[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1041-H1046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION RELATING TO TEACHER PREPARATION ISSUES
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher
preparation issues, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 58
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education
relating to teacher preparation issues (published at 81 Fed.
Reg. 75494 (October 31, 2016)), and such rule shall have no
force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie)
and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 58.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
[[Page H1042]]
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 58. The
purpose of the resolution under consideration is simple: reining in the
Federal role in education and protecting State and local control
promised to students, parents, and education leaders.
Under the Higher Education Act, teacher preparation programs are
required to provide certain information to State leaders to help
determine the effectiveness of those programs. The State then submits
an annual report card to the Department of Education that highlights
the quality of their teacher preparation programs. Additionally, the
Higher Education Act provides TEACH Grants to high-achieving students
who commit to teaching math, science, reading, or a foreign language at
high-needs schools. To ensure taxpayer dollars are being used
responsibly, the law requires that grant recipients attend an
institution that provides high-quality teacher preparation and
professional development services.
In 2012, the Obama administration began a rulemaking process to
develop Federal criteria for State teacher preparation report cards.
For the first time, and without congressional authorization, the rule
that came out of that process tied eligibility for TEACH Grants to the
State's teacher preparation report card. That flawed and controversial
rule is the reason we are here today.
We all agree that accountability is important, particularly when it
comes to ensuring our students receive the high-quality education they
deserve. However, it is also important that State and local leaders
have the flexibility they need to make decisions that affect the
schools and programs in their local communities.
Teacher preparation should be addressed through reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act, not unilaterally by executive fiat. That is
exactly what the Obama administration did by forcing its one-size-fits-
all approach to education on teacher preparation programs. The rule
requires States to track new teachers across three performance levels:
student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and employer surveys.
In doing so, it essentially creates a Federal mandate for teacher
evaluations that Congress explicitly rejected with the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The regulation assumes the Federal Government knows
better than local education leaders when it comes to what makes an
effective teacher. And to make matters worse, it will also result in
fewer teachers opting to teach students in low-income neighborhoods and
schools.
Teachers play an important role in helping students learn and succeed
both in and out of the classroom. Unfortunately, as it did so often,
the Obama administration overreached and took a flawed approach to
preparing teachers to meet the needs of their students. The teacher
preparation rule blatantly ignores the principles guiding recent
bipartisan education reforms and will make it more difficult for State
and local leaders to help ensure teachers are ready to succeed.
The resolution under consideration, H.J. Res. 58, will block the
implementation of this misguided policy and protect State and local
control over decisions affecting their teachers and students. The
Federal Government has played too large a role in education for far too
long. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution and
help rein in the Federal Government's role in education.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 58, which would
dismantle key protections of teacher preparation programs.
Unfortunately, this joint resolution is part of a much larger effort by
my colleagues to remove crucial safeguards from the education sector
and move us backwards.
In my time on the San Diego School Board, the California legislature,
and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I found one
thing to be a constant: studies find time and time again that a quality
teacher makes the most important impact on a child's success in school.
So I am finding it difficult to understand why anyone would support
this joint resolution that decreases the quality of the very programs
responsible for training our teachers.
H.J. Res. 58 undoes years of hard work on both sides of the aisle to
develop vital safeguards that ensure transparency and quality in
teacher preparation programs. This provision plays a significant role
in ensuring that teaching programs across the country work with
educators to develop curriculum that trains teachers most effectively.
Beyond this specific protection, it is important to keep in mind the
damage that Congressional Review Acts can do to key safeguards on the
books.
H.J. Res. 58 takes away the possibility of the Department of
Education coming back to rethink these protections and takes a sword to
the language where a scalpel should be used.
I know that many of my colleagues have concerns about the burdens
that these protections have on our schools. Rightly so. But it is
important to remember that, behind many of these safeguards, there is a
student whose future is at stake.
I have heard countless stories from students in my district who have
been defrauded by schools that they trusted with their time and their
money. I think it is important to remind my colleagues across the aisle
that those are the people who we have been elected to serve, students
who seek higher education as a means to a brighter future and often
find themselves no better off at the end of years of hard work.
So if my Republican colleagues want to discuss changes to the teacher
preparation program provisions when we hopefully reauthorize the Higher
Education Act this Congress, I am certainly open to having that
discussion. If they want to get creative about increasing the quality
and the efficiency of our schools, I will be the first person to sit
down and have those discussions.
