Strength in Diversity Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize not just the hard work of my colleague from Ohio, Representative Marcia Fudge, but really a lifelong commitment to improving the quality of education for all of our children across this country, regardless of your background and experience, regardless of your ZIP Code, and that is what the Strength in Diversity Act does.
I thank Representative Fudge for her leadership and for giving me an opportunity to present a portion of this en bloc amendment, the two amendments that I sponsored and that are part of the en bloc.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in support of the Strength in Diversity Act and my amendments to this legislation, which will ensure that our reforms continue to have an impact well into the future. We still have work to do to address persistent racial and socioeconomic disparities that exist in our schools.
According to the 2016 GAO report, 61 percent of all high-poverty schools were serving majority Black and Hispanic student populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exasperated the racial and socioeconomic isolation throughout our country and our school systems.
Without proper support, the learning loss will be greatest among low- income Black and Hispanic students during the period of remote learning. The Strength in Diversity Act will help create a level playing field by authorizing grants to localities that have significant achievement gaps and segregation in their schools.
These grants will allow school districts to recruit, hire, and train additional teachers, administrators, and other instructional and support staff, knowing that our educators are essential to creating the world-class education that our children deserve.
My first amendment would allow education systems to use grant funds to also recruit, hire, and train school counselors. School counselors serve a vital role in maximizing students' success, working with students individually and collectively to create an exclusive school climate.
Numerous studies have shown the value of school counseling for students in academic and social-emotional development, as well as college and career readiness. Having the additional support of a school counselor helps develop well-rounded and prepared students.
But hiring our best talent cannot be the end of our efforts. We need accountability now and into the future.
The underlying bill requires grantees to submit an annual report to the Department of Education on their efforts to increase diversity and meet certain performance measures.
My second amendment requires the annual report to include a description of how grantees will continue this important work following the grant period to ensure schools are thinking ahead to the future and creating sustainable strategies and programs to continue fostering diversity, inclusion, and achievement.
We cannot task our schools to only address diversity and inclusion for the duration of a grant. Longstanding issues require long-term, community-driven solutions. School systems must readjust their frameworks so that increasing diversity and inclusion is always part of the conversation and curriculum.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the amendments are unobjectionable, though none of them address the underlying problems with the bill.
However, I highlight two problematic amendments:
The amendment offered by Representative Cooper would give school districts priority in this program if those districts had previously submitted an application under an Obama-era predecessor to the program in the underlying bill. This amendment is flawed for two reasons:
An application filed 4 years ago, may or may not still be adequate. Automatically giving those districts priority would disadvantage school districts who might have new and better ideas to propose.
Submitting an application 4 years ago is not the same as being funded 4 years ago. Applicants that never demonstrated their merit then should start on equal footing with new applicants now.
Another amendment concealed within the en bloc is offered by Representative Green of Texas, which forces grantees' hands on a dilemma many are still considering for themselves. The amendment requires that participating school districts that utilize entrance exams and competitive application procedures must replace these processes with other methods.
Republicans recognize that many school districts, as well as colleges and universities, are wrestling with the role entrance exams and other competitive application procedures have played in the admissions decisions and should play in the future. Democrats would, apparently, like to short-circuit that debate and make those determinations for school districts themselves.
Ironically, entrance exams began as an earnest effort to combat discrimination and prejudice by creating objective criteria that weren't as easily manipulated by admissions personnel who were biased against certain populations. Objective enrollment criteria can decrease the potential for schools--especially highly competitive schools--to be able to justify discrimination against students based on their backgrounds or racial identities.
Today, there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate for keeping or eliminating this practice. But this amendment would proclaim that the House of Representatives has decided against the use of entrance exams, a conversation this body has never had.
These two amendments--one undermining the quality of the application process, and the other unfairly deciding an outcome of an ongoing debate--cause me great concern and I oppose them.
Ultimately, though, on balance, this en bloc consideration is worthy of support, even if it doesn't ultimately redeem the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source