Statement in Favor of Parental Engagement Program

Mr. Chairman, I commend this Committee’s work to streamline education programs and eliminate unnecessary duplication.  While we all have varying opinions as to the best way to approach reform, engaging parents in the education of their children is perhaps the single greatest factor that transcends viewpoints.  For this reason, I am offering an amendment to restore authorization for Parental Information Resource Centers, or “PIRCs.”

My amendment is supported by the national Parent Teacher Association (PTA).  I think we all agree that no school can be improved without actively engaged parents.  The most efficient and cost-effective means of improving educational outcomes is when it is the parent who drives the reform, whether it is as small as picking up the phone or sending an email to a principal or teacher, scheduling a parent-teacher conference, or showing up to a school board meeting.

While this may seem like second nature to many of us, the truth is that not every parent has the tools to be effectively engaged in their child’s education.  At the federal level, we can continue to pour money into the educational system and Title I in particular, but - without parents and families actively engaged on the ground - we will continue to not see the necessary yield on our investment. 
It is important to recognize the uniqueness of PIRCs in that they serve as a bridge between state education agencies, local school districts, and parents to improve parental engagement and educational outcomes.  We know that at the federal level we do not have all the answers to solve the unique challenges that schools in each of our districts face.  PIRCs are effective because they are competitively granted to nonprofits every five years in all fifty states and implement successful and effective parental involvement assistance and activities that work for the needs found in each of those states.  The capacity-building and technical assistance needs in my home state of Pennsylvania are different than those of California or New York.  Accordingly, the services and practices at the Pennsylvania PIRC will be different than the services provided by the New York PIRC or the California PIRC.   That is not only okay, but also why they work. 

PIRCs strengthen partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, and administrators and have been at the forefront of proven and promising practices that engage parents to increase student achievement.  PIRCs drive school reform by providing services to parents ranging from assistance in helping their children reach state and local education standards to providing information on education options like charter schools.  In terms of accountability, PIRCs have met or exceeded each of the six Department of Education’s performance measures in the latest report for engaging parents.  Earlier this month, I joined with Representative Carolyn McCarthy in introducing the Family Engagement in Education Bill (H.R. 1821), which would build on the success of the PIRC program by incorporating research-based practices that we know work from successful PIRCs. 

 Despite PIRCs proven effectiveness, the Department of Education chose to defund the program through the end of Fiscal Year 2011.  In the previous fiscal year, the program was funded at $39.3 million.  My amendment would continue authorization for the program so that moving forward this Committee can work to make the program even better and further promote the important issue of family engagement.  The issue of how much to appropriate is a separate issue to be decided as part of the appropriations process for fiscal year 2012.   
I urge my colleagues on this Committee to support my amendment reinstating authorization of the PIRC program, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues in improving parental engagement as reauthorization efforts continue.  Thank you.