Senate RPC Legislative Notice:


Publications	Issue List	Vote Analysis	Main Page
No. 8	April 30, 2001

S. 1 -- Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act of 2001

Calendar No. 23
Reported from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on March 28, 2001 as an original bill with a unanimous vote, S. Rept. 107-7; additional views filed.

NOTEWORTHY

On April 24 and again on April 26, Democrats objected to Republican requests for unanimous consent to take up S. 1. Following the second UC objection, the Majority Leader moved to proceed to S. 1 and filed cloture on the motion to proceed. By unanimous consent, the cloture vote is to occur on Tuesday, May 1, at 9:30 a.m. (but at press time, it was understood that the time of the vote likely would slip).

S. 1 would reauthorize programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for seven years. The Act's authorization expired in 2000. Last year, the Senate was unable to pass S. 2, a seven-year reauthorization of ESEA. In December, Congress extended the authorization of programs under ESEA through fiscal year 2001.

It is the intention of the Majority Leader and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Jeffords to offer an amendment to S. 1 that incorporates the areas of agreement reached by Senate Republican, Democrat, and White House negotiators. The provisions under negotiation include accountability, 20^th Century Learning Centers, "Straight A's," bilingual education, teacher quality, supplemental services, and testing. (A separate Legislative Notice Update may be issued on the manager's amendment.)

Because of ongoing negotiations, the Administration has not issued its official Statement of Administration Policy. See a further discussion of Administration concerns on p. 9 of this Notice.

A title-by-title summary of the bill as reported, which was prepared by the majority staff of the HELP Committee, can be found on pp.14-17 of this Notice.

HIGHLIGHTS

Parental Choice/Charter States: S. 1 includes neither the President's proposal to let students escape failing schools and attend the private school of their parents' choosing, nor his "charter states" (i.e. "Straight A's") proposal to grant states relief from federal education regulations in return for demonstrable student achievement gains. (S. 1 does include a limited public school choice option for disadvantaged students in failing schools.)

Standards: S. 1 as reported largely meets the President's challenge to require testing against state-based reading and math standards of all students in grades 3 through 8 and participation in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing in grades 4 and 8.

Teacher Quality: S. 1 consolidates the existing Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the Class Size Reduction Program to give states and localities a single, flexible funding stream to meet their particular teacher-quality needs.

Spending: Compared to $14 billion in outlays in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the Committee-reported bill would result in outlays of $16 billion in 2002, $30 billion in 2008, and $187 billion over the 2002-2008 reauthorization period, with adjustments for inflation.

On March 8, the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee approved S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. S. 1 avoids the most controversial issues in federal education policy (private school choice, charter states, class-size reduction, school construction), and thus was ordered reported unanimously.
Standards & Testing

S. 1 mirrors the President's proposals for annual testing of students in grades 3-8 in math and reading. Testing would be annual and based on state-defined standards, the results of which would serve as a benchmark for evaluating the validity of state-developed standards.

Students in Title I, the federal education program for disadvantaged students, also would be required to participate in 4^th and 8^th grade NAEP reading and math assessments.

S. 1 would fund 100 percent of the cost of states' participation in NAEP tests, and 50 percent of the cost of the annual tests for grades 3-8. States also would be required to develop adequate yearly progress goals for all students and Title I students.

S. 1 would require states, local education agencies, and schools to issue and publicize (including on the Internet) report cards of school performance, including disaggregated data on student performance.

Accountability

Title I schools that fail to achieve adequate yearly progress will receive technical assistance from the federal government.

If a school fails to achieve adequate yearly progress for a second year, it would be placed in "corrective action" and students in that school would be allowed to transfer to a public or charter school of their choice (S. 1 does not include a private school choice option). Such schools will be required to either (a) submit to an alternative form of school governance, (b) remove and replace certain staff, or (c) adopt and implement a new curriculum.

