts, Ikpact Aid accounts
for more than 50 percent of the school district's budget. However; the curr6nt payment formula
is excessively complex and does not concentrate federal resources to help sbhool districts
genuinely burdened by the presence of federally connected children.
Funding formula .. School districts· are eligible for Basic Support Payments if they have 400
federally connected students or if at least 3 percent of the average total daily attendance is
federally connected. The Basic Support Payment formula computes the maximum allowable
· payment multiplying the districts "weighted child count" by the highest of Ifour figures: (1) one.
.
.
· half of the national average per-pupil expenditure for education, (2) one-haH of the state average
per-pupil expenditure, (3) the local share of the per-pupil expenditure.of cdmparable school
distriCts in the state, or (4) the average local share of the per-pupil expendi~ure in the state.
fr~m
The first two of these options assume that one-half of educatiori funding dLives
the local
level, an assumption that has no factual basis. These options inequitably shift funds away from
.
I
districts that contribute more local revenue for education toward 'districts With comparatively
little local tax effort.
An additional inequity results from payments for children formerly referred to 'as "b" children,
who impose relatively little financial burden on their school districts. Modt "b" children have
I
parents who work on federal property, but live on non-federal property and thus pay local·
property taxes that support the public schools. Payments to school districtk for "b" children
.. .
I
divert scarce funding from school districts that educate :'a" children. In fiscal 1999, the federal
government will pay about $61 million?n behalf of nearly 1 million "b" crildren.
C
I
If appropriations are insufficient to make full payments, the law requires p~yments to be reduced
in accordance with the district's percentage offederally connected'studentk plus the percentage
o~ its :ota1 budget that would ?e ~ccounted for by full funding o(its Impac Aid grant. In effect,
thIS formula benefits school dIstncts that choose to reduce local taxes and ,spend less on
education, because Impact Aid represents a, larger portion of these districts' overall budget.
r
Ameri~ariIndian students: Because children living on Indian lands are Jong the federally
connected children identified in the statute, Basic Support Payments provide about$300 million
annually to promote educational opportunity for l-\,merican IndianchildrerL making it the largest
.
.
I
single source of federal education assistarice for public schools serving In~ian lands (other than
Bureau ofIndian Affairs support for tribal schools),- Many of these seho'ol districts serve.
exceptionally poor comrpunities.
School districts responsible for children living on Indian lands must consult with th~ American
'Indian community concerning those children's education. However, som~ membersof the IndiIDI
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for.All Children Act of 1999
Page 108
�community have expressed con~ern about whether Indian children have beriefited fully and,
equally from school programs partially funded by I~pact Aid.'
Value of federal property. Approximately 240 local school districts are eligible for Section 8002
Payments for Federal Property. This authority compensates eligible schoolldistricts for revenue
lost because of the removal of federal property from local tax rolls. Two-thirds of these Section
8002 recipients also receive Basic Support Payments. Only federal property acquired after 1938
is eligible for compensation, but there is no longer a clear rationale for this partic~lar cutoff date.
Many local communities have adapted to the original loss of the federal prdperty through
development and the appreciation of the remaining tax base. In some insta~ces, the federal
presence may have helped to increase local property values, thereby expanding the local tax
base?,'
I,
,
als~
,
~0rschool
School construction. Under Section 8007, Impact Aid
provides funds
construction and renovation. Some public school facilities serving Indian lands are in extremely'
poor condition. These school districts have very little ability to raise revenJe for capital
improvements because of their limited tax base. 3 Fonhese districts, Sectioh 8007 is the most
viable source of revenue for school construction.
State offsets ofImpact Aid funds. Section 8009 of the ESEAauthorizes st~tes with relatively
equal per-pupil spending levels across school districts to withhold state funds to offset Impact " '
Aid payments, as do Alaska, Kansas, and New Mexico. However, the law (foes not ,consider the
I
adequacy of the ~ducation funding provided by a state program. Several school districts have
challenged their state's right to reduce its grants to Impact Aid districts beckuse they believe that
their state provides inadequate ,support fo~ public education; as a result, they argue, reducing state
aid to districts to offset Impact Aid further denies school d,istricts the resoutces they need to
provide acceptable educational services and facilities.
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence Act of 1999 would:
'.' , Simplify the funding forniuhi under Section 8003 and concentrate fede~al funds on school
districts most genuinely burdened by federal activities. Our proposal ,ould create a simpler,
more equitable formula for Basic Support Payments on behalf of "a" cHildren and eliminate
all payments on behalf of "b" children. Our proposal would also elimipate the student
eligibility threshold, so that districts that currently rely on the number of "b" children to re~ch
the threshold will continue to be eligible to receive payments on behalfof "a" children.
,
,
• ,Moreclosely reflect the cost of educating federally connected students by b~sing school
districts" funding on the highest of three factors, the first two of which ~e in current law: (1)
the local share the of per-pupil expenditures of comparable districts in ~he state; (2) the
average local share the of per-pupil expenditure in the state; or (3) the national per-pupil
expenditure, multiplied by share of expenditures in the state that comes from local resources.
Title VIII of the Educational Excell~nce for All Children Act of 1999
Page 109
�.
'
•
More fairly allocate limited funds when appropriations are insufficient to make full
payments. ynlike current law, our proposal would consistently help drstricts with high
proportions of federally connected children, which face disproportionatbly.high federally
conne.cted burdens. Specifically, our proposal calculates fundsdistribuhon on the basis of
the following fonnula: 50 percent plus one-half of the percentage of a district's students who
, are federally connected.
•
Update payments for federal property ,under Se~tion 8002 to provide payments to school
districts where ,f~deral property has a current assessed value that is at .,elast 'I 0 percent of the
,
'
"
I
, total assessed'value of all property in the school' district. This provisi6~ would ensure that
paym~nts are made only to school districts in which the pres,ence of federal property
continues to red,:!ce the local tax base significantly_
•
Strengthen the Indian Community Participationrequirements in Section 8004. These '
requirements ensure that the Indian chi~dren counted under Impact Aid1can participate in
programs and activities on an equal basis with all other children, and tHat the parents of
Indian children and Indian tribes have the opportunity to present their ~iews on the needs of .
. ' the children and the programs to be implemented. Our proposal wouldl require districts to
implement these provisions using the local Indian Education (Title IX)lparent committee. It
wouid also ensure that they comply with the parental involvement provisions of Title I, as
those' provisions relate to the needs' of Iridian children and parents. Bo~h of these changes
would help ensure appropriate consultatioI?- with representatives of the Indian community on
the education of Indian children.
•
Focus construction funds on school distriets serving substantial tlUmbe~s of children' living on
, Indian lands, and require a 50 percent match from state or local sourceSto address the
inadequate school facilities that hinder the education 'of Indian childreri.
•
Prevent states from withholding aid that districts need by adding a
funding
,
requirement to the equalization standard in Section 8009. Any state se~king pennission to
offset Impact Aid in its, state formula would be required to demonstrat~ that the average perpupil expenditure in the state is at least 80 percent 'of the national average, as well as meet the
. disparity standard in today's law:
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
miJi~um
Page 110
�NOTES
Larry LaCounte. (1993) .. Tribal perspective of the Impact Aid program. Washington,' DC:
National Indian PoliCy Center.
2 Westat, Inc. (1997). Fiscal and demographic characteristics of section 2 recipient LEAs.
Unpublished manuscript.
.
3 Patricia
Funk. (1997). Summary ofresponses, school facilities survey. Washington, DC:
National Indian Impacted Schools Association.
I
r
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page III
�.,.
(.
TITLE VIII
IMPACT AID
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Simplifies the funding formula and concentrates federal funds on school districts most
genuinely burdened by federal activities, such as districts that include Indian lands or
educate the children of families who live' on military bases and thus do not pay local
property taxes;
•
Eliminates payments for children who either live qn federal property or wh~se parents
work on federal property (but not both), often referred to as "b" children; ,
•
Updates school,districts' eligibility for "Payments for Federal Property" by considering the
current value of federal property; ,,'
•
Encourages more effective participation by parents of American Indian children; and
,
,
.
