30056 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Reauthorization of Elementary and

Secondary Education Programs

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education, Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comment on the reauthorization of

elementary and secondary education

programs.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education

invites written comments regarding the

reauthorization of programs under the

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, and Subtitle B of

Title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney

Homeless Assistance Act (Education for

Homeless Children and Youth).

DATES: Comments must be received by

the Department on or before July 17,

1998. Comments may also be submitted

at regional meetings to be held on July

8–15, 1998 (See dates, times and

locations of regional meetings under the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

this notice.)

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Judith Johnson, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education,

U. S. Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, SW. (Portals

Building, Room 4000), Washington, DC

20202–6132. E-mail responses may be

sent to: FranceslShadburn@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 paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or portable document

format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at

either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf, you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at the

previous sites. If you have questions

about using the pdf, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office toll free at

1–888–293–6498.

Anyone also may view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option GFiles/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Additionally, in the future, this

document, as well as other documents

concerning the reauthorization of the

ESEA, will be available on the World

Wide Web at the following site: http://

www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea.html.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Secretary is seeking public comment on

the reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act, Titles III

and IV of the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act, and Subtitle B of Title VII

of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act. A complete list of the

programs currently authorized under

these statutes is provided at the end of

this notice. Most of these programs were

last reauthorized in 1994. At that time

ESEA programs were fundamentally

restructured to support, in partnership

with Goals 2000, comprehensive State

and local efforts to improve teaching

and learning and raise academic

standards. The authorization for most of

these programs expires September 30,

1999.

Need for Reauthorization

The Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, the cornerstone

of Federal aid to elementary and

secondary schools, embodies the

Federal Government’s commitment to

providing funds for the education of

children living in high- poverty

communities. Collectively, its programs

provide funds to States, districts, and

schools to improve teaching and

learning to help all children, especially

at-risk children, meet challenging State

standards. Funding for ESEA and

related programs currently represents an

annual $12 billion investment in our

Nation’s future. The support these

programs provide for State and local

school improvement efforts makes them

key vehicles for carrying out the

Department’s mission: ‘‘To Ensure Equal

Access to Education and Promote

Educational Excellence Throughout the

Nation.’’

Title I, the largest of the ESEA

programs, is the primary vehicle for

providing assistance to schools to raise

the academic performance of poor and

low-achieving students, especially in

schools serving areas with high

concentrated poverty.

The 1994 reauthorization responded

to data from the Department’s

‘‘Prospects’’ longitudinal study which

concluded that the former Chapter I

(now Title I) was not structured to close

the achievement gap between students

attending high- and low-poverty

schools. To address this need, the 1994

reauthorization restructured the

program to, among other things,

encourage high-poverty schools to move

away from ‘‘pullout’’ programs to

‘‘schoolwide’’ approaches for improving

entire schools. To facilitate this change,

the 1994 reauthorization linked Title I

to other ESEA programs and State and

local school reform efforts in

partnership with Goals 2000 so that

Federal and State programs could work

together to provide all children,

whatever their backgrounds and

whatever schools they attend, with the

opportunity to achieve the same high

standards expected of all children. The

1994 reauthorization also revised the

other ESEA programs so that they too

support State and local school reform.

For example, the Eisenhower

Professional Development program was

changed to support improved

instructional practices in other core

subjects in addition to math and

science. A key component of the entire

revised ESEA provides States and local

schools with greatly increased flexibility

in return for being held accountable for

improving student achievement.

The President’s fiscal year 1999

budget expands on Goals 2000 and the

ESEA by requesting funds to help build

the capacity of school districts and

schools to: (1) deliver high-quality

instruction by reducing class size in the

early grades; (2) expand the pace and

scope of reform in 35 high-poverty

urban and rural school districts with

significant barriers to high achievement

that have already begun to show

progress in implementing standardsbased reform; (3) increase the number of

school-based before- and after-school

extended-day programs; (4) build and

renovate public schools through the

provision of tax credits to pay interest

on nearly $22 billion in bonds; and (5)

provide support for schools,

communities, and families to work

together in improving and expanding

opportunities for children to develop

strong literacy skills.