Schools in corrective action that fail to make adequate yearly progress (i.e. that fail to make adequate yearly progress for three years) would be required to (a) replace all staff, (b) close and reopen as a charter school, or (c) implement alternative governance.

States that do not meet adequate yearly progress for all students would lose up to 75 percent of their ESEA administrative funds.

Public School Choice

Title I students (a) in a school that has failed to make adequate yearly progress for two years, (b) in a school that has been designated as unsafe, or (c) who have been victims of violent crime on school grounds will be allowed to transfer to a public school or charter school of their parents' choosing, consistent with state law.

Title I funds may be used to meet the transportation needs of such students.

States that qualify for the small-state minimum under Title I, Part A may use these funds for public school choice, but are not required to do so.

S. 1 also would authorize an additional $225 million in grants to local education agencies to promote public school choice for students in low-performing schools.

Charter Schools

Charter schools are public schools that are released from various regulations in exchange for adhering to defined achievement goals. S. 1 authorizes $190 million in 2002 to help states establish charter schools.

Teacher Quality

S. 1 would consolidate the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs into one formula grant that states and local education agencies may use to support a wide array of activities that promote teacher quality.

States would be permitted to use the funds for teacher certification reform (including alternative certification, reciprocity, and testing), supporting new teachers, helping schools and districts hire new teachers, merit pay, and tenure reform.

Localities would be permitted to use the funds for such activities as reducing class size/hiring new teachers, professional development, teacher mentoring, support for new teachers, teacher testing, merit pay, and tenure reform. The bill assures schools' needs regarding teacher quality would be decided at the local level. Schools and districts that need to reduce class size would be able to do so, but schools that prefer to provide merit pay or teacher mentoring could fund those activities, rather than be forced by the federal government to hire more teachers.

S. 1 provides funding for national teacher activities to be administered by the Secretary of Education, including professional development, advanced certification, and encouraging mid-career professionals and military personnel ("Troops-to-Teachers") to enter the teaching profession.

Math & Science Training. S. 1 would authorize grants to establish partnerships between states, localities, and universities to promote professional development for math and science teachers, development of strong math and science curricula, recruiting math and science majors as teachers, and summer workshops in math and science. Partnerships would be required to set standards for improving student performance. Grants would be terminated if the Secretary determines the partnership is not making adequate progress toward meeting its standards in three years. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math & Science Education would be retained.

Technology. S. 1 consolidates certain technology programs into a formula grant that focuses on training teachers in the use of technology in the classroom, giving local educators more flexibility in the use of these funds.

Flexibility

Schools, districts, and states would be granted greater flexibility in the use of professional development funds.

The bill retains Ed-Flex and other waivers available under current law, but suspends participation in Ed-Flex until a state develops its math and reading assessments.

The bill also would lower the eligibility threshold for Title I schoolwide programs from 50 percent of students qualifying for Title I to 40 percent; this will allow more schools receiving Title I funds to receive flexibility waivers from federal regulations.

(The bill as reported does not contain a Straight A's/charter states provision.)

Other Provisions

Reading Initiatives. S. 1 creates both a Reading First and an Early Reading First program.

Bilingual Education. S. 1 consolidates four discretionary bilingual education grants into two discretionary grants. (The bill does not include President Bush's proposal to consolidate all bilingual education programs into a single formula grant, nor his proposal to require limited English-proficient students to learn English in three years.)

21^st Century Community Learning Centers. S. 1 retains this program and attempts to favor academically-inclined centers in its competitive grant process. (The bill does not include the President's proposals to (1) substitute formula grants for the program's competitive grant process, (2) target Title I schoolwide programs, (3) focus the program to help students meet state academic standards, (4) coordinate programs with students' school programs, or (5) open eligibility to community-based organizations.)

School Safety. S. 1 enables schools to hire drug prevention and school safety officials with federal funds, and grants victims of school violence the ability to transfer to the public or charter school of their choice.