Prevents states from withholding necessary aid from districts by requiring states to meet a
minimum per-pupil expenditure before, reducing state grants to school districts receiving
Impact A i d . '
'
,
•
First enacted in 1950, the Impact Aid program compensates school districts for F.ederal burdens
on their resources due to:
•
The presence of federally connected students in their schools. Because communities may not
t!lx federal lands, federal activity - such as a military base
may increase the number of
students that a school district must educate without generating sufficient tax revenue to·
support their education. The Impact Aid program recognizes two categories of federally-,
connected children: '
- "a" children, who (1) live on Indian lands or (2) live on federarpropertyandhave parents
who work on Federal property or are in the uniforrned;serVices; and
- "b" children, who either live on federal property or have parents who work on federal
property, but not both.
•
Federal ownership of local property. Federal property, such as military bases, national parks,
and government offices, is tax-exempt and therefore may reduce school districts' tax revenue.
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 107
'.
�What We'v~ Learned
Approximately 1,500 school districts nationwide receive Basic Support Payments on behalf of
federally connected children. Many of these school districts depend on Impact Aid for a
significahtportion of their general operating expenses. In a few districts, Impact Aid accounts
for more than 50 percent of the school district's budget. However, the current payment formula
is excessively complex and does not concentrate fede~al resources to help school distdcts
genuinely burdened by the presence of federally connected children.
,
,
Funding formula. School districts are eligible for Basic Support Payments if they have 400
federally connected studentsor if at least 3 ,percent of the average total daily attendance is
federally connected. The Basic Support Payment formula computes the maximum allowable
payment multiplying the districts "weighted child count" by the highest of four figures: (1) onehalf of the national average per-pupil expenditure for education, (2) one-half of the state average
per-pupil expenditure~ (3) the local share of the per-pupil expenditure of comparable school
districts in the state, or (4) the average local,share of the per-pupil expenditure in the state.
The first two of these options assume that one-half of education funding derives from the local
level, an assumption that has no fac~ual basis. These options inequitably shift funds away from
districts that contribute more local revenue for education toward districts with comparatively
little local tax effort.
An additional inequity results from payments for children formerly referred to as "b" children,
who impose relatively little financial burden on the~r school districts. Most "b" children have
parents who work on federal property, but"live on non-federal property and thus pay local
property taxes that support the public schools: Payments to school districts for "b" children
divert scarce funding from school districts that educate "a" children. In fiscal 1999, the. federal
government will pay about $61 million on behalf of nearly 1 million "b" children.
If appropriations are insufficient to make full payments, the law requires payments to be reduced
in accordance with the district's percentage o.ffederally connected students plus the percentage'
of its total budget that would be, accounted for by full funding of its Impact Aid grant. In effect,
this formula benefits school districts that choose toreducelocal taxes and spend less on
education, because Impact Aid represents a larger portion of these districts' overall budget.
American Indian students. Because children living ori Indian lands are among the federally
connected children identified in the statute, Basic Support Payments provide apout $300 million
annually to promote educational opportunity for American Indian children, making it the largest
single source of federal education assistance for public schools serving Indian lands (other than
Bureau oflndian Affajrs support for tribal schools). Many ofthese school districts serve
exceptionally poor communities.
School districts responsible for children living on Indian lands must consult with the American
'Indian community concerning those children's education. However, some members of the Indian
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of1999
Page 108
�community have expressed concern about whether Indian children have benefited fully and
equally from school programs partially funded by Impact Aid. !
Value of federal property. Approximately 240 local school districts are eligible for Section 8002
Payments for Federal Property. This authority compensates eligible school district~ for revenue
lost because of the re~oval of federal property from local tax rolls. Two-thirds of these Section
8002 recipients also,receive Basic Support Payments. Onlyfederal property acquired after 1938
is eligible fot compensation, but there is no longer a clear rationale for this particular cutoff date.
Many local communities' have adapted to the' original loss of the federal property through
development and the appreciation of the remaining ta,-X base. In some instances, the federal
presence may have helped to increase local prope,rty values, thereby expanding the local tax
base. 2
' "
School construction. Under Section 8007, Impact Aid also provides funds for school
construction and renovation: ' Some public school facilities serving Indian lands are in extremely
poor condition. These school districts have very little ability to raise revenue for capital
improvements because oftheir limited tax base. 3 For these districts, Section 8007 is the most
viable source of revenue for school construction. ' .
State offsets of Impact Aid funds. Section 8009 of the ESEA authorizes states with relatively
equal per-pupil spending levels across school districts to withhold state funds to offset Impact
Aid payments, as do Alaska, Kansas, artdNew Mexico. However, the law does not consider the
adequacy ofthe education funding provided by a state program. Several school districts have
challenged their state's right to reduce its grants to Impact Aid districts because they believe that
their state provides inadequate support for public education; as a result, they argue, reducing state
aid to districts to offset Impact Aid further denies school districts the resources they need to
provide acceptable educational services and facilities. ,
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence Act of 1999 would:
•
Simplify the funding formula under Section 8003 and concentrate federal funds on school
districts most genuinely burdened by federal activities. Our proposal would create a simpler,
more equitable formula for Basic Support Payments on behalf of "a" children and eliminate
all payments on behalf of "b" children. Our proposal w~~)Uld also eliminate the student
eligibility threshold, so that districts that currently rely on the number of lib" children to reach
the threshold will continue to be eligible to receive payments on, behalf of "a" children.
•
More closely reflect the cost of educating federally connected students by basing school
districts' funding on the highest of three factors, the first two of which are in current law: (1)
the local share the of per-pupil expenditures of comparable districts in the state; (2) the
average local share the of per-pupil expenditure in the state; or (3) the national per-pupil
expenditure, multiplied by share of expenditures in the state that comes from local resources.
.
.
Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All, Children Act of 1999
Page 109
�"
•
More fairly allocate limited funds wh~n appropriations are insufficient to make full
payments. Unlike current law, our proposal would consistently help districts with high
proportions of federally connected children, which face disproportionately high federally .
connected burdens. Specifically, our proposal calculates funds distribution on the basis of
the following formula: 50 percent plus one-half of the percentage of a district's students who
are federally connected.
•
Update payments for federal property under Section 8002 to provide payments to school
districts where federal property has a current assessed value that is at least 10 percent of the
total assessed value of all property in the school district. This provision would ensure that
payments are made only to school districts in which the presence of federiil property
continues to reduce the local tax base significantly.
•
Strengthen the Indian ComrilUnity Participation requirements in Section 8004. These
requirements ensure that the Indian children counted under Impact Aid can participate in
programs and activities on an equal basis with all other children, and that the parents of
Indian children and Indian tribes have the opportunity to present their views on the needs of
the children and the programs to be implemented. Our proposal would require districts to
implement these provisions u~ing the local Indian Education (Title IX) parent committee. It
would also ensure that they comply with the parental involvement provisions of Title I, as
those provisions relate to the needs of Indian children and parents. Both of these changes
would help ensure appropriate consultation with representatives of the Indian community on .
the education of Indian children.
•
Focus construction funds on school districts serving substantial numbers of children living on
Indian lands, and require a 50 percent match from state or local sources to address the
inadequate school facilities that hinder the education of Indian children.
•
Prevent states from withholding aid that districts need by adding a minimum funding
requirement to the equalization standard in Section 8009. Any state seeking permission to
offset Impact Aid in its state formula would be required to demonstrate that the average perpupil expenditure in the state is at least 80 percent of the national average, as well as meet the
disparity standard in today's law .
.Title VIII of the Educational Excellence for All. Children Act of 1999
Page 110
�..
..
NOTES
Larry LaCounte. (1993). Tribal perspective of the Impact Aid program. Washington, DC:
National Indian Policy Center.
