Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note in response to the latest colloquy that there is a very serious backlog problem at the Social Security Administration, as well, and I would like to simply inform the House, if they are not aware of it, that the budget agreement which the Congress passed and the President agreed to has a very unfortunate side effect with respect to the extensions of delay in response to requests for Social Security Administration determinations. It is going to grow substantially. One of the assumptions in that budget is that the Social Security Administration costs will be cut by one-quarter over the next 5 years. There is already about a 3-month delay in responding to claims requests in Social Security. That is expected to grow to about 9 months to a year under the budget agreement that was reached. So I recognize the legitimacy of the gentleman's concern about this backlog. I want Members to know with the budget deal that Congress signed on to, we can expect to see a very serious backlog also grow in the Social Security area, and I do not think any of us are going to be very happy with that. Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Riggs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, these are not Washington bureaucrats who enforce the laws to protect workers' rights in this country. These are Federal workers who died in the Oklahoma City Murrah Building. Those people are not Washington bureaucrats, they are people who lost their lives because they were enforcing the law to protect American citizens. I get tired of people who get paid $135,000 a year on this floor attacking other people in the Government, who work just as hard as we do, who care about this country just as much as we do, and who are given a very difficult job by us to enforce the laws that we pass that are sometimes confusing and sometimes conflicting. So with all due respect to politicians who take cheap shots every other day at a lot of other people who work in this Government to create a better life for Americans all across the country, I want to point out, the money we are trying to keep in this budget does not stay in Washington, it goes out to every community in the country to protect every worker in the country so that their basic rights are protected under laws which many voted against.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the money is to continue as the existing funding level, the community-based family resource and support grant program.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say also that on this side of the aisle, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me simply say that this debate is supposed to be on the Evans amendment. We have already accepted the amendment on both sides. There is obviously a little filibuster going on here. As long as there is, let me correct some of the misstatements that have been made on the House floor. With respect to the school reform initiative contained in this bill, this is the exact opposite of control from Washington. What this bill attempts to do is to recognize that a whole group of American businessmen have tried to figure out what it is that makes schools work and what does not make them work. So instead of following their own individual political philosophy, they simply examined all of the research around the country to see what had been proven to improve student performance and what had not. And they simply came to the conclusion that there were roughly seven different models which helped to achieve much greater student performance. The fact is that there are, in addition to a New American Schools Movement, there are a broad number of other efforts around the country to try to determine what works to improve schools. A number of Members have said, Gee, if school districts want to apply for this money, they have to fit into one of these molds or they cannot get the money.'' That is absolutely not the case. What this legislation says is simply that we are making money available not to the Washington bureaucrats, but we are making money available primarily to the State chief school officers, and they will simply receive applications from school districts that want to get a little extra seed money to try to figure out how to improve the operation and organization of their local schools. If they are not interested in doing it, they do not have to apply. If they are interested in applying, they do not have to follow anybody's single model. They do not have to follow the model of the Little Red Schoolhouse. They do not have to follow Professor Comer's model or anybody else's. These are simply seven illustrative models which the New American Schools Movement feels merit a look-see. But there are many others around the country, and if schools want to add their own wrinkles, they are perfectly free to do so. In the end, State superintendents of public instruction will simply determine which grants seem to have the best chance to demonstrate success and they will provide these start-up grants. That will simply enable local schools to put together whatever program is agreed to at the local level to reform their schools. We have people in this Congress who do not like Goals 2000. We have people in this Congress who do not like testing. What we are saying is, ``All right, if you don't like that, let's find some other way to encourage school reforms without Washington itself dictating what those reforms are going to be.'' I doubt very much that we would have the Fortune 500 corporate leaders who have encouraged this approach, I doubt very much that we would find any of them in favor of any approach being imposed from Washington. What we are simply trying to do is to assist local school districts, who often do not have the money available, to step back and reexamine their operations from top to bottom. We are simply trying to offer them some assistance. We have had 20 years of research in this field. It is about time, it seems to me, that we start applying the results of that research. We spend billions of dollars on title I trying to deal with the problems of individual children, but we often approach that without having an atmosphere that is conducive to learning in the very schools where we are trying to improve individual child performance. And so this is simply an effort to allow local people to design whatever approach they want to take and get a little money to get some outside help, if they want it, to put together a program that works. That is all it is, and I would urge the Members if they are going to oppose this program to at least understand what it is they are opposing.