ONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
THE LIBRARY

OF coNGRE55

 

Issue Brief

'. .. ~ [
3'/\"5‘7“3<$'35rIC31(7f? E_,!,",1‘§"=._x{',‘_=;’v~..7‘-":’-<.‘v. ,

1

 

. .,A _V.»___ ‘,. _. _
.~,.._.,__‘_c ‘V1-_,.V.

 

{of Missouff . co‘..m;

///////7'//'Ii/7/7i/7/J/‘fl////////////////////////Wm/mm

O10-103940256

V
I
1

2’
I

FUTURE STATUS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB8lO2l

AUTHOR:
Jordan, K. Forbis

Senior Specialist DiViSiOI'1

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE'

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGINATED O2/l2/81
DATE UPDATED O2/O7/83

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700

O2l4

CRS- l IB8lO2l UPDATE-Q2/O7/83

f”SUE DEFINITION

xe‘ V

On Feb. 6, 1982, Secretary of Education Bell ‘announced that the
Administration would propose the creation of a Foundation for Education
Assistance without cabinet status. This statement was consistent with
President Reagan's statements concerning his wishes to abolish the Department
of Education (ED). ED was created by P.L. 96-88 and can be abolished only by
an Act of Congress. ‘

Issues related to the future status of ED include the Federal role in
education and the mission of ED. ED's opponents advocate its dissolution
because they contend that the Federal role in education should be reduced and

_that EU has encroached LIPOII State and local responsibilities fOI‘ education.

ED's proponents support ED's continuation because they ‘contend that the
Federal role is to ensure that all youth have equal access to adequate
education opportunities and that ED's cabinet status provides an effective

national forum for a discussion of educational issues. During the 97th
Congress, the Administration did not introduce any legislative proposal to
change the status of the Department of Education. In the 98th Congress,

legislative proposals have been introduced to re-create the Department of
Health, Education, and welfare (H.R. 567) and also to terminate the
Department of Education (H.R. 714). '

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

f Legislation authorizing the formation of ED was enacted in l979 (P.L.
96-88). The conference report passed the Senate by a vote of 69-22 and the
House of Representatives by a vote of 215-201. [NOTE: Earlier Senate floor
action on its version of the bill was favorable by a vote of 72-21; House
floor action on its version of the bill was favorable by a vote of 210-206.]
Impetus for the legislation came from promises made by President Carter
during the 1976 campaign; formation of the new department was strongly
supported by a variety of interest groups, with the National Education
Association being one of the principal advocates. Proponents contended that
the benefits of forming ED would be enhanced unity and coordination of the
Federal education structure, greateri visibility and influence within the
Federal Government, and the long term probability of increased Federal
funding for education.

The concept of a department of education is not new; in 1867 a Department
of Education, with no cabinet-level representation, was formed. Concern was
expressed about preservation of local control of education, and in l868 the
newly formed Department was downgraded to the status of an office in the
Department of Interior. -It became a bureau 2 years later. The Bureau of
Education regained the status of an office in l930. In 1939, the’ Office of
Education was shifted to the Federal Security Agency and was one of the units
that comprised the Department of Health, Education, and welfare (HEW) when it
was formed in I953. In 1972, Congress created the Education Division in HEW
and provided for an assistant secretary to administer the division.
Initially, the Education Division was comprised of the Office of Education
{ 1 the National Institute for Education; 2 years later, the National Center
for Education Statistics was formally established in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Education. '

CRS- 2 IB8lO2l UPDATE-OZ/07/83

Early discussions of agencies and programs to be included in a department
of education considered more education functions than were finally included
in the enacted legislation. Among programs that could have been included in
ED were education programs operated by the Department of Interior through 1%
Bureau of Indian Affairs, school lunch programs operated by the Department of

Agriculture, programs from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in addition

to those that were transferred to ED, GI Bill education programs for veterans
from the Veterans Administration, training programs from the Department of
Labor, and the Head Start programs from the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). other than the overseas schools operated by the Department
of Defense for military dependents (DODDS), part of vocational
rehabilitation, and portions of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the
principal programs included in the new Department of Education were those
from the Education Division in the old Department of Health, Education, and
welfare. The transfer of DODDS is apparently being reconsidered although- no
formal proposal has been made to repeal the portion of the -legislation
requiring the transfer. ~‘

