[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30056-30062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14546]
[[Page 30055]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 30056]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of request for public comment on the reauthorization of
elementary and secondary education programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education invites written comments regarding
the reauthorization of programs under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and
Subtitle B of Title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (Education for Homeless Children and Youth).
DATES: Comments must be received by the Department on or before July
17, 1998. Comments may also be submitted at regional meetings to be
held on July 8-15, 1998 (See dates, times and locations of regional
meetings under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.)
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Judith Johnson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, U. S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW.
(Portals Building, Room 4000), Washington, DC 20202-6132. E-mail
responses may be sent to: Frances__S[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Shadburn, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (Portals Building, Room 4000)
Washington, DC 20202-6100. Telephone: (202) 401-0113. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
Electronic Access to This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf, you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at the previous sites. If you have
questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing Office
toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone also may view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G-Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.
Additionally, in the future, this document, as well as other
documents concerning the reauthorization of the ESEA, will be available
on the World Wide Web at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OESE/esea.html.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary is seeking public comment on
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
Titles III and IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and Subtitle
B of Title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. A
complete list of the programs currently authorized under these statutes
is provided at the end of this notice. Most of these programs were last
reauthorized in 1994. At that time ESEA programs were fundamentally
restructured to support, in partnership with Goals 2000, comprehensive
State and local efforts to improve teaching and learning and raise
academic standards. The authorization for most of these programs
expires September 30, 1999.
Need for Reauthorization
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the cornerstone
of Federal aid to elementary and secondary schools, embodies the
Federal Government's commitment to providing funds for the education of
children living in high- poverty communities. Collectively, its
programs provide funds to States, districts, and schools to improve
teaching and learning to help all children, especially at-risk
children, meet challenging State standards. Funding for ESEA and
related programs currently represents an annual $12 billion investment
in our Nation's future. The support these programs provide for State
and local school improvement efforts makes them key vehicles for
carrying out the Department's mission: ``To Ensure Equal Access to
Education and Promote Educational Excellence Throughout the Nation.''
Title I, the largest of the ESEA programs, is the primary vehicle
for providing assistance to schools to raise the academic performance
of poor and low-achieving students, especially in schools serving areas
with high concentrated poverty.
The 1994 reauthorization responded to data from the Department's
``Prospects'' longitudinal study which concluded that the former
Chapter I (now Title I) was not structured to close the achievement gap
between students attending high- and low-poverty schools. To address
this need, the 1994 reauthorization restructured the program to, among
other things, encourage high-poverty schools to move away from
``pullout'' programs to ``schoolwide'' approaches for improving entire
schools. To facilitate this change, the 1994 reauthorization linked
Title I to other ESEA programs and State and local school reform
efforts in partnership with Goals 2000 so that Federal and State
programs could work together to provide all children, whatever their
backgrounds and whatever schools they attend, with the opportunity to
achieve the same high standards expected of all children. The 1994
reauthorization also revised the other ESEA programs so that they too
support State and local school reform. For example, the Eisenhower
Professional Development program was changed to support improved
instructional practices in other core subjects in addition to math and
science. A key component of the entire revised ESEA provides States and
local schools with greatly increased flexibility in return for being
held accountable for improving student achievement.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget expands on Goals 2000 and
the ESEA by requesting funds to help build the capacity of school
districts and schools to: (1) deliver high-quality instruction by
reducing class size in the early grades; (2) expand the pace and scope
of reform in 35 high-poverty urban and rural school districts with
significant barriers to high achievement that have already begun to
show progress in implementing standards-based reform; (3) increase the
number of school-based before- and after-school extended-day programs;
(4) build and renovate public schools through the provision of tax
credits to pay interest on nearly $22 billion in bonds; and (5) provide
support for schools, communities, and families to work together in
improving and expanding opportunities for children to develop strong
literacy skills.
When Goals 2000 was established and the ESEA was last reauthorized,
the
[[Page 30057]]
Congress recognized that States required time to implement thoughtfully
high standards aligned with challenging assessments as part of their
ongoing school reforms. As a result, Title I requires States to develop
or adopt challenging content standards and student performance
standards, at least in mathematics, and reading and language arts, by
Fall, 1997, and assessments aligned with standards by the school year
2000-2001. States, districts, and schools are steadily making progress
toward implementing standards-based reform. However, there are still
provisions of the law that have not yet been fully implemented--for
example, aligned assessments that are part of accountability systems do
not have to be in place until school year 2000-2001. Similarly, many
States have requested and received waivers as they continue to develop
their student performance standards. Reauthorization provides the
opportunity to consider what changes, if any, are necessary to
strengthen the effectiveness of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs to improve teaching and learning for all students,
especially those students most at risk of failing to meet State
standards.