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am not in the slightest going to get into a debate about the philosophy of the Republican Party. I simply want to take this time to indicate that on this side of the aisle, we would also accept the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], if that is indeed what is before us at this point.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer] a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to follow up the chairman's comments by expressing my appreciation for the fact that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the staff have worked intensely hard. They have worked in a very fair manner, in a very open manner, and the staff has worked incredibly hard to produce many of the answers that the Members like to claim credit for, and I simply want to express my appreciation for all of that work and hope that that spirit can continue. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in politics and in governance, there is a time to define differences and there is a time to reconcile those differences. Over the last 2 years, on this bill perhaps more than any other, we have certainly defined our differences. They have been defined to a fare-thee-well, and these bills have been centrally involved in two government shutdowns, protracted debate between the two parties, between the White House and the Congress, and between the two Houses of the Congress. This year this bill is in quite different shape. It is here because Members in both parties have tried to listen to each other and tried to swallow some things that we differ on in the interest of reaching an ability to reconcile some of the deep differences that we have. I hope that we can stand here unified on both sides of the aisle and support the package as it is presented from the committee. It is far from perfect and it certainly is very different in some ways from what I would like to see. But in contrast to past years, this is, I think, a reasonable effort at compromise, and I look forward to supporting it, if this bill stays together. This bill provides a total of $80 billion for the Labor-HHS-Education agencies. The bill is one-tenth of 1 percent below the Clinton request for this bill. It provides 99 percent of the President's education and training budget request, which is $257 million more in funding than would have been possible if the committee had stuck with the 602(b) allocation for the subcommittee which was sent up by OMB in the first place. This bill is just .2 percent below the total requested for priority programs. Within that overall total, we have, as is the Congress's prerogative, rearranged some of the spending priorities. Funding for the Department of Education is $29.3 billion, $2.8 billion more than in 1997. With the advance funding for the reading initiative, the total amount provided is $31.56 billion, or .2 percent over the budget request. The bill fully funds the America Reads Initiative by providing $260 million in advance funding. It provides $800 million in additional funding for existing literacy programs consistent with the America Reads Initiative, including title I, which is increased $150 million over the request, Head Start, which is funded at the budget request and afterschool learning centers, which are funded at the budget request. The bill rejects some reductions suggested by the administration, including a $122 million suggested cut in community services programs. It provides an increase for CDC, Centers for Disease Control, of $83 million compared to the President's request to essentially freeze that budget. It fully funds the Job Corps. It does a lot of good things. It also falls far short of a lot of the country's needs because of our lack of resources. But I would like to talk for a moment about a new initiative which this committee has included in this bill. Additional resources alone are not enough to improve the quality of education in this country. I think we also have reached a bipartisan conclusion that we simply have to have basic reforms in the way schools are administered, the way they are organized, the way they are motivated, the way teachers are taught, the way kids are taught, and the way parents and communities are involved in the support of education. That is why I am pleased that the committee is bringing to the floor a new $205 million initiative which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I have recommended to the committee, which includes $150 million in additional funding for title I and $50 million under the fund for the improvement of education, in order to provide the ability for local schools to apply for start-up grants so that they can participate in the school reform movement sweeping the country. For the last 20 years, we have focused our efforts to improve education on attempts to improve the performance of individual children, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also a considerable body of opinion which tells us that it is not enough to focus simply on one classroom, or one child at a time unless you have a total atmosphere of reform present on a school-by-school basis. And so we are bringing this reform package to the Congress. In contrast to many other initiatives in many past Congresses, this is about the only initiative I can think of in the past 15 years which has united virtually every single group in the education community, that has united teachers unions with school boards. It