When Goals 2000 was established and

the ESEA was last reauthorized, the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 30057

Congress recognized that States required

time to implement thoughtfully high

standards aligned with challenging

assessments as part of their ongoing

school reforms. As a result, Title I

requires States to develop or adopt

challenging content standards and

student performance standards, at least

in mathematics, and reading and

language arts, by Fall, 1997, and

assessments aligned with standards by

the school year 2000–2001. States,

districts, and schools are steadily

making progress toward implementing

standards-based reform. However, there

are still provisions of the law that have

not yet been fully implemented—for

example, aligned assessments that are

part of accountability systems do not

have to be in place until school year

2000–2001. Similarly, many States have

requested and received waivers as they

continue to develop their student

performance standards. Reauthorization

provides the opportunity to consider

what changes, if any, are necessary to

strengthen the effectiveness of Federal

elementary and secondary education

programs to improve teaching and

learning for all students, especially

those students most at risk of failing to

meet State standards.

The Secretary intends to submit the

Department’s reauthorization proposal

for Goals 2000 and ESEA and related

programs to the Congress early in 1999,

in conjunction with the President’s

fiscal year 2000 budget request.

Proposed performance indicators also

will be developed to provide feedback

on program progress in accordance with

the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires all

agencies to develop agency-wide

strategic plans, and to identify and

collect information on performance

indicators for all programs. The

Department’s strategic plan organizes

performance measurement around key

policy objectives and the programs that

advance these objectives: standards

development (through Goals 2000);

helping at-risk populations to achieve to

challenging standards (Title I and other

programs that serve at-risk populations);

supporting local capacity-building

(professional development and

technology) to enhance instruction

aligned with standards and improve the

climate for learning (Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and Communities); and

stimulating flexibility, performance

accountability, and innovation (charter

schools, Ed-Flex). The U.S. Department

of Education Strategic Plan, 1998–2002,

including current performance

indicators, is available on the

Department’s Web site at http://

www.ed.gov/pubs/StratPln/ or can be

requested by calling 1–800–USA–

LEARN. The Secretary invites public

comments on the issues identified in

this notice and recommendations for

performance indicators.

Issues for Public Comment

The Secretary seeks comments and

suggestions regarding reauthorization of

Goals 2000, ESEA, and related

programs. The Secretary is interested

both in comments regarding changes

that may be needed, as well as

comments on aspects of the programs

that are working well and should be

maintained. As noted above, the last

ESEA reauthorization fundamentally

restructured all ESEA programs so that

they, together with Goals 2000, would

support State and local efforts to

improve our Nation’s schools through

comprehensive, standards-based reform

of teaching and learning. The programs

authorized by these statutes support

State efforts to develop standards

describing what students should know

and be able to do at key points in their

schooling, and district and school

efforts to put in place educational

programs that provide each student with

the opportunity to meet those standards.

Since the 1995–96 school year, when

the last reauthorization took effect,

States have made progress in

implementing standards-based reform.

Currently, forty-seven States including

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico,

report that they have adopted

challenging content standards in at least

reading and mathematics as required by

ESEA Title I. All the remaining States—

except one—also have State content

standards that they are either revising or

are in the process of formally adopting.

Although the development of content

standards is the first step, there is still

a long way to go to incorporate State

standards fully into daily classroom

activities. States and districts generally

are now moving to the next phases of

standards-based reform—developing

student performance standards and

assessments that measure student

progress toward meeting the standards,

and increasing the capacity of teachers,

schools, and districts to implement

changes to help all students meet

challenging State standards. Capacities

needed for effective teaching and

learning include many factors, such as

teacher knowledge and skills, student

motivation and readiness to learn, and

quality curriculum materials for

teachers and students.

One aspect of capacity building is

how school reform efforts at the State,

district, and school levels can best be

informed by high-quality research and

dissemination. In addition to technical

assistance provided through the ESEA,

the Department of Education funds

regional educational laboratories to

carry out applied research,

development, dissemination, and other

technical assistance activities by

working with States, districts, and

schools in their regions. The

Department also is required to establish

expert panels to review educational

programs and to recommend to the

Secretary those programs that should be

designated as exemplary or promising

for dissemination.

Clearly, more time will be needed for

States and districts to implement fully

a coherent set of reforms reflecting an

aligned system of standards, assessment,

instruction, professional development,

and accountability, and for principals

and teachers to fully implement reforms

in the classroom. Nevertheless, there is

already some evidence of the impact of

State and local efforts, supported by

Federal education programs, to help all

elementary and secondary students

attain high standards. States that have

had assessments linked to standards for

more than two years are showing

progress in the achievement of all of

their students, including those in highpoverty 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 yearolds 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
30058 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

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 schoolbased 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 crosscutting 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 crosscutting categories, the Secretary is

especially interested in: (1) suggestions

on ways to strengthen the ability of

Goals 2000 and ESEA programs to help

all children, including students with

limited English proficiency, migrant

children, economically disadvantaged

children including economically

disadvantaged minority students,

children with disabilities, and other

educationally disadvantaged children

meet challenging State student

performance standards; and (2)

comments directed at how the activity

being discussed can be carried out in

the most flexible manner possible while

improving accountability for results.