,2 Westat, Inc. (1997). Fiscal and demographic characteristics of section 2 recipient LEAs.
Unpublished manuscript
3 Patricia E. Funk. (1997). Summary of responses; schoolfacilities survey. Washington, DC:
, National Indian Impacted Schools Association.
I
Title VIII of the E,ducational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
.
,
Page 111
�" TITLE IX
INDIAN, ALASKA N.A TIVE,
AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION
TITLE IX, PART A -
INDIAN EDUCATION
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
• " Continues the commitmentto the Indian Equcation program, which helps American Indian and
Alaska Native students achieve to high academic standards; .
•
Addresses the special needs of these shidentsby supporting research-based, culturally'
appropriate educational services; .
•
Promotes high-quality professional de~elopment by encouraging collaborations among tribal
colleges, other institutions of higher education, and school districts serving Indian students to
prepare. American Indian teachers and teachers of American. Indian studerits to help all students·
.
reach high standards;
•
Encourages local schools to incorporate culturally respOnsive teaching practices and learning'
strategies into their educational programs; and
•
Reduces tribal schools' administrative burden by giving them greater flexibility in documenting
eligible students.
.
Many states and school districts are challenged to deliver American Indian and Alaska Native
students a high-quality. education that helps them reach challenging performance standafds and
acknowledges these students' special cultures and communities.
Current law authorizes formula grants to s~hool districts and federally funded schools. The formula
I
.
grants help provide such services as tutoring, native language and culture instruction, and guidance
counseling to 460,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students. I
The law also authorizes discretionary grants to universities, states, school districts, and Indian
organizations for demonstration and professional development projects. The fiscal year 1999
appropriation for these programs will support eight grants to train approximately 270 Indiansto
become teachers and administrators and additional grants to improve early childhood educational
opportunities for Indian children. 2 ".
Title IX of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 113
�What We've Learned
..
.
Because ·American Indian and Alaska Nativestu~ents·represent a smaIl share ofthe student
population, they and the schools and staff that serve them - are often overlooked in national
education stUdies. However, we can accurately describe the basic characteristics of these students
and their schools, teachers, and principals.3
.
About 1 percent of the nation's K-12 students are Americanlndians or Alaska Natives. Students in
schools with high Indian enrollment, including those run by the Bureau ofIndian Affairs (BIA) and
Indian tribes, are more likely to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch and to participate inTitle I .
programs than are students in other public schools.4 These schools are also more likely to report
high levels of povertY, parental alcoholism, and lack of parental involvement as serious pr.oblems,
although the percentage of schools reporting these problems decre;lSed between 1991 and 1994.
Since 1992, the performance of Indian and Alaska Native fourth- and eighth-graders on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has improved in math, but declined in reading. (Too
few Indian twelfth-graders took the exam in 199:4 to permit a meaningful comparison across time.) .
A 1997 evaluation of the plans of Indian Education grant recipients concluded that they should
integrate Indian education programs into a whole-school, standards-based reform effort and· increase
the participation of the American Indian ~ommunity.5
.
on
President Clinton's 1998 executive order educationai:opportunities for American Indians and
Alaska Natives established interagency task force to develop a coordinated federal response to
help these students. The task force is developing an, interagency guide to programs and .resources,
establi~hing a research agenda, and supporting pilot'programs to improve technical assistance.
an
What We Propose
The Ed~cational Excellence for All Children ACt of 1999 would:
•. Encourage public schools to incorporate culturally respo~sive teaching and learning strategies
: into their educational p~ograms.
.
.
•
Improve the quality of teaching by sl).pporting professional development consortia to train
current teachers to meet the needs ofIndian students, using the best available research-based
teaching and learning strategies. The legislation would encourage collaborations among tribally
controlled colleges, other institutions of higher education, and school districts serving'
substantial numbers ofIndian students.'
.
•
Create new flexibillty for tribal schools by allowing them to determine'student enrollment
through the standard student eligibility requirements. met by public schools, rather than the BIA
certification p~ocess, if they so choose.
"
.
•
Support curriculum development, standards-based reform, and gifted and talented programs to
help all students achieve to high standards.
Title IX of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 114
�TITLE IX, PARTS B AND C -' NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Increases the flexibility of the education programs for Native Hawaiians (Part B) and Alaska
Natives (part C), and focuses on the unique academic and cultural needs of these groups, by
simplifying and streamlining the legislation governing these programs.
The education programs for the Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native populations were created in
recognition of the special educational and cultural needs of Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native
students.'
Since 1989, the federal government has funded discretionary grants for Native Hawaiian,education
programs to improve student achievement through activities such establishing parent and
,community education centers, developing a wide array of culturally related curricula and materials
that address Native Hawaiian learning, and funding a fellowship and community service program
for undergraduate and graduate students.
as'
Since 1995, the federal government has funded similar discretionary'grants for Alaska Native
education programs. These grants have supported activities such as developing curricula, training
teachers, helping parents prepare tlteir preschool children to learn, and providing enrichment to
talented Alaska Native students in math and science.
What We've Learned
Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face special educational obstacles. Alaska Natives generally
have low performance and high drofout rates, and,are significantly underrepresented among holders
of baccalaureate degrees in A l a s k a . ,
'
Native Hawaiian eighth-grade students'scored at the 24th percentile on the 1992 Reading
Comprehensive Sub-test of the Stanford Assessment. A 1993 study found that one-third of Native
Hawaiian adults are "functionally illiterate." Native Hawaiian preschool students score among the
lowest on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, an assessment used to measure
educational readiness for elementary school instruction. 7
'Current l<;lw specifies seven separate Native Hawaiian Education authorities and three Alaska Native
authorities. These education programs have sUPP9rted innovative and effective programs that are )
tailored to the special needs of the populations they serve. The discretionary grant programs allow
the Department to support small and intensive programs that reach out to native students and their
families.
.
Title IX of the Educational Excellence for All Childre!1 Act of 1999
Page 115
�'f
South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC) received a three-year Alaska Native Student.
Enrichment Program grant in 1997. SERRC provides three week-long residential retreats in
science enrichment for rural Alaska Native students entering village high schools, helping them
succeed in high school science and mathematics. The program also fosters community-baSed
problem-solving partnerships for young children,
In the past few years, it has often been difficulrfor the Department to meet the changing needs of
the Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native populations. The high degree of specificity in the st~tute,
which describes in detail seven authorized uses for Native Hawaiian funds and three for Alaska
Native funds, has constrained the Department's ability to effectively administer the programs.
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Simplify and streamline the authorities for the programs, while maintaining their focus on the
special academic and cultural neeqs of these populations, by creating a single, broad authority
for each progranl.
Title IX of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Pagel 16
�NOTES
1 U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Justifications ofappropriations estimates to the Congress,
fiscal year 2000, Indian education. Washington, DC:'Author. P.8.
2 U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Justifications ofappropriations estimates to the Congress,
fiscal year 2000, Indian education. Washington, DC: Author. P. 18.
"
3 Pavel, D:M., & Curtin, T.R. (1997). Characteristics ofAmerican Indian and Alaska Native
education: Resultsfrom the 1990-91 and 1993-94 schools and staffing survey. NCES 97-451.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
4 Pavel, D.M., & Curtin, T.R. (1997). Characteristics ofAmerican Indian and Alaska Native
education: Results from the 1990-91 ~and 1993-94 schools and staffing survey. NCES 97-451.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
5 Walking Eagle, K., Gonzales, M., & Pechman, E. (1997). Improving education for Indian,
, students in the context ofeducation reform: Challenges and obstacles. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary.
6 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Section 9302.
7 Kamehameha Schools Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, Office of Program Evaluation ~d Planning.
(1993). Native Hawaiian educational assessment 1993. Honolulu, Author.,
Title IX of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 117
�TITLE x
PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
TITLE X, PART A - FUND FOR THE,
IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION'
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Strengthens the emphasis on evaluation of projects receiving funds for demonstration
purposes and on the dissemination of project outcomes;
,
'
,
•
Broadens opportunities to support innovative character education programs by increasing
flexibility in making awards; and
•
Helps programs become self-sustaining QY establishing a matching requirement.
