[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 75 (Saturday, May 26, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. ED PASTOR

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 23, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to close 
     the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility and 
     choice, so that no child is left behind:

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind 
Act, but I must point out some sections that I believe place students 
with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) at a disadvantage. I have been 
contacted by several organizations with an extreme interest in these 
provisions of the legislation, and I would like to point out some of 
the concerns we share. Hopefully, when Members of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate meet in Conference, these provisions of 
this historic legislation can be addressed to ensure complete fairness 
to all of America's children.
  I oppose the requirement in Title I and Title III for parental 
consent for English Language Instruction. I would like to point out 
that current law already includes a requirement that schools notify 
parents about their child's participation in bilingual and English as a 
Second Language (ESL) programs. The provision in H.R. 1 goes further 
and requires every local educational agency (OEA) to obtain written 
parental consent before LEAs could serve limited English proficient 
children with appropriate bilingual instruction. In contract, LEAs 
using English only instruction would not have to seek such consent. In 
reality, this parental consent requirement would create a disincentive 
for schools to serve LEP students.
  Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act also proposes to 
consolidate the current Bilingual Education Act (BEA), the Emergency 
Immigrant Education Program (EIEP), and the Foreign Language Assistance 
Program (FLAP) into one formula driven State grant. Addressing the 
unique needs of limited English proficiency students has reached 
critical levels. The approach taken in H.R. 1, consolidating these 
three programs, is counterproductive and does nothing to assist LEAs in 
providing adequate services for LEP and newly arrived immigrant 
students. I oppose the consolidation of these programs and urge the 
Conferees to maintain each as a separate and distinct entity.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Title III also requires every LEA to design 
programs that assess LEP students in English who have attended school 
in the United States for three or more consecutive school years in 
reading or language arts, and if these students have not reached 
proficiency in English, the LEA will face economic penalties. Of 
course, Mr. Speaker, this will lead to LEAs proclaiming proficiency and 
removing these students from these programs whether they have learned 
English or not. This imposition of an arbitrary three year 
instructional time limit is ill advised and intrudes on the LEAs 
ability to help LEP students succeed. As we all realize, all students, 
including LEP students, come to school with diverse needs, and at 
different
  In closing, I again want to point out my support for this 
legislation. However, if we truly do hope to ``leave no child behind,'' 
we must look seriously at the provisions dealing with limited English 
proficiency students. I am hoping and trusting that the Conferees will 
make the right decisions on these important provisions of H.R. 1.

                          ____________________