[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ENSURING THAT NO CHILD IS LEFT BEHIND REQUIRES MORE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 19, 2001

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the House has taken a major step in 
supporting the federal government's role in education with the passage 
of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, which re-authorizes the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Through this 
legislation, we have made a $22.8 billion commitment for elementary and 
secondary education programs--a $5 billion increase over last year.
  Specifically, this comprehensive measure authorizes $11.5 billion for 
Title I grants, which assist school districts serving economically 
disadvantaged students; requires states and school districts to issue 
report cards on aspects of student performance and teacher 
qualifications; requires all teachers to achieve state certification by 
2005; and allocates $1.3 billion for afterschool programs, including 
the 21st Century Learning Centers and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
  I am also pleased that amendments calling for the implementation of 
block grants and private school vouchers were soundly defeated during 
floor consideration of H.R. 1. While H.R. 1 consolidates thirteen 
programmatic titles under ESEA into six, the current funding structure 
remains intact. Federal dollars will continue to go directly to the 
local school districts rather than be needlessly funneled through a 
state's bureaucracy.
  Furthermore, although the Act provides public school choice as well 
as private tutorial services to Title I students in consistently 
failing schools, it does not create a private school voucher program. I 
have consistently opposed any private voucher proposal because it would 
undermine public financing for public schools and provide no guarantee 
that low-income students would have any meaningful choice. The House's 
rejection of these provisions reaffirms Congress' bi-partisan support 
of public education.
  Despite these many achievements during consideration of the No Child 
Left Behind Act, there remain several shortcomings which I hope are 
addressed during the House-Senate conference. In particular, I am 
disappointed with the House's failure to authorize funds for class size 
reduction and school renovation and construction. We have again missed 
the opportunity to bring older schools into the new century and ensure 
that our children learn in safe facilities with the most modern 
amenities and technology.
  Unfortunately, the primary focus of ``reform'' has been on testing. 
In the name of accountability, more testing will be mandated with 
little financial support from the federal government. Given that many 
states have failed to comply with current law calling on states to
  Moreover, I, along with my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus (CHC), have concerns with H.R. 1's treatment of the Limited 
English Proficient (LEP) student population. The National Assessment of 
Educational Progress (NAEP), a diagnostic tool to be used to audit the 
results of state assessments, does not administer a Spanish language 
reading test. Additionally, H.R. 1 unwisely consolidates immigrant, 
bilingual, and foreign language education into a single formula grant 
program. It would also require parents to opt-in to Title I LEP 
services and bilingual education and would subject bilingual education 
programs to a 3-year limit.
  In their March 3, 2001 letter to President Bush, Congressman Reyes, 
Chair of the CHC, and Congressman Hinojosa, Chair of the CHC Education 
Task Force, voiced the CHC's opposition to the above provisions. First, 
tests provided in only English could result in inaccurate assessments 
of student performance for LEP students. Second, because LEP children 
have diverse needs and skills, a one-size fits-all approach is 
impractical. Establishing an arbitrary three year instructional time 
limit is short-sighted and contrary to the objectives of bilingual 
education, which is the academic achievement of LEP students in 
addition to English proficiency. Finally, opt-in provisions will place 
cumbersome procedural requirements on school districts and potentially 
dissuade them from providing educational instruction to LEP students. 
LEP students should be automatically enrolled in bilingual education 
programs and allowed to opt out of them if their parents so choose.
  The conference version of the ESEA's re-authorization should 
incorporate language that provides better funding, requires no time 
limits, contains no opt-in provisions, and maintains immigrant, 
bilingual, and foreign language education as three separate programs. 
As an educator and supporter of public schools, I will continue to seek 
the resources our schools need to succeed. We have an obligation to 
provide fair and equal access to quality education for our children so 
that truly no child is left behind. Until we are truly ready to commit 
ourselves to educating all our children with the best we can offer, we 
cannot honestly say we have left no child behind.

                          ____________________