Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118567956
label
Correspondence, Miscellaneous (07/25/1984-08/01/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118567956
contentType
document
title
Correspondence, Miscellaneous (07/25/1984-08/01/1984)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118567956
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8e567a5ace5b8d76
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Correspondence, Miscellaneous
(07/25/1984-08/01/1984)
Box: 13
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
Withdrawer
RBW 8/5/2005
File Folder
CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS (07/25/1984 -
FOIA
08/01/1984)
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
43RW
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
MEMO
JOHN G. ROBERTS TO FRED F. FIELDING
2 7/26/1984
B6
715
RE. ALLEGATIONS OF WASTE, FRAUD,
AND ABUSES AT THE NAT. INST. OF
EDUC.
Released sn par 4/21/06
2
LETTER
STAFF AT NIE TO INSP. GENERAL'S HOT
4
ND
B6
716
LINE RE. WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSES
AT N.I.E.
3
MEMO
JOHN G. ROBERTS TO FRED F. FIELDING
1 7/30/1984 B6
717
RE. ALLEGATIONS OF WASTE, FRAUD,
AND ABUSES AT N.I.E. Released in Part 4/21/06
4
MEMO
JOHN G. ROBERTS TO FRED F. FIELDING
1 7/26/1984 B6
718
RE. ALLEGATIONS OF WASTE, FRAUD,
AND ABUSES AT N.I.E. (ANNOTATED) leased, 4/21/06 in Part
5
LETTER
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH CATANESE TO
1 6/24/1984 B6
719
PRESIDENT REAGAN RE. SUMMER JOB
239808
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SPR
SUBJECT:
Allegations of Waste, Fraud, and Abuses
at the National Institute of Education
You asked that I review the allegations of waste, fraud, and
abuses at the National Institute of Education (NIE) that
surfaced in the June 25, 1984 edition of the "Department of
Education Weekly." The "Weekly" and other publications were
sent an anonymous four-page memorandum from "staff at NIE
that know and posses [sic] integrity," detailing abuses of
office by nine named NIE officials, including the Director,
Manuel Justiz, and most of his staff. The memorandum also
named seven NIE employees who could substantiate the charges,
if given adequate "protection." The memorandum was originally
sent to the Education Inspector General.
The memorandum contains a potpourri of allegations, such as:
B6
I telephoned Education General Counsel Maureen Corcoran to
discuss the allegations. She referred me to
B6
BL
- 2 -
B6
On the issue of travel bonus points,
is revising
Education's guidance to make it clear that such points may
not be used for personal travel, even if the points are not
transferrable and of no value to the Government.
I do not think any action by our office is necessary at this
time. Allegations have been raised and are being investigated
in the appropriate manner. The Department ethics officer
has reviewed the charges with the head of the office and is
satisfied that there are no continuing violations.
Bb
ID # 241017
CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Becky norton Dunlap
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Founds Copy of Department of Education
Weekly he article on waite fraud and
abuses at NIE
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
DDI
Wholland
ORIGINATOR 10711
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT18
A/C
86107111
584107121
DDIN
Referral Note:
=
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A * Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
John club
this pls we That
Fred--
The
9/10
Attached is material which
was sent to PPO. Thought
it best that we bring it to
the attention of your office.
24101
Becky Norton Dunlop
Department Weekly
of Education
Volume 5 Number 29
June 25, 1984
WASHINGTON FOCUS: Members of Congress proved once again last week that they
are loathe to give up even one iota of influence when it comes to determining
which of their constituents may become the beneficiaries of federal largesse.
At the risk of politicizing a new program designed to award fellowships to
talented classroom teachers (see story, P. 4), members of the House Committee
on Education and Labor rejected an amendment from Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.)
that would have barred members of the House and Senate from participating in the
selection process for fellowship recipients. As currently formulated the bill
provides that fellowships be awarded to two teachers in each Congressional dis-
trict with selections to be made by a board chosen by the President, the Speaker
of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate. The debate arose when Bartlett
charged that achieving equitable distribution of the awards could be insured
through designating geographic areas other than Congressional districts. When
the Committee proved unreceptive to his argument, he offered his amendment.
Although voting against the measure, Rep. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) asserted that the
legislation's aim was "clearly not to make the fellowship awards political."
But Rep. Thomas Coleman (R-Mo.) warned that "by rejecting Bartlett's amendment,
it makes things look worse." It was also pointed up that the bill provides
that award ceremonies be held "in consultation with" the Congressman and Senator
representing the district in which the fellows teach. Simon rejoined that this
was to give "attention, honor and focus" to the program. So as it was finally
reported out of the Committee, the bill left members of Congress with the poten-
tial to exert a good deal of influence in determining just who our most talented
teachers are.
MAJOR STORIES IN THIS ISSUE
Democrats Will Give "Leadership" In
Reagan Administration Spotlights
Education, Platform Draft Says
1
Adult Literacy Initiative
5
tions of waste, Fraud and
ED Official Rules Out "Massive" Aid
Abuses" Surface at ED's NIE
2
Program for Classroom Technology. 6
Mark Up of Talented Teacher Act
COMMENTARY: A Democratic Platform
Sparks Lively Committee Debate
4
Even a Republican Could Love.
7
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM DOCUMENT
PROMISES "A PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE"
The Democratic Party appears to be more interested in attracting the
traditionally Republican "farm vote" than in wooing its already heavily committed
education constituency, if the first draft of the party platform produced by
the Democratic Party Platform Committee provides any insight into the
policy-makers' thinking.
Department of Education Weekly is published weekly (50 times a year). Copyright © 1984 Feistritzer Publications, 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 707, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 463-8344. Publisher: C. Emily Feistritzer, Editor: Kathleen C. Price. Subscription Rate: 3224 for one year; $398
for two years; $74 a year for additional copies in the same envelope.
Page 2
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
The 56-page platform draft released last week devotes less than a single
page to outlining the party's education agenda should it regain control of the
White House in the November election.
The document addresses the education issue by stating: "No public
investment is more important than the one we make in the minds, skills and
discipline of our people." And it goes on to say: "Our very future in
international economic competition depends on skilled workers and on
first-rate scientists, engineers, and managers."
