U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Publications Issue List Vote Analysis Main Page
No. 56 May 1, 2000
S. 2 -- Educational Opportunities Act (Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization)

Calendar No. 491

Reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on April 12, 2000, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. Rept. 106-261. Additional and minority views filed.

NOTEWORTHY

HIGHLIGHTS

Straight A's -- 15-State Demonstration (Title VI, Part H)

The Academic Achievement for All Act (or Straight A's) offers 15 willing states a deal: The state may consolidate up to 12 federal formula grant programs and free itself from federal red tape. But the states must use that flexibility to boost student achievement.

Participating states will be held accountable for their students' achievement. The accountability system is based on what kids learn -- particularly disadvantaged students -- rather than how or how much money is spent. Straight A's is modeled on charter schools, where administrators receive considerable autonomy in exchange for agreed-upon academic results. If a charter school fails to adhere to the terms of its charter, it has to shut down. If it succeeds, it remains in business and likely will attract more students and funding.

Performance Partnerships (Title VI, Part G)

Performance Partnerships are based on the same premise as Straight A's: offering states greater flexibility in exchange for holding states accountable for results. It differs from the Straight A's program in three significant ways:

  • 1. All states are eligible to participate.

  • 2. Title I funds must continue to be targeted to the highest poverty schools (as opposed to the district level under Straight A's, which permits the school district to decide how to allocate dollars to serve disadvantaged children).

  • 3. The Secretary has considerably more authority in approving a state's performance partnership agreement. Under the Straight A's provision, the application process would take 60 days at the maximum. Under the performance partnership provision, the negotiation between the state and the Secretary could take nine months or more.

The Rural Flexibility Act (Title VI, Part B)

Rural districts have such small student populations, they often do not receive enough funding under a formula grant to carry out the very program the grant is supposed to fund. For example, a small school district may receive a $200 grant to hire a new teacher to reduce class size.

"Rural Flex" would allow small, rural school districts to combine funds for the purposes of improving student achievement and the quality of instruction. School districts with fewer than 600 students are exempted from several formula requirements, giving them the flexibility to target federal funds so that they best meet school districts needs.

Child-Centered Program/Title I Portability (Subpart 3 of Title I)

S. 2 would allow up to 10 States plus 20 additional school districts to change Title I from a school-based program to a child-centered one. Interested states and districts can provide grants directly to needy children, which follow them to whatever public school they attend.

This type of child-centered program creates a much needed market for change. Parents would have the power to choose the best program for their child.

Public School Choice (Title I, Section 116)

No child should be trapped in a failing school. Yet 4 million disadvantaged children are trapped in schools that can't teach. Public school choice enables poor kids to free themselves from failing schools.

The Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA)

President Clinton's class-size-reduction proposal would tie educators' hands by requiring states and local schools to hire new teachers. In contrast, TEA would consolidate the President's classroom-size money and Eisenhower professional development money ($2 billion in all) to provide maximum flexibility to states and locals in search of high-quality teachers. States and locals may use the funds to:

  • develop high-quality professional development programs,
  • hire additional teachers,
  • award differential pay and signing bonuses to reduce class size or to address teacher shortages,
  • provide incentives to retain quality teachers,
  • fund innovative teacher-testing programs,
  • provide funds directly to teachers so they can choose their own professional development,
  • hire mentoring and master teachers,
  • fund merit-based teacher performance systems, or
  • fund alternative certification programs.

Under TEA, States and school districts could choose how to increase the number of high-quality teachers, instead of being forced to comply with a rigid mandate. Further, TEA holds educators accountable for their performance:

  • TEA requires that professional development programs increase teacher knowledge, increase student achievement, and be directly related to the curriculum and subject area in which the teacher provides instruction.

  • TEA requires that states establish performance measures to measure the progress of local school districts in closing the achievement gap.

BACKGROUND

Since its enactment in 1965 as part of President Johnson's "Great Society" agenda, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has ballooned in size. In fiscal year 2000, ESEA will fund over 60 programs to the tune of $13 billion. The largest of these programs is Title I, which has spent $120 billion since 1965 to combat achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers ($8.7 billion of it in fiscal year 2000). However, Democrats have precious little to show for the billions they have spent.

This abysmal track record is the result of two mistakes repeated by Democrat lawmakers over and over again for 30 years.

