Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, when Congress enacted No Child Left Behind in 2002, we recognized the importance of paraprofessional qualifications. Because their support to students has a significant impact on their success in school, paraprofessionals provide a wide range of critical support, including tutoring, computer assistance, library resources, classroom management, translation, and other instructional services. In the past 13 years, paraprofessionals have met these strong qualifications, including minimum postsecondary credentials and a demonstration of specialized knowledge. They already meet these standards, and that is why it is unfortunate that the underlying bill repeals these standards. We don't understand why we would want to go backwards in maintaining the high standards; and that is why this amendment is so important, and I would hope it would be adopted.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment focuses on the importance of aligning education with labor market needs so that when you get educated, you are educated for the jobs of the future. The underlying bill, however, does not insist on college and career-ready standards so that when young people graduate from high school, they ought to be ready for a job or for college. We would like to see in the legislation that the standards set by each State provide that if you graduate from high school, you are able to go to college without remediation. That is not in the underlying bill. This amendment does a step in the right direction by aligning education to labor market needs. Therefore, I am not in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago, we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, recognizing that a child's future opportunities are primarily established by virtue of their education. We know that there is inequality in education, primarily because we fund it typically by the real estate tax. We fund it politically, and those in low-income areas tend to get the short end of the stick. That is why we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The underlying bill takes all that good work and goes backwards. They cap the funding. We take the money from the low-income areas, give it to the wealthy areas, we eliminate the focus on English learners and disabled. The bill goes in the wrong direction. By shortening the authorization of the life of this bill, under H.R. 5, the gentleman's amendment will force us to reauthorize it and reconsider it in a shorter period of time, and if it is a bad bill, I think that is a good thing. Since it is my firm belief that the implementation of this bill will yield devastating results for our Nation's most vulnerable children, the gentleman and I are in agreement that we ought to revisit it as soon as possible, and that is why I am not in opposition to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I don't have any additional speakers, Mr. Chairman, but I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If ours is the position of the underlying bill, and they are trying to amend it, who has the right to close?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this would just add confusion to an already difficult situation. To have each locality set its own assessments means that all of the assessments are going to be different. What happens in one city is going to be different from another city. If a student in one city moves from another city, all of a sudden, they become more intelligent? No, they just did better on that different assessment. Mr. Chairman, in our Democratic substitute, we have an amendment coming up, an idea that the assessments should be as accurate as possible and that we should have as few assessments as possible. One of the things people keep talking about is the multiple tests and the burden of these tests. We can do better. But allowing each locality to come up with its own home-baked assessment only will lead to confusion and something that nobody will understand. You won't know whether a student in one city is doing as well as a student in another city because you can't compare the results. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to read parts of a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. It says: Locally developed assessments will undermine one of the central tenets of State and local efforts to raise achievement for all students: the ability to have comparable data and, as a result, know how all students, in all schools and all communities, fare on a common, objective measure of achievement. Statewide assessments serve as a check to ensure the students who are the focus of Federal law--low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English learners--are not being subject to lower expectations than their peers. The assessments provide parents, communities, and advocates with critical information about how well different schools and districts are serving different students, a crucial tool for monitoring and ensuring protection of civil rights. Local assessment would not allow for these same comparisons. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, February 26, 2015. Oppose Goodlatte Amendment #74--Protect Civil Rights Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, we urge you to oppose Representative Goodlatte's Amendment #74 to H.R. 5, which would allow school districts to administer their own assessments in lieu of a single, statewide assessment. Locally developed assessments will undermine one of the central tenets of state and local efforts to raise achievement for all students: the ability to have comparable data and, as a result, know how all students, in all schools and all communities, fare on a common, objective measure of achievement. Statewide assessments serve as a check to ensure the students who are the focus of federal law--low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English learners--are not being subject to lower expectations than their peers. The assessments provide parents, communities, and advocates with critical information about how well different schools and districts are serving different students, a crucial tool for monitoring and ensuring the protection of civil rights. Local assessment would not allow for these same comparisons. We continue to oppose the underlying bill and urge you to vote against Goodlatte Amendment #74, which further weakens H.R. 5 and undermines the protections of civil rights. If you have any questions, please contact Liz King, Senior Policy Analyst and Director of Education Policy, at king@civilrights.org. Sincerely, Wade Henderson, President & CEO. Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, for those reasons I would oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, copyright law is a complicated field, and any guidance we can give teachers and parents in how to avoid copyright infringement and refrain from unintentional or intentional piracy would be worthwhile. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not necessary because there is no prohibition against people withdrawing from Common Core. I think we need to say a few things about Common Core. It is not a national or a Federal initiative. It is State led. States develop the Common Core standards through the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. The U.S. Department of Education did not participate in that. The administration does not coerce States into adopting Common Core. In fact, States have received waivers under NCLB and have not adopted Common Core, like my home State of Virginia. In Virginia, our State system of higher education certified that when a child is proficient under our standards of learning, they could enter public universities without the needed remediation. Those standards were okay, not the Common Core. Frankly, we need those kinds of standards, college and career-ready, because you want people, when they graduate from high school, to be able to go to college without remediation. That is not a high bar, and we want to make sure that whatever happens to this amendment, we are not exempting States from meaningful standards. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that the Commonwealth of Virginia had received a waiver without accepting, without being involved in Common Core. We need to make sure that we have meaningful, high standards so that when someone graduates from high school, they are college- or career-ready without remediation. Whatever happens to this amendment, we want to make sure that States are not trying to exempt themselves out of reasonable standards. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas has raised some good points about data privacy with this amendment. The Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education held a hearing on data privacy in the digital age earlier this month, and I think we are going to be looking at ways that we can improve FERPA for the 21st century during this Congress. Mr. Chairman, that bill was written 40 years ago when data in the classroom was all in a teacher's grade book and technology was not employed anywhere close to where it is today. Parents need to be able to trust that their children's personal information is secure and will not be used for marketing or noneducational purposes. Teachers need to be given resources to understand how they can best protect the students' data. As policymakers, we need to safeguard student privacy while supporting technological innovation happening in American schools. We must help researchers and educators diagnose and address achievement gaps and enable all students to achieve their greatest potential. So I support the gentleman's amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this would require that the money that is appropriated under ESEA go to the purpose for which it was appropriated, and that is education. This amendment focuses the money and makes sure it goes to where it is supposed to go, and therefore I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise how much time is available on both sides?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Early childhood education programs have been studied. Those high- quality programs increase achievement, increase the graduation rates, increase future employment, decrease crime, decrease teen pregnancy, and, in the long term, save more money than they cost. This amendment will help improve early childhood education and therefore is a meaningful improvement in the bill, and I would hope we would adopt this. It provides for professional improvement, a great improvement in early childhood education. Since it has been studied and so successful, I would hope we would adopt the amendment.