But if they want to deregulate just for the sake of deregulation,
well, I have to stand up for our students. If they want to, as Jerry
Falwell recently implied, undo vital components of title 9 safeguards
against sexual assault on our campuses, I am hopeful that my colleagues
from both sides of the aisle will refuse.
Mr. Speaker, we were elected to this House to protect all of our
constituents, including the most vulnerable members of our society.
Nowhere is that more critical than where it pertains to the young
people who are the most important investments that we can make as a
country.
For every student who is defrauded by a school, not given an
opportunity because of their socioeconomic background, or drowning in
debt, we are holding back one more person who could be contributing to
our economy and to our society. We are giving one more person the wrong
start in their adult lives, and the impact of that debt often affects
their parents, their spouses, and children for years.
I hope that my colleagues realize that it is in our best interest to
protect students and not corporations. That it is in our best interest
to safeguard equity and accessibility in our schools, and not for-
profit schools who donate millions to encourage deregulation.
I am hopeful that instead of taking an ax to the many protections
that we developed for our students, my colleagues will join me in
discussing the most responsible way, the best way that we can increase
quality and efficiency in our schools.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 58, which nullifies the teacher preparation issues rule finalized
by the Department of Education in October of 2016.
Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in
when I consistently hear from educators that they are spending more and
more time trying to comply with misguided rules from the Federal
Government instead of teaching our children and grandchildren.
The Department of Education and the Obama administration have acted
as if they know what type of teacher is best for east Tennessee instead
of the
[[Page H1043]]
people living and working there every day. I want nothing more than to
have the best teachers in our classrooms teaching children all across
this country, but burdensome one-size-fits-all regulations from the
Federal Government that emphasize bureaucracy and compliance instead of
a student education is not the way to get there.
{time} 1500
The teacher preparation regulations put forth by the Obama
administration are yet another example of misguided Federal overreach
that would burden schools, institutions of higher education, and
States. These regulations are unfunded and would impose extensive data
collection requirements on States, colleges, and universities. And one
university, Mr. Speaker, in my State spends $150 million a year
complying with government regulations.
Under these regulations, institutions of higher education that do not
meet the rules requirements could lose access to Federal financial aid,
which is yet another example of the prior administration using the
regulatory process to bypass the legislative process. Both the School
Superintendents Association and the National Governors Association have
highlighted how these regulations are a significant intrusion on the
role States play in ensuring accountability for teacher preparation.
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education has
indicated that these regulations are likely to exacerbate teacher
shortages in areas where they are critically needed, like special
education.
When Congress passed on a bipartisan basis Every Student Succeeds
Act, we expected the Obama administration would work to continue the
momentum for giving States and local school districts the flexibility
they needed to help kids learn. The administration went in the opposite
direction, which is why I encourage my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57 and 58 that undermine
equity in public education.
Until I moved to Chicago when I was 19, I attended segregated schools
because our States failed to follow Federal laws and the Federal
Government demonstrated weak enforcement. The Civil Rights Act and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act advanced equal educational
opportunity for African-American students and other students who faced
discrimination and barriers in education, making this country stronger
and better.
During Black History Month, the GOP will advance a bill to undermine
the educational civil rights of African-American students. The scope of
this joint resolution of disapproval clearly reflects the
discrimination and the intent. It doesn't target a narrow regulation.
It encompasses each of the critical civil rights elements of ESSA--data
collection and reporting to ensure transparency about whether schools
are educating vulnerable students comparably to other students, and
accountability to ensure that schools take action to improve and
receive support in meeting the needs of all students. To do so leaves
States confused and Federal protections for disadvantaged students
hollow.
H.J. Res. 57 is an extreme, calculated effort to promote
discrimination, removing any transparency and accountability related to
educational civil rights.
African-American students do not yet have equal educational
opportunity. Black students are suspended and expelled three times the
rate that their White peers are, only about two-thirds of Black
students graduate high school on time compared to 86 percent of White
students, and one in three Black men who start as a full-time student
at a university graduate with a bachelor's degree within 6 years.
Students with disabilities, English language learners, low-income
students, Latino students, and Native-American students also do not yet
enjoy equal educational opportunity. This resolution will erase this
data and allow schools that continue these disparities to continue
performing poorly in perpetuity.
