[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4603-H4608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT SOCIAL PROMOTION IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS SHOULD BE 
                                 ENDED

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 401) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that social promotion in America's schools should be 
ended and can be ended through the use of high-quality, proven programs 
and practices, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 401

       Whereas high student achievement and academic advancement 
     are vitally important to our Nation's schools and the future 
     success of America's workforce;
       Whereas some pupils proceed through school without having 
     mastered the knowledge and skills required of them, and 
     graduate from high school ill-equipped to handle college-
     level work or obtain an entry-level job;
       Whereas ``social promotion'', the practice of moving pupils 
     from one grade to the next regardless of whether they have 
     the knowledge and skills necessary for the next level, is one 
     reason for a pupil's inadequate academic achievement levels;
       Whereas research has shown that retention, the customary 
     alternative policy to social promotion, is also an inadequate 
     response to the problem in that pupils are usually presented 
     with the same instructional practices and materials that were 
     ineffective the first time around;
       Whereas to help underachieving students learn, it is 
     essential that policies and programs address the underlying 
     causes of failure and rectify the problems through various 
     proven instruction practices;
       Whereas high-quality teacher training and education, and 
     other proven practices will provide our teachers with the 
     tools necessary to educate our Nation's children and work 
     toward high academic achievement by students;
       Whereas social promotion policies already have been 
     abolished in Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, North 
     Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and in Chicago, 
     Illinois, Portsmouth, Virginia, Long Beach, California, and 
     Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and
       Whereas the abolishment of social promotion policies have 
     been proposed in California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware, 
     Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Washington, D.C., and in Boston, 
     Massachusetts, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Now, 
     therefore, be it Resolved,

     That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) ending social promotion should be addressed in America 
     through a coordinated effort by government officials, 
     teachers, and parents committed to high academic achievement 
     of students;
       (2) State Education Agencies and local educational agencies 
     that receive Federal funds should make every effort to 
     address and end social promotion;
       (3) the problems associated with social promotion can be 
     resolved effectively through a commitment to provide high-
     quality training and education for our teachers, and the use 
     of other proven practices; and
       (4) States should adopt high, rigorous standards and 
     standards-based assessments aimed at requiring academic 
     accountability with the specific aim of ending social 
     promotion and raising student achievement.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously I rise to support the resolution and urge my 
colleagues, our colleagues, to approve this sense of Congress 
resolution that social promotions in our schools should end.
  The very first thing I want to do, because I may interject a few more 
partisan remarks a little bit later or remarks more aligned with the 
Republican philosophy on education, is salute and thank my very good 
friend, the ranking member of the committee that I am very privileged 
and honored to chair, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) for 
his leadership on this issue. I want the record to show that it was 
Congressman Martinez's leadership in this area that resulted in this 
legislation reaching the House floor today. He initially approached me 
and suggested that we direct our attention in the subcommittee on the 
problem of social promotions, and I think as every Member of this body 
knows, particularly any Member that has attended a State of the Union 
address, the two recent State of the Union addresses by the President, 
or for that matter reviewed a transcript of his addresses, they would 
know that the President has spoken, and I think very sincerely, of the 
problem of social promotion in American education today in this very 
Chamber.
  So I am pleased to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
and by extension President Clinton and others who share this concern in 
supporting this resolution.
  The act of promoting a child from grade to grade or for that matter 
even allowing a child to graduate from junior high school or high 
school regardless of his or her readiness; that is to say, regardless 
of what that child has learned and what they can demonstrate they know, 
is a very real problem in American education today, and as I mentioned, 
the President has spoken of this phenomenon, and many of us who also 
hold positions of elected responsibility have spoken of our concern 
that children are too often promoted from grade to grade or even 
graduated as much on the basis of what we might call good behavior and 
seat time as on the basis of what they know and can demonstrate that 
they have learned.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I believe that 
promotions should be based on both the academic performance and the 
relative individual development readiness of