The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) supports projects that use innovative
educational approaches to improve teaching and learning. FIE supports the identification and
dissemination of particularly effective practices used by these projects to serve as models for '
other programs. In fiscal year 1998, FIE supported 128 grants and a number of other
'
interagency' agreements and contracts.
,
'
,
Among th~ programs supported thro~gh FIE competitions is the Blue Ribbon Schopls program,
which identifies and gives public recognition to exemplary public and private schools
throughout the United States. FIE also supports the Department's character education initiative, '
which helps children learn basic American:values and the difference between right,and wrong.,
Character education reinforces and encourages young people to make values like honesty,
fairness, respect, responsibility, justice, and trustworthiness part oftheir daily lives. Strong
character education programs improve school discipline and student behavior, build stronger
links with parents, and help to create an academic setting that improves achievement as well.
, What We've Learned
In fiscal 1998, the FIE supported a wide variety of activities to stimulate reform and improve
teaching and learning, such as a set of projects to improve mathematics education in the middle
grades, a major initiative to help schools in the District of Columbia, and a number of local
initiatives to link technology and the arts.
More information is needed on each,project's goals, objectives, and results, however, to ensure
that they are aligned with performarice .indicators for FIE. To fulfill its demonstration purpose,
Title X of the EducationalExcellence for All Children Actof 1999
Page 119
�. FIE should also gather more information on lessons learned-from the projects
nationally.
~d
disseminate it
Over the past five years, one of the major programs that the Department has supported under
FIE are Character Education Pilot projects, which have been implemented in 28 states. States,
in partnership with identified school districts, are developing and implementing promising
programs to'promote character development in our schools ..Under the program, states have the
flexibility to design their own approach in accordance with their needs and resources. Projects
operate in elementary, middle, and high schools, and have used stand-alone curricula, while
others have integrated character education into existing education programs.
States provide technical and professiona.1assistance to local school districts in the development
and implementation of curricular materials, teacher training, and other activities related to
character education. In addition, each state is required to establish a.clearinghouse to .collect
and disseminate information on model programs and materials to the participating districts and
all other districts within the state. Local districts participating in the partnership have the
responsibility to ensure that parents, students, and other members of the community are
involved in the design and implementation of any program.
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence for All Children. Act of 1999 would:
•
Require more program evaluation and dissemination of both project purpose and outcomes,
so that results can be shared and applied to other efforts. Information regarding the
effectiveness of all programs, projects, and activities supported by the FIE should be made
readily available for others to adopt and adapt.
•
Help programs become self-sustaining by allowing the Secretary to require non-federal
matching funds. Experience shows that requiring recipients to commit their own resources
through a matching requirement can help ensure that programs continue after federal
funding expires.
•
Increase flexibility in supporting promising character education. Current law prevents the
Secretary of Education from making inore than 10 grants per year for character education
programs, and limits overall funding for each state to $1 million over a five-year period; The
proposal would allow the provision of awards directly to school districts and states
programs and remove the limit on the number of grants allowable each year. These changes
would increase flexibility to support promising and innovative programs.
•
Streamline requirements of character education programs. The proposal would remove the
requirement for individual states to develop their own clearinghouses on character
education. The proposal would instead establish a national clearinghouse to disseminate
information.on research,model programs, and materials to all states and districts. Finally,
our proposal would increase the focus on development and implementation of character
education programs without duplicative and unnecessary requirements.
.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
. Page 120
�TITLE X, PART B - GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Continues the National Research Center's efforts to disseminate its information on gifted.
and talented education to schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged
students.
The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Student Education program was created under the
Hawkins,.Stafford Amendments of 1988. It provides national leadership for. efforts to identify
and serve gifted and talented students, especially·those who are economically disadvantaged,
have limited English proficiency, or have disabilities.
,
The Javits Gi:(ted and Talented program supports the expansion. and improvement of educational
opportunities for the nation's estimated 2.5 million gifted and talented children and youth,
approximately half of whom receive no special services, Javits Gifted and Talented funds are
provided to states, school districts, universities, and public and private organizations to train
personnel, develop and expand gifted programs, and conduCt research to help identify and teach
gifted students.
The Javits Gifted and Talented program provides demonstration grants for preservice and
continuing teacher education on how to work effectively with gifted children. It supports other
activities, including model and exemplary programs, to build schools' capacity to meet,the
special needs of gifted and talented students. The National Research Center promotes
innovative strategies for identifying and teaching gifted and talented children and encourages
the development of challengirig curricula for all students.
The Javits prpgram is the only federal initiative that directly funds programs to improve. the
education of gifted and talented students. With $6.5 million in fiscal 1999, the federal
. government plays a small but critical role in providing funds to help teachers, support research,
and initiate projects that reach out to children who have not been included in gifted and talented
programs in the past (such as gifted children who are disadvantaged or have limited proficiency
in English). The federal support for gifted and talented education helps improve educational
quality and expand choices for students and schools.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for A II Children Act of 1999
Page 121
�What We've Learned
Javits projects have revealed positive developments in student achievement, student self-esteem,
parental involvement, classroom practices, and the expanded identification of gifted
disadvantaged students. An internal program evaluation of the Javits National Research Center
. reports that the center has had positive effects on research and practice in gifted education at the
local, state, regional, and national levels. The Research Center has encouraged educators to
identify all forms of talent, including but not limited to IQ, and thereby has reached more poor
and minority students.
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Continue the National Research Center's efforts to disseminate information on gifted and
talented education to schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged students.
The center's emphasis on low-income areas wilLcontinue to ensure that poor and minority
students with leader~hip potential are exposed to development programs and services they
might otherwise not receive.
TITLE X, PART C - INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Continues our commitment to civic education worldwide by extending funding for
international·education.
The International Civic Education Exchange Program provides important training in the
principles of a democratic and free society-to emerging democracies in eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. There are now programs linking 14 American states with 11 of these
fragile democracies. Together, these programs reach more than 170,000 students and 8,000
teachers. Soon similar programs will be implemented in Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland, as well as in.. . fledgling democracies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
What We Propose
•
Continue support for the International Civic Education Program, which provides
international students with training in democratic principles, and extend th~ program to
additionill fragile democracies.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 122
�. TITLE X, PART D -
ARTS IN EDUCATION
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Continues the work of the Kennedy Center and the Very Special Arts program; and
•
Encourages the creation of partnerships to serVe at-risk students.
The Arts in Education program supports activities 'conducted by Very Special Arts (VSA) arid
the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. VSA serves over 3.5 million people with
disabilities each year. Last year, VSA developed a virtual gallery on the Internet, which shares
the talents of artists with disabilities,and established the Electronics Arts Academies to help
people explore careers in the technological arts field. Other new initiatives include Taking
Notice, a photography program that documents the experience of living with a disability, and
Arts for All, which provides specialized visual arts tools and materials for people with varying
levels of independence.'
,
The Kennedy Center's education program provides professional development for teachers on
integrating the arts into the classroom. The education program 'also provides a national
clearinghouse for arts education .ideas and technology, performances for young people, and
artist training in dance, music, and theater.
What We've Learned
Research has concluded that students benefit in many ways from participation in arts programs.
Youth in arts programs are 31 percent more likely to say that they plan to continue education
,after high school than a national sample of students. They are eight times as likely to receive a
community service award, four-and-a-halftimes as likely to win an award for writing an essay
or poem, and three times as likely to participate in a science or math fair. They are also twice as
likely to win an award for academic achievement.!