Out of respect for our country's history of educational
discrimination against vulnerable students, out of respect for Black
History Month, and out of respect for the American value of equal
opportunity, I ask my colleagues to reject this discriminatory
resolution.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my friend.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Guthrie) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 58. I am pleased to join
Congressman Guthrie as a cosponsor.
As a parent, I know the critical difference teachers can make in a
student's life. That is why many young people choose the path of
education as their career and their mission.
This rule creates an arbitrary tie between teacher preparation
programs and student test scores. What is worse, this rule unfairly
discriminates against teachers who commit to teaching STEM subjects or
different languages--critical subjects already facing a teacher
shortage and occupations desperately seeking skilled employees.
In Michigan--my home State--teacher training program enrollment
declined 38 percent between 2008 and 2013. The number of people who
actually pursue teaching after going through a prep curriculum declined
by 26 percent. We face a teacher shortage in Michigan and nationwide.
I frequently hear from the people I serve, teachers and parents in my
district, that they are disheartened and frustrated by the Federal
Government's overreach and arrogance that turns educating young people
into a test score.
Mr. Speaker, let's return authority where it belongs with teachers
and, more importantly, parents.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 58, which
would gut States' teacher preparedness programs.
This rollback is just one of many attempts by Republicans to
dismantle the Department of Education by stripping its oversight and
enforcement authority. The Trump administration has already made it
clear its lack of regard for public education by picking an unqualified
nominee to head the Department, and congressional Republicans are
falling right in line by attempting to remove important rules to
improve teacher preparedness.
This rule came into place as part of the bipartisan reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act. The reauthorization brought consensus
measures to improve teacher training. But given the opportunity,
Republicans are willing to forego public education all together by
using the CRA to prevent the Department from overseeing State-led
initiatives. And there is the crux of it. These initiatives are State-
led and allow great levels of flexibility, provisions that Republicans
championed during reauthorization. Now, they want to take advantage of
an obscure congressional provision, used only once in our history prior
to this Congress. This will tie the hands of future administrations
from improving the transparency and quality of teacher preparedness
programs.
If Republicans are happy with the rule and want to change it to
improve the quality of education, this administration should use
existing administrative tools to amend and revise the regulation. But
that is not what this is about. This is about dismantling our public
education system. Congressional Republicans want blanket deregulation
of Federal education programs in order to allow States to ignore laws
intended to protect disadvantaged students.
I invite my Republican colleagues to bring forth a plan that improves
rules protecting our students, not to dismantle them. But this is
simply not the way. I implore my colleagues to abandon this backdoor
workaround and to work in a bipartisan fashion, like we did when
Congress reauthorized the HEA, to develop ways in which we can improve
public education for all of our children.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1044]]
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58,
which would undermine the requirement that States assess the quality of
their teacher preparation programs and weaken efforts to provide
educators with high-quality teacher preparation programs.
There is no doubt that our country needs highly skilled and diverse
educators, and that means attracting good people by providing them with
high-quality preparation and ongoing support, especially early in their
careers. Many teacher preparation programs are meeting this charge--
recruiting diverse candidates, offering rigorous practicums, and
providing supports that follow them into their classrooms.
But some programs are still preparing large cohorts of educators for
fields that are not in demand. And, according to one survey, more than
60 percent of teachers still enter the classroom feeling unprepared for
one of the toughest, most important jobs in America.
Many of us readily agree that the regulations governing transparency
and program quality for teacher preparation are not perfect. But, let's
remember that this resolution would effectively demolish key provisions
at the Higher Education Act, which was last reauthorized in 2008, and
in which Members from both sides of the aisle agreed that States needed
to provide better data on the quality of their teacher preparation
programs.
If the rules for improving teacher preparation programs are
unnecessary, as my friends across the aisle may contend, I would ask
them to explain why critical sections of the Higher Education Act
remain largely unimplemented, nearly a decade after Members of Congress
wrote the requirements into law. Without regulations, provisions of the
2008 reauthorization will continue to go unfilled. Taxpayer-funded
grants will continue to support ineffective programs for teachers in
high-needs schools.
The truth is, Democrats and Republicans could probably reach
consensus about how we might like to see these regulations amended and
improved. I am sure we all support robust data on how new teachers are
performing and being supported in the classroom. And I am sure we all
support States and institutions using data to continually strengthen
their preparation programs.
