[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9970-H9983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHARTER SCHOOLS AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2616.
{time} 2116
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2616) to amend titles VI and X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand charter schools, with Mr.
Snowbarger in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Just to start this discussion, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] will be carrying on here shortly, but I am a
strong believer in the charter schools. I was not a supporter of the
voucher bill that we just voted on, but I am a total believer that if
we are going to deal with experimentation and change in our schools,
this is the way to do it.
I have been in every single school in my State. This is Delaware we
are talking about. It is 182 schools. I have not been in one of the
charter schools, but I have been in our three charter schools which
have started.
I think the best way to describe why we should increase this funding
authorization from $15 million to $100 million and give them some
additional latitude with respect to what they are doing is to say what
is happening in these schools. The proof is certainly in the pudding
when we see it here.
I have been to the charter school at Wilmington, which was sponsored
by a consortium of six employers in Delaware and focuses on math and
science. It offers the most rigorous academic program in the State,
pays teachers based on merit, and emphasizes values and character
development.
I have seen and heard of the Positive Outcome School in Dover, which
targets children who are at risk of failure in school and who have
learning difficulties and emotional problems. Ninety percent of
students have attention deficit disorder, and 33 percent are learning-
disabled. Positive Outcomes has a 1 to 10 teacher-student ratio.
Yesterday I went to the East Side Charter School in Wilmington,
Delaware. It is run by the Wilmington Housing Authority. Every child in
that school is a minority child. Nearly 30 percent of the school's
students do reside in public housing. It is a K-through-3 school. It
offers an 11-month academic year, a 1-to-15 teacher/student ratio, two
full-day kindergarten
[[Page H9971]]
classes, a strong curriculum in the basic academics. It goes through
teacher conflict. It essentially is doing the kinds of things we talk
about doing perhaps to give our public schools a better opportunity.
This is a great opportunity for those young people in that school.
This is a great opportunity for the Congress of the United States to
step forward and to do something which will help those students who can
go to charter schools, but will also help us see how we can do better
in our public schools. That is really what this is all about. It is a
relatively simple bill. It is a piece of legislation which I think we
should support universally. The President supports it. The National
Education Association actually sponsors some charter schools.
We would encourage the creation of charter schools by directing funds
to those States that allow an increase in the number of schools. We
would encourage autonomy over budget and expenditures of charter
schools. We reduce the Federal setaside from 10 percent to 5 percent.
These are the very kinds of things that we need to do in America if we
are truly going to make our public education system better.
I look upon this as a great help for the public education system, as
well as a great outcome for those students who can avail themselves of
the opportunity to attend the charter schools which are in existence
now. We are going to double our charter schools in Delaware next year.
I hope with this legislation we can do more across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time originally granted to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] will now be controlled by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be as optimistic and
enthusiastic as the last speaker was about charter schools.
As many Members know, I am cautious about charter schools. I am
supportive of the concept of charter schools and their possible impacts
on the larger public school system as a whole. The chairman of the
subcommittee on which I am the ranking member, my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], has held a number of
hearings on charter schools to examine their place as an educational
reform tool.
Obviously, since all of us, both Republicans and Democrats, say we
are concerned about the educational opportunities of our children, we
believe that charter schools are certainly an idea worth exploring, and
in this instance probably an idea worthy of Federal support.
Throughout the hearings that we held on charter schools, we heard
several serious problems, though, regarding the admission and provision
of services to children with disabilities. In addition, controversy
continues to swirl around the governing structure of charter schools in
many States. Even here in D.C. there is a charter school that is in
trouble, and the local school board is talking about taking away their
charter. That is Marcus Garvey.
So I believe it is fair to say that because of their rather short
existence, the oldest only being about 6 years old, there is still a
lot to learn about their impact and their effectiveness in assuring
educational success for our children.
Like I said earlier, while I have a positive outlook on the impact of
charter schools on our educational system, I am concerned about the
direction that this bill would take the Federal Government in the area
of charter schools. I believe the bill raises a number of serious
policy questions, and during later debate I intend to offer several
amendments which I believe would fix these deficiencies.
This bill would establish, in my mind, a set of criteria which a
State's charter statute would have to meet in order to ensure that the
State is not at a disadvantage for funding. We here in Congress should
not be in the practice of establishing funding priorities on how we
believe individual State charters should be written, if we feel that
flexibility is a success for them.
My colleagues who have heard me speak over the years know that I have
always been concerned about unneeded interference by the Federal
Government in the legislative affairs of the States and local
governments. I have said repeatedly, it is local school boards who
govern the school districts. Charter schools are defined by State
statutes in the legislation they pass, so I do not believe it is the
place of Congress through a micromanagement system to stipulate how
that charter statute should be constructed.
I am also concerned about the changes in the period allowed for
grants from 3 years to 5 years, and additional 2-year extension grants.
I believe this change would force the Federal Government to begin
supporting operating costs, rather than staying within the realm of
start-up costs. Why should we extend the amount of time which a charter
school would continue to receive start-up funds? Do we have charter
schools taking 5 years to complete their start-up activities? I do not
think so. I see little, if any, justification for that provision.
My last major concern lies in the rewrite of the national activities
section of the statute. This bill would require the Secretary to make
as his primary activity, with funds appropriated under the statute, the
generation of private capital for charter schools.
I strongly believe that the emphasis of the Department's activities
should be towards evaluation, technical assistance, and outreach, not
to act as a Wall Street banker for charter schools. However, I do want
to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for his extremely
hard work in fashioning the bill that not only reflects his priorities,
but Democratic priorities as well. The hard work of both the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and his staff on this bill is a tribute to
his dedication to the charter school concept.
In total, I do want to stress that I am not against the concept of
charter schools. In fact, like many of my colleagues, I see the value
in using charter schools as one of the many educational reform tools in
our public education system. I just do not believe that the policy
direction which this bill would take the Federal support of charter
schools is in the best interests of charter schools or the children
that they serve. I am hopeful that through the amendment process, that
we can rectify the deficiencies that I have outlined.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time originally controlled by the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle] will be controlled by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to come down to the well momentarily, but
while I stand here at this podium, I want to thank my good friend and
vice chairman of the subcommittee for claiming the time and for his
eloquent statement in support of charter schools.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me tell Members that I am pleased
that I can rise in support of what I hope becomes, based on the final
vote, a very strong bipartisan bill expanding public school choice for
parents. I emphasize that at the outset, because I just want my
colleagues to know that on the last vote we had, just about an hour or
so ago, the idea of allowing State and local school districts around
the country to use one particular category or source of Federal
taxpayer funding for education to provide scholarships for low-income
parents unfortunately was defeated in this Chamber by pretty much a
party line vote. In fact, I have the numbers here. Eighty-two percent
of House Republicans supported the HELP Scholarships bill, and 93
percent of House Democrats voted against it.
The other thing I want to say, so I can get any note of partisan
rancor here out of the way at the outset of the debate, I also want to
take exception to comments that were made recently by the President. I
have here in my hand an AP wire story from October 24 that begins by
quoting the President as saying, ``President Clinton suggested
[[Page H9972]]
today,'' October 24, ``that Congressional Republicans want the
government to do next to nothing in education.''
It is unfortunate the President would say those words, because, of
course, what we have on the floor now is a bipartisan bill that would,
as I said earlier, greatly expand public school choice for parents, and
which would fully fund the President's proposal for $100 million in
Federal taxpayer funding for the start-up or creation of more charter
schools in America during the Federal fiscal year 1998.
So, Mr. President, you were ill-informed or certainly misspoken when
you claimed that we are doing next to nothing in education, because
here is a bill where we fully intend to team up with a number of House
Democrats, Members of the President's own party, to advance legislation
that he have requested.
And I will daresay, as I said earlier this evening during the debate
on the HELP Scholarships bill, that at the end of the day, either later
tonight or later this week when we reach final passage on this bill, a
majority, an overwhelming majority, of House Republicans are going to
support the Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997. I daresay a
majority, I hope it is not a large majority, but a majority of House
Democrats will vote against that legislation. So be clear, Mr.
President and the American people, who is trying to do something for
parents and for children in education.
Now, it is clear to me that with respect to education, we are seeing
a phenomenon across the land in this country today. It is one of those
that we could sort of put under the heading of when the people lead,
the leaders will follow. I am referring to the growing and widespread
public demand on the part of education consumers, parents, and
guardians for more competition and more choice in education.
I would like to cite for my colleagues and introduce for the Record
an article that appeared on October 1 in the Washington Post, not
exactly a conservative newspaper, entitled ``Popularity Grows for
Alternatives to Public Schools, Some Districts,'' referring to local
school districts around the country, ``Some Districts Reacting to
Threat of Competition.''
