Reinvented New Orleans with private/parochial scholarships
We need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system, opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance
to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice. We believe that, with the proper education, the children of America can do anything. And it shouldn't take a devastating storm to bring this kind of innovation to education.
Source: GOP response to the 2009 State of the Union address
Feb 24, 2009
Increase completion rate above 6% for GED-OPTIONS program
Only 65% of high school students graduated on-time in the 06-07 school year, and about 14,000 to 17,000 drop out of school each year. This figure is disturbing. This is an incredibly large number of our sons and daughters that do not see a future for the
in school. We have got to turn this trend around.
Almost 10,000 over-average-age middle school students opt out of high school and instead enroll into a pre-GED OPTIONS program each year...Yet only 6% of them end up getting a GED.
This is not acceptable.
Next session, we will work to close these gaps in the system that too many of our children are slipping through by giving students multiple pathways to success and keeping them engaged in their education--which we all know
is the ticket to their future.
Our initiatives will tie academic remediation and GED completion to workforce training opportunities so students complete their program with a useful skill that can directly help them get a job.
Performance-based funding for schools to meet industry needs
The current education funding formula lacks incentives for institutions to generate external research funding in sectors identified as economic development priorities. The proposed performance-based formula will address these needs in our current formula
and better fit our higher education institutions to the real industry and business needs. This new funding formula will:
Better account for actual academic program costs
Encourage institutions to increase retention and graduation rates
Provide incentives for university research conducted in high-priority economic development areas
Encourage institutions to produce graduates in high-demand fields in line with the state's occupational demand forecasts and
Hold colleges and
universities more responsible for adequately maintaining campus facilities and infrastructure.
Through this new, performance-based funding formula, higher education institutions will be rewarded for offering programs that meet real workforce demands
Too many of our campuses have buildings with leaking roofs
In addition to investing in our institutions of research, we must also invest in our institutions of higher education. Right now, too many of our campuses have buildings with leaking roofs and other deferred maintenance issues.
We must commit more to our educational facilities. Ensuring they are places of learning and excellence, requires them to first be places of safety with fully operational equipment.
Source: Second Special Session Speech
Mar 9, 2008
Tax deductions for tuition & qualified educational expenses
We must also encourage more Louisianians to take advantage of our state’s many educational opportunities by providing a tuition deduction that will allow parents to keep more of their hard-earned money
so they can invest in their child’s education. It is smart policy to allow families tax deductions for tuition and qualified educational expenses for their children.
Source: Second Special Session Speech
Mar 9, 2008
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.
Amendment to preserve the authority of the US Supreme Court to decide any question pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill underlying this amendment would disallow any federal courts from hearing cases concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. This amendment would make an exception for the Supreme Court.
Proponents support voting YES because:
I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase "under God" is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the Court holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds.
If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. This bill is unnecessary and probably unconstitutional.
It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, and degrade our independent Federal judiciary.
Opponents support voting NO because:
I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional. I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
By striking "under God" from the Pledge, the Court has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations. No one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message.
Reference: Watt amendment to Pledge Protection Act;
Bill H R 2389
; vote number 2006-384
on Jul 19, 2006
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
This vote is on a substitute bill (which means an amendment which replaces the entire text of the original bill). Voting YES means support for the key differences from the original bill: lowering student loan interest rates; $59 million for a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program; $25 million for a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year- round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule. The substitute's proponents say:
The original bill has some critical shortcomings. First and foremost, this substitute will cut the new Pell Grant fixed interest rate in half from 6.8% to 3.4%, to reduce college costs to those students most in need.
It would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-income black students, and a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program.
As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your
religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education.
The substitute's opponents say:
I feel it is not totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of higher education. The substitute has three critical flaws.
1.The name itself, "Reverse the Raid on Student Aid." Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.
2. This amendment does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum award.
3. It says that we are going to have a 3.4% interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us.
Reference: Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act;
Bill HR 609 Amendment 772
; vote number 2006-080
on Mar 30, 2006