The rationale for formation of the new department was to place in ED the
various Federal education-related activities that had been scattered among a
dozen or more existing Federal agencies. The result was to have been an
image of increased Federal commitment to education, as evident by the
creation of ED and the appointment .of a cabinet-level officer solely
responsible for education. Discussions on the scope of. operation of the
Department ranged from a simple upgrading of the Education Division in HEW to
shifting all education-related activities and functions to ED. Merely
converting the old Education Division to Department status was questioned;
critics contended that this would not improve coordination of education
programs nor would it have any substantial impact on educational policic
During the hearings on the proposed legislation, various interest groups
testified against inclusion of specific programs and activities in the new
department. Their position differed from that of supporters of the
Department who wanted all Federal education programs consolidated into. a
single agency. Opposition on the part of the first group may have
contributed to the "stripped-down" version of the Department proposed by the
Carter Administration and authorized in the legislation.

Funding for existing programs in the Department of Education was
approximately $15 billion for FY81. In addition to grant and loan programs

for postsecondary education students attending a variety Of institutions from;

colleges and universities to trade schools, various levels of funding are
provided for thousands of local school districts. Programs include large

formula grant programs such as compensatory education, education Of the‘

handicapped, vocational education, and impact aid; discretionary programs to
encourage innovation; and relatively small developmental or demonstration
programs such as metric education, environmental education, and law-related
education.

Congressional intent with respect to the new Department's role and powers
relative to State and local authorities was stated rather clearly in section
lol of P.L. 96-88:

In our Federal system, the primary public responsibility
for education is reserved respectively to the States and
the local school systems and other instrumentalities of
the States.,

-.._

’cRs- 3 IB8lD2l UPDATE-O2/07/83

0

Senate report no. 96-49 indicates that

( the intent of the legislation was not to increase the

authority of the Federal government or to diminish the
responsibility of States and localities, but was to protect
the rights of States and localities relative to such matters
as educational policies, administration of programs,
competency testing, and selection of curriculum and program
content. x ‘

Section 103 of H.R. 13778 stipulated that no provision of the legislation was
to be,construed as authorizing

the Secretary or officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over curriculum, program of
instruction, administration or personnel ... or over the
selection of library resources, textbooks, or other
instructional materials ... except to the extent explicitly
authorized by statute.

«The conference report (S.Rept. 96-326) indicates that the conference

agreement is a combination of the action of the two Houses of Congress
relative to restating the responsibilities of istates and localities and
prohibiting the Secretary from interfering with local prerogatives. One of
the points made by those advocating the dissolution of ED is that provisions
of the proposed regulations concerning bilingual education, which were issued
after ED was established, represent an action that could be construed as

stating local school programs of instruction or curriculum. (These were
rescinded by ED Secretary Bell on Jan. 30, 1981.)

Concerns about Federal control" of education being a result of the
formation of ED were also enhanced when Carter Administration officials from
ED and the Department of Justice indicated that ED would ignore congressional
vetoes of four sets of regulations concerning education programs. [NOTE: In

~May 1980, final action was taken by both Houses of Congress to disapprove

regulations related to (l) grants to States for educational improvement,
resources, and support authorized under Title IV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended [SCR 91]; (2) the Education
Appeal Board [HCR 318]; (3) the Arts in Education Program [HCR 319]; and (4)

the Law Related Education Program [HCR 332]. In each instance, the
contention was that the regulations permitted action that was contrary to
congressional intent. The following points were at issue -— for Title IV,

the use of funds to purchase physical education equipment; for the Education
Appeal Board, an extension of time to submit applications for review; for the
Arts in Education Program, a matching requirement and program restrictions;
and for Law Related Education, matching requirements and time limits on the

period for which grants can be received.] Reasons for the congressional
action differed with each set of regulations, but the official position was
that the congressional veto action would be ignored. Informally, issues

concerning three of the sets of regulations were resolved, but the official
position was maintained. This position was taken even though President
Carter had signed some of the bills that had included the provisions on which
(*9 congressional vetoes were based. Individuals who had expressed concern
about possible arbitrary actions by the new Department viewed this as
illustrative of potential problems with ED not operating in accordance with
congressional intent.