The Secretary intends to submit the Department's reauthorization
proposal for Goals 2000 and ESEA and related programs to the Congress
early in 1999, in conjunction with the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request. Proposed performance indicators also will be developed
to provide feedback on program progress in accordance with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires all
agencies to develop agency-wide strategic plans, and to identify and
collect information on performance indicators for all programs. The
Department's strategic plan organizes performance measurement around
key policy objectives and the programs that advance these objectives:
standards development (through Goals 2000); helping at-risk populations
to achieve to challenging standards (Title I and other programs that
serve at-risk populations); supporting local capacity-building
(professional development and technology) to enhance instruction
aligned with standards and improve the climate for learning (Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and stimulating flexibility,
performance accountability, and innovation (charter schools, Ed-Flex).
The U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan, 1998-2002, including
current performance indicators, is available on the Department's Web
site at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/StratPln/ or can be requested by calling
1-800-USA-LEARN. The Secretary invites public comments on the issues
identified in this notice and recommendations for performance
indicators.
Issues for Public Comment
The Secretary seeks comments and suggestions regarding
reauthorization of Goals 2000, ESEA, and related programs. The
Secretary is interested both in comments regarding changes that may be
needed, as well as comments on aspects of the programs that are working
well and should be maintained. As noted above, the last ESEA
reauthorization fundamentally restructured all ESEA programs so that
they, together with Goals 2000, would support State and local efforts
to improve our Nation's schools through comprehensive, standards-based
reform of teaching and learning. The programs authorized by these
statutes support State efforts to develop standards describing what
students should know and be able to do at key points in their
schooling, and district and school efforts to put in place educational
programs that provide each student with the opportunity to meet those
standards.
Since the 1995-96 school year, when the last reauthorization took
effect, States have made progress in implementing standards-based
reform. Currently, forty-seven States including Washington, D.C. and
Puerto Rico, report that they have adopted challenging content
standards in at least reading and mathematics as required by ESEA Title
I. All the remaining States--except one--also have State content
standards that they are either revising or are in the process of
formally adopting.
Although the development of content standards is the first step,
there is still a long way to go to incorporate State standards fully
into daily classroom activities. States and districts generally are now
moving to the next phases of standards-based reform--developing student
performance standards and assessments that measure student progress
toward meeting the standards, and increasing the capacity of teachers,
schools, and districts to implement changes to help all students meet
challenging State standards. Capacities needed for effective teaching
and learning include many factors, such as teacher knowledge and
skills, student motivation and readiness to learn, and quality
curriculum materials for teachers and students.
One aspect of capacity building is how school reform efforts at the
State, district, and school levels can best be informed by high-quality
research and dissemination. In addition to technical assistance
provided through the ESEA, the Department of Education funds regional
educational laboratories to carry out applied research, development,
dissemination, and other technical assistance activities by working
with States, districts, and schools in their regions. The Department
also is required to establish expert panels to review educational
programs and to recommend to the Secretary those programs that should
be designated as exemplary or promising for dissemination.
Clearly, more time will be needed for States and districts to
implement fully a coherent set of reforms reflecting an aligned system
of standards, assessment, instruction, professional development, and
accountability, and for principals and teachers to fully implement
reforms in the classroom. Nevertheless, there is already some evidence
of the impact of State and local efforts, supported by Federal
education programs, to help all elementary and secondary students
attain high standards. States that have had assessments linked to
standards for more than two years are showing progress in the
achievement of all of their students, including those in high-poverty
schools. For example, Texas reports that the percentage of Title I
students passing all parts of the Texas Assessment of Student
Achievement has increased from 37.6 percent in the 1994-95 school year
to 62.1 percent in the 1996-97 school year. National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) scores in math, the first subject area to
implement standards-based, comprehensive reforms, are improving
generally for the Nation and appreciably in some States. For example,
data from the 1996 NAEP long-term trend assessment show math scores for
9 year-olds rising steadily since 1992, particularly in high-poverty
schools (schools with at least 75 percent of the students on subsidized
lunch). The percentage of 4th-grade students in high-poverty schools
who are achieving at or above the basic level in math on NAEP has
increased in almost every State since 1992. In some States, achievement
in high-poverty schools meets or exceeds the national average of 64
percent of students scoring at or above the basic level.