Title I Allocation Formula. According to the Congressional Research Service, "In the allocation of Title I-A funds, the HELP Committee bill provides that an amount equal to the FY2001 appropriation would be allocated under the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas, and any increases would be allocated under an updated version of the Targeted Grant formula."

Impact Aid. S. 1 makes no changes to Impact Aid, which remains authorized through fiscal year 2003.

BACKGROUND

Public education reflects the American people's belief that no child should be left behind. All children should be given a high-quality education. To many children and their parents, public education keeps this promise. But too many children are left behind because they must attend schools that are trapped in a cycle of failure. A recent national assessment found two-thirds of black 4^th graders read below a basic level.
The key to educational achievement is local control. Decisions about what is best for students are best made by those who know the students' names. Yet too often, the federal government has dictated how schools will operate instead of standing back and letting concerned parents and educators use their local knowledge to drive students to learn.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) vastly increased the federal government's role in K through 12 education. The centerpiece of ESEA is Title I, a program intended to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers. Title I has been a spectacular failure. Despite over $120 billion spent since the program's inception - $80 billion of it in the past decade - the achievement gap has not closed. In fact, it actually has widened.
This year the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released the results of its 2000 Reading Assessment. The results showed that despite $125 billion spent on Title I, the achievement gap between poor 4^th graders and their peers persists.

While reading scores among the highest-scoring 4^th grade students slightly improved since 1992, scores of the lowest-performing students declined.

Sixty percent of poor students failed to reach a basic level of reading comprehension, compared to one-quarter of non-poor students.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian 4^th graders scored significantly lower than whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders (the only racial group to significantly improve since 1992).

Over half of Hispanics and American Indians - and nearly two-thirds of blacks - failed to achieve a basic level of reading comprehension, compared to roughly one-quarter of whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Title I's failure is not news. In a 1996 report, the Department of Education said of Title I (then called Chapter 1):

"The progress of Chapter 1 participants on standardized tests and on criterion-referenced tests was no better than that of nonparticipants with similar backgrounds and prior achievement."

Source: Heritage Foundation

Title I is a well-intentioned program. And the impulse to pour more and more money into education is a noble one. Yet as the chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, money is not the solution. The billions of dollars the federal government is throwing at the problem is not helping students learn.
The federal government "contributes" only 7 cents of every dollar spent on public education, yet the price of that contribution - the loss of local control - can have a dramatic and damaging impact on educational quality.
While the federal government has stuck by this failed formula, successful education reforms are taking hold across the nation. The cities of Milwaukee and Cleveland and the State of Florida now allow parents of certain at-risk students to choose their child's school. Arizona and Minnesota allow tax credits for certain education expenses that also give parents more control over their children's education.
The success of these programs (for example, Florida's A+ Program) shows school choice works. Parents' eager participation in school choice programs demonstrates why we cannot afford to wait: too many children are being left behind.
Republicans have been at the forefront of returning control over education to parents and local educators. Last year, Republicans brought legislation (S. 2) to the floor of the Senate that would have given parents of disadvantaged children the choice to transfer their child to a higher-performing school. Democrats did not allow passage of S. 2. President Bush this year released his "No Child Left Behind" proposal, which would do the same.
Further, Senate Republicans and President Bush have advocated freeing states and local education agencies from excessive federal regulation. The centerpiece of this effort is the Straight A's program. Like charter schools, which are exempted from state and local regulations in return for compliance with a performance agreement, through Straight A's a limited number of "charter states" would be exempted from numerous federal regulations. Such states would be required to submit a five-year performance agreement to the federal government that sets out goals for student achievement. States that meet their stated goals would be allowed to continue in the program, while states that do not would be dropped from the program.
While the HELP Committee avoided contentious issues in its markup of S. 1, Republicans will push for greater parental choice, more flexibility, and more accountability in the full Senate.

