Student Success Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, a bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, a
landmark civil rights law enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson. As
we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take
lightly ESEA's mission, goals, and achievements over the course of five
decades. It is by that yardstick of history that we must judge H.R. 5
today and determine if it will move our education system closer to
meeting the challenges of the 21st century and prepare our students for
the global economy.
We all know too well that quality education is even more vital today
than it was generations ago. In our rapidly changing economy, our
Nation's continued success depends on a well-educated workforce. A
competitive and educated workforce strengthens the very social fabric
of America: people with higher levels of education are less likely to
be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, less likely to
become a teen parent, and less likely to get caught up in the criminal
justice system. Over the course of ESEA's history, we have recognized
that for many politically disconnected populations, equitable access to
an education has not been a reality. It was necessary for the Federal
Government to fill in the gaps of funding our public school systems.
Inequality was inevitable when most school systems are funded by real
estate taxes, and further by virtue of the fact that in our democratic
society, we respond to political pressure. For 50 years, Congress has
recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share
of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to
ensure that all children had access to quality public education. As a
result, Congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited
Federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an
unequal system.
Mr. Chairman, one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which
strikes at the heart of ESEA's long history of targeting resources to
our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision. Now,
present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high
concentration of poverty. Under H.R. 5, portability, a State agency
could use all of its title I funds to districts based solely on the
percentage of poor children, regardless of the concentration of poor
people in a district.
As a result, much of the title I support intended towards those areas
of concentration of poverty would be reallocated to those wealthier
areas. In other words, the low-income areas would get less, and the
wealthy areas would get more. I ask: If that is the solution, then I
wonder what you think the problem was? Analysis from a number of
organizations, including the Department of Education, demonstrates
title I portability will take money from the poorer schools and school
districts and give more to affluent districts. This disproportionately
affects students of color, and this is just simply wrong.
Data shows that H.R. 5 would provide the largest 33 school districts
with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic students over $3
billion less in Federal funding than the President's budget over the
next 6 years. Furthermore, the Center for American Progress found in
its review of portability that districts with high concentrations of
poverty could lose an average of $85 per student, while the more
affluent areas would gain more than $290 per student.
There is an overwhelming body of research that shows that targeting
resources to schools and districts with the highest concentrations of
poverty is an effective way to mitigate the effects of poverty. Current
law reflects this evidence and targets funding to schools where there
are greater concentrations of poverty, and this bill rolls the clock
back and reverses that.
To add insult to injury, H.R. 5 eliminates what is called maintenance
of effort, a requirement of ESEA that States maintain their effort and
that the Federal money will supplement what they are doing. As a result
of this bill, States could use their education funds to fund tax cuts
or other noneducation initiatives, thus turning ESEA into a glorified
slush fund where politics would drive funding allocations. And we know
who is going to lose when politics are at play--our children.
There are other flaws with H.R. 5. This bill sets no standards for
college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be
taught with lesser standards. It limits our investment in education
over the next 6 years because there are no adjustments for inflation.
It block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the
outcome. Taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportionate
impact on students of color, students with disabilities, and our
English language learners. It is no wonder that business groups, labor
groups, civil rights, disabilities, and education groups have all
expressed deep concerns about this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5, as it will turn
the clock back on American public education. In its current form, the
bill abandons the fundamental principles of equity and accountability
in our education system, it eviscerates education funding, it fails to
support our educators, and it leaves our children ill-prepared for
success in the classroom and beyond. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, because this bill limits the amount of funding
available, it moves money from low-income areas to wealthy areas,
eliminates targeted funds for English learners and those with
disabilities; it fails to set meaningful standards.
A lot of organizations oppose the legislation, including business
organizations, child advocacy groups, civil rights groups, the
organizations supporting those with disabilities and health groups,
including the Congressional Tri-Caucus; the Advocacy Institute; the
Afterschool Alliance; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee;
the American Association of People With Disabilities; the American
Association of University Women; the American Federation of Teachers;
the American Foundation for the Blind; the Association of University
Centers on Disabilities; Autism National Committee; Autistic Self
Advocacy Network; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Law
and Social Policy; the Children's Defense Fund; the Committee for
Education Funding; the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities; the
Council of the Great City Schools; the Council of Parent Attorneys and
Advocates, Inc.; Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights
Education & Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Education Post; Education Law
Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Gay, Lesbian & Straight
Education Network; Human Rights Campaign; the Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law;
Leading Educators; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the NAACP; the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the National Association of
School Psychologists; the National Center for Learning Disabilities;
the National Council on Independent Living; the National Council on
Teacher Quality; the National Center on Time & Learning; the National
Congress of American Indians; the National Council of La Raza; the
National Coalition for Public Education; the National Disability Rights
Network; the National Down Syndrome Congress; the National Education
Association; the National Urban League; the National Women's Law
Center; Partners for Each and Every Child; the Poverty & Race Research
Action Council; Public Advocates Inc.; Stand for Children; Southeast
Asia Resource Action Center; TASH; Teach Plus; TNTP; the Education
Trust; the United Negro College Fund; the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They are all
in opposition to this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities says:
The Student Success Act does not fully support students
with disabilities, and in fact, it creates incentives for
schools and districts to take students with disabilities,
unchecked, off the track from having equitable access to and
achieving a regular high school diploma.
Incidence data reflects that less than 1 percent of all
students have the significant cognitive disabilities, which
corresponds to about 10 percent of students with
disabilities.
Without this limitation, we fear that schools may
inappropriately assign students to the alternative
assessment. Data show assignment to these alternative
assessments may lead to reduced access to the general
curriculum and limit a student's access to earn a regular
diploma.
That is why the disability groups oppose the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to end with a reminder that this limits the
funding. It transfers money from low-income areas to high-income areas.
That is not just urban areas. There are over 2,400 low-income rural
districts that will lose about $150 million, or 15 percent, of their
total allocation, under the current law. The legislation eliminates
targeting for English learners and those with disabilities. Finally, it
fails to set meaningful standards.
For those reasons, we should join the administration in opposing H.R.
5, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source