Student Success Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues from Maryland and from Indiana for bringing this amendment forth. I am honored to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

Social impact bonds essentially allow a way in which we can leverage philanthropic dollars to meet a socially desirable outcome. It is only paid back if that outcome is reached. What this can apply to teacher development and teacher training is a type of market discipline--to fund what works, to leverage our limited resources through a Pay for Success mechanism to ensure that we are getting what we paid for.

This is important to educators who deserve the very best in professional development. It is important for students to make sure that they benefit from the limited professional development dollars that we have. It is also important for the philanthropic community and for government investment because we want to make sure our dollars are deployed as positively as possible.

Some of these metrics can include: Does the professional development lead the recipient to help improve student achievement? That is one of the ultimate benchmarks of whether professional development and teacher training work. By tying and aligning our limited resources for outcomes for supporting teachers through a Pay for Success initiative, we can make sure that our limited investment has a maximum positive benefit.

Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this strong amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chair, I don't intend to use the whole time.

I just wanted to add my praise to Mr. Jeffries' work. I think it also represents a good starting point. I certainly support this amendment.

There are a number of issues around technology that are important to incorporate in professional development. Some of them have to do with the legal framework, like copyright. I would add to that illegal hacking or accessing of sites. I would add to that trademark piracy, in addition to copyright piracy.

Some of them have to do with potential dangers to students, like cyber bullying, privacy, and knowledge about how students don't put their personal information online or how it could make them subject to a crime.

Along with, of course, copyright piracy, particularly in the academic context, it is important that teachers, parents, and educational professionals receive education on the fair use in the academic context, a very important piece of when you are researching document citations where the line is between plagiarism and a proper citation, where the line is between fair use in a noncommercial academic context and illegal commercial or personal use of a copyrighted product.

I think this represents a good starting point. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York on this issue as it moves forward, and I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Castro for his leadership on this important issue.

Before I came to Congress, I cofounded a charter school in Denver called the Academy of Urban Learning. The focus of this charter school, which serves just over 100 students in Denver to this day, about 12 years after it was founded, it serves homeless youth and youth in transitional housing.

One of the keys to the success of this school is the counseling and wraparound services that the students receive. In fact, one of the graduation requirements is that students must apply to two institutions of higher education.

Now, in a void, that they need more than just that requirement, they need the hands-on help from the counselors that will help them achieve that, so there has been a remarkable record of students not only applying but attending community colleges and even 4-year universities.

Part of the secret sauce that makes that school work--and I am very confident would help make other schools work that serve homeless youth across the country--is the college and career-readiness counseling to advise and prepare students for the next phase of their lives.

This amendment is extremely important in making a difference for the lives of homeless youth, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud that my home county of Boulder County is one of four judicial districts in the State of Colorado to have a pilot program for restorative justice. Boulder, Weld, Pueblo, and Alamosa Counties are recipients of the pilot program, and it really is a tremendous opportunity to use restorative justice in the juvenile delinquency context.

As you know, the goal of restorative justice is for the young people to figure out how they can make up for their crimes directly to the people affected rather than just have a fine that is placed on them. Our district attorney, Stan Garnett, believes that 60 to 70 percent of juvenile crime will be able to be dealt with through restorative justice in Boulder County.

What this amendment would allow for Mr. Cohen is a more meaningful partnership with the school district to this effect. The current funds for the pilot program come through the justice system. If funds are available to train educators with regard to restorative justice, a more meaningful and integrated partnership with the school district and the DA's office and the sheriff's department can be reached to make restorative justice even more successful, both in Boulder County, Colorado, as well as the rest of the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, over 40 States now allow for public charter schools, Washington State being the newest. Like other kinds of public schools, we find across the country high-quality public charter schools as well as poorly performing public charter schools.

Charter schools are not an answer; they are not a problem. They are an opportunity; they are a way that there can be more flexibility at the site level. Some have extended schooldays; some have a differentiated curriculum than the district; some partner very closely with community nonprofits to provide wraparound services.

