[Senate Hearing 111-419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 111-419

  A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE USE, IMPACT, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROVIDED TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN 
                        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARINGS

                   SEPTEMBER 16, 2009--WASHINGTON, DC
                   SEPTEMBER 29, 2009--WASHINGTON, DC

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


  Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                               index.html

                               __________
                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                    Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                  Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

       Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JON TESTER, Montana                  THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex 
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex             officio)
    officio)

                           Professional Staff

                        Marianne Clifford Upton
                         Diana Gourlay Hamilton
                       Melissa Zimmerman Petersen
                        Mary Dietrich (Minority)
                        Rachel Jones (Minority)
                       LaShawnda Smith (Minority)

                         Administrative Support

                            Molly Barackman
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     Wednesday, September 16, 2009

                                                                   Page

Opening Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin...................     1
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg................     4
Prepared Statement of Senator Joe Lieberman......................     5
Lost Opportunities...............................................     6
Lawmakers Threaten D.C. Scholarships Despite Evidence of Benefits     6
Statement of Senator Susan Collins...............................    14
Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu............................    16
Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander.............................    16
Statement of Michelle Rhee, Chancellor, District of Columbia 
  Public Schools.................................................    18
DCPS Achievements................................................    18
Jump Start Funding...............................................    19
DCPS Reform......................................................    19
Proposed Use of Requested Funding................................    20
DCPS Initiatives.................................................    21
Prepared Statement of Michelle Rhee..............................    21
Positive Signs...................................................    21
Gains Among NCLB Subgroups.......................................    21
Use of Federal Funds in 2009.....................................    22
Plans for Requested Federal Funds for 2010.......................    23
Vision Moving forward............................................    24
Statement of Josephine Baker, Executive Director, District of 
  Columbia Public Charter School Board...........................    24
    Prepared Statement of........................................    34
Role of PCSB and Growth of Charter Schools.......................    34
Oversight and Accountability.....................................    35
Growth of Charter Schools........................................    35
Use of Federal Funds Since 2004..................................    35
Results..........................................................    36
Plans for Fiscal Year 2010 Funds.................................    36
Statement of Gregory M. Cork, President and Chief Executive 
  Officer, Washington Scholarship Fund...........................    44
    Prepared Statement of........................................    46
Eligibility for and Funding of the D.C. OSP......................    46
D.C. OSP Students, Families, and Participating Schools...........    47
Independent Reports Confirm That the D.C. OSP is Working for Low-
  Income D.C. Students and Families..............................    47
WSF's Administration of the D.C. OSP.............................    48
District Families, Lawmakers, and Other Residents Want the D.C. 
  OSP to Continue................................................    48
What Families and Students Say About the D.C. OSP................    48
DCPS Tri-sector Approach.........................................    50
School Vouchers..................................................    50
DCPS Three Sector Approach.......................................    53
DCPS Testing Data................................................    53
DCPS Testing.....................................................    56
DCPS Reforms.....................................................    57
DCPS Tri-sector Approach.........................................    65
Charter Schools..................................................    66
DCPS Tri-sector Approach.........................................    67
Opportunity Scholarship Program..................................    68
Statement of Mary Levy, Project Director, Washington Lawyers' 
  Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs...................    79
    Prepared Statement of........................................    80
Prepared Statement of the Secular Coalition for America..........    89
Prepared Statement of the American Association of School 
  Administrators.................................................    90
Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Teachers........    90
Prepared Statement of the Center for Inquiry.....................    91
Prepared Statement of the American Association of University 
  Women..........................................................    93
Prepared Statement of People for the American Way................    96
Prepared Statement of African American Ministers in Action.......    97
Prepared Statement of Americans United for Separation of Church 
  and 
  State..........................................................    98
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Public Education   101
Prepared Statement of the National School Boards Association.....   105

                      Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Opening Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin...................   107
Prepared Statement of Anthony Williams, former Mayor, District of 
  Columbia.......................................................   107
Statement of Senator Susan Collins...............................   110
    Prepared Statement of........................................   113
Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander.............................   114
Statement of Mary Levy, Project Director, Washington Lawyers' 
  Committee for Civil Rights And Urban Affairs...................   115
Statement of Robert Cane, Executive Director, Friends of Choice 
  in Urban Schools...............................................   116
    Prepared Statement of........................................   124
Popularity.......................................................   124
Improved Academic Performance....................................   124
Accountability...................................................   124
Inequitable Treatment of Public Charter Schools and Their 
  Students.......................................................   125
Statement of Patricia Weitzel-O'neill, Ph.D., Superintendent of 
  Schools, Archdiocese of Washington.............................   125
    Prepared Statement of........................................   128
A History of Excellent Schools...................................   128
Program History--An Overview of Hope.............................   129
Opportunity Scholarships, Tuition and Cost.......................   129
Academic Growth and Achievement..................................   130
Citizens of the District of Columbia Support This Program........   132
Statement of Gregory M. Cork, President and Chief Executive 
  Officer, Washington Scholarship Fund...........................   134
    Prepared Statement of........................................   136

 
  A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE USE, IMPACT, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROVIDED TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN 
                        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

                           U.S. Senate,    
         Subcommittee on Financial Services
                            and General Government,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin, Landrieu, Alexander, and Collins.


             opening statement of senator richard j. durbin


    Senator Durbin. Good morning. I'm pleased to convene this 
hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government, which includes the 
District of Columbia. The subcommittee's jurisdiction spans an 
array of responsibilities in Federal departments and agencies, 
as well as the Federal payments to the District of Columbia. 
We're here today to review the use and impact of Federal 
appropriations provided to improve the education of children in 
the Nation's capital.
    I welcome my distinguished ranking member, Senator Susan 
Collins, Senator Alexander, and other colleagues who will join 
us during the course of this hearing.
    While past hearings in this subcommittee and other 
committees have focused on various other aspects of Federal 
funds for the District, this may be the first time in the last 
6 years that the Senate has brought together in one forum the 
key officials of the various education fund recipients and 
entities, such as the public schools, public charter schools, 
and the private school Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). 
My objective in this hearing is simple: review and take stock 
of whether there's a reliable accountability for the use of 
Federal funds, and if the investment of those funds has 
succeeded in accomplishing the stated congressional intent, 
``to improve the quality of education and students' educational 
achievement, as demonstrated by measurable outcomes of 
initiatives and programs.''
    Now that Congress has invested close to $350 million in 
special Federal payments to support education of District of 
Columbia children over the past 6 years, over and above the 
Federal grant funds available to the District, it's time for an 
honest appraisal. What difference have these resources made? 
How do we measure the difference? What progress has been made, 
in terms of the educational achievement of the children in the 
District of Columbia? What results can clearly be pointed to? 
What's on the horizon?
    For decades, the D.C. school system has been plagued with 
persistent problems, from lagging student academic performance 
to the condition of school facilities to dysfunctional 
management. These are not problems unique to the District of 
Columbia. We find them across America, in many of the cities I 
represent in Illinois. Sadly, this system has failed many of 
the children in the District of Columbia, as other systems fail 
as well.
    Public school students in the District chronically perform 
well below national average. By the time they reach the eighth 
grade, only 12 percent of D.C. students are proficient in 
reading, and 8 percent--8 percent--are proficient in math, 
according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 
Only 9 percent of D.C. students go on to graduate from college 
within 5 years. That's why Congress got involved, to try to 
lend some help to these children.
    Beginning with the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, Congress 
has provided a stream of funding for a three-sector approach to 
school improvement. Congress has provided a total of $272.5 
million, through fiscal year 2009, in directly appropriated 
Federal funds designated for school improvement in the District 
of Columbia. These funds are apportioned among public schools, 
public charter schools, and for the voucher program.
    For fiscal year 2010, another $75.4 million is included in 
the Senate bill reported from this committee in early July. Of 
the proposed funding, $42.2 million is for public schools, $20 
million is specified for charter schools, and $13.2 million is 
for the voucher schools. Of this latter amount, $1 million is 
for administration, and another $1 million is provided to cover 
costs of administering the D.C. CAS test to voucher students. 
These appropriated funds are separate from, and in addition to, 
Federal funds provided to the District's State Education 
Office.
    I believe that Mayor Fenty's decision to assume control of 
the District public schools, 2 years ago, was the right 
decision. I have confidence that Chancellor Michelle Rhee is 
capable of accomplishing significant gains. She has an exciting 
agenda, and set a goal to make the District the highest 
performing urban school district by 2014. Over the last 2 
years, progress has been made to streamline bureaucracy, 
recruit new principals, and raise test scores, but there's 
still a long way to go.
    I also strongly support high-quality charter schools that 
provide parents and students with another option outside the 
neighborhood schools. There are currently 57 public charter 
schools operating on 99 campuses in the District, enrolling 
more than 28,000. That's over 35 percent of all District 
students. Many of these schools are exemplary. The KIPP 
Academies in the District perform consistently at a higher 
level than the average D.C. public school. But, there are also 
some charter schools that are not doing well. Any charter 
schools that are not performing at least as well as the average 
public school should be improved or closed. Federal funding for 
charter schools should support the expansion of high quality 
charter schools in the District, and the improvement of schools 
that are capable of doing better.
    Now let me address the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. Congress established this program as a 5-year pilot in 
the year 2003. The purpose was to give parents expanded 
opportunities for enrolling their children in higher performing 
schools. I am not opposed to the concept, but I want to make 
sure that children receiving vouchers are enrolled in schools 
that are safe, taught by teachers who are qualified, and 
receive a better education than is available in public schools.
    The Department of Education studied the voucher program, 
and I didn't find the results that encouraging. There were no 
gains for students in the voucher program in math, no 
statistically significant gains for boys, students who come 
from failing schools, or for those who started off scoring 
poorly on the test. Only modest gains for students in reading; 
3 months of reading gains over 3 years of the program.
    Now, most parents would not give those results high marks. 
Students in the District need and deserve better. I think it's 
time to ask whether investing $13 or $14 million a year for the 
program that provides only minimal academic progress for its 
1,700 students is the best use of funds. The President and 
Secretary Duncan have proposed allowing current students to 
remain in the program. I agree with that approach, but have 
asked for a higher level of accountability.
    I've suggested that voucher students take the same test as 
public school students and charter school students, so we can 
compare their progress. This was hotly debated in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. There are three other voucher 
programs in America--in Cleveland, in Milwaukee and in New 
Orleans. As of this year, every one of those voucher programs 
will have their students taking the same test as the students 
in public schools. This is not a radical idea. It's one that's 
been embraced in all of the other communities that have 
voucher-type programs.
    I've also suggested that the schools be subject to review 
to make sure that the buildings are safe. Is that too much to 
ask? When I offered that amendment initially, it was rejected 
by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now it's part of our 
appropriation.
    And the third request, that the teachers in the voucher 
schools have--at least in critical subjects--have college 
degrees. That was another amendment I offered that was rejected 
when the voucher program was created. It is now part of the 
law.
    And all of those things I've just outlined are part of the 
voucher programs in all three of these other communities. Why 
would the District of Columbia be any different? It shouldn't 
be. We should hold them to that same high standard.
    I've also suggested the Secretary of Education report to 
Congress on the quality of participating schools, so that we 
can be sure students are truly receiving a superior education. 
It is unacceptable for my staff to contact the agency of the 
D.C. government and ask for a general report of the names and 
addresses of voucher schools, and the number of students--not 
their names--but the number of students in each school, and 
what the tuition is at each school, and whether each school has 
teachers with college degrees, whether the buildings have been 
inspected to be safe, and to be told by the District of 
Columbia, ``This is confidential information, we're not going 
to share it with you.''
    Well, our staff has gone to work on this, and they've gone 
out looking for these schools. We sent letters directly to 
these voucher schools, and said, ``Tell us this information 
that the D.C. government won't tell us.'' We had responses from 
all but five schools. The thing that's curious is, for the last 
school year there are 389 missing students. After the schools 
reported all the students--the voucher schools reported all the 
students--it doesn't reach the number 1,700. That's about $3 
million worth of D.C. opportunity scholarships unaccounted for. 
Are we to guess that there are 389 voucher students in the five 
schools that didn't report?
    I think there has to be accountability here. There is in 
every other State and city where there's a voucher program. Why 
wouldn't we have it in the Nation's capital?
    We continue to send our staff out to take photographs of 
some of these so-called schools. I have to tell you, I hope 
there's inspection going on by the District of Columbia, 
because in some of these schools the reported number of 
students in these storefronts is way beyond what appears to be 
even the capacity of the building.
    These are fundamental and basic questions we shouldn't be 
afraid to ask, and this hearing is hopefully going to get into 
them. Federal funding has helped improve education in the 
District of Columbia. The funding has helped leverage important 
reforms and provided many options for parents, but all of these 
systems need to have sustained improvement, and I'm optimistic 
they can.
    As for the voucher program, I believe the Department of 
Education study makes it clear that there's still significant 
unresolved issues about the effectiveness of the program, and 
questions about its administration, which we'll discuss.
    Before turning to Senator Collins for opening remarks, I 
note the subcommittee has received written submissions from 
several organizations and individuals. Senator Frank Lautenberg 
has submitted a statement, and I ask unanimous consent these 
statements be part of the record. Without objection, they will 
be.
    [The statements follow:]
           Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
    As members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, we have a 
responsibility to ensure that the programs we fund are open, effective, 
and accountable. Unfortunately, the DC Opportunity Scholarship program 
has not met any of these standards.
    Since its implementation in 2004, the DC voucher program has been 
unable to prove any significant increase in academic achievement by 
voucher students. Reports conducted by the U.S. Department of Education 
have repeatedly found that the program is particularly ineffective for 
students that come from a ``school in need of improvement.'' These 
voucher students, whom the program is meant to target, have not shown 
statistically significant gains in either math or reading achievement 
when compared to students in public schools. Furthermore, a 2007 GAO 
report detailed several serious problems in some of the participating 
Opportunity Scholarship schools, including unsuitable learning 
environments, teachers without bachelor's degrees, and a lack of 
occupancy permits.
    The 2007 GAO report also discussed an alarming lack of 
accountability in this program. Not only is the voucher program not 
accountable to Congress or the taxpayers, it isn't even accountable to 
the parents of the students. Although the Washington Scholarship Fund 
compiles an annual directory to help parents select schools, it did not 
collect, omitted, or incorrectly reported information that would have 
helped parents evaluate the quality of these schools, such as the 
percentage of teachers who had a bachelor's degree. Even more 
disturbing, the 2007 GAO Report found that Federal tax dollars were 
spent on private schools that do not even charge tuition.
    This type of mismanagement is unacceptable. We can no longer 
justify taking millions of dollars away from the children of the DC 
public school system--and the academic programs they have to do 
without--in order to fund this ineffective program. At a time when 
budgets are tight, our first priority must be improving and 
strengthening public schools, which educate the overwhelming majority 
of students.
    The DC public school system, and its leader Michelle Rhee, has a 
tough task ahead of them. The continuation of the DC voucher program is 
doing nothing to improve education in the District of Columbia, and 
very well may be harming it in the long run.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement of Senator Joe Lieberman
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins for giving me this 
opportunity to testify this morning on the subject of Federal 
appropriations to improve the education of children in the District of 
Columbia. As Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee--which has jurisdiction over the District of 
Columbia--I am deeply invested in Federal efforts to improve 
educational opportunities for all children in our Nation's Capitol. In 
this regard, I am particularly interested in the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program (OSP) and hope to work with this subcommittee to 
enact a 5-year reauthorization that will allow current and new students 
to continue to benefit from the program. I also hope we can reinstate 
the 216 children who were promised a scholarship and had that promise 
revoked.
    Mr. Chairman, for the past several years, this subcommittee has 
supported a three-pronged initiative, first begun under the leadership 
of Mayor Tony Williams, to fund education reform in the District of 
Columbia. Pursuant to this initiative, beginning in 2004 Congress 
appropriated, in equal amounts, new funds for DC public schools, DC 
public charter schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), 
a program that offers disadvantaged students in the District the 
opportunity to attend a local private school. Starting last year, fewer 
dollars were appropriated to the OSP program than to DC public schools 
or charter schools.
    I believe that this is money well spent--on all three prongs. For 
years the DC public school system has been beset with problems. Though 
the District has amongst the highest per pupil expenditure in the 
Nation, students attending its public schools score at the bottom on 
national proficiency tests. DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee, with the 
backing of Mayor Adrian Fenty, has moved aggressively to turn around 
failing schools in the District. She is getting results, and has my 
full backing.
    Though our schools face many challenges, we have a very strong 
public school charter system in the District. Around 38 percent of 
students in DC public schools are attending public charter schools--
this fact speaks to the success of the charter movement in the 
District. As a strong and longtime proponent of charter schools, I 
continue to support the District's charter schools.
    Let me be clear: Each dollar appropriated to the OSP program is a 
dollar well spent. I strongly urge this Subcommittee to provide funds 
for the program so that it may continue in full force. I'd like to 
submit for the record an article written by Dr. Patrick Wolf, the 
principal investigator for the Department of Education's study on the 
OSP program, which was published in the a recent issue of Education 
Next. Dr. Wolf reports that the OSP program resulted in statistically 
significant improvements in reading. In fact, when compared to all 
other similarly studied education innovations, I quote, ``the reading 
impact of the DC voucher program is the largest achievement impact yet 
reported.'' Again I quote from Dr. Wolf: ``the DC voucher program has 
proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the 
Federal Government's official education research arm so far.'' Dr. 
Wolf's study, conducted under the auspices of the Department of 
Education's Institute of Education Sciences, also found a high level of 
parental satisfaction with the OSP program.
    Mr. Chairman, to date, there is no education program that has 
gotten better results when studied under these rigorous methods. In the 
OSP authorizing statute Congress specifically mandated that an 
evaluation be conducted ``using the strongest possible research design 
for determining the effectiveness of the programs funded.'' Let me 
repeat; we asked for the strongest research design possible, and that 
is what we have in the IES study by Dr. Wolf. We ought to pay attention 
to the results of that congressionally mandated study.
    I will continue to support the reform efforts of Chancellor Rhee, 
and have every confidence that she will continue to bring about change 
to improve the performance of DC public schools. But this is a slow, 
multi-year process. In the meantime, many District schools are still 
failing our most disadvantaged children. We should use every means at 
our disposal to provide the best education possible to all children, 
and the OSP program has clearly been successful in helping to fulfill 
that goal.
    Mr. Chairman, and Senator Collins, this subcommittee has included 
language in this year's and last year's appropriations bill, 
accompanying funding for the OSP program, to require that any 
participating schools have a valid certificate of occupancy, and that 
core subject matter teachers hold 4-year bachelor's degrees. I support 
these provisions and we have included them in the reauthorization bill 
I recently introduced with Senators Collins, Feinstein, Byrd, 
Voinovich, Ensign and Alexander. Our bill, S. 1552, the SOAR Act, also 
continues the requirement that the program be evaluated using the 
strongest possible research design, and requires that all participating 
students be given a nationally norm-referenced test.
    On the subject of testing, the Chairman has recommended that OSP 
students take the same test as students in DC public schools. I note 
that when the program was first authorized, the District of Columbia 
public schools were using the same nationally norm-referenced test, the 
SAT-9 test, as was administered to students in the OSP program. 
Subsequently, DC public schools changed to use a curriculum-based test, 
the DC-CAS test. I know Chairman Durbin still has some concerns on this 
issue. In addition, although we have a congressionally mandated ongoing 
evaluation of the OSP program, I understand Senator Durbin would also 
like to evaluate individual schools participating in the OSP program. I 
believe we can work together to address the Chairman's concerns in a 
way that does not encourage some schools to cherry pick the best 
students, and does not discourage other schools from participating in 
the OSP program. Should Congress continue the OSP program, as I hope we 
do, we want to ensure that we don't enact provisions that would cause 
some of the best schools to drop out of the program, or that would 
result in unintended incentives for schools to shy away from those 
students most in need.
    Finally, I would like to work with this subcommittee on the matter 
of the 216 children who were initially promised a voucher to attend 
private school this year, and subsequently had that offer withdrawn. 
Though the school year has already started, I know that many of these 
families still hold out hope that decision will be reversed so they may 
seek the educational opportunities they believe will be best. I might 
note that 93 percent of the 216 students are now assigned to attend a 
DC Public School that is designated as in need of improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring under No Child Left Behind. They 
are assigned to schools where on average only 36 percent of the 
students are proficient in reading or math. These students had their 
offer of a voucher revoked at a time when many of the charter schools 
had closed their application process and when the out-of-boundary 
process was also closed. Hence, their options for educational choice 
were even more limited than they would have been had they never applied 
for the voucher. We must redress this situation.
    In sum, I firmly believe this subcommittee should continue to fund 
the full District reform effort, including the OSP program. 
Furthermore, the OSP program should continue to be open to new students 
as space permits.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify.
                                 ______
                                 

                    [From Education Next, Fall 2009]

                           Lost Opportunities
                          (By Patrick J. Wolf)
   lawmakers threaten d.c. scholarships despite evidence of benefits
    School choice supporters, including hundreds of private school 
students in crisp uniforms, filled Washington, D.C.'s Freedom Plaza 
last May to protest a congressional decision to eliminate the city's 
federally funded school voucher program after the next school year. 
That afternoon, President Obama announced a compromise proposal to 
grandfather the more than 1,700 students currently in the District of 
Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, funding their vouchers 
through high school graduation, but denying entry to additional 
children. Both program supporters and opponents cite evidence from an 
ongoing congressionally mandated Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 
evaluation of the program, for which I am principal investigator, to 
buttress their positions, rendering the evaluation a Rorschach test for 
one's ideological position on this fiercely debated issue.
    School vouchers provide funds to parents to enable them to enroll 
their children in private schools and, as a result, are one of the most 
controversial education reforms in the United States. Among the many 
points of contention is whether voucher programs in fact improve 
student achievement. Most evaluations of such programs have found at 
least some positive achievement effects, but not always for all types 
of participants and not always in both reading and math. This pattern 
of results has so far failed to generate a scholarly consensus 
regarding the beneficial effects of school vouchers on student 
achievement. The policy and academic communities seek more definitive 
guidance.
    The IES released the third-year impact evaluation of the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in April 2009. The results showed 
that students who participated in the program performed at 
significantly higher levels in reading than the students in an 
experimental control group. Here are the study findings and my own 
interpretation of what they mean.
Opportunity Scholarships
    Currently, 13 directly funded voucher programs operate in four U.S. 
cities and six states, serving approximately 65,000 students. Another 
seven programs indirectly fund private K-12 scholarship organizations 
through government tax credits to individuals or corporations. About 
100,000 students receive school vouchers funded through tax credits. 
All of the directly funded voucher programs are targeted to students 
with some educational disadvantage, such as low family income, 
disability, or status as a foster child.
    Nineteen of the 20 school voucher programs in the United States are 
funded by state and local governments. The OSP is the only federal 
voucher initiative. Established in 2004 as part of compromise 
legislation that also included new spending on charter and traditional 
public schools in the District of Columbia, the OSP is a means-tested 
program. Initial eligibility is limited to K-12 students in D.C. with 
family incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty line. Congress 
has appropriated $14 million annually to the program, enough to support 
about 1,700 students at the maximum voucher amount of $7,500. The 
voucher covers most or all of the costs of tuition, transportation, and 
educational fees at any of the 66 D.C. private schools that have 
participated in the program. By the spring of 2008, a total of 5,331 
eligible students had applied for the limited number of Opportunity 
Scholarships. Recipients are selected by lottery, with priority given 
to students applying to the program from public schools deemed in need 
of improvement (SINI) under No Child Left Behind. Scholars and 
policymakers have since questioned the extent to which SINI 
designations accurately signal school quality because they are based on 
levels of achievement instead of the more informative measure of 
achievement gains over time.
    The third-year impact evaluation tracked the experiences of two 
cohorts of students. All of the students were attending public schools 
or were rising kindergartners at the time of application to the 
program. Cohort 1 consisted of 492 students entering grades 6-12 in 
2004. Cohort 2 consisted of 1,816 students entering grades K-12 in 
2005. The 2,308 students in the study make it the largest school 
voucher evaluation in the United States to employ the ``gold standard'' 
method of random assignment.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                           Methodology Notes
    If one's purpose is to evaluate the effects of a specific public 
policy, such as the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship 
Program (OSP), then the comparison of the average outcomes of the 
treatment and control groups, regardless of what proportion attended 
which types of school, is most appropriate. A school voucher program 
cannot force scholarship recipients to use a voucher, nor can it 
prevent control-group students from attending private schools at their 
own expense. A voucher program can only offer students scholarships 
that they subsequently may or may not use. Nevertheless, the mere offer 
of a scholarship, in and of itself, clearly has no impact on the 
educational outcomes of students. A scholarship could only change the 
future of a student if it were actually used.
    Fortunately, statistical techniques are available that produce 
reliable estimates of the average effect of using a voucher compared to 
not being offered one and the average effect of attending private 
school in year 3 of the study with or without a voucher compared to not 
attending private school. All three effect estimates--treatment vs. 
control, effect of voucher use, and impact of private schooling--are 
provided in the longer version of this article (see ``Summary of the 
OSP Evaluation'' at www.educationnext.org), so that individual readers 
can view those outcomes that are most relevant to their considerations.
    I have presented mainly the impacts of scholarship use in this 
essay. Those impacts are computed by taking the average difference 
between the outcomes of the entire treatment and control groups--the 
pure experimental impact--and adjusting for the fact that some 
treatment students never used an Opportunity Scholarship. Since 
nonusers could not have been affected by the voucher, the impact of 
scholarship use can be computed easily by dividing the pure 
experimental impact by the proportion of treatment students who used 
their scholarships, effectively rescaling the impact across scholarship 
users instead of all treatment students including nonusers. I focus 
here on scholarship usage because that specific measure of program 
impact is easily understood, is relevant to policymakers, and preserves 
the control group as the natural representation of what would have 
happened to the treatment group absent the program, including the fact 
that some of them would have attended private school on their own.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

Voucher Effects
    Researchers over the past decade have focused on evaluating voucher 
programs using experimental research designs called randomized control 
trials (RCTs). Such experimental designs are widely used to evaluate 
the efficacy of medical drugs prior to making such treatments available 
to the public. With an RCT design, a group of students who all qualify 
for a voucher program and whose parents are equally motivated to 
exercise private school choice, participate in a lottery. The students 
who win the lottery become the ``treatment'' group. The students who 
lose the lottery become the ``control'' group. Since only a voucher 
offer and mere chance distinguish the treatment students from their 
control group counterparts, any significant difference in student 
outcomes for the treatment students can be attributed to the program. 
Although not all students offered a voucher will use it to enroll in a 
private school, the data from an RCT can also be used to generate a 
separate estimate of the effect of voucher use [see Methodology Notes].
    Using an RCT research design, the ongoing IES evaluation found no 
impacts on student math performance but a statistically significant 
positive impact of the scholarship program on student reading 
performance, as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9). The 
estimated impact of using a scholarship to attend a private school for 
any length of time during the 3-year evaluation period was a gain of 
5.3 scale points in reading. That estimate provides the impact on all 
those who ever attended a private school, whether for 1 month, 3 years, 
or any length of time in between (see Figure 1). Consequently, the 
estimate should be interpreted as a lower-bound estimate of the 3-year 
impact of attending a private school, because many students who used a 
scholarship during the 3-year period did not remain in private school 
throughout the entire period. The data indicate that members of the 
treatment group who were attending private schools in the third year of 
the evaluation gained an average of 7.1 scale score points in reading 
from the program.



