Paul working for you.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
ESEA Education Funding on the Federal level
I received the following response from Congressman McGovern regarding the re-authorization of ESEA (The Elementary and Secondary education Act). HR 5
September 13, 2013
Dear Mrs. Farrell:
Thank you for contacting me to express your priorities as Congress works to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I appreciate the thoughtful letters, telephone calls, and emails I have received from teachers, students, parents, and other interested citizens on these important issues.
The U.S. House of Representatives considered and passed H.R. 5, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, on July 19, 2013. While I am pleased that we have begun working to reauthorize the outdated No Child Left Behind, I am deeply disappointed by the legislation that was brought to the floor by the House Republican leadership. Instead of pursuing bipartisan legislation, which has traditionally been the case during ESEA reauthorizations, Republicans of the House Education and the Workforce Committee instead chose to bring to the floor a flawed bill that was unanimously opposed by Democrats on the Committee.
I opposed H.R. 5 because it undermines our commitment to equitable educational opportunities for all students, weakens accountability, and underfunds key education priorities by locking in sequestration cuts. H.R. 5 does not require states to set high graduation standards and removes the current "maintenance of effort" provision that ensures states and districts continue to invest in education. The legislation block-grants funding for special populations like English learners and at-risk students and allows those funds to be spent in other areas. It also narrowly focuses on math and reading, while providing no dedicated support for other areas like STEM, literacy, art, music, physical education, and other subjects to ensure students have well-rounded educations. Additionally, I am concerned that H.R. 5 will hinder educational outcomes for students with disabilities by reducing expectations and altering assessment standards.
Making the legislation even more problematic were a number of amendments that passed during floor consideration of H.R. 5. In particular, I strongly oppose an amendment offered by Majority Leader Eric Cantor on "Title I Portability" that diverts dollars away from poor schools and places administrative burdens on school districts.
Representative George Miller's substitute amendment would have appropriately updated ESEA and corrected a number of the flaws with H.R. 5, and I am disappointed that it did not pass. Further action on these priorities and full reauthorization of ESEA awaits further consideration by the U.S. Senate. Congress is long overdue in reauthorizing and updating ESEA, and I hope that leaders in the House and Senate will work to produce legislation that ensures every child has access to quality educational experiences, updates accountability standards, supports teachers, and provides students with well-rounded educations.
Please know that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress works to reauthorize ESEA. I appreciate hearing from you on critical education priorities. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding these or any other issues.
Sincerely,
James McGovern
Member of Congress
JPM/CH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
sounds like he wants to spend more $ on education.
ReplyDeleteI believe McGovern supported Congressman Miller's substitute amendment because it would help to fund the unfunded educational mandates that are passed on the federal level; passed down to the state level and then these unfunded mandates are placed as a burden on the local level.
ReplyDeleteReauthorization of ESEA does not happen frequently. Hopefully the senate can make amendments that will fund unfunded educational mandates. Won't be easy with sequestration. Phone calls and letters from constituents can help.
Julie - do you think that the federal government should be involved in education? That is really a stretch from what the founders set up.
DeleteAlso, I am skeptical about all these "unfunded mandates". NRSD chooses to perform social work within the schools, as part of the school budget. I do not believe that is a federal or state mandate.
I am also skeptical about spending more money on "poor schools" makes a difference. It is a sign of the compassion of the American people to support more money as a panacea for the many societal problems that prevent students from the poorest communities from excelling. But is this money well spent? As a nation, urban and inner city schools spend more money than rural or suburban schools. I understand the desire of the American people to leave no child behind. But spending money isn't working so maybe we need to try something else.
One of the big problems we as a town are having is the lack of funds to support the programs we were told we "had to have", but now the money has stopped coming in. So do we make changes, and drop programs because the money is gone? Oh no, we try to carry it all. I agree with Mark, we should not be doing social work, in our schools. We have a social service agency in Gardner that can and should take over that job. Problem kids need help, not a cop in school, or two vice principals and two principals, to keep the peace. What would we do if we were a inner city school with thousands of kids, with two or three different gangs? Then you need cops and metal detectors to do the job. In our small community, there should not be a big number of problem kids. So as I see it, if we cannot help these children we need to find a program that can. Not build a million dollar program to help one student. Just my opinion, Bev.
