Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, First Session, Volume 147, Part 7 Page: 8,874
[1489] p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
May 22, 2001
I think the bill that was reported from the
Education Committee makes an excellent start
toward helping our students achieve success.
I am pleased with the increased funding levels
for title I, the education program for disadvan-
taged students, and the increased targeting of
funds to low-income areas and at-risk stu-
dents.
I am also extremely happy with what is not
in the bill-private school vouchers. The Edu-
cation Committee voted to eliminate the
voucher provisions and I hope the House will
vote to keep vouchers out of the bill as well.
We should be focusing on improving our pub-
lic schools, rather than using public funds to
send students to private schools. Vouchers
don't make sense for Los Angeles area stu-
dents. The $1,500 voucher proposed by Presi-
dent Bush wouldn't be enough money to send
a child to a private school in Los Angeles. And
we simply don't have enough private schools
willing to accept students with vouchers.
Although I am happy with the bill, I do have
some concerns. I had hoped that the Repub-
lican leadership would have allowed Demo-
crats the opportunity to improve this bill
through amendments. Unfortunately, we were
not offered that opportunity. I wanted to offer
an amendment to allow community learning
centers to use their funds to implement pro-
grams which would help immigrant students
with language and life skills. A similar amend-
ment passed the other body by a 96-0 vote,
and I had hoped the House would have the
opportunity to vote on the amendment. Unfor-
tunately, we were denied that opportunity.
Also, I had hoped that a school construction
amendment offered by my colleague from
New York, Mr. OWENS, would have been
made in order for consideration today. Califor-
nia's efforts to reduce class size and our dra-
matic population increases have combined to
make school construction essential. I am very
disappointed that the House won't have the
opportunity to vote on school construction
today.
I also have concerns with portions of the bill
dealing with bilingual and immigrant education,
and hope they can be improved as the bill
moves through the legislative process. As our
recent census numbers show us, bilingual and
immigrant students are no longer solely the re-
sponsibility of States like California, Texas,
Florida, and New York. We must be prepared
to dramatically increase the funding for this
program in order to meet the needs of states
like Arkansas and Georgia, which are experi-
encing a large influx of immigrant and bilingual
children.
This bill also recommends that students be
moved out of bilingual classrooms into
English-only programs within three years. This
provision is overly restrictive and has no basis
in academic research. There is no evidence
that students can learn a new language within
3 years. Mandating a time limit on bilingual
education impedes the ability of school dis-
tricts to tailor their instruction to children's indi-
vidual needs.
I am also unhappy with the provision in H.R.
1 which require schools districts to try and re-
ceive a parent's permission before putting a
child into a bilingual education program. Re-
quiring parents to "opt-in" in order to place
their children in bilingual education is unfair. Itplaces the burden of educating an English-
learning student on the parent, rather than the
school. In addition, there could also be a sig-
nificant delay in a child's access to appropriate
educational services as the parent and school
deal with the administrative paperwork re-
quired to place a child in a bilingual education
program.
I think we have a very good education bill
before us today. I know that some of my Re-
publican colleagues will offer amendments to
add private school vouchers or to block grant
important education programs. I urge my col-
leagues to oppose these efforts and keep the
important reforms made in the base bill.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there
are some good things in this bill, but it has
some very serious flaws, particularly the fail-
ure to fund school modernization and the tre-
mendously damaging changes proposed in the
permissible uses of funds under the title I pro-
gram.
The distinctive characteristic of Federal par-
ticipation in elementary and secondary edu-
cation has always been that Federal funding is
targeted to reach the needs of students who
come from low-income families. I firmly believe
that we must continue this targeting. Unfortu-
nately, by diluting the targeting of title I funds,
H.R. 1 fails our students from low-income fam-
ilies and continues the movement toward
abandoning our commitment to them.
The title I program and the law were de-
signed to reach those American children who
come from low-income families. The formula
for title I is driven by individual poverty; the
number of children who qualify for free
lunches determines the amount of money that
goes to a school district.
Currently, under title I, local education agen-
cies target funds to schools with the highest
percentage of children from low-income fami-
lies. Unless a participating school is operating
a "schoolwide" program, the school must tar-
get Title I services to children who are failing,
or most at risk of failing, to meet State aca-
demic standards.
When the program was created in 1965, the
eligibility threshold for using title I funds to op-
erate "schoolwide" programs was 75 percent.
Let me repeat that again. Originally, 75 per-
cent of students in a given school had to be
poor in order for a school to be able to use
title I funds in schoolwide programs.
H.R. 1, as reported, lowers the poverty eligi-
bility threshold for schoolwide programs from
50 percent to 40 percent. This change means
that 60 percent of the students in that school
do not have to qualify as poor; yet they will
reap the benefits of title I funds.
I am for helping all students in our public
schools, but not by lowering the poverty
threshold to 40 percent, and diluting the pro-
gram's focus on poor children. Simply put, we
are taking from the poor to give to those who
are more fortunate. This is not the way to
bridge the so-called achievement gap.
The proposed change in the poverty eligi-
bility threshhold is just the latest installment in
the Congress' abandonment of students from
low-income families, the very students who
historically have been the focus, and the in-
tended beneficiaries of the title I program. If
H.R. 1 passes in this form, we will have gone
from targeting the Federal Government's pri-mary program in education to help the poor
from schools with poverty levels of 75 percent
to schools with poverty levels of 40 percent.
This seems to me very radical and very un-
wise.
Education is the number one issue for all
Americans, in large part because a good edu-
cation is critical to achieving the American
dream. We should focus our Federal invest-
ment on those that need it the most. The pro-
posed change to title I is misguided and
wrong. We should take a fresh look at this crit-
ical issue.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 1 I am pleased that we are
working on this education legislation so early
in the 107th Congress and that this legislation
will provide more funding for all of our Nation's
schools.
The basics of this bill include developing
and implementing high academic standards,
helping students achieve these standards with
local, State, and Federal funding and requiring
some level of accountability for student
achievement.
With a strong focus on improving reading
skills and literacy, this legislation will help
strengthen the foundation that all children
need in order to succeed in school. Coupled
with increased funding for title I programs
which focus on helping disadvantaged stu-
dents achieve high standards, this reading ini-
tiative will make a significant impact in chil-
dren's lives.
As cochair of the Congressional Child Care
Caucus, I am particularly pleased with the
Reading First Initiative with its funds targeting
children ages three through five. These com-
petitive grants will aid in the development of
verbal skills, phonetic awareness, prereading
development and assistance training for the
professional development of teachers in child
care centers or Head Start centers. If we are
to expect our children to achieve great aca-
demic success in elementary and secondary
school, it is vitally important that their teachers
are ready and able to meet the challenges of
everyday instruction in the classroom.
Moreover, our Nation's teachers are called
upon to act as surrogate parents, counselors,
confidants, and security officers, in addition to
their basic responsibilities of educating stu-
dents on a daily basis. With many teachers
choosing to leave the profession, we need to
help retain them and by providing the nec-
essary funding for training and professional
development, as well as a teacher mentoring
program, hopefully we can retain the best and
brightest in their profession and prevent a
massive shortage which is anticipated in New
York State.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support
this bill, as well as the Dunn amendment for
school security program funding, the Meek
amendment for student mentoring programs
and the Mink amendment for new teacher
mentoring. This legislation is a right first step
towards strengthening and improving our Na-
tion's public education system.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 1-the Leave No Child Be-
hind Act of 2001, in large measure because
the members of the Education and Workforce
Committee were able to come together on a
bipartisan basis to forge an agreement on a8874
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, First Session, Volume 147, Part 7, book, 2001; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31062/m1/33/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.