BILL PROVISIONS

See attached bill summary from HELP Committee staff or Senate Report 107-7.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION

A Statement of Administration Policy was not available at press time. In March, the Administration presented Senators with specific comments on S. 1 (some of which are incorporated under the Highlights section). Many of the Administration's criticisms have been dealt with in negotiations with HELP Committee Republicans and Democrats.
Most notably, the White House has taken issue with (1) the BEST Act's limited degree of program consolidation, (2) its lack of a Straight A's/charter states program to provide further flexibility to states and localities in return for performance agreements, and (3) its failure to allow children trapped in persistently failing schools to attend a private school if they so choose.
Other criticisms included:

Delayed implementation of new statewide assessments

Failure to test all limited English-proficient children to determine English proficiency

Delayed invocation of corrective action for failing schools (four years of failure instead of three)

No requirement for prompt reporting of schools' test results

Failure to make school choice programs an allowable activity under the Innovative Education Program

Failure to include a requirement that 95 percent of each disaggregated group participate in assessments

Allowing school boards to block school choice

COST

Compared to $14 billion in outlays in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the Committee-reported bill would result in outlays of $16 billion in 2002, $30 billion in 2008, and $187 billion over the 2002-2008 reauthorization period, with adjustments for inflation. (See attachment for CBO cost estimates, pages 57-62 of S. Report 107-7.)

OTHER VIEWS

Senator Enzi
In the committee report for S. 1, Senator Enzi filed additional views affirming (1) Title II of the bill provides an opportunity for schools to recruit and retain high-quality teachers and reduce class size as needed, (2) S. 1 will reduce the "digital divide" by giving states greater flexibility and fewer administrative burdens in the use of federal education technology funds, (3) the testing requirements in S. 1 do not amount either to an unfunded mandate or a national test, and (4) his support for full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
HELP Committee Democrats
Additional views also were filed by all HELP Committee Democrats: Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Edwards, Dodd, Mikulski, Wellstone, Reed, and Clinton. These Senators described the bill as "a major step towards strengthening and expanding the federal helping hand" to elementary and secondary education, particularly praising the spending increases and testing provisions of the bill.
However, the Committee Democrats maintained the bill (1) does not impose greater federal regulation of state assessments, (2) does not spend enough money overall, (3) does not require schools to spend federal money on libraries, (4) does not require schools to spend $1.6 billion in federal funds on building new schools, (5) does not require schools to hire more teachers, and (6) allows states too much flexibility in the use of teacher professional development funds.
Further, these senators complained Senator Frist's Straight A's proposal (offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn) would undermine the federal government's ability to control local education decisions and Senator Gregg's Title I portability proposal (offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn) would diffuse Title I funds to the point of ineffectiveness and "support the status quo."