But, unfortunately, my Republican colleagues appear unwilling to have
that conversation about how to give teacher preparation programs the
tools they need to improve. Instead, they have offered this resolution
that would essentially guarantee that important provisions in law are
never fully implemented by this administration, or a future
administration, because this resolution is under the Congressional
Review Act, which, until recently, has been used successfully only
once. It is a blunt instrument that actually bans Federal agencies
from providing similar protections in the future.
So instead of fixing the teacher preparation regulations and
upholding congressional intent in the Higher Education Act, supporters
of this resolution are turning their backs on the law. The resolution
is an overreaction. It appears to be part of a dangerous agenda to do
permanent damage to the Department of Education's important oversight
and enforcement responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this and work together on amending the
regulations.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I need to explain what we are doing here. We are not changing the
report card that schools have that teacher preparation programs have to
provide.
This rule says that if a school doesn't score well on its report card
then students in that program can't get TEACH grants, which tries to
focus on getting teachers from teacher programs into challenging
schools. So what happens is, if you are an outstanding student and you
are trapped in a school, let's say, because where you can afford to go
is not performing well, then based on your school not performing well,
not on the merit of that future teacher, they are not allowed to get a
TEACH grant. That is what we are trying to prevent here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment because
I was a little confused by what the gentleman said. I believe that we
want to be sure that teachers who get TEACH grants are doing that at
schools that have shown the capacity and the ability to really help
children achieve. And so that is why we want to direct them into those
schools particularly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. And
I do so as someone who, in 2008, actually was a member of the
conference committee when we passed the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. Unfortunately, that is the last time Congress has moved
forward, and we are about 3 or 4 years overdue in terms of modernizing
and updating that law.
But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, having been to the meetings--and we
actually met as conferees and we had votes and we had discussion,
unlike a lot of the short-circuited processes that unfortunately
dominates most of our business these days--it was a healthy process.
{time} 1515
This issue of teacher preparation in setting up standards was totally
noncontroversial. There were a couple of items on which the two sides
actually debated, but this one was a no-brainer. It just makes perfect
sense that we want to make sure that there is at least a minimum
standard out there to make sure that kids are getting the opportunities
they need, particularly with the changing demands and needs of the
workforce.
What also just sort of astonishes me is the manner in which this
regulation was issued, which was only last October. The ink is, really,
barely dry on it. We have a new incoming administration with a new
Secretary, whom I will talk about in a second, and they have more than
ample opportunity to go back into the regulations process and amend it,
make changes, if they so choose. Instead, rather than using a scalpel,
we are using a chain saw to basically carve out, in essence, a section
of the law because the ability of the Department's to go back and do a
similar regulation is not allowed under the Congressional Review Act.
This is a measure which, as I said, was just totally
noncontroversial, on which we had a very strong vote, by the way, in
terms of the final result of the conference that took place back in
2008, and the process that is being used is just tremendous overkill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield the gentleman such time as he may
consume.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, frankly, I think, as we stand here today
in the Chamber--and just an hour or so ago, we had a Secretary who was
confirmed in an unprecedented procedure during which the Vice President
had to come in and break the tie--it, unfortunately, has the look of,
really, being part of a pattern that we are seeing emerge here with the
confirmation hearing process during which the incoming Secretary showed
almost no regard for the notion of accountability in terms of charter
schools and voucher programs, which, for the taxpayer and for the kids
and the parents who really depend on our education system, is just a
totally unacceptable approach.
As I said, this CRA bill on the teacher preparation program is just
part of the same cloth. It is saying that we are just going to carve
out a section which was a totally bipartisan, commonsense provision
back in 2008 and that we are going to handcuff the ability of the
Department to even come in with a substitute. The chances of Congress,
at this point, coming in with new legislation--I mean, I am the eternal
optimist. Hopefully, that will happen, but it sure hasn't happened over
the last 3 or 4 years since the HEA, Higher Education Act, expired.
This is really, I think, a very unfortunate effort that is being put
forth here on the floor. As I said, given what is going on with the
Department and the vote that took place here earlier today, for those
who really care about making sure that our free public education
system, which has been, basically, part of America since Abraham
Lincoln first proposed it back in the
[[Page H1045]]
middle of the Civil War, we need to be totally on guard--on standby--to
make sure that the taxpayer is protected in terms of making sure these
grant programs go to school districts and systems that are actually
following through with programs of value and to make sure that we
protect the pillars of public education. Anyone watching that
confirmation process over in the Senate, I think, was extremely worried
and alarmed, which is why, I think, we had this avalanche of emails and
calls that came in all across the country during that process.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for all of the reasons I have stated.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 57, which we will be voting on today and
discussing and debating in a few moments, would overturn an
administration rule on school accountability standards that were
finalized back in November.