[[Page H4604]]

the child. Government officials, teachers, parents, all of us who for 
that matter are committed to high academic achievement and who believe 
that we ought to have high expectations and standards of teachers and 
parents and children alike, all of us want to join in this effort 
really beginning today to end social promotion through a coordinated 
effort, and this resolution, Congressman Martinez's or the Martinez-
Riggs bipartisan resolution expresses that policy.
  Now we know that we have roughly 52 million children in elementary, 
American children obviously, in elementary and secondary schools in 
this country, 46 million of the 52 million attending some 87,000 public 
schools, and I hope this resolution reaches everyone of those children 
and everyone of those schools. This resolution lists the communities 
and the States around the country where social promotion has already 
been abolished or is proposed to be abolished. Those States and 
communities which have already abolished social promotion include 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, West Virginia, Chicago, Illinois, Portsmouth, Virginia, Long 
Beach, California, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Those States and those 
communities are to be commended because they have taken on this problem 
of social promotion, and they are tackling it head on with tough 
standards and expectations, and part of that expectation is that every 
child can succeed in elementary and secondary school. In fact I will go 
so far, and this is somewhat anathema for a Republican, but I salute 
the large national teachers' unions for also speaking about this 
problem of social promotion.
  There are many other States and communities where social promotion 
has been proposed to be abolished altogether, and those States and 
communities include California, my home State, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
Delaware, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, here in the District of Columbia, 
Boston, Massachusetts and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These 
communities, these States, serve as a model for the rest of the Nation 
to follow.
  House Resolution 401 also calls on State educational agencies and 
local educational agencies that receive Federal funding, Federal 
taxpayer funding, for educational purposes to make every effort to 
address and end social promotion. All children should be given the 
strongest possible foundation, academic foundation, in school upon 
which to build their future until they can develop to their fullest 
potential as citizens of the greatest Nation on earth and as children 
of God, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
for focusing attention on this issue, and I urge support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) of the Subcommittee on Children, Youth and 
Families for his willingness , and, no, I should not say willingness, 
eagerness to join me in this effort. I also want to thank him for the 
expeditious way he moved this bill through the committee and then on 
through the full committee.

                              {time}  1645

  As he has said, social promotion in our Nation's schools is a 
destructive force that undermines our children's academic achievement, 
and therefore, the future of our Nation's economy and overall well-
being.
  H. Res. 401 sends a strong message, one that is much needed, that the 
Congress expects all of our children to meet high academic standards.
  Social promotion, as many of us know, is a process of promoting 
children from one grade to the next without meeting the necessary 
academic standards. This means children are moved from grade to grade 
without the skills or knowledge to succeed. Lacking a strong 
educational foundation, the children of our communities and our country 
will be ill-served in their quest for future employment.
  Unfortunately, for many years, educators discouraged holding children 
back due to the fear that it would harm them. However, compelling a 
student to repeat a grade and then using the same instructional 
techniques which previously failed does little to foster learning. In 
order to truly combat the plight of social promotion in this country, 
we need to invest in our educational system and our children. We need 
to believe that all children can and will academically succeed.
  Government officials, teachers and parents must work together in a 
commitment to the high academic achievement of our students. States and 
local school districts should adopt high-quality academic standards and 
hold students to those standards. Resources must be focused on giving 
teachers the tools to educate our children through the high-quality 
professional development of themselves, and the utilization of summer 
school, after school, and other proven educational practices.
  This resolution seeks to send that message that without the 
commitment to high standards and the proper investment in our 
educational system, social promotion will continue to harm the success 
of our Nation and its people. The important message of this resolution 
is evidenced by the bipartisan support it has received, particularly 
from the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs).
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Now that we have struck that note of bipartisan cooperation and 
agreement, I just want to interject for the Record, and here I think is 
the clear, and I believe collegial difference between the Democratic 
Members of the House of Representatives and the Republican Members; 
while we agree on the problem, the problem being social promotion, we 
disagree on the solution to the problem.
  Many of us, if not most of us on the Republican side of the aisle, 
feel that the solution inherently involves infusing the education 
system today with more competition, giving parents more choice, and 
that is that the best way, if not the only way, to ensure bootstrap 
improvement in our schools and ensure that schools are ultimately more 
accountable to the consumers of education: parents and guardians. At 
the risk of belaboring this point, since we have discussed it many 
times informally and in committee and certainly on this House floor, it 
is good to see the Delegate from the District here, since she is a 
passionate opponent of vouchers or parental choice in education and is 
sincere in her views.
  I just want to refer my colleagues to a letter that I saw published 
in the Washington Post over the weekend, a publication I do not often 
quote on the House floor, because I think it is the single best writing 
on parental choice in education that I have ever seen. It is from a 
lady by the name of Marilyn Lundy of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, and 
she wrote in response to an article that the Post had published earlier 
on parental choice in the District of Columbia, this idea of vouchers, 
or scholarships, as prefer to call them, for low-income families. That 
article was entitled, ``Poll Finds Backing for D.C. School Vouchers; 
Blacks Support Backing More Than Whites.''
  In the article Ms. Lundy says, one person responding to the poll, a 
Howard University professor, is quoted as saying, and this is a quote 
within a quote, because I am not quoting Ms. Lundy, I am quoting this 
Howard University professor and poll respondent, as saying, `` `The 
Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Washington and Adams, considered public 
education to be the key to success to the democratic Republic.' ''
  Vouchers cannot help but weaken public education. I think that boils 
down to its very essence, the argument that voucher opponents from 
President Clinton on down, within the Democratic party, repeatedly 
make.
  Now, Ms. Lundy goes on to say, ``Sorry, sir, but those gentlemen 
would not have known public education as we know it today, and would be 
horrified at its present condition. Education in the colonies, and at 
the time of the Founding Fathers, was the province of private and 
community endeavors and