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS

S. 1 was unanimously approved by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on March 8. The Committee cast 8 roll call votes and 23 voice votes. Additionally, 14 amendments were offered, discussed, and subsequently withdrawn.
Possible Republican Floor Amendments
Lott/Jeffords. It is the intention of the Majority Leader and the HELP Committee Chairman to introduce a manager's amendment reflecting the agreements reached in negotiations between the White House and Senate Democrats and Republicans.
Allard. Education for the disabled.
Craig. Spending and accountability.
Cochran. To remove certain programs from consolidation/flexibility provisions.
Domenici. Character education.
Domenici. School mental health services.
Frist. Straight A's/Charter States demonstration project to give states greater flexibility with federal funds in exchange for greater accountability. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Gregg. Child-Centered demonstration project allowing Title I funds to provide supplemental instruction or to follow students to another school of their parents' choice. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Hagel. Impact Aid.
Sessions. Hotline for school violence.
G. Smith. Professional development for principals.
R. Smith. Study on sexual abuse in schools.
R. Smith. Sense of Senate on Bible reading in public schools.
Possible Democrat Floor Amendments
Bingaman. New, restrictive federal program to create "smaller learning communities." (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Bingaman. Creating a new center devoted to school security at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and a new, restrictive federal school security program. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Clinton. Public school choice demonstration program with no consequences for failing schools. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Dodd. Fixing spending levels for Title I for each of the seven years ESEA is reauthorized. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Dodd. New, restrictive federal teacher training program. Cost: $100+ million/year. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Dodd. Increasing Title I spending for Puerto Rico. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Harkin. New, restrictive federal school counseling program. Cost: $100+ million/year. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Harkin. New spending on federal school construction program. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Kennedy. Mandate on the use of teacher quality funds. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Kennedy. Restricting local flexibility in hiring teachers under Title I. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
[Editor's Note: On the Senate Floor Monday afternoon, Senator Kennedy said the following with regard to the ongoing negotiations: "I would have liked to have seen a good deal more investment in the smaller class size, also in the areas of construction. I would like to see firmer language in terms of the professional development, and some other areas as well. And I will speak to those items when the legislation is finally considered here."]
Mikulski. New spending on Community Technology Centers. (Defeated in committee by voice vote.)
Murray. Mandating that flexible Eisenhower professional development funds be used for class size reduction. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Murray. Additional reporting (drop out rates, professional qualifications, and class size) by states and localities. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Murray. Weakening reconstitution requirements for failing schools. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Reed. Regulating gun shows.
Reed. New spending on school library program. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Reed. New spending on parental involvement program. (Defeated in committee, 10-10.)
Reed. New spending on school-based family centers. (Defeated in committee by voice vote.)
Reed. Restricting 10 percent of Title I funds to professional development. (Offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)
Wellstone. Holding annual Title I assessments ransom to more spending. (Three amendments offered in committee and subsequently withdrawn.)

BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS (BEST) ACT
Summary of Committee-passed Version of S. 1
[Prepared by the Republican Staff of the HELP Committee]
TITLE I - BETTER RESULTS FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN: This title would reform and strengthen existing title 1 programs for disadvantaged students by increasing accountability for school and student performance. In addition, resources would be provided to ensure the successful implementation of reform strategies.
Part A Reforms Title 1 to improve student achievement, student performance, and school success by including tough accountability provisions, expanded resources, technical assistance and other mechanisms for turning around failing schools within three years. Provides for a set-aside to help states and districts develop strategies for assisting schools in need of improvement. Requires States to annually test all students in grades 3-8 in math and reading. Strengthens parental involvement and professional development provisions. Requires schools to provide public school choice options if schools are not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. Requires schools, local educational agencies, and States to create report cards and make them available to parents and the public.
Part B Creates new subpart 2, Reading First, and subpart 3, Early Reading First - Reading First builds on the Reading Excellence Act by providing both formula and competitive funds to each state to improve reading for students in grades K-3. Early Reading First is a new demonstration program designed to improve the language and early reading development of children ages 3-5 in a variety of preschools. Both programs are targeted at schools serving poor children.
Part C Education of Migrant Children - Ensures that migratory children have the opportunity to attain high levels of educational excellence.
Part D Neglected and Delinquent and At Risk Youth - Provides educational assistance to at-risk and neglected and delinquent youth.
Part E 21^st Century Community Learning Centers - Provides opportunities for schools or local educational agencies, and community based organizations, to provide extended and innovative learning activities for youth and adults.
Part F Education for Homeless Children and Youth - Enables local educational agencies to provide quality educational services to homeless children.
Part G Comprehensive School Reform - Assists in the implementation of effective school reform models. Builds upon those initiatives that have produced positive results in a variety of subject areas.
Part H School Dropout Prevention - Authorizes activities designed to provide school dropout prevention and reentry. Ninety percent of the funds authorized under this program will be awarded to public schools that have high dropout rates. Schools receiving grant funds will develop and implement initiatives to decrease their dropout rates.
TITLE II - TEACHER QUALITY- A QUALIFIED TEACHER IN EVERY CLASSROOM AND A QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL IN EVERY SCHOOL:
Part A Teacher Quality Grants Program. Expands and reforms teacher quality programs into one major program, dedicated funding for proven, effective professional development and mentoring activities. This program allows funds to be used for the hiring of new teachers.
Part B Math and Science Partnerships. Establishes partnerships between states, local educational agencies, and institutions of higher education to improve student performance in math and science by strengthening teacher training in these areas.
Part C Technology. Consolidates current technology programs to create a targeted state formula program for improving the use of technology in the classroom that includes a focus on professional development for teachers.
Part D Teacher Pensions and Credentials Panel. Authorizes the establishment of a nine member panel that will study options regarding the recognition of teaching credentials and teacher pension portability between states.
TITLE III - MOVING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS TO ENGLISH FLUENCY: Streamlines existing bilingual education programs and clarifies their purpose to ensure that students with limited English proficiency become fluent in English and meet high state content and performance standards. Includes a designated funding stream for Emergency Immigrant Education.
TITLE IV - SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS: Strengthens the Safe and Drug-free schools program by requiring that states, school districts, and schools use proven, effective practices in developing and implementing activities related to this title. Creates performance indicators and accountability measures.
TITLE V - PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE AND FLEXIBILITY: This title would strengthen the federal commitment to expanding the range of educational opportunities available to all students.
Part A Public School Choice

