A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

I. Goals 2000: History

The Legislation

In the late 1980s the focus in education changed from "seat time" and quantity of courses to the quality of curriculum and instruction and their results. Attention turned to the "common-sense notion that student efforts and achievement are directly affected by expectations set by parents, teachers, schools, and the society at large." (Improving Education Through Standards-Based Reform, National Academy of Education, 1995.) Following the 1989 Education Summit, the National Governors' Association and the President adopted the National Education Goals, and the State-led education reform movement gained momentum. State and local officials, educators, parents, and community and business leaders joined in a commitment to raise the academic achievement of all students.

That commitment was energized on March 31, 1994, when the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was signed into law. Goals 2000 awards grants to participating States and districts to support communities in the development and implementation of their own standards-based education reforms. (See Appendix A for State allocations.)

The authorization of Goals 2000 was based on recognition of fundamental principles that underlie effective school change: 1) all students can learn; 2) lasting improvements depend on school-based leadership; 3) simultaneous top-down and bottom-up reform is necessary; 4) strategies must be locally developed, comprehensive, and coordinated; and 5) the whole community must be involved in developing strategies for system-wide improvement (Title III. Sec. 301. Findings). As a result, Goals 2000 legislation and State and local implementation concentrate on comprehensive change, school improvement, and achievement for all children.

Goals 2000 supports the development and implementation of State standards for student learning and achievement that drive systemic improvement at the various levels. Goals 2000 therefore supports the development of comprehensive reform plans for adopting high student standards and for aligning assessments and accountability, professional development efforts, and broad community involvement and coordination. Goals 2000 awards support implementation of reform plans both at the State and local level, through subgrants to districts and consortia of districts.

Amendments

• An Alternative Submission provision under which States were no longer required to submit their Goals 2000 plans to the Secretary for review and approval, but remained accountable to the citizens of the State. The provision enabled the State to submit to the Secretary assurances that a plan meeting the requirements of Goals 2000 had been developed, as well as benchmarks and time lines for implementation of the plan and for improved student performance. While this provision refocuses the accountability provisions of the legislation, it does not change the framework for the standards-based reform plans States develop and implement under Goals 2000.

• A provision, applicable in States not participating in Goals 2000 as of October 25, 1995 (Alabama, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Virginia), permitting districts to apply directly to the Secretary for funding, provided they have gained the State education agency's approval to participate.

• Provisions eliminating requirements for the specific composition of Goals 2000 State and local panels; reaffirming that Goals 2000 funding could be used for purposes related to improving educational technology; and expanding from six to twelve the number of States eligible to participate in the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex). (See Appendix B for details.)

Since the passage of the 1996 amendments, Virginia, Alabama, and New Hampshire have joined other States participating in Goals 2000 at the State level. Oklahoma and Montana continue to allow their local districts to participate.

State Planning

Of the 48 SEAs participating in Goals 2000 (Oklahoma and Montana participate only at the local level), 26 plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have State plans that have been approved through a national peer-review process. As a result of the amendments to the law, another 21 States have--under the alternative submission option--submitted to the Department benchmarks, timelines, and assurances that they have developed comprehensive State plans. One more State, New Hampshire, has just applied for and received its first year of funding. Eight States--and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico--chose to have their plans peer-reviewed after the enactment of the alternative submission option, primarily for the benefit of the technical assistance provided by the review. Regardless of the process, all approved plans represent comprehensive statewide improvement plans consistent with the legislative requirements and the intent of Goals 2000.
 

Plans approved through peer review process	Alternative submission accepted
Alabama* Arizona* Colorado Delaware District of Colombia Georgia Hawaii* Illinois* Iowa Kansas  Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey* New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico Texas Utah Vermont Virginia* Washington* West Virginia (28 states)	Alaska Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Idaho Indiana Louisiana Maine  Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Wisconsin Wyoming (21 states)
* Each of these states submitted a state plan for peer review after the alternative submission option became available in April 1996.  New Hampshire is in the process of developing a state plan and has not yet elected an option for its submission.

-###-

[Introduction]

[II. Goals 2000: Strategic Role]