[Federal Register: June 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 105)]
[Page 30055-30062]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[[Page 30055]]


Part IV

Department of Education


Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs; Notice

[[Page 30056]]



Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 

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__Shadburn@ed.gov.

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 

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:


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/

    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, 

[[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 
    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 

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 
    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 

[[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 
    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/

    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 
    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 
    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 
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 
    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 
    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
    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]