-
Related Links
|
Education Education is one of the most important gifts we can give our children. As our federal government continues to attempt to create an efficient education system, the simple fact is that parents can make better choices about their children's education than the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, DC. I believe the availability of school choice will both provide more students with access to better schools and also induce public schools to improve as a result of market competition. It is for this reason that I support local control over education. I firmly believe that state governments, local school boards, teachers, parents and students must be the ones that set the agenda for education, and they must have the responsibility of controlling the money. A federal bureaucracy should not be empowered to designate where all the money goes. On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, legislation to extend and revise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was signed into law as P.L. 107-110. This legislation extensively amended and reauthorized most federal elementary and secondary education aid programs. ESEA programs are authorized through FY2008. The current provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 include the following: (a) states were required to implement standards-based assessments in reading and mathematics for pupils in each of grades 3-8 by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and at three grade levels in science by the end of the 2007-2008 school year; (b) grants are provided to states for assessment development; (c) all states are required to participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics every second year; (d) states must annually apply adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards, incorporating a goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year, to each public school, local education agency (LEA), and the state overall; (e) a sequence of consequences, including public school choice and supplemental services options, must be implemented for schools and LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for two or more consecutive years; (f) ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas have been modified to increase targeting on high-poverty LEAs and to move Puerto Rico toward parity with the states; (g) by the end of the 2005-06 school year, all paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds must have completed at least two years of higher education or met a "rigorous standard of quality"; (h) several new programs aimed at improving reading instruction have been initiated; (i) teacher programs have been consolidated into a state grant authorizing a wide range of activities including teacher recruitment, professional development, and hiring; (j) states and LEAs participating in Title I-A must ensure that teachers meet the act's definition of "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-2006 school year; (k) almost all states and LEAs are authorized to transfer a portion of the funds they receive among several programs; (l) federal support of public school choice has been expanded in several respects; (m) several previous programs have been consolidated into a state grant supporting integration of technology into K-12 education; (n) the Bilingual and Emergency Immigrant Education Acts have been consolidated into a single formula grant, with previous limits on the share of grants for specific instructional approaches eliminated; and (o) the 21st Century Community Learning Center program has been converted into a formula grant with increased focus on after-school activities. Congress is currently developing legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. I believe in accountability, but I also believe that the law should be thoroughly reviewed and adapted accordingly. The House Committee on Education and Labor, which has jurisdiction over this issue, has held many Congressional hearings on this important legislation. Parents, students, educators, and experts have all given valuable insight regarding necessary modifications on education reform. You have my commitment that I will continue to meet with educators and constituents to determine appropriate legislation. To read the most up-to-date information on NCLB, I encourage you to visit http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/. Head Start is a federal program that has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children since 1965. Services provided to preschool-aged children include child development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities, intended to prepare low-income children for entering kindergarten. The program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Federal Head Start funds are provided directly to local grantees, rather than through states. Programs are locally designed and are administered by a network of over 1,600 public and private nonprofit and for-profit agencies. In FY2005, Head Start funded enrollment for 906,993 children. Head Start was last reauthorized in 1998 for FY1999-FY2003, and after unsuccessful efforts by the 108th and 109th Congresses to complete the reauthorization process, the 110th Congress has now undertaken the task. Congressman Dale E. Kildee (D-Michigan) introduced H.R. 1429 on March 9, 2007 and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) introduced S. 556 on February 12, 2007. H.R. 1429 amends the Head Start Act to modify the aims of Head Start programs, add community-based organizations and financial literacy training, provide additional financial assistance for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, revise the powers and functions of Head Start agencies, and address the issue of children from families below the poverty line receiving access to Head Start. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1429 on May 2, 2007, by a vote of 365 – 48. I voted for this important legislation. The Senate has also passed their version of the bill, S. 556, on May 19, 2007, and a conference has been established to resolve the differences. Program performance, fiscal management, staff qualifications, and the long-term impact on children, particularly with respect to educational attainment, continue to be areas of focus and concern, and the subject of reauthorization proposals. The National Reporting System (NRS), developed with the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of Head Start programs in achieving successful outcomes for children in terms of school readiness, and first implemented in fall 2003, is just one subject of current debate. Both S. 556 and H.R. 1429 have proposed suspension of the NRS, pending further review by the National Academy of Sciences. The 108th Congress reauthorized the landmark special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). President Bush signed H.R. 1350, IDEA reauthorization legislation, into law on December 3, 2004. I was a cosponsor of H.R. 1350, which will reauthorize and reform IDEA. This legislation will help provide a high-quality education to those students with special needs by improving the system that many parents and teachers say is overly focused on compliance with complex bureaucratic rules. In an effort to improve the identification process currently characterized by chronic misidentification for special education under the current system, this legislation will eliminate the IQ-discrepancy model that relies on a "wait to fail" approach. On June 21, 2005, the Department of Education (ED) issued proposed regulations for P.L. 108-446. ED issued final regulations on August 14, 2006. Although many of the regulatory provisions simply track the statutory language, reflect comments in the conference report, or include provisions in current IDEA regulations, there are places where the regulations provide more guidance. The 110th Congress will consider legislation that will reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act. Such legislation could impact IDEA -- for example, regarding how adequate yearly progress (AYP) is assessed for children with disabilities and how special education teachers are determined to be highly qualified. Although both have the goal of improving education -- IDEA for children with disabilities and NCLBA for all children -- the two statutes have generally taken different approaches. IDEA focuses on the individual child, with an emphasis on developing an individualized education program (IEP) and specific services for children with disabilities, while NCLBA takes a more global view, with an emphasis on closing gaps in achievement test scores and raising the aggregate scores of all demographic groups of pupils to specific levels. Higher education is an integral part of our North Texas community. The 26th Congressional District of Texas is home to the North Central Texas College, Texas Wesleyan University, Texas Woman’s University, and the University of North Texas. Two campuses of Tarrant County College, the South Campus and the Northeast Campus, also reside within the district. As a graduate of the University of North Texas and lifelong resident of the area, I know how the institutions of higher education located in the 26th District have positively impacted the area. But as the costs of higher education continues to rise, more and more talented young students may lose access to important educational opportunities. Congressman George Miller (D-California) introduced H.R. 2669 on June 12, 2007, and it passed the House on July 11, 2007, with a vote of 273-149. I did not vote for the bill because I ultimately felt that the legislation was fiscally irresponsible. However, the H.R. 2669 was signed into law on September 27. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 established two permanent federal income tax credits, effective since tax year 1998, for qualified postsecondary education expenses -- the Hope Scholarship credit and the Lifetime Learning credit. The Hope credit was introduced to help ensure that students have access to the first two years of undergraduate education. The Lifetime Learning credit and tuition and fees deduction provide support for students in any year of undergraduate and graduate study; they are unique in that they are available to individuals taking occasional courses. Only one of the three tax benefits may be taken in the same tax year for the same eligible student's qualified expenses. All three benefits apply to the tuition and fees required for enrollment that are not offset by grant aid (e.g., qualified scholarships) and other tax benefits (e.g., Coverdell Education Savings Accounts and Section 529 Plans). The Hope credit has had a maximum value of $1,500 per student since its inception; the Lifetime Learning credit, $2,000 per return since 2003. The value of the credits is gradually reduced within the same income ranges. The value of the deduction depends on taxpayers' marginal tax rates, and it is available to persons higher up the income scale than typically served by the credits. The deduction covers qualified expenses of up to $4,000 per return in 2005, although a smaller deduction of up to $2,000 is available to somewhat higher-income taxpayers. For help in financing college, please visit The SallieMae website Sallie Mae and for more information regarding tax benefits for education, view IRS Publication 970.
Related Documents:
Press Releases
-
Burgess Announces Over $1.2 Million in Funding for Projects in Fort Worth and Surrounding Areas
12.27.2007
Related Files:
Burgess Names Area Leaders to Service Academy Board
|