[[Page H4605]]

financing.'' My colleagues heard me right, ``Private and community 
endeavors and financing, and was often transmitted by ministers, who 
were generally the most educated in the community.
  ``Since most of the early colonists were Protestants, for whom 
salvation was dependent on private interpretation of the Bible, 
literacy was of great importance and the Bible was an integral part of 
the school, reflecting the religious affirmation of the people.''
  Ms. Lundy goes on to write, ``Not until the 1820s and 1830s, and 
Horace Mann, was their general movement toward publicly financed 
community schools, which were called 'common schools,' not public 
schools, but still these common schools were voluntarily and 
predominantly Protestant oriented. Mandatory attendance did not enter 
the picture until many decades later.
  ``Yes, public education is a key factor in a democratic,'' small D, 
``republic, but not necessarily as implemented through government-
operated schools only, which seems to be the mantra of those opposing 
vouchers. The idea that the State makes education mandatory, taxes all 
to pay for it, but then forces children into government-operated 
schools as a condition for receiving their just benefits is more a 
tenet of socialism/totalitarianism,'' Ms. Lundy contends, ``than 
democracy. In fact, the United States is the only free Nation that 
denies taxpayer-funded assistance to children in nongovernmental 
schools.
  ``In a Nation that professes freedom of speech and religion and equal 
protection of the laws, it would seem that choice, competition and 
equal educational opportunity are essential ingredients to universal 
public education. In other words, fund the education of the child 
according to the constitutional rights of the parents, rather than fund 
a government system into which children whose families cannot afford 
otherwise are forced.
  ``It is this virtual monopoly that has weakened public education. The 
choice, competition and direct accountability to parents created by 
vouchers are what is needed to revitalize public education, and I thank 
Ms. Lundy for putting it so well.'' At this time I would include this 
article for the Record.