CRS- 4 IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/83

ISSUES

Among the various-issues related to decisions concerning the future status
of ED are the Federal role in education and mission of ED.

Federal Role in Education

The fact that education is not.mentioned in the Constitution of the United
States has been interpreted to mean that education is a function primarily
reserved for the States. The pattern of States having responsibility for
education has been reinforced by State legislative action to form local
school districts that are responsible for the daily operation of schools.
There is no uniform Federal code for school operations; the governance
structure consists of State statutes, rules, and regulations that provide a
framework through which local school districts adopt policies and
administrative provisions for school operation. The typical pattern has been
for the State to establish minimum standards concerning education programs
and additional areas such as facilities, library materials, instructional
resources, and staff. I

The pattern for the governance of American public education -is unique
among the Nations of the world in that no national ministry of education
monitors school operation throughout the Nation. The historic role of the
Federal Government has been (1) to stimulate certain programs and activities
through research and dissemination activities, demonstration projects, and
categorical aids, and (2) to gather and disseminate data about. educatio'
Recently, Federal education activities have also included activities intendei
to protect civil rights in areas such as desegregation, sex equity, and
bilingual education.

The historic context forms the basis for discussing the existence or the
appropriateness of a Federal policy for education, and the proper type of
organization for implementing that ‘policy. During the debate over the
enactment of the legislation authorizing the formation of ED, a major concern
was the possibility that the new department would lead inevitably to the
Federal Government assuming a more active role concerning education. Critics
of the department contended that its creation would contribute to the
formulation of de facto Federal policy concerning education. The implication
seemed to be that a Federal policy would naturally evolve as a result of the
creation of ED and the appointment of a cabinet-level secretary to head the
agency. The contention was that, prior to the formation of ED, Federl
education policy should have been formulated through public debate a
deliberations to provide direction to the agency. .

The national interest in assuringcthat an educated populace is maintained,
the role that the Federal revenue raising system could play in reducing the
differences in educational expenditures among States, and the national
interest in assuring that all American youth have access to an adequate
education are among the justifications for an increased Federal role in
education. From the earliest days of the Nation, stress has been placed on
the importance of an educated citizenry in maintaining the American form A“?
government; as the population has become more mobile, pressures have be J
placed on the Federal Government to assume a more active role in assuring
that an adequate education is provided for all citizens. Pressures for tax
relief in States and localities have focused increased attention on the

CRS- 5 IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/83

differences in education funding levels among the States, and various
advocates have contended that Federal funds should be used to eliminate these
differences. The Federal interest in equal access to an adequate education
5 illustrated in the various Federal programs initiated as responses to
},rceived national problems, e.g., the educational needs of poverty and

vhandicapped children, the need for additional scientists and engineers, and

the shortage of persons trained in vocational skills for the workforce.

MiSSiO1’1 Of the Department Of Education

Among the unanswered questions as to the mission of ED are whether the
Federal Government through ED should assume leadership responsibility for the
development and communication of a national policy for education or should
leave the development of educational policy to State and local governments;
whether ED should be the agency responsible for developing, adopting,
monitoring, and enforcing various civil rights and affirmative action
programs and activities related to education and operation of educational
institutions; whether ED should become a quality control monitoring agency on
student performance for all education activities and institutions in the
United States; whether ED should serve as the central grant dispensing agency
for the full range of multiple Federal education programs and activities;
whether ED should become the operating agency for the various schools
directly funded by the Federal Government, e.g., military academies, Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) operated schools for Indian children, and overseas
schools for DODDS; whether ED should serve as the funding agency for
federally supported but not federally administered institutions such as
Gallaudet College, Howard University, American Printing House for the. Blind,
and National Technical Institute for the Deaf; or whether ED should limit its
. ;ivities to gathering and reporting data and statistics about education in
the United States. These questions illustrate some of the complexities
involved in determining the appropriate mission for a Federal education
agency.

