Thomas: Legislative Information
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:17:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Fredb001@aol.com To: JoanEB001@aol.com Subject: Fwd: HR 1853 Analysis
--------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: HR 1853 Analysis Date: 97-06-21 16:06:17 EDT From: KHolg10296 To: Fredb001
Fred, Please forward the following analysis to the loop for me.
Thanks, Karen Holgate
Dear Loopies, Remember last year when we said that CAREERS would not come back as a single bill? Well it's important to view this bill HR 1853 (Riggs) in tandem with McKeon's HR 1385. They work together. Notice Benchmarks. In McKeon's bill he talks about "negotiated benchmarks". It means the Secretary will negotiate with the State on the benchmarks required to earn federal dollars. In Rigg's bill this is the hotly debated issue.
Last week Riggs pulled his bill from Committee because he is "negotiating" with Clay (who has just introduced Clinton's version of the reauthorization of Carl D. Perkins Act -- bill HR 1803) over Benchmarks. Clay was going to introduce an amendment which would have mandated that the Secretary establish "model" benchmarks for the states to follow. Clay and Riggs are negotiating on this section now. Benchmarks could include any and/or all of STW mandates. Watch it closely!
Analysis of HR 1853 by Karen Holgate PARENTS NATIONAL NETWORK
While this Act certainly is not the CAREERS Act, it does contain several provisions that should be opposed in the strongest terms possible! These provisions establish the framework for more intrusive forms of government control over an economy driven free society - and - will lower the quality of academic achievement. These areas include: integration of academics, Benchmarks, LEAs, Consortiums and School-to-Work [STW] language in defining Voc-Tech education.
Sec. 113. STATE APPLICATION. (5)(b)(4)(A) "...includes strengthening the academic component of vocational-technical education programs through the inte gration of academics with vocational- technical education to ensure learning in the core academic subjects;..." (B) "...ensure that students who participate in such vocational-technical education programs are taught to the same challenging academic proficiencies are provided for all other students."
Question: How does integration strengthen curricula? Rather than integrate academics with vocational-technical, shouldn't students be required to have a sound knowledge of academics before they do anything else? If the Voc Ed students are spending part time in class -- doesn't it stand to reason that it would be impossible for them to attain the same challenging academic proficiencies as those taking full time academics?
Sec. 114. ACCOUNTABILITY. (a) BENCHMARKS- "To be eligible to receive an allotment...a State shall develop and identify...proposed quantifiable benchmarks..." (b) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND SANCTIONS- (1) "If a State fails to meet its State benchmarks...the State shall develop a program improvement plan for the succeeding program year in order to avoid a sanction..."
Comment: This is the most troubling section. If the State is really expected to come up with their own "benchmarks" then why is the federal government going to exercise "sanctions" if the State doesn't perform according to federal requirements? This is not real blockgranting of moneys with no federal strings or control attached. The argument over this section is currently centered on how these benchmarks will be determined. Some "members" are trying to introduce an amendment that will mandate the Department of Education to develop "model" benchmarks for use by States. Another idea is for "the" Secretary to negotiate with the States. The emphasis here is that the Federal government wants to control these VERY IMPORTANT BENCHMARKS! Watch this section carefully!
Sec. 222. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO SECONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS. (a) GENERAL RULE- "...each state shall distribute the funds available...to local education agencies..."
Comment: A local education agency (LEA) actually turns each school into its own site based managed business. Each school can directly apply for federal grant money; it gives the appearance of local control; yet the only way for a LEA to collect funds from the federal government is by accepting the federal mandates that come with that funding. This is not local control. It's federal control through federal dollars. Warning: Any school board member who endorses this bill or any STW policy only endorses their own demise.
(g) CONSORTIUM RQUIREMENTS- (1) "Any local education agency (LEA) receiving an allocation that is not sufficient to conduct a program which meets the requirements of section 225 is encouraged to—(A)form a consortium or enter into a cooperative agreement..."
Comment: Consortiums are even bigger and can join together to circumvent locally elected school board members. In discussing consortiums, Phyllis Schlafly said: "Twenty suburban Chicago school districts have been surreptitiously combined to form what Clinton praised as the First in the World Consortium. This Consortium has already received $450,000 of federal Goals 2000 financing, and the contract gives total authority over future financing and personnel decisions to the 20 superintendents who have constituted themselves as the board of directors...Completely excluded from the governing process are the 20 elected school boards."
Sec. 301. EVALUATION; RESEARCH; DEMONSTRATIONS; AND DISSEMINATION. (a) SINGLE PLAN- (1) IN GENERAL- "The Secretary shall develop a single plan for evaluation and assessment, research, demonstrations, and dissemination with regard to the vocational-technical educated programs assisted under this Act."
Comment: Single Plan (Enough said)
Sec. 421. DEFINITIONS. (5) COOPERATIVE EDUCATION- "...means a method of instruction for individuals who, through written cooperative arrangements between a school and employers, receive instruction, including required academic courses and related instruction, by alternation of study in school with a job in any occupation field, which alternation shall be planned and supervised by the school and employer so that each contributes to the education and employability of the individual, and may include an arrangement in which work periods and school attendance may be on alternate half days, full days, weeks,..."
Comment: A work experience teacher in California, who is very pro-vocational education, has stated emphatically that no student should spend more than 15 hours per week at a work-based site; to do so, consigns that student to a lowered academic education! This same teacher is already reporting child labor law violations; she is extremely concerned that low-income parents are encouraging their children to participate in these programs for the immediate cash flow to the household rather than concentrating on the overall education level of their own children.
Maine has implemented a program in which a participating student spends 40 hours in school and 40 hours at work. How does spending ½ time in class raise the academic level of students? (17) VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION- (B) "include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, and occupation-specific skills, of an individual."
Comment: Whoops! Did STW language just happen to find its way in here? How did that happen? This isn't a STW bill—according to the author. Hmmm... -end-