Order 8ode IB92130
Redefining the Federal Role in Elementary and
Secondary Education: The Goals 2000 Proposal
and Reauthorization of the ESEA
Updated May 7, 1993
The Education Section
Education and Public Welfare Division
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Goals 2000 Proposal, and the
Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education
Probable Reauthorization Issues
Curriculum Standards and Assessments
More Resources for High Need Pupils and Schools
Innovation and Restructuring
Flexibility and Accountability
Reauthorization Issues Regarding Specific ESEA Programs
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Redefining the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary
Education: The Goals 2000 Proposal
and Reauthorization of the ESEA
Most Federal aid for elementary and
secondary education is authorized under
the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965. The 103rd Congress is
considering legislation to revise and extend
the ESEA. The Congress will apparently
first take action on the Clinton Administration's proposed Goals 2000: Educate America Act -- separate legislation on topics including education goals, standards, assessments, and "systemic reform" -- as a precursor to ESEA legislation.
Major ESEA programs provide assistance primarily for 4 purposes: to help
meet the special educational and related
needs of disadvantaged or limited English
proficient (LEP) pupils; to improve instruction in subject areas of special national
concern, such as mathematics, science, and
drug abuse prevention; to support the
development and adoption of innovative
instructional techniques; and to provide aid
through a "block grant" for supplementary
resources and services selected by State and
local educational officials. A total of $8.6
billion has been appropriated for ESEA
programs for FY1993. Almost 80% of this
was appropriated for the Title I, Chapter 1
programs of education for disadvantaged
Several issues likely will be debated
with respect to the Goals 2000 proposal or
in the following ESEA reauthorization
process. The issues raised by the Goals
2000 legislation include the appropriate
level and form of Federal support for the
ongoing development and certification of
national and State curriculum standards
and assessments tied to the standards. Key
concerns are what is the proper role for the
Federal Government in this process, and
Congressional Research Service
whether national school delivery standards
should be adopted to assure that pupils
have an adequate opportunity to learn.
Other elements of Goals 2000 are support
for systemic reform of State and local public
school policies; authority for the Secretary
of Education to waive regulations for Federal education programs; and a proposed
national board for occupational skill standards. The Administration intends that the
Goals 2000 legislation should provide a
framework for ESEA amendments.
Additional issues regarding the ESEA
include whether greater resources should be
directed to schools or local educational
agencies (LEAS) with large numbers of poor
or other high need pupils. This might take
the form of greater targeting of Chapter 1
grants, or adoption of new programs focused on areas of concentrated poverty.
The current resurgence of interest in
educational innovation and restructuring
probably will be reflected in the ESEA
reauthorization, as will proposals to reduce
the regulation of Federal education programs in return for greater accountability
expressed in terms of pupil outcomes.
ESEA reauthorization proposals may be
anticipated that focus increased aid on
secondary school students, especially improving the transition from school to work
for those who do not intend to enter a 4year college.
Finally, the forthcoming debate on the
ESEA may include proposals to increase
parental choice of schools, including private
schools. However, it is unlikely that the
Clinton Administration will continue the
Bush Administration's proposals for choice
programs including private schools.
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 103rd Congress is considering legislation to revise and extend the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Several hearings on ESEA reauthorization
issues have been held in the House. However, the Congress will first consider the
Clinton Administration's proposed "Goals 2000: Educate America Act", which is
intended to provide a "fmmework"for consideration of ESEA amendments. House and
Senate hearings have been held on the Goals 2000 bill, and it was reported by the House
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education on May 6. The
proposal is scheduled to be marked up by the full House Education and Labor Committee
plus the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee during the week of May 17.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the
Goals 2000 Proposal, and the Federal Role in
Elementary and Secondary Education
Most Federal aid for elementary and secondary education is authorized under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The most recent major
amendments to the ESEA were adopted in 1988, in the Augustus F.Hawkins-Robert
T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, P.L.
100-297. Most ESEA programs are explicitly authorized through the end of FY1993,
although an automatic extension through at least FYI994 has been applied to these.
The 103rd Congress is considering legislation to revise and extend the ESEA.
This issue brief provides first a general description of the current provisions of the
ESEA and the overall Federal role in supporting elementary and secondary education.
This is followed by a description and analysis of major issues that are likely to influence
Congress' consideration of the ESEA. Next, issues likely to be considered with respect
to major individual programs of the ESEA are reviewed. The issue brief concludes with
information on current legislation, when available, plus references for further
information on the ESEA, its programs, and reauthorization issues.