However having acknowledged these realities and after dutifully attacking
the Reagan Administration for "aggressively slashing education programs," the
platform makes no specific promises with regard to the targeting of financial
assistance or creating new or innovative program initiatives.
What the Democrats do promise is the creation of a "partnership for
excellence among federal, state and local governments." And they pledge to
provide "leadership at the federal level" for "local governments already
strapped for fundsby this Administration
While the document does note that localities "cannot be expected to bear
alone the burden of undertaking the efforts we need for quality education," it
stops short of promising the type of commitment that supporters within the
education community might well have expected.
Moreover the areas that are identified as in need of improvement are the
very ones addressed by the studies produced by the Reagan Administration's
National Commission on Excellence in Education. Among the initiatives the
Party promises to "support" are: New ties between businesses and schools;
improvements in teacher training and the upgrading of teacher salaries; new
labs, and new programs to motivate gifted students.
The document however pointedly refrains from defining such terms as
"leadership" and "support," and it is reasonably doubtful whether the Party's
education agenda as currently written would elicit one word of criticism from
the Reagan Administration or from Republicans generally.
If education was worth a single page in the platform draft, the subject
of agriculture was worth twice the amount of space and a greater degree of
specificity.
When it came to wooing the nation's traditionally Republican farmers, the
party pledged "beginning next January" to write a "new long-term farm bill."
It also addressed with some specificity where "federal assistance" would be
"target ) and talked about pricing and tax policies.
Granted the document currently circulating in Washington is a first draft
(and was already being revised at the time of its release), but unless
substantive changes are made in the Democrats' education agenda it will be
difficult to distinguish it from the Reagan Administration's current
commitment to excellence.
NIE PROBE WOULD OPEN "CAN"
OF WORMS, EMPLOYEES ALLEGE
An anonymous group of employees at the Department of Education's National
Institute of Education (NIE) is circulating a document alleging "waste, fraud,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
Page 3
and abuses" on the part of NIE director Dr. Manuel Justiz, his wife Robin
Justiz and seven high-ranking officials at the education research agency.
The allegations are in the form of a memorandum to the Department's
Inspector General's Hot Line. The document was received by Department of
Education Weekly accompanied by an unsigned letter that stated in part: "The
current Director and his acting deputy think that they are above the law.
Unless something is done soon, some irreversible contracts will be awarded and
many good employees, particularly in the contracts office will be lost.'
Despite the anonymous nature of the memorandum, a Department official has
told Department of Education Weekly that the employee insurrection against
Justiz and his associates was instigated by a former aide to the director
whose husband is "well connected within the Republican Party.'
The former aide, who is now employed by another government agency, is
currently out of the country and could not be reached for comment.
The memorandum's authors however obviously went to great pains to
document instances of the alleged instances of fraud and misuse of government
funds. They list the names of several NIE employees who received large cash
awards and/or received preferential treatment with regard to travel and leave
time,
Coming in for particular fire was Justiz himself whom the authors accuse
of awarding contracts and grants that "have some kind of deal underneath," and
they identify him as the individual responsible for "all the waste, fraud and
abuses currently going on" within his agency.
Also coming under sharp attack is Mrs. Justiz, who is currently a
candidate for the New Mexico state legislature. Among the allegations
levelled against her are charges that she "uses NIE's offices, telephones,
supplies and staff to conduct personal business which lately includes her
campaign
In addition to naming persons alleged to be actively involved in abuses
at NIE, the document also lists seven individuals as "witnesses that can
verify, first hand, the allegations presented."
In closing, the memorandum to the Inspector General notes: "We believe
that once you start the investigation, you will open a big can of worms
Employees have been and are being abused for almost no reason. We cannot go
on travel to monitor our contracts for which we have responsibility. The
Director's Office states that there are no monies and yet they all travel for
both official and unofficial business at the expense of project monitoring."
This is the second report of alleged misuse of funds and personnel to
surface with regard to NIE in recent weeks.
Last month controversy arose around the publication of the
Congressionally-mandated School Finance Study, when it was alleged that
individuals working on the project used government workers to type, proofread
and do research for 8 book containing at least 14 working papers commissioned
by the government under contract. (See Department of Education Weekly, May
14, 1984)
The allegations concerning the Study were brought to the attention of
Education Secretary Terrel H. Bell together with a request for an
investigation by the Inspector General's Office.
Page 4
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
Interestingly a representative from that office was present last week at
Bell's press conference announcing details of the labs and centers
competition.
HOUSE COMMITTEE CLEARS
SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS FOR TEACHERS
The House Committee on Education and Labor marked up and reported out
last week legislation that establishes the Carl D. Perkins Scholarship Program
for outstanding high school graduates seeking to enter the teaching
profession and which creates a national fellowship program for talented
teachers.
The bill (H.R. 4477), popularly referred to as the "Talented Teacher
Act," is in the form of an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. The
scholarship and fellowship programs, which were originally incorporated in the
now defunct Higher Education Act of 1984 (See Department of Education Weekly,
April 23 and May 7, 1984), were originally proposed in the Merit Pay Task
Force Report prepared earlier this year for the Committee.
The legislation, which was never in serious danger of a Committee defeat,
did spark some lively debate and gave rise to a series of amendments affecting
the scholarship program. As finally formulated the bill authorizes the
appropriation of funds to provide grants to states for a total of 10,000
scholarships to be awarded over the next five years.
An amendment offered by Rep. Steven Gunderson (R-Wis.) defined that
selection process to the extent of requiring that "the selection criteria and
procedures to be used by the State shall reflect the present and projected
teacher needs of the State, including the demand for and supply of elementary
teachers
and the demand for teachers with training in specific academic
disciplines.
"
After some debate it was agreed to strike a portion of the Gunderson
Amendment that specifically included mathematics, science and foreign
languages among the "specific academic disciplines."
The Committee's decision to omit that language stemmed in large measure
from the members' growing concern that in the next five years the most serious
teacher shortages may well be in the nation's elementary schools, and the
conviction that states should have the right to individually determine where
their greatest areas of need exist.