    What do these gains mean for students? They mean that the students 
in the control group would need to remain in school an extra 3.7 months 
on average to catch up to the level of reading achievement attained by 
those who used the scholarship opportunity to attend a private school 
for any period of time. The catch-up time would have been around 5 
months for those in the control group as compared to those who were 
attending a private school in the third year of the evaluation.
    Over time, in my opinion, the effects of the program show a trend 
toward larger reading gains cumulating for students. Especially when 
one considers that students who used their scholarship in year 1 needed 
to adjust to a new and different school environment, the reading 
impacts of using a scholarship of 1.4 scale score points (not 
significant) in year 1, 4.0 scale score points (not significant) in 
year 2, and 5.3 scale score points (significant) in year 3 suggest that 
students are steadily gaining in reading performance relative to their 
peers in the control group the longer they make use of the scholarship. 
No trend in program impacts is evident in math.
    What explains the fact that positive impacts have been observed as 
a result of the OSP in reading but not in math? Paul Peterson and Elena 
Llaudet of Harvard University, in a nonexperimental evaluation of the 
effects of school sector on student achievement, suggest that private 
schools may boost reading scores more than math scores for a number of 
reasons, including a greater content emphasis on reading, the use of 
phonics instead of whole-language instruction, and the greater 
availability of well-trained education content specialists in reading 
than in math. Any or all of these explanations for a voucher advantage 
in reading but not in math are plausible and could be behind the 
pattern of results observed for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. The 
experimental design of the D.C. evaluation, while a methodological 
strength in many ways, makes it difficult to connect the context of 
students' educational experiences with specific outcomes in any 
reliable way. As a result, one can only speculate as to why voucher 
gains are clear in reading but not observed in math.
Student Characteristics
    The OSP serves a highly disadvantaged group of D.C. students. 
Descriptive information from the first two annual reports indicates 
that more than 90 percent of students are African American and 9 
percent are Hispanic. Their family incomes averaged less than $20,000 
in the year in which they applied for the scholarship.
    Overall, participating students were performing well below national 
norms in reading and math when they applied to the program. For 
example, the Cohort 1 students had initial reading scores on the SAT-9 
that averaged below the 24th National Percentile Rank, meaning that 75 
percent of students in their respective grades nationally were 
performing higher than Chart 1 in reading. In my view, these 
descriptive data show how means tests and other provisions to target 
school voucher programs to disadvantaged students serve to minimize the 
threat of cream-skimming. The OSP reached a population of highly 
disadvantaged students because it was designed by policymakers to do 
so.
Did Only Some Students Benefit?
    Several commentators have sought to minimize the positive findings 
of the OSP evaluation by suggesting that only certain subgroups of 
participants benefited from the program. Martin Carnoy states that 
``the treated students in Cohort 1 were concentrated in middle schools 
and the effect on their reading score was significantly higher than for 
treated students in Cohort 2.'' Henry Levin likewise asserts that ``the 
evaluators found that receiving a voucher resulted in no advantage in 
math or reading test scores for either [low achievers or students from 
SINI schools].''
    The actual results of the evaluation provide no scientific basis 
for claims that some subgroups of students benefited more in reading 
from the voucher program than other subgroups. The impact of the 
program on the reading achievement of Cohort 1 students did not differ 
by a statistically significant amount from the impact of the program on 
the reading achievement of Cohort 2 students, Carnoy's claim 
notwithstanding. Nor did students with low initial levels of 
achievement and applicants from SINI schools experience significantly 
different reading gains from the program than high achievers and non-
SINI applicants. The mere fact that statistically significant impacts 
were observed for a particular subgroup does not mean that impacts for 
that group are significantly different from those not in the subgroup. 
For example, Group A and Group B may have experienced roughly similar 
impacts, but the impact for Group A might have been just large enough 
for it to be significantly different from zero (or no impact at all), 
while Group B's quite similar scores fell just below that threshold.
    From a scientific standpoint, three conclusions are valid about the 
achievement results in reading from the year 3 impact evaluation of the 
OSP:
    1. The program improved the reading achievement of the treatment 
group students overall.
    2. Overall reading gains from the program were not significantly 
different across the various subgroups examined.
    3. Three distinct subgroups of students--those who were not from 
SINI schools, students scheduled to enter grades K-8 in the fall after 
application to the program, and students in the higher two-thirds of 
the performance distribution (whose average reading test scores at 
baseline were at the 37th percentile nationally)--experienced 
statistically significant reading impacts from the program when their 
performance was examined separately. Female students and students in 
Cohort 1 saw reading gains that were statistically significant with 
reservations due to the possibility of obtaining false positive results 
when making comparisons across numerous subgroups.
    Why examine and report achievement impacts at the subgroup level, 
if the evidence indicates only an overall reading gain for the entire 
sample? The reasons are that Congress mandated an analysis of subgroup 
impacts, at least for SINI and non-SINI students, and because analyses 
at the subgroup level might have yielded more conclusive information 
about disproportionate impacts for certain types of students.
Expanding Choice
    The OSP facilitates the enrollment of low-income D.C. students in 
private schools of their parents' choosing. It does not guarantee 
enrollment in a private school, but the $7,500 voucher should make such 
enrollments relatively common among the students who won the 
scholarship lottery. The eligible students who lost the scholarship 
lottery and were assigned to the control group still might attend a 
private school but they would have to do so by drawing on resources 
outside of the OSP. At the same time, students in both groups have 
access to a large number of public charter schools.
    The implication is that, for this evaluation of the OSP, winning 
the lottery does not necessarily mean private schooling, and losing the 
lottery does not necessarily mean education in a traditional public 
school. Members of both groups attended all three types of schools--
private, public charter, and traditional public--in year 3 of the 
voucher experiment, although the proportions that attended each type 
differed markedly based on whether or not they won the scholarship 
lottery (see Figure 2). In total, about 81 percent of parents placed 
their child in a private or public school of choice three years after 
winning the scholarship lottery, as did 46 percent of those who lost 
the lottery. The desire for an alternative to a neighborhood public 
school was strong for the families who applied to the OSP in 2004 and 
2005.



    These enrollment patterns highlight the fact that the effects of 
voucher use reported above do not amount to a comparison between 
``school choice'' and ``no school choice.'' Rather, voucher users are 
exercising private school choice, while control group members are 
exercising a small amount of private school choice and a substantial 
amount of public school choice. The positive impacts on reading 
achievement observed for voucher users therefore reflect the 
incremental effect of adding private school choice through the OSP to 
the existing schooling options for low-income D.C. families.
Parent Satisfaction
    Another key measure of school reform initiatives is the perception 
among parents, who see firsthand the effects of changes in their 
child's educational environment. Whenever school choice researchers 
have asked parents about their satisfaction with schools, those who 
have been given the chance to select their child's school have reported 
much higher levels of satisfaction. The OSP study findings fit this 
pattern. The proportion of parents who assigned a high grade of A or B 
to their child's school was 11 percentile points higher if they were 
offered a voucher, 12 percentile points higher if their child actually 
used a scholarship, and 21 points higher if their child was attending a 
private school in year 3, regardless of whether they were in the 
treatment group. Parents whose children used an Opportunity Scholarship 
also expressed greater confidence in their children's safety in school 
than parents in the control group.
    Additional evidence of parental satisfaction with the OSP comes 
from the series of focus groups conducted independently of the 
congressionally mandated evaluation. One parent emphasized the expanded 
freedom inherent in school choice:

    ``[The OSP] gives me the choice to, freedom to attend other schools 
than D.C. public schools . . . I just didn't feel that I wanted to put 
him in D.C. public school and I had the opportunity to take one of the 
scholarships, so, therefore, I can afford it and I'm glad that I did do 
that.'' (Cohort 1 Elementary School Parent, Spring 2008)

    Another parent with two children in the OSP may have hinted at a 
reason achievement impacts were observed specifically in reading:

    ``They really excel at this program, `cause I know for a fact they 
would never have received this kind of education at a public school . . 
. I listen to them when they talk, and what they are saying, and they 
articulate better than I do, and I know it's because of the school, and 
I like that about them, and I'm proud of them.'' (Cohort 1 Elementary 
School Parent, Spring 2008)

    These parents of OSP students clearly see their families as having 
benefited from this program.
Previous Voucher Research
    The IES evaluation of the DC OSP adds to a growing body of research 
on means-tested school voucher programs in urban districts across the 
nation. Experimental evaluations of the achievement impacts of publicly 
funded voucher and privately funded K-12 scholarship programs have been 
conducted in Milwaukee, New York City, the District of Columbia, 
Charlotte, North Carolina, and Dayton, Ohio. Different research teams 
analyzed the data from New York City (three different teams), Milwaukee 
(two teams), and Charlotte (two teams). The four studies of Milwaukee's 
and Charlotte's programs reported statistically significant achievement 
gains overall for the members of the treatment group. The individual 
studies of the privately funded K-12 scholarship programs in the 
District of Columbia and Dayton reported overall achievement gains only 
for the large subgroup of African American students in the program. The 
three different evaluators of the New York City privately funded 
scholarship program were split in their assessment of achievement 
impacts, as two research teams reported no overall test-score effects, 
but did report achievement gains for African Americans; the third team 
claimed there were no statistically significant test-score impacts 
overall or for any subgroup of participants.
    The specific patterns of achievement impacts vary across these 
studies, with some gains emerging quickly, but others, like those in 
the OSP evaluation, taking at least three years to reach a standard 
level of statistical significance. Earlier experimental evaluations of 
voucher programs were somewhat more likely to report achievement gains 
from the programs in math than in reading--the opposite of what was 
observed for the OSP. Despite these differences, the bulk of the 
available, high-quality evidence on school voucher programs suggests 
that they do yield positive achievement effects for participating 
students.
                              conclusions
    School voucher initiatives such as the District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program will remain politically controversial 
in spite of rigorous evaluations such as this one, showing that parents 
and students benefited in some ways from the program. Critics will 
continue to point to the fact that no impacts of the program have been 
observed in math, or that applicants from SINI schools, who were a 
service priority, have not demonstrated statistically significant 
achievement gains at the subgroup level, as reasons to characterize 
these findings as disappointing. Certainly the results would have been 
even more encouraging if the high-priority SINI students had shown 
significant reading gains as a distinct subgroup. Still, in my opinion, 
the bottom line is that the OSP lottery paid off for those students who 
won it. On average, participating low-income students are performing 
better in reading because the federal government decided to launch an 
experimental school choice program in our nation's capital.
    The achievement results from the D.C. voucher evaluation are also 
striking when compared to the results from other experimental 
evaluations of education policies. The National Center for Education 
Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) at the IES has sponsored and 
overseen 11 studies that are RCTs, including the OSP evaluation. Only 3 
of the 11 education interventions tested, when subjected to such a 
rigorous evaluation, have demonstrated statistically significant 
achievement impacts overall in either reading or math. The reading 
impact of the D.C. voucher program is the largest achievement impact 
yet reported in an RCT evaluation overseen by the NCEE. A second 
program was found to increase reading outcomes by about 40 percent less 
than the reading gain from the DC OSP. The third intervention was 
reported to have boosted math achievement by less than half the amount 
of the reading gain from the D.C. voucher program. Of the remaining 
eight NCEE-sponsored RCTs, six of them found no statistically 
significant achievement impacts overall and the other two showed a mix 
of no impacts and actual achievement losses from their programs. Many 
of these studies are in their early stages and might report more 
impressive achievement results in the future. Still, the D.C. voucher 
program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated 
by the federal government's official education research arm so far.
    The experimental evaluation of the District of Columbia Opportunity 
Scholarship Program is continuing into its fourth and final year of 
studying the impacts on students and parents. The final evidence 
collected from the participants may confirm the accumulation of 
achievement gains in reading and higher levels of parental satisfaction 
from the program that were evident after three years, or show that 
those gains have faded. Uncertainty also surrounds the program itself, 
as the students who gathered on Freedom Plaza in May currently are only 
guaranteed one final year in their chosen private schools. What will 
policymakers see as they continue to consider the results of this 
evaluation? The educational futures of a group of low-income D.C. 
schoolchildren hinge on the answer.

    Senator Durbin. Senator Collins.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for holding this 
important oversight hearing. We do need accountability, 
transparency, and oversight. That is the only way we're going 
to be able to determine what the impact of the Federal 
investment that we've made is producing. So, I completely 
support your efforts to get as much data and information as 
possible. That's absolutely critical.
    The key leaders involved in transforming the District of 
Columbia's education system are here today to discuss their 
visions and their plans for fixing the city's broken school 
system. Many, like Chancellor Michelle Rhee, are working night 
and day to reform D.C.'s schools, always with a relentless 
focus on what is best for the students. And that has to be our 
concern and our motivation.
    There is, as the chairman has indicated, much work to be 
done. According to the Federal Department of Education, the 
District's per-pupil expenditures are the third highest in the 
Nation, but that large investment is bearing little fruit. The 
Department of Education's National Assessment of Education 
Progress ranks the District's schools dead last in the Nation. 
That is a disgrace, that in the capital city of our great 
Nation we are so failing the students who live here.
    According to 2007 data, only 14 percent of fourth graders 
are reading and calculating at a proficient level. For eighth 
graders, only 8 percent are reading at a proficient level, 
while 12 percent are proficient at math. D.C.'s students' SAT 
scores are some of the lowest in the Nation. The D.C. 
graduation rate, as the chairman's indicated, is less than 50 
percent, compared to a national average graduation rate of 
nearly 70 percent. If past is prologue, only 9 percent of D.C. 
students entering the ninth grade will complete a college 
degree.
    These low standings and poor test scores stand in stark 
contrast to the amount of per-pupil spending in the District. 
According to the information I have, the District spent $15,500 
per pupil last year. That's far greater than the national 
average of $9,600. Compared to the rest of the country, the 
District is spending $6,000 more per student, and getting a 
fraction of the results.
    It's so troubling to me that one-third of the public 
schools in the District have no art or music education 
programs. Many school facilities remain open even though they 
are run down or perhaps even unsafe. And that's why I support 
the chairman's insistence that, no matter where these students 
are going to school, there should be inspections to make sure 
they're in safe facilities.
    And we've seen the results of these educational failures. 
It contributes to the very high adult illiteracy rate in the 
District.
    Mr. Chairman, I've cited these grim statistics, not because 
I think this is hopeless; I'm not pessimistic about the future, 
or our ability to change these schools--but because I want this 
hearing to be a clarion call for action. This dire situation 
demands our urgent attention, and I know that every one of us 
here is united toward the common goal, even if we may disagree 
about how to get here.
    I support the Chancellor's ambitious plans. I'm eager to 
hear more details and what she needs to accomplish her goals.
    D.C. charter schools are offering an alternative. It's very 
telling to me that 28,000 students and parents have chosen 
charter schools because they're so dissatisfied with their 
neighborhood schools. I think that's an impressive figure, 
given that the first charter school was established in the 
District only about a dozen years ago. But, the chairman's 
right, those schools should be providing us with information. 
We need more transparency.
    And, as the chairman has indicated, almost 2,000 low-income 
D.C. schoolchildren are participating in the federally funded 
program to use scholarships to attend 58 different private 
schools throughout the city. Now, I don't think that vouchers 
are a panacea. And in some areas of the country, they're not 
appropriate at all. But, in this case, they do provide an 
innovative way to offer children in the District better 
educational opportunities, and that is why I support them.
    I've talked to parents who have told me how the opportunity 
scholarships have changed the lives of their children and of 
their families.
    We have had the first evaluation. I view it more favorably 
than does my friend and colleague. I think it is significant 
that there have been gains in reading, of 3 months. That's a 
significant change. And unlike the voucher programs in many 
other cities, we see tangible results. I will also say that it 
takes awhile, that you don't see these results overnight, that 
the first year is usually a transition year, where you don't 
see the gains.
    So, I think all of us have the same goals. Let's get there 
together. When youngsters lose a chance to receive a good 
education, to receive even a decent education, we are 
consigning them to a lifetime of limited choices and poor 
opportunities, and I can't live with that for the capital city 
of our country. And that's why I support the three-pronged 
approach. Let's improve our public schools, let's support our 
charter schools, and let's give the opportunity for D.C. 
scholarships to private schools so that we can give a better 
education to more of the students in this city.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
    Senator Alexander, do you have an opening statement?
    I'm sorry, Senator Landrieu. I didn't see you come in. I 
apologize.
    Senator Landrieu. That's perfectly fine, and I do have just 
a few comments.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

    Senator Landrieu. First, I want to begin by thanking you, 
Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, for your excellent opening 
statements. Very thoughtful, very passionate, and both very, 
very encouraging.
    And I know if there's any subcommittee that can take this 
on and structure in a way that can unite us in our common goal 
to--as the--both of you just said--to give every child a 
fighting chance for a decent education as quickly as we can 
possibly do it, this subcommittee can. And the Senators--
Senator--no one has taken a greater interest or spent more 
time. I happen to sit next to Senator Durbin in the 
Appropriations Committee, so I am an expert on this subject 
because I hear what he says both on and off the record, and I 
know this is of great concern to him, and I so admire his 
leadership.
    So, I'm going to submit the rest of my statement for the 
record. But--I would like to submit for the record the 
excellent documentation presented on behalf of the charter 
schools in the District of Columbia that have only second in 
number to the city of New Orleans, where we're experiencing 
tremendous gains in opportunities through choice, Senator 
Durbin, in public school choice, in terms of outstanding test 
scores, parental satisfaction, the ability to repeal or take 
back charters if they're not working, so the accountability 
that you spoke about seems to be there, but we could also 
improve.
    But, I am concerned about the building issue, always have 
been, for charter schools, the restriction on public buildings 
for charter schools, and their safety, and--et cetera.
    So, I'm not going to take more time, because I want to hear 
the panel. I'll submit my statement to the record.
    But, I just want to thank you both for your attention and 
your support.
    Senator Durbin. Without objection, your statement will be 
included. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
    Senator Alexander.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

    Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Durbin.
    I, too, want to thank you for the hearing. And I know your 
deep interest in this, and strong feelings about it. And I 
think the more oversight we have, the more accountability we 
have, the more likely these programs are to succeed. So, I 
welcome this. And I think we should have them regularly. I 
don't know how often that is, but I think this is a very good 
thing. I thank you for it, and I thank you for the way you're 
approaching it.
    And I thank Senator Collins for her statement. And I know 
of Senator Landrieu's pioneering work in New Orleans on charter 
schools.
    I would say these things, quickly. On the test, which was 
the subject of Senator Durbin and my having a spirited 
discussion in the Appropriations Committee, I hope some of you 
will talk about the Stanford Achievement Test that the voucher 
students take--the opportunity scholarship takes. As I 
understand it, it was required by the U.S. Department of 
Education at the time this program was started, and it was the 
test the D.C. schools were using at the time, and then the D.C. 
schools changed their test. But, let's put that to the side for 
the moment.
    I know the charter schools work, because I've seen them 
work, and I've been in--I was with Secretary Arne Duncan the 
other day, who I--I don't think President Obama's made a better 
appointment than Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education. I 
went with him to a charter school in Memphis, where I'd visited 
5 years ago, and these were kids who were least likely to 
succeed. They were taken from failing schools, all minority 
kids. I went in there on the Easter holidays, and they were in 
school; 8th graders taking 10th grade AP biology tests. Nobody 
else in the State was doing that--taking those courses during 
Easter weekend. Last week, when Secretary Duncan and I were 
there--they're all graduating this year. So, they're great 
success stories.
    So, the question is, Are they working here? That's what 
we're here to try to find out--not whether they're good ideas 
or bad ideas. And I think voucher programs can work, in 
appropriate places.
    We have our biggest pilot program--it's something we call 
American higher education. You know, we spend $18 or $20 
billion a year on what we call--on Pell grants, those are 
vouchers--and we have $75 billion in student loans, those are 
vouchers, and they follow students to Catholic University, 
American University, Brigham Young, all sorts of schools. And 
they not only provide opportunity, they've provided what is 
inarguably the greatest system of higher education in the 
world. So, I've always wondered, if it works so well in higher 
ed, why don't we try it more often in elementary and secondary 
education?
    So, the question is not whether vouchers are good or bad 
idea, but whether the opportunity scholarship is working here.
    So, I really do appreciate, Senator Durbin, your having the 
hearing, and I'm interested in learning as much as I can today.
    I thank the witnesses for coming.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
    I welcome the first panel. And I would like, at this point, 
to introduce Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of the D.C. public 
schools. I understand she has some scheduling challenges, so we 
are going to try to move quickly through the panel and direct 
our questions to you.
    Chancellor, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE RHEE, CHANCELLOR, DISTRICT OF 
            COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
    Ms. Rhee. Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Collins, and members of the subcommittee.
    I'm honored to testify today about the use of Federal funds 
to support education reform in the District of Columbia public 
schools.
    Beginning in June 2007, with less than 15 percent of 
students on grade level in math and reading, and with 70 
percent of our children living in poverty, Mayor Fenty set an 
ambitious goal for our Nation's capital, to address poverty 
through the education of the city's children. With a great 
sense of urgency, and as part of the city's larger plans, DCPS 
aims to create an entire school district in which academic 
achievement matches or exceeds that of the suburbs.
    Data indicates that, despite facing sobering statistics of 
low performance, individual schools in urban districts have 
accomplished proficiency rates of 90 percent or greater, even 
in the poorest of neighborhoods and the most challenging of 
circumstances.
    With Federal support, we are moving quickly, but 
intentionally, to accomplish this goal on a District-wide 
scale. Our ambition is backed by more than just a belief in 
justice in education for all children, regardless of race, 
socioeconomic circumstance, or individual learning needs. It is 
backed by the researched best practices that have narrowed 
racial achievement gaps in other cities, and we have begun to 
do so for the first time in our Nation's capital.
    Also understanding that nobody has yet definitively solved 
the problems of urban education, we are adding targeted 
innovations to these practices, strategically attacking the 
most persistent challenges to student achievement from every 
viable angle.

                           DCPS ACHIEVEMENTS

    Federal funds have been well spent in the last 2 years. For 
the second year in a row, DCPS students have achieved 
significant gains on our annual standardized test, the D.C. 
Comprehensive Assessment System, or the DC-CAS. Such gains are 
unusual in the second year of a new administration, especially 
after significant first-year gains, so we are pleased that in 
2009, continuing the trend of District-wide achievement in 
2008, our principals and teachers drove growth across all grade 
levels, and in both reading and mathematics.
    In just 2 years, students have narrowed the achievement gap 
in secondary math by 20 percentage points, from a 70-percent 
gap to a 50-percent gap. And the gap has also narrowed across 
all grade levels and subject areas. In fact, virtually every 
subgroup of students increased proficiency rates this last 
year, including our students with special education needs, 
English language learners--ELLs--and economically disadvantaged 
students. ELL students, in fact, are outperforming the District 
as a whole in elementary reading now--elementary math and 
secondary math, with 20 percent gains in secondary reading over 
2 years.
    When Mayor Fenty took over the schools in 2007, only one-
third of our students were on grade level in reading and 
mathematics. Today, this ratio has moved to one-half. Of 
course, the fact that only one-half of our students are 
proficient is not cause for celebration. But, given where we 
once were, this is evidence of progress and cause for hope.
    I would like to highlight just a few priorities that 
Federal funding has supported in 2009 with $40 million, and 
that we have requested for 2010 with $42.2 million. I will be 
happy to answer any questions afterward about the more detailed 
documents previously submitted.
    In anticipating District needs for 2009, we were cognizant 
of the significant front-end support that would be necessary to 
turn the District from 15 percent proficiency to 90 percent 
proficiency in future years. Projected in 2007, before a 
thorough assessment of the school system was complete, we are 
pleased that the majority of the reforms we anticipated for 
2009 progressed as planned, some even ahead of schedule.

                           JUMP START FUNDING

    Our 2009 initial request also included additional Federal 
support to jumpstart the system, and we have actualized these 
plans in a number of ways.
    First, principal recruitment and training. We've replaced 
46 principals in the 2008-2009 school year, and 20--another 26 
in the 2009-2010 school year. That means we've had a turnover 
of about one-half of the principals in the system over the 
course of this last 2 years.
    The second is new school programs in high-need areas. We've 
added programs and access to early childhood education, adding 
Reggio Emilia programs that are similar to Montessori. We've 
added the schoolwide application model, or SAM model, to 
improve the delivery of special education services. And we also 
used Federal funds to hire turnaround partners for failing 
schools.
    After discovering 27 disconnected data systems holding 
student information when we arrived in 2007, with 2009 Federal 
funds, as planned, we continue to overhaul our student 
information system with upgrades that will allow us to engage 
parents more fully in their students' progress.

                              DCPS REFORM

    And also, obviously, one of the cornerstones of the reform, 
as we've stated in 2007, is to retain and attract the highest 
quality educators in every school, so incenting high 
achievement amongst our educators is a top priority.
    Once we conducted an accurate data analysis about the state 
of the system, we adjusted our spending strategy to advance the 
priorities we had outlined in our projection, while also 
addressing related post-assessment needs. For example, we 
discovered inequities in resource allocation to students. 
This--some came from data, and some came from students 
themselves. Elementary school students in one of our poorest 
wards politely inquired to me whether it would be possible for 
them to have a music teacher, while school music programs in 
other more affluent wards flourished.
    Obesity rates are highest in our low income neighborhoods, 
yet many schools in these neighborhoods did not have physical 
education teachers. Students with mental health challenges were 
in schools without counselors, but with oversized--but we had 
an oversized central office staff.
    We addressed these inequities immediately by revising the 
way school budgets were constructed, adopting a comprehensive 
staffing model to ensure that all students had access to art, 
music, and physical education teachers, as well as librarians, 
counselors, and full-time nurses.
    One grandmother had recently moved her academically 
struggling grandson from a charter school to Plummer Elementary 
School, which received the full comprehensive school model as a 
high-need school. Happy about the help her grandson is 
receiving, she shared her experience with us. From her quote, 
``The principal got the reading specialist to come to our 
house, the psychologist came to our house. He got a math tutor. 
The school makes you feel wanted.''
    Federal funds helped to expand this equity throughout the 
comprehensive school model, and other ways, including theme 
schools for more parents when their neighborhood school is 
failing, and increasing instructional time to address the 70 
percent achievement gap we discovered in some schools and 
subject areas.
    We are grateful for the Federal funds that have been 
brought to us at this point, and now, beginning the 2009-2010 
school year, we are entering an exciting new phase in which the 
hard work of the past 2 years is now hitting schools and 
classroom instruction, where our focus belongs.
    I know I'm running out of time, and we want to get to the 
questions, so I just want to highlight a few things that the 
2010 money will be used for.

                   PROPOSED USE OF REQUESTED FUNDING

    First, there's a lot of discussion these days about how--
what the right way to evaluate teachers is. And we really 
believe in holding teachers accountable, and using student 
achievement gains and test scores as one part of the way that a 
teacher should be evaluated. But, it should not be the only 
lens through which we look at teacher effectiveness. So, we're 
putting in place, this year, an incredibly comprehensive and 
new model for the evaluation of teachers, which will include a 
value-added assessment of how much gains in academic 
achievement a certain teacher sees in a given academic year, 
taking into account where their specific students started when 
they got them at the beginning of the year, and where they 
ended up when they left them at the end of the year.
    We also are adding what we call master educators to the 
system, and these will be federally funded, as well. The way 
that this works is, we had teachers who were coming to us and 
saying that they didn't trust the way the principals were 
evaluating them. They either had personal issues with the 
principal, or some people would say, ``Look, I--my principal 
was a high school gym teacher, and I teach pre-K autistic 
kids.'' You know, ``My principal isn't able to evaluate my 
practice particularly well.''
    So, our master educators are 36 educators that we have 
recruited from across the country. They will be going into 
every single classroom of every single teacher across the city. 
There will be grade-level and subject-area experts, who are 
external from the school, who will be able to do a peer 
evaluation of the teachers. So, that's something that we're 
really proud of.