I. Support for State and Local School

Reform

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act

provides the framework for Federal

support of State and local efforts to

reform public schools by supporting the

development of challenging State

standards and new assessments to

measure whether children are achieving

those standards. The 1994 ESEA

reauthorization built on the Goals 2000

framework, fundamentally reshaping

ESEA programs so they would better

support comprehensive State and local

efforts to improve teaching and learning,

especially in schools serving

economically disadvantaged

communities. The changes made in

1994 included: (1) requiring the same

challenging State content and student

performance standards for all students;

(2) linking Federal program

accountability requirements to student’s

achievement of challenging State

standards; (3) supporting professional

development tied to those standards; (4)

providing greater flexibility in exchange

for greater accountability for student

performance; (5) promoting school-level

decision-making to bolster local

initiative; (6) authorizing consolidated

applications and plans to reduce

paperwork burdens so that educators

can focus more time, energy, and

resources on better educating children;

and (7) providing authority for the

Secretary to waive Federal rules and

regulations, as needed, to improve

student achievement. The

Comprehensive School Reform

Demonstration program was added in

1997, primarily as part of Title I of

ESEA, to encourage more extensive

implementation of research-based

approaches to comprehensive school

reform.

Support for State and Local School

Reform: General Questions

1. Are there changes in Federal

statutes that would make Goals 2000,

ESEA, and related programs more

effective tools for supporting

comprehensive State and school district

school reform? For example, given the

progress that States, districts, and

schools have made in implementing

standards-based reforms, are changes

needed to Goals 2000 to make it better

aligned with current implementation

efforts? Are there changes that would

enable Goals 2000, ESEA, and related

programs to support more effectively

State and school district efforts to

improve the capacity of teachers,

schools, and districts to integrate

standards into the classroom? Are there

changes that would make it easier for

States, districts, schools, and teachers to

get information on new research, on

research-based programs, and on

promising practices for improving the

achievement of all students, especially

educationally disadvantaged children?

2. In addition to funding technical

assistance through a variety of ESEA

and Goals 2000 authorities, the U.S.

Department of Education also funds

regional educational laboratories to

assist in the implementation of

education reform. Are there changes to

the Federal statutes that would enable

federally supported technical assistance

efforts to support State and district, and

school reform more effectively?

3. Are there changes to the Federal

statutes that would encourage greater

public school choice as part of State and

local school reform? For example, the

Department of Education encourages

expansion of choice within the public

school system with such alternatives as

charter schools, magnet schools, and

system-wide strategies that make every

public school a school of choice. Are

changes needed in the law to strengthen

these alternatives? Are changes needed

in the Federal law to incorporate the

knowledge gained about school reform

from the establishment and operation of

charter and magnet schools?

4. The ESEA currently contains

provisions addressing the participation

of private school students and teachers

that are applicable across many ESEA

programs. Are there changes to Federal

statutes that would improve the

effectiveness of these provisions?

Support for State and Local School

Reform: Implementing Standards in the

Classroom

Improved teaching and learning is

central to the effort to help each child

achieve to high State standards. Because

professional development helps all

teachers, school leaders, and other

personnel teach to and support high

standards, professional development is

an authorized activity in Goals 2000 and

almost every ESEA program. The ESEA

also authorizes a major program, the

Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional

Development program, specifically to

support national and State professional

development in the major content areas.

Research indicates that professional

development must be sustained,

intensive, and of high quality to have a

lasting impact, and must address

teacher preparation as well as ongoing

training for teachers in the classroom.

Research also indicates that professional

development is most effective when it

includes networks, study groups,

teacher research, and other strategies

that enable teachers to meet regularly to

solve problems, consider new ideas,

analyze student work, or reflect on

specific subject matter issues. The U.S.

Department of Education and the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 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 highquality professional development to

increase the capacity of teachers and

principals to implement standardsbased reform?