The article began by saying, ``In a movement flustering schools
across the Nation, more parents than ever are choosing alternatives to
public education for their children, including public charter schools,
religious schools, and home schooling, so much that what once seemed a
fad to many educators is instead starting to resemble a revolution.''
{time} 2130
The article closed by quoting Robert Chase, who is the president of
the National Education Association Teachers Union. I am not sure, Mr.
Chase says, I am not sure if any of us really know yet where these
trends are leading us, but it had better make us take a hard look at
what we are doing in public education.
So I hope we are very clear that there is a growing competition and
response to parents' concerns and that that growing competition is
forcing the public school system to react. We are going to try to give
that whole movement a little bit more impetus with the legislation
before us on the House floor this evening.
I am very glad that I have been able to work closely with the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on this legislation. Just on a
personal note, he and his staff have been wonderful to work with. I
think we really have forged a bill that strengthens existing law and
which will enjoy wide bipartisan support in the House.
I think it is also important and fair to note that a majority of the
Democrats on the full House Committee on Education and the Workforce
supported this bill, 10 Democrats, thanks largely to the leadership of
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the respect in which he is
held by his colleagues, 10 Democrats, 10 out of 18, so a majority voted
for the bill in committee.
I believe, I hope I am correct in saying this, that the President has
endorsed, if not this specific bill, legislation very similar in
concept to our bill. And the Department of Education has issued a
statement of qualified support for the legislation.
One reason for the growing bipartisan support for charter schools in
Congress is the popularity of charter schools outside Washington, D.C.,
a popularity that has been soaring over just the last few years and
that has led to Members, individual Members of Congress, hearing from
parents, their constituents, about the demand, or maybe the desire is
the better way to put it, for more and expanded public school choice.
This all began in 1991, in Minnesota, which became the first State in
the Union to authorize charter schools. Now today, just 6 short years
later, we have 29 States with charter school laws, along with the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and some 700 charter schools
serving 170,000 children across the country. And there are more
starting every day and several hundred more, I am told, on the drawing
boards in these 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
So I think charter schools have arrived. They are now, I think,
viewed as an integral component to reform and improvement of the public
schools and our public education system. And the reports that we have
heard and the testimony that we gathered during the committee process
indicated that administrators who are running these charter schools are
delighted to be freed up from stifling regulations. Teachers are,
indeed, this is probably the most important aspect of independent
charter schools, teachers are free to innovate, and students who attend
charter schools are eager to learn, and their parents seem to be
thrilled by the results.
We heard, during the committee process, from Dr. Yvonne Chan, who is
a lifelong professional educator for the Los Angeles Unified School
District and a charter school developer in the San Fernando Valley area
of Los Angeles, about the three B's, which represented her frustrations
with traditional public schools, what she called busing, bureaucracy,
and but; the fact that her schools too often had to bus neighborhood
children outside that neighborhood to go to another public school. Now,
by starting her own charter school, she is able to bring those kids
back into the neighborhood where they live to attend school there.
Bureaucracy, and I think we all know the concerns about bureaucracy,
and charter schools are quintessentially an experiment, but they are a
movement in decentralizing and deregulating local public schools,
giving them autonomy from the bureaucracy.
And Dr. Chan talked about the ``but'' problem, the ``but'' syndrome.
Every time she had a good idea to propose up through the ranks, she got
back the answer, that is a good idea but we cannot implement it for the
following reasons. She was a very important witness to us, as we seek
to expand charter schools and public school choice through the use of
Federal taxpayer dollars.
Congress, the Federal Government, has been involved in the creation
of charter schools since 1994, when Congress first authorized national
charter schools as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and established an earmarked Federal funding stream to assist charter
schools with start-up costs.
We heard from a number of charter school developers around the
country what business entrepreneurs have known for years, and that is,
in trying to start up a charter school, it often takes longer and costs
more than they originally anticipated. So there is clearly an important
role where the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers can support the
charter schools movement.
This bill responds to concerns expressed by students, parents,
teachers, and charter school operators or developers in our five
hearings on charter schools, and it responds to the findings of various
public and private studies, including the Department of Education's own
first year report of their 4-year study on charter schools.
The highlights of the bill, very quickly, are these.
One, it meets the President's funding level, his budget request to
Congress for charter schools, by increasing the authorization, the
current authorization, from $51 million in Federal taxpayer funding for
charter schools to $100 million. So that is roughly a doubling or 100
percent increase in Federal
[[Page H9973]]
taxpayer financial support for charter schools.
Two, it drives 95 percent of that money, the money for Federal
charter schools, to the State and local levels to establish charter
schools. It only leaves the Department with 5 percent to continue to
conduct their study and other evaluation and national activities.
Three, it purposely directs the new money, the increase, the
difference between 51 million and 100 million, to those States that
provide a high degree of physical autonomy to charter schools and that
allow for increases in the number of charter schools and that provide
for strong academic accountability. We want to know, bottom line here,
that charter schools are leading to an improvement in pupil performance
and that charter schools are meeting or exceeding the academic
performance goals set out in their charters.
Four, it ensures that charter schools can compete with traditional
public schools on an equal footing for Federal categorical education
aid. That is under the very simple premise that the money should follow
the child and that charter schools should not be placed at some sort of
competitive disadvantage in obtaining their fair and equitable share of
per pupil funding under both Federal, State, and local funding sources.
Five, it directs the Secretary to assist charter schools in accessing
private capital. That is particularly important to help charter schools
deal with those up-front development costs, particularly capital
expenses that they incur in trying to lease or renovate buildings and
in trying to provide a housing or physical premise necessary to conduct
a charter school.
Six, it extends the life of the Federal start-up grant from 3 years
to 5 years in an effort to give charter schools a little bit more time
to become financially stable and solvent, and that is again important
because we heard from charter school operators in our hearings and in
the written testimony, again, that many times while they were producing
impressive academic results at the 3-year mark, they were still
struggling to make ends meet financially.
This bill improves upon the existing Federal charter school law by
sending more money directly to charter schools and by providing a
maximum amount of flexibility for charter schools in that critical
start-up phase. This legislation is the springboard necessary to meet
the goal of having 3,000 charter schools in America in operation by the
year 2000, a goal, a bipartisan goal, frequently cited by the
President.
Again, in closing, I want to especially thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for his hard work on this issue
and for the diligent work that his staffer, Gina Mahoney, has done in
helping us to craft the legislation. He has, indeed, as his comments
earlier tonight would suggest, been a very strong advocate for public
education reform through charter schools, and this legislation would
not be on the floor this evening without his very strong and active
input and involvement.
I will close by citing these two charts. Clearly, support for charter
schools is not only growing, as I mentioned earlier, but it really
almost transcends the normal demographics and political party
breakdown, as this chart indicates. There is strong support among all
different groups, regardless of racial or ethnic backgrounds and
regardless of political party affiliation, for creating more charter
schools.
And lastly, since I referred to them, his comments earlier tonight in
the context of our HELP scholarships bill, I do want to, out of
fairness to the President, point out that he has been a leader on this
issue. These are his comments from that same Presidential debate, the
first Presidential debate in Connecticut last year with Senator Dole.
He said there, I support school choice; I have advocated expansion of
public school choice alternatives and the creation of 3,000 new schools
that we are going to help the States finance.
And as I pointed out tonight, the Riggs-Roemer or the Roemer-Riggs
or, as the minority leader suggested earlier, the Roemer bill would
help us move much closer to that goal of 3,000 new schools.
And the President went on to say, I am all for students having more
choices; we worked hard to expand public school choice; in my balanced
budget bill, there are funds for 3,000 new schools created by teachers
and parents, sometimes by business people, called charter schools that
have no rules.
So I think we are on to something good here, and for those of us who
truly believe that we ought to give parents more alternatives, that we
ought to listen to the people demanding more choice and more
competition, more freedom in the public education system, I think we
have an opportunity to tell them, we hear you and we are going to
respond to your concerns by the swift bipartisan passage of H.R. 2616,
the Riggs-Roemer Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who is coauthor of the bill.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by saying that in
this past session of Congress we have shown the American people that we
wanted to work together in a bipartisan way to balance the budget, that
we wanted to work together in a bipartisan way to provide modest tax
relief for hard-working Americans, and now it is time to move on to
education and work in a bipartisan way to help fix, restore, resurrect,
and reform our public education system.
I want to thank for much of that bipartisanship the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], my friend, and his fine staffer, Denzel
McGuire, for her hard work, his entire personal staff and committee
staff for their hard work. We have worked hours and hours, days and
months on this legislation. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]
has shown not only a very adept sense at understanding the legislation
but a real common sense in listening to the people across this country
that are very, very much in favor of charter schools.
I very much look forward to a strong bipartisan support here on the
House floor, moving it to the Senate and then getting it signed by the
President.