  • 1. Washington does not know best. For 30 years, Democrats have substituted their own narrow political priorities (e.g. hiring new teachers or building new schools) for schools' most pressing needs. Such mandates rob students of more important resources. They also lead to blatant waste. Fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed by public schools were teachers in 1994, while administrative staff grows each year. Some state education agencies devote 45 percent of their staff to administer the 7 percent of their funding that comes from the federal government.

  • 2. Results -- not regulation -- are the key to accountability. Nor did Democrats ever bother to ask if the money we were spending was helping students learn. To Democrats, accountability means regulating educators' every move. Although Congress in 1994 required states to develop and implement performance standards and statewide assessments, it has demanded little accountability of -- and offers little remedy to students trapped in -- failing schools.

S. 2 marks a dramatic shift from the flaws of Democrat education policy, but in measured steps. These reforms allow states to opt for greater flexibility in exchange for more accountability for student performance. No state will be required to participate in any of these reforms. States content with current Title I policy can continue to operate under the old rules, while others may take a cafeteria-style approach to these innovations.

First, through the Straight A's initiative, the bill would free up to 15 states from federal red tape in exchange for demonstrable gains in student achievement.

Second, to help roughly 4 million students trapped in failing Title I schools, if a Title I school is designated as failing for two years in a row, S. 2 would give students in that school the choice to attend a higher-performing public school in the same district. If the school fails four years in a row, S. 2 would provide for students' transportation expenses to another public school.

Third, S. 2 would improve the services offered to Title I students by allowing 10 states (and 20 additional school districts) to tie Title I funding directly to disadvantaged students, rather than their school. This would allow parents to choose the most effective supplemental services available and ensure that Title I funds reach the students who need them.

Fourth, S. 2 would ensure high-quality teachers by letting states and locals decide how to spend teacher development funds, rather than have Washington saddle them with mandates.

BILL PROVISIONS

As amended by S. 2, ESEA programs include:

TITLE I -- Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards

Part A: Basic Programs

Part A of Title I provides assistance to disadvantaged children. This remains the largest federal education program, accounting for over half of all ESEA dollars ($7.9 billion of $14.3 billion) go into the basic Title I program. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), S. 2 would increase authorization for these programs from $7.9 billion for the 2000-2001 school year to $15 billion in 2001 (a 90-percent increase).

In 1994, Congress revised Title I in an effort to improve academic achievement. These reforms set out a seven-year timetable for states to develop challenging student content and performance standards, and assessments aligned to those standards. The idea was to (1) determine what students should know, (2) hold schools accountable for results by testing students against these standards, (3) identify failing schools (known as schools in need of improvement), to provide technical assistance to those schools, and (4) take corrective action if the schools fail to improve over a two-year period. We are mid-stream in this reform process:

States with approved content standards: 48

States with approved performance standards: 25

States with approved assessments
(not required until the 2001-2002 school year): 0

The Educational Opportunities Act maintains the focus of the 1994 amendments on holding children to high standards and pressuring for reform of failing schools. It tightens current requirements in a way designed to show we are serious about holding states and localities accountable without creating mandates that force them to start all over under a new set of rules and reporting requirements.

It offers additional assistance for the development of assessments, recognizing the expense which states will face in putting tests in place. These additional funds may also be used for school improvement and awards.

Schools identified for school improvement or corrective action must provide students with an option to transfer to another public school. Transportation costs may be provided for students transferring from schools in need of improvement and must be provided for students from schools in corrective action. (See Highlights.)

The bill also establishes a new subpart which permits up to 10 states and up to 20 school districts to participate in a child-centered program where a per-pupil amount is determined for eligible Title I children. The per-pupil amount is distributed to the public schools in which eligible children are enrolled to be used for supplemental education services provided by the school or by another entity for those children. (See Highlights.)

Part B: Even Start

The Even Start Family Literacy program provides funds for family literacy programs combining early childhood, adult basic education, and parenting education. S. 2 would authorize $500 million for Even Start in 2001, compared to $150 million in 2000 (a 233-percent increase).

Part C: Migrant Education

This program provides funds for the education of migrant children. S. 2 would authorize $400 million in 2001, up from $355 million in 2000 (a 13-percent increase).

Part D: Parental Resource Centers

Public Law 106-113 repeals the current Parental Assistance program effective September 30, 2000. S. 2 puts in its place funds for Parental Resource Centers, intended to increase parental involvement in their children's education. The Parental Assistance program was funded at a level of $33 million in 2000. S. 2 would authorize $50 million for Parental Resource Centers in 2001 (a 52-percent increase).