DeleteBev - I'm sorry, but your wrong. The money spent on having a cop in the schools is worth every red cents. Just ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they wished they had a cop in their school. I agree that there could have been cuts to administration and other areas, but the money spent on having a cop in the schools is worth every penny.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the more recent mass shootings at schools, military bases, fast food restaurants, movie theaters, public speaking forums, hospitals, etc, I personally believe that every level-headed person should be trained in proper firearms handling, care & discharge to help prevent these horrific public assaults. I also think that all teachers, teacher assistants, coaches, janitors, cafeteria workers, nurses, & basically all adults working in education in every school should be trained & become proficient in the use of firearms. How helpful is it if the on duty Police officer is at one end of the school & a shooter enters an entirely different area quite a distance away? These armed & trained teachers could be ready at a moment's notice anywhere an incident might occur should the officer be unavailable in that immediate area. Time & skill are of the essence when you have a perpetrator on the premises. By the time word, alarms, calls or signals get to the officer on duty the damage could have already been done. If it were known that a particular school had several trained personnel in the use of weaponry it would help deter threats to the safety of the students. If some teachers have an aversion to the use of firearms then they could opt out. However, for everyone's protection it would be best if all were proficient in the use & safety in handling of those guns. Each room could have a locked/coded area so they would be in safe keeping & near if, heaven forbid, the need arose to use them. This is just my opinion. I believe in the right of self protection & the 2nd amendment. It is not the guns alone that cause the harm. It takes an unstable person to carry out an act of violence such as that. The old saying is true, "if you outlaw guns, the only ones who will have guns are the outlaws". I wish that weren't true but unfortunately it is & if it is advertised that a school is a gun free zone by administrators, no matter how noble the thought is, they are creating just the opposite effect & are inadvertently asking for trouble. All criminals will always look for the easy targets to commit any crime. I understand & respect those who do not believe this way but in my education on these case studies & with gun safety training, I saw the former scenario was too often the outcome. Knowledge, training, safety in weaponry, as well as, getting the word out that this school is heavily protected are major deterrents against any random or planned attack. I believe many of these options are the main key factors to protecting our students today, as well as, everyone who might be in the area, without the constant worry that we are at a loss to do anything should some vile & vicious act occur unexpectedly. People may smirk & shirk & think I am going backwards but, this is how the West was won (after townspeople were repeatedly ravaged from being unprotected to eventually being armed ) villages were settled down once again. It is also how the crime rate plummeted in a few towns more recently where every household was equipped with firearms due to overwhelming number of break-ins & assaults. After feeling that they were under siege by drug trafficking, gang related activity & more they got their neighborhoods under their own control again by having safety classes in being armed in every home, school & business. Thugs that do these random acts of violence are unstable to begin with, obviously, but more often than not still know exactly what they are doing & will think twice if they believe that they will not be able to carry out their so-called "master plan" without major obstacles or the concern that they will be shot first before they have a chance to complete their "mission". Once more, these are all my thoughts opinions based on actual statistics, recorded events & my own personal training. Thanks for reading. Good hearing others views, as well.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear No Bias,
ReplyDeleteAt the Town Hall meeting tonight, the Police chief had a handout where a 30% cut would result in the loss of the school resource officer as well as other officers.
For more information please attend the Town Hall meeting Tuesday Sept 17th at 6:30 in the KIVA
Please support the override. Vote Yes.
Mrs. Farrell - I'm well aware of what the cuts would be to the police department. I was just pointing out that I believe it's money worth spending to have a cop in the school. And I do support the override. YES!
ReplyDeleteisteach..good points. May I point out another important piece of the puzzle is having adjustment counselors on hand to address children who are at risk for violent behaviors? We do not have guidance counselors anymore..or not in the means that our older participants might remember. We live in a different world. Children have so many issues to deal with today that I can't even begin to think what it must be like. It does take an "unstable" person to pull a trigger and by having people equipped in the school system trained to help or notice waring signs, we are one step closer to making sure every child is safe in our schools. Mandated or not, there is a bigger picture as I am told by many to look at. Violence can happen even in this "small community" and our school district is trying to stay ahead...not fall behind or end up on the six o'clock news with a tragedy.
ReplyDelete