By the way, the President of the United States, President Clinton,
not only talked about charter schools, which are public school choice,
he has been a strong advocate of this program and wants to move from
700 charter schools that we currently have to over 3,000 charter
schools. I thank the President and the Department of Education for
their strong support.
Now, what are charter schools? Charter schools, for those listening
out in Indiana and across America, are public school choice. Parents
and students should be able to send their children to the best school
in their environment. Whether it is an inner city or a rural community,
let us insist on every public school being the best it can possibly be
and that every child has the choice to go to that best public school.
Let us make sure we save every one of these children and demand
excellence from every one of our schools.
Charter schools are less regulated. Charter schools have less
bureaucracy. Charter schools have more ability to be innovative and try
new, bold ideas with the curriculum, doing partnerships with the
business community, having longer school days and school years. Charter
schools are cradles of invention and innovation, and we should very
strongly support them today or next time we vote on this charter school
legislation. I hope it is tomorrow or Thursday, whenever we get to this
bill.
{time} 2145
Public school choice is the way we should try to move in this
country. What are the initial studies saying about school choice? The
National School Board Association has noted that there are so-called
secondary ripple effects with these charter schools, 700 of them
already out there, that are now creating evidence that traditional
schools are working harder to please local families so they will not
abandon them for charter schools.
Charter schools are creating the competition to force other public
schools
[[Page H9974]]
to be the excellent schools that we need. The Chicago model for
reforming and saving our public school system is using charter schools
to be innovative. I think this is a very strong idea to help restore
and save public education in this country, where education now is
critically important. In the next century, it is going to determine
even more so winners from losers.
So, again, I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] for his hard work. I strongly encourage my colleagues on the
Republican and the Democratic side to support this charter school bill.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, may I clarify how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has 10
minutes remaining. The other gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]
has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague the
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some reservations that I have about
this legislation. But first of all, I would like to thank my colleague,
I would like to thank members of the committee, especially the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling], chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent
work in bringing this bill before us today.
I agree with the sponsors of this bill that we must give States the
flexibility to help foster the kind of innovation that charter schools
provide while maintaining high levels of accountability. Parents,
teachers, and administrators throughout the Nation have indicated again
and again that they want the flexibility to try different approaches of
educating their children, and we should support their efforts. Public
charter schools expand the choices for parents, students, and typically
they incorporate a great deal of input from our local communities.
There is a bipartisan agreement that charter schools have been
effective in many cases, and the best way to continue this progress is
to provide the additional start-up support for new charter schools.
The primary role of the Federal Government is to provide the support
by sending money back to the States for the planning and the
implementation of these new schools. However, that role is not to
dictate to the States how they should run their charter school
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to this legislation that
would maintain existing language regarding State laws required to
receive support from the Federal program. Charter schools, by design,
are experiments in systemic reform. I am sure that the provisions in
this bill were designed to increase the number of charter schools
nationwide. We have heard that many times tonight. However, this
legislation puts Congress in the role of deciding how State legislators
should write their laws.
This bill does provide support for that innovation by extending the
authorized amount for the program. But, at the same time, those States
that already have enabling legislation, this bill says they must write
new statutes or lose their funding. We should stick to providing funds
that help establish new charter schools.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I will introduce
tomorrow and resist imposing new standards on these States.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez], the ranking member, for yielding me the time.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs],
chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a good job in putting
together a generally very good bill here. I think it is one area in
education that we can finally say that people have tried to work
together without rancor and bitterness to try to come together with an
idea of how we might really buttress our public schools.
When we voted a little over an hour ago on vouchers, I think there
was a clear division, a clear disagreement as to whether or not that
was a step outside of support for public schools into an area that many
of us did not want to go and do not think is going to strengthen our
public school system.
I have said it here on the floor before, and I think it bears
repeating, that we have a clear philosophy in this country that we are,
in fact, in favor of public schools. We understand that those people
that are fortunate enough to be able to send their children to private
schools should have the ability to do so, and that has historically
been the case.
But there are over 50 million children in this country that do not
have that kind of benefit, do not have the family with that kind of
income. Nor is there any likelihood that we are going to ever create 50
million vouchers to give everybody the chance. But we can provide
better public schools for all 50-million-plus of those children. We are
willing to step forward on the charter schools to experiment, to let
local States and communities experiment within the public school system
and find the direction that they are comfortable with.
I think that we have done that in the appropriations bill, where we
talked about the comprehensive schools, we talked about people and
communities coming together with the school to define a mission, to
decide just how they are going to measure the progress under that
mission, to bring the whole community in to work on that, whether it is
colleges nearby, business communities, the parents of course, employees
at the school, the administration, to develop this system and to move
forward. And always, we want higher standards.
But in all of those scenarios, we also expect we are going to have to
provide the resources to make the public schools successful. The
chairman of the subcommittee and I had a discussion the other day. We
talked about a certain charter school, where it had left the public
school building, set up across town, and thought they were doing great
because they gave each student a computer and each student a computer
at home. That will always work if you do it, even if the public school
had not moved.
We want to say that there are parts of this bill we need to improve,
one being the priority section, so that Massachusetts and other States
can benefit from legislation as well. And providing we do that, an
amendment will be offered for that, we should be able to work forward
to improve our public schools.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce for yielding me the time.
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr.
Chairman, I rise in strong support tonight for this legislation. I,
too, would like to commend my colleagues and friends on the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], for the hard work that
they put in in drafting this legislation that is a good bipartisan
piece of legislation, legislation that is really geared to helping the
public school system in this country to improve themselves and give
parents greater choice, teachers greater flexibility in how they are
going to teach our children.
I urge my colleagues tonight to get behind and support this charter
school legislation. I am a supporter of school choice, Mr. Chairman. I
believe that the parents should be allowed to send their children,
whether it is the public school or private schools of their choice. I
oppose, however, the voucher plan that we earlier voted down in this
Chamber. I think it is a drain on the public school resources, limited
resources that are available.
My State of Wisconsin earlier this year struck down a private voucher
plan in that State as an unconstitutional infringement upon the
separation of church and State. The public schools are America's
commitment and promise, really, to provide a quality
[[Page H9975]]
education to every child in this country. They are the great equalizers
in our society.
Charter schools are merely public schools that are created by
teachers, parents, and other members of the community as innovative
means to educate students and to stimulate creativity in the public
school system.
Wisconsin passed its charter school bill back in 1993. We have 15
currently in existence. There is a lot of demand for increasing that
number in recent years. This legislation will provide the seed money to
allow States such as Wisconsin, with the positive feedback and results
that we are seeing in the charter school system, get that type of seed
money in order to improve the public education system.
I believe it is time to provide the support to parents and teachers,
school districts and communities throughout the country to think
creatively with bold innovative ideas and the flexibility necessary to
meet the challenges we face in preparing all our children to the
challenges of America. I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kind] for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Paul].
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I was in
support of the scholarship programs that we just voted down. But this
bill introduces the notion of a brand new Federal program. I have not
seen the problem to be lack of Government intervention at the Federal
level, nor lack of funds.
I believe very sincerely that our public school system faces too much
regulation from the Federal level, we do not need a new program. In
this bill we will have mandates from the Federal Government on the
States. There is also recommendations in here that the curriculum be
evaluated. To me, this introduces a notion that we are so much opposed
to testing, because it is the eventual evaluation and setting of
standards that I think is so dangerous to the public school system.
This bill has $100 million in it. I can see why some who believe in
big government believe in expanding the role of government in
education, would support this. I strongly oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition
to H.R. 2616, a bill amending titles VI and X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand the use of charter schools.
Despite the understandable enthusiasm many members of Congress feel
toward charter schools, Congress should reject this bill as it
represents an unconstitutional federal infringement upon the authority
of states, local communities, and individual citizens to control
education. The tenth amendment reserves to the states and the people
``all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,''
and thus forbids the federal government from any interference in
education be it by mandating a national curriculum or providing
incentives to states and localities to form charter schools. The
drafters of the constitution made no exception for education in the
tenth amendment.
H.R. 2616 encourages states to alter their education laws and
policies for the purpose of increasing the number of charter schools to
at least 3,000 by the year 2000. In order to achieve this
congressionally set goal, the Secretary of Education is instructed to
give prioritized funding to states which allow charter schools a ``high
degree of autonomy'' over their respective budgets and expenditures;
have at least one chartering authority which allows for an increase in
the number of charter schools each year; and provides for periodic
review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of
each charter school. Thus, the federal government will use monies
seized from the American people to ``persuade'' the states to create
more charter schools with federal specifications. Of course, if the
federal government reduced its oppressive level of taxation, the
American people would have more resources to devote to education and
states would feel less compelled to obey Congressional mandates in
order to finance education.
