[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 22110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     INTRODUCTION OF THE TROOPS TO TEACHERS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 15, 2006

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Troops to 
Teachers Improvement Act of 2006, along with Congresswoman Doris 
Matsui, to improve opportunities for veterans to transition into second 
careers in teaching. I have been a supporter of the Troops to Teachers 
program since its authorization and I am proud of its success over the 
last decade. Since 1994, this program has placed nearly 10,000 veterans 
in our nation's classrooms.
  Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides veterans with a 
$5,000 stipend to help cover the costs of teaching certification in 
exchange for three years service in a high-need school, which until 
recently was defined as receiving grants under part A of Title I. To 
further encourage participants to teach in schools with the greatest 
need, a $10,000 bonus is offered to those who agree to teach for three 
years in a school with 50 percent of students below the poverty level.
  This structure has proven very effective in transitioning qualified 
retiring military personnel into second careers in teaching. Indeed, 
Troops participants fill several critical needs among educators: 
eighty-two percent are male, over one-third ethnic minorities, and a 
majority bring an expertise in science and math to the classroom. In an 
increasingly globalized economy, these valuable characteristics provide 
a vital resource for schools across the country.
  However, this success is now in jeopardy due to a drafting error in 
the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which has inadvertently restricted 
the number of schools in which participants may fulfill their service. 
The applicable definition for ``high-need local education agencies'' 
for Troops to Teachers was inadvertently changed as it was included in 
the section of the legislation regarding other alternative programs 
that had a different definition. This stricter definition requires a 
higher threshold for ``high-need'' requiring the school to have either 
10,000 students or 20 percent of students from families below the 
poverty level. However, the original Title I definition of high-need 
was also retained in the law in the section specifically detailing the 
Troops program. Essentially, Congress accidentally created two 
conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' with regard to this program.
  Early on, the Department and the Troops to Teachers program 
recognized this unintended, change in law and worked together to 
address it. From 2003-2005, while discussions were being held on how to 
reconcile this discrepancy, the program continued to operate under the 
original and intended definition. However, after the completion of a 
negotiated rulemaking process in September 2005, the Department issued 
a regulation stating that the new, stricter definition was not an error 
but congressional intent. As one of the leading supporters of this 
program during the drafting of No Child Left Behind, I can assure my 
colleagues that this was clearly not the intent of the supporters of 
the program.
  Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate result of this, aside from limiting the 
number of schools in which veterans may teach and honor their 
obligation of three-years service in this program, is that it has 
disproportionately impacted western and rural states. In my home state 
of Wisconsin, the number of eligible school districts has been reduced 
from approximately 400 to 11. Not surprisingly, participation in the 
programs has fallen significantly since the implementation of the new 
definition last year. This decision, although understandable given the 
conflicting definitions contained in the law, is a disservice both to 
veterans wishing to continue their service to our nation as educators 
as well as children who stand to benefit from their unique expertise.
  The bottom line is that we are losing out on great teachers because 
they cannot accept the certification stipend due to a lack of schools 
meeting the higher needs threshold in their community. The more we 
restrict opportunities for participation, the fewer teachers we will be 
able to bring into public education, and the fewer teachers we will 
eventually be able to attract to the schools with the greatest need. 
Further, given the President's recent focus on the need for more math 
and science teachers, as well as their support for adjunct and 
alternative routes to teaching programs, we should be removing, not 
creating, restrictions that prevent qualified teachers in these areas 
from teaching in our nations classrooms.
  Mr. Speaker, with Troops to Teachers, the Department already has an 
established program that is well-funded and successful. Rather than 
restricting it, we should be maximizing this program's potential. The 
bill we introduce today simply clears the confusion surrounding the 
conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' and represents a compromise 
between the two. Specifically, it allows for participants to teach in 
high-need schools, as defined by having received grants under part A of 
Title I, if no other school, for which the member is qualified to 
teach, under the new definition exists within a 50 mile radius of the 
participant's residence.
  This is a pragmatic solution that is perfectly in-line with the 
spirit of No Child Left Behind while also supporting our veterans and 
students by maximizing opportunities for participation. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this successful program and 
restoring the opportunity to ``serve again'' to our nation's veterans.

                          ____________________