                            DCPS INITIATIVES

    A number of the other initiatives in 2010 will be turning 
around failing schools; using data to drive decisions in 
instructions; creating innovative incentives for students to 
excel in school; providing one-on-one support to students who 
need academic intervention; ensuring equity so that students in 
all wards have the resources they need; expand and improve 
early childhood education; and attract and reward strong 
principals and teachers.
    I have put the rest of my testimony on record, so I'm happy 
to take any questions.
    Senator Durbin. And it will be part of the permanent 
record. Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Michelle Rhee
    Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and 
members of the Committee. I am honored to testify today about the use 
of Federal funds to support education reform in the District of 
Columbia Public Schools.
    Beginning in June, 2007 with less than 15 percent of students on 
grade level in math and reading\1\ and with 70 percent of our children 
living in poverty, Mayor Fenty set an ambitious goal for our Nation's 
capital: To address poverty through the education of our city's 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With a great sense of urgency and as part of the city's larger 
plans, DCPS aims to create an entire school district in which academic 
achievement matches or exceeds that of the suburbs. Data indicates that 
despite facing sobering statistics of low performance, individual 
schools in urban districts have accomplished proficiency rates of 90 
percent or greater, even in the poorest of neighborhoods and the most 
challenging of circumstances.
    With Federal support we are moving quickly but intentionally to 
accomplish this goal on a district-wide scale. Our ambition is backed 
by more than a belief in justice in education for all children, 
regardless of race, socioeconomic circumstance or individual learning 
needs. It is backed by the researched best practices that have narrowed 
racial achievement gaps in other cities and have begun to do so for the 
first time in our Nation's capital.
    Also understanding that nobody has yet definitively solved the 
problems of urban education, we are adding targeted innovations to 
these practices, strategically attacking the most persistent challenges 
to student achievement from every viable angle.
                             positive signs
    Federal funds have been well spent in the past 2 years. For the 
second year in a row, DCPS students have achieved significant gains on 
our annual standardized test, the D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System, 
or D.C. CAS. Such gains are unusual in the second year of a new 
administration, especially after significant first-year gains. So we 
are pleased that in 2009, continuing the trend of district-wide 
achievement in 2008, our principals and teachers drove growth across 
all grade levels and in both reading and math.
                       gains among nclb subgroups
    In just 2 years, students have narrowed the achievement gap in 
secondary math by 20 percentage points, from 70 percent to 50 percent, 
and the gap has narrowed across all grade levels and subject areas. In 
fact, virtually every subgroup of students increased proficiency rates 
this year, including our students with special education needs, English 
Language Learners (ELLs), and Economically Disadvantaged students. ELL 
students are outperforming the district as a whole in elementary 
reading, elementary math, and secondary math, with 20 percent gains in 
secondary reading over 2 years.
    When Mayor Fenty took over the schools in 2007, only one-third of 
our students were on grade level in reading and math. Today, this ratio 
has moved to one-half. Of course, the fact that only half our students 
are proficient is not cause for celebration; but given where we once 
were, this is evidence of progress and a cause for hope.
    I would like to highlight just a few priorities that Federal 
funding has supported in 2009 with $40 million, and that we have 
requested for 2010 with $42.2 million. I will also be happy to answer 
any questions afterward about the more detailed documents previously 
submitted.
                      use of federal funds in 2009
    In anticipating district needs for 2009 we were cognizant of the 
significant front-end support that would be necessary to turn a 
district from under 15 percent proficiency to over 90 percent 
proficiency in future years. Projected in 2007 before a thorough 
assessment of the school system was complete, we are pleased that the 
majority of the reforms we anticipated for 2009 progressed as planned, 
some even ahead of schedule (such as right-sizing the school district 
by closing under-enrolled schools). Our 2009 initial request also 
included additional Federal support to jump start the system, and we 
have actualized these plans in a number of ways:
  --Principal Recruitment and Training.--After a nationwide aggressive 
        principal recruitment campaign and competitive selection 
        process that included community panels of the top candidates, 
        we replaced 46 principals for the 2008-2009 school year and 26 
        in 2009-2010. We revamped our new principal orientations to 
        better reflect adult learning and launched the Principals 
        Academy to provide regular professional development support as 
        well as the sharing of best practices among principals.
  --New School Programs in High Need Areas.--We added a variety of 
        programs backed by researched best-practices in 2008-2009 and 
        2009-2010. We expanded access to Early Childhood Education 
        adding Reggio Emilia programs (similar to Montessori), added 
        the Schoolwide Applications Model, or SAM, to improve the 
        delivery of special education services. We also used Federal 
        funds to turn around failing schools through partnerships with 
        organizations that have successfully accomplished this in other 
        districts.
  --Improved Data Reporting.--After discovering 27 disconnected data 
        systems holding student information--systems that did not 
        communicate with one another--we found severe problems with 
        DCPS data integrity, one of the most significant and 
        unnecessary challenges we face. With 2009 Federal funds, as 
        planned we continued to overhaul our student information system 
        with upgrades that will allow us to engage parents more fully 
        in students' progress.
      We also began the process of creating a School Scorecard ``a 
        school report card'' which we look forward to releasing in 
        2010. The Scorecard will contain the school performance data 
        that parents and families prioritized in an extensive 
        engagement process. This is a large step we have taken to 
        increase transparency, accountability and parent engagement in 
        reforms.
  --Incenting High Achievement.--One of the cornerstones of reform we 
        stated in 2007 is to retain and attract the highest quality 
        educators to every school. In part this means providing 
        competitive salaries, as well as rewards for results in student 
        achievement gains. Our negotiations with the Washington 
        Teachers Union continue in 2009, and we remain hopeful that we 
        will achieve the goals projected in 2007 regarding teacher 
        compensation. As we do, we can reward our hardworking and 
        successful teachers and exit those from the system who, despite 
        significant support, are either unable or unwilling to achieve 
        student growth.
Increasing Equity in Distribution of Resources in 2009
    Of course, once we conducted an accurate data assessment about the 
state of the system, we adjusted our spending strategy to advance the 
priorities we had outlined in our projection while also addressing 
related post-assessment needs. For example, we discovered inequities in 
resource allocation to students. Some came from data, and some from 
students themselves. Elementary school students in one of our poorest 
wards politely inquired whether it would be possible to have a music 
teacher while school music programs flourished in more affluent wards. 
Obesity rates are highest in our lowest-income neighborhoods, yet many 
schools in these neighborhoods did not have PE teachers. Students with 
mental health challenges were in schools without counselors but with 
oversized central office staff.
    We addressed these inequities immediately by revising the way 
school budgets were constructed, adopting a Comprehensive Staffing 
Model (CSM) to ensure that all students had access to art, music, and 
PE teachers, as well as librarians, counselors and nurses. One 
grandmother had recently moved her academically struggling grandson 
from a charter school to Plummer Elementary School, which received the 
full CSM model as a high-need school. Happy about the help her grandson 
is receiving, she shared her experience with us. ``The principal got 
the reading specialist to come to our house. The psychologist came to 
our house. He got a math tutor. The school makes you feel wanted.''
    Federal funds helped to expand equity through the CSM and other 
ways, including themed schools for more parents when their neighborhood 
school was failing, and increasing instructional time to address the 70 
percent achievement gap we discovered in some schools and subject 
areas.
    We are grateful for the Federal funds that have brought us to this 
point. Now at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, we are 
entering an exciting new phase in which the hard work of the past 2 
years is now hitting schools and classroom instruction, where our focus 
belongs.
               plans for requested federal funds for 2010
    As submitted to this body in June of this year, plans for 2010 
Federal spending will fuel programs and strategies to continue 
expanding education equity, tailor the best practices that are 
effective in other districts to the needs of DCPS, and apply innovative 
solutions to the most stubborn challenges in urban education.
    Teacher quality support represents the greatest funding request in 
2010 of the $42.2 million in 2010.
Federal Funds To Improve Teacher Quality
    Children have been capable of doing their jobs through decades of 
systemic failure to educate them according to their rights and 
capabilities. The data is indisputable: Children from every background 
and circumstance have faced heartbreaking realities in the District of 
Columbia, and despite them they have learned to read, write, and do 
arithmetic.
    They have not done it, however, without excellent teachers. The 
most important reforms we can make are those that retain, support and 
attract the people who move children from potential to achievement. The 
more teachers we have who are empowered to achieve these results, the 
faster DCPS will become a system that exits children with the skills 
they need to graduate from college, find employment, and move the next 
generations beyond poverty in the District of Columbia.
    Without high quality educators the achievement gap will not close 
and DCPS children will not be educated according to the rights this 
Nation provides them. We must support a cadre of teachers that is 
singularly focused on student achievement, give them clear direction 
about what good teaching looks like, and reward them when they 
accomplish the gains we are asking them to reach with students.
Compensation ($10 Million)
    The school systems that most desperately need our Nation's highest 
performers often have the most difficulty retaining, attracting and 
supporting such professionals through compensation that drives results. 
But with Federal support, a public school system could soon be able to 
compete with the private sector for attracting and retaining the best. 
In 2010, $10 million of Federal dollars can support the first overhaul 
of human capital strategy with the use of incentive pay.
    This is part of a wider strategic reform landing in schools this 
fall, which includes a new Teaching and Learning Framework aligned to a 
new performance assessment. Together they set clear expectations about 
what good teaching looks like and empower teachers to meet those 
expectations. The Framework and assessment are supported with a 
federally backed 400 percent increase in professional development, as 
well as a new master educator model to implement them both.
Master Educators ($2.8 Million)
    Assessing high-quality teaching effectively is one of the most 
challenging pursuits in education, and we sought input from teachers to 
create their new assessment as well as the master educator position. 
Through this process teachers expressed their concern about being 
assessed by only one person, as they felt that principals could use 
factors unrelated to performance to evaluate them unfairly. They 
wanted:
  --An unbiased third party, separate from school politics and other 
        factors, to assess their work.
  --The assurance that the person assessing a teacher's work would have 
        expertise in his or her content area. For example, it would not 
        be appropriate or helpful for a former PE teacher to be 
        evaluating a special education teacher.
  --Regular observations of classroom practice, rather than assessments 
        based on a single observation, which has occurred in the past.
    We have incorporated these priorities in the master educator role, 
recruiting content area experts who have faced and overcome teachings 
toughest obstacles. As a result, teachers are beginning to share their 
confidence that their work will be assessed through a fair and 
transparent process.
    No public school district has yet accomplished this kind of 
overhaul in the way it attracts, recognizes and rewards its educators, 
who are the most powerful hope we have to address poverty through 
education in this country. With Federal support, our Nation's capital 
can be the first.
Other 2010 Initiatives
    In addition to Federal funding to support teacher quality in 2010, 
we have prioritized a number of other critical initiatives to:
  --turn around failing schools;
  --use data to drive decisions and instruction;
  --create innovative incentives for students to excel in school;
  --provide one-on-one support to students;
  --ensure equity so that students in all wards have the resources they 
        need;
  --expand and improve early childhood education; and
  --attract and reward strong principals.
                         vision moving forward
    The mayor and I both look back at the past 2 years of reform with 
gratitude for the hard work from tireless people across the city, work 
that has resulted in significant growth even before the deepest reforms 
have hit the system. With the shared effort of students, parents, 
teachers, principals, counselors, librarians and other school staff, 
concerned citizens and volunteers, business leaders willing to donate 
their funds and services, employees of city and Federal Government and 
agencies, and the members of this committee, we have begun to move what 
had not been moved for decades. We will continue to need this 
investment, whether of funding or of labor, of this dedicated community 
of people.
    In order to continue on this promising but challenging path in 2010 
and beyond, we must continue to believe in the potential of all 
children in D.C. to achieve at the same levels we expect from students 
in the suburbs, and we must continue to embrace our shared 
responsibility as adults to make it happen.
    With a renewed respect for our students and what they can achieve, 
I look forward to continuing on this challenging path with confidence 
and hope. Thank you for hearing my testimony today. I welcome your 
questions.

    Senator Durbin. Josephine Baker is the executive director 
with the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board.
    Thank you very much for joining us. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL 
            BOARD
    Ms. Baker. Good morning, Chairman Durbin and members of the 
subcommittee.
    I'm Josephine Baker, executive director of the District of 
Columbia Public Charter School Board. I'm pleased to come 
before you today to discuss the use and impact of Federal 
appropriations provided to improve the education of children in 
the District of Columbia. We appreciate the support of the 
Federal Government in helping charter schools contribute to the 
reform of public education in the District of Columbia.
    The D.C. Public Charter School Board was created in 1997, 
and is currently the only authorizer of public charter schools 
in the District of Columbia. The board began authorizing 
schools in 1998, and has since developed a comprehensive 
accountability system and oversight process that has become a 
model for authorizers throughout the United States. It provides 
important feedback for schools as they strive to meet the 
diverse needs of their students, and it informs parents and 
policymakers about how effectively students are being served in 
each school.
    The Public Charter School Board's performance and 
accountability standards and measurements are used to ensure 
high quality charter schools and eliminate nonperforming 
schools.
    Starting this month, we are taking charter school 
accountability one step further with the implementation of our 
performance management framework (PMF). The PMF, supported by a 
newly developed information technology infrastructure, will 
facilitate the evaluation of charter school performance based 
on common measures across all schools. The PMF will improve the 
public charter schools' ability to define high-, medium-, and 
low-performing and at-risk schools, and to clearly communicate 
the expectations, rewards, and consequences to schools, 
families, and communities. The key objective is to drive high-
achieving schools to full potential, mediocre schools to high-
achieving levels, and to eliminate low-performing schools.
    The Public Charter School Board is the first authorizer to 
implement this model for charter school accountability, and it 
was developed with funding from the Dell and Gates Foundation. 
The new developed technology structure is being implemented 
with funds from the Walton Foundation.
    In school year 2009-2010, D.C. public charter schools 
expect to serve about 38 percent of all public school children 
in the District of Columbia. Since 2004 we have seen 
significant growth in the number of charter schools, from 22 
schools to 57 schools today, on 99 campuses, offering an array 
of programs and specialties. During this time, the student 
population has grown from 10,019 to approximately 28,000 for 
this current school year. You will see a growth chart in your 
packet.
    [The information follows:]

                                              TABULATED GROWTH DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                       2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Schools..............................        22        26        34        37        56        60        57
# of Campuses.............................        29        35        43        57        82        94        98
Student Population........................    10,019    11,439    12,915    14,580    21,866    25,568    28,043
# of Employees............................         8        11        12        14        19        23        24
Students/Emp..............................     1,252     1,040     1,076     1,041     1,151     1,112     1,168
Schools/Emp...............................       2.8       2.4       2.8       2.6       2.9       2.6       2.4
Campuses/Emp..............................       3.6       3.2       3.6       4.1       4.3       4.1       4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         ANNUALIZED PERCENTAGE INCREASE
                                                  [In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                       2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Schools..............................       N/A        18        31         9        51         7        -5
# of Campuses.............................       N/A        21        23        33        44        15         4
# of Students.............................       N/A        14        13        13        50        17        10
# of Employees............................       N/A        38         9        17        36        21         4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD--FISCAL YEAR 2010 FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS PROPOSED SPENDING
                                                      PLAN
                                           [Spending plan by category]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Managing        Fiscal year
                                                Fund amount      organization      2009 amount       Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities:
    Revolving Direct Loan Fund: These funds       $4,500,000  OSSE.............      $4,500,000  ...............
     will be used to provide public charter
     schools with low interest loans to
     assist them with facilities
     acquisitions and renovation.
    City Build Initiative: City Build is a         1,750,000  OSSE.............       3,250,000     ($1,500,000)
     joint neighborhood revitalization and
     education initiative that aims to build
     strong communities by providing quality
     school choices to strategic
     neighborhoods. The ultimate goal of
     City Build is to attract and retain
     residents to strengthen DC communities.
     These funds will provide grants to
     support the development of quality
     public charter school facilities in
     targeted DC neighborhoods.
    Facilities Technical Assistance Program          750,000  OSSE.............         750,000  ...............
     (F-Tap): This program will provide
     public charter schools with support in
     the areas of new facility project
     planning and real estate finance.
     Support may be provided in the form of
     small grants to fund planning and pre-
     construction, and/or to qualified firms
     to provide direct technical support to
     schools.
    $5 million to help restore facilities          5,000,000  OSSE.............  ..............       5,000,000
     funding.
    Public Facility Grant Support: These           2,000,000  OSSE.............       3,500,000      (1,500,000)
     funds will be provided to cover the
     costs of renovating public facilities
     leased to public charter schools.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total facilities....................      14,000,000  .................      12,000,000       2,000,000
                                             ===================================================================
Charter school quality:
    Sector Support Grants: These funds will          600,000  OSSE.............         600,000  ...............
     support uses that will enhance the
     quality of new and existing schools
     through: innovative human capital
     initiatives; performance measurement
     tools; school improvement activities;
     and improved school governance.
    Innovative Incentive Fund: This fund             600,000  OSSE.............         600,000  ...............
     will provide competitive grants to
     schools to adopt orimplement an
     evidence-based model, program, or
     promising practice that will increase
     studentachievement.
    Replication Fund: The purpose of this          1,750,000  OSSE.............       5,000,000      (3,250,000)
     fund is to induce existing Charter
     Management Organizations and
     entrepreneurial education initiatives
     to expand within and into the District
     charter sector by providing growth
     capital, program start-up grants, and/
     or investments through investment
     intermediaries.
    Governance: Funds will be used to assist         145,000  PCSB.............  ..............         145,000
     schools with improving their governance
     practices.
    Leadership: Funds will be used to                130,000  PCSB.............  ..............         130,000
     provide leadership coaching and/or
     development.
    NCLB Technical Assistance: The purpose           450,000  PCSB.............  ..............         450,000
     of this funding initiative is to
     integrate PCSB practices (i.e., reviews
     and audits) with policy (i.e.,
     corrective action and restructuring
     policies) to promote and facilitate a
     process for systemic reform within
     public charter schools. The goals of
     the project are to reduce the number of
     schools in improvement (as defined by
     NCLB) and increase the capacity of
     charter schools to effectively
     implement school-based management
     models. The initiative is designed to
     provide charter schools with a balanced
     and comprehensive approach to meeting
     the standards for school performance
     without imposing unrealistic,
     uninformed, and.
    Incentives for high performing schools           400,000  PSCB.............  ..............         400,000
     per result of the Performance
     Management Framework.
    Financial Workshops--Platform: Funds             125,000  PCSB.............  ..............         125,000
     will be used to develop as many as five
     (5) financial workshops to address the
     five fiscal management criteria
     outlined in the July 2008 edition of
     the PCSB fiscal policy handbook. One
     additional workshop would be created to
     address audited financial statements
     and guideline. The first workshop would
     be Accounting and Budget Processing
     which would focus on how planning,
     assessment, and budgeting are linked to
     achieve a school's vision and goals.
    Financial Systems Support: Funds will be         100,000  PCSB.............  ..............         100,000
     used to aid in the improvement of
     certain operational capacities of
     selected charter schools. The services
     of auditors, CPAs, financial
     consultants, etc, would be obtained to
     assist the schools with monitor actual
     revenues and expenditures, long term
     financial planning process, development
     of internal controls and grants
     management.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total charter school quality........       4,300,000  .................       6,200,000      (1,900,000)
                                             ===================================================================
Unmet needs:
    Special Needs Compliance and Service: To         550,000  OSSE.............         650,000        (100,000)
     provide technical assistance and
     professional development to schools,
     including but not limited to complying
     with local and Federal mandates,
     managing related services and
     providers, facilitation of shared
     itinerant service providers, and
     development of a clearinghouse for
     current research on innovative special
     education and ELL practices.
    Flexible Funds: These grants will be             300,000  OSSE.............         350,000         (50,000)
     provided to campuses that have not
     received a prior ``flexible funds''
     grant to pick from a menu of pre-
     approved uses. These funds may also be
     used to provide small competitive
     grants ($250-$1,000) based on proposals
     crafted at the classroom level.
    Charter School Integration: These funds          225,000  OSSE.............         250,000         (25,000)
     will be used to seed and expand efforts
     to ensure that the charter school
     sector is able to access District-
     funded resources where shortages exist,
     and to develop increased awareness and
     participation of charter schools in
     District-wide initiatives.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total unmet needs...................       1,075,000  .................       1,250,000        (175,000)
                                             ===================================================================
Program administration:
    OSSE Administration Costs: These funds           500,000  OSSE.............         550,000         (50,000)
     will be allocated to the Office of
     Public Charter School Financing and
     Support within OSSE for the costs
     associated with administering and
     overseeing the above programs and funds.
    PCSB Administration Costs: These funds           125,000  PCSB.............  ..............         125,000
     will be allocated to the Office of
     Public Charter School Financing and
     Support within OSSE for the costs
     associated with administering and
     overseeing the above programs and funds.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total program administration........         625,000  .................         550,000          75,000
                                             ===================================================================
        Total...............................      20,000,000  .................      20,000,000  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                            ANNUALIZED AUDITED ENROLLMENT FIGURES PCS
                                                                                    [Fiscal years 1999-2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   School year                     1998-1999    1999-00     2000-01     2001-02     2002-03     2003-04     2004-05     2005-06     2006-07     2007-08     2008-09     2009-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                       1999        2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009        2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCSB............................................       1,977       4,473       6,412       7,591       8,264      10,019      11,439      12,915      14,580      21,866      25,568      28,043
BOE.............................................       1,537       2,507       3,143       2,880       2,748       3,558       3,903       4,483       5,082  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................       3,514       6,980       9,555      10,471      11,012      13,577      15,342      17,398      19,662      21,866      25,568      28,043
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
Annualized growth (#)...........................  ..........       3,466       2,575         916         541       2,565       1,765       2,056       2,264       2,204       3,702       2,475
Annualized growth (percent).....................  ..........          99          37          10           5          23          13          13          13          11          17          10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                  PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS CLOSED SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Secondary reason for
            School name                       Authorizer                  Year closed           Primary reason for closure             closure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Academy..................  PCSB.......................  2005.......................  Poor academics..............  None
Sasha Bruce........................  PCSB.......................  2006.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
New School.........................  PCSB.......................  2006.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor governance
Jo-Arz.............................  BOE........................  2006.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
Tri-Community......................  PCSB.......................  2008.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor governance
Hope Academy.......................  PCSB.......................  2008.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
Barbara Jordan.....................  BOE........................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  Poor academics
City Lights........................  BOE........................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
MEI Futures........................  PCSB.......................  2009.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor finance/operations
ABC................................  PCSB.......................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 percent of PCS closed since 2004 where closed for financial reasons (ranging from mismanagement funds to insufficient cash balances).
40 percent of PCS closed since 2004 where closed for academic/programmatic reasons.

    Ms. Baker. We have seen a remarkable difference in the 
proficiency of students who have stayed in charter schools 
longer than those who are new to charter schools. For example, 
D.C. Prep eighth grade students outperform their peers on the 
DC-CAS citywide. Many charter schools receive students who are 
several years below grade level and, in a short time, have 
brought these students to grade level.



    Use of Federal funds, of course, is very important to the 
charter community. The majority of the Federal appropriation is 
directed to schools through the D.C. office of the State 
superintendent. The Public Charter School Board oversees how 
schools spend these funds appropriately. Since 2004, D.C. 
public charter schools have used their Federal appropriations 
on facilities financing, Federal grants that were designated 
for unmet needs, and school quality and program administration.
    [The information follows:]

                                           SUMMARY OF FEDERAL PAYMENT ALLOCATION FOR DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
                                                                [Fiscal years 2004-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                               2004            2005            2006            2007            2008            2009            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Financing:
    Direct Loan Fund....................      $6,000,000      $2,750,000      $3,960,000      $6,000,000      $2,500,000      $3,500,000     $24,710,000
    Credit Enhancement Fund.............  ..............  ..............       1,980,000  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,980,000
    City Build..........................       4,970,500       2,000,000       1,980,000       3,500,000       5,000,000       4,000,000      21,450,500
    Charter School Incubator Initiative.  ..............       3,896,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,896,000
    Charter School Facilities Fund......       2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Co-Location/Public Facilities.......  ..............  ..............       1,980,000       1,050,000  ..............       4,000,000       7,030,000
    Special Facilities..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000
    Facilities Technical Assistance       ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000         500,000
     Program............................
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Facilities Financing.....      12,970,500       8,646,000       9,900,000      10,550,000      10,000,000      12,000,000      62,066,500
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Unmet Needs and School Quality:
    College Preparatory Program.........  ..............       2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
    College Access......................  ..............  ..............         396,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         396,000
    Medicaid Billing....................  ..............  ..............         247,500  ..............  ..............  ..............         247,500
    Truancy.............................  ..............  ..............         297,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         297,000
    Data Collection.....................  ..............  ..............         297,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         297,000
    Flexible Funds......................  ..............  ..............       1,485,000  ..............         350,000         350,000       2,185,000
    Special Programs....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000
    School Improvement..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............         500,000
    Charter Integration.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000         250,000         550,000
    Revolving Loan Fund.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000
    DC PCS Association..................  ..............         100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000
    Special Needs Compliance and          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         650,000         650,000
     Services...........................
    Sector Support Grants...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         600,000         600,000
    Innovation Incentive Fund...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         600,000         600,000
    Replication Fund....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Incentive Awards....................  ..............       2,000,000  ..............         870,000         400,000  ..............       3,270,000
    Quality Initiative..................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  ..............       1,000,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Unmet Needs and Quality.  ..............       4,100,000       2,722,500       1,870,000       2,650,000       7,450,000      18,792,500
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Administration and Rescission:
    Administrative Expenses.............  ..............         150,000         247,500         450,000         350,000         550,000       1,747,500
    Federal Rescission..................          29,500         104,000         130,000         130,000  ..............  ..............         393,500
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  29,500         254,000         377,500         580,000         350,000         550,000       2,141,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      20,000,000      83,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Baker. D.C. charter schools have used most of the 
appropriations on facilities, because the limited funds they 
have received from the city have been insufficient to allow 
schools to find affordable buildings in D.C.'s real estate 
market. Schools have made good use of the unmet-needs 
designation of Federal grants for a variety of initiatives, 
including special-needs compliance, school improvement, college 
access and college prep programs, truancy, data collection, and 
technical assistance and professional development to school 
leaders for compliance with local and Federal mandates. We've 
seen significant results over the past 5 years--students' 
progress on standardized tests, improved student outcomes for 
graduation rates--88 percent in 2008--and college acceptance of 
80 percent in 2009. I would also say that the college 
attendance rate is extremely high, and--in the 80s, as well.
    Enhanced and improved facilities with state--with the 
state-of-the-art technologies and green space labs are also 
part of the improvement.
    Improved responsibilities for stewardship of Federal 
dollars. The oversight process that we use clearly does follow 
how schools do spend their money. For 2010, Federal charter 
school funding will be spent in four areas: facilities, charter 
school quality, unmet needs, and program administration. Again, 
a spending plan is included in our packet.
    As in the past the plan is for a majority of the request be 
used by OSSE to provide facilities financing, including low-
interest loans to assist schools with facilities and 
renovation.
    I see my time is about out. I would just say that we do 
appreciate your support, with--which indeed helps charter 
schools in continuing to be pacesetters, inspiring a collective 
rise in the quality of all public schools so that D.C. students 
and families will have difficulty choosing between many great 
school options.
    Thank you for the opportunity in sharing this testimony, 
and I'll be happy to take your questions.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Baker.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Josephine Baker
    Good Morning Chairman Durbin and members of the subcommittee. I am 
Josephine Baker, executive director of the District of Columbia Public 
Charter School Board (PCSB). I am pleased to come before you today to 
discuss the use and impact of Federal appropriations provided to 
improve the education of children in the District of Columbia. We 
appreciate the support of the Federal Government in helping the charter 
schools contribute to the reform of public education in the District of 
Columbia.
               role of pcsb and growth of charter schools
    The D.C. Public Charter School Board was created in 1997 and is 
currently the only authorizer of public charter schools in the District 
of Columbia. The board began authorizing schools in 1998, and has since 
developed a comprehensive accountability system and oversight process 
that has become a model for authorizers throughout the United States. 
It provides important feedback for schools as they strive to serve the 
diverse needs of their students, and it informs parents and policy 
makers about how effectively students are being served in each school. 
The board's current accountability system includes:
  --Self-study reviews for first-year schools; program development 
        reviews for schools after the first year; special education 
        quality reviews, compliance reviews and financial management 
        reviews for all schools; high school transcript reviews; and 
        preliminary charter reviews for schools entering the fifth year 
        of operations.
  --Standardized test score analysis and NCLB report cards.
  --Quarterly charter school leaders' meetings, and communications with 
        school leaders, as needed, on local and Federal policy updates.
  --Ongoing review of performance outcomes dictates board actions, 
        which could include approval to expand, or sanctions leading to 
        charter revocation.
                      oversight and accountability
    The Public Charter School Board's performance and accountability 
standards and measurements are used to ensure high quality charter 
schools and eliminate non-performing schools. Starting this month, we 
are taking charter school accountability one step further, with the 
implementation of our new Performance Management Framework (PMF). The 
PMF, supported by newly developed information technology 
infrastructure, will facilitate the evaluation of charter school 
performance, based on common measures across all schools. These 
measures include absolute student achievement as well as student growth 
performance measures and indicators of readiness for high school and 
college, and non-academic measures, including governance, compliance 
with local and Federal laws, and financial management. Additionally, 
the framework measures achievement of mission-specific goals at each 
school.
    The PMF will improve the PCSB's ability to define high, medium, 
low-performing and at-risk schools and to clearly communicate the 
expectations, rewards and consequences to schools, families and 
communities. This framework will allow the board to make clear 
judgments about school performance and better manage the portfolio of 
public charter school offerings. The key objective is to drive high-
achieving schools to full potential, mediocre schools to high-achieving 
levels, and to eliminate low-performing schools. In addition, the PCSB 
will provide struggling schools with targeted support and allow high 
performing schools more freedom. The PCSB's previous accountability 
system was comprehensive but more focused on individualized evaluations 
of each charter school's annual performance.
    Results of the review will be publicly available in fall 2010 and 
will provide the community with a comprehensive view of public charter 
schools' academic, fiscal, and governance performance. The Public 
Charter School Board is the first authorizer to implement this model 
for charter school accountability and it was developed with funding 
from the Dell and Gates foundations. The newly developed technology 
structure is being implemented with funds from the Walton Foundation.
                       growth of charter schools
    D.C. public charter schools expect to serve 38 percent of all 
public school children in the District of Columbia. Since 2004 we have 
seen significant growth in the number of charter schools from 22 
schools to 57 schools today on 99 campuses offering an array of 
programs and specialties. During this time, the student population has 
grown from 10,019 to approximately 28,043 for the current school year. 
We will have audited enrollment figures in January 2010. (See attached 
growth data and audited enrollment charts--Attachments A and B.)
    The oldest of the charter schools has completed 12 years of 
operation. Many have made remarkable progress over time. Schools with 
unique missions such as Latin, bilingual, public policy, performing 
arts, and math, science and technology, are showing their value as 
students move on to other charter schools and college. We have also 
seen a remarkable difference in the proficiency of students who have 
stayed in charter schools longer between those that are new to charter 
schools. Many charter schools accept students who are several years 
below grade level and in a short time have brought the students to 
grade level. Others have struggled to progress in their start-up years, 
and must make significant progress in a short period of time in order 
to keep their charters. Several others have had their charters revoked, 
or closed voluntarily, because of poor academic and or financial 
performance.
                    use of federal funds since 2004
    The majority of the Federal appropriation is directed to schools 
through the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent (OSSE). The PCSB 
oversees how schools spend those funds appropriately. Since 2004, D.C. 
public charter schools have used their Federal appropriations on 
facilities financing, Federal grants designated for unmet needs and 
school quality and program administration. (See the attached chart 
detailing the allocation--Attachment D.) D.C. charter schools have used 
most of their appropriations on facilities because the limited funds 
they receive from the city has been insufficient to allow schools to 
find affordable buildings in D.C.'s real estate market. Schools have 
made good use of the unmet needs designations of Federal grants for a 
variety of initiatives including special needs compliance, school 
improvement, college access and college prep programs, truancy, data 
collection, and technical assistance and professional development to 
school leaders for compliance with local and Federal mandates.
                                results
    We have seen significant results over the past 5 years.
  --Student progress on standardized tests. In 2009, 79 percent of 
        secondary schools showed reading gains of up to 26 points and 
        71 percent of secondary schools improved math scores by as much 
        as 39 points. Sixty-one percent of elementary schools had 
        reading gains of up to 29 points, while 57 percent of 
        elementary schools had math gains of up to 33 points.
  --Improved student outcomes on graduation rates (88 percent in 2008) 
        and college acceptance (80 percent in 2009).
  --Expansion of high performing schools to allow more children to 
        attend.
  --Enhanced and improved facilities with state-of-the-art 
        technologies, green space and labs. A number of schools have 
        built beautiful buildings in the middle of areas targeted for 
        revitalization.
  --Improved delivery of special education services.
  --Improved responsible stewardship of Federal dollars.
  --More effective information management which impacts operations and 
        instructional efficiencies.
  --Since 2004, 10 charter schools have closed for either poor academic 
        performance or poor financial management and operations. Sixty 
        percent of those schools closed for financial reasons ranging 
        from mismanagement of funds to insufficient cash balances. The 
        other 40 percent were closed because of low academic 
        performance. (See attached list of charter school closed--
        Attachment E.) A total of 20 schools have closed since charter 
        schools were first created in the District of Columbia.
                    plans for fiscal year 2010 funds
    In fiscal year 2010, Federal charter school funding will be spent 
in four areas: facilities, charter school quality, unmet needs and 
program administration. (See attached proposed spending plan--
Attachment F.) As in the past, the plan is for a majority of the 
request to be used by OSSE to provide facilities financing including 
low interest loans to assist schools with facilities acquisitions and 
renovation. A portion of the facilities financing will be spent on a 
City Build Initiative, a joint neighborhood revitalization and 
education initiative that builds strong communities that will support 
quality school choices in targeted neighborhoods. Additionally, some of 
the facilities funding will be made available through grants to cover 
the costs of renovating public facilities leased to public charter 
schools.
    The funds allocated to charter school quality will support 
enhancement of new and existing schools through teacher quality 
initiatives and to enhance leadership of school principals, performance 
measurement tools, school improvement activities, and improved school 
governance. Some of the funds will provide competitive grants to 
schools to adopt or implement an evidence-based model program that will 
increase student achievement. There are funds set aside for replication 
of high achieving schools by providing growth capital and program 
start-up grants. In addition, a portion of the funding will be 
allocated to No Child Left Behind technical assistance to help reduce 
the number of schools in improvement and increase the capacity of 
schools to implement school-based management models.
    The funds set aside for unmet needs will cover special needs 
compliance and service including complying with local and Federal 
mandates. It will also create a flexible funds grant that will provide 
small competitive grants based on proposals crafted at the classroom 
level. These funds will allow for more charter school integration and 
ensure that the charter school sector is able to access District-funded 
resources where shortages exit.
    Lastly, a small amount is set aside at both the State and 
authorizer level for program administration to oversee and administer 
these programs.
    We appreciate your support which helps charter schools in 
continuing to be pace setters, inspiring a collective rise in the 
quality of all public schools, so that D.C. students and families will 
have difficulty choosing between many great school options. Thank you 
for the opportunity to share this testimony and I am happy to take your 
questions.
                              Attachment A