A federal policy of encouraging charter schools represents an
exercise in legislative hubris incompatible with ending ``the era of
big government.'' The charter school model may not be appropriate for
every state in the nation. Whether or not a charter school is
appropriate for a local community is a decision best made by the people
in that respective community. Yet, this bill makes it national policy
to encourage the formation of charter schools throughout the nation
because Congress has determined charter schools are desirable. However,
a centralized body such as Congress is institutionally incapable of
knowing what reforms work best for every school district in this large
and diverse nation. Therefore, rather than expanding federal
programs, Congress should defund the federal education bureaucracy and
return control over education to those best suited to design effective
education programs--local communities and individual citizens.
Proponents of this bill claim that it expands the educational options
available to the nation's children. However, increasing federal
involvement in education actually decreases the ability of parents to
control their child's education. As a greater percentage of the
nation's educational resources are devoted to fulfilling the wishes of
Congress, fewer resources will be devoted to fulfilling the wishes of
America's parents. This is because some people who would otherwise
operate a religious-based school, for example, will instead open
charter schools in order to receive federal funds. Since charter
schools cannot offer religious instruction, those parents who would
send their children to that school if it provided a parochial education
are denied the ability to educate their children in accordance with
their preferences.
Mr. Chairman, further evidence of how this bill would actually limit
educational options can be found in the language making ``evaluations''
of charter schools one of the stated purposes of the federal charter
school program. National evaluation is a process whereby federal
bureaucrats determine which are the best education practices, leading
to a federally-approved set of ``best practices'' for charter schools.
Over time, charter schools will face pressure, perhaps applied by
future Congresses, to adopt those practices favored by the federal
government. Language in this bill giving the Secretary of Education the
power to make grants based on how well charter schools meet the
academic performance requirements guarantees an increasing level of
uniformity among the nation's charter schools. This may extend as far
as federal control, or at least ``oversight,'' of the curriculum
offered by charter schools!
Defenders of this bill may point out that the statute specifies the
review and evaluation of charter schools to determine how well the
charter school meets or exceeds state performance standards. However,
it is unlikely that any state seeking federal funds would set standards
different from those favored by the federal educrats. Furthermore,
states applying for federal funds for charter schools must describe to
the Secretary the goals of charter schools and the means by which
charter schools will be evaluated by the state, as well as the
curriculum and instructional practices to be used by the states charter
schools, thus giving the Secretary another means by which to impose a
uniform federal model of charter schools.
This bill further centralizes education by ratifying the increase of
federal expenditures for charter schools to one-hundred million dollars
contained in this year's budget and ``such sums as necessary for each
of the four succeeding fiscal years.'' An authorization of ``such sums
as necessary'' gives appropriators carte blanche to increase
appropriations every year. Since federal education programs are funded
by taking money from hardworking American taxpayers, increasing federal
expenditures on charter schools, or any other education program favored
by Congress, leaves America's parents with fewer resources to educate
their children in the way they deem fit.
Mr. Chairman, if educational choice is to be the priority, Congress
should support large educational tax credits for parents, such as those
contained in the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816). Insofar as
``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' expanding federal education
programs and federal education expenditures will inevitably lead to
increased federal control. Conversely, education tax credits will
restore parental control over education. Moreover, the tax credit
approach is much more consistent with this Congress' stated goal of
decentralizing education authority.
In conclusion, this bill, while dressed up in the rhetoric of
``fostering educational innovation and increased parental
empowerment,'' is really yet another unconstitutional infringement upon
the rights of states, localities, and, especially, parents to control
education.
Charter schools may be a valuable educational reform. However, it is
neither the constitutional nor practical role of Congress to encourage
states to adopt a particular reform. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my
colleagues to reject this proposal and instead, work to eliminate all
federal educational programs which interfere with education and,
instead, return authority over education to the rightful owner--the
American people.
[[Page H9976]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] has 9 minutes remaining and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] has 16\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, when this debate started, the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] was the first speaker, and the words that
came out of his mouth were words that I could have spoken myself and,
in a sense, I will speak myself at this moment. That is that I am, I
believe, as strong a supporter of charter schools as anyone in this
Chamber. And at the same time, I also voted against the ill-advised
voucher proposal that we just defeated.
I commend my Republican colleagues, who, without their support, we
would not have been able to defeat that proposal. One of the concepts
of why I support charter schools is that it really does work. It
creates competition within the public school system. I see it work on a
very practical basis in the State of Florida in my own district, the
20th District in Broward County, FL.
I serve on the board of a charter school. I do not know how many
other Members in this Chamber have that distinction in their sort of
noncongressional lives. But it is a very proud part of my public
service that I was part of a creation of a charter school, and it is a
school that is working and that is benefitting about 40 children in my
district. It is doing some good things. And within the public school
system, it is creating competition. And competition works.
But I think if we look at the specifics of this legislation, it goes
too far. It expands charter schools more than I think is appropriate,
not just in Florida, not just in Broward County, but throughout the
entire country. There are a number of specifics that have been pointed
out that I think are important in terms of some of the problems that
this legislation creates. One is changing from 3 to 5 years the grant
proposal. If we want charter schools not to have that fiery
entrepreneurship and independence that has worked, that has been
practical, that is the way to do it.
Again, I think it is worth mentioning, in Florida and in south
Florida, charter schools have been bipartisan. I am on the board of a
charter school. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] is. And
former President Bush's son, Jeb Bush, actually started the first
charter school in the State of Florida.
In closing, I would remind my Republican colleagues that one size
really does not fit all, that the Federal Government sometimes does not
do best. I urge the defeat of this proposal as presently drafted.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2616, although
not a perfect bill, the Charter School Amendment Act of 1997, the bill
that we will have the opportunity to vote on very soon.
This innovative school choice program strengthens our public school
system. At least that is the design of it. Charter schools are public
schools established under State laws that are created by teachers,
parents, and other members of the community to stimulate reform within
the public school system.
Contrary to popular belief, charter schools do not exclusively serve
suburban school districts. In fact, some of the most successful charter
schools are in urban areas. Additionally, some of the schools only
serve students with disabilities or also low-income students.
H.R. 2616 amends the current law. It extends it from 3 to 5 years,
although there is question about that. The extension provides
opportunity to actually see that these programs are implemented.
{time} 2200
There are some 28 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
that enjoy the great opportunity to implement charter schools. My State
happens to be one. In fact, my State now has chartered more charter
schools than most of the States.
In my district, charter schools are working. Not all of them are
successful, but many of them are. Therefore, I would encourage other
Members to give this legislation a chance, to support these schools,
and to find innovation within the opportunity of public schools.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support
of the charter schools legislation and cite two important facts about
what is happening in my home, the State of Florida. The first is that
there are a significant number of at-risk children, children with
learning disabilities whose parents have advocated for the creation of
these schools.
The second point which I find particularly interesting is a lot of
these schools are finding a way to succeed with a minimum amount of
administration. In Florida that means not having assistant principals,
not having guidance counselors, just the principal and the teachers. As
a result of those savings from reduced administration, we have an
average class size of about 17 students per teacher in many of these
charter schools.
Why is that so terribly important? Let me share with Members a story.
There was a team of sociologists a few years ago sent into a major
inner-city school system to study what had happened to the kids who had
been through that school system. After a lot of study, they found a
group of kids who had succeeded wildly. These kids had gone on to
college while many of their peers had never finished high school, were
succeeding professionally, and had healthy emotional lives. They traced
it all back to one teacher.
They found this teacher. She had retired from the school system. They
went to her, they said, ``Ma'am, what did you do to these students? Why
did they succeed?'' She said, ``Mister, I knew each of the kids in my
class. I had a small class. I knew each of them had something good in
them. I helped them find that. I knew what it was. I loved those kids.
I helped those kids succeed.''
That is simply one powerful example of what happens when we have
smaller class sizes, when our teachers can give students the attention
they need, gifted students, average students, kids at risk. This is
simply one of the first important lessons that charter schools are
going to teach us, important lessons that we can replicate for the
entire public school system to help all our kids in public schools
succeed because of the innovation that we are going to be encouraging
in charter schools.
Charter schools is a long overdue reform this Congress needs to
encourage. We need to encourage reform. We need to encourage
innovation. We need to let the local school districts run with the
ball. We need to encourage parents to be activists. This bill helps do
that.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to speak for or against
charter schools. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that I could be
supportive of charter schools. However, for many years now, I have been
involved in trying to stop the rip-off of our Pell grants and Stafford
loans by private postsecondary schools. I have worked with some people
on the opposite side of the aisle.