Goals 2000 Proposal
This brief also includes discussion and analysis of separate legislation proposed by
the Clinton Administration that is intended to provide a "framework for consideration
of ESEA amendments. This proposal, the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act", was
introduced as H.R. 1804 in the House on April 22, and as S. 846 in the Senate on April
29. On May 6, the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational
Education reported H.R. 1804 to the full Committee. The proposal is scheduled to be
marked up by the full House Education and Labor Committee plus the Senate Labor
and Human Resources Committee during the week of May 17. The primary elements
of the Goals 2000 proposal are statutory enactment of the National Education Goals
and related objectives; support for, and certification of, national curriculum content
standards, pupil performance standards, and assessments; grants for "systemic reform"
in the States; authority for the Secretary of Education to waive most regulations under
a number of major Federal education programs; plus a national board to establish
occupational skill standards. All of these topics are discussed below, with respect to
both the Goals 2000 proposal and the ESEA.
Summary of the ESEA
Major ESEA programs provide assistance primarily for 4 purposes:
to help meet the special educational and related needs of targeted pupil groups,
especially low achievers living in relatively low income areas, who have limited
English language proficiency, or who are affected by racial isolation;
to improve instruction in subject areas of special national concern
mathematics, science, and drug abuse prevention;
to demonstrate, evaluate, and disseminate information about innovative
educational approaches; and
to provide aid through a "block grantn to support supplementary resources and
services selected by State and local educational officials.
A total of $8.6 billion was appropriated for ESEA programs for FY1993. Almost
80% of this was appropriated for the Title I, Chapter 1 programs of education for
disadvantaged children. Most ESEA funds are allocated by formula, a t least to the
State level, although many smaller programs distribute their funds on a competitive
basis. The following table lists major ESEA programs and their FYI993 funding level.
Table 1. Major ESEA Programs and Their
FYI993 Appropriations (in $1,000~)
Title I, Chapter 1-- Education for the
Title I, Chapter 2
-- Block grant
11 Title 11, -part A--Eisenhower mathemat- I
1 ics end science education programs
1 Title III -- Magnet schools
1 Title V -- Drug abuse education
1 Title -- Bilingual education
Other ESEA programs not listed above
The aggregate Federal role in elementary and secondary education can be described
from several perspectives. The financial role is typically analyzed in terms of the share
of revenues for public elementary and secondary education that come from the Federal
-- as opposed to State and local -- government. This Federal share is quite small
overall, only about 6.1% for 1989-90, down from a peak of 9.8% in 1979-80. However,
the Federal share of revenues for individual States was as high as 15.5% in 1989-90,
and even higher for particular local educational agencies (LEAS). Generally, the States
and L E h with the highest Federal share of revenues are those with high poverty rates,
since Chapter 1funds (80% of the total) are distributed primarily on the basis of counts
of children in poor families, and such areas generally have less income or wealth that
their State and local governments can tax.
However, there are several other aspects of the Federal role in elementary and
secondary education. Federal support for educational research, demonstration, and
dissemination projects has broader effects than would be indicated by the relatively
small amount of funds appropriated for them, as innovations are often copied by States
or LEAS throughout the Nation. The Federal Government's emphasis on disadvantaged
pupils -- e.g., disabled, limited English proficient (LEP), or racial minority pupils -through both aid programs and enforcement of rights established by Federal statutes
or courts, draws widespread attention, and sometimes resources, to these pupils' needs.
State and local efforts on behalf of these students are often federally mandated.
Finally, we have seen in recent years the emergence of a potential new Federal
role. This would involve the establishment of national curriculum standards, and State
or regional assessments based on these, through organizations and processes that are
supported by the Federal Government, although not governed or substantially
controlled by it. (This topic is discussed in more detail later.) A key element of this
emerging Federal role is the set of National Education Goals, adopted by President
Bush and the Nation's Governors in 1990. These Goals are that, by the year 2000 -all children in America will start school ready to learn;
the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%;
American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science,
history, and geography;
U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement;
8 every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; and
every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a
disciplined environment conducive to learning.
The Administration's Goals 2000 legislation would enact these Goals, plus associated
objectives and a modified version of the existing National Education Goals Panel, into
law. H.R. 1804, as reported by the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and
Vocational Education, would add a 7th goal, on teacher preparation and development.
Probable Reauthorization Issues
The following issues will likely be considered as part of the reauthorization of the
ESEA as well as the Goals 2000 proposal.
Curriculum Standards and Assessments
Among the hallmarks of current school reform efforts is the coupling of curriculum
content standards with new student assessments. Curriculum content standards would
identify the significant knowledge and skills that students should acquire from the
curriculum in each of the core school subject areas. Content standards and assessments
are being developed and applied at both the national and State levels in a n attempt to
raise student achievement, and measure changes in achievement.
Many efforts are currently underway to develop national curriculum standards in
the major subject areas, most with Federal financial support. Proponents stress that
national, not Federal, curriculum standards are the objective. These efforts are being
directed by professional groups of subject matter specialists, who are attempting to
reach a broad-based, national consensus about the standards. To date, curriculum
standards have actually been set only in mathematics, through work of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
National efforts to create new assessments are also in progress. Although there
have been proposals for development of a single, national examination, most work is
proceeding on the assumption that a system of different assessments administered a t
the State or regional levels would be created. Some have argued that the federally
funded National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the only current testing
program of national achievement among elementary and secondary students, should be
the linchpin of any national system to assess progress toward the Goals.
