[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3455-3456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM EXTENSION

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2363) to extend the educational flexibility program 
under section 4 of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2363

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM EXTENSION.

       (a) Extension Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Education is authorized to 
     carry out the educational flexibility program under section 4 
     of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (20 
     U.S.C. 5891b), until the date of enactment of an Act that 
     reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.), for any State that was an Ed-Flex Partnership 
     State on September 30, 2004.
       (b) Designation.--
       (1) In general.--Any designation of a State as an Ed-Flex 
     Partnership State that was in effect on September 30, 2004, 
     shall be extended until the date of enactment of an Act that 
     reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the 
     Secretary of Education makes the determination described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is a determination that the performance of the 
     State educational agency, in carrying out the programs for 
     which the State has received a waiver under the educational 
     flexibility program, justifies the extension of the 
     designation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
S. 2363.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Senate 2363, a 
bill that would extend the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, also 
known as Ed-Flex. This important bill will allow States that have 
already been approved for the Ed-Flex program to continue to 
participate until the No Child Left Behind Act is reauthorized and the 
issue of appropriate administrative flexibility can be re-examined by 
Congress.
  As some of you may know, Ed-Flex provides greater State and local 
flexibility when using Federal education

[[Page 3456]]

 funds to support locally designed comprehensive school improvement 
efforts. This increased flexibility is provided in exchange for 
increased accountability for results.
  Specifically, Ed-Flex allows the Secretary of Education to delegate 
the authority to States to waive certain Federal statutory or 
regulatory requirements affecting the State and local school districts 
and schools, if they have adopted challenging academic standards and 
strong provisions for holding schools accountable for student 
achievement.
  I would also like to point out that there are some provisions of 
Federal law that cannot be waived under the Ed-Flex program. Those 
provisions include requirements relating to fiscal accountability 
standards, equitable participation by private school pupils and 
teachers, parental involvement, allocation of funds to States and local 
school districts, as well as health, safety and civil rights.
  I am pleased that my home State of Delaware is one of the States that 
has been participating in the Ed-Flex program. They have used the 
additional flexibility provided by Ed-Flex to better serve students and 
schools with a high level of poverty.
  I urge all of you to support the bill. In exchange for 
accountability, we can give States and local schools increased 
flexibility and more freedom from unnecessary and burdensome Federal 
regulations that can so often get in the way of attaining educational 
excellence. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I join my colleague in supporting S. 2363, a bill to extend the 
current Ed-Flex authority.
  The Ed-Flex program was first established in 1994 through the Goals 
2000 Act. I was chief sponsor of the bill and Bill Goodling of 
Pennsylvania was the author of the Ed-Flex language. This was part of 
an early effort to provide States with greater flexibility as they 
begin to implement education reform initiatives.
  Ed-Flex addressed criticism that certain Federal education 
requirements stymied local education reform and allowed local school 
districts to apply to waive select education requirements.
  In exchange for greater flexibility, the local school district must 
demonstrate improved academic performance. Twelve States were granted 
Ed-Flex authority in 1999. Ten States continue to have the authority: 
Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont.
  S. 2363 would extend Ed-Flex for these 10 States until Congress 
reauthorizes No Child Left Behind.
  By extending this authority for these 10 States, local school 
districts in these States will not have to interrupt the measures they 
currently have in place.
  In Maryland, this includes allowing school districts that receive 
title I funds to allow all the students in the school to take advantage 
of title I services, such as extra attention in reading, in writing for 
elementary school students.
  In Massachusetts, seven school districts are using Ed-Flex authority 
to provide title I service to schools that previously had access to 
these services; but due to shifts in school populations, these schools 
were no longer eligible for these funds, even though the need still 
existed.
  I am pleased that States have been responsible in approving waivers 
requested by the school districts. States have adhered to the law which 
prohibits certain waivers such as those affecting civil rights and 
maintenance of effort. These provisions are important and exist to 
maintain necessary protection for students and funding.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me also mention that the Department of 
Education has provided assurances that it will not allow States to 
waive compliance with a highly qualified teacher provision in No Child 
Left Behind. All States must be in compliance with this provision by 
the end of this school year.
  The highly qualified teacher provision is critical to improving 
student academic performance. All children should have the benefit of a 
teacher who is certified in the subject area they teach. The highly 
qualified teacher provision in No Child Left Behind ensures that that 
will happen, and I appreciate the Department's oversight on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is well thought out and deserves the support 
of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2363.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________