Support for State and Local School

Reform: Using Technology To Support

Teaching and Learning

Educators across the country have

begun to use technology in their

classrooms on a regular basis, and many

are convinced that technology can be

very effective in improving teaching and

learning. There is strong evidence that,

used properly, computers and related

telecommunications technologies

provide new opportunities to students

that can improve their motivation and

achievement. The best instructional

practices using technology are generally

recognized as providing strong support

for the kinds of improvements sought by

education reformers through new

approaches to teaching and learning.

While teacher’s level of knowledge

about technology is rapidly expanding,

technology also is changing rapidly.

Questions about new technology and

how best to use it in teaching and

learning will create an ongoing need for

updated information in schools across

the Nation, and the quality and quantity

of assistance made available to schools

will be an important factor in how

quickly and well the benefits of

technology are realized. Furthermore, as

opportunities for using technology at

school and home increase, it is

imperative that all schools and

students—not just those that can afford

it—have access to these new resources

so that technology reduces rather than

increases disparities in the education of

poor children and their better-off peers.

In addition, the expertise of the teacher

and the integration of technology into

the curriculum are essential to

improving student performance.

Under the current authorization,

concentrated Federal support for

technology is provided under five main

programs that include a mix of State

formula and discretionary grants.

Authorization to use funds for

technology also is embedded in other

large programs, such as Title I and Goals

2000.

8. Are there changes to the Federal

statutes that would better support the

use of technology to advance State and

local school reform efforts designed to

help all children acquire the knowledge

contained in State content standards?

For example, are there changes that

would improve access for students in

high-poverty schools to high-quality

academic content through technology?

Are there changes that would increase

the ability of teachers to use technology

as an instructional resource? Should the

focus be on development and

demonstration of high-quality

instructional applications of technology

for all schools, or should it continue to

be development of the infrastructure for

students and schools in high-poverty

areas?

Support for State and Local School

Reform: Targeting Resources/

Equalization

Academic performance tends to be

lower in schools serving the highest

percentages of children who live in

poverty, and the obstacles to raising

academic performance are considerable.

The current law contains multiple

provisions to direct financial resources

to areas of greatest need. For example,

Title I funds must be used first in all

schools with poverty rates above 75

percent, and low-poverty schools may

not receive higher per-pupil allocations

than high-poverty schools.

In addition to the issue of how

Federal funds are targeted, since 1971

State courts have found school funding

systems to be inequitable and

unconstitutional in 17 States, and a

1997 General Accounting Office (GAO)

report found that ‘‘On average, wealthy

districts had about 24 percent more total

funding per weighted pupil than poor

districts.’’ Sizable disparities also exist

across States, with average per-pupil

funding ranging from a high of $9,700

to a low of $3,656 in 1994–95. Because

Federal funding is more targeted to atrisk 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 lowpoverty 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-
30060 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

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 atrisk children, to meet challenging State

standards requires that State and local

school reform efforts take into account

the needs of a diverse student

population. As States, districts, and

schools progress toward full

implementation of educational reform,

they need specific targeted strategies to

provide all students with equal access to

rigorous academic standards,

instruction, and aligned assessments

that measure higher-order thinking

skills and understanding.

The Secretary seeks not only to

maintain the connection begun in the

1994 ESEA reauthorization between

Federal elementary and secondary

programs with their focus on at-risk

students, and State and local school

reform efforts, but to strengthen it.

12. Are there changes to Federal

statutes that would make Goals 2000,

ESEA, and related programs more

effective tools for use by States,

districts, and schools in closing the

achievement gap between students most

at risk of failing to meet challenging

State standards and other students? Are

there changes to the Federal statute that

would improve the role of

accountability measures in both raising

student achievement and providing

more State and local flexibility? For

example, should Title I improvement

provisions be changed or strengthened?

13. Students most at risk of failing to

meet State standards need the highest

quality instruction provided by the most

knowledgeable teachers, yet half of the

instructional staff in Title I are

paraprofessionals, most of whom have

only high school diplomas. Are there

changes to Federal statute that would

strengthen qualifications for Title I and

Title VII (Bilingual Education) staff who

instruct students most at-risk of failing

to meet challenging State standards?

14. A growing body of research on the

development of the brain and its

implications for learning during certain

critical periods of child development

supports the need for early intervention

and the importance of pre-school and

parent education. How can Federal

programs encourage greater application

of this knowledge?

III. School Environments Conducive to

Learning

For students to learn and compete in

the global economy, schools must be

modern and well-equipped, and provide

an environment conducive to learning.

A school environment conducive to

learning is safe and drug-free,

encourages active parental and

community involvement, and often

includes extended learning

opportunities during non-traditional

school hours (before and after school,

weekends and summer sessions).