Part E: Evaluations/Demonstrations

S. 2 would retain the current law provisions, with minor modifications, pertaining to federal evaluations of programs for the disadvantaged, and would authorize $35 million for 2001.

Part F: Comprehensive School Reform

This program provides assistance for schools to put in place school-wide reform programs which are backed up by research showing them to be effective. S. 2 would authorize $200 million for the Comprehensive School Reform program. In 2000, this program was funded at $170 million under Title I, plus $50 million for a non-Title I component under the Fund for the Improvement of Education.

Part G: Assistance to Address School Dropout Problems

S. 2 creates a new $150 million program intended to help prevent school dropouts. Part G was included in Title I during committee consideration.

TITLE II -- Teacher Quality

Part A: Teacher Empowerment Act

S. 2 would consolidate existing Eisenhower teacher training funds and funds now reserved for class-size reduction. In fiscal year 2000, approximately $1.63 billion is being spent for these programs. S. 2 would authorize $2 billion for teacher development, which states and localities could use to:

Under TEA, states and school districts can choose how to spend their money to increase the number of high-quality teachers.

Part B: Leadership Education and Development

S. 2 would create a new, $100 million program intended to provide professional development services for elementary and secondary school educators, principals, superintendents, and others in leadership positions within the state to develop and enhance their leadership skills.

Part C: Reading & Literacy

S. 2 would authorize increasing funding for the Reading Excellence Program by 8 percent, from $260 million in 2000 to $280 million in 2001.

Part D: National Writing Project

The stated purpose of the National Writing Project is to improve the quality of student writing and the teaching of writing as a learning process. S. 2 would authorize $15 million for the National Writing Project in 2001, compared to funding of $9 million in 2000 (a 67-percent increase).

Part E: The New Century Program for Distributed Teacher Professional Development

S. 2 would expand the existing Mathline program, which intends to use telecommunications to assist teachers in preparing students for state evaluations in core curriculum areas. S. 2 would authorize $20 million for this program in 2001, compared to $8.5 million in funding for 2000 (a 135-percent increase).

Part F: Digital Education Content Collaborative

This new program would authorize $25 million in collaborative grants (with a 50-percent matching requirement) to support the development of educational videos based on state standards for K-12 schools.

TITLE III -- Enrichment Initiatives

Part A: 21st Century Community Learning Centers

The stated purpose of this part is to help local public schools become lifelong learning centers. S. 2 would authorize $500 million for this program in 2001, which was funded at $453 million in 2000 (a 10-percent increase).

Part B: Neglected & Delinquent Youths

This program primarily serves youths who have been assigned to institutional facilities by providing them with the opportunity to make a successful transition from institutionalization to further schooling or employment. S. 2 would authorize $42 million for this program in 2001, identical to its funding level in 2000.

Part C: The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act

S. 2 would significantly revise how the Javits Gifted and Talented program provides grants for activities intended to meet the special needs of gifted and talented students. S. 2 would authorize $155 million for this program in 2001.

Part D: Arts in Education

S. 2 would authorize $25 million (a 108-percent increase over $12 million in funding for 2000) for art education programs through the John F. Kennedy Center and the VSA arts program (formerly Very Special Arts). Additionally, the bill would authorize $45 million for the Cultural Partnerships for At-Risk Youth program, which has never been funded.

Part E: Advanced Placement Programs

S. 2 would expand and move the Advanced Placement (AP) program (intended to encourage more students to take college-level courses in high school) from Title VII of the Higher Education Act to ESEA. It also would create a new grant program for online AP courses. The bill would authorize $50 million for these programs in 2001, compared to $15 million spent in 2000 (a 233-percent increase).

TITLE IV -- Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program is intended to assist schools in combating school violence and to prevent the use of illegal drugs. The goals of S. 2 are to:

S. 2 would authorize $700 million for this program in 2001, compared to $439 million funded in the previous year (a 59-percent increase).

Part B: Gun Possession

S. 2 would require states receiving ESEA funds to expel (for at least one year) any student who brings a gun or other weapon to school.

Part C: School Safety and Violence Prevention

Part C includes a number of new provisions dealing with: school safety and violence- prevention activities; school uniforms; transfer of school disciplinary records; drug tests and locker inspections; employee background checks; disclaimers on materials produced with ESEA funding; and memorial services at public schools. These provisions are virtually identical to provisions dealing with these subjects which were approved by the Senate last year as part of the Juvenile Justice reauthorization bill (S. 254).