                                              TABULATED GROWTH DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                       2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Schools..............................        22        26        34        37        56        60        57
# of Campuses.............................        29        35        43        57        82        94        98
Student Population........................    10,019    11,439    12,915    14,580    21,866    25,568    28,043
# of Employees............................         8        11        12        14        19        23        24
Students/Emp..............................     1,252     1,040     1,076     1,041     1,151     1,112     1,168
Schools/Emp...............................       2.8       2.4       2.8       2.6       2.9       2.6       2.4
Campuses/Emp..............................       3.6       3.2       3.6       4.1       4.3       4.1       4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         ANNUALIZED PERCENTAGE INCREASE
                                                  [In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                       2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Schools..............................       N/A        18        31         9        51         7        -5
# of Campuses.............................       N/A        21        23        33        44        15         4
# of Students.............................       N/A        14        13        13        50        17        10
# of Employees............................       N/A        38         9        17        36        21         4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                     ATTACHMENT B--ANNUALIZED AUDITED ENROLLMENT FIGURES PCS
                                                                                    [Fiscal years 1999-2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   School year                     1998-1999    1999-00     2000-01     2001-02     2002-03     2003-04     2004-05     2005-06     2006-07     2007-08     2008-09     2009-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                       1999        2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009        2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCSB............................................       1,977       4,473       6,412       7,591       8,264      10,019      11,439      12,915      14,580      21,866      25,568      28,043
BOE.............................................       1,537       2,507       3,143       2,880       2,748       3,558       3,903       4,483       5,082  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................       3,514       6,980       9,555      10,471      11,012      13,577      15,342      17,398      19,662      21,866      25,568      28,043
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
Annualized growth (#)...........................  ..........       3,466       2,575         916         541       2,565       1,765       2,056       2,264       2,204       3,702       2,475
Annualized growth (percent).....................  ..........          99          37          10           5          23          13          13          13          11          17          10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                      

                              Attachment C



                                    ATTACHMENT D--SUMMARY OF FEDERAL PAYMENT ALLOCATION FOR DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
                                                                [Fiscal years 2004-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                               2004            2005            2006            2007            2008            2009            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Financing:
    Direct Loan Fund....................      $6,000,000      $2,750,000      $3,960,000      $6,000,000      $2,500,000      $3,500,000     $24,710,000
    Credit Enhancement Fund.............  ..............  ..............       1,980,000  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,980,000
    City Build..........................       4,970,500       2,000,000       1,980,000       3,500,000       5,000,000       4,000,000      21,450,500
    Charter School Incubator Initiative.  ..............       3,896,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,896,000
    Charter School Facilities Fund......       2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Co-Location/Public Facilities.......  ..............  ..............       1,980,000       1,050,000  ..............       4,000,000       7,030,000
    Special Facilities..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000
    Facilities Technical Assistance       ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000         500,000
     Program............................
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Facilities Financing.....      12,970,500       8,646,000       9,900,000      10,550,000      10,000,000      12,000,000      62,066,500
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Unmet Needs and School Quality:
    College Preparatory Program.........  ..............       2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
    College Access......................  ..............  ..............         396,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         396,000
    Medicaid Billing....................  ..............  ..............         247,500  ..............  ..............  ..............         247,500
    Truancy.............................  ..............  ..............         297,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         297,000
    Data Collection.....................  ..............  ..............         297,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         297,000
    Flexible Funds......................  ..............  ..............       1,485,000  ..............         350,000         350,000       2,185,000
    Special Programs....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000
    School Improvement..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............         500,000
    Charter Integration.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000         250,000         550,000
    Revolving Loan Fund.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000
    DC PCS Association..................  ..............         100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000
    Special Needs Compliance and          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         650,000         650,000
     Services...........................
    Sector Support Grants...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         600,000         600,000
    Innovation Incentive Fund...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         600,000         600,000
    Replication Fund....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Incentive Awards....................  ..............       2,000,000  ..............         870,000         400,000  ..............       3,270,000
    Quality Initiative..................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  ..............       1,000,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Unmet Needs and Quality.  ..............       4,100,000       2,722,500       1,870,000       2,650,000       7,450,000      18,792,500
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Administration and Rescission:
    Administrative Expenses.............  ..............         150,000         247,500         450,000         350,000         550,000       1,747,500
    Federal Rescission..................          29,500         104,000         130,000         130,000  ..............  ..............         393,500
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  29,500         254,000         377,500         580,000         350,000         550,000       2,141,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      13,000,000      20,000,000      83,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       ATTACHMENT E--PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS CLOSED SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2004 \1\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Secondary reason for
            School name                       Authorizer                  Year closed           Primary reason for closure             closure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Academy..................  PCSB.......................  2005.......................  Poor academics..............  None
Sasha Bruce........................  PCSB.......................  2006.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
New School.........................  PCSB.......................  2006.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor governance
Jo-Arz.............................  BOE........................  2006.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
Tri-Community......................  PCSB.......................  2008.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor governance
Hope Academy.......................  PCSB.......................  2008.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
Barbara Jordan.....................  BOE........................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  Poor academics
City Lights........................  BOE........................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
MEI Futures........................  PCSB.......................  2009.......................  Poor academics..............  Poor finance/operations
ABC................................  PCSB.......................  2009.......................  Poor finance/operations.....  None
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 percent of PCS closed since 2004 where closed for financial reasons (ranging from mismanagement funds to insufficient cash balances).
\2\ 40 percent of PCS closed since 2004 where closed for academic/programmatic reasons.


    ATTACHMENT F--DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD--FISCAL YEAR 2010 FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
                                             PROPOSED SPENDING PLAN
                                           [Spending plan by category]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Managing        Fiscal year
                                                Fund amount      organization      2009 amount       Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities:
    Revolving Direct Loan Fund: These funds       $4,500,000  OSSE.............      $4,500,000  ...............
     will be used to provide public charter
     schools with low interest loans to
     assist them with facilities
     acquisitions and renovation.
    City Build Initiative: City Build is a         1,750,000  OSSE.............       3,250,000     ($1,500,000)
     joint neighborhood revitalization and
     education initiative that aims to build
     strong communities by providing quality
     school choices to strategic
     neighborhoods. The ultimate goal of
     City Build is to attract and retain
     residents to strengthen DC communities.
     These funds will provide grants to
     support the development of quality
     public charter school facilities in
     targeted DC neighborhoods.
    Facilities Technical Assistance Program          750,000  OSSE.............         750,000  ...............
     (F-Tap): This program will provide
     public charter schools with support in
     the areas of new facility project
     planning and real estate finance.
     Support may be provided in the form of
     small grants to fund planning and pre-
     construction, and/or to qualified firms
     to provide direct technical support to
     schools.
    $5 million to help restore facilities          5,000,000  OSSE.............  ..............       5,000,000
     funding.
    Public Facility Grant Support: These           2,000,000  OSSE.............       3,500,000      (1,500,000)
     funds will be provided to cover the
     costs of renovating public facilities
     leased to public charter schools.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total facilities....................      14,000,000  .................      12,000,000       2,000,000
                                             ===================================================================
Charter school quality:
    Sector Support Grants: These funds will          600,000  OSSE.............         600,000  ...............
     support uses that will enhance the
     quality of new and existing schools
     through: innovative human capital
     initiatives; performance measurement
     tools; school improvement activities;
     and improved school governance.
    Innovative Incentive Fund: This fund             600,000  OSSE.............         600,000  ...............
     will provide competitive grants to
     schools to adopt orimplement an
     evidence-based model, program, or
     promising practice that will increase
     studentachievement.
    Replication Fund: The purpose of this          1,750,000  OSSE.............       5,000,000      (3,250,000)
     fund is to induce existing Charter
     Management Organizations and
     entrepreneurial education initiatives
     to expand within and into the District
     charter sector by providing growth
     capital, program start-up grants, and/
     or investments through investment
     intermediaries.
    Governance: Funds will be used to assist         145,000  PCSB.............  ..............         145,000
     schools with improving their governance
     practices.
    Leadership: Funds will be used to                130,000  PCSB.............  ..............         130,000
     provide leadership coaching and/or
     development.
    NCLB Technical Assistance: The purpose           450,000  PCSB.............  ..............         450,000
     of this funding initiative is to
     integrate PCSB practices (i.e., reviews
     and audits) with policy (i.e.,
     corrective action and restructuring
     policies) to promote and facilitate a
     process for systemic reform within
     public charter schools. The goals of
     the project are to reduce the number of
     schools in improvement (as defined by
     NCLB) and increase the capacity of
     charter schools to effectively
     implement school-based management
     models. The initiative is designed to
     provide charter schools with a balanced
     and comprehensive approach to meeting
     the standards for school performance
     without imposing unrealistic,
     uninformed, and.
    Incentives for high performing schools           400,000  PSCB.............  ..............         400,000
     per result of the Performance
     Management Framework.
    Financial Workshops--Platform: Funds             125,000  PCSB.............  ..............         125,000
     will be used to develop as many as five
     (5) financial workshops to address the
     five fiscal management criteria
     outlined in the July 2008 edition of
     the PCSB fiscal policy handbook. One
     additional workshop would be created to
     address audited financial statements
     and guideline. The first workshop would
     be Accounting and Budget Processing
     which would focus on how planning,
     assessment, and budgeting are linked to
     achieve a school's vision and goals.
    Financial Systems Support: Funds will be         100,000  PCSB.............  ..............         100,000
     used to aid in the improvement of
     certain operational capacities of
     selected charter schools. The services
     of auditors, CPAs, financial
     consultants, etc, would be obtained to
     assist the schools with monitor actual
     revenues and expenditures, long term
     financial planning process, development
     of internal controls and grants
     management.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total charter school quality........       4,300,000  .................       6,200,000      (1,900,000)
                                             ===================================================================
Unmet needs:
    Special Needs Compliance and Service: To         550,000  OSSE.............         650,000        (100,000)
     provide technical assistance and
     professional development to schools,
     including but not limited to complying
     with local and Federal mandates,
     managing related services and
     providers, facilitation of shared
     itinerant service providers, and
     development of a clearinghouse for
     current research on innovative special
     education and ELL practices.
    Flexible Funds: These grants will be             300,000  OSSE.............         350,000         (50,000)
     provided to campuses that have not
     received a prior ``flexible funds''
     grant to pick from a menu of pre-
     approved uses. These funds may also be
     used to provide small competitive
     grants ($250-$1,000) based on proposals
     crafted at the classroom level.
    Charter School Integration: These funds          225,000  OSSE.............         250,000         (25,000)
     will be used to seed and expand efforts
     to ensure that the charter school
     sector is able to access District-
     funded resources where shortages exist,
     and to develop increased awareness and
     participation of charter schools in
     District-wide initiatives.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total unmet needs...................       1,075,000  .................       1,250,000        (175,000)
                                             ===================================================================
Program administration:
    OSSE Administration Costs: These funds           500,000  OSSE.............         550,000         (50,000)
     will be allocated to the Office of
     Public Charter School Financing and
     Support within OSSE for the costs
     associated with administering and
     overseeing the above programs and funds.
    PCSB Administration Costs: These funds           125,000  PCSB.............  ..............         125,000
     will be allocated to the Office of
     Public Charter School Financing and
     Support within OSSE for the costs
     associated with administering and
     overseeing the above programs and funds.
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total program administration........         625,000  .................         550,000          75,000
                                             ===================================================================
        Total...............................      20,000,000  .................      20,000,000  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Durbin. Gregory Cork is the CEO and executive 
director of the Washington Scholarship Fund.
    Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. CORK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP 
            FUND
    Mr. Cork. Thank you, Senator.
    Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Gregory M. Cork, and I'm president and chief 
executive officer of the Washington Scholarship Fund, the 
nonprofit organization that administers the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, otherwise known as the OSP.
    It's my honor and privilege to appear before you today to 
discuss the profoundly positive impact of the OSP on the lives 
of the low-income D.C. students and families served through 
this landmark program.
    I'm particularly grateful for this opportunity to sit 
alongside others from the D.C. education community who share a 
commitment to providing District children with genuine 
educational access and to addressing whatever challenges stand 
in the way of affording D.C. children the best possible 
education. We're supporters of options, after all, whatever 
works--whatever education works for a child and his or her 
family.
    Simply stated, Mr. Chairman, the OSP has been a success, 
and of indisputable and lasting value to program participants. 
In fact, since the OSP's inception in 2004, several independent 
reports have confirmed that the program is working for low-
income students--D.C.--low-income D.C. students and families.
    In April of this year, the U.S. Department of Education 
released the latest in a continuing series of evaluation 
reports prepared by DOE's Institute of Education Sciences. This 
much-anticipated report builds on previous positive findings 
and confirms what parents and the OSP have known for years: OSP 
students are performing at higher academic levels than their 
peers who are not in the program, and are better off, by 
virtually every important measure, in their chosen schools.
    Taken together, the DOE reports to date reflect that the 
OSP, as intended, is serving the District's most economically 
and educationally disadvantaged students and families, and 
shows that the choices afforded by the OSP are not only 
improving students' academic performance, but redefining their 
futures.
    Also this year, the School Choice Demonstration Project, 
formerly within Georgetown University's School of Public Policy 
and now operated through the University of Arkansas, released 
its fourth and final report on the OSP. Once again, this 
report, using focus groups of low-income scholarship families 
to learn about their experiences in the program, showed that 
families are extremely satisfied with the OSP and the schools 
they have chosen, and with being given opportunities, in most 
cases for the first time ever, to choose schools they judged to 
be the best fit for their children.
    According to the report, scholarship parents have ``moved 
from the margins to the center of their child's academic 
development,'' and are finding improved safety in their chosen 
schools, stricter discipline, smaller classes, values-based 
environments, enhanced curriculum, and effective support 
services such as tutoring and mentoring.
    Perhaps most compelling: for the parents in the School 
Choice Demonstration Project study, participation in the OSP is 
providing benefits to families that ``transcend their 
children's education.'' The report states that for most parents 
the OSP is an opportunity to lift the next generation of their 
family out of poverty.
    Turning to WSF's administration of the OSP, pursuant to the 
Choice Act, I'd like to highlight the fact that, in its 
implementation of the OSP since 2004, WSF has met each of the 
Choice Act's or the authorizing statute's three central 
priorities.
    First, the OSP has prioritized students coming from schools 
identified as in need of improvement (SINI), or otherwise known 
as SINI schools. If not for the OSP, 86 percent of scholarship 
students would be attending D.C.'s lowest performing schools; 
that is, those in need of improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring, as designated under No Child Left Behind.
    Second, the OSP has served the needs of the lowest income 
D.C. families. To be initially eligible for the OSP, as the 
subcommittee knows, a family must be at or below 185 percent of 
the Federal poverty level, or about $40,790 for a family of 
four in 2009, and must be at or below 200 percent of the 
poverty level, or about $44,100, for a family of four in 2009, 
for their second and subsequent years of OSP participation. 
The--notwithstanding the eligibility requirements, the average 
income of participating families in the 2008-2009 school year 
was only $24,312, far below the eligibility requirement.
    Third and finally among the priorities outlined in the 
statute, WSF has provided students and families with the widest 
range of educational options. In the course of WSF's 
administration of the OSP, 78 of the 86 nonpublic schools in 
the District of Columbia, or about 80 percent, participated in 
the program.
    Regarding WSF's sound fiscal management of the OSP, I 
should emphasize that WSF received clean A-133 audits for each 
of the first 4 years of the OSP's implementation--that is, 2005 
through 2008--and fully anticipates a clean A-133 audit for the 
program's fifth year, 2009.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add that it's been my 
great privilege to serve as WSF's president and CEO for the 
past 2-plus years. What we and our families together have 
accomplished through the OSP doubtless will resonate along the 
generational arcs of many hundreds of low-income D.C. families, 
families who, frankly, in the absence of the OSP, would have 
had few, if any, genuinely promising educational options.
    I truly believe that education, after all, is everything. 
It is my great hope that we, as a city and a society, will 
continue to explore every available means of providing real 
educational opportunity to all of our children, regardless of 
their means or where they came from.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to address 
the subcommittee regarding WSF's work in service to OSP 
students and families, who have benefited tremendously from the 
educational opportunities afforded them by this groundmaking 
program. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the 
subcommittee, and would be pleased to take any questions you 
have--you might have now.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Cork.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Gregory M. Cork
                              introduction
    Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name is Gregory M. Cork, 
and I am president and chief executive officer of the Washington 
Scholarship Fund (``WSF''), the non-profit organization that 
administers the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (the ``D.C. OSP'' 
or the ``OSP'').
    It is my honor and privilege to appear before you today to discuss 
the profoundly positive impact of the D.C. OSP on the lives of the low-
income D.C. students and families served through this landmark program. 
I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to sit alongside others 
from the D.C. education community who share a commitment to providing 
District children with genuine educational access, and to addressing 
whatever challenges stand in the way of affording D.C. children the 
best possible education.
    The D.C. School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (the ``Choice Act''), 
the D.C. OSP's authorizing legislation, was enacted in January 2004 as 
part of a $40 million ``three-sector'' education reform package that 
allocated equal funding to traditional D.C. public schools, to D.C. 
public charter schools, and to the D.C. OSP. The Choice Act--designed 
``to assist low-income parents to exercise choice among enhanced public 
opportunities and private educational environments''--targets D.C.'s 
lowest-income families (those at or below 185 percent of poverty), with 
a specific priority on students attending D.C. ``schools in need of 
improvement'' (``SINI'' schools). A critical element of the Choice Act 
is the law's mandate for a rigorous Federal evaluation, which measures 
the OSP's impact in terms both quantitative (i.e., students' academic 
progress) and qualitative (i.e., participating families' satisfaction 
with the program).
    The results of the Federal evaluation, conducted by the U.S. 
Department of Education's (``DOE'') Institute of Education Sciences 
(``IES''), have established that students participating in the D.C. OSP 
are making real and significant academic gains. The IES and other 
independent studies also report that parents are overwhelmingly 
satisfied with the schools they have chosen for their children and with 
the scholarship program itself, and that they see marked improvements 
in their children's attitudes towards school, approaches to homework, 
and general learning habits. These same studies further report that OSP 
parents are learning to evaluate schools not just on criteria related 
to safety, but also on the content of the schools' academic programs--
that is, OSP parents are meaningfully participating in their children's 
educations, and they are making good choices on behalf of their 
children. Indeed, according to these reports, parents view the D.C. OSP 
as a way to lift the next generation of their families out of poverty.
    Overall, in its implementation of the D.C. OSP since 2004, WSF has 
met each of the three priorities set forth in the Choice Act: Through 
the OSP, WSF has prioritized and served students coming from schools 
identified as in need of improvement; targeted resources toward the 
lowest-income D.C. families; and provided students and families with 
the widest range of educational options.
              eligibility for and funding of the d.c. osp
    Under the Choice Act, scholarships of up to $7,500 per year are 
awarded by lottery to eligible students for tuition, transportation, 
and other academic-related fees to attend non-public schools in the 
District. To be initially eligible for OSP scholarships, parents or 
guardians must be D.C. residents and they must be at or below 185 
percent of the Federal poverty level (about $40,793 for a family of 
four in 2009). Families renewing their scholarships must be at or below 
200 percent of the Federal poverty level ($44,100 for a family of four 
in 2009) for their second and subsequent years of OSP participation.
    The Choice Act allocates annually about $12.1 million directly to 
scholarships. Financial support for WSF to operate the program is 
capped at 3 percent of the funding authorized under the Federal statute 
(or about $362,000 for the OSP's administration in 2008-2009).
         d.c. osp students, families, and participating schools
    Nearly 20 percent of eligible District students applied for OSP 
scholarships in the program's first 4 years of operation. Key data on 
OSP students, families, and schools for the past school year (2008-
2009) include:
  --The average income for participating families was $24,312.
  --The average family size of scholarship users was a single mother 
        with two children.
  --Of the 1,716 students participating during the 2008-2009 school 
        year, 1,050 lived in D.C.'s most economically-challenged Wards 
        (5, 7, and 8).
  --If not for the OSP, 86 percent of scholarship students would be 
        attending D.C.'s lowest performing schools (Schools In Need of 
        Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring, as designated 
        under No Child Left Behind).
  --The average K-12 scholarship award was $7,000--just below the 
        $7,500 cap.
  --The average tuition for OSP students at participating schools was 
        $6,000 for grades K-8 and $9,668 for high school.
independent reports confirm that the d.c. osp is working for low-income 
                       d.c. students and families
The U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences' 
        Evaluation of the D.C. OSP: Impacts After Three Years (April 
        2009)
    This much-anticipated report released by the U.S. Department of 
Education--the latest in the continuing series of IES evaluation 
reports--builds on previous positive findings and confirms what parents 
in the D.C. OSP have known for years: D.C. OSP students are performing 
at higher academic levels than their peers who are not in the program, 
and are better off by virtually every important measure in their chosen 
schools.
    The DOE report offers the most unambiguous academic proof yet that 
the D.C. OSP is working for low-income D.C. students and families. 
Overall, scholarship students are performing at statistically higher 
levels in reading--over 3 months ahead of their peers who did not 
receive scholarships. In addition, the report shows that some 
scholarship students are as many as 2 years ahead in reading compared 
to their peers without scholarships.
    The report also finds that using a scholarship significantly 
increases parents' satisfaction with their children's schools in every 
measurable area. About 75 percent of scholarship parents give their 
children's schools an ``A'' or ``B'' grade, and view their chosen 
schools as safer and more orderly.
    The DOE reports to date reflect that the D.C. OSP, as intended, is 
serving the District's most economically and educationally 
disadvantaged students and families--and shows that the choices 
afforded by the OSP are not only improving students' academic 
performance, but redefining their futures.
The School Choice Demonstration Project's Fourth and Final Report on 
        the D.C. OSP (January 2009)
    The latest report on the D.C. OSP by the School Choice 
Demonstration Project (formerly within Georgetown University's School 
of Public Policy and now operated through the University of Arkansas) 
shows that families are extremely satisfied with the program and the 
schools they have chosen, and with being given opportunities--in most 
cases for the first time ever--to choose schools they judge to be the 
best fit for their children.
    The latest report is the fourth and final publication compiled by 
the School Choice Demonstration Project, which uses focus groups of 
low-income scholarship families to learn about their experiences in the 
program. According to the report, scholarship parents have moved ``from 
the margins to the center of their child's academic development,'' and 
are finding improved safety in their chosen schools, stricter 
discipline, smaller classes, values-based environments, enhanced 
curriculum, and effective support services such as tutoring and 
mentoring. ``I was looking for a different environment for [my 
child],'' explains one parent involved in the report. ``My thing was he 
will follow Sally and Sally [is] not into her work, [in private school] 
he will follow John who gets better grades and that's exactly what's 
happening now.''
    The report states that ``[p]erhaps the single most consistent 
response voiced in the focus groups was the high levels of satisfaction 
reported by each subgroup and cohort. Even in situations where parents 
complained or expressed disappointment with some aspect of their 
experience . . . they still gave the program high marks.''
    According to the School Choice Demonstration Project report, D.C. 
OSP parents cite many factors that contribute to their satisfaction 
with the program, including noticeable improvements in their children's 
attitudes about learning, better dispositions toward school, and more 
productive homework and learning habits. Says one parent in the report, 
``[My child] is doing good in school, and she says `Mommy I want to 
continue . . . and when I finish I want to go to a university.' She's 
very interested in college. She starts to do her homework, and she's 
doing it on the computer . . . she's learning, learning, learning.''
    For the parents in the School Choice Demonstration Project study, 
participation in the D.C. OSP is providing benefits to families that 
``transcend their children's education.'' According to the report, 
``[f]or most parents, [the D.C. OSP] is an opportunity to lift the next 
generation of their family out of poverty.''
                  wsf's administration of the d.c. osp
Meeting the Choice Act's Priorities
    As noted, in its implementation of the D.C. OSP since 2004, WSF has 
met each of the three priorities set forth in the Choice Act:
    The D.C. OSP has prioritized students coming from schools 
identified as in need of improvement (``SINI'' schools):
  --If not for the D.C. OSP, 86 percent of scholarship students would 
        be attending D.C.'s lowest-performing schools (Schools In Need 
        of Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring, as 
        designated under No Child Left Behind).
    The D.C. OSP has served the needs of the lowest-income D.C. 
families:
  --As indicated, all families must be at or below 185 percent of the 
        Federal poverty level ($40,793 for a family of four in 2009) to 
        be initially eligible for the D.C. OSP, and must be at or below 
        200 percent of the poverty level ($44,100 for a family of four 
        in 2009) for their second and subsequent years of OSP 
        participation.
  --The average income of participating families in 2008-2009 was 
        $24,312--far below the eligibility requirement.
    WSF has provided students and families with the widest range of 
educational options:
  --In the course of WSF's administration of the D.C. OSP, 78 of the 86 
        non-public schools in the District (80 percent) participated in 
        the program.
Fiscal Management and Internal Controls
    WSF received clean A-133 audits for each of the first 4 years of 
the D.C. OSP's implementation--2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. WSF 
anticipates a clean A-133 audit for the program's fifth year, 2009.
    Further, WSF has implemented the financial processes, procedures, 
and controls necessary to maintain compliance with all Federal and 
generally accepted accounting standards, rules, and regulations, and 
with apposite recommendations made by government agencies. WSF also has 
fortified its financial infrastructure and IT security protocols--e.g., 
by installing upgraded financial software, updating written financial 
policies and procedures, and augmenting accounting staff.
district families, lawmakers, and other residents want the d.c. osp to 
                                continue
    Nearly 20 percent of eligible District students applied for OSP 
scholarships in the program's first 4 years of operation, reflecting 
high demand for the program from D.C.'s low-income families.
    In 2009, District Mayor Adrian Fenty once again asked Congress for 
continued funding of the three-sector education reform initiative that 
includes the D.C. OSP.
    In June 2009, seven D.C. City Council Members asked Secretary 
Duncan and Mayor Fenty to continue the D.C. OSP.
    President Obama has expressed his support for continuing the D.C. 
OSP in service to the low-income District students who already have 
benefited from participation in the program.
    A July 2009 poll of D.C. residents found that 74 percent have a 
favorable view of the D.C. OSP, and that 79 percent of parents with 
school-age children oppose ending it.
           what families and students say about the d.c. osp
    ``This program works. I believe every parent should have the 
opportunity to send their child where they feel they should go. I want 
to make sure my children can get the best educations offered, making 
sure they can get the best out of life.''----Malcolm Jordan, OSP Parent
    ``My kids' educations mean the world to me. You saw what happened 
with Obama, right? I'm looking for the next President right here, right 
Donae? Right Dayonte? This should have been here when I was in school; 
I would have been so much more today. In fact, I'm thinking about going 
back to school myself.''----Anquanette Williamson, OSP Parent
    ``Today, I wouldn't know where he'd be, but looking at today, I'm 
proud and I'm glad at where he's at right now. The scholarship program 
has helped us tremendously.''----Radcliffe Fairclough, OSP Parent
    ``The scholarship has made me feel more secure in my child's 
education. Her going to a good school will open doors for her in the 
future . . .  . This would not have been possible without the 
scholarship.''----Linda Bernard, OSP Parent
    ``He has become inspired, gained self-esteem, and he's proud of his 
school. He is very smart and [the teachers at Sacred Heart] recognize 
his learning style. Not all children learn the same way. It's important 
that the environment they are learning in is best for their needs.''--
--Patricia William, OSP Parent
    ``It has affected me in a good way, and without the scholarship, I 
wouldn't be here at St. John's. This experience keeps me humble because 
without it, I don't have to see my mom struggle to give me a good 
education. I'm getting one, and this has helped me for the better.''--
--Zachary Tanner, OSP Student
    ``If I didn't have the scholarship, it would be hard on [my 
father]. The scholarship gives me a chance to go to a good school with 
a good education. I appreciate the scholarship.''----Guillermo Aburto, 
Jr., OSP Student
    ``How are they going to take the scholarship away from me and my 
friends? They didn't ask us. I don't understand, because the 
scholarship has helped me.''----DeCarlos Young, OSP Student
    ``I like the teachers. They actually care about the students and 
they are there to help. I like how diverse and challenging it is.''----
Fullumusu Bangura, OSP Student
    ``My private school offers an atmosphere where students strive to 
succeed because of their surroundings. I strive to make killer grades 
every quarter and turn in all of my work because it is expected of me 
and because I have support from my friends and classmates to do so.''--
--Sanya Arias, OSP Alumna (2009), St. Johns University (2013)
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, again, it is an honor and a privilege to address the 
subcommittee regarding WSF's work in service to D.C. OSP students and 
families, who have benefited tremendously from the educational 
opportunities afforded them by this groundbreaking program. I look 
forward to continuing this discussion with the subcommittee, and would 
be pleased to take any questions you have at this time.