Students cannot learn and teachers

cannot teach if students are disruptive

or are threatened with violence. At the

same time, research indicates that

students who report positive school

experiences are significantly less likely

to use drugs than their peers who have

negative experiences in school.

Research also indicates that when

schools make a concerted effort to enlist

the help of mothers and fathers in

fostering children’s learning, student

achievement rises. When families are

involved in their children’s education,

children earn higher grades and receive

higher scores on tests, attend school

more regularly, complete more

homework, demonstrate more positive

attitudes and behaviors, graduate from

high school at higher rates, and are more

likely to enroll in higher education than

are students with less family

involvement in their schooling.

Recent survey data indicate that

parents strongly support school-based

after-school programs that include

expanded learning opportunities and

enrichment and recreational activities.

After-school programs can also

contribute to school safety by providing

supervised programs for young people

to attend after the regular school day.

Goals 2000 and the ESEA support a

variety of approaches to helping

families become active partners in their

children’s education, including Even

Start family literacy programs, Goals

2000 parent centers, and school-parent

compacts under Title I. The Safe and

Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Act (ESEA, Title IV), first enacted in

1986, has been the Federal

Government’s major effort in the area of

drug education and prevention. It

promotes comprehensive drug and

violence prevention strategies for

making schools and neighborhoods safe

and drug free. The 21st Century

Community Learning Centers program

funds community learning centers that

include after-school programs.

Equally important to the activities

going on in a school is the physical

condition of the school building itself.

A 1995 study by the GAO found serious

and widespread problems in school

facilities across the country. These

problems ranged from overcrowding

and structural failures to inadequate

electrical and plumbing systems.

Further, the GAO found that many

States and local school districts were

unable or unprepared to meet the costs

of improving these facilities.

15. Are there changes to the Safe and

Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Act that would encourage the

implementation of more effective,

research-based drug and violence

prevention programs?

16. Are there changes to Federal

statutes that would strengthen the

ability of Federal education programs to

assist families in their efforts to be

active partners in their children’s

education? For example, could the

current Title I requirement for schoolparent 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, firstserved 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 30061

The dates and location of the four

regional meetings appear below. The

Department of Education has reserved a

limited number of rooms at each of the

following hotels at a special government

per diem room rate (Boston’s Park Plaza

Hotel does not have a special

government per diem room rate). To

reserve these rates, be certain to inform

the hotel that you are attending the

reauthorization hearings with the

Department of Education.

The meeting sites are accessible to

individuals with disabilities. An

individual with a disability who will

need an auxiliary aid or service to

participate in the meeting (e.g.,

interpreting service, assistive listening

device, or materials in an alternate

format) should notify the contact person

listed in this notice at least two weeks

before the scheduled meeting date.

Although the Department will attempt

to meet a request received after that

date, the requested auxiliary aid or

service may not be available because of

insufficient time to arrange it.

Dates, Times, and Locations of Regional

Meetings

1. July 8, 1998, 1:30–5:30 p.m., Hotel

Inter-Continental Los Angeles, 251

South Olive Street, Los Angeles,

California; 1–213–617–3300 and ask for

reservations. Room reservations must be

made by June 17.

2. July 10, 1998, 1:30–5:30 p.m.,

Radisson Hotel & Suites, 160 East Huron

Street, Chicago, Illinois, 1–312–787–

2900, and ask for reservations. Room

reservations must be made by June 19.

3. July 13, 1998, 1:30–5:30 p.m., Park

Plaza Hotel, 64 Arlington Street, Boston,

Massachusetts, 1–617–426–2000, and

ask for reservations. Room reservations

must be made by June 22.

4. July 15, 1998, 1:30–5:30 p.m.,

Terrace Garden Hotel, 3405 Lenox Road,

N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, 1–404–261–9250,

and ask for reservations. Room

reservations must be made by June 24.

FORMAT FOR COMMENT: This request for

comments is designed to elicit the views

of interested parties on how the

Department’s elementary and secondary

education programs can be structured to

meet the objectives of the

reauthorization as stated in this notice.

The Secretary requests that each

respondent identify his or her role in

education and the perspective from

which he or she views the educational

system—either as a representative of an

association, agency, or school (public or

private), or as an individual teacher,

student, parent, or private citizen.

The Secretary urges each commenter

to identify the specific question being

responded to by number, to be specific

regarding his or her proposals, and to

include, if possible, the data

requirements, procedures, and actual

legislative language that the commenter

proposes for the improvement or

redesign of programs.