Other amendments accepted by the Committee included:
A measure allowing individuals "who teach in a school serving large
numbers of high concentrations of economically disadvantaged children or who
teach children with limited English proficiency or handicapped children" to
"pay back" their award by being required to teach for only one year (rather
than the otherwise required two years) for each year of scholarship money they
receive;
A measure requiring that if the recipient is receiving other forms of
student financial aid, the amount of the scholarship shall not be such as to
exceed the cost of his schooling, and
A provision allowing recipients to teach in private nonprofit schools
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
Page 5
CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION LOOKS AT SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Are minority students more likely to be targets of more and
harsher disciplinary treatment than their white counterparts? The
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is apparently uncertain of the
answer, but it has launched a study to find out.
The study. scheduled for release in 1986. will examine whether pub-
lic schools administer discipline on a discriminatory basis, and
it will also look at how the discipline process relates to student
suspensions.
In a separate study, targeted for completion in late 1985,
the Commission will also study the cause of increased isolation of
Hispanic students and explore successful and failed attempts to
reduce isolation. Among the factors to be examined will be magnet
schools, new school construction and student transportation.
provided the school is "located in a district eligible for assistance" under
Chapter 1 or that the institution is serving handicapped children on a
full-time basis.
The teacher fellowship provision of the bill provides for awards to
outstanding inservice teachers, provided that the amount of the fellowship
does not exceed the salary being paid the recipient.
The primary focus of debate on this portion of the bill centered on a
provision requiring that fellowship winners be selected on the basis of
two from each Congressional district.
Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.) offered an amendment that would have
barred members of Congress from making recommendations on talented teachers,
but the measure was defeated by a voice vote. Bartlett contended that using
the districts as a geographical unit of selection would tend to politicize the
program.
ADULT LITERACY SUBJECT OF
MAJOR REAGAN ADMINISTRATION FOCUS
Education Secretary Terrel H. Bell is forging ahead with a concerted
effort to carry out the National Adult Literacy Initiative (ALI) announced
last September by President Reagan.
The presidentially established ALI is already working within the
Department to raise public awareness about the scope and consequences of adult
illiteracy and to increase public and private participation in literacy
development activities.
Under the leadership of Diane Vines, ALI has set up networks in the
Department that focus on technology development, language minorities, and
learners with disabilities. ALI has also promoted extensive collaboration
with private sector organizations.
In accordance with these efforts, the Department has now established a
continuing working relationship with the Assault on Illiteracy Program (AOIP)
Page 6
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
which provides a framework for national black organizations to work together
to encourage blacks to improve their literacy skills.
While there are no recent surveys on the extent of adult illiteracy in
this country, Mary Cross, a staff member of AL1, told participants in the
Department's monthly Education Forum that "a combination of indirect indices
and old data" suggest that as many as one-third of all black Americans may be
functionally illiterate.
To emphasize the Department's commitment to working with AOIP, Bell has
sent letters to all state governors emphasizing that a main AOIP goal is to
work with literacy groups at the state and local levels and to organize state
and local AOIP chapters.
The Secretary also informed the governors that the Department's regional
staff will be available, upon request, to help states in working with
organizations on literacy efforts.
In addition to the newly formed association with AOIP, ALI has also
launched a variety of other activities designed to focus attention on and
generate involvement in the area of adult literacy. These include:
Establishing a National Adult Literacy Project to study and disseminate
information about successful programs and practices;
Promoting the use of work-study students in literacy programs through
the funding of pilot projects with the goal of developing a manual of
successful strategies for the use of these students as a major resource for
the literacy effort;
Instituting an electronic mail/telecommunications system called LitNet
that would link literacy groups across the country for the purpose of sharing
information about funding sources, program models and the like; and
Cooperating with the Business Council for Effective Literacy in an
effort to promote public/private sector partnerships for literacy.
With the annual cost of adult illiteracy estimated at approximately $6
billion, it is not surprising that the Business Council -- composed of 26
corporate leaders -- is committed to providing active private sector support
for the effort.
ED PLANS NO "MASSIVE FEDERAL AID
PROGRAM" FOR SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS
Educators should grab hold of "the unlimited capacity of technology to
increase classroom productivity, but not look to the federal government to
provide "massive" aid for educational software or hardware, according to
Donald Senese, the Department of Education's assistant secretary for research
and development.
In an address to the National Educational Computing Conference in Dayton,
Senese stated that the Department planned to concentrate on programs that
"give direction for schools to participate in the technological revolution."
He specifically pointed to efforts by the National Diffusion Network to
encourage technology use in schools and to $1.5 million in grants awarded last
year for school technology projects.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
Page 7
COMMENTARY
By the Publisher
The first draft of the Democratic platform is out. Produced by the Demo-
cratic Party Platform Committee, the 56-page single-spaced document includes less
than a page on education under the subtitle, "Investing in America." It follows
in its entirety:
Education -- No public investment is more important than the one we make in
the minds, skills, and discipline of our people. Our. very future in international
economic competition depends on skilled workers and on first-rate scientists,
engineers, and managers. Today, education in America needs help. But, the
Reagan Administration offers misleading homilies about the importance of educa-
tion while aggressively slashing education programs.
This is intolerable. We know that every dollar we invest in education is ul-
timately returned to us six-fold. We know that education is key to our ability
to compete in the future, to be productive in tomorrow's jobs. We know that
the education of our citizens is critical to our democracy.
While education is the responsibility of local government, local governments
already strapped for funds by this Administration cannot be expected to bear alone
the burden of undertaking the efforts we need for quality education -- from teacher
training, to the salaries needed to attract and retain able teachers, to new labs,
to new programs to motivate gifted students, to new ties between businesses and
schools -- without leadership at the federal level. Democrats will provide that
leadership. We will create a partnership for excellence among federal, state and
local governments. We will support local efforts to assure literacy; to upgrade
vocational education; to provide access to advanced technology; to recruit the
finest young people into teaching careers and help experienced teachers improve
their skills. We will insist that every child be afforded an equal opportunity
to fulfill his or her potential. We will pay special attention to the needs of
disadvantaged minority students and the handicapped; education is their hope for
the future.