with the legislatively required transfer of responsibility for the
operation of overseas schools for dependents of Department of Defense
personnel, ED would become an operating agency for schools educating
approximately l40,000 elementary and secondary students scattered‘ throughout
the world on military bases, some of which are in very isolated areas. One
of the continuing concerns is that these schools might be used as test

icenters for various demonstration programs advocated by ED, or as sites for

determining the potential impact of various ED regulations. The principal
justification for including DODDS in ED was that the primary mission of the
Department of Defense was not related -to education; consequently, it was
argued that the schools did not receive the level of attention that was
needed for their continued operation improvement. However, the schools are
heavily dependent upon the Department of Defense for various types of
logistical support and are an integral part of the military community in

overseas stations.

Schools
(DoDDS) to the Department of Education has not been resolved. Originally
scheduled no later than May 1983, the transfer has been delayed until May
984, under the provisions of P.L. 97-252 (FY83 Department of Defense

horization).

The issue of whether to include in ED all research, development and
demonstration grants as well as individual grants for research and training

‘An additional $225

,Institute for the Deaf, and American Printing House for the Blind.

IB8lO2l UPDATE-D2/O7/83

CRS- 6
related to educatipn was generally resolved in favor of leaving those
activities in the non-ED agencies identified with the substantative areas,
e.g., agriculture, energy. medical research, and the National

Science
Foundation (NSF). ’

OPTIONS FOR ACTION

In President Reagan's Sept. 24, 1981, speech about additional cuts in the
FY82 budget, he proposed that the Department of Education (ED) be abolished

,and that its functions be distributed among other governmental agencies or to

an agency with non-cabinet status. The White House press release stated the
following justifications for the proposal:

"Education is primarily a State and local responsibility.

Creation of ED symbolized the progressive intrusion of the Federal
Government into an educational system that had traditionally
drawn its strength from diversity, adaptability, and local
control. -

The Administration has already taken major steps to reverse the
trend of rising Federal involvement and control over
education.’ Regulations have been reduced, and‘narrow,
special purpose programs have been consolidated into block
grants. ‘

The organizational arrangements for Federal support for education
to be proposed will emphasize assistance_and discourage

Federal intervention."

current

Under the proposal, ED would cease to exist, and ED's functions
would be transferred to one or more other Federal agencies. HA proposal has
not been presented to the Congress, but reports indicate that various
functions and programsi would be assigned to existing Federal agencies.
Statements about the proposal have not indicated nthat any current Federal
programs would be terminated.

Potential savings under the proposal would be very limited, for

appreciable savings can only be achieved by termination of the various grant
and loan programs administered by ED. The House Appropriations Committee has
recommended a budget of $15 billion for ED in FY83, but about $14.5 billion
of these funds are for various grant and loan programs to ystate and local
educational agencies and higher education students and institutions. Not all
of this difference could be saved, for much of the recommended $222 million
for departmental management is for administration of existing programs, and
$44.8 million is for salaries-and expenses of the Office for Civil Rights.
million is provided in the ED budget for "special
institutions" such as Howard University,, Gallaudet College,

From the policy perspective, five broad choices are
likely will be considered as the future of ED is deliberated.
could be retained as a cabinet-level agency. Second, the agency
downgraded to a division of another cabinet-level agency, as previously
it was a part of HEW., Third, the agency could lose its cabinet

F1‘

those tha
First, D

among

status and

National

could be"
when.

CRS- 7 T IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/83

remain an independent Federal agency. Fourth, ED programs and activities
could be spread among a variety of Federal agencies. Fifth, FD could be
disbanded with its functions being either terminated or assumed by
V asi-public institutions.

Even though various positions have been expressed in favor of disbanding
ED, consideration might be given to retaining ED in its present form. -Some
would contend that the new agency has not been in existence for a sufficient
period of time for an adequate evaluation to be made of the need for ED or of
its effectiveness. The point might also be made that many issues perceived

-to be problems are related to legislative requirements of programs and

activities that have been assigned to ED and not to the creation of ED
itself. For example, regulations concerning affirmative action and
desegregation monitoring activities began with _the implementation of the
Civil Rights Act of l964 and with other legislation by the previous Office of

dEducation, not with ED's formation. Such actions may be influenced by the

policy of a particular Administration, and may therefore change in character
with a shift in the Administration, or may have been taken because of
legislative requirements associated with Federal programs or congressional
actions. (Even observers who do not seek a more active Federal role in
education may support retention of the Department because the status and
visibility accorded to a cabinet pposition results in a focal point Ffor
responsibility and accountability for various actions taken by ‘ED. If the
agency were disbanded, programs-might be scattered throughout other Federal
agencies, and responsibility would be difficult to affix.)