Before I came to Congress, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to found two charter schools, and I served as superintendent of one. The New America School, which now has five campuses in New Mexico and Colorado, works with new immigrants and English language learners to help them gain proficiency in reading and writing English and getting a high school-level diploma.

Many of the students that we recruited to attend our school were not in school before; they worked odd jobs. We had a flexible schedule day or night. We had to provide day care because just under half of our young women who attend that school have children themselves.

I also had the opportunity to be a cofounder of the Academy of Urban Learning, which works with homeless youth and youth in transitional housing in Denver, Colorado.

What this sense of Congress does is it simply supports the public charter school movement, which has long had near universal bipartisan support, and it calls upon and supports more quality public charter schools. I want to separate this from, of course, some of the issues that my colleagues perhaps on both sides of the aisle have with particular low-quality schools, whether they are charter schools or neighborhood schools or something in between, like innovation schools, which Colorado allows.

If the school is poor quality, hopefully it is a school that not only the Member of Congress who represents that district has a problem with, but hopefully the school board and the superintendent also want to take the steps necessary to improve the quality of that public school.

To the extent that we have methodologies and models for successful public charter schools, we need more of them just as we need more high-quality neighborhood schools and just as we need more high-quality magnet schools. I hope that this can be incorporated as a sense of Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, to address the issue of accountability within charter schools, charter schools are subject to the same accountability laws as other public schools, both at the Federal level through No Child Left Behind and, indeed, in the successor bill.

All of the same accountability and metrics are applied to public charter schools as they are to magnet schools, to neighborhood schools, and to other district schools of choice.

In addition, charter schools have a strong accountability to parents in the community because, in addition to meeting those State and Federal academic requirements, they have to earn the enrollment of their students.

Unlike a neighborhood school, they start with zero students, and without the confidence of the community and without the confidence of the parents who choose to entrust that particular public school with the education of their kids, they will not succeed.

I am glad that our Congress can come together around important innovation and public education, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer an amendment today that would amend the Charter Schools Program in title III for the underlying bill and make a positive improvement.

As you know, the Charter Schools Program not only is a lifeline for growing and replicating public charter schools, but we want to see the benefit of that innovation spread across other public schools. I am very grateful to both the underlying bill and the Democratic substitute, which both have very strong language--in fact, nearly identical--about helping quality public charter schools grow and expand.

As many of my colleagues are quick to point out, traditional public schools are also doing innovative things and are showing growth every day. For the foreseeable future, the vast majority of students in the country will continue to attend district public schools.

District public schools are innovating to provide meaningful programs for students and are helping to narrow the achievement gap in our country every day.

As my colleagues know, I am quick to point out the benefit of innovation that public charter schools allow, including the two that I founded in Colorado and New Mexico.

My amendment, which I am offering with Mr. Rokita, would encourage charter schools and traditional public schools to collaborate and share best practices. They need not operate in their own separate silos. Both can learn from one another. Both kinds of school governance bring ideas to the table that can improve the quality of education for all students.

This amendment would simply encourage public schools with traditional governance through a school district and public charter schools to work together so that both parties can learn from the others' success.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment, in our small way, helps Congress change the culture, which all too often is too competitive between charter schools and school districts.

I have talked to district administrators and to heads of literacy for districts who hadn't been to and didn't know about innovative literacy programs going on in charter schools in their own districts.

Again, there is plenty of blame to go around. I have talked to charter schools that aren't aware of their own district's initiatives for professional development or for STEM education in the lower grades.

By working together, even at times when it takes swallowing one's pride, I am confident that both public charter schools and district-run schools will benefit in the long run, most importantly, benefiting the students that they serve. I call upon my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Ms. Bonamici for bringing forward this important amendment. Hardly a day goes by where I don't hear from my constituents that there is too much testing.