    Senator Durbin. Chancellor Rhee, your personal life story, 
about your becoming an accidental educational expert, is a 
great story. It's about Teach For America and your taking over 
a failing classroom, and showing dramatic results, and then 
committing your life to education. And so, this challenge that 
you've taken--the District of Columbia--is consistent with your 
life's work, and your goals are the right goals.
    What we've heard here is parents and students voting with 
their feet, and leaving the D.C. public schools. We have seen 
the increased enrollment in charter schools, and the interest 
and support of voucher schools. And though I'm going to leave 
to Senator Collins to question some of the numbers, which 
obviously are in contrast between what she has presented and 
what you've presented, if I were to say, ``All right, I want to 
take your position. I believe in public education first. And I 
don't think we ought to walk away from our responsibility to 
public education.'' What could you say in response to the 
parents who say, ``But, public education is failing?'' How soon 
do you really believe that public education in the District of 
Columbia will reach a level of at least equality, if not 
superiority over, the charter schools in the District of 
Columbia?
    Ms. Rhee. So, I think we are well on our way. If you look 
at the gains that we've seen over the last 2 years, they have 
been incredibly significant. And I think that they have 
outpaced the gains that the District has seen in, you know, the 
10 years prior to us coming in. So, we feel like we're heading 
in the right direction.

                        DCPS TRI-SECTOR APPROACH

    But, if the question is, you know, ``How much longer do we 
need before I can honestly say that we--you know, I believe 
that we are serving all children well, and that we have the 
highest performing urban school district in the country?'' I 
think that is going to be a longer time horizon. And what the 
Mayor and I talk about is probably 5 more years, by the end of 
his second term. And that's part of the reason why I continue 
to support so vehemently the tri-sector approach. You know, 
it's counter to what I think most urban superintendents 
believe. They, you know, usually like to, kind of, be a little 
defensive, and try to maintain their market share and that sort 
of thing. But I believe that part of my job is to try to make 
sure that every single school-age child in the city gets an 
excellent education. And I'm not really as concerned with what 
kind of school, whether it's a private school, a D.C. charter 
school, or DCPS school. As long as they're in an excellent 
school, getting a great education, then I'm happy.

                            SCHOOL VOUCHERS

    I don't believe that vouchers are the answer to our urban 
education problems. For a variety of reasons. You know, with 
$7,500, you can't buy yourself admission to a lot of the best 
private schools in the city. And just because you have a $7,500 
voucher doesn't mean that a private school has to accept you 
into their school. And so, for that reason, vouchers aren't 
going to be the end-all/be-all solution to the public education 
problems.
    That said, I will tell you that, on a regular basis, I have 
parents from wards 7 and 8, which are our highest-poverty 
wards, which also are the home of our lowest-performing 
schools, who come to me--and they've done everything that a 
parent should. They say, ``I've looked at all of the data, I 
know that my neighborhood school and the schools surrounding it 
are not performing at the level that I want it to. So, I 
participated in the out-of-boundary process, and I went through 
the lottery, and I didn't get a slot at one of the schools I 
wanted.'' So, they look at me and they say, ``Now what? What 
are you going to do?''
    And I cannot look those parents in the eye right now, at 
this point, and offer every single one of them a spot in a 
school that I think is a high-performing school. And I think, 
until we're able to do that, which again I think is on that 5-
year time horizon, then I believe that we do need to have 
choice for our families, and I think they do have to have the 
ability to participate, either to move into a charter school or 
to use the opportunity scholarships.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, this chart--I'm sure you can't 
see, because it's so far away--it's hard enough for me to see 
it--but it shows, since fiscal year 2004, that we have put 
about $348 million into added Federal contributions for the 
D.C. Public Charter and Opportunity Scholarships Programs. And 
the amount going to the program that you administer has been in 
the range of $13 to $14 million--Federal tax dollars--to 
benefit some 1,700 students and their families.
    I'm troubled. When we contacted your office and said, 
``Send us''--not the names of the students. We're not asking 
you to violate any confidentiality. But, ``Send us the names 
and addresses of the schools that participate in the voucher 
program; how many students you acknowledge are part of that 
program in each of the schools--just by number; how many of the 
teachers in each of the schools have college degrees; how many 
of the schools have been judged safe, in terms of the fire 
safety code, for example, by the District of Columbia''--that 
you declined, and said, ``I won't provide that information.''
    So, we said, ``Well, if Mr. Cork won't provide it, the 
District won't provide it, we'll go to the Department of 
Education. They'll give it to us.'' They don't have it, either. 
Can you imagine that? Thirteen or fourteen million dollars a 
year that we're spending on your program, and we can't even get 
basic information about how many students are in each school? 
Something that basic?
    And so, we took what information we had, and we went out on 
our own, contacting each school and saying, ``Will you 
volunteer the same information?'' All but five schools 
responded. We added up the number of students they said 
attended, under your program, last school year--2008-2009. We 
came up short just under 400 students, unaccounted for. That's 
about $2 to $3 million being sent to your program for students 
we can't find. I don't think they're all in those five schools.
    I don't understand how you can expect us to send Federal 
taxpayers' dollars to your program, and you refuse to cooperate 
with even the most basic information. So, my question to you 
is, Why won't you give us that information, if the schools will 
volunteer it? Second, have you visited all of these schools? Do 
you know that they are in safe buildings, that they actually 
operate as they say they do?
    I'm going to show you some pictures, in the second round of 
questions, of what is supposedly a D.C. opportunity scholarship 
school, with scores of students. You're going to find it hard 
to believe that there are students going to school in some of 
these places.
    So, tell me about your supervision and management of this 
program, and why you don't think it's any of our business to 
know how many students are in each of your schools.
    Mr. Cork. First, fortunately, I had lasik surgery. I can 
make out the chart.
    Senator Durbin. Congratulations.
    Mr. Cork. We--first, I should say that we very much 
appreciate the Federal Government's provision of these funds 
toward what is a very worthy program.
    You've outlined several issues. I would like to break them 
down, if I may.
    First, you did request information from our office a couple 
of months ago. We provided information in regard to every point 
you cited. The one item of information we were unable to 
respond to at the time was the identification of students in 
participating schools----
    Senator Durbin. By number.
    Mr. Cork. Right. Well, I should say, Senator Durbin, that 
we continue to be fully willing to comply with all of your 
information requests, and are happy to provide information 
about schools, insofar as the schools themselves are willing to 
cooperate in that, as well. I think what we did was defer to 
the schools, because we have a longstanding agreement, that is 
approved by the Department of Education, with the schools, that 
guards very carefully the confidentiality of student-specific 
information.
    Senator Durbin. Really? And so, the Department of Education 
has given you permission to deny to Congress the information 
about how many students under your program, by number, are in 
each school. Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Cork. No, I did not say that DOE has given us 
permission to deny you anything, and, in fact, we will comply 
fully with your information request.
    Senator Durbin. Why did it take 2 months?
    Mr. Cork. I simply said that we have agreements with the 
schools to be very careful about the private information of 
participating students.
    Senator Durbin. Well, you're talking in circles. Why 
wouldn't you provide me with the information--and this 
subcommittee--with the information about the number of students 
in each school?
    Mr. Cork. As I understand it, you sent the same information 
request to the schools, and----
    Senator Durbin. Yes.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. They provided you the information 
you sought.
    Senator Durbin. Yes, after you refused to provide it.
    Mr. Cork. And we specifically said, in our letter to you, 
that we would defer to the schools on their willingness to give 
you student-specific information.
    Senator Durbin. Doesn't work this way. I'm not going to 
send any money to your program unless you can give me the basic 
information.
    Mr. Cork. And, Senator, we're happy to provide information 
about the number of enrollees in certain schools.
    I should say, the concerns have always been about, for 
example, a school that has very few students enrolled, 
providing the number of students enrolled in that school 
essentially might be tantamount to providing the specific 
identities of the students.
    Senator Durbin. I'm sorry, you can't take the Federal money 
and then refuse to give us the information.
    And let me ask you, have you visited all of the D.C. 
opportunity scholarship schools?
    Mr. Cork. I want to emphasize again, we're happy to comply 
with all of your requests, and will follow up with your staff.
    So, yes, we do visit schools on a regular basis. And the 
goal is to visit each school--every school once every 2 years. 
We often have opportunity to visit each of the schools in a 
school year.
    Senator Durbin. In a second round of questions, I'm going 
to show you some pictures of your schools, and I'm going to ask 
you about the number of students in these storefronts, 
townhouses, and apparently very small settings.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cork, I'm a supporter of the D.C. scholarship program. 
I don't think it should be capped; if anything, I think it 
should be expanded. But, I've got to tell you that I completely 
agree with the chairman that you cannot impede our ability to 
see whether Federal funds--we're not talking about D.C. money 
or private money--are being used appropriately.
    Surely you, as the administrator of this program, should be 
able to tell us how many students there are in each school. 
We're not seeking the identities of those students, we are 
simply trying to get the aggregate numbers. So, I encourage you 
to be more forthcoming so that we can do our job in evaluating 
the expenditure of Federal funds. Otherwise, we don't know if 
the money is being lost to fraud. What if there's a storefront 
that's pretending to be a school, and Federal money is going to 
it? If you're not visiting each of those schools, or if we 
can't get an accounting, there may be out-and-out fraud 
involved. And I say this as someone who's working very hard to 
extend what I believe to be a worthwhile program.
    Chancellor, I just want to follow up on some of the 
questions that Senator Durbin started asking you, and also to 
talk about some conflicting data.

                       DCPS THREE SECTOR APPROACH

    First, from what I understand from your exchange with 
Senator Durbin, but just to get you very clearly on the record, 
you do support the reauthorization of the D.C. scholarship 
program as part of the three-pronged strategy?
    Ms. Rhee. Yes, both the Mayor and I continue to support the 
tri-sector approach. But I will also reiterate that I 
absolutely agree with a number of the things that Senator 
Durbin has brought up as concerns around accountability. I do 
believe that it is going to be necessary, in the long term, 
over the course of the next 5 years, for us to be able to do 
apples-to-apples comparisons of how the various programs are 
doing. And that necessitates all of the participants, and all 
of the students, taking the same test.
    Senator Collins. And that's a great lead-in to my next 
question. But first let me say on the record that the reason 
that I think it would be a tragedy if this program were 
eliminated at this point--maybe 10 years from now we can 
eliminate it in good conscience--but, at this point 84 percent 
of the students would be returned to failed schools. And we 
just cannot consign them to going to failed schools.

                           DCPS TESTING DATA

    Let me talk to you about the data, because it is important 
that we be able to assess how students are doing in the three 
different settings. The Department of Education, the Federal 
Department of Education, uses the National Assessment of 
Education Progress test to determine reading and math 
proficiency of fourth and eighth graders. And according to that 
assessment, only 14 percent of D.C.'s fourth graders are 
reading at a proficient level. Yet the DC-CAS test indicates 
that 49 percent of the fourth graders are proficient in 
reading. That is a huge difference, and makes it 
extraordinarily difficult for us to understand what's going on.
    Ms. Rhee. Yeah.
    Senator Collins. So, why is there such a difference?
    Ms. Rhee. Okay.
    Senator Collins. And second, why does the District use a 
test that does not meet the No Child Left Behind standards?
    Ms. Rhee. So, to answer that question first, actually our 
test does meet the No Child Left Behind standards. We actually 
have one of the most rigorous tests--standardized tests of any 
State in the country.
    Senator Collins. We have letters from the Federal 
Department of Education saying that it does not meet the 
standards. Are those letters----
    Ms. Rhee. No, those----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Out of date?
    Ms. Rhee. Actually, no, they're--they are referring to 
different things. For example, there is a letter that was 
written to the OSSE, the Office of the State Superintendent of 
Education, specifically about read-aloud accommodations for 
special education students. That had nothing to do with our 
test. What that had to do with was the fact that too many of 
the children in the District, across all the sectors actually, 
were using the read-aloud accommodation, so we have actually 
stepped that down, according to the U.S. Department of 
Education's plan. But, again, that has nothing to do with the 
validity of the test.
    The second piece was about a--the science test. And again, 
what happened was--there's no problem with the validity of the 
actual test. What the U.S. Department of Education was saying 
was that there was an unclear mandate about how we were going 
to ensure that all of the ninth graders were taking a science 
test.
    So, it's about the administration of the test, and how that 
had occurred over prior years; and none of those things from 
the Department of Education questioned the actual validity of 
those tests.
    Senator Collins. I want to pursue this further, but I'm 
concerned about----
    Ms. Rhee. Okay. I'm going to----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Getting an explanation of the 
difference. But, let me just say, I don't read the Department's 
June 25, 2009, letter that way. So, perhaps you could go 
through this----
    Ms. Rhee. Okay.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Letter for the record and 
provide us with----
    Ms. Rhee. Sure.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Your explanation, because it 
seems to say very clearly that there are outstanding issues 
with the District of Columbia's general assessments in reading, 
language arts, and mathematics, and it goes through other 
issues. But----
    Ms. Rhee. Yeah. Let me----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Explain----
    Ms. Rhee [continuing]. Let me address the NAEP issue.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. The disparity.
    Ms. Rhee. Sure. So, first of all, this is actually one of 
the arguments for the use of a standard national test. Because 
right now you have 50 different States, with 50 different sets 
of standards and 50 different tests. And if you look at any of 
the 11 urban school districts that participate in TUDA, which 
is taking the NAEP examination, you'll see wide discrepancies 
between how they perform on the NAEP and how they perform on 
their own State test. So, that's an issue and one of the 
reasons why I think we need to standardize this.
    The main, I think, discrepancy, though, is because that 
data that we have--the last time that we have NAEP data is from 
2007. We will be receiving our 2009 NAEP data in October for 
the math scores, November for the reading scores, and that new 
NAEP data will give you an assessment of how the District of 
Columbia schoolkids have grown over the last 2 years since the 
Fenty administration has taken control of the schools.
    So, the 2007 NAEP data was actually an assessment of the 
prior 2 years, from 2005 to 2007.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Alexander.
    Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Durbin.
    Mr. Cork, one reason private schools are private is so that 
they don't have to put up with all the meddling that the 
Federal Government, the teachers unions, the State government, 
and the local governments sometimes impose on schools in the 
name of well-meaning efforts, and there's a natural resistance 
from nonpublic schools to providing a lot of information.
    But, if all Senator Durbin's asking for is how many 
students do you have, and whether your school is safe, I mean, 
I'd be happy to join with him and ask that of you, and of the 
59 schools, to provide the information. I think that's a 
reasonable request. I think maybe there was some feeling that, 
``Well, if they ask these questions, then they're going to ask 
more questions, and after a while it's just going to be--
getting to be a burdensome interference.'' But, I don't think 
that's the intent, here. I think the intent, here, is--I hope--
is simply to say, ``We want to make sure that the charter 
schools are working, that the vouchers are--money's being 
properly spent, as we decide whether we continue to spend that 
money,'' which I very much hope that we do.
    Second, Mr. Cork, are all of the 59 schools that 
opportunity scholarship students attend accredited?
    Mr. Cork. There's not an accreditation--as I understand it, 
there's not an accreditation process, per se, in the District. 
Certainly, the authorizing statute requires that schools be 
operating lawfully.
    I want to emphasize that we are perfectly willing to 
provide all information regarding safety. And no one could want 
the schools to be safe more than we do, on behalf of our 
families.
    Senator Alexander. But, how do you determine whether 
they're a real school or not a real school?
    Mr. Cork. We rely on--for example, on the issues of safety, 
we rely on the District of Columbia----
    Senator Alexander. No, I mean on issues of whether they're 
learning.
    Mr. Cork. Well, as to whether students are learning in the 
schools their families have chosen for them----
    Senator Alexander. Right.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. The results of the evaluation are 
indicating that they're making substantial progress. The 
school's also required to provide parents, on an annual basis, 
with comparisons of their child's academic achievement with 
others in the school.
    Senator Alexander. So, the parent can choose any place that 
calls itself a school?
    Mr. Cork. It can choose any educational--nonpublic 
educational institution that's operating lawfully in the 
District, yes. The choice is the parents', given the 
scholarship funds.

                              DCPS TESTING

    Senator Alexander. Ms. Rhee, I'd like, on the--well, one 
other question. Is it not true that, when this program started, 
the U.S. Department of Education required the Stanford 
Achievement Test as a part of its evaluation?
    Mr. Cork. Yes, as I recall, at that time----
    Senator Alexander. And is it not true that, at that time, 
the District of Columbia was using that test, itself?
    Mr. Cork. I would defer to Chancellor Rhee, but, yes, as I 
understand it, at that----
    Senator Alexander. So, it was the same test then, and then 
the District changed, for----
    Ms. Rhee. That's correct.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Good reasons, I'm sure. So, 
that's how we got in this----
    Ms. Rhee. Yes.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Situation.
    Ms. Rhee. I think the original intention was always for the 
students to be taking the same test. The issue was just that 
D.C. changed the test that it----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Ms. Rhee [continuing]. Took.
    Senator Alexander. But, isn't it possible that the test 
tests what's being taught in your curriculum, which might be a 
different sort of curriculum that--for example, one thing might 
be taught in the third grade in Sidwell Friends, and in the 
fourth grade in--or second grade in one of your schools, and 
that might make a difference?
    Ms. Rhee. You know, if you look across national standards, 
particularly at the tested grades, you don't see a tremendous 
amount of variance from one State to another. And certainly 
there would be a tremendous amount of overlap, in terms of the 
tested standards on the Stanford 9 and on the DC-CAS.
    That said, there are some differences, and that's why I do 
think it's important--and I do believe it was the original 
intention of all of the participants--to have kids taking the 
same test. But, I think, in all fairness, in order to do that 
apples-to-apples comparison, you have to have the students 
taking the same test.
    Senator Alexander. I'd like to ask--thank you--I'd like to 
ask you to look down the road a little bit, 5 years from now. 
Some people have said--and this is my last question--that one 
way to think of a ``public education system'' is that it's the 
responsibility of the community to provide an educational 
opportunity for every student. And that could be at any 
lawfully operating accredited educational institution. It might 
be a church school, it might be a private school, it might be a 
school operated by the government, it might be a school 
chartered by the government, might be any one of a number of 
different kinds of schools. But, the job of the chancellor 
might be simply to make sure that every child within the 
District of Columbia had that opportunity.
    Would it be a good system for the District of Columbia, 5 
or 10 years from now, to have a single chancellor for every 
child in the school district, and let that chancellor look 
among the array of schools, which might be public charter 
schools, private charter schools, schools where private--that 
are private, where vouchers are perhaps available--and be 
responsible for ensuring that every child has a good 
educational opportunity, rather than simply operating a certain 
number of the schools which those children attend?