Transferring ED into another cabinet-level agency would be contrary to one
of the reasons generally accepted for the formation of the agency -- that
better coordination of Federal education activities was needed. The debate
fwuld be over which agency should absorb ED. The entire department could be
transferred as a unit to another Federal agency such as the Department of
Interior or the DHHS, but this action would be in conflict with some of the
program management and administrative justifications given for the creation
of ED by the 96th Congress (i.e., that education issues receive insufficient
attention when administered by an agency in a much larger organization that
does not consider education to be a primary function).

If the goal were to reduce Federal emphasis on education, but to retain
some Federal education programs or activities, ED could be downgraded to a
sub—cabinet status. Various other Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade
Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, National Science Foundation,
National Aeronautics and Epace Administration, and . Federal Aviation
Administration are in this category. Many of the agencies included. in the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had an independent status at
one time. Various concerns may be raised about the independent agency
option. ‘First, most of the independent agencies have some type of governing
or advisory body that sets policy, promulgates regulations, or provides
overall direction for the agency.’ This structure might result in neither the

Congress nor the President having the type of control .and review over the
agency and its activities as under the existing organization or ~under pan
option in which ED would become part of another Fe eralp agency. In

education, this governing body might be construed by some as the first. step
toward a national school board or as an effort to expand Federal control and

‘regulation over education ,beyond the administration of existing Federal

( >grams.i Second, if the assumption is that private funding might be secured

under the model of an independent foundation, this might enable the agency to

evade personnel ceilings and normal government employment procedures as well
as to fund various research or promotional activities not in.accordance with

CRS* 8 IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/83

national policy. In essence, this arrangement could result in the
"foundation" having all of the status and privileges of a Federal ageeny
without the normal accountability requirements and Wpublic responsibilities
related thereto.  i

If the choice were to transfer activities to other agencies (for example,
statistical activities could be assumed by the Department of Commerce), some
programs (e.g., vocational education) could be transferred to the Department
of Labor, others to the DHHS; some might be terminated; and other activities
(e.g., civil rights enforcement) could be transferred to the Department of
Justice. The principal concern with this option is the impact that it would
have on local and State educational agencies. At the moment, their concern
is excessive controls and a paperwork burden; this option with its inherent
lack of coordination and potential for duplicative requirements would be in
direct conflict with the interest in greater efficiency, increased
flexibility, and reduced burdens on local and State agencies that operate
federally funded programs. - ‘

Disbanding the agency and terminating formal agency responsibility for

Federal education activities and programs is the fifth option. Statistical
reports about education could be gathered by non-Federal agencies, and civil
rights enforcement could be attained through the judicial system. Existing

Federal grant programs could be terminated. This would be the exact reverse
of the increased attention to be given education at the Federal level with
the creation of a department with cabinet status. Disbanding ED would
suggest a significant de-emphasis or’ possible elimination of all Federal
education roles, programs, and activities.

During the 97th Congress, proposals concerning the future of ED we ‘

introduced in both the House and the Senate. The introduced bills rang_i
from termination of ED with the President being charged to ‘submit a
reorganization plan to the Congress for the transfer of ED's functions, to

merger of the ED with the Department of Health and Human Services to recreate

.the Department of Health, Education, and welfare. Another option would have

terminated ED, transferred some programs to other Federal agencies, and
created a new Federal non-cabinet agency.

On Feb. 6, 1982, Secretary of Education Bell announced that the
Administration would be proposing that the Department of Education be
abolished and that a Foundation for Education Assistance (FEA) without
cabinet status be created. The FEA would administer block grants and
consolidated aid to State and local educational agencies; postsecondary
education student financial aid through grants and loans; compensatory
education for the disadvantaged, handicapped, and other groups;
informational, statistical, and research services for education;' and civil
rights complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and negotiations for
voluntary compliance.