Defining a Federal role in the area of standards and assessments remains
unfinished business despite substantial debate by the 102nd Congress, and current
Federal funding of some of these efforts. The Goals 2000 proposal would establish,
under the National Education Goals Panel, a National Education Standards and
Improvement Council (NESIC) that would establish criteria for certifying, and certify
(subject to final decision by the National Education Goals Panel), voluntary national
standards for curriculum content, pupil performance (defining acceptable levels of
student achievement), and opportunity to learn (defining the resources and services
needed to give students a n opportunity to meet performance standards). State
assessments certified by the NESIC could not be used for certain "high stakes" purposes
(e.g., promotion, grade retention, or graduation) for 5 years after enactment of the
legislation. States receiving systemic reform grants under Goals 2000 (see below) would
be required to establish or adopt content, performance, and opportunity to learn
standards, but these need not be standards certified by the NESIC.
The 103rd Congress is also likely to consider questions about curriculum standards
and assessments related specifically to the ESEA. These questions might include the
following: Do national and State-level efforts to set curriculum standards and develop
assessments complement or conflict with current ESEA programs? To what extent
should ESEA programs support, and be integrated into, these national and State
efforts? Could a system of curricular standards and assessments be the framework for
holding Federal aid recipients acc.ountable for student outcomes? Should ESEA
programs provide greater support to the professional development of teachers who will
be teaching new curricula developed under the standards?
More Resources for High Need Pupils and Schools
In recent years, increased attention has been devoted to the wide-ranging
educational and related needs of disadvantaged pupils. This has resulted from a
recognition of demographic changes and renewed attention to large differences in
education funding levels per pupil among LEAs in several States, as well as among
different States. The relatively ambitious nature of the National Education Goals have
also focused attention on disparities in education funding. Many are concerned that
new pupil assessments, related to the Goals and based on national curriculum
standards, will be unfair to pupils whose schools have not provided an adequate
"opportunity to learn."
Court suits have recently challenged school finance systems in about one-half of
the States. In general, these suits charge that State school finance systems rely upon
local property and other taxes to such an extent that pupils in LEAs with relatively few
taxable resources are seriously disadvantaged. Low wealth LEAs are able to raise fewer
funds locally than more afluent LEAs, even if their tax rates are higher. While most
State school finance systems have programs intended to offset these disparities, they
are usually only partially effective. Large differences in funding per pupil remain,
especially if the greater costs of educating disadvantaged pupils is taken into account.
Debate over ESEA reauthorization will likely focus on additional ways that the Federal
Government can help equalize funds and resources among LEAs. The concern over
resources for high need schools or LEAs will also likely focus on increasing the
targeting of the Chapter 1program, under which aid is distributed primarily on the
basis of poor child counts, but is spread rather broadly.
Demographic changes in the pupil population have also lead to rising interest in
using schools as a hub for providing "comprehensiveservices" to high need pupils
and even their families. In particular, children living in areas of concentrated poverty
often have special needs not only in education but also health, nutrition, housing, and
other social services. School systems in several LEAs are attempting to coordinate the
delivery of these services, through either referrals or the provision of services a t the
school site. In this way, the schools are trying to remove non-educational barriers to
educational achievement, and to ease the way for pupils and families through a
sometimes bewildering array of local social service agencies, with differing eligibility and
other criteria. It is likely that proposals will be offered to amend the ESEA to support
either demonstrations of effective ways for schools to coordinate comprehensive services
to their pupils, or perhaps to pay for limited services under programs such as Chapter
1, if adequate funds are not available from other sources.
Innovation and Restructuring
Interest in various forms of educational innovation has grown in recent years.
Adoption of the National Education Goals has stimulated thought about whether and
how our school systems should be changed to meet them. For several years, educational
reform efforts have focused on "restructuring" schools or systems through such
techniques as school-based management, or outcome-based assessment and accountability. School-based innovations have been supported through such organizations as the
privately-funded New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC). The rapid
development of electronic and other new instructional technologies creates opportunities to revise school operations and teaching techniques. Finally, interest in innovation
has spread beyond specific school settings or instructional techniques to a broader focus
on LEA- or State-wide "systemic reform."
Some are proposing support for "model" schools that would display the process and
effects of education reform in individual classrooms or school sites. The expectation is
that model schools or programs would inspire imitation by other schools. Further, they
posit that reform a t the level of the individual school is most needed and will directly
affect the performance of students. The NASDC has awarded grants to 11research and
development teams for an initial 12-month effort to develop designs for New American
Schools. According to the NASDC's plans, designs with the best prospect for success
will be eligible for additional support for implementation, and dissemination. Concern
about the potential for success of this approach centers on whether school-based reform
can be sustained and replicated without change in, and support from, the educational
systems a t the local and State educational agency levels.