The Secretary believes that the early evidence from States and
districts that have made the most progress in implementing standards-
based reform demonstrates that the focus in Goals 2000 and the ESEA on
supporting State and local school reform efforts is sound and should be
continued in the next reauthorization. The Secretary also
[[Page 30058]]
believes that the priorities governing the last reauthorization are
also sound and should be continued. These priorities are: (1) high
standards for all children with the elements of education aligned so
that everything is working together to help all students reach those
standards; (2) a focus on teaching and learning; (3) flexibility to
stimulate local school-based and district initiatives, coupled with
responsibility for student performance; (4) links among schools,
parents, and communities; and (5) resources targeted to where needs are
greatest and in amounts sufficient to make a difference.
The Secretary seeks comments on the effectiveness of current
programs in supporting State and local efforts to improve teaching and
learning to help all children, especially at-risk children, meet
challenging State standards. The questions in this notice are organized
under three cross-cutting categories. These categories are: (1) Federal
support for State and local school reform including questions
addressing implementing standards in the classroom through professional
development, technology to support teaching and learning, and targeting
resources; (2) strategies for addressing the needs of children most at
risk of failing to meet State standards; and (3) school environments
conducive for learning including questions addressing Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities, parental involvement, extended learning
opportunities before and after school, and school facilities. In
addition to consideration of the cross-cutting issues, individual
programs will also be reviewed as part of the reauthorization. Comments
on issues other than those raised in this notice are welcome.
Within each of the following cross-cutting categories, the
Secretary is especially interested in: (1) suggestions on ways to
strengthen the ability of Goals 2000 and ESEA programs to help all
children, including students with limited English proficiency, migrant
children, economically disadvantaged children including economically
disadvantaged minority students, children with disabilities, and other
educationally disadvantaged children meet challenging State student
performance standards; and (2) comments directed at how the activity
being discussed can be carried out in the most flexible manner possible
while improving accountability for results.
I. Support for State and Local School Reform
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act provides the framework for
Federal support of State and local efforts to reform public schools by
supporting the development of challenging State standards and new
assessments to measure whether children are achieving those standards.
The 1994 ESEA reauthorization built on the Goals 2000 framework,
fundamentally reshaping ESEA programs so they would better support
comprehensive State and local efforts to improve teaching and learning,
especially in schools serving economically disadvantaged communities.
The changes made in 1994 included: (1) requiring the same challenging
State content and student performance standards for all students; (2)
linking Federal program accountability requirements to student's
achievement of challenging State standards; (3) supporting professional
development tied to those standards; (4) providing greater flexibility
in exchange for greater accountability for student performance; (5)
promoting school-level decision-making to bolster local initiative; (6)
authorizing consolidated applications and plans to reduce paperwork
burdens so that educators can focus more time, energy, and resources on
better educating children; and (7) providing authority for the
Secretary to waive Federal rules and regulations, as needed, to improve
student achievement. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
program was added in 1997, primarily as part of Title I of ESEA, to
encourage more extensive implementation of research-based approaches to
comprehensive school reform.
Support for State and Local School Reform: General Questions
1. Are there changes in Federal statutes that would make Goals
2000, ESEA, and related programs more effective tools for supporting
comprehensive State and school district school reform? For example,
given the progress that States, districts, and schools have made in
implementing standards-based reforms, are changes needed to Goals 2000
to make it better aligned with current implementation efforts? Are
there changes that would enable Goals 2000, ESEA, and related programs
to support more effectively State and school district efforts to
improve the capacity of teachers, schools, and districts to integrate
standards into the classroom? Are there changes that would make it
easier for States, districts, schools, and teachers to get information
on new research, on research-based programs, and on promising practices
for improving the achievement of all students, especially educationally
disadvantaged children?
2. In addition to funding technical assistance through a variety of
ESEA and Goals 2000 authorities, the U.S. Department of Education also
funds regional educational laboratories to assist in the implementation
of education reform. Are there changes to the Federal statutes that
would enable federally supported technical assistance efforts to
support State and district, and school reform more effectively?