has also brought into the coalition the chief State school officers of the 50 States, the title I administrators from around the country, the National Parent-Teachers Association and many other groups in support of this initiative. This initiative has in large part been driven by the New American Schools movement, which originally had its genesis in an effort put together by a group of nationally known American businessmen headed by David Kearns who used to run Xerox Corporation. They basically looked at the problems that we were facing in public education. They commissioned the Rand Corporation to study the research to determine what worked and what did not work in the area of school reform, and they have helped around the country to achieve a situation in which some 700 schools have been able to use one model or another to try to improve school performance. But 1 percent school involvement is not enough, in our view, and this should help some 4,000 schools get into the act of rethinking from the bottom up how those schools are organized, how they are administered and how children are taught within those schools. It is, I think, an exciting initiative not just because of the promise that it holds for progress in academic performance, it is also an exciting initiative because we have bipartisan support for something that can truly move the reform effort forward on the basis not of political ideology but on the basis of what works. I would like to say one other thing. I know that there are a number of individuals in the caucus of the majority party who are concerned about this bill and would like to see it shaped far more in their image. Let me simply say to those folks, there are a good many people on this side of the aisle who feel the same way coming from the opposite direction. There are many provisions in this bill that I would prefer not be here. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], for instance, pushed incredibly hard for a provision on ergonomics with which I strongly disagree and most of us on our side of the aisle did, but in the interest of accommodation and trying to build bipartisan consensus, we worked out our differences and the gentleman from Texas has been able to deliver what he considers progress in that area. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] was able to persuade the committee to adopt a proposal, about which I frankly have great misgivings, with respect to methyl chloride. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] was able to convince the committee to include a provision on the NLRB with which I basically disagree, as do most members of our subcommittee on this side of the aisle, and other members of the subcommittee. And the majority caucus were also able to include provisions that we frankly do not agree with, but as Will Rogers said a long time ago, ``When two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.'' The fact is, in a body of 435 people, if we are going to produce a product which can reach consensus in that body and also receive the support of the President of the United States, we have to have compromises. We have them. I would simply say to people on both sides of the aisle, we can, if you want, go down last year's road of having division after division after division demonstrated on this floor, or, having already demonstrated the great difference of opinion that we have on a number of these issues, we can try to reach for consensus and produce a bill which we know will be signed by the President and a bill which we know can pass by the fiscal year's end so that we do not have to run the risk of again shutting down government. I would urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that in the end this institution will be served best if people recognize that we have fought out these differences fiercely in the committee and support the effort that the committee has produced. People are free obviously to offer any amendments that they want, but I do not believe that the interest of either party or this institution will be served by offering amendments for consideration that we know will simply blow up the bill. We have had too much of that the past years and I hope that we have reached the time when we will choose to resolve differences, move forward to new issues and hopefully also in the process produce something that is useful and good for the workers, for the children and for the ill of our society who are served by this legislation. Additional Views Submitted by the Honorable David Obey and the Honorable John Porter the road to better american schools No topic has more consistently been the focus of public debate over the last two decades than the reform of our educational system. Parents know that the competition for jobs and pay which their children will face will be quite different from what they themselves faced only a few years ago. How they fare will be determined not just by how their skills stack up against other workers in their own community but how those skills compare with those of workers around the globe. The relationship between living standards and work skills will become increasingly direct. As a result, school improvement has been a central agenda item at local school board meetings across the country. It absorbs much of the deliberative time of each state legislature. It is a frequent topic of debate here in Congress and it is a matter of great concern to not only parents and students but corporate leaders and tax payers as well. Yet the road to school reform has proven elusive. Teachers in many schools complain with apparent justification that students are spending so much time taking newly mandated standardized tests that it has significantly cut back the time available for instruction. In some classrooms, computers purchased with the promise of revolutionizing instruction sit idle day after day serving only as icons of the difficulty of changing the fundamental problems which face our schools. Some thoughtful school board members have reluctantly concluded that the only two