Parents Bill of Rights Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment. It would just sabotage public education by transferring money in the public school system to the private school system. It would open up funds to children in public schools to those already in private school. A lot of money would be diverted that way, and it includes homeschooling.

Who is going to audit the money that the parents get for homeschooling their children?

Furthermore, how are you going to figure out how much money each child gets?

Title I is based on a formula that involves poverty. If it is a low- income child, will they get more money to go to a private school than a higher-income person who the formula did not recognize as far as getting money?

Those are just complications. Basically, it is a private school voucher program where those already in private school can take public money out of the public system and reduce the amount of money available for public schools.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a well-worn debate. I think people are familiar with what happens when you take public school money and put it into private schools. I thank the gentleman for making the amendment as simple and straightforward as he has.

This would decimate rural districts where there are few school options. People in rural districts would take money out of the rural community and plop it into urban areas.

I would just like to know how much money a family could get if they took two children out of public school and just kept them at home under the guise of homeschooling? How much money could they get from the public school system to do that?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we don't know how much money a family could get. If they are financially strapped, how much money would they get for pulling their children out of public schools and using the money for the allowable uses, which includes extracurricular activities?

That could be a vacation to Disneyland. I don't know what they could use the money for, but they would significantly benefit financially by taking their children out of school.

Rural districts will benefit, those already in private school will benefit, and the ones that will be disadvantaged will be the school systems that are struggling to provide an education for low-income students today.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this would eliminate all of the targeted resources under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act consolidated into one view. If you just take Title I, that money is targeted toward low-income areas. There are targets to rural areas, to migrants.

Generally speaking, the mainstream education can be well done with the local and State funding. There are areas where there are troubles, English as a Second Language, migrants, low income, where the Federal Government comes in and targets money because, generally speaking, within the political give-and-take, these are the ones that are left out. Those who are generally left out and supported by ESEA are the exact ones that would be disadvantaged under this.

When you fund education with the real estate tax, as we do in the United States today, you almost guarantee inequity in education because the more wealthy areas can do better.

ESEA, primarily under Title I, goes into areas that are low income, have less resources, and they can get help from the Federal Government. That would be decimated by this amendment. I would hope we would defeat it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this would concentrate funding where there are a high concentration of students, not where there is a high concentration of poverty, as the present formula gives.

It would remove targeted money for teachers, and, incredibly, it would remove targeted funding for family engagement. I thought that is why we were here. This amendment would remove money targeted for family engagement.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has a lot of ambiguity about things like what is an injury? What is violent activity? Does there have to be an injury?

If there has to be an injury, then a shooting where the bullet misses and there is no injury would not be covered. But somebody pushes somebody and they slip and get a bloody nose, that would be an injury and that would be violent activity. It is very poorly defined.

Second is, aware of a video recording. Does that include fellow students' cell phones and other things? Does it include a monitoring of the school system monitoring?

It doesn't say anything about numerous rights and laws, rights of privacy, and what to do after you find out, what can you do about it. That is a little unclear.

It doesn't say what rights you have to the video or anything like that. I think it causes more questions than answers, and I hope we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, after the terrible incident and the loss of this young woman, there were meetings with the school board, and the number of students who came forward who talked about the bullying and the videotaping of bullying that happens, and how threatened they feel, it seems to me, out of an abundance of caution and respect and concern for the well-being of these individuals, these young people, having the school leaders step up and say we know of a video recording, we have got to make sure the parents know.

That young woman, in this case, sitting in her room watching the video over and over again, and all the extreme mockings that she endured, that may have driven her to suicide. We don't know absolutely, but we do know that it has a very debilitating impact on a young person to see all of that.

I watched the video, Mr. Chairman, and I was moved to see her on the ground, being kicked and punched. Again, there was a video of this.

So many of the parents have no idea. They don't monitor social media necessarily. Why not have the school leaders make sure that that is transferred over to the parents, so they can step in and love their child and try to protect their child from all the psychological and other harms that accrue from that video.

This is a simple amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would vote for it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this is another unfunded mandate placed on school systems that they have to do as a condition to receive Title I funds.

Then, look at what is involved if the class is eliminated because there is no teacher for that class or no student interest. For example, if no one signs up for a particular foreign language and the course is dropped, we have to now notify all the parents as a condition of getting Title I funds. If the only teacher who taught that language decides to retire and that course is not taught, you have to notify everyone as a condition of getting Title I funds.

This amendment does nothing to improve parent engagement. It just adds another Federal law. Along with the bathroom bills that we have heard, attacks on LGBTQ individuals, attacks on trans youth, now we have another report that has to be made.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have heard a lot about people who can't speak at school board meetings because they are being arrested. I reiterate, the only ones being arrested at school board meetings are those the police believe are committing crimes.

I would point out that this is another Federal law, along with the bathroom bill that is in the bill that attacks LGBTQ and trans youth, but there is nothing in this amendment to increase parental say over which courses are being offered. Some courses are deleted, like African-American studies and AP African-American studies in Florida.

There is no money for new courses. There is no money for school construction in this legislation. There is no after-school program funding. There is no money for teacher salaries. There is no money for counselors or psychologists. It is just a list of things that most parents can do anyway. There is no money for actual parental involvement. Those amendments were defeated.

Mr. Chair, I hope that this additional requirement, as a condition of receiving Title I funding, will not be adopted and that the entire bill will be defeated.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source