Well, lo and behold I have discovered in the Los Angeles area some
wise crook has found a way to rip off this charter school. Let me tell
Members what they have done. An organization that is organized as a
nonprofit charter school has a relationship with the Victorville School
District out in the desert near San Bernardino. They have come into the
inner cities from Victorville, this Cato Institute, which has the
relationship with Victorville, and it has gone to the already private
schools in Los Angeles where my grandson is enrolled in one of these
private schools, and have worked out an arrangement with the owners of
the school to allow these children to be signed up to the Victorville
School District by way of the Cato Institute. Of course, the dollars
that are derived from the Victorville School District
[[Page H9977]]
are being shared through the Cato Institute with the private schools.
My grandson and the other children remain in the private schools, their
parents are paying tuition fee for them every month, so now what we
have is we have government funds going through the charter school to
help support private students.
We cannot have that. I do not know how this has happened. She has
checked with the State of California. They said nothing that they know
of envisioned this kind of thing happening, but it is what I worry
about, when we allow the proliferation of any kind of school, whether
it is charter schools or what have you, I worry about the crooks being
able to come in and take advantage.
In this case, there is no reason why the government should be paying
for my grandson whose mother is paying for him in private school. But
this institute is getting the money from the Victorville School
District, and sharing it per pupil with this private school, and
promising that they will support them with resource materials, a
sophisticated library access and maybe even computers. This is wrong,
it is not right, and this is not what I think you intended for the
charter schools.
I have talked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] about
it. I want to fix it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me.
She is correct. She was kind enough to approach me with her concerns.
We have promised on this side to look into them, but I forgot to ask
the gentlewoman, I guess, a pretty basic question; that is, does she
know if this particular charter school in Victorville, California
receives any Federal taxpayer funding?
Ms. WATERS. I do not know.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, it is purely coincidental that I stand
here following the statement of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters], because the gentlewoman and I have worked together on the
questions of scam technical schools and the default levels.
I can pledge absolutely to the gentlewoman from California that we
will work together on this, but I do not think that that issue alone
should defeat this question of charter schools, because I think the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has asked the correct question.
We do not know whether that is under California law solely or whether
it has to do with the Federal connection.
In any case, I believe as I read this legislation and whatever
mutually acceptable amendments or language the gentlewoman and I could
put in here to clarify it would deal with that question. But I think
this accountability requirement, as I see this as one of the strongest
parts of this legislation, is that it has quite explicit accountability
standards both from the Federal level to the State level and down to
the local autonomous group. I think it is a wonderful, creative,
innovative way to bring parents, highly-trained professionals and the
local communities to bettering children's education while at the same
time maintaining accountability for standards.
But there is a question about how these charters are being handled in
the State of California, or New Jersey, for that matter. To my
knowledge, we have not had that problem in New Jersey, and we have been
rather innovative ourselves.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my intent is not to defeat the legislation.
My intent is to surface this problem that I have run into in
California. Even if they are not receiving Federal assistance, I do not
know if they are or not, you can perhaps not have this loophole in your
legislation that would allow this kind of pass-through.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is very important, and I commit to that. It is
just coincidental that my prepared remarks were going to focus on the
accountability question with respect to educational standards. But
certainly we have to be accountable as to how these charters are
delivered or are presented.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Charter Schools Amendments Act
of 1997. This legislation is a significant creative innovation to
encourage States to look for new and creative ways to improve our
country's schools.
Charter schools are an intelligent way to give local authority
maximum innovative techniques using the strengths of parental
involvement with the highest degree of professionalism and
accountability.
This legislation will give priority of charter school funds to States
that allow charter schools a high degree of autonomy over their budget
and expenditures, allow for an increase in the number of charter
schools from one year to the next, and include a periodic review.
I am pleased that this legislation has placed a strong emphasis on
accountability. The legislation gives priority to States that include a
law that provides for periodic review by the authorized public
chartering agency. This review is to determine whether the school is
meeting or exceeding the academic performance requirements and goals
for charter schools as set under the State law and the school's
charter.
We need this accountability in our school systems to hold someone
responsible for improving the education that our nation's youth
receive. To renew its charter, the school must be meeting its goals!
Charter schools are a good step for the future. They are schools with
regulatory flexibility, where they are released from a variety of
regulation so the schools can have flexibility in their development,
and can experiment with new ideas. Charter schools are able to test a
variety of educational approaches as they commit to attaining specific
educational results and standards.
Charter schools have used this opening to excel in academic
performance, parental satisfaction and involvement and teacher
satisfaction. This past year, New Jersey granted 17 schools charters,
including one in my district in Sussex County, New Jersey for 7th and
8th graders, which, as it continues to grow, will use the creativity
and energy of the community with an emphasis on integrating available
technologies, to find a way to meet the demands and challenges of
today's society.
I would also like to note that this legislation reaffirms current law
by specifically requiring that charter schools comply with Part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The legislation also
includes assurances that charter schools may not discriminate against
children with disabilities.
This education legislation emphasizes accountability and originality.
It is good legislation, and it encourages programs that will create
innovation in our school system. Now is the time for such action.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations who has spearheaded our Education at the Crossroads
project around the country.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Let us take a look at what H.R. 2616 does. What the bill does is it
increases funding for charter schools, reduces the amount of money that
stays in Washington, directs the Secretary and the States to ensure
that charter schools receive their fair share of other Federal funding
dollars.
As we have gone around the country, one of the things that we have
experienced when we have taken a look at charter schools is that
charter schools seem in too many cases not to be getting their fair
share of Federal dollars, so we are addressing that issue, and it also
then amends title VI so that in this program, money that is used for
professional development, computers and technology, curriculum
development and magnet schools, that there is now one more use that is
allowed. If a local school district or a State wants to use the money,
they can use it for charter schools.
Why is this so important? As we have gone around the country, we have
visited around 13 States, 15 different field hearings. Charter schools
is an experiment that many of the States are working on to improve
education for our children. In every State it is slightly different.
What this says is we want to encourage this development at the State
level. We want to support this innovation.
We have seen charter schools in California, we have seen them in
Arizona,
[[Page H9978]]
we saw them in Delaware, we have seen them in Michigan, we have seen
different types and experimentation of similar types of programs in
Wisconsin and Ohio. There is a lot of innovation going on, and this
really is a fundamental role where the Federal Government maybe does
have a legitimate place in being involved in saying, this is a research
effort, we need to fund this research effort, we need to learn from
this process, and we then need to share this learning and understanding
with the other States and become kind of a clearinghouse so that other
people can see and learn from what we are finding around the country.
As I have said, we have gone around the country. We have seen so many
exciting things in education. We have seen in some of the toughest
school districts in some of the toughest parts of the country, we have
seen real improvement, because States have empowered people at the
local level to do what they feel needs to be done at the local level.
Charter schools along with some of these other experiments is
something that the Federal Government should be supporting, something
that we should be encouraging, and something that we should be learning
from and then disseminating the information around the country so that
other local school districts and States can learn from it and put
together the most effective education package for that local community
and for that State.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez] for yielding me this time. I would just like to say in regard
to the people watching C-SPAN at this time of night that there is no
more important issue that we could be working on in this Congress as
education. Education firmly on the part of the American people is the
single most important issue.
Why are charter schools the most important issue that we are working
on at 10:15 tonight? Because people want public school choice. They
want every single school in America improved so they are proud to send
their child to that school, and that child gets a solid education for
the workplace or to go to college in their life later on down the road.
That there is accountability in charter schools.
There are great performing schools in America today, and there are
some schools that are not doing as good as they should be. In charter
schools, we are giving the schools the ability to shut down poorly
performing schools.
{time} 2215
Third, they are about innovation, they are about bold ideas, they are
about new curriculum, longer school days and longer school years. There
are options, charter school right here in Washington, DC, that are
serving 100 percent of their students that are eligible for free and
reduced lunches, it is 100 percent minority, and they are graduating
their students at a 20 percent higher rate than the DC public school
system.
This has been a lot of hard work in putting this bill together, and I
would just like to conclude by again thanking the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] for the bipartisan support, thanking my staff
member, Gina Mahoney, who has put in countless hours and has shown just
real commitment to the legislation and an understanding of the
legislation. She has sought out experts from across America to work and
gain common sense on this legislation from California to New York.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this good
bipartisan education bill for the United States of America.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me indicate to my colleague from California that I believe I have
the right to close debate and intend to close debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle] my good friend, the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just first say that support for
charter schools which truly are innovative and truly can change
education in America is extremely rewarding and well placed, and I
would also like to say that I agree with the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer] with respect to bipartisanship on education matters and
for children in general. When is the last time we saw a 6-year-old who
thought he was a Republican or a Democrat? We need to help those kids
in every way we can.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for their
exceptional work on this, and Mr. Riggs in particular for the
extraordinary work that he has done on this committee to try to advance
the causes of education.