The ESEA currently has several programs supporting innovations, although these
typically affect only selected subject areas or instructional techniques, not schoolwide
operations as envisioned by the proponents of model schools. Possible exceptions are
magnet schools and Chapter 1schoolwide plans, that are described in later sections of
this issue brief. The Congress might consider modifications to the ESEA to demonstrate, evaluate, or disseminate additional model school experiments.
Another strategy proposed to help the Nation meet the National Education Goals
is systemic reform. Grants for State systemic reform would be authorized, a t a level of
$393 million for FY1994, under Title III of the Goals 2000 proposal. The primary
features of systemic reform are establishment of ambitious educational goals and
expectations that apply to all children; development of curricular frameworks
(descriptions of the knowledge and skills pupils should acquire a t each grade level in
a particular subject area) that are based on the goals; identification or development, and
use, of high quality instructional materials that are based on the curricular frameworks;
creation and implementation of pupil assessments that are based on the curricular
frameworks and are fair, reliable, and valid; and institution of sustained professional
development programs for teachers and other school staff. Some States are currently
attempting to adopt one or more elements of this systemic reform strategy, such as
Kentucky which, in response to a State Supreme Court ruling on its school finance
system, has overhauled its entire system for elementary and secondary education.
Title III of the Goals 2000 proposal would authorize grants to the States for
systemic reform of elementary and secondary education. States would develop and
implement school improvement plans that include the following: challenging
curriculum content and performance standards for all students; effective educational
practices, assessments, professional preparation and development, plus technology to
help students meet those standards; opportunity to learn standards; any needed
changes in education system management and governance, including support for LEAs;
and strategies to provide comprehensive educational, social, health, and other services
to meet the needs of all students. Governance and management policies should focus
on outcomes for pupils, provide incentives for high performance, and increase flexibility
for LEAs and schools. The opportunity to learn standards must include a timetable for
all schools in the State to meet them, with progress reports to be made to the public.
However, it is not required that any of the State standards be submitted to or certified
by the NESIC.
At least 50% of first year grants, and a t least 85% of funds in the second and
subsequent years (75% and 90%, respectively, under H.R. 1804 as reported by
Subcommittee) must be allocated to localities under two types of grants -- local reform
and professional development. Beginning in the second year, a t least 85% of local
reform grants must be used at the school level, with a t least half of these funds used
in schools with low student achievement or other special needs. States must also make
a separate series of sub-grants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, and private
non-profit organizations for teacher education and professional development in LEAs
implementing improvement plans aided under this program.
No current ESEA provision directly addresses systemic reform. If provisions
similar to those of Goals 2000 are enacted, there would likely be an effort to coordinate
ESEA programs with State systemic reform efforts, as well as with national standards
on content, performance, and assessments.
Flexibility and Accountability
Another theme of recent Federal school reform proposals is providing greater
flexibility to LEAs in utilizing Federal resources. Increased flexibility is intended to
remedy potentially undesirable, inadvertent effects of current Federal education
programs. These effects may include fragmentation of services to children, inefficient
use of resources, partial treatment of the needs of children, and instruction of pupils
with special needs in separate settings.
Under recent proposals, flexibility would be granted to LEAS through waivers of
Federal regulations. Under most of these proposals, in exchange for regulatory waivers,
LEAs would be required to satisfy alternative forms of accountability to ensure that the
special needs of educationally disadvantaged children and other intended beneficiaries
of Federal aid are met. The focus of the alternative forms of accountability is on pupil
outcomes, i.e., demonstrating that pupils have acquired the skills or knowledge desired.
One of the principal challenges of granting increased flexibility is determining
alternative forms of accountability adequate for monitoring program outcomes.
The Clinton Administration's Goals 2000 proposal would authorize the waiver of
most regulations under several major ED programs in any of the Nation's schools or
LEAs participating in the systemic reform grant program. H.R. 1804, as reported by
Subcommittee, would extend this authority to all LEAs in the Nation. The proposed
authority is limited in that requirements may be waived "if, and only to the extent that,
the Secretary determines that such requirement impedes the ability...[a State or
LEA] ...to carry out the State or local education improvement plan" (sec. 310(a)(l)(A)).
Requirements could be waived for 3 year periods, which could be extended if the
Secretary determines that they have helped States or LEAS carry out their reform
plans. Unlike major proposals considered by the 102nd Congress, States or LEAS
receiving waivers would not be required to meet additional accountability requirements
based on outcomes for disadvantaged or other pupils. Nor is there a requirement for
a n independent evaluation of the effects of the waivers.