What We Propose
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Continue the work of the Kennedy Center and the Very Speciaf Arts program and strengthen
targeting to low-income areas by moving the authorization for model arts and cultural'
programs for at-risk children and youth to the authorization for the Kennedy Center and
VSA programs. Our proposal would encourage partnerships between these two
organizations and the model arts and cultural programs for at-risk children an~ youth.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 123
�Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 124
�TITLE X, PART E -
INEXPENSIVE BOOK 'DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
What's New
The Educational Excellence fo'r All Children Act of 1999:
• 'Continues-the focus of the book distribution program to high-poverty areas.
The Inexpensive Book Distribution program encourages children between the ages of 3 and 18
to read, including by distributing free b09ks. The Department administers this program through
. a contract with Reading Is Fundamental (RIF), a-national nonprofit organization.
,RIF develops and delivers children's and'family literacy programs that help prepare young
children for reading and motivate older children to read, Through a national network of
teachers, parents, and community volunteers, RIF programs bring books and other essential
literacy resources to children,at no cost to them or their families. RIF focuses highest priority
on the nation's neediest children from birth to age 11. With fiscal year 1998 funds, 2.3 million
children received over 7 million books through Reading Is Fundamental. About 6 percent of
these children had special needs.
'
RIF is the nation's oldest and largest nonprofit children's literacy organization, with programs
in every state. Through RIF's public-private partnership with the Department, more than 100
national foundations and corporations, and local organizations and businesses support the work
of 240,000 educators, parents, and community volunteers who run the RIF program to provide
community support and involvement in literacy projects. By the year 2000, RIF will have put
200 million books into the hands and homes of America's children. '
'
What We've Learned
Some experts believe that for America's poorest children, the biggest obstacle to literacy is the.
scarcity of books and appropriate reading material. In many homes, particularly those without
adult readers, there are simply not enough books. Studies show that parents who were given
books and "prescriptions for reading" by their children's pediatriCians were four times as likely
to read books with their young children as other parents. The mothers of children receiving
welfare, who are at higher risk for illiteracy, were eight times as likely to read to their children
when, given books and encoilragement. 2
.
.
,
Access to reading materials should conti'nue throughout a child's school years. The 1998
Nation's Report Card on Reading found that students with higher scores also reported that their
homes included four types of reading materials: encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, and at
least 25 books. Fourth- and eighth-grade students who lacked access to these materials at home'
had test scores 10 to 36 points lower thiill children who did have such access. The lack of books
was the best predictor of below-average reading scores. 3 , .
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children'Act of 1999
, Page 125
�What We Propose
The Educational Excellence for All Chiidren Act of 1999 would:
•
Continue the focus of book distribution to high-poverty areas toehsure that high-risk
children have access to appropriate reading material.
TITLE X, ,PART F - CIVIC EDUCATION
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:.
•
Continues our comrriitmen~ to civic education by extending funding for civic education.
What We've Learned
In its 12~year history, the We The People Civic Education progr~ has hetped more than
26 million students in 24,000 elementary and secondary schools gain a working knowledge of
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. More 'than
82,000 teachers have participated in the program, and more than 89,000 sets :oftextbooks have.
been distributed free to schools throughout America.
What We Propose
•
Continue support for 'We the People, which provides American students with an important
foundation for citizenship.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 126
�TITLE X, PARTG-21 sT CENTURY
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS
What's New .
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act.of 1999:
•
Continues the popular 21 5t Century Community Learning Centers program, which.
promotes extended learning opportunities for students; and
•
Strengthens the program by offering technical amendments similar to those that were
offered during the appropriations process last year to:
Build communities' capacity to operate after-school programs by adding a local
matching requirement ,and by extending the grant period from three to five years;
-Prom~te collaboration between schools and community organizations;
-
Allow up to 10 per.cent of the funds to be used for grants to community-based
organizations with the concurrence ~f the school district;
-
Direct funding to communities with a substantial need for expanded learning; and
Emphasize expanded learning opportunities for children and community members
after school, on weekends, and during the summer.
.
The 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program provides grants to public schools to
offer opportunities for extended learning time to students and community members. In three
years' time, the 21 5t Century Community Learning Centers program has expanded from a
$1 million demonstration program in' fiscal year 1997 to a $200 million program that will serve
about 400,000 children and over 200,000 adults this year.
The public response to the 21 51 Century Community Learning Centers has been overwhelming.
In fiscal year 1998, the Department received applicatiqns from nearly 2,000 communities. In
fiscal year 1999, the number of applicants ~;urpassed 2,000; together they requested nearly $900 .
million in assistance.
What We've Learned·
After-school' programs provide opportunities for children to participate, alone or in small
groups, with mentors and tutors in interesting academic activities and to have fun through
cultural, artistic, and sports programs. When coordinated with challenging curricula and
thoughtful instruction" extended learning time programs can improve student achievement. 4
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 127
�Giving children more time to learn in enriching after-school, weekend, and summer programs
can help all students achieve to high standards and end both social promotion and grade
retention.
Students in after-school programs show improved achievement in math, reading, and other
subjects. 5 Successful Maryland schools saw consistent academic gains associated with
'extended-day programs. 6
,
'
,
Research has also found that after-school programs keep children of all ages'safe and out of
trouble. Childreri are less likely to commit crimes or be victims of crime in communities with
such programs. 7
Finally, a recent survey 'oftheAmerican public showed exceptionally strong, bipartisan support
for school-based after-school programs. Survey respondents stressed the value of tutoring and
help with homework, access to modem technology, and opportunities to participate in '
community service programs, activities that are offered by nearly every 21 5t Century program. 8
I
•
'
Another survey, conducted in December by the national PTA, found that two-thirds of parents
of public school children wanted the federal government to increase funding for after-school
opportunities.
In the fiscal year 1998 21 5t Century grant competition, the Secretary gave a competitive priority
to applications targeting middle school students because so few middle school students are
served by after-school programs. In the next competition, the Secretary plans to provide a
competitive priority to applications targeting students in Title I schools identified as in need of
"corrective action" - those schools that have been in school improvement for three or more
years - because students at these schools have a great need and ability to benefit from afterschool programs. Special efforts will be made to make sure that these schools are aware of the
extensive technical assistance available to communities applying for these grants.
What We Propose
Our reauthorization proposal builds upon the strengths df the current program - including the
use of school facilities to benefit the entire community and the requirement to establish strong
collaborations with community organizations - while offering some revisions designed to
better target resources and promote the sustain ability of programs.
, The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Require school districts to match grant funds while extending the grant period up to five '
years. Experience shows that providing core funding for five years while requiring local
communities to commit their own resources, including with other federal resources, through
a matching requirement can help ensure that programs remain in place after the grant
expires. A matching requirement also will enable more children and adults to be served
nationwide.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 128
�•
Strengthen the requirement that schools and community organizations should collaborate by
involving both ,parties in planning and implementing t\:le project.
•
Allow up to 10 percent of the funds in a given year to be awarded to community-based
organizations. In some neighborhoods, community organizations may have facilities that
are superior to or more centrally~located than the local public schools. In other areas, '
community organizations may wish to provide services within the schools, and the school
district may prefer that such an organization serve as the grantee, To provide flexibility to
communities in these situations, we propose to extend eligibility to receive 21 st Century
Community Center grants to community organizations with the concurrence of the local
schQol district.
, ' "
•
Clarify the targeting to inner cities, rural areas, and small cities with a substantial need for
expanded learning opportunities because of, for example, a high proportion of low. achieving students and lack of resources to establish or expand community learning centers. '
•
Emphasize the establishment or expansion of after-school, weekend, and summer programs
that offer expanded learning opportunities in a safe, drug-free environment. Thecurrent
statute requires grantees to pr9vide a broad array of services that benefit the entire
community. The Department believes that 21 sl Century programs should continue to senie
the broad needs of their community, but we also believe that, first and foremost, programs
must provide expanded learning opportunities to children .