                              DCPS REFORMS

    Ms. Rhee. Well, I certainly think that's one direction that 
we could potentially head. I would want to make sure, though, 
that in moving to that kind of a structure, that we could still 
maintain a broad base of schools, and also competition between 
the schools, which I think is incredibly important.
    For me, you know, as it pertains to the various sectors, we 
had a huge effort to close down low-performing schools, and to 
restructure low-performing schools. I've closed about 30 
schools overall. When I got to this position there were 144 
schools. Now, you know, we've closed down more than 15 percent 
of those schools. The charter school network is also looking at 
how to aggressively hold schools that are not performing 
accountable.
    I think, on the private school side, with the vouchers, 
though we certainly can't close down a private school, we can 
certainly ensure that, as Federal dollars are potentially being 
utilized for tuition, that we are only allowing the Federal 
dollars to be used in schools that are meeting certain 
standards. Because I don't think we want choice for choice 
sake. I think we want choice so that children can opt into 
better situations that ensure their learning is going on.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, I'm going to show you some 
photographs, here, of some of your schools, the ones that did 
not respond.
    And incidentally, one of the reasons you stated in your 
letter, why you couldn't tell us about the number of students, 
was, the schools, and I quote you, ``were considering 
participation in the program expressed concern about the 
disclosure of the number of the students.'' Yet all but five of 
them made the disclosure, voluntarily. So, I don't think that 
that really is a good argument.
    This is the best photograph we can give you, based on 
Marianne driving by with her small camera, of Bridges Academy. 
They tell us that 87 of their 153 students are voucher 
recipients--more than 50 percent of the student body. That's 
over $650,000 in Federal funds going to this building. I know, 
from their Web site, the school was founded over 20 years ago, 
but I can't tell you what the test scores are at this school. 
Are you--have you visited this school?
    Mr. Cork. I have not personally visited that school. I know 
several of our staff have, Senator.
    Senator Durbin. And what kind of report have they given you 
about the school and its competency to teach 87 students?
    Mr. Cork. I want to emphasize, before I move to your 
question, Senator, that no school will receive Federal funds 
this year that does not have a certificate of occupancy issued 
by the District of Columbia----
    Senator Durbin. Okay, that's good.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. Indicating its safety.
    Senator Durbin. That's good.
    Mr. Cork. We couldn't support more fully that policy.
    Senator Durbin. Even though the amendment was defeated when 
the program was created, we now generally agree it's a good 
idea. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cork. I think it's a great idea. I knew nothing about 
that, but I think it's a wonderful idea to ensure the safety of 
students.
    Now, as to Bridges, I can only speak anecdotally and from 
secondhand reports, that actually the school is described as 
quite good, and that parents seem very satisfied with the 
school and the progress of their students at the school.
    Senator Durbin. So, do you have reports for each of these 
schools, that are available for public inspection?
    Mr. Cork. We do have reports on each of the schools, we 
share with the Department of Education on a regular basis 
actually, yes.
    Senator Durbin. Are they available for public inspection?
    Mr. Cork. I--yeah, we'd--we're happy to make them available 
to you, and anybody else who wants to see them, certainly.
    Senator Durbin. So, the next one I want to show you is the 
Academy for Ideal Education. This was one of the schools 
highlighted in the 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report for operating without a certificate of occupancy, so 
there was a question about safety. On this one because of 
Marianne's photographic skills, we show one entrance to this 
school. I can't tell you how much Federal funding this school 
receives each year through the vouchers, because the school has 
not disclosed that. They haven't responded to us. Can you tell 
us how many voucher students are in the Academy for Ideal 
Education?
    Mr. Cork. Senator, I don't have that information directly 
before me. I--it is a participating school, I know that. I'd be 
happy to provide the specific number.
    [The information follows:]

      WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP FUND--DC OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND
                        [As of October 14, 2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Students
                                                             placed in
                  Participating school                      schools for
                                                           the 2009-2010
                                                            school year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academia de La Recta Porta..............................              30
Annunciation School.....................................              15
Archbishop Carroll High School..........................             125
Beauvoir--The National Cathedral Elementary School......               1
Blessed Sacrament Elementary School.....................               5
Bridges Academy.........................................              75
Calvary Christian Academy...............................             105
Clara Muhammad School...................................              14
Cornerstone School......................................              47
Dupont Park Seventh Day Adventist School................              78
Edmund Burke School.....................................               3
Emerson Preparatory School..............................               5
Episcopal Center for Children...........................               1
Georgetown Day School...................................               2
Georgetown Visitation School............................               5
Gonzaga College High School.............................               4
Holy Redeemer Catholic School...........................              60
Holy Trinity School.....................................               7
Kingsbury Day School of Kingsbury Center, Inc...........               2
Kuumba Learning Center (MLK Campus).....................               8
Metropolitan Day School.................................              32
Monroe School...........................................               1
Muhammad University of Islam............................              13
Nannie Helen Burroughs School...........................              41
National Cathedral School...............................               1
National Presbyterian School............................               1
Naylor Road School......................................              86
New Macedonia Christian Academy.........................               2
Our Lady of Victory School..............................              19
Preparatory School of DC................................              16
Roots Activity Learning Center..........................              22
Sacred Heart School.....................................              80
San Miguel Middle School................................               6
Sheridan School.........................................               1
Sidwell Friends School..................................               2
St. Ann's Academy.......................................              48
St. Anselm's Abbey School...............................               3
St. Anthony Catholic School.............................              51
St. Augustine School....................................              99
St. Francis Xavier Academy..............................              72
St. John's College High School..........................              10
St. Peter's Interparish School..........................               9
St. Thomas More Catholic School.........................              94
Washington Jesuit Academy...............................              10
Washington Middle School For Girls (ARC)................               8
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           1,319
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Durbin. Now--but, keep in mind, after we added up 
all those voluntarily disclosed students there's a shortage of 
384 students, about $3 million worth of voucher students, 
unaccounted for, in all of the schools that self-reported. So, 
of the five schools failing to report, including the Academy 
for Ideal Education, we're looking for 384 students that we 
sent you money for. So, there are some accountability questions 
here.
    Mr. Cork. We have a very comprehensive, very detailed 
database that keeps close track, student by student, family by 
family, of everyone participating in the program. We're happy 
to provide you with detailed information about all of the 
students.
    Senator Durbin. Without disclosing their identities, we 
want to see that.
    Mr. Cork. Absolutely, Senator, we're happy to give you 
that.
    [The information follows:]

  D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND--STUDENTS PLACED IN SCHOOLS FOR THE
                          2009-2010 SCHOOL YEAR
                        [As of October 14, 2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of OSP
    Participating school and grades of 2009-2010 OSP         students
                        students                              placed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academia de La Recta Porta..............................              30
    4th Grade...........................................               2
    5th Grade...........................................               4
    6th Grade...........................................               2
    7th Grade...........................................               3
    8th Grade...........................................               4
    9th Grade...........................................               5
    10th Grade..........................................               4
    11th Grade..........................................               5
    12th Grade..........................................               1
Annunciation School.....................................              15
    1st Grade...........................................               2
    2nd Grade...........................................               2
    3rd Grade...........................................               1
    4th Grade...........................................               4
    5th Grade...........................................               2
    6th Grade...........................................               2
    8th Grade...........................................               2
Archbishop Carroll High School..........................             125
    9th Grade...........................................              35
    10th Grade..........................................              36
    11th Grade..........................................              24
    12th Grade..........................................              30
Beauvoir--The National Cathedral Elementary School......               1
    2nd Grade...........................................               1
Blessed Sacrament Elementary School.....................               5
    5th Grade...........................................               1
    6th Grade...........................................               1
    7th Grade...........................................               2
    8th Grade...........................................               1
Bridges Academy.........................................              75
    Kindergarten........................................               1
    1st Grade...........................................               8
    2nd Grade...........................................              11
    3rd Grade...........................................              10
    4th Grade...........................................               9
    5th Grade...........................................              10
    6th Grade...........................................              10
    7th Grade...........................................               7
    8th Grade...........................................               9
Calvary Christian Academy...............................             105
    1st Grade...........................................               7
    2nd Grade...........................................              14
    3rd Grade...........................................              14
    4th Grade...........................................               8
    5th Grade...........................................              16
    6th Grade...........................................              16
    7th Grade...........................................              14
    8th Grade...........................................              16
Clara Muhammad School...................................              14
    1st Grade...........................................               1
    2nd Grade...........................................               2
    3rd Grade...........................................               4
    4th Grade...........................................               4
    5th Grade...........................................               3
Cornerstone School......................................              47
    1st Grade...........................................               2
    2nd Grade...........................................               5
    3rd Grade...........................................               2
    4th Grade...........................................               6
    5th Grade...........................................              10
    6th Grade...........................................               8
    7th Grade...........................................               5
    8th Grade...........................................               9
Dupont Park Seventh Day Adventist.......................              78
    Kindergarten........................................               1
    1st Grade...........................................               7
    2nd Grade...........................................               8
    3rd Grade...........................................               4
    4th Grade...........................................               5
    5th Grade...........................................              12
    6th Grade...........................................               6
    7th Grade...........................................              12
    8th Grade...........................................              10
    9th Grade...........................................              12
    10th Grade..........................................               1
Edmund Burke School.....................................               3
    8th Grade...........................................               1
    9th Grade...........................................               1
    11th Grade..........................................               1
Emerson Preparatory School..............................               5
    9th Grade...........................................               4
    11th Grade..........................................               1
Episcopal Center for Children...........................               1
    4th Grade...........................................               1
Georgetown Day School...................................               2
    9th Grade...........................................               1
    12th Grade..........................................               1
Georgetown Visitation School............................               5
    9th Grade...........................................               2
    11th Grade..........................................               2
    12th Grade..........................................               1
Gonzaga College High School.............................               4
    9th Grade...........................................               1
    10th Grade..........................................               1
    11th Grade..........................................               1
    12th Grade..........................................               1
Holy Redeemer Catholic School...........................              60
    1st Grade...........................................               5
    2nd Grade...........................................               7
    3rd Grade...........................................              13
    4th Grade...........................................              10
    5th Grade...........................................               6
    6th Grade...........................................               7
    7th Grade...........................................               7
    8th Grade...........................................               5
Holy Trinity School.....................................               7
    2nd Grade...........................................               1
    4th Grade...........................................               2
    7th Grade...........................................               2
    8th Grade...........................................               2
Kingsbury Day School of Kingsbury Center, Inc...........               2
    3rd Grade...........................................               1
    10th Grade..........................................               1
Kuumba Learning Center (MLK Campus).....................               8
    3rd Grade...........................................               1
    4th Grade...........................................               2
    5th Grade...........................................               2
    6th Grade...........................................               3
Metropolitan Day School.................................              32
    Kindergarten........................................               1
    1st Grade...........................................               4
    2nd Grade...........................................               6
    3rd Grade...........................................               7
    4th Grade...........................................               9
    5th Grade...........................................               5
Monroe School...........................................               1
    7th Grade...........................................               1
Muhammad University of Islam............................              13
    3rd Grade...........................................               1
    5th Grade...........................................               2
    6th Grade...........................................               5
    7th Grade...........................................               1
    8th Grade...........................................               4
Nannie Helen Burroughs School...........................              41
    1st Grade...........................................               3
    2nd Grade...........................................               6
    3rd Grade...........................................               7
    4th Grade...........................................               6
    5th Grade...........................................              10
    6th Grade...........................................               9
National Cathedral School...............................               1
    5th Grade...........................................               1
National Presbyterian School............................               1
    6th Grade...........................................               1
Naylor Road School......................................              86
    1st Grade...........................................               9
    2nd Grade...........................................              11
    3rd Grade...........................................              13
    4th Grade...........................................              14
    5th Grade...........................................              10
    6th Grade...........................................              11
    7th Grade...........................................              11
    8th Grade...........................................               7
New Macedonia Christian Academy.........................               2
    2nd Grade...........................................               2
Our Lady of Victory School..............................              19
    1st Grade...........................................               1
    3rd Grade...........................................               1
    4th Grade...........................................               4
    5th Grade...........................................               4
    6th Grade...........................................               1
    7th Grade...........................................               3
    8th Grade...........................................               5
Preparatory School of DC................................              16
    2nd Grade...........................................               1
    3rd Grade...........................................               4
    4th Grade...........................................               2
    5th Grade...........................................               1
    7th Grade...........................................               1
    8th Grade...........................................               1
    9th Grade...........................................               6
Roots Activity Learning Center..........................              22
    2nd Grade...........................................               4
    3rd Grade...........................................               5
    4th Grade...........................................               3
    5th Grade...........................................               2
    6th Grade...........................................               1
    7th Grade...........................................               3
    8th Grade...........................................               4
Sacred Heart School.....................................              80
    Kindergarten........................................               3
    1st Grade...........................................               9
    2nd Grade...........................................               9
    3rd Grade...........................................              11
    4th Grade...........................................               9
    5th Grade...........................................              15
    6th Grade...........................................              12
    7th Grade...........................................               6
    8th Grade...........................................               6
San Miguel Middle School................................               6
    6th Grade...........................................               2
    7th Grade...........................................               2
    8th Grade...........................................               2
Sheridan School.........................................               1
    5th Grade...........................................               1
Sidwell Friends School..................................               2
    10th Grade..........................................               1
    11th Grade..........................................               1
St. Ann's Academy.......................................              48
    1st Grade...........................................               5
    2nd Grade...........................................               3
    3rd Grade...........................................               5
    4th Grade...........................................               6
    5th Grade...........................................               9
    6th Grade...........................................              10
    7th Grade...........................................               7
    8th Grade...........................................               3
St. Anselm's Abbey School...............................               3
    8th Grade...........................................               1
    10th Grade..........................................               1
    12th Grade..........................................               1
St. Anthony Catholic School.............................              51
    1st Grade...........................................               7
    2nd Grade...........................................               4
    3rd Grade...........................................              13
    4th Grade...........................................               6
    5th Grade...........................................               5
    6th Grade...........................................               5
    7th Grade...........................................               4
    8th Grade...........................................               7
St. Augustine School....................................              99
    1st Grade...........................................               6
    2nd Grade...........................................               8
    3rd Grade...........................................              14
    4th Grade...........................................              13
    5th Grade...........................................              16
    6th Grade...........................................              16
    7th Grade...........................................              13
    8th Grade...........................................              13
St. Francis Xavier Academy..............................              72
    Kindergarten........................................               2
    1st Grade...........................................               4
    2nd Grade...........................................              10
    3rd Grade...........................................               9
    4th Grade...........................................               7
    5th Grade...........................................               8
    6th Grade...........................................              11
    7th Grade...........................................              13
    8th Grade...........................................               8
St. John's College High School..........................              10
    9th Grade...........................................               2
    10th Grade..........................................               2
    11th Grade..........................................               4
    12th Grade..........................................               2
St. Peter's Interparish School..........................               9
    1st Grade...........................................               1
    3rd Grade...........................................               2
    4th Grade...........................................               1
    5th Grade...........................................               3
    7th Grade...........................................               1
    8th Grade...........................................               1
St. Thomas More Catholic School.........................              94
    1st Grade...........................................              10
    2nd Grade...........................................              11
    3rd Grade...........................................              14
    4th Grade...........................................              10
    5th Grade...........................................              15
    6th Grade...........................................              11
    7th Grade...........................................              11
    8th Grade...........................................              12
Washington Jesuit Academy...............................              10
    6th Grade...........................................               3
    7th Grade...........................................               2
    8th Grade...........................................               5
Washington Middle School For Girls (ARC)................               8
    6th Grade...........................................               3
    7th Grade...........................................               1
    8th Grade...........................................               4
                                                         ---------------
      Total Students Placed.............................           1,319
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Durbin. The last one I want to show you is the 
Kuumba Learning Center, which is in a townhouse. They did not 
respond to our request for information. They report 10 of their 
40 students receive vouchers, which means about $75,000 a year, 
and they don't have a Web site. Have you visited this school?
    Mr. Cork. Senator, no, I have not personally visited that 
school.
    Senator Durbin. Has your staff inspected this school?
    Mr. Cork. I--by memory--yes, I'm informed that, yes, staff 
have visited that school.
    Senator Durbin. I just think you need to provide better 
access to information. The voucher programs around the United 
States, some of them, have open Web sites, which provide this 
information about the performance. We have this information on 
the charter schools. I mean, and why there would be an 
exception created for voucher schools, I don't know.
    Now, let me quickly add, in defense of--the Washington 
Archdiocesan schools made complete disclosure. They gave us 
exactly what we wanted, in detail. So, we have a good idea, 
going in, what they're doing. And there are other learning 
schools that--in your program that couldn't cooperate--we 
couldn't ask for any better cooperation. But, there is a 
quadrant, or--I shouldn't say ``quadrant''--a cadre of these 
voucher schools really are going unaccounted for, and there are 
students missing in this program. About $3 to $4 million worth 
of students missing in the accountability for this program. 
That is unacceptable, that 20 percent of the amount of money we 
send to you we can't link up with actual students. As Senator 
Collins said, how could I, in good conscience, ask for more 
money to be sent to your program without that kind of detailed 
information?
    Mr. Cork. Senator, we can and will account for every dollar 
of Federal funds provided for the program.
    Also, we--I agree about the Archdiocese, and the only 
concern we have is about the confidentiality and the protection 
of our students. Otherwise, we will share whatever information 
the subcommittee requests.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I noticed that Senator 
Lieberman was here briefly, and I'm willing to forgo my 
questions if he intends to testify for us.
    Senator Durbin. I saw him there. I'm sorry. He's a senior 
member. I'd better be more sensitive to those things.
    Senator Collins. I will just ask a couple of more 
questions, then.

                        DCPS TRI-SECTOR APPROACH

    Chancellor, how important is the three-pronged approach to 
improving education in the District to the budget of the 
District? If it were to be terminated, or if one part of it 
were to be terminated, whether it's the D.C. opportunity 
scholarships or the charter schools, what would be the impact 
on D.C.'s budget?
    Ms. Rhee. Well, I certainly think that if any one sector of 
the tri-sector--or the current tri-sector approach were to 
suddenly disappear, that we would be able to provide, you know, 
capacity to take additional students on. Clearly, on the 
charter school side, we'd have a little more difficulty with 
that. But, we certainly have enough school buildings, et 
cetera. I do--I can't attest to the total impact that it would 
have financially, but the money for the charter schools, all 
the per-pupil expenditures do flow directly through the city, 
so the budget wouldn't really change dramatically----
    Senator Collins. Well, except D.C. would have to come up 
with the money.
    Ms. Rhee. D.C. already----
    Senator Collins. This is millions of----
    Ms. Rhee. D.C. already----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Of dollars. No, but it's----
    Ms. Rhee. The charter----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Federal money that you are 
spending now.
    Ms. Rhee. Oh, I'm sorry. If--you were saying if the Federal 
money----
    Senator Collins. Exactly.
    Ms. Rhee [continuing]. Disappeared.
    Senator Collins. That's correct.
    Ms. Rhee. Well, I think that--well, certainly, speaking 
from our vantage point, if we were to stop receiving the 
Federal funds, I do think that it would have a pretty 
significant impact on our ability to move forward with the 
reforms as aggressively as we have been over the last 2 years.
    Senator Collins. Ms. Baker, talk to us more about the level 
of interest in charter schools in the District. Do you have the 
capacity to accommodate all of the students that would like to 
attend charter schools in the city?
    Ms. Baker. I would say that there is a capacity. But, of 
course, because it is a program of choice, parents often have a 
particular school that they would prefer to enroll a child. If 
that school is oversubscribed then, of course, they are not 
going to be able to get into that school. Sometimes they will 
make a second choice.
    So, there is--there are seats, yes. Whether or not parents 
are, again, interested in going to where those seats do occur 
is, of course--could be, indeed, an issue. But, in the process, 
I think that, because of the accountability systems that we do 
have, and the upgrade of that system, parents are going to find 
that there are going to be more and more schools that maybe get 
less press, but nevertheless are providing substantial 
educational opportunities for children. And we are trying to 
make sure that we get that kind of information out to the 
general parent public.
    Senator Collins. What percentage of the District 
schoolchildren are now enrolled in charter schools?
    Ms. Baker. We do not have our final count for this year, 
but it's anticipated that it will be about 38 percent.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Alexander.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            CHARTER SCHOOLS

    Mr. Cork, I think I asked you earlier, do you know how--
well, let me ask this question of any member of the panel.
    There is an accreditation process for elementary and 
secondary schools, correct?
    Ms. Baker. There is for charters. The law requires that----
    Senator Alexander. For public schools. But for independent 
schools. I mean, Sidwell Friends, or a school like that, or a 
Catholic school, there is an accreditation process----
    Ms. Baker. I don't know. I can't speak----
    Ms. Rhee. Not a----
    Senator Alexander. Is there not?
    Ms. Rhee. Not a D.C. specific one. Independent----
    Senator Alexander. But, generally speaking----
    Ms. Rhee. Independent schools can be accredited through 
national----
    Senator Alexander. If they choose----
    Ms. Rhee. Yeah.
    Senator Alexander. If they choose to.
    Ms. Rhee. Yes.
    Ms. Baker. But the charter schools are required to become 
accredited, and there is no--in the law, there is no time 
given, so we have sort of created that.
    Senator Alexander. And by--accredited by whom?
    Ms. Baker. There's a list of organizations that is in the 
law, and then, if there are additional organizations that come 
forward, then we investigate whether or not they meet the 
criteria for----
    Senator Alexander. So, you can go to national accrediting 
associations and use some of those to determine whether the----
    Ms. Baker. Well, the school does this. The school does 
this----
    Senator Alexander. The school may do this.
    Ms. Baker. The school will do it. And they--we do inquire--
or, we keep tabs on who has begun the accreditation process, 
because it does take 2 to 3 years. They cannot--no 
accreditation organization will even begin the process until 
the school has been in----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Ms. Baker [continuing]. Existence 3 years.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Now, we--Mr. Cork, do we not know whether any of these 59 
independent or private schools are accredited or not?
    Mr. Cork. Well, Senator Alexander, I believe that, on the 
oversight and quality-of-schools issue, the Federal statute 
that authorizes the OSP requires us to put in place a 
comprehensive oversight system. And we do have one.
    We have a school agreement, with each school, that requires 
the school to provide certain information to parents, as 
specified in the authorizing statute. At the end of each year, 
the school is required to provide reports to each parent about 
the school's compliance with those requirements, as outlined in 
the statute. We do make school visits regularly and 
comprehensively, with----
    Senator Alexander. So, you do your own accrediting.
    Mr. Cork. I can't call it an ``accreditation'' process----
    Senator Alexander. Well, I mean, you decide whether a 
school is a storefront or an attic or a school.
    Mr. Cork. Well, Senator, I'm informed, for example, that 
each of the Archdiocese schools is accredited by the----
    Senator Alexander. That's what I would think.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. The Middle States accrediting body.
    Senator Alexander. So, how many of the 59 are Archdiocese 
schools?
    Mr. Cork. I'd have to provide you that information.
    Senator Alexander. Ten, 20, 30?
    Mr. Cork. Oh, I'm sorry, participating through the 
Archdiocese?
    Senator Alexander. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Cork. Twenty.
    Senator Alexander. Twenty. About one-half the students.
    Mr. Cork. And I should----
    Senator Alexander. About one-half the students are maybe 
going to 20 Archdiocese schools that are accredited by some 
accrediting institution.
    Mr. Cork. The Archdiocese has a very heavy concentration of 
students----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. So, yes, they're going to the 
accredited----
    Senator Alexander. Well, is--I mean, what I'm getting at--
let me go over to Ms. Rhee.

                        DCPS TRI-SECTOR APPROACH

    Ms.--as I hear you, Ms. Rhee, you're saying that, for the 
next few years, you support the three-pronged approach, here, 
to help children have educational choices, the extra support 
for the schools that you're directly--supervise; the charter 
schools and the voucher program? Do I--did I hear that 
correctly?
    Ms. Rhee. Yes, I--both the Mayor and I both support the 
continuation of the tri-sector approach, but we do also believe 
that accountability is necessary----
    Senator Alexander. Right.
    Ms. Rhee [continuing]. For all three sectors, which means 
that we do believe that the private schools that are receiving 
Federal dollars through the vouchers should be held to a 
certain standard, in terms of levels of student achievement.
    Senator Alexander. And, in your view, that would be the 
same test that your students take?
    Ms. Rhee. I think that's one measure that we should look 
at.
    Senator Alexander. What would other measures be?
    Ms. Rhee. Well, I think--I absolutely am aligned with 
Senator Durbin on this one, that basic safety has to be taken 
into account, that we should be looking at student growth, and 
that we should also be looking at teacher quality.
    Senator Alexander. Uh-huh. Well, I'm trying to align myself 
with Senator Durbin, too, so that he'll put more money in for 
the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
    I want to make sure that, say, for the next 5 years--and I 
agree that in--you know, in life I've learned to look ahead 3 
or 5 years, instead of----
    Ms Rhee: That's right.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. 15 or 20, and then we can 
look--you know, after 3 or 5 years, we can see where we are, 
and what----
    Ms. Rhee. That's absolutely--and that's----

                    OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Kind of form we might be. 
So, a more accountable--well, the proper accountability for the 
independent or private schools that D.C. opportunity 
scholarship students choose to attend would be important, in 
your view, for the next 3 to 5 years.
    Ms. Rhee. Absolutely. And I've been very clear, with the 
opportunity scholarship advocates, on the fact that I think 
that, you know, 5 years from now, we will potentially be in a 
very, very different place as a school district.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Ms. Rhee. I will be in a different position to offer these 
families better options. And so, I'm looking at it in the 
shorter term.
    Senator Alexander. Well, would--I would like to invite you 
to suggest--if you think of other measures of accountability 
that the independent or private schools ought to have in order 
to receive D.C. opportunity scholarship students for the next 5 
years, I would appreciate having that. And one of my own 
thoughts is--I'd like to know, Mr. Cork--and maybe I can just 
get this from the Web site myself--but what measures of 
accountability, other than your own investigations, these 59 
schools have. For example, if the schools--if the Catholic 
schools are accredited by some accrediting institutions, it 
would be helpful to know that. If the other schools are not, or 
are, be helpful to know whether they are, and why they are, or 
why they are not.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cork. I was going to say, but we have a great 
partnership with the Archdiocese, we'll be happy to provide you 
further information about what constitutes accreditation.
    [The information follows:]

                                                                       ATTACHMENT A--D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
                                                                 [Acceditation of participating schools (2009-2010 school year)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Middle States Association \1\             Assoc of                        Assoc of          Intl.      National Assoc
   2009-2010 OSP participating   ------------------------------------------------    Christian     General Conf     Independent      Christian        for the     NativityMiguel      Special
             schools                                                               Schools Intl   of Seventh-Day    Schools of      Accrediting    Education of     Network of       Education
                                        CES             CSS            CIWA             \2\        Adventist \2\     Maryland          Assoc      Young Children      Schools
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academia De La Recta Porta Intl.  ..............  ..............  ..............    In Progress   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 Christian Day School...........
Adventureland School............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............
Annunciation Catholic School....           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Archbishop Carroll High School..  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Beauvoir--National Cathedral               ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 Elementary School..............
The Bishop John T. Walker School  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 for Boys.......................
Blessed Sacrament School........           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
The Bridges Academy.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Calvary Christian Academy.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............
Capitol Hill Day School.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Clara Muhammad School...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Cornerstone School..............  ..............  ..............  ..............    In Progress   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Dupont Park Adventist School....                             ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Edmund Burke School.............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Emerson Preparatory School......  ..............    In Progress   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
The Episcopal Center for          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             TJC \3\
 Children.......................
Georgetown Day School...........                             ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Georgetown Visitation             ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 Preparatory School.............
Gonzaga College High School.....  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Holy Redeemer Catholic School...           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Holy Trinity School.............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Howard University Early Learning  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............
 Programs.......................
Kingsbury Day School............                             ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Kuumba Learning Center..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............
Little Flower Montesorri School.  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Lowell School...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Metropolitan Day School.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
The Monroe School...............  ..............    In Progress   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Muhammad University of Islam....  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Nannie Helen Burroughs School...           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
National Cathedral School.......                             ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
National Presbyterian School....           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Naylor Road School..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
The New Macedonia Christian       ..............  ..............  ..............    In Progress   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 Academy........................
Our Lady of Victory School......           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Preparatory School of D.C.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Randall Hyland Private School of  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............
 DC.............................
Roots Activity Learning Center..           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............
Sacred Heart School.............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
San Miguel School...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............
Sheridan School.................           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Sidwell Friends School..........                             ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Albans School...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Ann's Academy...............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Anselm's Abbey School.......  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Anthony School..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Augustine School............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Francis Xavier Academy......           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. John's College High School..  ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Peter's Interparish School..           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
St. Thomas More Academy.........           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Washington International School.           ..............           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Washington Jesuit Academy.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............  ..............           ..............
Washington Middle School for      ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           ..............
 Girls..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Each of Middle States' three commissions/committees has its own governing body.
\2\ Recognized by the National Council for Private School Accreditation, a national organization which serves as an accrediting agency for local accrediting programs.
\3\ The Joint Commission (TJC) accredits organizations that provide treatment for persons with developmental disabilities; The Monroe School has met DC qualifications for providing SES
  services.