Subpart 1: Charter Schools - Increases and strengthens accountability, dissemination, support, technical assistance, evaluation, and research for charter schools.
Subpart 2: Magnet Schools - Provides grants to local educational agencies for magnet schools in order to reduce minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools.
Subpart 3: Public School Choice - Allows a student enrolled in a school identified as needing improvement the option to transfer to another public school within the local educational agency unless such an option is prohibited by state or local law.

Part B Flexibility

Subpart 1: Education Flexibility Partnerships - Allows state Educational Agencies, upon review by the Secretary of Education, to waive statutory or regulatory requirements (applicable to several programs) for local educational agencies or schools within the states.
Subpart 2: Rural Flex - Provides funding to rural school districts to improve student achievement by enabling such school districts to maximize their resources.
Subpart 3: Waivers - Allows state educational agencies to waive certain federal requirements, along with related state requirements for the purpose of raising student achievement. Includes broad authority for waiver and statutory or regulatory requirements to increase academic performance.
Subpart 4: Innovative Education Program Strategies - Gives state educational agencies and local educational agencies the resources to fund programs that are tied to promoting high academic standards, improves student performance, and is part of an overall education reform strategy.

Part C Consolidation of State Admin. Funds and Plans - States and localities have the ability to consolidate administrative funds from several Federal programs.
Part D Consolidation of State and Local Plans/Applications - State educational agencies and local educational agencies may integrate the following programs into one plan: part A of Title 1, Education of Migrant Children (part C of Title 1), Safe and Drug Free Schools (Title IV), and Innovative Education Program Strategies (Title V, subpart IV).
Part E Advanced Placement Program - Authorizes a competitive grant program designed to encourage more students (especially low-income students) to take the advanced placement exam, increase the availability of AP courses offered, and broaden the range of schools offering AP courses.
TITLE VI - PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY:
Part A Parental Resource Centers (S. 2 Title 1 - Part D language) - Provides leadership and support to local educational agencies and nonprofit organizations for effective parental involvement program implementation. Such programs are designed to improve student performance.
Part B Improving Academic Achievement - Creates an Achievement in Education Fund to reward high performing states and establish "no child left behind" school awards.
TITLE VII - INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION: Improves educational services for American Indian and Alaska Native students. Several new activities have been included to encourage local educational agencies to address the needs of American Indians and Alaska Native students in the areas of curriculum development, standards implementation, and improving student achievement.

TITLE VIII - REPEALS: Titles 9-14 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Goals 2000: Educate America Act are repealed.
TITLE IX - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: Authorizes a grant award to the National Board on Testing and Assessment of the National Research Council to conduct an ongoing evaluation of high stakes assessments.

Top Publications Issue List Vote Analysis Main Page