                         The Education Monopoly

       In Sari Horwitz's news story ``Poll Finds Backing for D.C. 
     School Vouchers; Blacks Support Backing More Than Whites,'' 
     [Metro, May 23], one poll respondent, a Howard University 
     professor, is quoted as saying: ``The Founding Fathers, 
     Jefferson, Washington and Adams, considered public education 
     to be the key to success to the Democratic republic. Vouchers 
     cannot help but weaken public education.''
       Sorry, sir, but those gentlemen would not have known public 
     education as we know it today--and would be horrified at its 
     present condition. Education in the colonies, and at the time 
     of the Founding Fathers, was the province of private and 
     community endeavors and financing, and often was transmitted 
     by ministers, who were generally the most educated in the 
     community.
       Since most of the early colonists were Protestants, for 
     whom salvation was dependent on private interpretation of the 
     Bible, literacy was of great importance and the Bible was an 
     integral part of the school, reflecting the religious 
     affirmation of the people.
       Not until the 1820s and '30s, and Horace Mann, was there 
     general movement toward publicly financed community schools, 
     which were called ``common schools,'' not public schools--but 
     still these common schools were voluntary and predominantly 
     Protestant oriented. Mandatory attendance did not enter the 
     picture until many decades later.
       Yes, public education is a key factor in a democratic 
     republic, but not necessarily as implemented through 
     government-operated schools only, which seems to be the 
     mantra of those opposing vouchers. The idea that the state 
     makes education mandatory, taxes all to pay for it but then 
     forces children into government-operated schools as a 
     condition for receiving their just benefits is more a tenet 
     of socialism/totalitarianism than democracy. In fact, the 
     United States is the only free nation that denies assistance 
     to children in nongovernment schools.
       In a nation that professes freedom of speech and religion 
     and equal protection of the laws, it would seem that choice, 
     competition and equal opportunity are essential ingredients 
     to universal public education. In other words, fund the 
     education of the child according to the constitutional rights 
     of the parents, rather than fund a government system into 
     which children whose families cannot afford otherwise are 
     forced.
       It is this virtual monopoly that has weakened public 
     education. The choice, competition and direct accountability 
     to parents created by vouchers are what is needed to 
     revitalize public education.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to refer to something that my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs), said that the Democrats and Republicans 
have a different philosophy on a particular issue: vouchers.
  It may be that in the simple question of vouchers themselves, there 
may be a big difference, but I am not sure that as far as choice is 
concerned, we are all that far apart. I am sure that not all Democrats 
are against choice, but we have to understand what choice is. In fact, 
there is choice now. In fact, I had that choice.
  I sent my children to parochial school to begin their first years, K 
through 6, and they got to choose whether they wanted to go on to 
parochial school in the upper grades or not. One did, and 4 did not. 
They went to public schools and the one went to parochial schools. So I 
had that choice. I had the choice to send my kids to the kind of school 
they wanted. That choice exists today. In fact, now in many school 
districts one can choose to send one's child to another district simply 
because one believes that district is a better school district and one 
can get a waiver from the school district to send them there.
  So the one main concern that maybe the Democrats do have is to make 
sure that every child in this country has a full and meaningful 
education, and the only way we can do that is to make sure that the 
public school system has the resources that it needs to do that. Other 
than that, if we were able to guarantee that every public school child 
had the resources to get a full and meaningful education, I would not 
care where they sent their kids or where everybody sent their kids, but 
the main thing is that the public school system is the major source of 
our education in this country and it has to be protected before we can 
consider other choices that are available.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time. I thank him also for his leadership in 
proffering this most valuable resolution. I also thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), for the 
bipartisan spirit in which he has joined this resolution.
  Before I speak directly to it, I do want to note for the Record that 
the majority seldom comes forward to endorse another public 
entitlement, and here the majority appears to endorse a public 
entitlement to choice for education. I think it is a precedent that 
should be noted for the Record. If only the majority would support 
entitlements such as the one that was on the floor just ahead of this 
one, that 40 percent of funds for children in special education be paid 
for by this body, I would be prepared then to look more seriously at 
the public entitlement to go to private schools that is here offered 
this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the gentleman for his support of 
charter schools. We know that vouchers are on their way to the Supreme 
Court, one State court having already found them unconstitutional. I 
wish to offer what amounts to a subset of this resolution for a truce, 
until the Supreme Court tells us whether vouchers are constitutional or 
not, because neither the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), nor I, 
nor any Member of this body, will have the last word on that. The last 
word on that serious church-State question lies with the court. So if 
we are serious about providing education for children in the meantime, 
we will look for opportunities such as that offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Martinez), for true bipartisan work to help 
children where they are now, such as the resolution that was offered 
before this one, and this resolution now.
  May I also note for the Record, Mr. Speaker, that I endorse choice in 
the very way that the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has 
shown how choice works in a society which separates church from State. 
Instead of entanglement of church and State, something that has kept us 
free from religious warfare for 200 years, essentially it says, choices 
are available to us all, but as with everything else in a