In the long term, alternative forms of accountability to replace current forms of
regulation might be based on national curriculum standards and assessments. Until
such standards and assessments are developed, accountability might be based on
agreements that incorporate a variety of assessment instruments or non-test indicators
of educational achievement, such as high school completion rates. However, the lack
of consistent assessments tied to national curriculum standards currently remains a
"weak link" in proposals to trade existing forms of Federal program regulation for
outcome-based standards to determine whether Federal funds are being properly used.
There is increasing concern about those students who pursue little or no formal
education beyond high school. Perhaps the most serious concern is that "entry-leveln
workers with a high school education or less have experienced real decreases in their
wages (adjusting for inflation) since the 1970s. Another concern is the difficulty that
"non-college" bound youth face in moving from school to the adult workforce. Most
high school students work, but their jobs are usually low-skill, low-wage, and
intermittent. It can take years for young adults to move into real careers, and some
never do. Among the possible causes of these problems are skill deficiencies, especially
in academic areas; low student motivation in high school; increases in job-skill
requirements that magnify the problem of high school skill deficiencies; and the
paradox that high school students possibly do not pursue training for some high wage
occupations even while there are shortages of workers in those occupations.
The Goals 2000 proposal would establish a National Skill Standards Board (NSSB)
to support the development of occupational skill standards and related assessments.
Efforts would be made to link these with the content, performance, and assessment
standards certified by the NESIC. In its FYI994 budget proposals for the Departments
of Education and Labor, the Administration has requested $270 million for a national
school-to-work system, with the money evenly split between these two Departments.
For FYI994 the funds are requested under the Perkins vocational education act and the
Job Training Partnership Act. (According to the budget justifications, the President
will propose new legislation building on this proposal in 1995.) The bulk of the funds
would go for grants to States and local school-to-work programs.
During the ESEA reauthorization, possible legislative considerations could include
the following: amending ESEA programs to add components dealing with the
transition from school to work; amending other programs to deal with these problems;
and authorizing new programs. Congress might consider amending the Chapter 1
program to encourage more services to high school students. Chapter 1 funds have
been concentrated on basic skills in elementary and middle grades. Funds targeted to
high schools could help improve academic skills of eligible students. In addition,
Chapter 1 could be linked to Tech-Prep (see below) to provide high school academic
components for eligible students in those programs. Congress might also consider
amending non-ESEA programs such as Tech-Prep, which is authorized under the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Tech-Prep aims to
improve high school technical inst.ruction and link high school and postsecondary
learning. Tech-Prep could be modified to strengthen links to the workplace, for
example, by requiring that program planning be done in conjunction with business and
union leaders. The legislation could mandate that Tech-Prep programs incorporate
work experiences such as apprenticeships.
Finally, Congress might consider authorizing new programs to improve school-towork transition. Perhaps the most discussed new Federal initiative is youth
apprenticeships, which link learning in school with on-the-job training and work
experience. In addition to teaching skills for a specific job and general "employability"
skills (such as timeliness and conscientiousness), youth apprenticeships aim to enhance
academic learning and positive attitudes toward work. These programs can originate
in 10th grade or earlier with career exploration activities. The apprenticeships often
start during the last two years of high school and integrate academic instruction with
work-based learning and work experience on the job, under the guidance of adult
mentors. Students often rotate from job to job at the work site to obtain a broad view
of related occupations and skills. Program completers might proceed directly into the
workforce, to postsecondary education, or even to "adult" apprenticeship programs.
Potential issues for creating a youth apprenticeship program include whether to
authorize youth apprenticeships as part of existing programs such as Tech-Prep or
create a new, separate Federal initiative. One advantage of attaching youth apprenticeships to existing programs is the possible reduction of overlap. One advantage of a
separate program is the potential for higher visibility. A second issue is whether to
authorize national demonstration and planning grants, research, and other initial
activities prior to creating a national youth apprenticeship system, or to immediately
authorize such as system. One advantage of the more incremental approach is the
possibility that the design of a national system can draw from the experience of
demonstration programs and research. One advantage of moving directly to a national
system is that it avoids the pitfall of many demonstration programs; frequently,
demonstrations simply end when Federal funding ends.
School choice has been one of the most controversial reform strategies debated at
the Federal level. Although choice programs involving only public schools generated
substantial opposition in the 102nd Congress, perhaps the strongest opposition was
directed to choice proposals, such as President Bush's AMERICA 2000 legislation, that
would have included private, sectarian schools.
Supporters assert that choice empowers parents and involves them more in their
children's education. Parents, by choosing one school over another, will be wielding a
strong accountability weapon against inferior schools. Proponents argue that choice
enhances equity by enabling parents with limited resources to select good schools for
their children, an option open now only to parents financially able to pay private school
tuition and fees or to move into another school district or attendance area.