3. Are there changes to the Federal statutes that would encourage
greater public school choice as part of State and local school reform?
For example, the Department of Education encourages expansion of choice
within the public school system with such alternatives as charter
schools, magnet schools, and system-wide strategies that make every
public school a school of choice. Are changes needed in the law to
strengthen these alternatives? Are changes needed in the Federal law to
incorporate the knowledge gained about school reform from the
establishment and operation of charter and magnet schools?
4. The ESEA currently contains provisions addressing the
participation of private school students and teachers that are
applicable across many ESEA programs. Are there changes to Federal
statutes that would improve the effectiveness of these provisions?
Support for State and Local School Reform: Implementing Standards in
the Classroom
Improved teaching and learning is central to the effort to help
each child achieve to high State standards. Because professional
development helps all teachers, school leaders, and other personnel
teach to and support high standards, professional development is an
authorized activity in Goals 2000 and almost every ESEA program. The
ESEA also authorizes a major program, the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Professional Development program, specifically to support national and
State professional development in the major content areas.
Research indicates that professional development must be sustained,
intensive, and of high quality to have a lasting impact, and must
address teacher preparation as well as ongoing training for teachers in
the classroom. Research also indicates that professional development is
most effective when it includes networks, study groups, teacher
research, and other strategies that enable teachers to meet regularly
to solve problems, consider new ideas, analyze student work, or reflect
on specific subject matter issues. The U.S. Department of Education and
the
[[Page 30059]]
National Science Foundation have launched a joint effort to develop a
range of appropriate mechanisms to raise student achievement in
mathematics and science. These mechanisms include support for networks
among teachers, schools, parents, colleges, students, professional
scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and others.
5. Are there changes to Federal statutes that would focus and
coordinate professional development resources across Goals 2000 and
ESEA programs to ensure that all teachers and educational personnel
have sufficient knowledge and skills to teach all children, including
children most at risk of failing, to challenging State standards?
6. A recent National Academy of Sciences study states that if all
students are to become successful readers, children must be able to
discover the nature of the alphabetic system, understand how sounds are
represented alphabetically, gain meaning from print, and practice
reading skills to achieve fluency. In order to gain these skills,
exposure to language and literacy must begin in the pre-school years,
primary grades must focus on reading instruction; teachers must
participate in ongoing sustained professional development; elementary
schools must have enriched reading programs; students who do not have
proficiency in English should be exposed to reading in their native
language while acquiring proficiency in spoken English; and early
intervention is critical. How can the use of research-based knowledge
and of research-based approaches to improving student achievement be
encouraged through teacher preparation and ongoing training?
7. Are there changes to Federal statutes that would strengthen
connections between institutions of higher education and schools for
high-quality professional development to increase the capacity of
teachers and principals to implement standards-based reform?
Support for State and Local School Reform: Using Technology To Support
Teaching and Learning
Educators across the country have begun to use technology in their
classrooms on a regular basis, and many are convinced that technology
can be very effective in improving teaching and learning. There is
strong evidence that, used properly, computers and related
telecommunications technologies provide new opportunities to students
that can improve their motivation and achievement. The best
instructional practices using technology are generally recognized as
providing strong support for the kinds of improvements sought by
education reformers through new approaches to teaching and learning.
While teacher's level of knowledge about technology is rapidly
expanding, technology also is changing rapidly. Questions about new
technology and how best to use it in teaching and learning will create
an ongoing need for updated information in schools across the Nation,
and the quality and quantity of assistance made available to schools
will be an important factor in how quickly and well the benefits of
technology are realized. Furthermore, as opportunities for using
technology at school and home increase, it is imperative that all
schools and students--not just those that can afford it--have access to
these new resources so that technology reduces rather than increases
disparities in the education of poor children and their better-off
peers. In addition, the expertise of the teacher and the integration of
technology into the curriculum are essential to improving student
performance.
Under the current authorization, concentrated Federal support for
technology is provided under five main programs that include a mix of
State formula and discretionary grants. Authorization to use funds for
technology also is embedded in other large programs, such as Title I
and Goals 2000.