[[Page H4606]]

market economy, the Federal Government will not pay for all choices, 
and one choice we choose not to pay for is religious education, in no 
small part because that entangles the State with the church and would 
force the church to abide by rules and regulations that no church in 
this society could possibly accept, because there is no free money that 
comes from the Congress. Every bit of money that comes from us comes 
with strings attached, and this Member will never attach strings to 
money that goes to churches or to religious institutions.
  I am proud to associate myself with the work of the Washington 
Scholarship Fund which, instead of coming with hands out to this body, 
came into the District of Columbia and said, how many children are 
there who want to go to private schools? We will raise the money to go 
to private schools.
  I went to the graduation sponsored by the Washington Scholarship Fund 
and spoke at that graduation at their invitation. Last year I went to 
St. Augustine Catholic School with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrich), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and spoke to 
those eighth grade children who were on scholarship, courtesy of the 
Washington Scholarship Fund, and on this floor today I want to thank 
the Washington Scholarship Fund for each and every scholarship they 
have raised with private money to send our children to religious 
schools all across the District of Columbia. I wish them well, as they 
now set up the Children's Scholarship Fund to do the same in cities all 
across the United States of America. I have sent a letter to them so 
that they could use it in their publications endorsing their 
extraordinary work.

                              {time}  1700

  Meanwhile, there is much that we can agree upon here today, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and I agree on charter schools. I 
salute him for his extraordinary leadership there and as, of course, 
this bipartisan resolution offers us the opportunity to do.
  The Martinez resolution to end social promotion speaks to one of the 
most important issues facing both U.S. education and the U.S. workforce 
today. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and come 
to bear witness to his resolution in the Summer Stars program which is 
to be implemented in the District of Columbia beginning June 30.
  Mr. Speaker, this program makes the District one of the first and one 
of the few districts in the United States to abolish social promotion. 
Children are socially promoted throughout the country in part to avoid 
incurring dropout rates that occur when students are left behind and to 
avoid placing older and younger children together in the same class.
  The reason social promotion is so widely used, however, is that 
systems are unwilling to do the hard work associated with replacing 
social promotion. The District's public schools have just done that 
hard work establishing an academic enrichment program in math and 
reading to replace social promotion.
  Although students who score below basic in reading and math must 
attend the Summer Stars program, it is not just an old-fashioned 
program for failing students that stigmatizes children. It is offered 
not only to students who must or should attend; students who score 
proficient or advanced may also attend.
  Mr. Speaker, 7,000 students signed up for Summer Stars in the 
District before the scores were out. The student-teacher ratio will be 
15 to one. Homework is required, and three absences drops the student 
from the program. Breakfast and lunch are provided. Private funds have 
been secured for afterschool enrichment activities that mix recreation 
and education.
  Test results reported last week already show significant improvement 
in virtually all grades before the Summer Stars program even begins. 
Further progress from this rigorous and skillfully developed program 
almost surely will follow. The collective hats of this House should be 
off to Arlene Ackerman whose leadership as superintendent is 
responsible for this progress.
  If the District keeps this up, Congress will soon not have the D.C. 
public schools to kick around anymore. I know that this is the desire 
of this House. The D.C. public schools are not only proud to be leading 
the way in abolishing social promotion; we are especially proud of the 
Summer Stars program that we are putting in its place.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) for yielding me this time, and I commend the 
gentleman for this resolution and the chair of our committee and the 
ranking member for bringing it both to the committee and to the floor 
of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution and it addresses a very 
important and yet complex problem facing our school systems and our 
families and their children. Too often parents are told in the school 
system that their children are doing just fine. Students are told that 
they are doing just fine. And then they are passed from grade to grade.
  But later, many of the students find out that despite their good 
grades, despite their report cards and their diplomas, that they have 
not achieved even the basic skill levels in math reading and other 
academic core subjects. I have learned this from talking to students 
and teachers, observing school districts, and watching how education is 
applied in the district which I represent.
  Mr. Speaker, every Monday morning during the school year I teach a 
high school class. At the end of that year we have a discussion with 
those students about their education. Almost all of them are 
disappointed in their education. Almost all of them believe they could 
have done more work and better work and almost all of them will say 
that it really was not asked of them.
  Some of them are quite angry that they are not equipped to go out 
into the world. Some of them are quite angry that the school did not 
care enough to really find out how they were doing as opposed to 
passing them on.
  I think as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
just pointed out in the well of the House, this is an important process 
of ending social promotion, but ending it with the alternatives.
  Too often of social promotion it is said: We do this for the student 
and for the family so that the kids are not stigmatized, are not held 
back, and do not have to miss class. However, very often it is done so 
the school district does not have to be held accountable for what is 
being done in that school district. They can gloss over the problems of 
individual children and gloss over the problems of groups of children 
and give them passing grades and move them along. They do not have to 
confront the difficult issues about the quality of their teachers, 
about the quality of their textbooks, about the quality of their 
curriculum, about the condition of their school buildings. They can 
simply herd the children along and get them out of the schools.
  Cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, and States like Texas have had 
notable success in strengthening the standards and creating more 
rigorous criteria for the passage from grade to grade. Implementing 
rigorous standards can be difficult and controversial. The minute we 
start to tell a parent or start to tell teachers that students may not 
be socially promoted, all sorts of problems come right to the 
forefront.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that these rigorous 
standards may be implemented. Such changes are initially greeted with 
trepidation, but they have actually served to energize students and 
engage teachers and parents around homework, tutoring, summer school 
and Saturday morning classes.
  Last spring, more than 42,000 students in Chicago were told that they 
would not be able to advance to the next grade until they met the tough 
standards set by the large district. Students had to attend summer 
school. The move was not popular, but the early results are starting to 
suggest in this instance the get-tough policy worked.
  Of the 473 elementary schools, 393 had better math scores this year 
than