We need more of this in the Congress of the United States. I think
this has been an exemplary piece of legislation, the way it has been
managed and handled, and for that reason I hope we can all support it
and pass it when the time comes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, just briefly before I yield back the balance of my
time, I will say that several of the speakers have spoken about some of
the concerns they have about the bill, and there will be amendments
offered, it is an open rule, and I am glad for that. We will get a
chance to debate some of those amendments. Hopefully, some of those
amendments will be accepted so that we can really get truly a
bipartisan, more than just a few on this side, but as many people as
possible, because the basic concept is very good, and I would hope that
it would be amended to a point where I could support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time simply to
point out that I think that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]
mentioned a charter school here in the District of Columbia. As we
mentioned before, they are really sprouting up everywhere around the
country. If my colleagues have not had an opportunity to go visit a
charter school, ideally, obviously, one in the district, but, if not,
another one nearby or in an adjacent community, I strongly encourage my
colleagues to do so because they are hotbeds of learning. It is
incredible. One cannot be in a charter school for more than a few
minutes without sensing the excitement about learning; it is
contagious.
I also noticed that a couple weeks ago, I believe it was USA Today,
or not USA Today, Parade magazine, as part of the Sunday supplement, as
my colleagues know, in the Sunday newspaper, they have a reporter who
has a fifth-grade, has a teaching credential and has experience as a
fifth-grade classroom teacher, and they sent her on an unusual
assignment. She went on an assignment around the country working as a
substitute in local school districts in five or six different
communities across the country and then wrote about her experiences in
Parade magazine, and she cited a charter school in Boston by the name
of The Renaissance School as the best individual school that she had
visited in the course of this assignment.
Why did she say that? Because she said at this school parents,
teachers, and students are truly excited about learning. She talked
about the fact that they have longer school hours there than
traditional public schools. The children, through the charter school,
each receive a computer, and the charter school goes beyond that and
helps every family acquire and install a computer in the household at
this particular school. And she cited it again in terms of the
curriculum, the structure, the discipline, as the single best fifth-
grade classroom and the single best classroom that she had visited
around the entire country, and I will later, when I get a copy of the
actual article, introduce that for the Record. But to me, that pretty
much says it all about charter schools.
So, colleagues, here is an opportunity to do something on a positive
bipartisan basis to expand choice for parents, to increase Federal
taxpayer funding for public school choice by helping in the startup and
creation of more charter schools around the country.
This legislation is truly commendable, it deserves support, and
therefore I urge my colleagues that once we complete the amendment
process, whenever that might be, later tonight or
[[Page H9979]]
later this week, to support the bipartisan Riggs-Roemer Community
Design Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, parents across the nation want greater
control of their children's education and greater accountability from
their children's schools. Parents must be able to send their children
to safe, quality schools that reinforce the lessons of responsibility
and respect that they try so hard to teach at home.
Charter schools are innovative public schools that, once freed from
burdensome regulations, have made great strides in improving and
reforming public education. Today, we consider H.R. 2616, the Charter
Schools Amendments Act. This measure will direct much-needed new money
to states that provide character schools with a high degree of fiscal
autonomy, allow increases in the number of charter schools from year to
year and ensure academic accountability. In addition, this bill ensures
that 95 percent of federal charter schools' money goes to the state and
local levels.
Mr. Speaker, some will argue that charter schools would skim the best
students from public schools. However, when you consider that 55
percent of U.S. charter school students in 1995-1996 were poor, 63
percent were minority-group members, 19 percent had limited English
proficiency, and almost one in five had disabilities, I'd say their
arguments have very little merit.
According to the Department of Education, the most significant
problem faced by charter schools in 1997 was a lack of start-up funds.
H.R. 2616 increases charter schools funding from $51 million in FY97 to
$100 million in FY98 and expands the list of activities the newly
authorized money can be used for to include start-up funds.
Mr. Speaker, I am committed to ensuring that every child has the same
opportunities to thrive and succeed. The Charter Schools Amendments Act
will give more children a chance at future success and a shot at the
American Dream. It's the least they deserve and I will work to provide
our children with a top-quality education. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support H.R. 2616, the Charter Schools Amendments Act.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Charter
Schools Amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
bill.
This bill represents the strategy we should be taking--investing in
our public school system to strengthen the schools that 90 percent of
American children attend. Charter schools are an innovative means to
change our public schools for the better, without siphoning off funds
to private or parochial schools.
The two charter schools in my home town of New Haven--Common Ground
High School and the Village Academy--have proven to be highly effective
in improving student performance. They give parents a real opportunity
for school choice. The schools are held to high standards and in fact
are reviewed periodically to ensure that students are meeting their
goals. This type of accountability is exactly what we need to improve
our students' performance.
Unfortunately, Republicans don't always follow the policy of
investing in public schools. Time and time again they have voted to
take money out of our public schools and put it into private and
parochial schools. I am particularly disappointed that this bill will
be combined with the Gingrich voucher experiment--virtually
guaranteeing a veto by a President who has promised to protect
America's public schools.
Vouchers are not the way to strengthen our public school system.
Innovative programs like charter schools will allow us to continue our
investment in America's public schools without deserting our children.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2616
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Charter Schools Amendments
Act of 1997''.
SEC 2. INNOVATIVE CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 6201(a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) support for planning, designing, and initial
implementation of charter schools as described in part C of
title X; and''; and
(2) in section 6301(b)--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) planning, designing, and initial implementation of
charter schools as described in part C of title X; and''.
SEC. 3. CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Part C of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
``PART C--PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
``SEC. 10301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(1) enhancement of parent and student choices among
public schools can assist in promoting comprehensive
educational reform and give more students the opportunity to
learn to challenging State content standards and challenging
State student performance standards, if sufficiently
diverse and high-quality choices, and genuine
opportunities to take advantage of such choices, are
available to all students;
``(2) useful examples of such choices can come from States
and communities that experiment with methods of offering
teachers and other educators, parents, and other members of
the public the opportunity to design and implement new public
schools and to transform existing public schools;
``(3) charter schools are a mechanism for testing a variety
of educational approaches and should, therefore, be exempted
from restrictive rules and regulations if the leadership of
such schools commits to attaining specific and ambitious
educational results for educationally disadvantaged students
consistent with challenging State content standards and
challenging State student performance standards for all
students;
``(4) charter schools, as such schools have been
implemented in a few States, can embody the necessary mixture
of enhanced choice, exemption from restrictive regulations,
and a focus on learning gains;
``(5) charter schools, including charter schools that are
schools-within-schools, can help reduce school size, which
can have a significant effect on student achievement;
``(6) the Federal Government should test, evaluate, and
disseminate information on a variety of charter school models
in order to help demonstrate the benefits of this promising
educational reform; and
``(7) there is a strong documented need for cash-flow
assistance to charter schools that are starting up, because
State and local operating revenue streams are not immediately
available.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to provide financial assistance for the planning,
design, initial implementation of charter schools;
``(2) to facilitate the ability of States and localities to
increase the number of charter schools in the Nation to not
less than 3,000 by the year 2000; and
``(3) to evaluate the effects of charter schools, including
the effects on students, student achievement, staff, and
parents.
``SEC. 10302. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to State
educational agencies having applications approved pursuant to
section 10303 to enable such agencies to conduct a charter
school grant program in accordance with this part.
``(b) Special Rule.--If a State educational agency elects
not to participate in the program authorized by this part or
does not have an application approved under section 10303,
the Secretary may award a grant to an eligible applicant that
serves such State and has an application approved pursuant to
section 10303.
``(c) Program Periods.--
``(1) Grants to states.--
``(A) Basic grants.--Grants awarded to State educational
agencies under this part for planning, design, or initial
implementation of charter schools, shall be awarded for a
period of not more than 5 years.
``(B) Extension.--Any eligible applicant that has received
a grant or subgrant under this part prior to October 1, 1997,
shall be eligible to receive an additional grant for a period
not to exceed 2 years in accordance with this section.
``(2) Grants to eligible applicants.--
``(A) Basic grants.--Grants awarded by the Secretary to
eligible applicants or subgrants awarded by State educational
agencies to eligible applicants under this part shall be
awarded for planning, design, or initial implementation of
charter schools, for a period not to exceed more than 5
years, of which the eligible applicant may use--
``(i) not more than 30 months for planning and program
design; and
``(ii) not more than 4 years for the initial implementation
of a charter school.
``(B) Extension.--Any eligible applicant that has received
a grant or subgrant under this part prior to October 1, 1997,
shall be eligible to receive an additional grant for a period
not to exceed 2 years in accordance with this section.
``(d) Limitation.--Except as otherwise provided under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall not award more than one
grant and State educational agencies shall not award more
than one subgrant under this part to support a particular
charter school.
``(e) Priority and Requirements.--
``(1) Priority.--
[[Page H9980]]
``(A) Fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.--In awarding
grants under this part for any of the fiscal years 1998,
1999, and 2000 from funds appropriated under section 10310
that are in excess of $51,000,000 for the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall give priority to State educational agencies
in accordance with subparagraph (C).