8. Are there changes to the Federal statutes that would better
support the use of technology to advance State and local school reform
efforts designed to help all children acquire the knowledge contained
in State content standards? For example, are there changes that would
improve access for students in high-poverty schools to high-quality
academic content through technology? Are there changes that would
increase the ability of teachers to use technology as an instructional
resource? Should the focus be on development and demonstration of high-
quality instructional applications of technology for all schools, or
should it continue to be development of the infrastructure for students
and schools in high-poverty areas?
Support for State and Local School Reform: Targeting Resources/
Equalization
Academic performance tends to be lower in schools serving the
highest percentages of children who live in poverty, and the obstacles
to raising academic performance are considerable. The current law
contains multiple provisions to direct financial resources to areas of
greatest need. For example, Title I funds must be used first in all
schools with poverty rates above 75 percent, and low-poverty schools
may not receive higher per-pupil allocations than high-poverty schools.
In addition to the issue of how Federal funds are targeted, since
1971 State courts have found school funding systems to be inequitable
and unconstitutional in 17 States, and a 1997 General Accounting Office
(GAO) report found that ``On average, wealthy districts had about 24
percent more total funding per weighted pupil than poor districts.''
Sizable disparities also exist across States, with average per-pupil
funding ranging from a high of $9,700 to a low of $3,656 in 1994-95.
Because Federal funding is more targeted to at-risk students, both in
terms of services and total dollars, than State funding, it is an
important source of funding for closing the gap between high- and low-
poverty schools.
9. Are there changes to the Federal statutes that would improve the
distribution of ESEA and related program funds to communities and
schools where they are most needed?
10. Current distribution formulas for some ESEA programs may result
in allocations so small that school districts may have difficulty
mounting effective, comprehensive programs. Are changes in Federal
statutes needed to address this situation?
11. Should the Federal Government play a role in promoting greater
equity in the distribution of school funding across and within States.
If so, what should that role be and are there changes to Federal
statutes that would be necessary to carry out the role?
II. Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Children Most at Risk of
Failing To Meet State Standards
Goals 2000 and the revised ESEA and related programs are designed
to support State and local efforts to improve America's schools for all
children, particularly schools serving disadvantaged children. The
resources these statutes provide are supplemental to funds and services
provided through State and local resources. While the Federal
Government contributes only six percent of American elementary and
secondary school dollars nationally, Federal funds are substantial in
many States and school districts and represent a significant source of
funding for services for at-risk children. According to a January 1998
GAO report, Federal funding is more targeted to at-risk students, both
in terms of services and total dollars, than State funding. These
additional funds are critical for high-
[[Page 30060]]
poverty schools. Generally, academic achievement tends to be low in
schools serving many children who live in poverty, and the obstacles to
raising performance in these schools are challenging.
Over the past 33 years the Congress has amended and expanded ESEA
multiple times, creating programs to help children who speak little
English, migrant children, neglected and delinquent children, Native
American/Alaskan Native children, and other children most at-risk of
failing to meet challenging State standards. The ESEA also supports
programs that promote educational equity for women and girls.
Enabling all children, especially at-risk children, to meet
challenging State standards requires that State and local school reform
efforts take into account the needs of a diverse student population. As
States, districts, and schools progress toward full implementation of
educational reform, they need specific targeted strategies to provide
all students with equal access to rigorous academic standards,
instruction, and aligned assessments that measure higher-order thinking
skills and understanding.
The Secretary seeks not only to maintain the connection begun in
the 1994 ESEA reauthorization between Federal elementary and secondary
programs with their focus on at-risk students, and State and local
school reform efforts, but to strengthen it.
12. Are there changes to Federal statutes that would make Goals
2000, ESEA, and related programs more effective tools for use by
States, districts, and schools in closing the achievement gap between
students most at risk of failing to meet challenging State standards
and other students? Are there changes to the Federal statute that would
improve the role of accountability measures in both raising student
achievement and providing more State and local flexibility? For
example, should Title I improvement provisions be changed or
strengthened?
13. Students most at risk of failing to meet State standards need
the highest quality instruction provided by the most knowledgeable
teachers, yet half of the instructional staff in Title I are
paraprofessionals, most of whom have only high school diplomas. Are
there changes to Federal statute that would strengthen qualifications
for Title I and Title VII (Bilingual Education) staff who instruct
students most at-risk of failing to meet challenging State standards?
14. A growing body of research on the development of the brain and
its implications for learning during certain critical periods of child
development supports the need for early intervention and the importance
of pre-school and parent education. How can Federal programs encourage
greater application of this knowledge?