Now, they don't often make the effort to distinguish between district testing, State testing, Federal testing and classroom testing, but clearly the Federal piece is the part that we are dealing with here today in Washington.

What this amendment ensures is that we can focus on the quality of testing. We recently had a school district, Poudre School District, in and around Fort Collins, that did a review of all the different levels of testing that they have. What drives the most frustration among educators and among families and among students is testing for which they either don't understand the purpose or it doesn't have a purpose.

We need to make clear not only what the purpose of testing is in public education but also have the most efficient and best route to get from here to there with regard to the quality of the tests.

There are too many unnecessary and low-quality tests in public education. And at the same time we maintain our commitment to accountability and transparency, we must ensure that we take the quickest possible line from point A to point B through the highest-quality tests and the minimum amount of testing necessary to fulfill the very important public policy goals of accountability and transparency.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

In education, Mr. Chairman, oftentimes textbooks cost hundreds of dollars for each student. Now, sometimes that money has to come from the families. Sometimes the school or the district might have some old dog-eared textbooks, outdated and of different versions.

I have been to a number of classrooms where the teacher has to say, For your assignment, if you have this version, read pages 33 through 35. If you have this version, it is 36 through 38. If you don't have any version, here's a few copies in front that we'll give to you.

That gets in the way of a quality education, both from an access standpoint, from a reinforcing economic disparity standpoint, as well as preventing our students from having access to the most up-to-date textbooks and available information.

In an effort to address this issue, what my amendment would do is create an allowable use of funds for awarding grants for the creation and distribution of open source textbooks and open educational resources.

The open source movement, in general, is sweeping the country with regard to available education and other areas. My amendment allows funds to be used for the creation and distribution of open source educational resources and textbooks at the K-12 level to bring cost savings to school districts, cost savings to families, and quality enhancements and educational enhancements to those districts, schools, and States that embrace this utilization of the funds.

Many States and districts are already beginning to embrace this concept to save costs and improve the quality of their educational content in tight budget times. My amendment would simply allow them to use existing Federal funds to boost these cost savings even more in innovative districts and States that have chosen to embrace the open source textbook movement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, there is an enormous amount of misperception about what the Common Core standards are. Frankly, those of us who serve in this body are elected leaders. I urge my colleagues to take the time to educate themselves about this collaborative effort between a number of States that have developed college- and career-ready standards before they decry it based on misperceptions that, unfortunately, exist among the American public.

A number of States chose to work collaboratively on college- and career-ready standards. What we at the Federal level want to see is that States have college- and career-ready standards. We want to make sure that a diploma is meaningful. If a Federal investment is made, we want to make sure that States don't define success downward, disguising achievement gaps and making it look like every child achieves expectations by lowering expectations.

How they do that is entirely up to them. Let me repeat myself. How they do that is entirely up to them. Many States choose to work together. Some States choose to create their own standards. A project of the National Governors Association had Governors and State education commissioners working together to develop college- and career-ready standards. Other States have chosen to develop their own college- and career-ready standards.

That really is an appropriate discussion to have at the State level, but not in the halls of Washington. You won't hear people pushing Common Core standards here in Washington because I don't think any of us feel it is an appropriate discussion. But for some reason people have a particular agenda against what some of their own States are doing here in Washington. Well, I suggest they don't run for Congress. I suggest they run for Governor if that is their beef. This is simply the wrong place to have a discussion about curriculum and standards.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not set standards; the Federal Government does not set curriculum. It is also important to note that curriculum standards are different. Curriculum is developed from the standards, and depending on what standards the States have adopted, the curriculum is an entirely different matter.

So, again, I hope that we can use this opportunity as a learning moment so my colleagues can engage in a more meaningful debate about what standards are and who sets them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, the problem that Mr. Flores is seeking to address here is a real problem in our country.

Students, teachers, and school administrators of faith, particularly teachers, students, and school administrators of minority faiths, are frequently under peer pressure--at times, perhaps, coupled with pressure through official channels--not to exercise their free religion in schools.