. "'.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for:AII Children Act of 1999
Page 129
�TITLE X, PART H -. ·HIGH SCHOOL REFORM
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Supports effective educational reforms in 5,000 American high schools by the year
2007 by helping high schools in urban and rural districts that educate students from lowincome families help students by strengthening curriculum and instruction, improving
Title I schoolwide programs, and providing enhanced professional development
opportunities for school staff; .
•
Promote research-based, schoolwide reforms to challenge all students to meet high state .
standards, such as ensuring that students receive individualized attention and are
motivated to leam;
\.
•
Promote safer, more supportive schools by encouraging smaller learning environments
(such as schools within schools), involving members of the community, and creating
partnerships with other institutions;
•
Experiment with incentive awards for teachers and administrators who improve student
achievement; and
•
Encourage the adoption of successful high school reform strategies by recognizing high
schools ~hat show outstanding results, disseminating information on best practices, and
creating networks of participating school districts to foster communication and
collaboration.
)
Given their unique organizational roles as gateways to college and careers and their often large
and anonymous environmentS, secondary schools merit special attention. Our reauthorization
proposal would support the development and implementation of effective educational reforms
in high schools, particularly those that educate concentrations of students from low-income
families. It establishes the goal that at least 5,000 American high schools
half of all high
schools
will have implemented comprehensive reforms by the year 2007.
What We've Learned
In the 21 st century, high schools must help alt students succeed in college and prepare
themselves for careers in an economy that is increasingly dominated by global competition and
constantly changing technology. To be effective, high schools must not only prepare students
academically, they must support adolescents' personal and interpersonal growth during this
critical time in their lives.
.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 130
�It is not at all clear that high schools are meeting the academic and developmental challenges of
students. For example:
.
•
Only 78 percent of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 29 have graduated from high
school, although an additional 11 percent earned a general equivalency diploma. Almost
half of the 78 percent of students who do graduate from high school are not able to complete
college or climb a career ladder from an entry-level job.
•
On an international assessment of math and science skills released in February 1998 - ' the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
American twelfth-graders
outperformed students from only 2 (Cyprus and South Afric~) ofthe 21 other participating
countries.
.
•
Math and science scores of American 17-:year-olds on the National Assessment of
. Educational Progress (NAEP) are on a long-term decline, despite recent gains. The average
science score in 1996 was lower than the 1969 average, and the average math score in 1996
was not sign~fkantly different from the 1973 average.
.
'.
Recently released NAEP scores in reading among twelfth-graders i,ndicate improvement
,among our higher-achieving students but not among the lowest-achieving students. . .
•
High schools are increasingly larger places where students feei disconnected from adults,
particularly in urban and suburban areas. Research shows that when students feel connected
to school and to their parents, they arel~ss likely than other adolescents to suffer from
,emotional distress, have suicidal thoughts and behaviors, use vio.Ience, and smoke
cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana,
•
The problems facing high schools are particularly prevalent in schools that enroll
concentrations of minority students and students from low-income families, Because of
changes made by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, high schools now receive
significantly more Title I funding than was the case before. The number of high schools
operating Title I schoolwide programs has increased. However, evaluations indicate that
Title I, by itself, has not yet resulted in significant reforms in high schools.
•
Relatively few high schools are undertaking serious standards-based reforms. For instance,
most of the initiatives carried out through the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program have been at the elementary level.
High school reforms can be effective. For example, the Department's New American High
Schools showcase sites demonstrated that standards-based, locally driven reform in-high schoolsbetween 1995 and 1998 was associated with improvement in attendance and graduation rates.
Schools that participate in the Southern Regional Education Board's "High Schools that Work"
program - a whole-school, research-based reform initiative - have shown significant
improvement in reading and mathematics scores. 9 The Johns Hopkins University Talent
Development model has demonstrated promising results at its initial implementation site. And
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 131
�since states began strengthening graduation requirements, more high· school students are
completing challenging math courses.
Highest Level of Mathematics Course Taken at Age 17
Highest Course Completed
1990
1996
First-year algebra
15%
12 %
Geometry
15
16
Second-year algebra.
44
50
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education· Statistics. (1997, 1991).
Trends in Academic Progress.
A variety of approaches to high school reform, geared to.local needs and conditions, can make a
difference. Since 1996, the Department's "New American High Schools lt initiative has
recognized high schools that fully prepare students to meet the challenges of a changing
'technological and global economy. In addition to meeting challenging academic standards,
these public schools help students acquire the communications, problem:'solving, computer. and
technical skills necessary to pursue college and careers. Each ofthe schools also has developed
effective partnerships with the community, parents; and postsecondary institutions, (,IIld has
demonstrated sustained student academic performance over a five-year period.
Other approaches include "schools within schools" and innovations that create smaller learning
environments and get adults more fully involved in the lives of students, "career academies"
and other approaches that structure learning around career preparation, partnerships that pair
schools with business or institutions of higher education, and reforms that reorganize the school
day. Most successful reforms have a strong focus on the professional development of educators
and the provision of in-depth academic, career, and college counseling.
What We Propose
The Education Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Support effective educational reforms in 5,000 American high schools by the year 2007.
Our proposal would "provide grants to school districts to help ,them improve high schools b);"
(1) meeting. the needs of students at risk of failing to master challenging academics through
strengthened curricula, instruction, and extended learning opportunities; (2) improving
Title I schoolwideprograms; and (3) creating professional development opportunities for
school staff to improve student achievement..
• . Encourage the use of Title I funds so that federal, state, and local monies are collectively
.
'
directed to high school reform.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 132
�• 'Promote research-based, schoolwide reforms, such as ensuring that students receive,
individual attention; challenging all students to meet high state standards; and motivating
students to learn through, for example, applied learning.
•
Promote safer, more supportive schools by encouraging smaller learning environments,
involving members of the community; and creating partnerships with otlier institutions.
•
Experiment with incentive awards for teachers and administrators who improve student
achievement. Offering inc'entive awards to successful teachers and administrators could
help raise student achievement. Under our proposal, the Department would select schools to
participate in an experimental incentive program. Teachers and administrators at
participating schools whose students showed improvement on multiple measures of student
achievement would receive up to $3,OOO,each, which they could use for any purpose.
•
Encourage the adoption of successful high school reforin strategies by recognizing high
schools that show outstanding results, disseminating information on best practices, and
creating networks of partiCipating school districts to foster communication and
collaboration.
'
~
Title X ofthe Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
,
.
Page 133,
�TITLE X, PART I - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOREIGN.
LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Promotes the goal that all students will develop proficiency in more than one language;
•
Emphasizes the importance and effectiveness of foreign language instruction in the early
grades by expanding access to high-quality foreign language programs in elementary schools;
..
Supports state leadership in improving foreign language instruction in all schools by
supporting the development of standards and assessments, dissemination ofinformation o!,!
promising local practices, and efforts to improve the supply of qualified foreign language
teachers;
•
Stimulates an increase in the number of elementary' school foreign language teachers by
supporting the recruitment and training of new teachers; and
•
Encourages the development and use of new technology applications to bring foreign
language instruction to students in creative and effective ways.
The Elementary School Foreign Language'program responds to the growing demand f9r
multilingualism created by growing diversity within the United States and increasing cultural
exchange and economic interdependency worldwide. Research'indicates that, although foreign
language instruction i~ most effective when it begins in elementary school, fewer than onefourth of public elementary schools in the United States teach a foreign language.
~
,
The Foreign'Language Assistance Program (FLAP), currently authorized under Title VII-B,
supports the instruction of a foreign language for all children. Our proposal would strengthen
this program by supporting new and promising approaches to improving the quality of foreign
language instruction'and dramatically increasing access to them, particularly for elementary
school students:
What We've Learned
Foreign language instruction in public elementary. schools has grown over the past 10 years.