Part D: Environmental Tobacco Smoke

These provisions prohibit smoking within any indoor facility used for the provision of education, routine health care, day care, library services, or early childhood development.

TITLE V-- Educational Opportunity Initiatives

Part A: Technology Education

S. 2 would authorize $815 million (in 2001) for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovations Challenge Grant, which are intended to increase access to technology in public schools.

Part B: Star Schools

The purpose of the Star Schools program is to use telecommunications to improve instruction for underserved populations in math, science, and foreign languages, as well as literacy skills and vocational education. S. 2 would authorize $50 million for 2001, compared to $51 million in 2000 (a 2-percent decrease).

Part C: Magnet Schools

Magnet schools are public elementary or secondary schools that offer a special curriculum which attracts substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds. S. 2 would authorize $125 million in 2001, compared to $110 million funded in 2000 (a 14-percent increase).

Part D: Public Charter Schools

Charter schools are public schools that are released from various regulations in exchange for increased student performance. The Public Charter Schools program supports the establishment of charter schools in states with charter school laws. S. 2 would authorize $175 million in 2001, compared to $145 million funded in 2000 (a 21-percent increase).

Part E: Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA)

WEEA provides grants for the operation of programs promoting educational equity for women and girls. Approximately two-thirds of WEEA funds are used to support local projects. The remaining funds are used for technical assistance, dissemination, and research and development. S. 2 would authorize $5 million for 2001, a 67-percent increase over the previous year's funding level ($3 million).

Part F: Civic Education

Part F merges two existing programs. The Civic Education program funds programs related to instruction on the basic principles of our constitutional democracy, and the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. S. 2 would authorize $10 million for this program in 2001, the same as the previous year. The International Education Exchange program funds education exchange activities in civics and government education, and in economic education between the United States and eligible developing countries (e.g., Eastern Europe, former republics of the Soviet Union). Its purpose is to support democracy and free-market economies. S. 2 would authorize $10 million for this program as well, a 43-percent increase over the previous year's funding ($7 million).

Part G: Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE)

FIE currently provides the Secretary with sweeping authority to support education programs of his choice. The bill eliminates the lengthy list of permissive activities now included under FIE and specifies activities to be supported, including:

S. 2 would authorize $100 million for this program in 2001. This is a 59-percent decrease compared to $244 million appropriated in 2000 (including $50 million that went to the Comprehensive School Reform program; see Title I, Part F).

Part H: Allen J. Ellender Fellowship Program

This program makes an award to the Close Up Foundation to provide fellowships to students from low-income families and their teachers to allow them to participate in one week of seminars on government and meetings with representatives of all three branches of the federal government. S. 2 would authorize $1.5 million for 2001, the same as was funded in 2000.

Part I: Ready-to-Learn Television

The Ready-to-Learn Television program authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants or enter into contracts to develop educational video programming for preschool and elementary school children and their parents. S. 2 would authorize $50 million for this program in 2001, a 213-percent increase over the 2000 appropriated level ($16 million).

Part J: Inexpensive Book Distribution Program

Funds made available under the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program support "Reading is Fundamental" (RIF). RIF is a public-private partnership that supports programs in schools, child care centers, libraries, hospitals, clinics, and homeless centers to motivate children to read. S. 2 would authorize $25 million for 2001, a 25-percent increase over year 2000 funding ($20 million).

TITLE VI -- Innovative Education

Part A: Innovative Education Program Strategies

Part A makes grants to education programs intended to improve school, student, and teacher performance, including professional development activities and class-size reduction programs. Part A funds are the most flexible of any federal education program. The new authorization of $850 million (for fiscal year 2001) combines funds from the Goals 2000 State Grants Program (which is set to expire in the year 2000) and the annual allocation for the authorized Part A program. "Comparable funding for the 2000-01 academic year was $366 million" [CBO].

Part B: Rural Flexibility

The "Rural Flex" initiative will enable rural school districts to maximize their funding resources which will assist in the implementation of education reforms. S. 2 would authorize $125 million for this initiative in 2001.

Part C: Education Flexibility Partnerships

The Education Flexibility Partnership Act allows state educational agencies the flexibility to waive certain federal requirements, along with related state requirements, to experiment with innovative reforms. The provisions of Public Law 106-25, which was signed into law last year as a free-standing bill, are incorporated into Title VI.

Part D: Flexibility in the Use of Administrative and Other Funds

Part D permits states and localities to consolidate administrative funds from several federal programs.