We will make certain that higher education does not become a luxury afford-
able only by the children of the rich. That is Ronald Reagan's America. In our
America, no qualified student should be deprived of the ability to go on to col-
lege because of financial circumstance. Our black colleges must be supported and
strengthened. These are not government "give-aways." They are among the soundest
investments we can make.
With the exception of the obvious criticims of the Reagan Administration,
it reads like what we've heard from the current administration for the last
three-and-a-half years -- with the exception of calls for tuition tax credits
and school prayer. For a party that has prided itself on introducing numerous
federal education programs, this platform leaves a lot to be desired in being
concrete and specific and in stating what will be done differently.
It's really too bad. There has never been a better time to spell out plans
for education. Recommendations of the numerous reports on the condition of
American education of the last year provide ample blueprints. In addition, the
Democratic Party Platform Committee listened to influential educational leaders,
among them Al Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers. Shanker
understands education and the politics of it as well as anybody. He warned the
Committee that President Reagan's strategy of convincing the public he really
cares about improving education "may succeed if the Democratic Party doesn't add
a new goal to the traditional quest for access and equity and that goal is quality."
Emily Feestrityer
Page 8
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WEEKLY/June 25, 1984
RESOURCES
PUBLICATIONS
Studies of U.S. Universities Research Equipment Needs Inconclusive is a 17-
page report from the U.S. General Accounting Office assessing how well past
studies have defined the nationwide deficiency in university research equipment
in an attempt to determine current needs. To order: U.S. General Accounting
Office, Document Handling and Information Services Facility, P.O. Box 6015,
Gaithersburg, MD 20877, (202) 275-6241. Report No. GAO/RCED-84-105. Cost: Free.
Secondary Market Activities of the Student Loan Marketing Association is a
17-page report from the U.S. General Accounting Office discussing the Association's
secondary market activities in support of student loan programs since it began.
operations in 1973. To order: U.S. General Accounting Office, Document Hand-
ling and Information Services Facility, P.O. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20877,
(202) 275-6241. Accession No. 124184; Report No. GAO/HRD-84-51. Date: May 18,
1984. Cost: Free.
Teacher Incentives: A Tool for Effective Management is a 49-page report
published by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National
Association of Elementary School Principals and the American Association of
School Administrators. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of various
teacher incentive plans and provides information on how to develop a school dis-
trict plan. To order: Publications and Sales Department, National Association
of Secondary School Principals, 1904 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091, (703)
860-0200. Order No.: 2108405. Cost: $5.00 plus $2.00 for shipping and hand-
ling; discounts for multiple-copy purchases available.
MEETINGS
"Prescriptions for Excellence in Schools: Who's Responsible for What?" -
July 11-13 - Pennsylvania State University. Contact: Robert F. Nicely Jr.,
277 Chambers Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802,
(814) 865-2525.
PLEASE NOTE
We have moved to accommodate our expansion. Our new address and phone
number are: 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 707, Washington,
D.C. 20006, (202) 463-8344.
Subscribe now to Feistritzer Publications' unique total education information service. Please enter my subscription as
checked below.
A one year's subscription to Department of
A one year's subscription to the Department of
Education Weekly, 50 weekly issues and its daily
Education Weekly newsletter only. $224.
information service. $365.
Payment enclosed
Bill my organization
Bill me
Make check payable to Feistritzer Publications
Name
Title
Organization
Address
City
State
Zip
Clip and mail to FEISTRITZER PUBLICATIONS, 1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 707, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
RB 8/5/2005
W
File Folder
FOIA
CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS (07/25/1984 -
F05-139/01
08/01/1984)
COOK
Box Number
43RW
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
2
LETTER
4
ND
B6
716
STAFF AT NIE TO INSP. GENERAL'S HOT LINE
RE. WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSES AT N.I.E.
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
NIE/NCER
The National Council on Educational Research (NCER) is the advisory and general
policy body for the National Institute of Education. NCER was authorized with NIE in
The Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L.92-318-Section 405 of the General Education
Provisions Act). The 15 member Council is appointed by the President (3-year terms) with
the advice and consent of the Senate. The Council "shall establish general policies for and
review the conduct of the Institute." The Council also has the authority to advise and
make recommendations to the NIE Director and Assistant Secretary, conduct studies, and
prepare an annual report to the Congress and the President.
Legislative History. When NIE was authorized in 1972, the House version of the bill
provided NIE with an advisory council and the Senate version provided NIE with a policy
council which would have policy authority over powers, duties and authorities of the
Institute. The compromise in the House-Senate conference committee established NCER
which would be primarily an advisory body with general policy making authority (not a
board of directors). The conference report (No.92-798) for 5. 659 (PL92-318) states:
"The conferees believe that both an independent Council with decision-making
authority and a strong Directorship are needed to lead a vigorous Institute. It
is intended that the Director of NIE have full responsibility for specific
program policies and for the management of the Institute. The Council would
establish overall policies leaving to the Director decisions about programs,
initiatives, and funding." (emphasis added, p.203)
Current Status. Contrary to congressional Intentions that members serve staggered 3
year terms, President Reagan dismissed all NCER members last summer (1982). He
nominated 13 individuals to NCER in June and Sept. and 12 of the 13 were confirmed in
December 1982. The first meeting of this Council was held on February 17-18, 1983 in
Washington. The Council hired four staff members and, without prior notice or public
distribution of the content (a violation of their own procedures), passed 14 resolutions and
policies.
NIE has a new Director, Dr. Manuel Justiz of the University of New Mexico. He
took office at the beginning of January 1983. Mr. Robert Sweet, who was deputy director
(served as acting director from June through December 1982), has been hired as the first
executive director of the NCER. In all prior years NCER has used staff support supplied
by the NIE Director. Sweet, an active candidate for the directorship, worked for the
position and against the President's nominee, Dr. Justiz. Sweet made calls and visits to
Congress in this cause prior to and during Dr. Justiz' Senate confirmation process.
