Student Success Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

In the unanimous decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme
Court said:

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably
be expected to succeed in life if . . . denied the
opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the
State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be
made available to all on equal terms.

The fact is that equal educational opportunities are not now
available in low-income communities: first, because education is
generally funded by the local real estate taxes, guaranteeing that
wealthier areas will have more resources for education; and, second,
because, in the normal give and take of politics, low-income areas
never do as well as wealthier areas.

All of these studies conclude that areas of concentrated poverty need
more, not less, in order to provide adequate educational opportunities.

With the 1965 enactment of the first Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, Congress provided Federal money to address ``the special
educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact
that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local
educational agencies to support adequate educational programs.''

Unfortunately, today, only a small handful of States has taken steps
to completely equalize their education funding. ESEA was not and should
never become a general education fund for all. The purpose of the law
is to provide States limited, supplemental funding that is targeted to
schools and students left behind in what remains an unequal system.

Over the last 50 years, we have recognized that students with
disabilities, neglected and delinquent students, homeless students, and
nonnative English speaking students also faced local educational
systems unprepared and sometimes unwilling to provide the resources
they needed.

We have made a difference. The improvement is real. Graduation rates
are at all-time highs, and achievement gaps have narrowed. We have made
real progress, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done.

The amendment before us is a substitute for the underlying bill
because H.R. 5, in its current form, retreats from the most important
principles of ESEA. During this debate, no one has refuted our
assertion that this bill takes money from the poorest school districts
in America and gives it to the most affluent ones. That is because the
assertion is true.

Baltimore City, with a higher concentration of low-income students,
will lose an estimated $5.7 million under H.R. 5, an 11 percent
decrease, while the Baltimore suburb of Howard County, with lower
poverty levels, will gain $1.1 million, which is a 25 percent increase.

Chicago City schools have a student population with 85 percent
receiving free and reduced lunches. The suburb of Naperville has 13
percent of students receiving free and reduced lunches. Under H.R. 5,
Chicago loses $64 million, while Naperville gains a half a million.
Republicans call this ``portability.'' We call it reverse Robin Hood,
taking from the poor to give to the wealthy.

In addition to the funding formula change, the bill reduces funding
levels and eliminates maintenance of effort. Maintenance of effort
prevents States from reducing educational spending and replacing it
with Federal money.

We should guarantee the Federal money will be in addition to ongoing
State spending so that children will actually benefit from the Federal
resources. H.R. 5 further eliminates dedicated funding for English
learners and disabled students.

The Democratic substitute seeks to address the fundamental flaws
within the Republican bill. It restores funding priority to areas of
concentrated poverty, English learners, and the disabled.

It requires States to set high and meaningful standards for all
students so that those who graduate from high school will be college
and career ready and will be able to pursue college or work without
need for remediation.

It supports our teachers by ensuring that they will have the
resources and training they need to do their jobs. It addresses the
concerns of too much testing by providing States support to improve
State assessment systems and by providing funding to eliminate all
unnecessary tests.

We are faced with a tremendous opportunity to bring our education
system into the 21st century in order to ensure that all students are
prepared for success in the global economy.

Democrats and Republicans agree about the need for flexibility and
innovation, but where we disagree is on the role of the Federal
Government. We believe that there is a Federal role in fulfilling the
promise of the Brown decision: that all students must have access to
equal educational opportunities.

The choice is clear. We should reinstate the original purpose of ESEA
by supporting the substitute amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source