                                                                       ATTACHMENT B--D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
                                                                 [Published enrollment benchmarks: 2004-2005 through 2008-2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2008-2009                   2007-2008                   2006-2007                   2005-2006                   2004-2005
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Participating schools                   September       June        September       June        September       June        September       June        September       June
                                                       placements    enrollment    placements    enrollment    placements    enrollment    placements    enrollment    placements    enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-T Seban Mesut.....................................  ............  ............  ............  ............             1  ............             1             1             1             1
Academia De La Recta Porta Intl. Christian Day                  28            24            27            29            27            19            22            18            15            13
 School.............................................
Academy for Ideal Education.........................            84            66            71            64            79            76            89            92            46            47
Adventureland School................................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Aidan Montessori School.............................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............             2             2
Ambassador Baptist Church Christian  School.........            57            49            61            56            36            31            16            16  ............  ............
Anacostia Bible Church School.......................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............            10            10            26            17
Annunciation Catholic School........................            22            20            21            19            22            17            25            25            12            15
Archbishop Carroll High School......................           141           135           101           103            78            71            57            57            31            28
Assumption Catholic School..........................  ............  ............            65            60            54            53            60            57            41            38
Beauvoir--National Cathedral Elementary School......             1             1             1             2             1             1             1             1  ............  ............
Blessed Sacrament School............................             4             4             3             3             3             3             2             2             2             2
The Bridges Academy.................................            94            92            64            63            79            77            72            72            48            46
Calvary Christian Academy...........................           128           121           103           101            71            64            51            52             2             2
The Children's House of Washington..................  ............  ............  ............  ............             2             2  ............  ............             1             1
Clara Muhammad School...............................            20            21            12            11            15            13            23            21            12            12
Coeus International School..........................  ............  ............            43            35            42            35  ............  ............  ............  ............
Cornerstone Beulah Christian Academy................            11            11            11             8            15            12             9             8  ............  ............
Cornerstone Community School........................  ............  ............            31            25            34            26            26            26            34            34
Cornerstone Mt. Carmel Christian Academy............            37            31  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Dupont Park Adventist School........................            92            82            70            61            69            66            74            68            36            30
Edmund Burke School.................................             5             4             3             2  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
First Rock Baptist Church Christian School..........  ............  ............            11            11            15            12            12            13             7             7
Georgetown Day School...............................             3             3             3             3             2             2             1             1  ............  ............
Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School............             3             4             6             6             4             4             3             3             2             2
Gonzaga College High School.........................             4             3             3             3             1             1  ............  ............             1             1
Holy Comforter--St. Cyprian School..................  ............  ............           115            92            51            50            60            52            35            32
Holy Name Catholic School...........................  ............  ............            55            48            44            46            39            41            24            24
Holy Redeemer Catholic School.......................            80            76            92            82            98            95            98            99            31            35
Holy Temple Christian Academy.......................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............            16            12            21            20
Holy Trinity School.................................             6             7             7             8             7             7             5             5             1             1
Howard University Early Learning Programs...........             1             1  ............  ............  ............  ............             1             1             1             1
Immaculate Conception School........................  ............  ............            47            49            46            41            30            30            15            15
Kingsbury Day School................................  ............             1  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Kuumba Learning Center..............................            14            14             8            11             8             9             3             3             1             1
Learning, Life, and Leadership Academy..............            13            14  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Little Flower Montessori School.....................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............             1             1  ............  ............
Lowell School.......................................             1             1             1             1             2             2             2             2             3             3
Metropolitan Day School.............................            22            22            22            19            25            23            31            31            18            17
The Monroe School...................................             1             1  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Muhammad University of Islam........................             9             9             8             8             7             8             1             3  ............  ............
Nannie Helen Burroughs School.......................            54            56            38            38            45            47            46            49            24            24
National Cathedral School...........................             1             1  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
National Presbyterian School........................             3             3             3             3             2             2  ............  ............  ............  ............
Nativity Catholic Academy...........................  ............  ............            67            63            66            67            70            68            48            44
Naylor Road School..................................           101            96            83            78            84            78            72            63            39            35
New Creation Child Development Center...............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............             1             1
The New Macedonia Christian Academy.................             2             2  ............             1  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
Our Lady of Perpetual Help School...................  ............  ............  ............  ............            47            46            50            48            33            32
Our Lady of Victory School..........................            18            18            14            18            19            16            19            20             7             7
Preparatory School of DC............................            10            15            11            17            13            11            22            17            14            11
Randall Hyland Private School.......................             2             2             3             3             4             3             2             2             4             6
Rock Creek International............................  ............  ............  ............  ............            24            23            26            26            29            28
Roots Activity Learning Center......................            26            26            24            23            21            22            27            25            12            13
Sacred Heart School.................................            98            93            82            80            64            67            50            47            32            30
San Miguel School...................................             6             6            10            10            14            13            12            11             6             8
Sheridan School.....................................             1             1             3             3             3             3             2             2  ............  ............
Sidwell Friends School..............................             2             2             2             2             2             2             2             2             3             2
St. Albans School...................................  ............  ............             1             1             1             1             1             1  ............  ............
St. Ann's Academy...................................            62            61            48            46            36            35            31            30            20            18
St. Anselm's Abbey School...........................             3             3             1             1             1             1             1             1             1             1
St. Anthony School..................................            57            53            35            33            20            21            19            19             8             7
St. Augustine School................................           143           136           122           111           102            91            86            80            63            57
St. Benedict the Moor School........................  ............  ............  ............  ............            87            85           107           103            80            77
St. Francis De Sales Catholic School................  ............  ............            45            43            30            36            38            32            28            28
St. Francis Xavier Academy..........................            87            78            56            52            39            37            30            33            17            16
St. Gabriel Catholic School.........................  ............  ............            56            52            44            47            48            44            24            25
St. Johns College High School.......................            13            13            17            18            15            13             8             8             3             3
St. Peter's Interparish School......................            10            10             6             6             3             1             2             2  ............  ............
St. Thomas More Academy.............................           110           102            82            77            54            58            71            70            45            47
Tots Developmental School...........................  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............             1  ............  ............  ............
Washington International School.....................  ............  ............  ............             1  ............  ............             1             1  ............  ............
Washington Jesuit Academy...........................            12            10             9            10             2             3  ............  ............  ............  ............
Washington Middle School For Girls..................            14            14            20            19            16            15            13            12             3             4
Washington Science and Technology  Academy..........  ............  ............  ............  ............             6             8             8             9             5             7
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          1716          1618          1903          1792          1802          1718          1705          1648          1017           978
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Cork. We do have in place--I was--as I was saying, we 
have in place a whole set of accountability measures to ensure 
that these schools are operating legally in the District, and 
are financially responsible. And I'm happy to elaborate on that 
if you would like.
    Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I hope you would--I was 
trying to do such a good job in encouraging accountability that 
I forgot to say that the principal investigator of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program said that the D.C. voucher 
program has proven to be the most effective education policy 
evaluated by the Federal Government's official education 
research arm, so far. So that's a plus, and it's a feather in 
its cap.
    Senator Durbin. Unless my colleagues have any further 
questions of the Chancellor, she had a scheduling issue, and 
I'd like to allow her, if she wants, to leave. I do have a 
couple of other questions for those two other members.
    Ms. Baker, I just don't want to let you off the hook this 
easily.
    Chancellor Rhee, thank you for being with us today.
    Ms. Rhee. Absolutely. Anything else that you need from me?
    Senator Durbin. We'll be back probably with some written 
questions.
    Ms. Rhee. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin. And so, Ms. Baker, I just got a report from 
my staff that your charter school board has closed 10 schools 
over the last 6 years.
    Ms. Baker. Right. Ten of them, yes, and--when we look at 
the list----
    Senator Durbin. Six were for financial reasons; four, for 
academic reasons.
    Ms. Baker. I'm sorry, six were for financial--yes, among 
other----
    Senator Durbin. Yes. At the bottom of the page, here, I 
think----
    Ms. Baker. Yes. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. In this part of your testimony.
    And so, Mr. Cork, how many voucher schools have you closed 
over the last 5 years?
    Mr. Cork. We haven't closed the schools ourselves, of 
course. We have prohibited Federal funds from being expended on 
at least one school, as I recall.
    Senator Durbin. One school?
    Mr. Cork. This--as I was saying a moment ago, we have in 
place a school oversight process, under which we delineate 
triggers that raise our concerns about the school's financial 
responsibility. And when those are--when those triggers occur, 
we look into the school's financial situation, and, one case at 
least, have been--have been forced to tell a school that they 
could not participate further in the program.
    Senator Durbin. As you described it, the oversight of these 
voucher schools is basically by your agency, as I understand 
it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cork. It's--no. We have an oversight--we participate in 
an oversight process that includes, primarily, for example, the 
issuance, by the District of Columbia, of certificates of 
occupancy (COO). We've worked very closely with the Department 
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in sharing information that 
leads to the issuance of COOs. We rely on the District to let 
us know whether certificates of occupancy have been legally 
issued. And we----
    Senator Durbin. So, this one school that we had here that 
failed to provide a certificate of occupancy in 2007, what 
happened? You let it continue to operate?
    Mr. Cork. I--this might be the school, as I recall, that 
actually had a certificate of occupancy; the GAO said it did 
not, and we were able to provide it for them later on.
    I think that, in some instances, it was simply a matter of 
clerical recordkeeping. But, again, I do want to assure the 
subcommittee that no Federal dollars will be permitted to go to 
schools that do not have certificates of occupancy.
    Senator Durbin. Now, let's go to the next level, which is 
more complex, and that is whether they are academically 
performing as we might expect them to. And four out of the D.C. 
public charter schools have been closed because they didn't 
meet the academic criteria.
    So, in the last 5 or 6 years of this program, from what 
you've said, none of the schools participating in the D.C. 
voucher program were suspended from the program for academic 
reasons.
    Mr. Cork. It's--we don't make determinations about policy 
around education. We permit parents full--to have access to 
full information about the schools available to them, 
participating in the program.
    Senator Durbin. And what would that full information 
include?
    Mr. Cork. It--we have a school--a participating school 
directory that provides information about location--often, for 
example, proximity to the family's home will determine part of 
the----
    Senator Durbin. I'm trying to get to the educational aspect 
of this. I understand that--location and safety of the 
building. I'm trying to move it to the next level.
    Mr. Cork. Okay.
    Senator Durbin. What do you tell a parent about, for 
example, the Kuumba Learning Center? Do they know in advance 
that your agency has reviewed whether or not this is a good 
academic institution? Do they have----
    Mr. Cork. The first thing we do is, we very much encourage 
parents who are making educational choices to go visit the 
school themselves, and investigate precisely what the school's 
mission is, how it operates, who the teachers are, who the 
leadership is. And I should say, in many, many cases the 
parents take that opportunity themselves. It's been actually 
quite gratifying to see parents become more educated----
    Senator Durbin. This is all well and good, but I'm trying 
to get to the point where--for example, if--in the public 
school sector, I have a grandson who lives up in Montgomery 
County. He's headed for high school next year. His grandfather 
just went to the Web site, on the Montgomery County schools, 
and looked at test scores. And I'm, you know, naturally, giving 
his father all the advice he'd ever want about what he should 
do with my grandson.
    But, what I'm trying to get to is, since we are sending you 
millions of dollars in Federal funds, what rigors, what 
standards, are you setting for academic performance, for the 
schools that participate in the program?
    Mr. Cork. I--first, I should say, the evaluation, which is 
a very rigorous one, has--is the chief mechanism through which 
our students' academic process be engaged. We couldn't be more 
supportive of that. We're all about results and accountability. 
We agree that the academic progress of these students is 
critical as to whether or not this program should even be here. 
I'm happy to say that, actually. We saw the evaluation as 
indicating that there really are substantial academic gains 
taking place.
    As to determining what academic standards should be 
implemented by schools, we are not in a position to do that. 
And, in fact, the statute makes it clear that that is none of 
our business, as the administrators of the program----
    Senator Durbin. And so----
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. To set academic policy for 
participating schools.
    Senator Durbin. I think you've made your position clear, 
and I won't dwell on it, other than tell you that we are now 
living in a world of accountability, under No Child Left 
Behind--and it's controversial--but, we are being told it'll be 
a different standard when it comes to voucher schools. And I 
think that that really is something we ought to question. 
Either we are being too tough on public schools, too tough on 
charter schools, and you're right, or, frankly, they're right, 
and we're not doing a good enough job to determine which 
schools are good and which aren't. I mean, to take the average 
test scores of the voucher schools is not fair. There are some 
schools, I'm sure, that are doing much better than others. And 
to deal with these average test scores doesn't tell us whether 
or not the Federal investment in voucher program is being well 
spent. We just don't know.
    Mr. Cork. I have great faith in the evaluators' 
methodology. But, again, I would defer to them in 
determinations about whether these--there's academic progress.
    Senator Durbin. Can I ask one last question of Ms. Baker? I 
guess I can, because I'm the chairman. And what I found, in 
visiting charter schools in Chicago, was encouraging. There are 
good ones and bad ones. There are some very good ones, and not 
so good ones.
    But, what really troubled me was kind of the proprietary 
mindset. I said to them, ``Do you get together? Do the 
principals and teachers of charter schools come together to 
discuss results and best practices?'' And the answer was 
basically, ``No, not much. We kind of do our own thing.''
    So, do you have your charter schools come together to talk 
about why KIPP knocks the ball out of the park, and others 
don't? I mean are you working toward a best-practices model, 
here?
    Ms. Baker. We definitely are. And I think that, through the 
collaboration that we continue to foster--we left a meeting, 
this morning in our conference room, it will continue tomorrow 
with a different set of schools--we do this at least 
quarterly--there are other opportunities for schools to 
actually meet together, based on common needs, to talk about 
what's working for them, demonstrations of the things that are 
happening in the school that can be shared, and possibly--of 
course, KIPP is a model unto itself. It also has a support 
system that some charter schools don't have. And so, I think 
that there are other models that are independent, single-school 
models that share, who are very collaborative within their 
schools as well as outside of their schools.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Senator Collins? Senator Alexander. We're, incidentally, on 
a rollcall. And if--Senator Alexander, do you have a question? 
Are you finished?
    Senator Alexander. Well, I have----
    Senator Durbin. Former Secretary of Education, Senator 
Alexander?
    Senator Alexander. The only--did--I just want to--Ms. 
Baker, did you say that all the charter schools are accredited?
    Ms. Baker. I did not. I said that they must become 
accredited.
    Senator Alexander. Must become accredited.
    Ms. Baker [continuing]. Accredited. And they must do it--
they cannot begin the accreditation process until they have 
been open for at least 3 years.
    Senator Alexander. Right. So, the goal is that the children 
are attending accredited--
    Ms. Baker. Yes.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Not accredited by you, but 
by accredited association.
    Ms. Baker. Definitely.
    Senator Alexander. So, my question would be, Mr. Cork--and 
maybe, since we're toward a vote, you could answer it later--
then why shouldn't that also be true--if we're going to try to 
persuade Senator Durbin and others to--interested in 
accountability--to extend the program for 5 years, why 
shouldn't that also be true of schools that voucher students 
attend?
    Mr. Cork. We certainly will leave it to the legislature to 
determine whether accreditation is a requirement.
    Senator Durbin. Remember that.
    Thank you very much. I want to thank this panel.
    And I'm going to ask my colleagues if they want to go vote 
and come back. I will stick with this and try to elicit the 
testimony from some of the members of the panel.
    Well, this may get a little fractured. But, thank--Ms. 
Baker and Mr. Cork, thank you for your testimony. We may be 
sending you some written questions.
    And I'm going to invite the next panel up, and at least 
allow them to testify. And if we can--if we can't do a handoff, 
we may have to recess the subcommittee hearing. So, we'll try 
our best to do that.
    So, thank you both very much.
    Mr. Cork. Thank you very much.
    Senator Durbin. So, we're facing up to five votes on the 
floor, which is not good news for the next panel, but I do want 
to welcome them, nevertheless.
    Mary Levy's here. She's with the Washington Lawyers' 
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. Robert Cane is 
here, Friends of Choice in Urban Schools. Patricia Weitzel-
O'Neill is here, Superintendent of Schools for the Archdiocese 
of Washington. And Anthony Williams, Chairman and President of 
D.C. Children First.
    So, if you would each take your place at the table, I'm 
going to ask--
    Mayor Williams, welcome back.
    Ms. Levy, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARY LEVY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON 
            LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND 
            URBAN AFFAIRS
    Ms. Levy. Good morning. I--is it now on? Thank you.
    The statement I'm giving is not from the Washington 
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. My project was eliminated, 
due to lack of funding, so it is a personal statement.
    I am here because I have studied the D.C. public schools 
for 30 years as an education finance lawyer and as a parent 
whose children went through the system. I have worked on 
formulating and monitoring most of the major legislation and 
the reform plans that have been put in place over the last 20 
years.
    In response to your invitation and the questions there, on 
the subject of the Federal payment for reforms, I have put, in 
my testimony, a table that shows the total amount, in the 
context of the total spending and enrollment of the D.C. public 
schools.
    I can tell you, from my study of the school system's 
documents, that the money was used for reforms, and good 
reforms, and that it enabled the school system to pursue those 
reforms without having to cut into allocations for the local 
schools. And for that, we are very grateful.
    In terms of student outcomes, it's too early to tell. We 
really only have 1 year. The first year of any new 
administration, they don't have a chance to put into place 
anything that would make much of a difference, other than 
intensive test preparation, and I--if the scores go down, they 
shouldn't be blamed; and if they go up, they don't get the 
credit. So, we only have that 1 year. And I think, at this 
point, what we have to look at is what they're doing.
    On that subject, the reforms since 2007 are a mix of 
enhancements and of elimination of most of what was going on in 
the system before. I have read the reports of the Government 
Accountability Office, and I agree with them. Their findings 
match my own observations and my judgment.
    There's a table, attached to my testimony, that goes reform 
by reform, and talks about progress and also cautions. That 
table is a work in progress as events evolve and as I learn 
more about what's going on, which is not always easy.
    The major activities and progress and cautions, I've put in 
my written testimony. I would cite that the GAO is right about 
the strategy of workforce replacement. I myself find this 
worrisome. I think that good people come in, but good people 
are also leaving, and this is unfortunate. It's been going on 
for 20 years, and that can be damaging.
    We've had substantial increases in the money available to 
the school system on a per-pupil basis. It's gone up by about 
25 percent over the last 5 years. A lot of the increase has 
gone into local schools, no question about that. But, it's very 
unevenly allocated. There are differences of thousands of 
dollars in per-pupil spending, from--among schools with similar 
populations.
    We have seen, in the terms of governance, the elimination 
of micromanagement, the elimination of divided authority, which 
really has been a problem. But, we've also eliminated almost 
all the checks and balances, and the only oversight comes from 
the D.C. Council, which is not really prepared or set up to do 
the kind of oversight that's necessary.
    I will close with my graphic, which is in the testimony, of 
the cycle of change. This is what's happened over 20 years of 
continuous motion, but ultimately we haven't seen progress. And 
it's the same chain of events every time, in the past, where we 
start with the new leader; he found such a terrible mess, 
nothing is right; there's a shakeup; most of what's old goes, 
including some of the good reforms; and then we get the glowing 
reports of progress. And that's where we are now. We're at the 
6 o'clock position.
    What has followed, in the past, has been implementation, 
lack of funding, poor management, disillusion, and it's time to 
get a new superintendent. This usually happens in 3 years. 
And--it's been a problem. I just pray that it's going to be 
different this time.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Mary M. Levy
    My testimony today is based on my experience as an education 
finance lawyer and my study of the District of Columbia Public Schools 
(DCPS) over a period of 30 years. During that time as an analyst and a 
DCPS parent, I have done annual analyses of budget, expenditures, and 
staffing; participated in drafting most of the major legislation and 
school reform plans for DCPS; studied and wrote reports on DCPS 
governance, demographics, policies, and educational outcomes; and 
served in local school PTAs and citywide parent organizations. In 
response to your letter of invitation to testify:
    The Use and Impact of the Special Federal Appropriations (``Federal 
Payment'').--Below is a table showing the amount of the Federal payment 
each year since fiscal year 2006 in the context of enrollment change 
and all other DCPS spending. According to DCPS documents, funds were 
used for reform initiatives such as principal training, early childhood 
education expansion, literacy improvement, and supplemental allocations 
to schools receiving students from school closings. This funding 
enabled pursuit of these and other reform initiatives, while 
maintaining or improving per student funding at local schools. We are 
very grateful for this.
    Progress To Improve Student Outcomes.--Outcomes such as test 
scores, attendance, dropout/graduation, and progress to work or post-
secondary education may ultimately be affected by all reforms actually 
instituted. However, we have only 1 full year of reforms actually 
implemented; it is too early to determine their effect, in addition to 
which the quality of the data needed is quite problematic. At this 
point we can only judge the progress and quality of the work so far 
done.
    Reforms Instituted or Planned Under the Fenty Administration.--
These activities are a mix of enhancements and strong measures to 
eliminate the status quo in DCPS, including some swings to opposite 
extremes and reversions to earlier policies discarded as ineffective. 
Almost everyone in the District agrees that dramatic change in DCPS is 
necessary, but there is strong disagreement on specifics and 
strategies, most of it in good faith. Swings to opposite extremes arise 
partly from a backlash to years of frustration with practices such as 
the protection of incompetent or abusive teachers, bureaucratic 
ineptitude and insensitivity, and fragmented authority with multiple 
veto points that impeded needed reform. Such reaction is completely 
understandable--but not necessarily a guide to effective reform that 
actually improves student outcomes.
    I have read and agree with the reports of the Government 
Accountability Office. The GAO findings on all subjects covered match 
my observations and experience.

                                                           DCPS OPERATING BUDGET: TOTAL FUNDS
                                                    [Data re-analyzed for year-to-year comparability]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year 2006  Fiscal year 2007  Fiscal year 2008                    Fiscal year 2010
                          Description                                actual            actual            actual       Fiscal year 2009   budget request
                                                                  expenditures      expenditures      expenditures     approved budget         act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local funds:
    Formula base per pupil....................................            $7,692            $8,002            $8,322            $8,770            $8,770
    DCPS Appropriation........................................      $561,162,811      $554,335,056      $583,177,010      $562,109,000      $510,881,000
Federal:
    Stimulus--State stability replacing local funds...........  ................  ................  ................  ................       $50,616,000
    Stimulus--IDEA,Title I....................................  ................  ................  ................  ................       $17,583,000
    Special Federal payment...................................       $11,728,185       $16,034,683       $17,056,411       $40,000,000       $42,200,000
    All other Federal grant funding fiscal year 2010 only.....      $126,297,515      $131,896,131      $111,672,727      $124,670,675      $120,506,000
Private grants................................................        $5,703,874        $8,216,280        $6,194,008        $3,784,000        $3,784,000
Fees, sales, reimbursements...................................        $3,450,251       $13,893,945        $6,072,339        $3,671,000        $4,005,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................      $708,342,636      $724,376,095      $724,172,495      $734,234,675      $749,575,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
LEA Functions Transferred Out of DCPS: Facilities maintenance        $30,167,905       $31,185,380       $36,880,556       $38,305,841       $32,822,339
 (OPEFM 2008).................................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL DCPS LEA..........................................      $738,510,541      $755,561,475      $761,053,051      $772,540,516      $782,397,339
                                                               =========================================================================================
             EXCLUDED FOR PURPOSE OF COMPARABILITY

D.C.-Wide Functions Transferred Out of DCPS:
    Non pub tuition, spec ed transport, att fees..............      $219,466,489      $223,424,903      $248,083,712      $238,860,319      $254,221,582
    SEA functions/pass throughs (OSSE 2008)...................       $32,856,580       $51,089,534           ( \1\ )           ( \1\ )           ( \1\ )
Federal grant carryover/advance (budget only) (estimate of re-  ................  ................  ................       $30,338,325       $30,000,000
 appropriation)...............................................
Audited enrollment............................................      Oct. 5, 2005      Oct. 6, 2006      Oct. 7, 2007      Oct. 5, 2008         Projected
    DCPS (excludes special ed tuition students)...............            55,298            52,645            49,422            45,190            44,681
Local+Stabilization Per Pupil DCPS LEA........................           $10,148           $10,530           $11,800           $12,439           $12,567
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Per Pupil DCPS LEA................................           $13,355           $14,352           $15,399           $17,095           $17,511
                                                               =========================================================================================
Increase in UPSFF base (percent)..............................  ................               4.0               4.0               5.4  ................
Increase in local per pupil (percent).........................  ................               3.8              12.1               5.4               1.0
Increase in total per pupil (percent).........................  ................               7.5               7.3              11.0               2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transferred. 
Sources: Fiscal years 2006-2009: D.C. congressional budget submissions; fiscal year 2010 final requested budget, September 2009.

    Attached to this testimony is a table summarizing activities, 
progress, and cautions line by line. The major results, in my view, 
are:
  --An increase in already high staff turnover at all levels, a 
        ``workforce replacement'' strategy that could bring good new 
        staff but could also drive away effective principals and 
        teachers;
  --Expansion of professional development, especially at the local 
        school level, and increasing attention to instructional 
        practice;
  --Limited progress in special education, so far not adequate to 
        satisfy court decrees, Department of Education strictures, and 
        having no impact on the enormous cost of private placements, 
        transportation and attorneys' fees;
  --Substantial per student funding increases, but unevenly allocated 
        to local schools;
  --A serious lack of timely and transparent budget information;
  --Major facilities improvements, but a problematic plan for future 
        work and continued under-funding of maintenance;
  --Elimination of micro-management and divided authority, but also of 
        checks and balances and non-observance of rules seen as 
        impeding progress; and
  --Shrinkage of input and influence of parents and community in key 
        decisions.
    Some of these changes are good and necessary, for example attention 
to effective instructional practices, replacement of ineffective 
principals, elimination of excess space, and major facilities 
improvements. Others, however, are unfortunate, for example, the 
dismissal or resignation of effective principals, ongoing instability 
at all levels of the workforce, and the shrinkage of parent and 
community input into important policy and budget decisions. And some 
are inadequate so far to the need, especially in special education.
    I close with a graphic of the repeated cycle of change--20 years of 
continuous ``reform'' of the D.C. public school system. These are 
cycles of motion but ultimately not progress, as frequent changes in 
leadership throw out effective past reforms instead of building on 
them. We have seen different actors, different sets, but the same movie 
with the same ending, over and over. We pray that it will be different 
this time.