NCER Attempt to Administer NIE. Legislative intent is clear that the director has
authority to make program, management (personnel and operations), and funding decisions
The NCER resolutions (adopted 2/18/83) are in violation of congressional intent and are
clearly designed to (a) harrass the director, (b) create a "new right" think tank within the
Department, and (c) help NCER's executive director to gain power over the agency (which
he lost when not selected for the directorship). The NCER actions and resolutions do the
following:
-limit the director's power to hire and maintain excepted service personnel (dispite
the director's statutory authority to hire up to one-fifth of the staff on this basis -
Sec. 405(e)(5) of the General Education provisions Act). SEE NOTE*
-prevent the director from exercising his statutory -Sec.405(e)(3) GEPA-authority
to establish and maintain research fellowships in NIE.
-require that all meetings of the director and his staff be announced to the NCER
staff and be open to the NCER executive director and staff.
-hired 4 professional staff persons (in addition to demands that NIE provide staff
and clerical support to the Council).
-set aside 1.5% ($834,000) of the FY83 budget for NCER for travel, consultants,
conferences, studies, commissioned papers and reports. and "other such assistance as
the Council shall determine to be necessary." SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR SIZE OF
COST INCREASES OVER PRIOR NCER FUNDING & WHY THIS VIOLATES
CONGRESSIONAL INTENTIONS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES.
*The Director of the Institute has, under Section 405(e)(5) of the General Education
Provisions ACT, the authority to hire -without regard to the strictures of the federal
competitive service-"such technical or professional employees of the Institute which he
deems necessary to accomplish Its functions (emphasis added) The director is given
this statutory authority to hire as many such employees (within funding limits) for terms
of three years, and up to one-fifth of all full time regular technical or professional
employees (with no limits on term of service).
**Prepared by David Florio, American Educational Research Association
INTENT
Congress appropriated $33.6 million for NIE in FY83. This amount is the Limit under
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. NIE had $74J million in FY80 and in
FY81 (prior to rescissions). Funding history & FY81 $65.6 million, FY82 $53.4 million, and
FY83 $55.6 million. Dispite the 25% cut in NIE funding over recent years, the NCER
wants to set aside funds clearly appropriated for R&D program purposes -NOTE: FY83
conference reports of House and Senate L/HHS/Education appropriations actions indicate
that appropriated funds are to be used for continuations and competitions in the three NIE
program areas: teaching & learning, dissemination and improvement of practice, and
education policy & organization (management & finance). Yet NCER wants funds
amounting to nearly a 600% increase over prior years.
NCER spending comparisions 1978 to 1982 (prior to the current NCER action) & the FY83
spending request made by the executive director (Robert Sweet) prior to the Council
action to set aside 1.5% or $834,000 for NCER purposes (NOTE: This funding set aside
would be in addition to the costs of staff salaries and NCER member travel to meetings,
which is paid for out of Education Department salary and expense/council funds.):
NCER Travel (for Committee members - does not include staff travel request below):
1978 - 1982 annual average = $29,000
1983 request of Robert Sweet NCER Exec. Director and Council = $22,700 (for 8 months)
or at $34,050 annually
Annual percent cost increase for travel 17%
NCER Salaries
1978-1982 average $89,000 -1982=$105,000 for 4 staff:
one GS 14-15
one GS 13
one GS 8
one GS 6 secretary
Note: all of the above staff were NIE staff assigned to work with the Council
1983 request of Robert Sweet and Council = $152,000 for 4 staff:
Note: the following levels are given as salary range examples because these will be
employees of NCER -not NE- and, therefore, are not subject to civil service rank
one SES
one GS 13
two GS 12
Note: Mr. Sweet also requested, above the actions of the Council, three more
professional employees at the GS 12 level and one secretary.
Annual percent cost increase for salaries 45%
NCER Consultants:
1978 - 1982 annual average = $3,240
1983 request of Robert Sweet and NCER = $24,000
Annual percent cost increase for consultants 641%
NCER Special Studies:
1978 one study costing $2-5,000
1979 to 1982 no costs for special studies
1983 request of Robert Sweet and Council = $750,000
Annual percent cost increase for special studies 75,000%
Percent cost increase from prior study 14,900%
Total NCER Costs average 1978 to 1982 = $138,000
NCER Request for FY83 with Sweet and Council = $949,000
Total NCER annual percent cost increase for all NCER costs = 591%
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS esn
SUBJECT:
Phi Delta Kappa Magazine
(Prepared by Campaign)
Richard Darman asked that we provide comments to Mike
Baroody on a draft candidate article for the education
magazine Phi Delta Kappan. I received the article at
2:00 p.m.; comments were due by 3:00 p.m. In light of the
imminent deadline I telephoned my comments directly to
Baroody. The only substantive legal comment concerned the
first sentence on page 2: "The motto of the United States
is 'E Pluribus Unum, , - out of many, one. " In fact,
36 U.S.C. $ 186 specifies that "[t]he national motto of the
United States is declared to be 'In God we trust'." Accor-
dingly, I advised Baroody's office not to refer to "E
Pluribus Unum" as our national motto.
A memorandum to Baroody memorializing our review and comments
is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Phi Delta Kappa Magazine
(Prepared by Campaign)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed article for the
education magazine Phi Delta Kappan. As we have advised
orally, the first sentence on page 2 should be changed.
Pursuant to 36 U.S.C. $ 186, the national motto is "In God
We Trust," not "E Pluribus Unum."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 7/30/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Phi Delta Kappa Magazine
(Prepared by Campaign)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed article for the
education magazine Phi Delta Kappan. As we have advised
orally, the first sentence on page 2 should be changed.
Pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 186, the national motto is "In God
We Trust," not "E Pluribus Unum."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 7/30/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
216652ss
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
7/23/84
Monday, July 30th
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PHI DELTA KAPPAN MAGAZINE (Prepared by campaign)
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
commets see 7/30
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
TUTWILER
FULLER
BAROODY
HERRINGTON
HICKEY
Elliott -see comments 7/20
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits directly to Mike Baroody by Monday, July 30th,
with an information copy to my office
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH 84
(-)
23 AM 11: 27
-
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
"84 JUL 20 PM:24
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
JULY 20, 1984
RE:
PHI DELTA KAPPAN QUESTIONNAIRE
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from Phi Delta
Kappan magazine.
