The federal government contributes only about 6% of a local school district's funds, but exercises control over at least 50% of the educational process in that district. And like the finger of Midas, that touch of gold will fundamentally change every aspect of our children's education.

On April 17, 1997 seven Congressmen [McKeon (CA), Goodling (PA), Kildee (MI), Peterson (PA) Barrett (NE), Riggs (CA), and Fattah (PA)] introduced The Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1385) in the U. S. House. The nearly 300 page bill was reviewed by the subcommittee, passed out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and voted on by the full House in only 29 days.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost for implementation of HR 1385 over 5 years is $31.7 billion, of which $2.4 billion is new money. The CBO further notes that since participation in the programs contained in HR 1385 is voluntary for the states, the new regulations for states and local schools contained in the language of the bill are not considered federal mandates.

HR 1385 is a continuation of the education reform agenda being imposed by the federal government on local schools. The blueprint for the agenda is contained in the eight National Goals of Education. The plan is under the control of unelected bureaucrats, and is accomplished through the contract approval process used by states to gain access to federal education dollars.

In 1990, the six national Education Goals were unveiled by President Bush under the title America 2000. They were renamed Goals 2000, expanded to eight, and finally passed by Congress and President Clinton in 1994. The legislation made federal dollars available to states who volunteered to participate in the programs. But Goals 2000 enthroned the national goals in federal law, making them the basis for every federal education program.

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (HR 6) bases every program within it on the same National Goals. Its annual cost is about $9.5 billion. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (total spending estimated at over $9 billion) is based on the National Goals. And now, the Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997 continues the trend. In effect, the National Education Goals became the mission statement for every school activity and program in every school district in America.

The dollars are the key. It's a "carrot and stick" approach. The carrot is the promise of increased federal funding. The stick is binding contract language requiring compliance in four broad areas. They must use federal definitions and standards, incorporate all the programs the federal government describes in the legislation, share all information with the federal bureaucracy and develop a system of corrective actions to be used on local school districts which do not comply with the federal directives. Compliance language for local districts includes replacing elected school board members with state-appointed bodies who will have the power to levy taxes; and unincorporating a district and dispersing the students to other, more compliant, schools.

These requirements are technically not mandates, since a state volunteers for them when it submits grant proposals to the federal government. No state has to accept federal education dollars, but if it chooses to participate in a federal program it is choosing to abide by federal stipulations.

When a state submits a proposal, the federal government either accepts it as written, returns it with questions that the state must answer satisfactorily or rejects it. A state must make changes to reapply. For example, Missouri was turned down on its first School-to-Work application because of its child labor laws. Hawaii rewrote its worker compensation legislation, making the state the worker compensation carrier for every student in the work force, to deal with the issue of students who might become injured on the work place. Texas' School-to-Work contract specifically identifies homeschoolers as a barrier to implementation of the entire program.