Under the proposal, the current Department o
dismantled, with the new FEA administered by a p sidentially appointed and
Senate confirmed Director. The PEA would retain 8 programs with an FY83
proposed budget of $8.8 billion and have a staff of 4,800, a reduction of

f Education (ED) would be
r

1,400 from FY81. The proposal calls for the transfer of 28 current Federals

education programs to other Federal agencies, the retention of the oversens
dependents schools in the Department of Defense, and the transfer of cix i
rights enforcement responsibilities to the Department of Justice. Other
programs to be transferred include rehabilitative services, international
education, impact aid, college housing and higher education facilities’ aid,

CRS- 9 IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/Bfi

minority institutions science improvement programs, and Indian education
programs. Existing ED regional offices would be abolished; 23 existing
Federal education programs would be terminated; and ll current Federal boards
and commissions would be abolished. Secretary Bell also indicated’ that the

gulatory authority of the new Foundation would be limited to items legally
required or necessary.

In the Feb. 6 press conference, Secretary Bell indicated that he
anticipated a tough battle in the Congress in efforts to create the
Foundation, but thought the Administration would be successful. Bell also
indicated that the concept of the Foundation might not please either the
advocates for an increased Federal role or those who wanted a reduced Federal
role. Bell contended that he wanted to retain a Federal "house" for
education in Washington.

98TH CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Proposals concerning the future status of the Department of Education have
been introduced in the House of Representatives. On Jan. 6, 1983, two
proposals were introduced. H.R. 567 (Erlenborn) provides for the re-creation
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by merging the merging
the Department of Education with the Department of Health and Human Services.
H.R. 714 (Whitehurst et al.) terminates the _Department of Education and
requires the President to submit a plan for the transfer of the Department's
functions. '

fsIsLATIoN

.H.R. 567 (Erlenborn)

Re—creates the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by combining
the Department of Education with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Introduced on Jan. 6, 1983; referred to Committee on Government Operations.

H.R. 714 (whitehurst et al.)
Terminates the Department of Education and contains provisions relative to
the President submitting a plan for disposition to the Congress. Introduced

Jan. 6, l983; jointly referred to Committees on Government Operations and
Rules. ‘

REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS

Carter, Jimmy. Establishment of a department of education.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 25 p. (96th Congress,
lst session. House. Document no. 96-52) ‘

Department of Education Organization Act, ..R. "44. Debate and vote
in the House. ,Congressional record (daily ed.] v. 125, June 7,
1979: H4215-H4242, H4259-H4266; June ll, l979:

H4308-H4336; June 12, 1979; H4362-4402; June 13, 1979:
H4452—H449l; June l9, 1979: _
H4742—H4749, H4772-H4779; July ll, 1979: H569l—H5726; and
Sept. 27, I979: H8593-H8609. *

cns-10 IB8102l UPDATE-02/O7/83

Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, S. 210; Debate
and vote in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] ,
v. 125, Apr. 5, 1979: s4o97—s4132; Apr. 9, 1979: s4157-s4171;
Apr. 10, 1979: S4263, S4265-S4269; Apr. 26, 1979: S4761-S4802;
Apr. 30, 1979: S4859-S4907; Sept. 24, 1979: S13256-s13264.

Department of Education Organization Act of 1978, S. 991. Debate and
vote in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 124,
 Sept. 19, 1978: 915381-S15404, and Sept. 28, 1978: Sl6439-S16494.

Ribicoff, Abraham., S. 210, a bill to establish a department of
education. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Jan. 24,
1979:‘ S576-S590.