Congress passed a law last year with the intent of giving power back
to States and to local communities, but unelected bureaucrats at the
Department of Education finalized this rule last year which,
ultimately, could force Common Core standards on States that don't
comply.
We see this time and time again. Congress will create a law, and then
an agency that is filled with unelected officials disregards the will
of the people by writing regulations as it sees fit. Every American, in
putting aside one's personal ideology, can agree that an important
issue like how we educate our kids is not something that we should
decide here in Washington. In the months and the years to come, we
should welcome a continued debate about whether the fate of a child's
education should be decided in Washington or if a child's education
should be more personalized at the State and the community levels. In
my view, dictating specific accountability requirements from Washington
and punishing those who don't meet those standards is a losing
prescription.
It is my hope that every kid in my district, in North Carolina, and
around the country has a quality education. I think that is the hope of
my colleagues, too. The more we think that Washington has all of the
answers, the further we get away from our founding vision of a limited
Federal role in our lives, especially in something as personal as
education.
It will be debated in a few moments, but I do urge a ``yes'' vote on
H.J. Res. 57.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We are actually talking about two of these joint resolutions, both
H.J. Res. 57 and H.J. Res. 58, and are looking at accountability
measures. Sometimes I think people forget, actually, that the first
time that Common Core was mentioned in Federal law was in ESSA, the
most recently reauthorized legislation for elementary and secondary
education. That was done because we agreed to do that, because we felt
that it was important to call it out while, at the same time, being
careful to look at our local and our State authorities and have them
come together and make the decisions that they think are best for their
students. That has been the tradition, and that is why it is important
that we have those folks in place in our local school districts.
As a former school board member, I know that those are where the real
decisions are made for kids, but we need to see in which area and why
we have a Federal role. I think, even at the hearing that we had in the
Education and the Workforce Committee today, the Republicans' witnesses
acknowledged that there is an importance of a Federal role. It is in
accountability and responsibility and in acknowledging that sometimes
it is important to give direction to States and to give direction to
local school districts as well.
That is really what we are trying to do here. We are trying to do it
in a smart way, and we are trying to do it in a way so that we can
realize, in the future, there may be changes that need to be made and
that those changes may require Congresses of the future to look at
particular protections and see if they are redundant, if they are
necessary, or if, maybe, they take us in the wrong direction. What we
are talking about today gives us no hope that we will be able to do
that. We are basically writing in stone that we will never have to go
back--that we can't go back--and look at some of those protections.
That is the wrong thing to do.
We all know that, with one protection or another, of course, there
can be problems. We don't want to ignore that, but we want to be sure
that, particularly when we are looking at teacher prep programs, for
example, we are looking at the data that is coming together that
suggests whether some programs are more beneficial for the achievement
of young people in our schools than others.
Boy, I sure hope as a school board member that we have the
information that is available to people, because we can get that at a
national level that we can't necessarily all get at the State level. It
is important to know what processes are in place. Some of these
protections that the Federal Government has created are giving
direction to that. They are saying here are ways to look at your
program and decide whether, in fact, they are doing exactly what you
think they should be doing.
The most important part is that we are getting feedback from our
teachers. This is a process that is so critical, that of having people
who are on the ground who know what they are talking about. We are
responsive to that, and those were some of the processes that we used
in the Department of Education as well. I am not going to tell you that
each one is perfect. I just want us to have a way to look at them and
to understand how they impact our teachers. I want all teachers who
want to succeed with kids, who are not in teaching for financial
reimbursement, to be there because they really believe in kids and
because they believe in their ability to succeed, and they want to be
sure that they have the tools, that they have the resources, to do
that. Many of the protections that we are talking about provide that
kind of help and assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58, the joint
resolution of disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to teacher preparation programs.
This resolution would not only block the rule in question, but
according to the rules of the CRA, it would tie the hands of this and
of any future administration from re-regulating the provisions until a
successful reauthorization of the Higher Education Act might take
place.
