[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    H.R. 2, THE STUDENTS RESULTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 18, 1999

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 1999, the U.S. House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2, the Students Results Act, 
which reauthorized funding for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Title I provides funding to local education agencies to 
help educationally disadvantaged children learn the core subjects, like 
math and reading, and authorizes other programs to assist low-achieving 
students. Last revised by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 
Title I is the largest federal elementary and secondary education grant 
program.
  In general terms, H.R. 2 was a good bill. It provided a billion 
dollar increase in Title I funding, focused on holding Title I students 
to the same high academic standards as all students, targeted funds to 
the poorest communities, and it improved accountability measures. In 
addition H.R. 2 addressed the quality of instruction in Title I 
classrooms by requiring certification for all teachers and 
strengthening professional development opportunities.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2 also included the ``Parental Notification and 
Consent for English Language Learners'' provision. In my opinion, the 
``Parental Notification and Consent'' language in H.R. 2 was unfair at 
best and discriminatory at worst. The provision would at minimum have 
an unjust and disproportionate impact on limited English proficient 
(LEP) students, of which over 70% are Hispanic.
  Schools provide LEP children the necessary language support services 
to ensure high academic standards in addition to developing their 
ability to speak, read and write English. However, the proposed 
``Parental Notification and Consent'' requirements would unjustly 
prohibit schools from providing services until parents provide consent 
or until the school meets the mandatory requirement to build a written 
record of attempting to obtain parental consent.
  While I do not presume to know why each of those who voted against 
H.R. 2 did so, I believe that in the case of the Democrats, that 
decision was based, at least in part, on concerns regarding the 
``Parental Notification and Consent'' provision. It was apparent to me, 
and likely to others, that this provision potentially violates Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guarantees access to equal 
educational opportunities for LEP students.
  As a parent, I must stress that I fully support and encourage 
enhanced parental involvement in schools and increased parental 
participation in their children's education. Nevertheless, I am 
convinced that this legislation, in its ill-advised attempt to include 
parental consent as part of Title I, will instead result in 
discriminatory practices and in limited resources being focused on 
bureaucratic requirements rather than on educational programs.
  I did not easily arrive at my decision to oppose H.R. 2 and to make a 
statement regarding its potentially discriminatory effect on a limited 
group of students. In the end though, I could not vote to validate 
legislation that would result in isolating LEP students for different 
treatment than is applied to any other group of students, while denying 
access for millions to important Title I educational services.

                          ____________________