OPPOSING THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, a landmark civil rights law enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson. As we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take lightly ESEA's mission, goals, and achievements over the course of five decades. It is by that yardstick of history that we must judge H.R. 5 today and determine if it will move our education system closer to meeting the challenges of the 21st century and prepare our students for the global economy.

We all know too well that quality education is even more vital today than it was generations ago. In our rapidly changing economy, our Nation's continued success depends on a well-educated workforce. A competitive and educated workforce strengthens the very social fabric of America: people with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, less likely to become a teen parent, and less likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system. Over the course of ESEA's history, we have recognized that for many politically disconnected populations, equitable access to an education has not been a reality. It was necessary for the Federal Government to fill in the gaps of funding our public school systems.

Inequality was inevitable when most school systems are funded by real estate taxes, and further by virtue of the fact that in our democratic society, we respond to political pressure. For 50 years, Congress has recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to ensure that all children had access to quality public education. As a result, Congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited Federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an unequal system.

Mr. Chairman, one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which strikes at the heart of ESEA's long history of targeting resources to our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision. Now, present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high concentration of poverty. Under H.R. 5, portability, a State agency could use all of its title I funds to districts based solely on the percentage of poor children, regardless of the concentration of poor people in a district.

As a result, much of the title I support intended towards those areas of concentration of poverty would be reallocated to those wealthier areas. In other words, the low-income areas would get less, and the wealthy areas would get more. I ask: If that is the solution, then I wonder what you think the problem was? Analysis from a number of organizations, including the Department of Education, demonstrates title I portability will take money from the poorer schools and school districts and give more to affluent districts. This disproportionately affects students of color, and this is just simply wrong.

Data shows that H.R. 5 would provide the largest 33 school districts with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic students over $3 billion less in Federal funding than the President's budget over the next 6 years. Furthermore, the Center for American Progress found in its review of portability that districts with high concentrations of poverty could lose an average of $85 per student, while the more affluent areas would gain more than $290 per student.

There is an overwhelming body of research that shows that targeting resources to schools and districts with the highest concentrations of poverty is an effective way to mitigate the effects of poverty. Current law reflects this evidence and targets funding to schools where there are greater concentrations of poverty, and this bill rolls the clock back and reverses that.

To add insult to injury, H.R. 5 eliminates what is called maintenance of effort, a requirement of ESEA that States maintain their effort and that the Federal money will supplement what they are doing. As a result of this bill, States could use their education funds to fund tax cuts or other noneducation initiatives, thus turning ESEA into a glorified slush fund where politics would drive funding allocations. And we know who is going to lose when politics are at play--our children.

There are other flaws with H.R. 5. This bill sets no standards for college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be taught with lesser standards. It limits our investment in education over the next 6 years because there are no adjustments for inflation. It block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the outcome. Taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportionate impact on students of color, students with disabilities, and our English language learners. It is no wonder that business groups, labor groups, civil rights, disabilities, and education groups have all expressed deep concerns about this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5, as it will turn the clock back on American public education. In its current form, the bill abandons the fundamental principles of equity and accountability in our education system, it eviscerates education funding, it fails to support our educators, and it leaves our children ill-prepared for success in the classroom and beyond. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.