Mr. Speaker, this rule in question provides clarity to States on how
to increase teacher preparation program quality, transparency, and the
equitable distribution of well-prepared teachers. It was promulgated to
enable compliance with the statutory provision included in the 2008
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
According to a study by the Education Schools Project, more than 60
percent of new teachers feel unprepared to enter the classroom. We also
know that disadvantaged students are taught disproportionately by new,
inexperienced, and underprepared teachers. Congress sought to address
this in the HEA reauthorization through the inclusion of requirements
that are clarified by this regulation. Congress clearly intended for
these equity-focused provisions to be meaningfully implemented;
however, absent Federal regulation, the bipartisan intent of Congress
has gone unfulfilled.
Despite statements made by many on the other side of the aisle, the
Department of Education did engage in extensive consultation with
stakeholders and the public in drafting and then in finalizing this
rule. The draft rule put forward in 2014 lacked the appropriate
flexibility and was met with overwhelming resistance. Through an
extended comment period, the Department worked for more than 2 years to
revise the rule and produce a final rule with considerably more
flexibility for States and institutions.
Regardless of how flexible the rule is or not, I believe that, upon
careful review of the regulation and the statutory provisions, the
final rule is clearly within the scope of the agency's regulatory
authority. Whether one thinks
[[Page H1046]]
the rule is perfect or flawed, the substance of the final rule is
reasonable and is clarifying an interpretation of how to comply with
statutory requirements.
It is now 2017. Federal requirements to improve teacher preparation
program quality and transparency have gone largely unfulfilled since
the 2008 reauthorization. In such an instance, it is well within the
purview of the implementing agency to regulate and more clearly
interpret statutory requirements to prompt meaningful compliance and
inform Congress and the agency in subsequent reauthorizations.
The executive overreach or illegality of a rule and the disagreement
with the substance of the rule are not two sides of the same coin.
Republicans now control the executive branch. President Trump has
administrative tools at his disposal to revise or to completely rewrite
this regulation. It is clear, based on the history of the
implementation of these provisions, that regulatory clarity is
necessary. The responsible approach would be to utilize those tools to
improve the regulation.
In the history of the Congressional Review Act, Congress has only
used it once to disapprove a regulation. Instead of engaging in the
hard work of governing by revising the teacher preparation rule, my
colleagues have resorted to this act of repealing yet another rule that
is meant to support our Nation's families and children. It is
unnecessary, and we must recommit to doing the right thing for those
whom we serve.
I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
{time} 1530
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time to close.
I think this has been a good discussion, and I think that the hearing
that we had today was even an opening as well at looking at this issue.
I think no matter what side of the aisle one was on, you couldn't
necessarily distinguish the witnesses because it was important that we
say that there is a smart way to do this and, frankly, there is kind of
a stupid way to do it. Because we want to be sure that the consequences
of our actions are not ones that would be impacting our children down
the road.
So we have to go about this in a measured way, in a smart way. I
actually believe that we all have the capacity to do that. There is no
question in my mind that we can't do that in a way that really asks the
right questions: Why are those protections there? Why did they
establish those regulations and protections?
So that we can track and understand what is behind them.
I really do remember that, as a school board member, now and then,
there was some frustration over something within the special education
arena. But when you went back and you looked at why that came about, it
was because there was a child who represented a problem in the system
because we didn't do the right thing. We realized that it wasn't just
that child, but it was many children who could be affected in the same
way.
That is what we have to look at: Why are they there? How can we
change them? How can we be smart about it and make sure that we don't
do something that, in the end, will harm our education system and even
impact those children who really are the most vulnerable that we would
not want to impact under any circumstances?
So, Mr. Speaker, let's work together on this. Unfortunately, what
this does today is it takes away that ability to use, I think, the
goodwill of our committee to do the right thing. I hope that my
colleagues will agree with that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle have worked hard
in recent years, particularly in the ESSA that we passed to make sure
that we have local control of education, the idea that reforms that
State and education local leaders know best. I think the same is true
for teachers.
It is vitally important that we have teachers that are prepared to
succeed. We want the best and brightest in the classroom that help
ensure our students receive the quality education they deserve.
This resolution will put an end to this rule that will have negative
consequences, I believe, for teachers and students; but it will allow
us to address teacher preparation responsibly. Article I of the
Constitution gives the legislative powers to Congress. So we don't just
need to say: There's a new administration in town, let them fix it.
What we need to say is that it is Congress' job, through working
together, to pass the law and reauthorize higher education that will
ensure that we have quality teachers in the classroom teaching our
children.
So I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this rule and vote ``yes''
on H.J. Res. 58.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________