The portion of public elementary schools offering foreign language increased from 17 percent
in 1987 to 24 percent in 1997. However, public schools still lag behind private elementary
schools and international schools in offering such instruction. 10
.
a
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 134
�Percentage of Schools with Foreign Language Instruction
1987
1997
Public elementary schools
17%
24%
Private elementary schools
34
53
Elementary school foreign language programs· are often "exploratory," characterized by
developing only basic reading and writing skills and an appreciation for other cultures. Despite
indications that such programs produce signifi~antly fewer gains,than programs directed at
developing proficiency"roughly 45.percent of elementary language programs in 1997 were
exploratory. II
With increasing numbers of elementary schools offering a foreign language, continuity with
middle and secondary school programs has become an issue. Recent research indicates that
only 10 percent of secondary schools take previous language achievement into account when
assigning students to classes .
. State leadership can help ensure the growth of high-quality foreign language programs.
Currently, 35 states have policies or mandates for secondary school 'foreign language programs;
six states-ArIzona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma-have
foreign language mandates for their elementary schools. By 1998; 19 states had developed
.
.
foreign lapguage standards.
Technology is also beginnIng to expand opportunities for foreign language exposure and
learning. While most of the current commercially developed foreign language software
emphasizes grammar drills and practice, translations and modifications of popular math,
language arts, and word processing software are being developed in foreign languages. 12 To
meet the demand for instructional support, the emphasis in technology should be on the
innovative uses of developing tools - including software, Web-based instruction, and digital
television - that explore the necessary balance between exposure, guided practice, and .
interactive experiences to help students become fluent.
According to recent survey data, 40 percent of elementary school~ would like to add a foreign
language program.. This interest signals a significant o~portunlty to create and expand highquality elementary school foreign language programs. 1
What We Propose
Our proposal establishes a national.goal that 25 percent of all public elementary schools should
offer high-quality, standards-based, foreign language programs by 2005, and that 50 percent
should offer such programs by 2010. These programs would be tied to challenging standards
and focused on developing student language proficiency, not simply exposing students to the
Title X of the Educatiof!al Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 135
�language or culture. Finally, our proposal would support transitions between elementary and
secondary school foreign language programs.
The Educational Excellence for All' Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Support state capacity to expand and improve foreign language instruction at the elementary
school level. Our proposal would support the development of foreign language standards
and assessments, as well as the dissemination of information on promising practices and use
of technology to improve instruction. Our proposal would also encourage states to work as
partners with teacher preparation programs to expand the pool of elementary school foreign
language teachers. States could, for example, work to develop or expand teacher education
programs, support alternative routes to teacher certification, or stimulate recruitment of
multilingual teachers into foreign language instruction in elementary schools.
•
Continue support for local programs to create and improve elementary school foreign
language programs. Over the past five years, FLAP has helped almost 60,000 public school
students learn foreign languages. The program helps meet the growing need for
professional development, innovative classroom materials, and curriculum development.
Our proposed Elementary School Foreign Language init,iative would continue to support
these efforts, with an emphasis on increasing foreign language instruction in elementary
school and improving transitions between middle and secondary school language programs.
Efforts would emphasize developing fluency, rather than cultural exposure. ,
•
Increase access to high-quality foreign language instruction through the use of advanced
technology and telecommunications applications. Our proposal would stimulate the
development of new. applications, software, authoring and tutoring tools, and methods for
delivering high:-quality instruction by ~ncouraging states and districts to explore new uses of
~ducational technology in foreign language instruction.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 136
�TITLE X, PART J-NATIONAL W~ITING PROJECT
What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children ACt of 1999:
•
Makes a more direct link between effo~s to improve writing and growing efforts to
improve reading.
The National Writing Project (NWP) worksto improve student writing abilities and provide
professional development programs for classroom teachers. NWP operates on a "teachers
teaching teachers" model. Successful writing teachers conduct workshops for other teachers in
the schools during the school year to help improve overall writing skills.
. .
Knowing how to write - including learning to read
is central to succeeding in school and in
the workplace, yet much remains to be done to improve the ability of America's children to
write well. Writing scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were
either stagnant or in decline between 1984 to 1996 for all three grades tested. The majority of
America's colleges and universities conduct remedial writing courses.
What We've Learned
The National Writing Project provides a model for ongoing professional development that
builds independent local programs. NWP is a network of 157 writing project sites in 46 states,
Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. In 1996-97, it generated $6.47 for every federal dollar and
served 117,932 teachers and administrators. NWP's continued success stems from its principles
that teachers are key to educational reform, effective literacy programs are inclusive, and .
writing deserves constant attenti~::m from kindergarten through the university level.
NWP began to receive federal support in 1990 and received a significant increase of $2 million
in federal funding in FY 1999, for a total of $7 million. The Administration is proposing an
. additional $3 mil!ion in FY 2000 to link NWP efforts to improve writing to the increased efforts
to improve literacy. With increased funding, NWP will add 20 more sites and double the
capacity of existing sites to help classroom teachers improve their ability to improve writing.
What We Propose·
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would:
•
Make a more direct link between the efforts.to improve writing and the growing efforts to
improve reading. NWP has revealed that using similar strategies in teaching reading and
writing helps children do better in both activities. By teaching children to use knowledge
on topics, literature, and language systems, they are able to learn both literacy concepts and
procedures.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 137
�NOTES
I Heath, S.B., & Roach, A.A. (1998). The arts in the non-school hours. Menlo Park, CA:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. P. 6 ..
2 Needlman, R., Fried, L., Morley, D., Taylor, S., & Zuckerman, B. (1991). Clinic based
intervent~on to prpmote literacy. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 145(August), 881..
.
884.
3
. .
'.
Donahue, P .L., Voclkl, K.E., Campbell, lR., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The 1998 NAEP reading
report cardfor the nation. NCES 1999-459. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
4 U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Extending learning time for disadvantaged students:
An idea book. Volume 1, summary ofpromising practices. WashingtQn~ DC: Author. P. i.
5 Posner, J., & Vandell, D.L. (1994). Low-income children's after-school care: Are there
beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development 65, 440-456.
6 Hawley, W:, Schager, W., Schager, P., Hultgren, F., Abrams, A., Lewis, E., & Ferrara, S.
(1997, March 25). An outlier study of school effectiveness: Implicationsfor public policy and
school improvement. Paper presented at the annual me~ting ofthe American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
7 U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Safe and smart:
Making after-school hours. workfor kids. Washington,DC: Author. P. 1.
8 C.S. Mott Foundation. (1998, August). Lake, Snell, Perry/Tarrance Group,afterschool
survey.
9 American Institutes for Research .. (1999). An educators' gUide to schoolwide reform.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
10 Schulz, R. (1998). Foreign language education in the United States: Trends and challenges.
ERIC Review, 6(1, Fall), 6-13.
. .
1.1 Branaman, L.E., & Rhodes, N.C. (1998). Anatiqnal survey offoreign langu~ge instruction
in elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
12 Curtain and Pesola. (1998). Languages and Children: Making the Match
13 Branaman, L.E., & Rhodes, N.C. (1998). A nationals1;lrvey offoreign language instruction
in elementary and, secondary schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Lingui~tics.
Title X of the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999
Page 138
�STEWART B. McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
EDUCATION FOR aOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH
, What's New
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999:
•
Further integrates homeless students into the mainstream school environment;
•
Increases homeless students' access to schools tmough designated homeless liaison
personnel for school districts;.
•
Encourages high-quality approaches to meeting the needs of the homeless students by
,
awarding competitive subgrants;
•
Reduces the burden on states to collect data;
•
Requires school distriCts to 'minimize disruptive school transfers for homeless students; and
•
Strengthens parental rights and requires
those rights.
v
"
,
st~tes
to more broaqly disseminate information about
Since 1987"the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program - authorized by the
has helped homeless children receive the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
same public education as other children., The law requires states and school districts to revise,
any practices or policies that might obstruct homeless students' opportunity to succeed i~ school.
