I would like to clarify one more time for our colleagues that under the gentleman's proposal, and in particular the Gunderson provisions, it would permit low-income parents to choose a private school if they are dissatisfied with their child's public school. So under that scenario, if a low-income family is dissatisfied with the education, the performance of the public school their child is attending, then they would have another option available to them. They would be able to choose a private school through the use of the scholarships or vouchers that are in the gentleman's bill?
Frank Riggs: “I would like to clarify one more time for our colleagues that under the gentleman's proposal, and in particular the…”
Editor's note · Context
Clarifying the provisions of a bill regarding school choice for low-income families.
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.''
Our concern is that we do not want Federal law to necessarily override State law with respect to the day-to-day administration of bilingual education programs. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) would acknowledge that…
I am very comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal court order would take precedence over State and local law with respect to bilingual education or State local policy. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support an…
fundamentally this debate is about the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to give up their Band-Aid-- their fig leaf--their placebo for the failure of their great society social programs and the failure of the public education…