Before making any revisions, please bear in mind that
Phi Delta Kappan has imposed a 2-3,000 word limit; our draft
response is words.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by August 1 to meet our deadline.
-
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan Bush 84: Paul Laxalt. Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECRETARY
6/19
UNITED STATES of AMERKA
April 4, 1984
to McMonus 4/11/84
Dor,
word &
any
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE CRAIG L. FULLER
Pay
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR CABINET AFFAIRS
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Dennis Doyle of the American
Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research requesting that the
President submit a major article for the "back to school" issue of
Phi Delta Kappan.
Phi Delta Kappen is a well-respected scholarly journal with a
circulation of 140, 000. This is the most widely read periodical in
the field of education, except for the NEA monthly publication. We
will, of course, be pleased to help if you decide to participate.
In order to put the September issue together, they would need to
have the President's article by mid-summer.
Fed
T. H. Bell
Enclosure
400 MARYLAND AVE.. S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
(202) 862-5800
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
March 22, 1984
Dr. Gary L. Jones
Under Secretary of Education
Department of Education
Room 4015
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Gary:
As you know from OUT phone conversation of Thursday, March 22, Mr.
Robert Cole, editor of the Phi Delta Kappan magazine asked that I
contact you to see if President Reagan would contribute an article for
the September 1984 "back to school" issue. The Kappan plans to run
two articles, one by each of the major presidential candidates, in
light of the increasing national interest in education.
Mr. Cole will be pleased to learn that you will raise the issue with
President Reagan and recommend that he submit a manuscript to the
Kappan.
By way of background let me briefly describe the Kappan. It reaches
140,000 subscribers each nonth and is read by a substantially larger
audience. The Kappan readership is what trade publications describe
as "upscale"; nearly all the readers hold Bachelor degrees, and many,
if not all, have advanced degrees. As well, the readership is almost
entirely comprised of professionals: elementary and secondary teachers
and administrators, school board members, university and college staff
and faculty, education researchers and policy analysts, and laymen
with an interest in education. The September issue of the Kappan
includes the findings of the annual Gallup poll of attitudes toward
education, making it the most widely read and cited issue of the year.
It is the only education publication devoted to education policy; in
sum, it is the most important education magazine being published
today. Accordingly, the Kappan provfdes an important and influential
forum for the two principal presidential candidates.
Three to four thousand words would be an appropriate length. To
assure September publication, you should plan to submit final copy by
mid-summer. As well, an 8" X 12" glossy of President Reagan should be
included.
Bob Cole will write as well to formally confirm the Kappan's interest.
For my part, I think this is an important opportunity to reach
education decision makers and look forward to seeing President
Reagan's piece.
Best News Wishes,
Denis P. Doyle
Director, Education Policy Studies
DPD:1s
cc: Bob Cole, Phi Delta Kappan
THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
President of the United States
Article for Phi Delta Kappan Magazine
July 18, 1984
4
x
There is an old saying that a school is a building with
four walls and the future inside. America's education
professionals -- teachers, administrators, school board
members, college and university faculty -- are the custodians
of that future. It is an enormous responsibility, and one that
all too often goes without adequate recognition and thanks.
America's future does depend upon what goes on inside the
four walls of our local schools. Today's schoolchildren will
be the men and women who lead America into a new generation of
freedom and prosperity. So it is appropriate to ask
ourselves: What can we as a society do to support the American
educational system? And what can we do to support those
teachers who work to secure for our children a future full of
opportunity and prosperity?
On May 22, 1984, I signed a Presidential proclamation
naming 1984-1985 the Year of Excellence in Education. The
purpose of the proclamation was to encourage parents, teachers,
administrators and government officials to observe this year
with activities aimed at restoring the preeminence of America's
educational system among the nations of the world.
We live in times that are unforgiving of mediocrity, poor
citizenship and lack of interest in the world about us. Lack
of understanding about technological developments or events in
even the most remote corners of the globe may affect all our
lives. Mankind has rarely faced a period in which preservation
of world peace and economic vitality depend more on the able
citizenship of individuals. Only informed citzens can meet the
challenge to preserve America's priceless heritage of
democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
America is blessed with the resources to meet that
challenge. Nearly 200 years ago Massachusetts enacted the
first comprehensive state school law in the new American
republic. Soon other states enacted similar laws, and America
boasted the first public school system in history.
In the decades that followed, our rich network of public.
church and private schools performed a miracle. With tide
after tide of immigrants thronging to our shores, our schools
taught the children of those new Americans a new language and a
new way of life -- democracy.
The motto of the United States is "E Pluribus Unum, # --
outs of many. one. And more than any institution, our schools
burlt that one from the many. For more than a century and a
half American schools have provided the bright, eager minds of
our sons and daughters with the skills to keep our country a
land of opportunity and prosperity that is the envy of the
whole world.
Yet today, some of our schools aren't doing the job they.
should. of course, there are many fine schools and thousands
of dedicated superintendents, principals and teachers. But
from 1963 to 1980, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores showed a
virtually unbroken decline. Science achievement scores of
17-year-olds have shown a steady fall. Most shocking. today
more than one-tenth of our 17-year-olds are functionally
illiterate, and the figure may be as high as forty percent
among minority youth.
One of the highest priorities of my Administration was to
study and suggest improvements in the nation's education
system. Only six months after we took office, I created the
National Commission on Excellence in Education -- a bipartisan
panel of the nation's most eminent educators, representing all
elements of the education community.
The Commission's report, entitled "A Nation at Risk,"
shocked the country by giving America's school system failing
grades. The Commission found that "
the educational
foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a
Nation and a people." Placing the 20-year decline in standards
in a historical perspective, the report declared, "We have even
squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of
the Sputnik challenge
We have, in effect, been committing
an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament."
Some have suggested there is only one anwer to this problem
- - more federal spending. But that's been tried. Expenditures
in our nation's schools for 1983, according to the National
Center of Educational Statistics, will total $230 billion.
That's up seven percent from the year before -- about double
the rate of inflation, and double what we spent on education
just ten years ago. So if money alone were the answer, the
problem would have been shrinking, not growing.
