Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act

Floor Speech

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2218, which would strike a provision that allows Governors to apply and receive direct grants from the Federal Government and preempts State education agencies from their oversight and operational responsibilities. Let me say before I defend this amendment that I think that H.R. 2218 makes very critical changes to the charter school program that are long overdue, and it moves in the right direction in terms of being more inclusive of students, including groups that have typically had limited access to charters such as students with disabilities and English language learners. I believe that my amendment will secure and protect these improvements and expansions of charter school programs.

I really question the wisdom of putting Governors' offices in the business of overseeing charter programs and implementing these extremely complex programs. We do know that Governors' offices do not have the infrastructure, expertise, or staff to do the job--a job which includes close monitoring of schools, holding authorities accountable, and much more. These are intricate programs with multiple moving parts that require time and labor-intensive administration.

I do believe that in my own State of Wisconsin, for example, we have constitutionally elected superintendents of public instruction. And it should remain within their purview to oversee and administer this program. Certainly, we all want Governors to be involved. But I think that my amendment makes it really clear that the ultimate responsibility should stay with those State public instruction agencies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KLINE. All across the country we've seen Governors and other State and local officials stand up in support of important education reform efforts that put the interest of children first. The underlying legislation before us today expands the number of State entities that may compete for charter school funding, allowing Governors to act on their support for charter schools. It addresses a real concern that has arisen in States that do not have a State education agency which supports charter schools.

Today, there are more than 420,000 students on charter school wait lists. And we've all seen the recent documentaries, ``Waiting for Superman'' and ``The Lottery.'' These chronicle low-income students trapped in failing schools, desperate for better education opportunities. Instead of helping States meet this truly incredible demand for more high quality charter schools, unfortunately, this amendment would actually stifle charter school growth by limiting a Governor's ability to support these institutions.

At the core of this bill is our desire to see more quality charter schools available for more students. More choice, more opportunity. Less ``Waiting for Superman.'' And so I oppose this amendment because it works in opposition to what the underlying bill is trying to do and what we're trying to do--and that's give the States more opportunities to create and replicate more quality charter schools.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I know Ms. Moore has reserved her time so she can respond to this, but I just want to say I think we tried to work this out in this legislation in the fashion that if a Governor makes application, he must do this in conjunction with the SEA. And the idea that the Governor would do this on his own, or whatever, we forced that working together simply because, as you point out, most Governors' offices would not have the internal capacity to carry out the responsibilities under the grant. But to deny the Governor the opportunity seems to me doesn't make sense when it's required that the SEA be involved.

I will just say I know why you're offering the amendment, and I am obviously reluctant to oppose it, but I think we have addressed this concern in the legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. I want to thank the gentlemen for responding, even though they are opposed.

Let me say that I am old enough to have gone through several gubernatorial races; and Governors run for office based on crime prevention and crime control, economic development, lowering taxes, environmental protection, and even welfare reform. And so the public in many States have elected to elect separate constitutional officers that deal solely with educational opportunity. And by not adopting this amendment, we are literally cutting off the legs of the statewide constitutional officers to do the only duty for which they are elected, and that is for educational purposes, and transferring those duties to a Governor whose agenda may have nothing to do with education at all.

With respect to the notion that the Governor has to work with the statewide superintendent of public instruction, under current law right now, superintendents do work with the Governor. And so I am sad that this is being opposed by both the majority and the minority on this committee because I do think that, rather than expanding opportunities for these 420,000 charter school students, it is going to really put them all under the purview of some ideology of some Governor, Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever. They are going to be subsumed by ideology instead of under the purview of a publicly elected State public instruction superintendent.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that the underlying legislation, as Ranking Member Miller alluded to, has language in it that strongly encourages, at the very least, Governors to work with their SEAs. But I would underscore the point that States are different. Some States are set up with different relationships between the different elected officers. They're not all elected the same way they are maybe in Wisconsin or something. Our underlying purpose here is to expand access to quality charter schools, and I believe this amendment gets in the way of that.

So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Source