[[Page H4607]]

last year, and 271 had better reading scores.
  The point is this. They just did not stop social promotion; they 
offered intensive math and reading tutoring and mentoring and help to 
those students that needed it, and they also said to the students who 
were yet to cross that threshold, they let them know what the standard 
would be at end of the year.
  Letting students slide in elementary and high school is not only 
unwise, it is expensive. A report released in March shows that more 
than half of the freshmen entering the California State University 
system last fall needed basic remedial help because they were 
unprepared for college level math. Forty-seven percent could not handle 
college level English. How many times must we pay for students to learn 
the same material that they were supposed to learn earlier in their 
educational experience?
  This resolution is important, but we need to step up to the plate and 
strengthen accountability for Federal education programs. We spend 
billions of dollars annually on elementary and secondary education 
primarily through the title I program, but we do not demand the results 
that we are entitled to, that the students are entitled to, that the 
taxpayers are entitled to.
  Last year's Obey-Porter bill was a good first step. It will move 
title I programs to use up-to-date and proven instructional programs. 
But we need to go further to make sure that whatever model is being 
used, the students are achieving academically at the standards we 
should expect.
  Higher standards must be coupled with adequate resources. This means 
better teachers, safe and well-equipped classrooms, and computers with 
access to the technology and the Internet for all of our students.
  Here again, the success of today's debate should not be judged by the 
strength of today's vote but on what we do after today. There is a bit 
of disconnect in that we all say we are for education and we all say we 
want better student achievement, but the reality is that this Congress 
has really fallen short when it comes to taking action.
  Mr. Speaker, we will know we are doing a much better job on behalf of 
our students and their families and a good job when somebody slips $50 
billion in a bill in the middle of the night for school construction 
and education rather than for the tobacco companies.
  We will know we are doing a good job on education when this body 
struggles to find money for classrooms and teachers with the very same 
verve with which that they quite appropriately sought funding for roads 
and bridges.
  We will know we are doing a good job on education when we put the 
same energy into strengthening the accountability that we now waste in 
conducting partisan and fruitless investigations.
  This resolution says many good things and sets a very good direction 
on ending social promotion. But the time has come for Congress to act 
to demand accountability for the money that we spend and to demand 
accountability so that America's parents and families will know how 
their children are doing as they proceed through their educational 
experience.
  Mr. Speaker, again I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez), ranking member and author of this resolution, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), chairman of the subcommittee, 
for bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this 
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will briefly close this debate. Let me just say again 
that with respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), my 
good friend and California colleague, that calling the Congress which 
has very legitimate oversight and investigative responsibilities as a 
legislative branch of government, saying that we are engaged in 
partisan and fruitless investigations is itself a partisan statement. 
But I guess that is obvious.
  Secondly, I just again want to reemphasize that really the direct 
accountability to parents through choice and competition is in my mind 
the way to revitalize public education. But I do agree with my 
Democratic colleagues that there is no silver bullet or panacea. All we 
can do is say to State and local education agencies and to the civic 
leaders in those communities, we really believe social promotion is a 
problem that has to be balanced with high expectations and high 
standards for parents and teachers alike and students. We hope, again, 
that today's resolution is a way of starting that debate.
  Lastly, I just want to say very gently to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that if we did not think that IDEA 
funding, that is to say funding for children with disabilities and 
special needs, was a priority, we would not have brought the Bass 
resolution to the floor immediately proceeding House consideration of 
this particular legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out to that the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court just upheld the constitutionality of the low-income parental 
choice parental scholarship bill in Milwaukee schools and we are very 
encouraged about that, and we look forward to the Supreme Court perhaps 
hearing that case on appeal.
  Lastly, I agree with the gentlewoman. I want to join with the people 
who are doing what I think is the Lord's work. They are really angels 
of mercy, philanthropists and other individuals making charitable 
contributions to these private scholarship programs underway now in 
some 50 communities across the country, including the District of 
Columbia. I extend a hand to the gentlewoman across the so-called 
partisan aisle to see perhaps if we could work with some of our 
colleagues to raise even more money for those scholarship programs for 
low-income families beginning here in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, since I intend to call for a recorded vote here 
momentarily, I urge our colleagues to support the Martinez-Riggs 
bipartisan social promotion resolution.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concerns 
regarding H. Res. 401, which calls for an end to the practice of 
``Social Promotion'' in our education system. We can all agree that 
promoting a student from grade to grade if they have not made the 
appropriate academic advances is generally not a good idea. However, 
simply calling for the end of Social Promotion, without acknowledging 
the issues related to why our children are not meeting academic 
requirements, ignores the very heart of this issue.
  H. Res. 401 calls for the end of Social Promotion, but it is silent 
on assuring that children are provided quality education which 
effectively teaches them what they need to know in order to advance to 
the next grade. This leaves the impression that the simple act of 
retaining a child in their current grade solves the problem. This does 
not address the real problem, which is how to prevent children from 
failing to meet academic standards and how to help them improve their 
academic achievement.
  We know that students need enriched and accelerated curriculum, 
effective instruction, timely intervention if they have trouble meeting 
the appropriate standards, and strong parental involvement to assist 
them. Yet none of these important factors are mentioned in the 
Resolution.
  H. Res. 401 supports the idea of holding children accountable for 
their lack of academic progress, but it says nothing about holding our 
education system accountable for a quality education. Children cannot 
learn without quality instruction, trained teachers, a safe learning 
environment, adequate textbooks and other curricular material. The 
question is who is really failing? Is it our children or is it our 
system?
  While I will not vote against H. Res. 401 today, I believe it misses 
the boat completely on what this Congress should support in order to 
prevent students from advancing in our education system without the 
knowledge and skills appropriate for their grade level.
  We should resolve to provide the resources necessary to assure that 
children are receiving quality education; we should resolve to support 
early intervention efforts for children who are at risk of ``Social 
Promotion'', and we should resolve that every child in America is 
provided an opportunity to learn what is necessary to progress on to 
the next grade.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 401, as 
amended.

[[Page H4608]]

  The question was taken.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________