American schools don't need vast new sums of money as much
as they need di few fundamental reforms, and I believe there are
six steps we can take to help turn our schools around and
return excellence to American education.
First, we need to restore good, old-fashioned discipline.
In too many schools across the land, teachers can't teach
because they lack the authority to make students take tests and
turn in homework. Some don't even have the authority to
control their class and are in danger of verbal and physical
abuse from classroom violence. According to a report by the
National Institute of Education in 1978, 1,000 teachers were
assaulted and required medical attention each month. About
6,000 were robbed each month and another 125,000 were
threatened with physical harm.
The Institute's statistics also show the chilling effects
of school crime on our children. In 1978, three million
secondary school students were victims of in-school crime each
month. More than 250,000 students were physically attacked
each month. About 2.5 million students were victims of thefts
or robberies each month. Almost eight percent of urban junior
and senior high school students missed at least one day of
school each month because they were afraid to go to school.
It is time for America to stand up and say: This must
stop. We need to write stricter discipline codes and support
our teachers when they enforce those codes. Back at the turn
of the century, one education handbook told teachers that in
enforcing discipline, "You have the law back of you. You have
intelligent public opinion back of you. # We must make both of
those sentiments true once again.
The Department of Justice is establishing a National School
Safety Center to counsel teachers and other school officials
about their legal rights within the classroom and to provide a
computerized national clearinghouse for school safety
resources. In addition, the Justice Department will file
friend-of-the-court briefs to support the rights of school
administrators to enforce discipline. And right now the
Justice Department is studying possible amendments to federal
law that would help principals and others reestablish order in
our schools.
Second, we must end the drug and alcohol abuse that plagues
hundreds and thousands of our children. Chemical abuse by
young people not only damages the lives of individual users,
but also can create d drug culture at school. We need to teach
our sons and daughters the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse.
enforce the law and to rehabilitate the users. Whatever it
takes, we must make certain America's schools are temples of
learning, not drug dens.
Third, we must raise academic standards and expectations.
Today, 35 states require only one year of math for a high
school diploma; 36 require only one year of science. Many
exchange students from foreign countries -- Japan, West Germany
and others -- are quick to point out that our academic
standards are not as tough as theirs.
In her well-known study, Barbara Lerner found that the
amount of homework assigned in a school is the single most
reliable predictor of how well the students in that school are
going to perform on national tests. Our sons and daughters
need to do more work. to do better work and to spend more time
in school. Now, that's not a prescription for gloomy
students. Instead, educators have found time and time again
that when students know their parents and teachers believe them
capable of a great deal and expect them to perform accordingly,
students gain self-confidence, enjoy their work and live up to
those high expectations.
Fourth, we must encourage good teaching. One of the best
ways to achieve this is to pay and promote teachers on the
basis of their competence and merit. Merit pay for teachers
enjoys overwhelming support among parents of school children.
They believe hard-earned tax dollars should be used to
encourage the best in our teachers, just as our school should
encourage the best in our students. But contrary to popular
belief, merit pay also is supported by most teachers. Polls
show that merit pay has the support of 61 percent of National
Education Association members, 62 percent of American
Federation of Teachers members, and 70 percent of independent
teachers.
Fifth, we must restore parents and state and local
governments to their rightful place in the educational
process. Education begins at home, where it is a parental
right and responsibility. Decisions about discipline.
curriculum and academic standards -- the factors that make a
school good OI bad -- shouldn't be made by people in
Washington. They should be made at the local level by parents.
teachers, and administrators in their own communities.
Sixth and last, we must teach the basics. Too many of our
students graduate from high school prepared neither for work
nor for higher education. Compared to other industrialized
nations, we're slipping far behind in such basic areas as the
sciences and math. In Japan, for example, specialized study in
mathematics, biology and physics starts in the sixth grade. In
the Soviet Union, students learn the basic concepts of algebra
and geometry in elementary school. So Japan, with a population
only about half the size of ours, graduates more engineers than
we do. The Soviet Union graduates from college almost five
times more engineering specialists than we do.
The federal government can support these reforms and do 50
without recycling still more tax dollars OI imposing still more
regulations. For example, our Administration has replaced 29
narrow categorical education programs with one block grant to
give state and local officals greater freedom. And in my FY
1985 budget, I call for that grant to be increased by $250
million. We've instituted major regulatory reforms to dig
educators out from under mountains of red tape.
Last October, I signed a proclamation establishing a
program of partnerships in education. Businesses, labor unions
and other groups of working people form partnerships with
schools in their communities. They donate their time and
e
resources to those schools to help support education programs
the schools could not otherwise afford.
Now there's one more effort we're making at the federal
level that should be mentioned. It's controversial, and it's
been sneered at by many both inside and outside the educational
community. But I'm absolutely determined to see it through.
The God who blessed us with life, gave us knowledge and made us
good and caring people should never have been expelled from our
schools. I support efforts to return voluntary prayer to our
schools and I support the right of student religious
organizations to enjoy equal access to public school facilities.
As we struggle to teach our children the fundamental values
we hold so dear, we dare not forget that our civilization was
built by men and women who placed their faith in a loving God.
If the Congress can begin each day with a moment of prayer and
meditiation, then so can our sons and daughters.
It isn't just basic subjects that need to be taught: it's
also basic values. We must educate our children in the great
devotional and critical writings, for it is not only through
technical knowledge that Americans live in abundance and
freedom. If we fail to instruct our children in justice,
religion and liberty, we will be condemning them to a world
without virtue. They'll live in a twilight of civilization
where great truths have been forgott n.
In the year since the National Commission on Excellence in
Education released its report, I'm happy to say that we have
made great progress. Americans have drawn together to meet the
rising tide of mediocrity with a tidal wave of school reforms.
Since my Administration placed education at the top of the
national agenda, we've seen a grassroots revolution that
promises to strengthen every school in the country. From Maine
to California, parents, teachers, school officials, and state
and local officeholders have begun vigorous work to improve the
fundamentals -- not fancy budget structures, not frills in the
curriculum, but teaching and learning. In the words of
Education Secretary Terrel Bell. "There is currently the
greatest, most far-reaching, the most promising reform and
renewal of education we have seen since the turn of the
century."