Richard W. Riley,

Secretary of Education.

Existing Programs and Related

Provisions Under the Scope of the

ESEA/Goals 2000 Reauthorization

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Title III—State and Local Education

Systemic Improvement

Title IV—Parental Assistance

Title V—National Skill Standards Board

Title VI—International Education

Program

Title VIII—Minority-Focused Civics

Education

Title X—Miscellaneous

Section 1011—School Prayer

Section 1018—Contraceptive Devices

Section 1019—Assessment

Section 1020—Public Schools

Section 1022—Sense of the Congress

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965

Title I—Helping Disadvantaged

Children Meet High Standards

Part A—Improving Basic Programs

Operated by LEAs

Part B—Even Start Family Literacy

Programs

Part C—Education of Migratory

Children

Part D—Prevention and Intervention

Programs for Children and Youth

Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or

At-Risk of Dropping Out

Part E—Federal Evaluations,

Demonstrations, and Transition

Projects

Part F—General Provisions

Title II—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Professional Development Program

Part A—Federal Activities

Part B—State and Local Activities

Part C—Professional Development

Demonstration Project

Title III—Technology for Education

Part A—Technology for Education of

All Students

Subpart 1—National Programs for

Technology in Education

Subpart 2—State and Local Programs

for School Technology Resources

Subpart 3—Regional Technical

Support and Professional

Development

Subpart 4—Product Development

Part B—Star Schools Program

Part C—Ready-to-Learn Television

Part D—Telecommunications

Demonstration Project for

Mathematics

Part E—Elementary Mathematics and

Science Equipment Program

Title IV—Safe and Drug-Free Schools

and Communities

Part A—State Grants for Drug and

Violence Prevention Programs

Subpart 1—State Grants for Drug and

Violence Prevention Programs

Subpart 2—National Programs

Title V—Promoting Equity

Part A—Magnet Schools Assistance

Part B—Women’s Educational Equity

Part C—Assistance to Address School

Dropout Problems

Title VI—Innovative Education Program

Strategies

Title VII—Bilingual Education,

Language Enhancement, and

Language Acquisition Programs

Part A—Bilingual Education

Subpart 1—Bilingual Education

Capacity and Demonstration Grants

Subpart 2—Research, Evaluation, and

Dissemination

Subpart 3—Professional Development

Part B—Foreign Language Assistance

Program

Part C—Emergency Immigrant

Education Program

Part D—Administration

Title VIII—Impact Aid

Title IX—Indian, Native Hawaiian, and

Alaska Native Education

Part A—Indian Education

Subpart 1—Formula Grants to LEAs

Subpart 2—Special Programs and

Projects to Improve Educational

Opportunities for Indian Children

Subpart 3—Special Programs Relating

to Adult Education for Indians

Subpart 4—National Research

Activities

Subpart 5—Federal Administration

Subpart 6—Definitions

Part B—Native Hawaiians

Part C—Alaska Native Education

Title X—Programs of National

Significance

Part A—Fund for the Improvement of

Education

Part B—Gifted and Talented Children

Part C—Public Charter Schools

Part D—Arts in Education

Subpart 1—Arts in Education

Subpart 2—Cultural Partnerships for

At-Risk Children and Youth

Part E—Inexpensive Book

Distribution Program

Part F—Civic Education

Part G—Allen J. Ellender Fellowship

Program

Part H—DeLugo Territorial Education

Improvement Program

Part I—21st Century Community

Learning Centers

Part J—Urban and Rural Education

Assistance

Part K—National Writing Project

Part L—The Extended Time for
30062 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

Learning and Longer School Year

Part M—Territorial Assistance

Title XI—Coordinated Services

Title XII—School Facilities

Infrastructure Improvement Act

Title XIII—Support and Assistance

Programs to Improve Education

Part A—Comprehensive Regional

Assistance Centers

Part B—National Diffusion Network

Part C—Eisenhower Regional

Mathematics and Science Education

Consortia

Part D—Technology-Based Technical

Assistance

Title XIV—General Provisions

Part A—Definitions

Part B—Flexibility in the Use of

Administrative and other Funds

Part C—Coordination of Programs;

Consolidated State and Local Plans

and Applications

Part D—Waivers

Part E—Uniform Provisions

Part F—Gun Possession

Part G—Evaluations

Title VII, Subtitle B, Stewart B.

McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

[FR Doc. 98–14546 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P