things that will really bring positive change to our schools is an infusion of more talented teachers and an infusion of more disciplined and motivated students--two things that they ultimately feel powerless to change. But in the midst of this debate and the many failed efforts to revolutionize public instruction a promising set of ideas about school organization has taken hold and begun to produce extremely promising results. There is no single father to these new ideas. In fact, they include more than a half a dozen detailed models developed separately by educators at universities in different parts of the country. Each of these models for reforming schools has it own special set of characteristics, but all of the models would significantly change the way that the overwhelming majority of American schools now operate. Strikingly, all of these models have a great deal in common with one another. Among those who have brought forth proposals for change are James Comer at Yale, Henry Levin at Stanford, Ted Sizer at Brown and Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins. Each has his own special area of emphasis. The Comer School Development Program for instance focuses on the organization of school decision making. Levin's Accelerated Schools puts forth a curriculum proposal for challenging students identified for remediation. Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools focuses on the ``triangle of learning,'' the relationship between students, teachers and curriculum. Slavin's Success for All and Roots and Wings call for reallocating resources into the most essential elements for school success, curriculum, instruction and family support. While the area of emphasis differs from one model to the next, all of these models are based on the concept that effective reform is a school wide proposition. In other words, you can't make sufficient progress by working on one classroom or one teacher or the curriculum for one subject area at a time, the whole school has to be the target for change. All share the concept that parents have to be centrally engaged at every step of the decision making and evaluation process. All concur that a great deal of autonomy is needed for individual schools and that the current top down authority structure existing within most schools has got to go. Each of these concepts requires principals to significantly redefine their roles. They must become consensus builders rather than autocratic directors. They must learn to bring teachers and parents into the decision making process and create a community wide commitment to the behavioral and academic standards of the school. All argue that the school boards, superintendents and other administrators in the school system have to be aware of the need for these changes and actively support schools attempting change. All are supported by an outside set of experts who are available to advise and help the schools, teachers and principals to successfully retool their school. Finally, each of these concepts is far more than an academic treatise on what people living in the real world should be doing. Each of these models has been developed into real functioning programs being used in a cross section of communities with very specific and detailed guidelines for approaching the real life--every day problems of teaching and learning. Over the last three decades the principle tool for raising educational performance nationwide has been the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and specifically Title I of that Act. Through Title I, the federal government has focused substantial additional resources on underachieving children in lower income schools. What we have learned from these new ``whole school'' models is that the improvements in academic performance of Title I children can be more broadly based and more long lasting if the focus on individual children takes place in an environment in which parents and teachers are working together for goals they both agree with and played a role in developing. The most remarkable fact about these models is the extent to which they have succeeded in improving school and student performance without becoming better known to the public or even to many in the education community. Among the organizations that have recognized the potential such models hold for improving the effectiveness of American schools are the Annenberg Foundation, the Edison Project and New American Schools. New American Schools was created by business leaders from a number of the nation's largest corporations and began working with local school districts in 1992 to help certain selected schools adapt to one or another of seven selected school reform models--each representing a different version of ``whole school'' reform. More than 500 schools in 25 states have participated for much of that period and another 200 schools have been added recently. While that is a tiny fraction of the more than 100,000 elementary and secondary schools across the country, it is providing a solid information base for examining the potential of these reforms. The Rand Corporation has been hired to evaluate this information. While understanding the long term impact of alternate education approaches on student achievement necessarily takes many years, the early results from these experiments have in many instances been dramatic. A number of schools in Prince George's County, Maryland using the ATLAS model (a variation on the Comer School Development Program) raised their reading scores by 30% on the Maryland Performance Assessment Program. The proportion of students scoring satisfactory or excellent on the exam tripled within a three year period beginning in 1992. Most schools experienced a dramatic decline in discipline problems and a dramatic increase in levels of school attendance. The John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Louisville, Kentucky increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math using the National Alliance reform model. In three years, the school rose from among the lowest-scoring