Choice programs limited to public schools appear to have a broader base of support
than do programs open to private school enrollment. Proponents of the latter contend
that it is only fair for choice participants to have access to private schools, because
families with sufficient resources have private education as a n option. Further,
proponents assert that private schools are more effective educationally, and the
availability of a private school option would provide greater competition for ineffective
public schools. They also argue that including private schools does not violate the U.S.
Constitution because such a program would not support enrollment a t only private,
sectarian schools, and would provide financial support to parents for the benefit of their
children, not for the benefit of sectarian institutions.
Opponents focus on the threat to educational equity posed by choice. They argue
that greater segregation of pupils by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status is likely
to arise because choice programs generally do not provide the required attention to, and
financing of, information dissemination, transportation, and monitoring of the effects
of choice. Concern is raised about the consequences for students left in failing schools,
as more active and informed parents choose to move their children from them.
Opponents assert that attention to choice deflects resources from more fundamental
issues such as school finance equity and improving the quality of all schools. Including
private schools, according to opponents, will siphon resources from public schools, and
violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution because it would support sectarian schools.
The Goals 2000 proposal contains one provision regarding school choice -- one of
the activities for which States would be authorized to use their systemic reform grants
would be public school choice, including magnet and "charter" schools (public schools
of choice that are released from some forms of State and local governance and
regulation, usually in return for additional accountability in terms of pupil outcomes).
The ESEA now has limited provisions addressing school choice. Title III (described
below) supports magnet schools for voluntary desegregation; and a n unfunded section
of Title IV authorizes support for magnet schools in LEAs with a high proportion of
non-white pupil enrollment. Amendments might be offered in the 103rd Congress that
would broaden the ESEA's support of school choice programs.
Reauthorization Issues Regarding Specific ESEA Programs
Education for the Disadvantaged (ESEA Title I, Chapter 1)
The Chapter 1program provides aid to LEAs for the education of disadvantaged
children -- defined in Chapter 1as children whose educational achievement is below the
level appropriate for their age, and who live in relatively low income areas. Chapter
1supports remedial instruction for 5 million pupils a t prekindergarten through senior
high school levels, although most participants are in elementary and middle schools.
An underlying theme of recent and proposed amendments to Chapter 1is that the
program has positive yet limited average effects on the achievement of disadvantaged
children, as measured by currently common assessment instruments, with significant
variation in program effects in different locations. As a result, a major concern is how
to identify key elements of especially effective programs, disseminate information about
them, and provide additional incentives to adopt more effective policies and practices.
The Chapter 1allocation formula has long been a focus of Congressional interest
and debate. Grants are made primarily on the basis of counts of children from poor
families plus the State average per pupil expenditure for public elementary and
secondary education. Scheduled application of 1990 Census data to Chapter 1 grants
for 1993-94 will lead to large shifts among States and regions in allocation shares.
Interest in formula modifications has centered on not only the new Census data and
possible means of updating it more frequently, but also the extent to which funds are
targeted on areas of greatest need, possible addition of fiscal capacity or effort factors,
and the current formula cost factor.
Debate over Chapter 1reauthorization is also likely to focus on the most efficient
methods to regulate local projects, assuring accountability while providing flexibility to
grantees to implement effective programs (see earlier discussion of this topic). The
program improvement requirements adopted in 1988, as well as the role of testing in
Chapter 1,will be closely scrutinized. New legislation might provide limited authority
to offer regulatory waivers in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil
outcomes, rather than the traditional regulation via specified procedures. The adequacy
of Chapter 1provisions for technical assistance and research will also be considered.
In the process of reauthorizing Chapter 1, the Congress will consider ways in
which parental involvement in the education of disadvantaged children can be enhanced
without adopting burdensome requirements; and how to assure equitable treatment of
pupils attending private schools without violating constitutional prohibitions or policy
concerns regarding public subsidy of private schools.
There might also be interest in revising some of the smaller programs also
authorized under Chapter 1;e.g., possibly expanding the Even Start program of joint
preschool services to young disadvantaged children plus basic and parenting skills
education for their parents; increasing the coordination between the Chapter 1 State
agency program for the handicapped with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act; amending the State agency program for migrant pupils in response to the report
of a National Commission on Migrant Education; or attempting to increase the scope
and effectiveness of the program serving neglected and delinquent youth.
Block Grant (ESEA Title I, Chapter 2)
Chapter 2 of Title I of ESEA authorizes formula grants to the States, in
proportion to school age population but with a relatively high (0.5%) State minimum.
Each State may retain up to 20% of its grant for administrative activities, technical
assistance, and effective schools programs. Each State must in turn allocate at least
80% of its grant to local educational agencies, based on local enrollment with
adjustments for the enrollment of children whose education imposes higher than
average educational costs. Local uses of funds are targeted on a wide variety of
specified activities that include the following: dropout prevention programs; acquisition
of instructional and educational materials, including computer software and hardware
for instructional use; innovative and effective schools programs; training and
professional development; student achievement and excellence; programs for students
with reading problems; and other innovative projects, such as gifted and talented
students, technology education, early childhood education, community education, and
youth suicide prevention programs.