The Department distributes funds to states on a formula basis under the McKinney Act. States
award subgrants to school dist~icts to carry out the purposes of the program. Schooldist~icts
have considerable flexibility in the use of subgrant funds.,
WhaiWe've Learned
The McKinney program has played a major role in removing barriers to the enrollment and
attendance in school of homeless children and youth. For example:
•
The Department's 1995 evaluation concluded that almost all states have revised their laws,
regulations, and policies to improve access to education for homeless students.'
Twenty-seven states changed residency laws or regulations: Almost all state coordinators
report either that ,all students can enroll without school records or that they have made special
The McKinney Act: Education for Homeless Stupents
Page 155
�...
~
allowances to expedite their records transfer. Thirty-five states eliminated the barriers of
immunization and guardianship requirements.
•
States continue to review and update their policies in response to the changing needs of
homeless students. A more recent evaluation shows that only six states say that
immunization requirements still pose a barrier to the enrollment of homeless children and
youth? However, 13 states say that requirements for legal guardianship still pose a barrier to
. the enrollment of homeless children and youth. Most states made changes in policy or
legislation to remove transportation as a barrier to enrollment, although 18 states say that
transportation still poses a barrier to the enrollment of homeless children and youth.
Homeless children and youth still face cha:ilenges in gaining access to high.,.quality educational
services. Maximizing stability is the single most important factor in ensuring the success of
homeless childreriand youth in school. In a recent survey of Homeless State Coordinators, .
frequent mobility was the most commonly cited "most-significant current barrier." Homeless
children move an average of three times per year and are between 50 and 100 percent more
likely to repeat a grade than other students. 3 Moreover, each time a child changes schools, he or
she may lose four to six months of academic and developmental time.
.
The Cleveland, Ohio, school district is making it easier for hQmeless students to enroll in school.
Staff from homeless shelters can now call a 24-hour, automated helpline to enroll students, while
the Cleveland school system requests any missing information from other districts' records:
Homeless workers say that the new process gets students into the classroom much faster:
Students can generally attend school the day after the call is placed.
State homeless coordinators report that one of the most successful provisions of the law is the
requirement that McKinney sub grantees appoint a liaison person for the homeless. 4 According
to state coordinators and their local counterparts, homeless liaison personnel have played a key
role in linking local organizations, church and civic groups,' clinics, and traditional homeless
providers, including shelters and food banks. In many states, the homeless liaison personnel help
establish relations between'sqhoolsand shelters to facilitate the enrollment process and sort out
the educational needs of the students. Thirty-seven percent of school districts nationwide already
have a designated liaison personnel for homeless students, although only 3 percent of school
districts nationwide receive McKinney funds. s
J
Because of inherent problems in accurately determining the numbers ofhomeI,ess children, states
have submitted information to the Secretary that is largely unreliable., The current effort to
estimate the numbers of children and youth in homeless situati'ons is riddled with difficulties:
survey methodologies and definitions vary from.state to state and the cost of conducting an
actual count is prohibitive for many states.
The McKinney Act: Education for Homeless Students
Page 156
�Increasingly, separate transitional schools are being established to provide educational services
to students who have been temporarily displaced from regular educational programs because of
homelessness. 6 Preliminary research shows at least 20 separate transitional schools are now
operating in locations from a one-room schoolhouse located in a shelter to a stand-alone building
that is comparable to a typical public school building. 7 These schools offer homeless children
and youth intensive and individualized care for varying amounts of time, after which they are
.
mainstreamed into regular school.
However, some view these segregated schools as inherently isolating and stigmatizing. These
special schools may also lack accountability to the public school system and therefore may not
provide the same educational opportunities.
W~at
We.Propose
Our proposal would result in greater school stability, less isolation and stigmatization of
homeless students, stronger parental rights and broader dissemination of information about these
rights, and visible m'odels of successful school 'practices. Our reauthorization proposal would:
•
Promote the integration of homeless children by prohibiting states that receive McKinney
funds from segregating homeless students in separate schools.
•
Ensure that homeless children are identified and served by requiring all districts to designate
a "homeless liaison" responsible for ensuring that homeless children are regularly attending
school and are receiving equitable access to high-quality education and support services. The
liaison can bea federal programs coordinator, Title I coordinator, or other program staff.
•
Improve the quality of programs by making subgrants competitive. States would award
competitive subgrants to school districts based on need and quality of the proposal.
I
'
•
Improve the quality of data and reduce the data collection burden on states. Rather than
continuing to require states to fulfill current data collection requirements, which have not
resulted in nationally consistent data, our proposal would instead require the Department of
Education - in coordination with the other federal agencies administering programs under
the McKinney Act - to periodically gather information on the number and location of
homeless children and youth, the services they receive, and the extent to which their needs
are being met:
•
Improve the stability and performance of homeless children and youth in school. Our
proposal would reduce school transfers for homeless students by requiring school districts to
maintain homeless children in their school of origin to the greatest extent feasible. Our
proposal would also give parents the right to request that their children change schools if they
believe the move is in the interest of the child.
•
Improve dissemination of information about the rights of homeless children and their
families. Our proposal would require school districts to post public notices regarding the
educational rights of homeless children and youth in family shelters, soup kitchens, health
The McKinney Act: Education for Homeless Students
Page 157
�clinics, and elsew~er~. The proposal would also require states to work with homeless parent
groups to meet the needs of homeless students .
.
,
"
, The McKinney Act: Education for Homeless Students
Page 158
�NOTES
1 Anderson, L., Janger, M., & Panton, 'K. (1995). An evaluation ofstate and local efforts to
serve the educational needs of homeless children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
.
2 U.S. Department of Educati<;,>n. (1998). Unpublished tabulations from the Study of Homeless
Education: Follow-up to the 1995 National Evaluation of the Education for Homeless Children
and Youth Program.
3 Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family
relocation on children's growth, development, school function and behavior. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 270(11), 1334-1338.
.
. 4 National Association of State Coordinators for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth ..
(1997). Making the grade: Challenges and successes in providing educational opportunities for
children and youth in homeless situations. Bridging the gap between home and school. A
position document. Washington, DC: Author. See also McKinney Act, Section 722(g)(7).
5 Anderson, L., Janger, M., &.Panton, K. (1995). An evaluation of state and local efforts to
serve the educational needs of homeless children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
.
6 The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty is gathering information on at least 20
schools that exist exclusively to serve homeless children. Personal communication, 1999.
7 ERlC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (1993). Homeless
.
children: Meeting the educational challenges. Urbana, IL: Author.
The McKinney Act: Education fQr Homeless Students
Page 159
�Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our deepest appreciation to the hundreds of people who contributed
their time, talent, and resourCes to help us develop our proposals for the 1999 reauthorization of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.· Students, educators, parents, education associations,
researchers, policymakers, and business representatives all shared their perspectives, personal
experiences, and insights with us. A special thank you to Christopher Cross and Jack Jennings
for their role in facilitating bipartisan and broad-based consultation with a variety of groups and
'indi viduals.
While opinions some.times differed, there was a common interest in how we, as a nation, could
best work toward the principles of academic equity and excellence. Nearly everyone agreed on
the importance of strengthening the quality of our teaching force, which became a major theme
of our proposal.
To everyone who contributed directly to this effort and to thousands more who work each day in
our public schools to help our children learn, thank you.
Page 161
�
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
Bruce Reed - Education Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Bruce Reed
Education Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36312" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/description/647429" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
Bruce Reed's Education Series include material pertaining to national standards and testing; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the 1999 efforts to reauthorize the Act; 100,000 teachers and class size; charter schools and vouchers; education events and forums; social promotion; Goals 2000; HOPE Scholarships; Pell Grants; the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-flex); education funding and budgets; and various school and teacher issues. The files contain correspondence, reports and articles, memos, polls, handwritten notes, hard copies of emails, schedules, printed material, and memos to the President.
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.
133 folders in 9 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
ESEA-Prospectus [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Bruce Reed
Education Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 89
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Reed-Education-finding-aid.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/description/647429" 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.
3/7/2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
c647429esea-prospectus-2
647429