Part E: Coordination of Programs; Consolidated State and Local Plans and Applications

Part E permits the submission of a single plan for several different programs at both the state and local levels.

Part F: Waivers

Part F offers broad authority for the waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements of the act in order to increase the quality of instruction or improve academic performance.

Part G: Education Performance Partnerships

Education Performance Partnerships provide states with the opportunity to combine federal education formula funds in ways which will increase the academic achievement of their students. In exchange for this broad flexibility, states must demonstrate tough accountability. Participating states will enter into performance partnership agreements with the Secretary of Education.

Part H: Academic Achievement for All Demonstration (Straight A's)

The Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A's) demonstration allows states to combine funds under a variety of federal formula grant programs to use for any educational purpose permitted under state law. Up to 15 states may participate in the demonstration program. Participating states are to show results in improving the academic performance of all students. The goals for improvement and the means for achieving them are set by the states. (See Highlights.)

TITLE VII -- Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs

Part A: Bilingual Education

The Bilingual Education program is intended to provide educational assistance to students with limited English proficiency. Funds are intended to help students with limited English proficiency to meet challenging state content and performance standards. S. 2 would authorize $300 million for the program in 2001, compared to funding of $248 million in 2000 (a 21-percent increase).

Part B: Foreign Language Assistance

The Foreign Language Assistance Program provides competitive grant assistance to state or local educational agencies to provide foreign language study for elementary and secondary school students. Incentive payments are authorized as well for schools that offer programs designed to lead to communicative competency in a foreign language.

The committee intended to reauthorize this program at the current level ($35 million), but reauthorization language was inadvertently omitted from the bill. A corrective amendment likely will be offered.

Part C: Emergency Immigrant Education

The Emergency Immigrant Education program provides funds to local educational agencies that experience unexpectedly large increases in their student populations due to immigration. S. 2 would authorize $200 million in 2001, compared to $150 million in 2000 (a 33-percent increase).

TITLE VIII -- Impact Aid

Impact Aid programs provide assistance to school districts that are financially burdened as a result of activities of the federal government for the education of federally connected children or due to the presence of federal property. Impact aid recipients include schools located on or near federal property, military installations, or Indian lands. The bill extends currently funded impact aid programs through fiscal year 2005. Unfunded authorizations for special additional payments to local education agencies (LEAs) with high concentrations of children with severe disabilities and for sudden and substantial increases in attendance of military dependents are repealed. Revisions in other impact aid programs are made in order to avoid disruption of payments to program participants, to reduce delays in the issuance of payments, and to expand current provisions dealing with construction and facilities modernization.

S. 2 would authorize just over $1 billion in Impact Aid for 2001. Current impact aid funding is just over $900 million.

TITLE IX -- Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education

Title IX is intended to improve the educational services provided for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. The bill continues to make grants available to schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and allows local educational agencies to provide an increased range of services to include those that: (1) promote the incorporation of culturally responsive teaching and learning strategies; (2) incorporate American Indian and Alaska Native specific curriculum content into the curriculum; (3) promote coordination among tribal, federal, and state public schools in areas that will improve education; and (4) offer family literacy activities.

S. 2 would authorize $109 million for Title IX of ESEA for 2001, compared to $113 million in funding for 2000 (a 4-percent decrease).

TITLE X -- General Provisions

The bill contains a separate part pertaining to evaluation of all elementary and secondary education programs funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This title requires the Secretary of Education to:

S. 2 would authorize $73 million in 2001 for this title.

TITLE XI -- Amendments to Other Acts

Part A: Repeals

Part A repeals the "GOALS 2000: Educate America Act" and the Advanced Placement Incentive Program currently authorized as Part B of title VIII of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The AP program is replaced by new provisions included as a new part E of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Part B: Education for Homeless Children and Youth

The Education for Homeless Children and Youth program authorized as Subtitle B of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act is extended through fiscal year 2005. The program provides assistance for:

The bill strengthens provisions of the current law designed to avoid segregating homeless students, to maintain a child's attendance at his or her school of origin, to avoid enrollment delays, and to assure that the quality of an application is considered in the provision of subgrants to local educational agencies.

S. 2 would authorize $40 million for Subtitle B of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act in 2001, compared to $29 million in funding for 2000 (a 38-percent increase).

Part C: Albert Einstein Distinguished Educators

The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship program, which is administered by the Secretary of Energy, provides fellowships for elementary and secondary school mathematics and science teachers. S. 2 would authorize $700,000 for this program in 2001.