Chapter 2 issues include the degree and direction of targeting of funds and
reporting requirements. Some have suggested that Chapter 2 funds be focused on
support of LEA- and State-wide systemic reform, as described above. The Bush
Administration proposed a 50% reservation for State activities, with a focus on major
reform and improvement programs; funds a t the local level could be used to promote
parental choice school programs. The Congress did not enact these changes. The 1988
Amendments required the Secretary to provide a national review of uses of Chapter 2
funds and the effectiveness of its programs in a report to the Congress by October 1,
1992, and to conduct a national study of effective schools programs conducted under
Chapter 2, including their impact on student achievement, attitudes, and graduation
rates. The Secretary has not yet accomplished these tasks.
Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act (ESEA Title 11,
The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act provides substantial
support for inservice training of elementary and secondary school teachers who teach
math and science. Funds are allocated to the States under a formula that considers
both overall school-age population and State shares of Chapter 1basic grants. Projects
a t the national level include the National Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Technology Education Materials, which serves as a repository of math and science
instructional materials and programs. The legislation also supports regional math and
science education consortia that disseminate exemplary instructional materials and
provide technical assistance.
Among the major issues for reauthorization are the following: Are Eisenhower
State grant funds distributed too broadly, reducing their overall impact? Should State
grant funds be directed primarily to longer term, intensive teacher training? Should
substantially more funds be authorized for discretionary activities by the Secretary of
Education, permitting greater support for national reform efforts in this area? To what
extent should Eisenhower national grant funds be focused on development of national
curriculum standards and assessments?
Magnet Schools Assistance (ESEA Title 111)
The Magnet Schools Assistance program provides Federal competitive grants for
magnet schools in LEAS implementing school desegregation plans. Magnet schools, by
virtue of such characteristics as their location, curricular offerings, or educational
philosophy, seek to attract, on a voluntary basis, a racially and ethnically heterogeneous
student population. Such schools have become key components in school desegregation
plans across the country. The program has two purposes: reducing the isolation of
minority group students, and strengthening magnet school students' academic and
vocational skills. In FY1993, the program will support approximately 64 school districts
in the first year of a two-year cycle of grants.
The reauthorization of this program is likely to raise such questions as the
following: Are magnet schools, including those assisted by this program, effective in
accomplishing school desegregation objectives? Do recent changes in the administration
of this program proposed by ED adequately address LEA-level concern that the program
has been too inflexible in requiring school-by-school reduction in minority isolation?
Should this program be focused more on educational improvement than desegregation?
Drug and Alcohol Abuse Education (ESEA Title V)
One of the fastest growing ESEA programs since the 1988 ESEA amendments is
the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA),Title V. Funds are allocated to
the States under a formula that considers both overall school-age population and State
shares of Chapter 1basic grants, with a 0.5% State minimum. This program supports
drug and alcohol abuse prevention education activities a t the national, State and local
levels. Specific activities include development of instructional materials, staff training,
counselling and referral services, technical assistance, emergency grants to LEAs with
especially significant needs for assistance, development of drug free school zones, plus
support of and dissemination of information about innovative programs. A large
majority of LEAs participate in DFSCA programs.
A major issue that may be considered in the reauthorization of this program is the
effectiveness of this or any other approach based on prevention education in reducing
the extent of drug abuse activity, or whether such activity will fluctuate primarily in
response to conditions outside the control of school systems, such as law enforcement
effectiveness or treatment of identified drug abusers. Other possible issues include the
related question of whether the program has been sufficiently evaluated to determine
its effects; and whether funds should be targeted on high need LEAs and schools,
versus the currently widespread participation by LEAs.
Bilingual Education (ESEA Title VII)
The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) is the Federal program specifically intended
to help LEP children to learn English. The BEA funds three types of activities: (1)
local programs of instruction; (2) research; and (3) teacher training. The largest BEA
activity is the part A program of competitive grants to LEAs for the establishment and
operation of bilingual education programs. There are six different types of part A
projects. Three of these projects -- transitional, developmental, and special alternative - fund the three different models of bilingual education typically found in classrooms.
These models differ by the level of use of the LEP children's native language.