``(B) Succeeding fiscal years.--In awarding grants under
this part for fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year
from any funds appropriated under section 10310, the
Secretary shall consider the number of charter schools in
each State and shall give priority to State educational
agencies in accordance with subparagraph (C).
``(C) Priority order.--In awarding grants under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary shall, in the order
listed, give priority to a State that--
``(i) meets all requirements of paragraph (2);
``(ii) meets 2 requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(iii) meets 1 requirement of paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in
paragraph (1)(C) are as follows:
``(A) The State law regarding charter schools ensures that
each charter school has a high degree of autonomy over its
budgets and expenditures.
``(B) The State law regarding charter schools provides that
not less than 1 chartering authority in the State allows for
an increase in the number of charter schools from 1 year to
the next year; and
``(C) The State law regarding charter schools provides for
periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public
chartering agency of each charter school to determine whether
the school is meeting or exceeding the academic performance
requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth under
State law or the school's charter.
``SEC. 10303. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) Applications From State Agencies.--Each State
educational agency desiring a grant from the Secretary under
this part shall submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(b) Contents of a State Educational Agency Application.--
Each application submitted pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
``(1) describe the objectives of the State educational
agency's charter school grant program and a description of
how such objectives will be fulfilled, including steps taken
by the State educational agency to inform teachers, parents,
and communities of the State educational agency's charter
school grant program;
``(2) describe how the State educational agency will inform
each charter school of available Federal programs and funds
that each such school is eligible to receive and ensure that
each such school receives its appropriate share of Federal
education funds allocated by formula; and
``(3) contain assurances that the State educational agency
will require each eligible applicant desiring to receive a
subgrant to submit an application to the State educational
agency containing--
``(A) a description of the educational program to be
implemented by the proposed charter school, including--
``(i) how the program will enable all students to meet
challenging State student performance standards;
``(ii) the grade levels or ages of children to be served;
and
``(iii) the curriculum and instructional practices to be
used;
``(B) a description of how the charter school will be
managed;
``(C) a description of--
``(i) the objectives of the charter school; and
``(ii) the methods by which the charter school will
determine its progress toward achieving those objectives;
``(D) a description of the administrative relationship
between the charter school and the authorized public
chartering agency;
``(E) a description of how parents and other members of the
community will be involved in the design and implementation
of the charter school;
``(F) a description of how the authorized public chartering
agency will provide for continued operation of the school
once the Federal grant has expired, if such agency determines
that the school has met the objectives described in
subparagraph (C)(i);
``(G) a request and justification for waivers of any
Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant
believes are necessary for the successful operation of the
charter school, and a description of any State or local
rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be
waived for, or otherwise not apply to, the school;
``(H) a description of how the subgrant funds or grant
funds, as appropriate, will be used, including a description
of how such funds will be used in conjunction with other
Federal programs administered by the Secretary;
``(I) a description of how students in the community will
be--
``(i) informed about the charter school; and
``(ii) given an equal opportunity to attend the charter
school;
``(J) an assurance that the eligible applicant will
annually provide the Secretary and the State educational
agency such information as may be required to determine if
the charter school is making satisfactory progress toward
achieving the objectives described in subparagraph (C)(i);
``(K) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with
the Secretary and the State educational agency in evaluating
the program assisted under this part;
``(L) such other information and assurances as the
Secretary and the State educational agency may require; and
``(4) describe how the State educational agency will
disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in
such State to each local educational agency in the State.
``(c) Contents of Eligible Applicant Application.--Each
eligible applicant desiring a grant pursuant to section 10302
shall submit an application to the State educational agency
or Secretary, respectively, at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the State educational
agency or Secretary, respectively, may reasonably require.
``(d) Contents of Application.--Each application submitted
pursuant to subsection (c) shall contain--
``(1) the information and assurances described in
subparagraphs (A) through (L) of subsection (b)(3), except
that for purposes of this subsection subparagraphs (J), (K),
and (L) of such subsection shall be applied by striking `and
the State educational agency' each place such term appears;
and
``(2) assurances that the State educational agency--
``(A) will grant, or will obtain, waivers of State
statutory or regulatory requirements; and
``(B) will assist each subgrantee in the State in receiving
a waiver under section 10304(e).
``SEC. 10304. ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Selection Criteria for State Educational Agencies.--
The Secretary shall award grants to State educational
agencies under this part on the basis of the quality of the
applications submitted under section 10303(b), after taking
into consideration such factors as--
``(1) the contribution that the charter schools grant
program will make to assisting educationally disadvantaged
and other students to achieving State content standards and
State student performance standards and, in general, a
State's education improvement plan;
``(2) the degree of flexibility afforded by the State
educational agency to charter schools under the State's
charter schools law;
``(3) the ambitiousness of the objectives for the State
charter school grant program;
``(4) the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement
of those objectives;
``(5) the likelihood that the charter school grant program
will meet those objectives and improve educational results
for students; and
``(6) the number of charter schools created under this part
in the State.
``(b) Selection Criteria for Eligible Applicants.--The
Secretary shall award grants to eligible applicants under
this part on the basis of the quality of the applications
submitted under section 10303(c), after taking into
consideration such factors as--
(1) the quality of the proposed curriculum and
instructional practices;
``(2) the degree of flexibility afforded by the State
educational agency and, if applicable, the local educational
agency to the charter school;
``(3) the extent of community support for the application;
``(4) the ambitiousness of the objectives for the charter
school;
``(5) the quality of the strategy for assessing achievement
of those objectives; and
``(6) the likelihood that the charter school will meet
those objectives and improve educational results for
students.
``(c) Peer Review.--The Secretary, and each State
educational agency receiving a grant under this part, shall
use a peer review process to review applications for
assistance under this part.
``(d) Diversity of Projects.--The Secretary and each State
educational agency receiving a grant under this part, shall
award subgrants under this part in a manner that, to the
extent possible, ensures that such grants and subgrants--
``(1) are distributed throughout different areas of the
Nation and each State, including urban and rural areas; and
``(2) will assist charter schools representing a variety of
educational approaches, such as approaches designed to reduce
school size.
``(e) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive any statutory or
regulatory requirement over which the Secretary exercises
administrative authority except any such requirement relating
to the elements of a charter school described in section
10309(1), if--
``(1) the waiver is requested in an approved application
under this part; and
``(2) the Secretary determines that granting such a waiver
will promote the purpose of this part.
``(f) Use of Funds.--
``(1) State educational agencies.--Each State educational
agency receiving a grant under this part shall use such grant
funds to award subgrants to one or more eligible applicants
in the State to enable such applicant to plan and implement a
charter school in accordance with this part.
``(2) Eligible applicants.--Each eligible applicant
receiving funds from the Secretary or a State educational
agency shall use such funds to plan and implement a charter
school in accordance with this part.
``(3) Allowable activities for basic grants.--An eligible
applicant receiving a basic grant or subgrant under section
10302(c)(2) may use the grant or subgrant funds only for--
``(A) post-award planning and design of the educational
program, which may include--
``(i) refinement of the desired educational results and of
the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those
results; and
``(ii) professional development of teachers and other staff
who will work in the charter school; and
``(B) initial implementation of the charter school, which
may include--
``(i) informing the community about the school;
``(ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational
materials and supplies;
[[Page H9981]]
``(iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and
``(iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met
from State or local sources.
``(4) Administrative expenses.--Each State educational
agency receiving a grant pursuant to this part may reserve
not more than 5 percent of such grant funds for
administrative expenses associated with the charter school
grant program assisted under this part.
``SEC. 10305. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
``The Secretary shall reserve for each fiscal year the
lesser of 5 percent of the amount appropriated to carry out
this part for the fiscal year or $5,000,000, to carry out,
giving highest priority to carrying paragraph (2), the
following:
``(1) To provide charter schools, either directly or
through the State educational agency, with information
regarding available education funds that such school is
eligible to receive, and assistance in applying for Federal
education funds which are allocated by formula, including
filing deadlines and submission of applications; and
``(2) To provide, through 1 or more contracts using a
competitive bidding process--
``(A) charter schools with assistance in accessing private
capital;
``(B) pilot projects in a variety of States to better
understand and improve access to private capital by charter
schools; and
``(C) collection on a nationwide basis, of information
regarding successful programs that access private capital for
charter schools and disseminate any such relevant information
and model descriptions to all charter schools.
``(3) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national
study (which began in 1995) of charter schools and any
related evaluations or studies.
``(4)(A) To provide information to applicants for
assistance under this part;
``(B) assistance to applicants for assistance under this
part with the preparation of applications under section
10303;
``(C) assistance in the planning and startup of charter
schools;
``(D) ongoing training and technical assistance to existing
charter schools; and
``(E) for the dissemination of best practices in charter
schools to other public schools.