Since 1980, more than half of our 16,000 school districts
have increased the number of credits they require in basic,
subjects like English, science and math. Almost 40 percent are
set to raise their standards by 1985. Today, all 50 states
have task forces on education, 44 are increasing graduation
requirements, 42 are studying improvements in teacher
certification, and 13 are establishing master teacher programs
to attract top students into teaching and reward our best
teachers.
At the local level, parents have begun to give students new
support in ways that range from helping on field trips to
raising money for special projects. School boards have begun
to write stricter discipline codes and rewrite curricula to
stress the basics. And in community after community, the
individual efforts of teachers and principals are turning
schools around.
State by state, the success stories are mounting. We can
be pleased about this, for our children need good schools today
more than ever. We stand on the verge of a new age -- a
computer age -- when medical breakthroughs will add years to
our lives. Information retrival systems will bring all the
world's great literature, music and drama into the family
home. And advances in space travel will make the space shuttle
Columbia look as old-fashioned as Charles Lindbergh's plane,
The Spirit of St. Louis.
If America is to offer greater economic opportunity to her
citizens, if she's to defend our freedom and keep the peace,
then our children will need wisdom, courage and strength.
These are virtues beyond their reach without education and
without the dedicated professionals who staff and run our
schools. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "If a nation
expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was
and never will be."
An education that trains the mind and fills the heart with
hope is the treasure American schools can give our children.
If all of us - - teachers, parents and government officials -
provide our schools and school systems with the support they
need, I'm confident that in the coming years American schools
will give our sons and daughters richer treasure than ever
before.
God bless you for all you are doing for the youth of our
country and for all personal sacrifices you make to assure that
our children's and our nation's future is bright.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Phi Delta Kappa Magazine
(Prepared by Campaign)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed article for the
education magazine Phi Delta Kappan. As we have advised
orally, the first sentence on page 2 should be changed.
Pursuant to 36 U.S.C. $ 186, the national motto is "In God
We Trust,' @ not "E Pluribus Unum."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 7/30/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 926L
SUBJECT:
Allegations of Waste, Fraud, and Abuses
at the National Institute of Education
In response to my memorandum of July 26 on the above-
referenced subject you suggested that Maureen Corcoran be
urged to take personal charge of the review of allegations
concerning the National Institute of Education. I talked
with Ms. Corcoran today and relayed your suggestion. She
agreed that
was in a difficult position, and
36
indicated that she would independently review the
allegations to ensure that there were no continuing improper
practices.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON H
July 26, 1984
YR R Naureengel be Corcinature
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
change
B6
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Allegations of Waste, Fraud, and Abuses
at the National Institute of Education
You asked that I review the allegations of waste, fraud, and
abuses at the National Institute of Education (NIE) that
surfaced in the June 25, 1984 edition of the "Department of
Education Weekly." The "Weekly" and other publications were
sent an anonymous four-page memorandum from "staff at NIE
that know and posses [sic] integrity," detailing abuses of
office by nine named NIE officials, including the Director,
Manuel Justiz, and most of his staff. The memorandum also
named seven NIE employees who could substantiate the charges,
if given adequate "protection." The memorandum was originally
sent to the Education Inspector General.
The memorandum contains a potpourri of allegations, such as:
Bb
I telephoned Education General Counsel Maureen Corcoran to
discuss the allegations. She referred me to
B6
Bb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 1, 1984
Dear Mr. Catanese:
This is written in response to your letter of June 24, 1984
to the President. In that letter you requested that the
President assist you in finding employment in order that you
might be in a position to contribute to the GOP Victory
Fund.
I must advise you that it would be inappropriate for the
President or any member of the Administration to assist you
in finding employment in exchange for political support or
contributions. If you have not yet found employment I
recommend that you write directly to the Department of Labor
for any guidance that Department may be able to provide.
You should not, however, discuss any contributions you
intend to make with your anticipated wages.
Sincerely,
JohsRoburt
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
Mr. Christopher J. Catanese
7340 Perth Street
New Orleans, LA 70126
ID #
239808
WHITE HOUSE
LA002
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
86R
I INCOMING
Received Date Correspondence (YY/MM/DD) 84/06/30
Name of Correspondent: 47Mr. /7Mrs. /7Miss Christopher J Catanese
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Seeks summer employment
Personal efforts have failed
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
CoHyde
ORIGINATOR
84/07/03
84/0/
Referral Note:
99
CUFiel
A
84/07/10 A
84/0 /
(see comments
Referral Note:
WAT18
C 3 84,07,06 84,07,06
5 84,0716
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A * Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B * Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S. For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code
=
"A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: Please advise if this letter should be
sent to Noh for direct reply
&
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
RB 8/5/2005
W
File Folder
FOIA
CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS (07/25/1984 -
F05-139/01
08/01/1984)
COOK
Box Number
43RW
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO
Document Description
pages
tions
5
LETTER
1
6/24/1984 B6
719
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH CATANESE TO
PRESIDENT REAGAN RE. SUMMER JOB
239808
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
Dear President Reagan:
I accept your invitation. Please enroll me as a Sponsor of the GOP Victory Fund.
I've checked below the amount of my Sponsorship contribution.
$
$100
$50
$25
other
I understand my contribution will be used to finance the comprehensive Campaign
Plan designed to increase Republican strength in Congress and stop the liberal Demo-
crats from destroying your programs for economic recovery and a strong national
defense.
Sincerely,
Signature
P.S. I've made my check payable to: GOP Victory Fund.
(I've printed my name and address below exactly as I want it to appear on official
Victory Fund records.)
Mr.
Mrs.
Miss
Street
City/state/zip
Telephone No.
OPTIONAL:
Please list any political, professional or civic titles or positions you have held on a
separate piece of paper.
(over please)
Washington
The President
The Federal Election Commission requires that we report the following:
Occupation
Please check if self-employed.
Name of Employer
This check is a personal contribution even though it may appear to be drawn on a business, partnership or other
type of account.
Signature
CHECKS ONLY, PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH
Corporate contributions are prohibited by law.
Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee.