[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2194-H2195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CUTS IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, as we have progressed in this House through 
the appropriation for the education program, especially for our title I 
program, we have found a continuation of the philosophy on the majority 
side that these funds for elementary and secondary education can be cut 
without causing any harm to the students in the school systems 
throughout the United States, that the majority of the Republicans 
feel, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich that these funds can be cut 
and no harm will be done.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you and other Members of this 
House do as I have done, and that is to contact your local school 
districts and talk to them about what a 17- or 20-percent cut in title 
I funds for remedial reading and reading recovery or math, remedial 
math, and those programs will do to those local districts.
  I have done so and I would like to read to you, without naming the 
names of the school districts, some of the comments that have come from 
those schools. One says a 17-percent cut in funding will be a cut of 
$15,000 to $16,000 real program dollars. They currently have two full-
time teachers, elementary level, who teach remedial reading and math. 
Since the calculation for change this year, they actually get more 
money and will have a little carryover. They plan to use the carryover 
to fund a reading recovery program. They do not have a summer school 
program.
  Another one currently has 35 or 36 full-time teachers, about 18 
aides, who serve 400 to 500 students. They deal with remedial reading 
and math during the regular school year and summer school, which 
includes pre-kindergarten level, to start a reading recovery program 
for at-risk first graders which is working out wonderfully. A 20-
percent cut, which is what is heard, will be a great impact on their 
schools. Off the top of his head, the superintendent said that they 
would do all they could to save the reading recovery, but cuts will be 
done to regular remedial programs.

                              {time}  1745

  Another one, currently one of every two teachers with two aides full-
time;

[[Page H2195]]

they deal with two remedial reading classes. Total program costs 
$75,000 to $80,000 to fund, no math program, no reading recovery 
program. They have had astounding success with remedial reading, do not 
want to lose this program, program serves grades 1 through 6. Majority 
emphasis is on 1, 2, and 3, although it continues to grade 6, and they 
have students in 4, 5, and 6 who still participate in the program. The 
majority of students graduate after grade 3. Cuts in the program would 
hurt this system.
  Another one currently has 3\1/2\ teachers in grades 1 through 6 
teaching remedial reading and math, are anticipating loss of 1 full-
time teacher. Each teacher there serves 45 to 60 students. If you lose 
one teacher, 60 students will not be served in remedial reading. Feels 
that remedial reading is a good program, has had good results.
  Here is one from another school district. They get a little over 
$200,000 in title I funding, have about 7 full-time teachers plus two 
aides. Figures they would be cut about $40,000. This means a loss 
of one teacher, probably one aide and one program. Currently have 
remedial reading and math in extended-day kindergarten and a transition 
program for first graders. Those who seem to be struggling are placed 
in classroom with two teachers. Figures the program that would be cut 
would be the extended-day kindergarten. They currently serve about 200 
kids. Said they are not a high-impact district.

  And there are other local school districts closer by that are high-
impact and would have more adverse effects on those.
  Here is another one. They are every dollar they receive from the 
title I to directly benefit a child. Currently have three full-time 
teachers who teach remedial reading and math. Besides regular program 
during the day, they have had an evening program which provides 
tutoring. The three teachers serve about 500 students, 25 percent of 
school population. Cuts in the program funds would directly cut one or 
more of the teachers. Could not absorb the cuts, and they thank our 
staff for calling. They say they are quite concerned with it.
  I have many others here that have answered our questionnaire, and all 
of them are to the gist that with a couple of exceptions where the 
school districts are fairly well funded, that they would not be able to 
replace these programs with local funds, that they would have to do 
without, and many children would be hurt by these cuts that are being 
made in education for the title I programs.
  Every one of them said that these moneys, our Federal dollars, are 
being used wisely to help educate, they are being used to make sure our 
children learn as they progress through the elementary grades. And I 
think it is poundwise, very foolish for their House to continue on the 
road to cutting education for our youngsters. They are the future of 
our country. To say we do not need to educate them, I think is a vast 
mistake.
  Another thing I would like to comment on is some of these school 
districts are in very economically low-grade or poor areas, and they 
need this money. They are not going to be able to replace it with local 
tax dollars.
  So I urge the House to restore the funding for our educational 
programs.

                          ____________________