[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9837-9838]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 9838]]

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 levels with respect to language 
proficiency, literacy skills, and academic preparation. Mandating that 
LEAs design programs that would ensure LEP students are transitioned to 
all-English class-rooms would intrude on the school districts' 
abilities to tailor effective research-based curricula to individuals 
student needs. In addition, claims that all children can learn academic 
English in three years is in direct opposition to the findings of 
several credible research institutions. This is indeed an area where I 
agree with those who want more local control of our schools. Local 
schools are in the best position to evaluate the needs of its LEP 
students and therefore they should be given the flexibility necessary 
in designing these programs to best serve their students. Mandating 
from a Federal level to the local level the amount of time students 
receive academic and language support services directly contradicts the 
underlying policy of local control. I strongly urge the Conferees to 
strike provisions requiring school districts to design programs to exit 
LEP students before they are ready for all-English instruction.
  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.

                          ____________________