Among the issues Congress may consider during the reauthorization of the BEA
are (1) whether part A funds should be allocated by formula rather than by competitive
grants; (2) whether the cap on funding for special alternative instructional projects
should be increased or removed (special alternative projects do not utilize the LEP
children's native language); (3) how to improve coordination of part A projects with
Chapter 1compensatory education programs; (4) whether further Federal guidance to
States is necessary on the definition of LEP; (5) what should be the BEA research
agenda for the 1990s; and (6) how to improve the completion rate of BEA graduate
Other ESEA Programs
Finally, the ESEA authorizes a number of smaller programs that are generally
intended to support innovative instructional activities or help meet the needs of specific
disadvantaged pupil groups. These programs include the following: aid to innovative
foreign language instruction programs, which provides small grants by formula to every
State; the Women's Educational Equity Act, which currently supports a clearinghouse
on instructional materials; a gifted and talented education program, that supports
innovative programs especially focused on disadvantaged pupils; Ellender Fellowships,
which help disadvantaged pupils and their teachers participate in Washington, D.C.based programs on American government; a n immigrant education program, providing
aid to LEAS with especially large numbers of recent immigrant pupils; general aid to
the Virgin Islands and teacher training in all of the territories; the Secretary's Fund
for Innovation, that supports a variety of special projects ranging from technology and
computer-based education to optional national examinations and alternative curriculum
schools (the latter two of which have not yet been funded); and a dropout prevention
program designed to support and evaluate innovative techniques for preventing pupils
from dropping out of school or attracting dropouts to reenter.
H.R. 6 (Kildee, et al)
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1993. Extends the
authorization of Chapter 1 and other ESEA programs through FY1999.
Introduced on Jan. 5, 1993; referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
H.R. 1804 (Kildee, et al)
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. See description above. Introduced on
Apr. 22, 1993; referred t o the Committee on Education and Labor.
S. 846 (Kennedy and Pell)
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. See description above. Introduced on
Apr. 29, 1993; referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Bilingual Education Act: Background and Reauthorization Issues. CRS Report for
Congress 93-119 EPW, by Steven R. Aleman, January 25, 1993. 21 p.
Chapter 1 -- Education for Disadvantaged Children: Reauthorization Issues. CRS
Report for Congress 92-878 EPW, by Wayne Riddle, November 20, 1992. 67 p.
Chapter 1--Education for Disadvantaged Children: A Fact Sheet. CRS Report for
Congress 92-993 EPW, by Wayne Riddle, December 31, 1992. 2 p.
The Distribution Among the States of School-Age Children in Poor Families, 1990
Versus 1980: Implications for Chapter 1. CRS Report for Congress No. 92-485
EPW, by Wayne Riddle, June 8, 1992. 6 p.
Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act: Overview and Issues for
Reauthorization. CRS Report for Congress 93-5 EPW, by James B. Stedman,
December 17, 1992. 6 p.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Allocation Methods. CRS Report for
Congress 92-923 EPW, by Paul M. Irwin, December 3, 1992. 14 p.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: A Guide to Federally Required
Studies. CRS Report for Congress No. 93-265 EPW, by Paul M. Irwin and Laura
Monagle, February 25, 1993. 29 p.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: FY 1993 Guide to Programs. CRS
Report for Congress No. 92-625 EPW, by Paul M. Irwin, updated November 25,
1992. 34 p.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Reauthorization Fact Sheet. CRS
Report for Congress 92-840 EPW, by Paul M. Irwin and James B. Stedman,
November 30, 1992. 2 p.
The Even Start Family Literacy Program: Background and Issues. CRS Report for
Congress 93-37 EPW, by Wayne Riddle, January 8, 1993. 6 p.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act--Overview and Analysis. CRS Report for Congress
93-457 EPW, by James B. Stedman, Wayne Riddle, and Richard Apling, April 26,
1993. 10 p.
High School Dropouts: Current Federal Programs. CRS Report for Congress 93-440
EPW, by Bob Lyke, April 20, 1993. 9 p.
Immigrant Education: A Fact Sheet. CRS Report for Congress 93-136 EPW, by Steven
R. Aleman, February 2, 1993. 2 p.
Linking Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and Integration Efforts. CRS
Report for Congress 93-369 EPW, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, March 30, 1993. 22 p.
Magnet Schools Assistance Program: Overview and Issues for Reauthorization. CRS
Report for Congress 93-132 EPW, by James B. Stedman, February 2, 1993. 6 p.
Migmnt Education Program: Reauthorization Overview. CRS Report for Congress 93325 EPW, By Bob Lyke, March 17, 1993. 2 p.
National Education Goals and Federal Policy Issues: Action by the 102d Congress.
CRS Report for Congress 92-884 EPW, by James B. Stedman and Wayne Riddle,
November 30, 1992. 21 p.
Selected Reform Options for Federal Education Policies and the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. General Distribution Memorandum, by the Education
Section, October 23, 1992. 43 p.
Urban Education: Proposals for Reform. CRS Report for Congress No. 92-653 EPW,
by Catherine Jovicich, August 12, 1992. 28 p.
Women's Educational Status: Some Indicators. CRS Report for Congress 93-156 EPW,
by Richard N. Apling and Liane E. White, February 1, 1993. 17 p.