Skip to main content

STUDENT SUCCESS ACT

July 8, 2015
Floor Statements

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, more than 60 years ago, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court talked about the value of education when it said that, these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity where the State has undertaken to provide it is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The fact is that equal educational opportunities were not and still are not always available in low-income areas, basically, for two reasons. First, we fund education through the real estate tax, virtually guaranteeing that wealthy areas will have more resources; and just with the give and take in politics, you know that low-income areas will generally get the short end of the stick.

In 1965, we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to recognize the disparities in funding. It addresses ``the special educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs.''

While public education would remain fundamentally a local issue through ESEA, the government recognized that, without Federal oversight and support, districts would not address these inequities.

In the last reauthorization, better known as No Child Left Behind, in addition to money, Congress required States to identify and address achievement gaps.

Because of that work, the education of our children has been much improved, as high school dropout rates are at historic lows, as the long-term scores on the national tests have gone up, and as the achievement gaps for racial and ethnic minorities have actually been closing, but the gap between rich and poor has actually been going up.

Mr. Speaker, with that background, the House has put forth its vision of the reauthorization of the ESEA, the Student Success Act. It violates the original purpose of ESEA, first, by reducing the funding, but also by changing the funding formula to take money from low-income areas and to give it to wealthy areas.

For example, Los Angeles, with 70 percent poverty, would lose about a quarter of its funding while Beverly Hills, with virtually no poverty, would pick up about 30 percent in additional funding under that new formula.

This rule enables amendments that, if adopted in the bill, will significantly reduce the ability of States to determine academic achievement gaps.

Now, I recognize that everybody is mad at having to take tests, and we address that in the bill by auditing the number of tests, making sure that there are as few as possible and that they are used for purposes which are validated.

The bill significantly scales back the ability of States to identify achievement gaps and then scales back their requirement to do anything about it.

These are the major flaws in H.R. 5: less funding, less ability to determine the achievement gaps, and then no requirement to do anything about it.

There are other problems with the bill, for example, block granting programs that will end up underfunding bilingual education, afterschool programs, STEM, arts education, and others. These vital programs will certainly do worse.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, we should both defeat the rule. And if the rule passes, we should defeat the bill.

Issues:Committee on Education and WorkforceEducation