schools in the state to the top 10%. The Success for All model developed at Johns Hopkins University appears to have been particularly successful in boosting achievement among language minority students. In six schools located in Baltimore and Philadelphia, first grade students were three months ahead of their counterparts in other elementary schools by the end of their first year. By the end of second grade they were almost a year ahead of their counterparts. The Hansberry Elementary School in the Bronx increased the percentage of student who passed the New York State essential skills test from 22% to 50% in reading and from 47% to 82% in math in only two years beginning in 1993. Hansberry used a model developed by the Hudson Institute known as the Modern Red Schoolhouse. The Rand Corporation noted that ``By any number of measures, New American Schools has accomplished a great deal in its first four years of programmatic activity * * * What began as an effort to create small number of outstanding designs for schools has expanded to a comprehensive strategy to reform education.'' While these new approaches to improving schools may represent fundamental change from the way most schools now operate, it is important to recognize that these approaches are very consistent with the kinds of organizational changes being brought about in numerous other institutions in society. Just as American business has learned that enhancing the role and input of workers and suppliers creates a common commitment that improves the product and boosts productivity, the full engagement of teachers and parents in the learning process can and is producing similar results in schools. In fact, one might well argue that the standard structure of American schools has changed so little in the last half century that these types of institutional reforms can have an even greater impact on the classroom than businesses have managed to produce in factories or offices. We do not know all that we would like to know or should know in order to fully revolutionize the nation's schools. We do not know for certain which of these models works best or which is best suited for particular types of schools or to meet particular types of problems. But we certainly do know enough to know that we should begin. We have sufficient experience to know that many more schools should be participating--that we should not only be experimenting with these approaches in all of the states instead of only half, but that we should have a number of schools working with these reforms in each region of every state. That is why we encouraged the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-Health, Human Services and Education to provide $200 million to start such a whole school reform effort in the education appropriation bill for the coming school year. These funds would be apportioned by state education officials and the Department of Education to school districts interested in making a serious commitment to school improvement. Schools with differing ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds would be selected as would schools facing differing problems in improving academic performance. Each participating school would receive a grant of at least $50,000 a year to implement a research tested model for whole school reform. The funds would be used to help the school get the necessary outside expertise, hire the staff necessary to facilitate change and train existing personnel to meet the challenges of making fundamental changes in the manner in which the schools operate. The effort would provide a large number of school districts across the country with first hand experience and information to determine whether they wish to provide additional schools with the resources necessary to make the proposed changes. We have had an extended debate in this country about school reform and that debate will no doubt continue. But it is time to do more than debate. We now have proposals to reform our schools that are not just academic theories but are producing real results in real classrooms across America. With a relatively small amount of outside resources, communities can restructure schools in ways that make them significantly more effective. We should now move to insure that a broader spectrum of our nation's schools have a chance to move forward with these reforms and determine for themselves the impact these changes have on student learning and school effectiveness. examples of whole school reform models Accelerated Schools Accelerated Schools, developed at Stanford University, is a whole school reform model that focuses on an accelerated curriculum that emphasizes challenging and exciting learning activities for students who normally are identified for remediation. One of the key ideas behind Accelerated Schools is that rather than remediating students' deficits, students who are placed at risk of school failure must be accelerated--given the kind of high-expectations curriculum typical of programs for gifted and talented students. The program's social goals include reducing the dropout rate, drug use, and teen pregnancies. The Accelerated Schools model is built around three central principles. One is unity of purpose, a common vision of what the school should become, agreed to and worked toward by all school staff, parents, students and community. A second is empowerment coupled with responsibility, which means that staff, parents and students find their own way to transform themselves. A third element, building on strength, means identifying the strengths of students, of staff and of the school, and then using these as a basis for reform. School staff are encouraged to search for methods that help them to realize their vision. There is an emphasis on reducing all uses of remedial activities and on adopting engaging teaching strategies, such as project-based learning. The schools implement these principles by establishing a set of cadres which include a steering committee and work on groups focused on particular areas of concern. Accelerated schools are located in 39 states, including Colorado, Texas and California. ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning and Assessment of All Students) The ATLAS Program, builds on concepts embodied in the School Development Program and the Coalition of Essential Schools, but adds other unique elements. One of these is a focus on pathways--groups of schools made up of high schools and the elementary and middle schools that feed into them-- whose staff work with each other to create coordinated and continuous experiences for students. Teams of teachers from each pathway work together to design curriculum and assessments based on locally defined standards. Teachers collaborate with parents and administrators to form a learning community that works together to set and maintain sound management policies. The intent of the model is to change the culture of the school to promote high institutional and individual performance. The emphasis of the design is on helping school staffs create classroom environments in which students are active participants in their own learning. Project-based learning is extensively used. Assessment in ATLAS schools emphasize portfolios, performance examinations, and exhibitions. Community members are active participants on the school governing teams and the schools develop programs to encourage parental involvement. ATLAS schools are operating in Norfolk, Virginia; Prince George's County, Maryland; Gorham, Maine; Seattle, Washington; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Audrey Cohen College of System of Education Audrey Cohen College of System of Education is based on the teaching methods used at the Audrey Cohen College in New York City. This whole school reform model focuses student learning on the study and achievement of meaningful ``purposes'' for each semester's academic goals. A holistic and purpose-driven curriculum is the centerpiece of the model. Curriculum and instruction are organized around a single, developmentally appropriate purpose for each semester, cumulating to 26 purposes in a K-12 system. Embedded in each purpose are content areas such as English and math, and essential skills such as critical thinking and researching. Each purpose culminates in a ``constructive action'' undertaken by the class to serve the community. For example, in fourth grade, one purpose is ``we work for good health.'' Students achieve their purpose by using their knowledge and skills to plan, carry out, and evaluate a ``constructive action'' to benefit the community and larger world. Leadership is emphasized. These fundamental changes in the curriculum and instruction become the organizing principles for all other school activities. The total effect is intended to make the school and its programs more coherent and focused. The purposes help the school and its officials identify key community resources to involve in the educational enterprise. The constructive actions help to bring the community into the school and the school into the community--making schools, parents and children active partners in improving the community. Schools are implementing the Audrey Cohen model in San Diego, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Hollandale, Mississippi; Seattle, Washington; and Dade County, Florida. Coalition of Essential Schools The Coalition of Essential Schools is based at Brown University. The Coalition is not a reform model per se, but an organization dedicated to ``Nine Common Principles of Essential Schools''. The Nine Principles involve certain ideas about school reform that include building support and collaboration among teachers, students and the families of those students in the community. The Coalition focuses on the relationship between students, teachers and the curriculum-- the ``triangle of learning''. In order to become a member of the Coalition of Essential Schools, a school submits a statement of its long-term goals and an action plan. The action plan must state how structures, pedagogy, curriculum and assessment will change, and it must include a statement of faculty commitment to student learning and engagement. Community support must be solicited throughout the process and a school-site coordinator is identified to work as a liaison between the school, and regional or state coordinator, and the Coalition. Membership in the Coalition includes a responsibility to participate in a network with other Coalition Schools, and to meet expectations that include commitment, whole-school involvement, documentation and assessment of progress, and funds to support school reform activities over a multi- year period. Co-NECT Schools Co-NECT schools focus on complex interdisciplinary projects that extensively incorporate technology and connect students with ongoing scientific investigations, information resources, and other students beyond their own school. Co- NECT uses technology to enhance every aspect of teaching, learning, professional development, and school management. Cross-disciplinary teaching teams work with clusters of students. Most students stay in the same cluster with the same teachers for at least two years. Teaching and learning center of interdisciplinary projects that promote critical skills and academic understanding. Teams of educators and parents set goals. Performance-based assessments are extensively used. In addition to understanding key subject areas, graduates of the Co-NECT school demonstrate the acquisition of specific critical skills, identified as sense- maker, designer, problem-solver, decisionmaker, communicator, team worker, project-oriented worker, and responsible, knowledgeable citizen. A school governance council, which includes teachers, parents, business/community representatives, and administrators, runs the school. In addition, the school design team provides local input concerning the implementation, performance assessment, and accountability of the Co-NECT approach at that particular school. The Community Support Board fosters access to the local community to support the Council and design team. Mentoring and volunteers are encouraged and community input sought for standard- setting. Co-NECT schools are operating in Cincinnati, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; San Antonio, Texas; and Worcester, Massachusetts. Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) is built on ten design principles and operates on the belief that learning is an expedition into the unknown. Expeditionary Learning draws on the power of purposeful, intellectual investigations-- called learning expeditions--to improve student achievement and build character. Learning expeditions are long-term, academically rigorous, interdisciplinary studies that require students to work inside and outside the classroom. In Expeditionary Learning schools, student and teachers stay together for more than one year, teachers work collaboratively through team teaching and shared planning, and there is no tracking. Schools using this whole school reform model are in Baltimore County, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Decatur, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Dubuque, Iowa; Memphis, Tennessee; New York City, New York; San Antonio, Texas; and Portland, Oregon. Modern Red Schoolhouse The Modern Red Schoolhouse whole school reform model helps all students achieve high standards through the construction of a standards-driven curriculum; employment of traditional and performance-based assessments; effective organizational patterns and professional-development programs; and implementation of effective community-involvement strategies. The model focuses on high standards in core academic subjects--English, geography, history, mathematics and science. Students master a rigorous curriculum designed to transit common culture, develop character, and promote the principles of democratic government. Modern Red Schoolhouses are divided into three divisions, rather than 12 grades: primary, intermediate and upper. To advance to the next division, students must meet defined standards and pass ``watershed assessment''. Students complete investigations, give oral reports, answer essay questions and take multiple choice exams. Student progress is monitored through an Individual Education Compact, negotiated by the student, parent and teacher. This compact establishes goals, details parent and teacher responsibilities, and lists services the school, parents or community should provide. Schools using this model are in Indianapolis, Columbus, and Beech Grove, Indiana; Franklin and Lawrence, Massachusetts; New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee, and San Antonio, Texas. National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NA) The National Alliance for Restructuring Education is a partnership of states, districts, schools and expert organizations created to change the educational system through a five-point set of priorities called ``design tasks'': the design tasks are standards and assessments, learning environments, high-performance management, community services and supports, and public engagement. The model uses results-based, high performance management at the school and district levels with decentralized decisionmaking to restructure the learning environment to support student achievement and provide professional support to teachers and schools. Alliance sites adapt for education the principles and techniques developed by American business known as high- performance management. These include strategic management, total quality management, decentralized decisonmaking and empowerment, and accountability and incentive systems. At the school level, principals are trained in these areas to better support the integration and implementation of design tasks. Alliance sites at the state, district and school levels are tasked with developing methods for informing and involving parents and the public in the school and restructuring process. Schools in the National Alliance are in Arkansas; Kentucky; Vermont; Rochester, New York; San Diego, California; and Chicago, Illinois. Roots and Wings Roots and Wings is a comprehensive, whole school reform model for elementary schools to ensure that all children leave elementary school with the skills required for success. It is based on the Success For All reading program developed at Johns Hopkins University and incorporates science, history, and math to achieve a comprehensive academic program. The premise of the model is that schools must do whatever it takes to make sure all students succeed. Roots and Wings schools provide at-risk students with tutors, family support, and a variety of other services aimed at eliminating obstacles to success. The Roots component of the model is aimed at preventing failure. It emphasizes working with children and their families to ensure that children develop the basic skills and habits they need to succeed. The Wings component emphasizes a highly motivating curriculum with instructional strategies that encourage children to grow to their full potential and aspire to higher levels of learning. The design reallocates resources into a system of curriculum, instruction and family support designed to eliminate special education and low achievement. Roots and Wings provides schools with innovative curricula and instructional methods in reading, writing, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. The curriculum emphasizes the use of cooperative learning throughout the grades. In each activity, students work in cooperative groups, do extensive writing, and use reading, mathematics, and fine arts skills learned in other parts of the program. Schools using this model are in Anson County, North Carolina; Memphis, Dade County, Cincinnati, Elyria and Dawson-Bryant, Ohio; Columbus, Indiana; Everett, Washington, Flint, Michigan; Modesto, Pasadena and Riverside, CA; Rockford, Illinois, St. Mary's, Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland. School Development Program The School Development program is a comprehensive, whole school approach to reform based on principles of child development and the importance of