THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, May 1, 1996 TAG: 9605010003
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: ANOTHER VIEW
SOURCE: By MICHELLE EASTON
LENGTH: Medium: 78 lines
In ``Why is this deal bad?'' (editorial, April 17), you requested reasons for Gov. George Allen's objection to the federal Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
First, before any local school division may receive a grant under the Goals 2000 law, the local school board must commit to develop, and submit for state approval, a ``local improvement plan,'' that satisfies the requirements of the federal law. The following are a few of the requirements of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
The local school board must create a broad-based panel, comprised as specified in the federal law to develop the local improvement plan. Section 309 (a) (3) (A) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
The panel established pursuant to section 309 (a) (3) (A) of the Goals 2000 law must continue in existence after development of the ``local improvement plan'' and review the plan and the progress made and must determine if revisions in the plan should be recommended to the local school board, and must ``periodically report such determination to the public.''
The local improvement plan must describe how the local school board will implement specific programs for: ``identifying the most pressing needs facing students and their families with regard to social services, health care, nutrition and child care and entering into partnerships with public and private nonprofit agencies to increase the access of students and families to coordinated nonsectarian services in a school setting or at a nearby site.''
Second, the federal strings are numerous. The federal legislation requires that grants to local school divisions be awarded on a competitive basis and there is no guarantee that all divisions that apply will receive grants, nor has the amount of any grant yet been determined. In fact, funding for the Washington-based program is questionable at best for the next fiscal year given that Congress has not settled on a final budget that includes money for the Goals 2000 act.
Third, Goals 2000 goes against the principled statement adopted at the National Education Summit last March. The statement, largely influenced by Governor Allen, rejects nationally imposed education standards and goals and emphasizes the importance of bringing about change from the grass-roots level - with states, local communities, parents and teachers guiding local education policy.
Fourth, after careful review and consideration, the Virginia Board of Education has adopted a resolution urging the governor to veto the budget provision in House Bill 30 regarding Goals 2000. In that resolution, the board recognized that, despite assurances of flexibility, the U.S. Secretary of Education has no legal authority to waive any requirements imposed by Congress in the Goals 2000 law. Finally, the Virginia legislature also endorsed the governor's actions by failing to override the governor's veto of the Goals 2000 mandate in the biennial budget.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other states which are experiencing our same concerns with accepting Goals 2000 funds. Alabama, Montana and New Hampshire also believe the federal Goals 2000 program is far less than the cure-all for everything that ails public education. No strings attached you say? Consider California - a state that accepted $42 million in second-year funding from the Goals 2000 program. They are finding the accompanying federal dictates to be intrusive and meddlesome in their local schools.
But, like an unsuspecting fly caught in a spider's web - many of these states and local schools are struggling to escape the entanglements of the federal Goals 2000 program. A smarter approach to avoid such strings would have been for these states to follow the example set by Virginia and New Hampshire and avoid Goals 2000 in the first place. MEMO: Michelle Easton is president of the Virginia State Board of
Education.Editor's note: U.S. Department of Education officials who
administer Goals 2000 say local improvement plans are required for only
one of three types of local grants. Ms. Easton, in consultation with
state education officials and the governor's legal staff, sticks by her
interpretation.
by CNB