-—--— S. 510, Department of Education Organization Act. Congressional
record [daily ed.] v. 125, Mar. 1, 1979: s1945-s1953.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Department
‘ of Education Organization Act; report to accompany H.R. 13778.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 49 p. (95th Congress,
2d session. House. Report no. 95-1531) ' ’

----- Department of Education Organization Act; report to accompany
-H.R. 2444. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 74 p.
(96th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 96-143)

-—--— Department of Education Organization Act; conference report
to accompany S. 210. Washington,’ U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,‘
1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 96-459)

U.S. Congress.‘ Senate. committee on Governmental Affairs.
Department of Education Organization Act of 1979; report to
accompany S. 210. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.
144 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no.
96-49)

-—--— Department of Education Organization Act of 1978; report to
accompany S. 991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978.
162 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no.
95-1078)

----- Department of Education Organization Act. Legislative history
of P.E. 96-88. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.
Parts 1 and 2. 1860 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate.
Committee print.) «

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

- S. 2248 (P.L. 97-252) signed by the President.

O9/O8/82 -

O8/18/82 -- House agreed to conference report on S. 2248 by vote
‘Of 251-148. ‘

O8/17/82 -- Senate agreed to conference report on S. 2248 by vote)

of 77-21.

CRS-ll IB8lO2l UPDATE-O2/O7/83

O8/l6/82 -- Conference report filed for S. 2248 (H.Rept. 97-749)
provides that transfer of theboverseas dependents
schools be delayed until May, l984 and the schools
remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense until May, l984.

O5/O6/82 -- Senate adopted an amendment to S. 2248

(FY83 Department of Defense Authorization) that would
result in the overseas dependents schools remaining
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
ll/O6/8l -- S. l82l introduced and referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

O2/l8/81 —- H.R. l904 referred to the Subcommittee on Legislation

and National Security, and executive comments requested from
the Office of Management and Budget and the Departments of
Defense, Education, and Health and Human Services. 1
O2/lé/81 4- H.R. l904 introduced and referred to the Committee on
Government Operations.

H.R. l779 introduced and referred jointly to the
Committee on Government Operations, and Rules.

O2/O5/81 --

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES

We

Reagan delays verdict on education department.
NOV. 18, 1981: A17.

Babcock, Charles R.
WashingtonpPost.
"Back to HEW." Washington Post. Aug. 10, l98l: A16.
"Bell Urges Shift in Education Department." New York Times,
Aug. 7, 1981. ‘
Controversy over a proposed separate cabinet—level U.S.
department of education—-pro and con. Congressional digest,

v. 57, no. 11, November l978: 259-288; (LRS78-15464)

Donnelly, Harrison H. Separate education department proposed.
Congressional quarterly, v. 36, Apr. 22, l978: 987-990.

Epstein, Noel and Spencer Rich.
his agency.

Education chief urges abolishing
‘Washington Post. Aug. 7, l98l: A2.

Fact sheet, fall budget program.
The White House, Sept. 24,

Office of the Press Secretary,
l98l: l2-l3.
The fiscal year

l983 budget. Washington, Foundation for

Education Assistance (Department of Education). Feb. 8,
1982. 48 p. 1

Havemann, Joel. arter's reorganization plans —— scrambling for
turf. National journal, v. lo, May 20, 1978:
788-794. (LRS78-4536)

Institute for Educational Leadership. Perspectives on Federal

CRS-12 IB8l02l UPDATE-02/O7/83
education policy. Washington, The George Washington
University, 1976. 54 p. (LRS76-12640)

Miles, Rufus E., Jr. A cabinet department of education. Washington,
American Council on Education, 1976. 141 p. (LRS76-21094)

Reagan said to approve education plan.’ Washington Post. Jan. 28,
1982: A23.

Ryor, John. The case for a Federal department of education. Phi
'%De1ta Kappan, v. 58, April 1977: 594-596. (LRS77—4402)

Sroufeflifierald E. The case against a Federal department of
-education. Phi Delta Kappan, v. 58, April 1977: 597-600.
._¢&LRs77;44o1)

The decision memorandum to the President from the task force on the
education department. Education Week, V. 1, no. 11, Nov. 16,
1981: 10-11.

White, Eileen. Reagan advisers say yes to Bell on foundation.
Education Week, v. 1, no. 11, Nov. 16, 1981: 1, 11.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. ,
The Federal agency for education: history and background information
[by] Angela Evans. [Washington] l98lu 34 p.
CR8 Report 81-93 EPW.

White, Eileen. Far reaching shift in Federal role urged by Bell.
Education week, V. 1, no. 1, Sept. 7, 1981: 1, 9-11.