parental involvement. The program was developed at Yale and implemented initially at two elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut. Each school creates three teams that take particular responsibility for moving the whole school reform agenda forward. A School Planning and Management Team, made up of teacher, parents and administration, develops and monitors implementation of a comprehensive school improvement plan. A Mental Health Team, composed on school staff concerned with mental health such as school psychologists, social workers, counselors and teachers, plans programs focusing on prevention, building positive child development, positive personal relations, etc. The third major component of the model is a Parent Program designed to build a sense of community among school staff, parents, and students. The parent Program incorporates existing parent participation activities (such as the PTA) and implements additional activities to draw parents into the school, to increase opportunities for parents to provide volunteer services, and to design ways for having the school respect the ethnic backgrounds of its students. The three teams in School Development Program schools work together to create comprehensive plans for school reform. Schools take a holistic approach in looking for ways to serve children's academic and social needs. The School Development Program is operating in schools in 25 states, including Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Talent Development Model for High Schools The Talent Development Model for High Schools was developed at Johns Hopkins University to fill a major current void in American education--a dearth of proven models of high school effectiveness. The Talent Development Model provides a comprehensive package of specific high school changes for at- risk students based on the proposition that all students can succeed in school given appropriate school organization, curriculum, instruction, and assistance as needed to assure their success. The model focuses on a common core curriculum of high standards for all students and emphasizes the creation of small learning communities through the establishment of career-focused academies as schools-within- the-school. Essential components include (1) making schoolwork relevant by providing a career focus, (2) providing increased opportunities for academic success, (3) providing a caring and supportive learning environment through enhanced teacher-student interactions, and (4) providing help with student problems, including academic, family problems, substance abuse, disciplinary problems, and employment needs. The Talent Development High School provides assistance to students from social workers and mental health professionals on the school staff and by referrals to an alternative after-hours school in the building designed to meet the needs of students who present the most difficult disciplinary problems. The first Talent Development High School was established at Patterson High School in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Talent Development sites are being evaluated in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. We have not yielded. I would like to point out to the gentleman that I doubt that the Parent-Teachers Association of America, I doubt that the School Boards Association of America, I doubt that the School Administrators Association of America, I doubt that the title I administrators in the various 50 States, I doubt that the chief school officers of the 50 States would endorse a proposition which mandates on them requirements from Washington. They are supporting this because they believe this is the best way to make title I work. They believe that schools need the opportunity to review the way they are administered, the way teachers are trained and the way children are taught, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. One percent of schools in the country have already worked through the New American Schools model. There are other schools pursuing other models, and that is fine with me.

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, the gentleman can define whole school reform any way he wants. So can any local school district.

Mr. OBEY. What is it?

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman does not have a question, I would like to take back the time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is funded by taking $12.8 million out of the administration's Goals 2000 program, and $10 million out of the UI contingency fund, and $10 million out of the UI computers fund. Both of these accounts are very amply funded and neither account will be damaged by the reduction.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I support family planning both at home and internationally because I think it is the best way to prevent abortions. The last time the Smith amendment was before the House, I supported it because I thought that he was right and I was personally fed up with the way that the administration and the United Nations continued to finance and apologize for the coercive abortion policy in China. So I voted with the Smith amendment. I, at that time, asked the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in the future to please separate the issue of Mexico City from the issue of China because I thought that would at least guarantee some positive steps forward with respect to the Chinese issue. That has not been done in his amendment, but it has been done in the Pelosi amendment. The Pelosi amendment in essence will say that unless the U.N. population program gets out of China, and there is no question that they practice coercive abortion policies in that country, that we will get our money, we will take our money out of the United Nations population program. That is what ought to happen. I urge support for the Pelosi amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous material into the Record at the point immediately following my opening statement on H.R. 2264, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.