There have been instances in this country of Muslim teachers--Muslim women--being told not to wear their hijabs at schools. A situation could arise when a man of the Sikh faith, who would carry a ceremonial knife with him, might be told he cannot carry his ceremonial knife at a school because it violates another policy.

So, too, many educators and students who are atheists or humanists are often intimidated and afraid to proudly proclaim their lack of faith on their clothing or through their words and deeds.

Correctly done, this amendment would allow Muslims and atheists and other members of minority faiths to proudly proclaim their faiths in our schools, and it would give them the opportunity to talk with others while on the school grounds during the school day.

There should be no discrimination against students, teachers, or school administrators based on their faiths, and you don't park your First Amendment rights at the door to the schoolhouse.

Now, there are different rules with regard to students, as we know. Students' lockers can be checked in a different way other than through unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, students have particular dress codes which have been sustained over time as well; and they are minors, of course, acting with their parents' permission.

Yet, by and large, in a manner consistent with our Constitution, which recognizes that we are a nation of many faiths and a nation of those who have no faith, people should not be afraid to proudly proclaim their Christianity, to proclaim their atheism, to proclaim that they are Muslim at our schools.

Correctly done, I think this amendment can accomplish this, so I praise the efforts that led to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, as the father of a young boy that you had the opportunity to meet the other day in our Rules Committee, I have a particular interest in quality early childhood education. He is going to enter preschool this fall. I support universal preschool so every child in the country has the same kinds of opportunities that your child or my child has.

I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle also recognize the tremendous importance of quality preschool in this country. I also understand that they don't necessarily support the Democratic approach of a comprehensive Federal program for universal preschool.

So what this amendment represents is a compromise, a modest step that would help States make the investment in early childhood education that they want to make by authorizing--not appropriating money for--but authorizing the Department of Education to set up a grant program to incentivize State investments in quality early childhood education.

I hope this is something we can all get behind. I urge my Republican colleagues to see this amendment as a modest compromise approach to an issue that we need to move forward on.

Investment in early childhood education is the most important investment we can make in the life of a child. I remember many years ago I chaired a high school reform commission in the State of Colorado, and one of the first things that we concluded about how to improve the performance of high schools in our State was to improve the performance and make preschool universally available--and then just wait 12 years and the high schools will look a whole lot better.

Well, there is a lot of truth to that. We can lower the special education rate, lower the grade repetition rate. The most inexpensive place to address the achievement gaps is in early childhood education. It only gets harder to succeed and more expensive as those gaps become more persistent across socioeconomic groups, across race, as the child ages.

We need to invest in high-quality preschool programs, and this amendment provides the right incentives for the State to do it--not by a Federal approach mandating preschool, but by simply saying we are here to be your partners and work with States to expand access to high-quality preschool programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, studies have shown that for every dollar invested in quality early childhood education, it can actually save $7 to $9 of taxpayer money over the lifetime of that child in schools over the next 12 years. That is an actual savings. If we were to score this in an accurate way, on a 10-year basis, the investment in quality preschool would save money.

Like the gentleman from Minnesota, of course I am interested in improving Head Start and building upon it, but this is a different and broader approach than Head Start. This program impacts middle class communities who also stand to benefit from quality early childhood education that often they can't afford on their own dime.

Now, what we need is a targeted approach, and that is really the crucial difference between this amendment and the existing program. The need for a unique approach to preschool has been recognized across the Nation.

It is time for the Federal Government to recognize what States and districts are crying out for. It is time to address the need for high-quality early childhood education in a dedicated and comprehensive way, and that is what this amendment does.

By investing in early childhood, we can prevent learning gaps from arising before they arise. We can reduce the need for special education and IDEA, and we can save money by reducing youth adjudication rates, grade repetition rates, and other costly interventions that are necessary if children don't have that opportunity when they are 3 or 4 years old.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source