I endorse bipartisan efforts in the House to help communities open 3,000 more charter schools in the coming years by giving States incentives to issue more charters. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts would not only remove that provision from the bill but obviously run contrary to the President's endorsement of that particular provision in the legislation.
Discussing charter school initiatives and a related amendment during House debate.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
Now, what did the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''
So the amendment in its current form is intended to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to prevent the City and County of San Francisco government... from being able to use Federal taxpayer funding... to require that private…
That mandate is embedded in current law, and what we are trying to do now by proposing reforms to the Federal Bilingual and Immigration Education Acts is to give local school districts more say, more flexibility, more discretion, more…
I am very astounded to hear the gentleman say that our proposed reforms constitute a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed on State and local education agencies. My question to the gentleman... is does he realize that under current Federal…
Other voices in this conversation