III. School Environments Conducive to Learning
For students to learn and compete in the global economy, schools
must be modern and well-equipped, and provide an environment conducive
to learning. A school environment conducive to learning is safe and
drug-free, encourages active parental and community involvement, and
often includes extended learning opportunities during non-traditional
school hours (before and after school, weekends and summer sessions).
Students cannot learn and teachers cannot teach if students are
disruptive or are threatened with violence. At the same time, research
indicates that students who report positive school experiences are
significantly less likely to use drugs than their peers who have
negative experiences in school.
Research also indicates that when schools make a concerted effort
to enlist the help of mothers and fathers in fostering children's
learning, student achievement rises. When families are involved in
their children's education, children earn higher grades and receive
higher scores on tests, attend school more regularly, complete more
homework, demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors, graduate
from high school at higher rates, and are more likely to enroll in
higher education than are students with less family involvement in
their schooling.
Recent survey data indicate that parents strongly support school-
based after-school programs that include expanded learning
opportunities and enrichment and recreational activities. After-school
programs can also contribute to school safety by providing supervised
programs for young people to attend after the regular school day.
Goals 2000 and the ESEA support a variety of approaches to helping
families become active partners in their children's education,
including Even Start family literacy programs, Goals 2000 parent
centers, and school-parent compacts under Title I. The Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act (ESEA, Title IV), first enacted in
1986, has been the Federal Government's major effort in the area of
drug education and prevention. It promotes comprehensive drug and
violence prevention strategies for making schools and neighborhoods
safe and drug free. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program
funds community learning centers that include after-school programs.
Equally important to the activities going on in a school is the
physical condition of the school building itself. A 1995 study by the
GAO found serious and widespread problems in school facilities across
the country. These problems ranged from overcrowding and structural
failures to inadequate electrical and plumbing systems. Further, the
GAO found that many States and local school districts were unable or
unprepared to meet the costs of improving these facilities.
15. Are there changes to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act that would encourage the implementation of more
effective, research-based drug and violence prevention programs?
16. Are there changes to Federal statutes that would strengthen the
ability of Federal education programs to assist families in their
efforts to be active partners in their children's education? For
example, could the current Title I requirement for school-parent
compacts (which describes the shared responsibility of schools,
parents, and students for improved student achievement) be improved?
17. In addition to helping local communities finance the
construction and renovation of school facilities, what additional
barriers to the modernization of schools need to be addressed?
Regional Meetings
Participants are welcome to address these and other issues relating
to the reauthorization of the ESEA, either by attending the regional
meetings or submitting written comments. Individuals desiring to
present comments at the meetings are encouraged to do so. It is likely
that each participant choosing to make a statement will be limited to
four minutes. Speakers may also submit written comments. Individuals
interested in making oral statements will be able to sign up to make a
statement beginning at twelve noon on the day of the meeting at the
Department's regional meeting on-site registration table on a first-
come, first-served basis. If no time slots remain, then the Department
will reserve a limited amount of additional time at the end of each
regional meeting to accommodate these individuals. The amount of time
available will depend upon the number of individuals who request
reservations. In addition, written comments will be accepted and must
be received on or before July 17, 1998.
[[Page 30061]]
The dates and location of the four regional meetings appear below.
The Department of Education has reserved a limited number of rooms at
each of the following hotels at a special government per diem room rate
(Boston's Park Plaza Hotel does not have a special government per diem
room rate). To reserve these rates, be certain to inform the hotel that
you are attending the reauthorization hearings with the Department of
Education.
The meeting sites are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or
service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service,
assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format) should
notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks
before the scheduled meeting date. Although the Department will attempt
to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid
or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange
it.
Dates, Times, and Locations of Regional Meetings
1. July 8, 1998, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Hotel Inter-Continental Los
Angeles, 251 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California; 1-213-617-
3300 and ask for reservations. Room reservations must be made by June
17.
2. July 10, 1998, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Radisson Hotel & Suites, 160 East
Huron Street, Chicago, Illinois, 1-312-787-2900, and ask for
reservations. Room reservations must be made by June 19.
3. July 13, 1998, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Park Plaza Hotel, 64 Arlington
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 1-617-426-2000, and ask for
reservations. Room reservations must be made by June 22.