For Additional Information:

The Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee web site (http://www.senate.gov/~labor) contains a detailed summary of S. 2 and the text of amendments added in committee.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION

No Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) was available at press time. However, as Education Secretary Richard Riley wrote the committee on March 9, "I am deeply disappointed by the wholesale retreat by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will certainly recommend that the President veto this unfocused and undemanding piece of legislation." The Secretary called S. 2 "weak" and "shortsighted," largely because the bill allows states and locals to meet their own priorities, rather than Washington's. Likewise, the Administration threatened to veto the House version of Straight A's (H.R. 2300) because it would undermine the Administration's ability to control local educational decisions.

COST

S. 2 would reauthorize a number of existing programs set to expire and create several new programs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates S. 2 would authorize $158.6 billion in additional spending for fiscal years 2001-2006, bringing total authorization to $167.2 billion. CBO estimates S. 2 would increase outlays over this period by $125.5 billion, for a total of $143.1 billion above existing law. Under S. 2, total outlays would be $14.4 billion in 2001, rising to $27.1 billion in 2006. Two provisions in Title VI would require $2.6 billion of direct spending in 2006. (Information on authorization levels for particular programs can be found under Bill Provisions.)

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS

[Senators can expect non-germane amendments to S. 2.]

Abraham/Mack. Teacher Testing & Merit Pay.
Coverdell. Reading Deficit Elimination Act.
Coverdell. Teacher liability.
Frist. Teacher recruitment.
Gorton. Technical corrections to Straight A's.
Gregg/Mack. Teacher quality.
Helms. Felony Drugs/Mandatory Year Suspension.
Hutchison. Careers to Teachers.
Jeffords/Stevens. Early childhood education.


Bingaman. Education Technology Program Increase.
Bingaman. Accountability. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Bingaman. Teacher Technology Training (as modified). Defeated/Voice Vote.
Bingaman. Exempt Migrants from Straight A's. Defeated 8-10.
Bingaman. Public School Choice. Defeated 8-10
Bingaman. Teacher qualifications (accountability for teachers).
Bingaman. Exempt Technology from Straight A's.
Bingaman. Technology programs.
Bingaman. Yearly Progress.
Bingaman. Corrective Action.
Bingaman. Technology Literacy Fund (target $ to poverty).
Bingaman. Yearly progress (public comment, assessment penalties, withholding admin. $).
Bingaman. Spanish assessments.
Bingaman. Drop-out Prevention Program Increase.
Dodd. After-school program expansion.
Dodd. 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Dodd. Student data collection/privacy.
Dodd. Early Childhood Educator Professional Development.
Dodd. Puerto Rico Title 1 Formula.
Dodd. Intent on Gun Free Schools.
Kennedy. Teacher Quality. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Kennedy. Exempt Homeless from Straight A's. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Kennedy. Exempt Emergency Immigrant from Straight A's. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Kennedy. Exempt Even Start from Straight A's. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Kennedy. Community Technology Centers. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Kennedy. Strike Straight A's.
Kennedy. Intent on Safe Schools
Kennedy. Gender Equity
Kennedy. 1st grade literacy levels
Kennedy. (Intent on parental involvement)
Mikulski. One-stop Shop for Technology Education.
Mikulski. Repairing and maintaining school technology equipment.
Mikulski. Teacher technology preparation academies ($50 million).
Murray. Class Size Reduction ("100,000 Teachers"). Defeated in committee 8-10.
Murray. Student involvement in school reform. Defeated in committee/Voice Vote.
Murray. Homeless education. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Murray. Family involvement.
Murray. Intent on parenting education.
Reed. School libraries. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Reed. Parental Involvement (modified). Defeated in committee 8-10.
Reed. Title 1 professional development set-aside. Defeated in committee 8-10.
Reed. School-based family centers (COZs). Defeated in committee 8-10.
Reed. Title 1 Reporting (modified). Defeated in committee 8-10.
Reed. Bilingual education.
Reed. Title VI accountability (technical/conforming).
Reed. Impact aid.
Robb/Lautenberg. School Construction. (Harkin amendment defeated in committee 8-10.)
Wellstone. Domestic Violence. Defeated in committee 8-8-1-1.
Wellstone. Local Family Information Centers.
Wellstone. Intent on reauthorization of rural and urban demonstration grants.
Wellstone. 100,000 mental health and student services providers.
Wellstone. Intent on arts in education.
Wellstone. Intent on gun-free schools.

Top Publications Issue List Vote Analysis Main Page