``SEC. 10306. PART A, TITLE I ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR
AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.
``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States
or their agencies of funds under part A of title I, or of any
other Federal educational assistance funds, the Secretary and
each State educational agency shall take such measures not
later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
part as are necessary to ensure that every charter
school receives the Federal funding for which it is
eligible in the calendar year in which it first opens,
notwithstanding the fact that the identity and
characteristics of the students enrolling in that school
are not fully and completely determined until that school
actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that
every charter school expanding its enrollment in any
subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding
for which it is eligible during the calendar year of such
expansion.
``SEC. 10307. RECORDS TRANSFER.
``State and local educational agencies, to the extent
practicable, shall ensure that a student's records and if
applicable a student's individualized education program as
defined in section 602(11) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(11)), are
transferred to the charter school upon transfer of a student
to a charter school in accordance with applicable State law.
``SEC. 10308. PAPERWORK REDUCTION.
``To the extent practicable, the Secretary and each
authorized public chartering agency, shall ensure that
implementation of this part results in a minimum of paperwork
for any eligible applicant or charter school.
``SEC. 10309. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this part:
``(1) The term `charter school' means a public school
that--
``(A) in accordance with a specific State charter school
statute, is exempted from significant State or local rules
that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public
schools, but not from any rules relating to the other
requirements of this paragraph;
``(B) is created by a developer as a public school, or is
adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is
operated under public supervision and direction;
``(C) operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational
objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to
by the authorized public chartering agency;
``(D) provides a program of elementary or secondary
education, or both;
``(E) is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies,
employment practices, and all other operations, and is not
affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
``(F) does not charge tuition;
``(G) complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act;
``(H) is a school to which parents choose to send their
children, and that admits students on the basis of a lottery,
if more students apply for admission than can be
accommodated;
``(I) agrees to comply with the same Federal and State
audit requirements as do other elementary and secondary
schools in the State, unless such requirements are
specifically waived for the purpose of this program;
``(J) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health
and safety requirements;
``(K) operates in accordance with State law; and
``(L) has a written performance contract with the
authorized public chartering agency in the State.
``(2) The term `developer' means an individual or group of
individuals (including a public or private nonprofit
organization), which may include teachers, administrators and
other school staff, parents, or other members of the local
community in which a charter school project will be carried
out.
``(3) The term `eligible applicant' means an authorized
public chartering agency participating in a partnership with
a developer to establish a charter school in accordance with
this part.
``(4) The term `authorized public chartering agency' means
a State educational agency, local educational agency, or
other public entity that has the authority pursuant to State
law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a
charter school.
``SEC. 10310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are
authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year
1998 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four
succeeding fiscal years.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 105-357
if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] or his
designee. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Riggs
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule which the Chair just
recited, I offer an amendment printed in the report.
The CHAIRMAN. Is this the Goodling amendment?
Mr. RIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California the designee of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]?
Mr. RIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Riggs:
Page 12, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(4) describe how the State educational agency will use
administrative funds provided under section 10304(f)(4) to
disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in
such State to each local educational agency in the State,
except that such dissemination shall result, to the extent
practicable, in a minimum of paperwork for a State
educational agency, eligible applicant, or charter school.''.
Page 18, line 7, insert ``out'' after ``carrying''.
Beginning on page 19, strike line 17 and all that follows
through page 20, line 9, and insert the following:
``SEC. 10306. FEDERAL FORMULA ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR
AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.
``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States
or their agencies of funds under Part A of title I, and any
other Federal funds which the Secretary allocates to States
on a formula basis, the Secretary and each State educational
agency shall take such measures not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this part as are necessary to
ensure that every charter school receives the Federal funding
for which it is eligible not later than 5 months after first
opening, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and
characteristics of the students enrolling in that school are
not fully and completely determined until that school
actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that
every charter school expanding its enrollment in any
subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding for
which it is eligible not later than 5 months of such
expansion.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 288, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H9982]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Riggs
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, I ask unanimous consent
to modify the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Riggs:
Page 5, line 23, strike ``eligible applicant'' and insert
``State educational agency''.
Page 12, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(4) describe how the State educational agency will use
administrative funds provided under section 10304(f)(4) to
disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools in
such State to each local educational agency in the State,
except that such dissemination shall result, to the extent
practicable, in a minimum of paperwork for a State
educational agency, eligible applicant, or charter school.''.
Page 18, line 7, insert ``out'' after ``carrying''.
Beginning on page 19, strike line 17 and all that follows
through page 20, line 9, and insert the following:
``SEC. 10306. FEDERAL FORMULA ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR
AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.
``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States
or their agencies of funds under part A of title I, and any
other Federal funds which the Secretary allocates to States
on a formula basis, the Secretary and each State educational
agency shall take such measures not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this part as are necessary to
ensure that every charter school receives the Federal funding
for which it is eligible not later than 5 months after first
opening, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and
characteristics of the students enrolling in that school are
not fully and completely determined until that school
actually opens. These measures shall similarly ensure that
every charter school expanding its enrollment in any
subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding for
which it is eligible not later than 5 months after such
expansion.''.
Mr. RIGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the modification be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] that the amendment be modified?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could the
gentleman from California explain the modification?
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the modification is very technical
in nature, but if the gentleman wants a more detailed explanation, we
will have to, I guess, hear the Clerk explain it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my 5 minutes, let me see if I can
just alert the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] that if he happens
to be present, I would yield to him, and while we are perhaps looking
for him, let me just explain very quickly to my good friend that my
manager's package of amendments contains one technical amendment, two
clarifying amendments.
The first clarifying amendment refines the language of an amendment
that was accepted at the full committee markup. The amendment accepted
in committee requires State education agencies to disseminate best or
most promising practices of charter schools to local education agencies
in that State, and the amendment also stipulates that the SEA, the
State Education Agencies, can only use Federal charter school money to
disseminate best or most promising practices from the 5 percent that
they are permitted to retain for administrative purposes.
Further, my amendment requires that the dissemination of best or,
again, most promising practices shall result in a minimum of paperwork
for SEA and charter schools. The last thing we are trying to do is
cause them more red tape or paperwork, and the amendment clarifies the
language in the reported bill that directs the Secretary to take
measures to ensure that charter schools receive the Federal funds for
which they are eligible in their first year of operation.
In response to concerns expressed by some committee members, the
amendment changes the time by which a charter school should receive
their Federal money from, I quote now, within the calendar year to,
again, quote, within 5 months in which the school first opens.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Ford].
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, given the rather fractious debate we have had
this evening with regard to how we educate our kids in this Nation, I
think we would all do well to return to a basic principle, a principle
best articulated by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote that every child
must be encouraged to get as much education as she has the ability to
take. We want this not only for her sake, but for the Nation's sake.
Mr. Chairman, Jefferson did not use the words, ``a few,'' or
``several,'' or even ``many.'' He used the word ``every,'' every child,
Mr. Chairman.
Charter schools, and I must applaud the leadership of the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and his hard work in certainly reaching
across the aisle to attract bipartisan support. Charter schools provide
these opportunities. They are public schools, Mr. Chairman, schools
accountable to public authorities but with the kind of local level
autonomy that spurs innovation and excellence. Charter schools are part
of a common sense solution to some of the problems facing and
confronting parents and teachers and communities in America. They are
not a panacea for all that ails our school system, for they will not
solve our $112 billion infrastructure problem, the technology gap, or
the resolve, the standards issue, but they do represent a very
important step toward improvement.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow our zeal for change
to overtake our common sense. Charter schools and vouchers ought not to
be part of the same conversation. Public choice encouraged by charters
is one thing; vouchers, Mr. Chairman, are entirely another.
I recognize that some of my colleagues, particularly those on the
other side of the aisle, however well intentioned, have been operating
under the misapprehension that competition from small-scale vouchers
will actually force public schools to improve. But unless every one of
our Nation's nearly 50 million public school students is given a
voucher, it hardly seems likely that public schools will be forced to
improve.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, it seems a much more practical way,
charter schools, to improve education for the majority of our Nation's
students. That is exactly what charter schools do, which is why I
support H.R. 2616 but did not support H.R. 2746, and I am proud to say
neither did this House.
Again, let Mr. Jefferson's words be our guide. Let us oppose measures
that do not educate the majority of our kids, taking out a few. Let us
support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from
California's [Mr. Riggs] charter schools amendment.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is simply technical in
nature, and as a result, we have no objections on this side.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
{time} 2230
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Hansen] having assumed the chair, Mr.
[[Page H9983]]
Snowbarger, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 2616), to amend titles VI and X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand
charter schools, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________