4. July 15, 1998, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Terrace Garden Hotel, 3405 Lenox
Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, 1-404-261-9250, and ask for reservations.
Room reservations must be made by June 24.
FORMAT FOR COMMENT: This request for comments is designed to elicit the
views of interested parties on how the Department's elementary and
secondary education programs can be structured to meet the objectives
of the reauthorization as stated in this notice.
The Secretary requests that each respondent identify his or her
role in education and the perspective from which he or she views the
educational system--either as a representative of an association,
agency, or school (public or private), or as an individual teacher,
student, parent, or private citizen.
The Secretary urges each commenter to identify the specific
question being responded to by number, to be specific regarding his or
her proposals, and to include, if possible, the data requirements,
procedures, and actual legislative language that the commenter proposes
for the improvement or redesign of programs.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
Existing Programs and Related Provisions Under the Scope of the
ESEA/Goals 2000 Reauthorization
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Title III--State and Local Education Systemic Improvement
Title IV--Parental Assistance
Title V--National Skill Standards Board
Title VI--International Education Program
Title VIII--Minority-Focused Civics Education
Title X--Miscellaneous
Section 1011--School Prayer
Section 1018--Contraceptive Devices
Section 1019--Assessment
Section 1020--Public Schools
Section 1022--Sense of the Congress
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Title I--Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards
Part A--Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs
Part B--Even Start Family Literacy Programs
Part C--Education of Migratory Children
Part D--Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth
Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of Dropping Out
Part E--Federal Evaluations, Demonstrations, and Transition
Projects
Part F--General Provisions
Title II--Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program
Part A--Federal Activities
Part B--State and Local Activities
Part C--Professional Development Demonstration Project
Title III--Technology for Education
Part A--Technology for Education of All Students
Subpart 1--National Programs for Technology in Education
Subpart 2--State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources
Subpart 3--Regional Technical Support and Professional Development
Subpart 4--Product Development
Part B--Star Schools Program
Part C--Ready-to-Learn Television
Part D--Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics
Part E--Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment Program
Title IV--Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Part A--State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs
Subpart 1--State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs
Subpart 2--National Programs
Title V--Promoting Equity
Part A--Magnet Schools Assistance
Part B--Women's Educational Equity
Part C--Assistance to Address School Dropout Problems
Title VI--Innovative Education Program Strategies
Title VII--Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language
Acquisition Programs
Part A--Bilingual Education
Subpart 1--Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration Grants
Subpart 2--Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination
Subpart 3--Professional Development
Part B--Foreign Language Assistance Program
Part C--Emergency Immigrant Education Program
Part D--Administration
Title VIII--Impact Aid
Title IX--Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education
Part A--Indian Education
Subpart 1--Formula Grants to LEAs
Subpart 2--Special Programs and Projects to Improve Educational
Opportunities for Indian Children
Subpart 3--Special Programs Relating to Adult Education for Indians
Subpart 4--National Research Activities
Subpart 5--Federal Administration
Subpart 6--Definitions
Part B--Native Hawaiians
Part C--Alaska Native Education
Title X--Programs of National Significance
Part A--Fund for the Improvement of Education
Part B--Gifted and Talented Children
Part C--Public Charter Schools
Part D--Arts in Education
Subpart 1--Arts in Education
Subpart 2--Cultural Partnerships for At-Risk Children and Youth
Part E--Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
Part F--Civic Education
Part G--Allen J. Ellender Fellowship Program
Part H--DeLugo Territorial Education Improvement Program
Part I--21st Century Community Learning Centers
Part J--Urban and Rural Education Assistance
Part K--National Writing Project
Part L--The Extended Time for
[[Page 30062]]
Learning and Longer School Year
Part M--Territorial Assistance
Title XI--Coordinated Services
Title XII--School Facilities Infrastructure Improvement Act
Title XIII--Support and Assistance Programs to Improve Education
Part A--Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers
Part B--National Diffusion Network
Part C--Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education
Consortia
Part D--Technology-Based Technical Assistance
Title XIV--General Provisions
Part A--Definitions
Part B--Flexibility in the Use of Administrative and other Funds
Part C--Coordination of Programs; Consolidated State and Local
Plans and Applications
Part D--Waivers
Part E--Uniform Provisions
Part F--Gun Possession
Part G--Evaluations
Title VII, Subtitle B, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
[FR Doc. 98-14546 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P