I am happy to clarify the intent behind section 10306 in the bill. Let me say that it is not our intent to create a disparity in funding or eligibility as to Federal categorical education funds, Federal taxpayer aid for public education between traditional public schools and charter schools within a local education agency. Furthermore, it is not our intent to create a new formula-driven funding stream or program to charter schools, other than what they are currently eligible to receive under title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I hope this addresses the gentleman's concerns.
Frank Riggs: “I am happy to clarify the intent behind section 10306 in the bill. Let me say that it is not our intent to create a…”
Editor's note · Context
Clarifying the intent of section 10306 regarding funding for charter schools during a House debate.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
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…
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.''
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…
Now that we have struck that note of bipartisan cooperation and agreement, I just want to interject for the Record, and here I think is the clear, and I believe collegial difference between the Democratic Members of the House of…