      Attachment 1.--Analysis of Reform Efforts in DCPS 2007-2009
Background: Some Unique Circumstances in the District of Columbia
    State and city combined: no separate State control or oversight. 
Structurally, the District of Columbia has a State takeover.
    Congressional control: potential intervention.
    Charter schools: 60, on 96 campuses, compete with DCPS for 72,000 
total public education students.
    Serious ongoing enrollment decline: over 7 percent last year. 
Charter competition, gentrification, drop in births.
    Unusually weak civic capacity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Area                                      Activity                                             Progress                                             Cautions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student outcomes: tests, dropout/  All efforts combined...............................  Too early to tell..................................  Data quality still problematic
 graduation, truancy, college-
 going, satisfaction.
Academic framework...............  Standards..........................................  Largely done well, prior and current administration  ...................................................
                                   Aligned curriculum.................................  Pacing guides (only)...............................  Curriculum not yet done; staff recently replaced
                                   Professional development...........................  Major expansion, including reading and math coaches  School staff give mixed reviews to central PD
                                                                                         at all schools.
                                   Aligned tests......................................  D.C. CAS in place..................................  Test security (self-monitor)
                                   Test preparation...................................  Big expansion......................................  Limited educationally
Teachers/principals..............  Principal replacement (principals serve at-will)...  About 61 percent in 2 years........................  Annual average over years about 23 percent; no time
                                                                                                                                              to build quality; dismissals unrelated to
                                                                                                                                              evaluations; some good ones leaving
                                   Teacher recruitment................................  Many applicants, good credentials..................  Half of new teachers gone in 2 years; many under-
                                                                                                                                              prepared
                                   Teacher replacement (after 2 years, just cause       Many replaced......................................  Frequent reports of low morale; some good ones
                                    required).                                                                                                leaving. 27 percent of teachers have only 1-2
                                                                                                                                              years of experience
                                   Teacher evaluation (current system ineffective)....  New system under development.......................  ...................................................
Programs.........................  Early Childhood (D.C. long a national leader in      Continued expansion................................  Quality concerns: pupil/staff ratios; developmental
                                    availability).                                                                                            appropriateness
                                   General instructional improvements.................  Expansion of targeted instruction, professional      ...................................................
                                                                                         development.
                                   Special programs...................................  STEM, art integration, world cultures, IB planned    Schools chosen, but most not yet implemented
                                                                                         at selected schools.
                                   Middle school grades...............................  Replacement of some middle schools by preK-8         Lack of usual middle school course offerings,
                                                                                         schools.                                             guidance counselors
                                   High schools.......................................  Restructuring (NCLB)...............................  Course offerings thin
                                   Athletics (badly underfunded for years)............  New fields and facilities, substantially increased   ...................................................
                                                                                         funding.
Special education................  Reduce assessment backlog..........................  Substantial progress...............................  Large numbers of new referrals coming in
                                   Service improvements (seriously inadequate for       Attempted, outcomes unclear........................  Enormous cost of private placements, transportation
                                    decades).                                                                                                 and attorneys fees still rising
                                   Compliance with court decrees and Dept of Education  Limited............................................  Inadequate to satisfy requirements
                                    rules.
                                   Inclusion..........................................  Expanded efforts...................................  Too early to tell effects
Wrap-around (social) services....  Social workers, psychologists (apart from special    Substantial expansion..............................  ...................................................
                                    education).
                                   Integration of services from other city agencies...  Expansion, still increasing........................  Some loss of services to same families in health,
                                                                                                                                              housing, day care, due to city budget cuts
Management systems...............  Procurement........................................  Improved...........................................  ...................................................
                                   Personnel-payroll..................................  New PeopleSoft--no complaints heard................  ...................................................
                                   Information........................................  Little change apparent.............................  ...................................................
                                   Budget transparency (steady decline over 25 years).  ...................................................  Information not timely, fails to answer many basic
                                                                                                                                              questions; no budget book--only tables
                                   Central office staff replacement...................  Employees now at-will. Many replaced. New            Dismissals unrelated to evaluation; some good
                                                                                         evaluation systems.                                  officials leaving
Resources: budget, expenditures,   Funding............................................  Substantial increases in per pupil funding, largely  ...................................................
 staffing.                                                                               directed to classroom and instruction.
                                   Equity.............................................  Art, music, PE, librarians required at all schools.  Large differences in per student funding unrelated
                                                                                                                                              to student need; basis (staffing plan) strongly
                                                                                                                                              favors small schools and is often not even
                                                                                                                                              followed
Facilities: responsibility now     Master Facilities Plan.............................  Extends improvements to all schools by shifting      Postpones many systems renovations and real
 shared with separate Office of                                                          focus to classroom improvements (Phase 1).           modernization to Phases 2 and 3
 Facilities Modernization (OPEFM).
OPEFM............................  Modernizations, renovations, major repairs.........  Substantial progress, enabled by big increase in     Cost overruns and concentration on Phase 1 may
                                                                                         funding.                                             cause OPEFM to run out of money before underlying
                                                                                                                                              systems are replaced
OPEFM............................  Maintenance........................................  Better.............................................  Significantly underfunded and provided to some
                                                                                                                                              extent by long-term bond funding
DCPS.............................  Excess space.......................................  Closed/consolidated 27 schools.....................  Several million square feet of excess space remain,
                                                                                                                                              largely unused; significant number of very small
                                                                                                                                              schools in too-big buildings
Parent/community involvement.....  Communication......................................  Better in second than in first year................  Substance is often thin, general, and details not
                                                                                                                                              made public
                                   Participation and input into policy, budget, and     Less than in previous administrations..............  Many staff, parents, community most closely
                                    other key decisions.                                                                                      involved with DCPS feel excluded and do not buy
                                                                                                                                              into the results
Governance and accountability....  System accountability: D.C. Council and OSSE.......  No micro-management of the executive...............  No independent oversight except D.C. Council, which
                                                                                                                                              is not set up for close oversight. OSSE is
                                                                                                                                              responsible for Federal grants oversight, but is
                                                                                                                                              in a conflict of interest, since both DCPS and
                                                                                                                                              OSSE are controlled by the Mayor.
                                   School accountability: DCPS central................  NCLB measures, primarily test scores; school wide    Unintended consequences of over-emphasis on reading
                                                                                         performance bonuses; principal dismissals.           and math testing
                                   School staff accountability: DCPS central,           New evaluation process and instrument in             Staff often report feeling under-supported and over-
                                    principals.                                          preparation; stringent measures anticipated.         threatened
                                   Local school autonomy..............................  Diminished, with promises of later increase........  Heavily centralized, top-down control constrains
                                                                                                                                              good principals and teachers, sometimes results in
                                                                                                                                              arbitrary treatment at individual school level
                                   Checks and balances................................  Almost none. Protects effective reforms, unpopular   Potential protection for fad reforms, mistakes,
                                                                                         changes.                                             ineffective implementation, arbitrary decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 2.--The District's New Public School Governance Law--Summary 
                          of Impact and Issues
Effects
    The Home Rule Charter provisions on education have been eliminated. 
The D.C. Council and mayor have complete authority to change the 
governance of public education through the normal legislative process.
    The Board of Education as a governing body for DCPS is abolished, 
and its powers and functions taken by the mayor and council. The 
council has authority to pass laws setting DCPS policy, but for at 
least a short time will not be able to change budget details--only the 
amounts allocated to major programs (instruction, facilities, 
administration, etc.
    The board has become a State Board of Education, with authority 
over a number of city-wide educational policy decisions, such as 
academic standards, teacher qualifications, graduation requirements, 
school accreditation, and parent involvement policies. The board cannot 
hire, fire, or oversee any schools or the State Superintendent of 
Education, who will continue to report to the mayor. Following the 
November 2008 elections, board members will be all-elected, one per 
ward and one at-large. The council, however, can change this system or 
abolish the board altogether.
    DCPS is a city agency, operating under the same rules as agencies 
such as the Police Department or the Department of Health, unless and 
to the extent that the mayor and council explicitly create exceptions.
    DCPS will operate as a local school district only, with its 
existing Federal grants authority and similar State functions moved to 
the Office of the State Superintendent of Education.
    Facilities construction and renovation are controlled by a separate 
authority reporting to the mayor; the authority will approve and 
authorize decisions with significant impact on the educational program, 
including planning and design.
    Oversight as well as policy and operations will be in the hands of 
the mayor and council. In its structure, this takeover is more like a 
State takeover of a local district elsewhere than a mayoral takeover. 
When a mayor takes over a school system, the State education department 
continues to do oversight and retains authority to set rules. When the 
State itself takes over a school district, power is exercised by the 
governor, State superintendent, State board and State legislature.
    Constituent problems will be dealt with through an Ombudsman, but 
also by council members.
    Structural Issues.--The structure may outlast the individuals 
stepping into it by many years. Structural concerns expressed by 
citizens:
  --The council's role, since it has some budget authority and the 
        ability to make policy and operating decisions through 
        legislation, could lead to politicization of school decisions, 
        for their becoming fodder in deal-making. In addition, will 
        council members, with all their existing State and local 
        responsibilities have the time and capacity to make well-
        informed appropriate decisions? Elsewhere, even in cities with 
        mayoral takeovers, city councils do not have line-item budget 
        or policy-making authority.
  --The existing conflict of interest, whereby DCPS in its State role 
        oversees itself and its competitors, the charter schools, will 
        not be eliminated, but will be moved to the level of the mayor. 
        Elsewhere in the country, State and local controls are 
        separate. With the advent of dozens of charter schools as 
        separate local education agencies, the District has become like 
        a State.
  --Independent oversight and checks and balances are lacking. Only the 
        council will have the power of oversight. Information will be 
        created and controlled solely by those operating the system. 
        Elsewhere in the country, State superintendents and State 
        departments of education oversee and exercise considerable 
        power over local districts, whether controlled by school boards 
        or mayors, and elected school boards answer to the voters only 
        for education issues.
  --The only procedure to ensure parent and community input and 
        influence on policy decisions is a requirement that the mayor 
        set up a process including quarterly public meetings. There are 
        no requirements for public information.
  --Continued control of DCPS' day-to-day fiscal operations by the 
        city's CFO will maintain the existing confusion and lack of 
        accountability for financial performance and may discourage 
        good superintendents and school system CFOs from coming here. 
        The CFO must have full access to financial information and the 
        ability to investigate and halt payment for cause, but budget 
        and education cost accounting systems and personnel are the 
        prerogative of the Superintendent everywhere else in the 
        country.
  --The facilities authority as described in the bill disconnects 
        facilities decisions from the educational system that the 
        facilities are supposed to serve. Moreover, it could easily 
        become another bureaucracy that slows work and diffuses 
        accountability. Long ago, the District had a similar system, 
        which was changed because it did not serve education.

    Senator Durbin. Well, we're in a mess. We have five 
rollcalls, which will have us anchored on the floor for the 
next hour and a half, which means that we can't, at this point, 
continue the hearing.
    And so--I don't know that we can recess it until this 
afternoon, because Senator Collins can't return, and my 
schedule is not very good, either. So--we could try to 
reconvene, because I really want to hear your testimony, if 
it's okay. If someone can't return, and wants to submit a 
written testimony, we'll make it part of the record. But, we're 
coming back. We're not stopping at this point, because there's 
still a lot of this story that needs to be told, and I want to 
give you each a chance to do it.
    I hope you understand. We didn't know this was coming. And 
I think the first panel was valuable, and this panel is equally 
valuable.
    So, I promise that we will reconvene. I apologize, on 
behalf of the subcommittee, for the inconvenience of bringing 
you all the way here, and making you sit through this, and then 
not being able to provide your testimony. And we will work with 
you to find a day that works for the remaining members of the 
panel.
    Is that okay?
    Senator Collins. Yes. My----
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Apologies, as well.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Durbin. I'd like to blame somebody, but since I'm 
in leadership----
    Senator Collins. I was going to point that out, but----
    Senator Durbin. The subcommittee will stand recessed----
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. And we'll be back.
    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, September 16, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]





              MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING

    [Clerk's Note.--The following testimonies were received by 
the Subcommittee on Financial Service and General Government 
for inclusion in the record.]
        Prepared Statement of the Secular Coalition for America
    I want to thank Senator Durbin and the other members of the 
Committee for this opportunity to submit written testimony as you 
consider whether or not to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program.
    The Secular Coalition for America is the leading organization 
promoting the viewpoints of nontheistic Americans and their Federal 
policy concerns. Headquartered in Washington, DC, and founded in 2005, 
our mission is to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheists 
in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular 
character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all 
Americans. We are members of the National Coalition for Public 
Education, which is a coalition of civil rights, civil liberties, labor 
and education groups which fights against voucher programs. While the 
Secular Coalition for America opposes voucher programs and other 
revenue shifting measures which pay for religious education, we take no 
position on the use of vouchers for secular private education.
the d.c. opportunity scholarship program involves an inappropriate use 
                of government funds to support religion
    One of the most dearly held principles of religious liberty is that 
government should not compel any citizen to furnish funds in support of 
a religion with which he or she disagrees, or even a religion with 
which he or she does agree.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a U.S. Department of Education report published in 
March 2009, 82 percent of students whose tuition is paid for by the 
District of Columbia voucher program attend faith-based schools.\2\ 
Only 22 percent of students in the D.C. program attend a school that 
charges non-voucher students more than the $7,500 the District of 
Columbia pays for a voucher student to attend the school.\3\ Thus, for 
most students a voucher covers the cost of all instruction provided by 
the school, non-religious and religious instruction alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years (March 2009) 
xxi.
    \3\ U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years (March 2009) 
ix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For some schools it is even difficult to identify what part of the 
curriculum could be characterized as ``non-religious''. As an example, 
one school that receives taxpayer funds pursuant to the District of 
Columbia voucher program, the Ambassador Baptist Church Christian 
School, states on its Web site that the school's ``primary mission and 
goal . . . is to train the students in the knowledge of God and the 
Christian way of life and to provide them with an excellent educational 
experience . . . God's truth is infused throughout the curriculum and 
is reinforced in chapel each week.'' Other schools that receive 
taxpayer funds include the New Macedonia Christian Academy which boasts 
about delivering ``a high quality Christian education to our students 
while instilling a strong Christ-centered academic foundation'' and the 
Dupont Park School, which encourages ``each student to develop a 
personal relationship with God.'' For such schools worship and 
religious doctrine are so intertwined with academic life as to be 
indistinguishable. There is no separation of non-religious and 
religious education.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Students are directly affected by this lack of separation of 
non-religious and religious education and the absence of an opt-out 
provision to allow students to forgo religious instruction, worship and 
indoctrination. More than 8 percent of the children who leave their 
voucher schools do so because ``religious activities at the private 
school make the child uncomfortable,'' according to the 2008 U.S. 
Department of Education Report. U.S. Department of Education, 
Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After 
Two Years (June 2008) 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          the d.c. voucher program should not be reauthorized
    The Secular Coalition opposes the use of government funds for 
religious purposes, including vouchers for religious schools. We agree 
with the founders of the United States that no individual taxpayer 
should be required to pay for the propagation of another's religion. 
This fundamental protection should certainly preclude taxpayer 
subsidization of religious organizations by supporting the religious 
education--and indoctrination--of a fellow citizen's child. 
Safeguarding every American's freedom of conscience is the very purpose 
of the Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution.
    When religious schools are privately funded, they have an 
undisputed right to include religious content in their curriculum. 
However, once taxpayer dollars enter the equation, it is imperative for 
the government to avoid funding religious activity.
    We oppose the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2009 
and other legislative efforts to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of the American Association of School Administrators
    On behalf of the American Association of School Administrators, 
representing more than 13,000 school superintendents and local 
educational leaders, we urge you to oppose private school vouchers. In 
a time when every Federal dollar matters and funding for critical 
public school funding such as title I is under threat, now is not the 
time to continue the diversion of scarce taxpayer dollars to private 
schools.
    A recent Institute of Education Sciences evaluation of the private 
school vouchers in the District of Columbia found no academic 
difference--in English or math--for the target population of students, 
those who originally attended schools failing to make Adequate Yearly 
Progress (AYP). Additionally there was no difference for boys in either 
English or math regardless of the AYP status of their original public 
school. It is clear, after an independent government evaluation, that 
the pilot program in the District of Columbia has not demonstrated 
results and therefore should not be continued.
    Private schools are not held to the same accountability standards 
as public schools. They are not required to have the same level of 
transparency and reporting to the public and are not subject to the 
requirements of No Child Left Behind or the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. As congressional expectations of public 
school districts continue to rise, it is inequitable to not have the 
same expectations for private schools receiving Federal dollars.
    Vouchers are poor public policy, inherently flawed in permitting 
the inequalities found in the private markets, and lacking public 
oversight. Furthermore, touted as a ``school choice'' option for 
parents, this program actually leaves the choice of which students are 
admitted to the schools not the parents. Vouchers have demonstrated a 
consistent lack of political viability, losing by a margin of 2-to-1 in 
12 State elections over a 36-year period. They create an unsustainable 
increase in Federal, State and local taxes.
    With limited Federal dollars we must invest available funding into 
the public school districts that help a largest percentage of children 
and are subject to Federal requirements. It is the children left behind 
by vouchers who are at the greatest risk. Scarce taxpayer dollars 
should be focused on interventions to improve education for all 
students, rather than diverting funds to let a select few out of the 
public system.
    Once again, we urge you to focus on the education that affects the 
majority of school children in the District and no longer continue 
sending taxpayer dollars to private schools through the expired and 
failed private school pilot program. If you have any questions, please 
do not hesitate to contact us.
                                 ______
                                 
       Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Teachers
    The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) appreciates the 
opportunity to share its views on the ``Opportunity Scholarship 
Program,'' which provides private school vouchers in Washington, DC.
    The AFT, on behalf of its more than 1.4 million members, strongly 
opposes reauthorization of or funding for new students to participate 
in the expired private school voucher pilot program. This position, 
while specific to the program at hand, is consistent with a core 
principle: Taxpayer funds should be used to support our Nation's public 
schools. Private schools, which are ancillary to the public school 
system, should not be supported with public funds. This position is not 
new, nor is the decades-long discussion about the viability and 
suitability of vouchers. We believe that government's time and energy 
would be better spent focusing on strengthening and improving the 
public schools that are its responsibility. Instead of spending public 
dollars on vouchers for some students, funds should be invested in 
public school programs that have been proven to work, and that will 
help ensure all students receive a rich, rigorous education that 
prepares them for college or the workforce after high school. These 
proven programs include lowering class sizes to allow teachers to spend 
more time with individual students, adopting reading programs with a 
record of effectiveness, offering after-school programs for students, 
making available wraparound services to meet students' noninstructional 
needs, and providing high-quality early childhood education. In 
addition, school buildings need to be repaired and modernized so 
children have access to technology and can learn in a safe, healthy and 
comfortable environment.
    The D.C. voucher program, like other private school voucher plans, 
is a flawed policy that lacks accountability, and diverts attention and 
resources from efforts to improve our public schools.
    The program was established as a 5-year experimental pilot that 
expired at the end of fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2009 omnibus 
appropriations bill provided one additional year of funding, but 
specified that no further funds would be provided unless the program is 
reauthorized by Congress and approved by the D.C. City Council. The 
fiscal year 2010 financial services appropriations bill as reported by 
the committee provides funding only for students already receiving a 
voucher.
    The voucher program has proven to be flawed and ineffective, and 
there is no justification for continuing it for any new students. 
Several Federal reports released in 2007, 2008 and 2009 have clearly 
documented the problems with the program and its lack of effectiveness.
    According to three congressionally mandated evaluation reports, 
vouchers have not resulted in increased achievement for the students 
formerly attending schools in need of improvement--the very students 
the program was primarily intended to assist. The 2007 and 2008 reports 
revealed no statistically significant differences overall in reading or 
math between D.C. private school voucher students and their peers 
attending D.C. public schools. The 2009 report likewise found no 
overall difference in math scores. While there was some improvement in 
reading scores, there was no significant difference in reading for 
students coming from schools in need of improvement or students who 
entered the program in the lower third of test score distribution.
    The evaluations also found that the voucher program had no impact 
on student motivation and engagement, on students' satisfaction with 
their school, or on whether students viewed their school as safe and 
orderly. Also, voucher students were less likely to have access to 
important services such as programs for English language learners, 
special programs for students with learning problems, counselors, 
tutors and after-school programs.
    In addition, a number of accountability problems with the program 
were documented in a report issued by the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office in 2007. According to the report, for example, 
students from schools in need of improvement (the group given priority 
in the statute) were underrepresented in the program, and Federal tax 
dollars were spent on tuition at private schools that did not charge 
tuition. Some participating schools employed teachers who lacked a 
bachelor's degree; some failed to meet basic requirements for operating 
legally in the District of Columbia.
    The AFT believes it is clear that the evidence does not support 
reauthorizing the program or providing funding for any new students. We 
now have an opportunity in the District of Columbia to make a real 
difference in the city's public schools, where the majority of students 
are educated. Resources and attention should be focused on that goal 
rather than on funding private school vouchers.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement of the Center for Inquiry
    The Center for Inquiry strongly urges you to oppose legislation 
that would reauthorize the expired Washington, DC private school 
voucher pilot program. All four of the Federal studies that have 
analyzed the program concluded that the program is ineffective, leaving 
no justification for its continuation. Rather than extending the 
voucher program, Federal funding should be spent in more useful ways 
that would serve all students in Washington, DC.
    The 5-year pilot program was authorized to provide private school 
vouchers worth up to $7,500 to approximately 1,700 students, at an 
annual cost of $14 million. Though the program was scheduled to expire 
in 2008, the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill provided one 
additional year of funding (for the 2009-2010 school year) to allow for 
a smooth transition for students currently participating in the 
program. That appropriation stipulated that no additional funding would 
be available until Congress thoroughly examined the program and, by 
reauthorization, designated that the program warranted continued 
funding. Given the program's ineffectiveness, demonstrated conclusively 
and consistently as described below, and inappropriateness, given the 
disproportionate funding allocated to relatively few students while the 
needs of the majority of D.C. public school students go unmet, it is 
clear that there is no justification for extending the program.
    Despite proponents' claims 6 years ago that the voucher program 
would permit students from ``schools in need of improvement'' (SINI) to 
attain greater levels of academic achievement, all three of the 
congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded 
that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic achievement 
of these students.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years (April 
2009), http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050_1.pdf; U.S. 
Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program: Impacts After Two Years (June 2008), http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
pdf/20084024.pdf; U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One Year (June 2007), 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the 2007 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
Report found that students from SINI schools are actually 
``underrepresented'' in the program.\2\ Having failed to improve the 
academic achievement of the students the program targeted, the voucher 
program has proven unworthy of reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Additional Policies and Procedures 
Would Improve Internal Controls and Program Operations, Pub. No. 08-9 
at 26 (Nov. 2007) (GAO Report), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d089.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These Federal studies further found that the voucher program had no 
effect on student safety, satisfaction, motivation, or engagement.\3\ 
And, they revealed that many of the students in the voucher program 
were less likely to have access to key services--such as ESL programs, 
learning support and special needs programs, and counselors--than 
students who were not part of the program.\4\ Perhaps that is why 
students with physical or learning disabilities are underrepresented in 
the program compared to the public schools.\5\ The program's inability 
to improve the school experience of students in the voucher program 
further demonstrates that the program is not worthy of reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxvi, xviii, 35, 
40, 44-45, 49-50; 2008 U.S. Department of Education Report at 42-43, 
50, and 57; and 2007 U.S. Department of Education Report at xix and 1-
4.
    \4\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxii, and 17; 2008 
U.S. Department of Education Report at xvii, and 16; 2007 U.S. 
Department of Education Report at 21.
    \5\ GAO Report at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the lack of academic evidence supporting the 
program, the GAO Report also documented several accountability 
shortcomings in the program. Examples include Federal taxpayer dollars 
funding tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, 
schools that lacked city occupancy permits, and schools employing 
teachers without bachelor's degrees.\6\ Also, some of the information 
provided to parents regarding the private schools, including 
information that ``could have significantly affected parents' choice of 
schools,'' was ``misleading,'' ``incorrect,'' and ``incomplete.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id. at 22-23, 33-35.
    \7\ Id. at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That the program is expiring should come as no surprise to voucher 
proponents--the 5-year expiration date was clear when the program was 
created. Furthermore, the end of the program does not necessarily mean 
that students will have to leave their voucher school. The WSF provided 
privately-funded scholarships to students before the Federal voucher 
program was established and it continues to provide such scholarships 
now. And, with help from voucher supporters, it is sure to raise even 
more money in the future.
    The Center for Inquiry believes that instead of sending Federal 
money to private schools, money should instead be invested in the 
public schools. We also note that despite receiving public money, the 
participating private schools are not subject to all Federal civil 
rights laws, and do not face the same public accountability standards, 
including those in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, that all public 
schools face. We also believe this program continues to raise problems 
under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
    The Center for Inquiry believes the objective evidence does not 
support the reauthorization or continued funding of the only federally 
funded school voucher program. Therefore, we urge you to oppose 
reauthorization of the D.C. voucher program.
    Thank you for your consideration of our views on this important 
issue.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of the American Association of University Women
    Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the 
subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the 
hearing ``A Review of Federal Appropriations for District of Columbia 
Education.''
    The American Association of University Women is a membership 
organization founded in 1881 with approximately 100,000 members and 
1,000 branches nationwide. AAUW has a proud 128-year history of 
breaking through barriers for women and girls and has always been a 
strong supporter of public education. Today, AAUW continues its mission 
through education, research, and advocacy.
    The American Association of University Women remains committed to 
ensuring strong academic principles and closing the achievement gap for 
all children, while standing firmly by the belief that the country 
should provide an excellent education for all children, not private 
school vouchers for a few. While AAUW supports funding for District of 
Columbia public schools and charter schools, we strongly oppose the 
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
    AAUW believes a strong, free public education system is the 
foundation of a democratic society, and has long opposed diverting 
public funds to private or religious elementary and secondary schools. 
The 1937 AAUW legislative program called for ``free public instruction 
of high quality available to all, since popular education is the basis 
for freedom and justice,'' and in 1955 stated ``universal education is 
basic to the preservation of our form of government and to the well-
being of our society.'' Today, AAUW's 2009-2011 Public Policy Program 
clearly states AAUW's ``. . . opposition to the use of public funds for 
nonpublic elementary and secondary education.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Association of University Women (June 2009). 2009-11 
AAUW Public Policy Program. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://
www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/principles_priorities.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While AAUW supports innovative techniques to improve America's 
schools, we believe voucher proposals fly in the face of our Nation's 
commitment to public education. AAUW does not oppose public school 
choice programs, which allow students to choose a public school in 
their school district. However, in many areas of the country the notion 
of ``private school choice'' is misleading because there are few, if 
any, private schools or because the only private schools are 
religiously affiliated and not the appropriate denomination for the 
family.
    From AAUW's perspective, regardless of the constitutionality of 
certain voucher programs, such schemes are not sound education policy.
                         aauw opposes vouchers
    Private and religious schools are not required to observe Federal 
nondiscrimination laws, such as title IX. In fact, voucher proposals 
often contain language specifically intended to circumvent civil rights 
laws, and many proponents insist voucher funding does not flow to the 
school but instead to the parent or student precisely to avoid any 
civil rights obligations. This specificity in language allows private 
institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, 
disability, and language proficiency. Further, private and religious 
schools can reject a student based on the school's own admissions 
criteria and discriminate against a student in access to classes, 
guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and other aspects of 
education.
    Private and religious schools are not held to the same 
accountability and testing standards established in the No Child Left 
Behind Act (NCLB). Such schools do not have to hire ``highly 
qualified'' teachers, adhere to NCLB testing requirements and Adequate 
Yearly Progress, or disaggregate or publicly release student 
achievement results.
    Funding for NCLB is woefully inadequate, and the additional 
diversion of needed resources would further diminish public schools' 
ability to meet mandated accountability standards and address 
achievement gaps among students. President George W. Bush's budget for 
fiscal year 2009 allotted only $24.7 billion for NCLB--nearly $15 
billion below the authorized amount. Over the course of its existence, 
NCLB has been underfunded to the tune of over $85 billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Education Association (February 4, 2008). Funding Gap: 
No Child Left Behind. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://
www.nea.org/assets/docs/fundinggap.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our country's public schools already face teacher shortages, 
overcrowded classrooms, and increased accountability without adequate 
funding. Diverting critical resources from the school systems that 
educate 90 percent of America's students is not a fiscally sound 
investment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Condition 
of Education 2007. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2007/2007064.pdf. The 90 percent statistic is derived from this 
table, which shows total private school enrollment at 9.7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Private and religious school voucher programs weaken the public 
school system by diverting these already scarce funds that could 
otherwise be used for needed teacher training, smaller class sizes, 
expanded support services, and improved facilities.
    Private school vouchers do not raise student achievement. A recent 
study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics of the 
U.S. Department of Education compared the effectiveness of public 
schools to that of private institutions. After controlling for critical 
demographic factors (parents' income, education level, number of books 
in household), NCES found that public schools perform as well as, and 
even better in a few instances, than private schools.\4\ A 2001 GAO 
study confirmed that the official evaluations of Cleveland's and 
Milwaukee's voucher programs found no differences in the achievement of 
voucher students compared to public school students, despite built-in 
applicant screening advantages for private schools.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Center for Education Statistics (July 2006). Comparing 
Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. 
Retrieved December 4, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
pdf/studies/2006461.pdf.
    \5\ U.S. Government Accounting Office (August 2001). School 
Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee. GAO-01-
914 Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d01914.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vouchers are taxpayers' dollars spent according to the policies of 
a private school board--not the decisions of a democratically elected 
and publicly accessible school board. Private and religious schools are 
not required to meet basic accountability provisions, such as open 
meetings and records laws, or to publicly release test scores, dropout 
rates, and other basic information. Because private schools are not 
accountable to the public at large, taxpayers lose public oversight for 
the expenditure of their tax dollars.
    Vouchers disproportionately help families with children already in 
private schools or those who have never attended public schools at the 
inception of the Cleveland ``Scholarship and Tutoring Program,'' 39 
percent of students used their vouchers to continue their attendance in 
private or religious schools, and another 40 percent were attending 
school for the first time.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Schiller, Zach and Policy Matters Ohio (September 2001). 
Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Come From. Retrieved 
December 5, 2007, from http://www.policymattersohio.org/
voucherintro.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    voucher proposals unpopular in public opinion polls and ballot 
                              initiatives
    A 2001 poll conducted by the National School Boards Association and 
Zogby International revealed that voters preferred strategies to invest 
in public education like reducing class size (27 percent), improving 
teacher quality (27 percent), and increasing teacher training (23 
percent) over voucher schemes (13 percent).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ National School Board Association/Zogby International Poll 
(September 25, 2001). School Vouchers: What the Public Thinks and Why. 
Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/
FederalLaws/SchoolVouchers/VoucherStrategyCenter/
NSBAAdvocacyToolsonVouchers/NSBAnationalpollonschoolvouchers.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2006 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll found that 71 percent of 
Americans would prefer improving existing public schools over ``finding 
an alternative to the existing public school system.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll (September 2006). The 38th Annual 
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll on the Public's Attitudes Toward Public 
Schools. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_ 
&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ758062&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_ 
0=no&accno=EJ758062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In November 2007, Utah voters rejected a voucher proposal that 
would have made vouchers available to all students. This marked 11 out 
of 11 tries that voucher State ballot initiatives have been decisively 
rejected by voters.\9\ In most cases, the $3,000 voucher would not 
cover even half of private school tuition which is estimated to be as 
much as $8,000 annually. The initiative was defeated by a 25 percentage 
point margin with every county in the State voting against the voucher 
proposal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ National School Boards Association (November 7, 2007). Utah 
Voters' Defeat School Vouchers. Retrieved January 2, 2008, from http://
vocuspr.vocus.com/vocuspr30/Newsroom/
Query.aspx?SiteName=NSBANew&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAsset_PRAssetID_EQ=10842
2& XSL=PressRelease&Cache=False.
    \10\ Crawford, Grigs (November 7, 2007). Taxes, Stem Cell Funding, 
School Vouchers Rebuffed in Ballot Measure Voting. Retrieved December 
5, 2007 from http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-
000002623685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              district of columbia school voucher program
    In 2003, a private school voucher program was created for the 
District of Columbia school system; it was intended as a 5-year pilot 
research project scheduled to expire in 2008. This represents the first 
time in history that Federal dollars have been used to fund private 
school vouchers. In the 109th Congress, several attempts to expand the 
program were proposed. While many of these attempts were thwarted, 
Congress did approve expanding eligibility for families already 
enrolled for the first 2 years of the program from 185 percent of the 
Federal poverty level to 300 percent of FPL, turning what was pitched 
as a program to subsidize tuition for low-income families into a 
program that funds private education for middle-class families that 
often could afford the tuition anyway. With these precedents laid, 
voucher proponents have been emboldened to further divert taxpayer 
dollars to pay for private education. The program, which currently 
receives $14 million, provides vouchers of up to $7,500 a piece to 
about 1,700 students.
    While implemented, the District of Columbia private school voucher 
``pilot'' program has not performed in the ways the law was intended. A 
2005 report found that fewer than 75 of the more than 1,300 students 
who received vouchers came from public schools that were determined to 
be most in need of improvement by Federal law.\11\ At the same time, 
more than 200 students who received vouchers were already enrolled in 
private schools. The unfortunate irony is that the number of students 
already in private schools receiving vouchers is almost three times the 
number of students coming from schools in need of improvement--the 
students who were purportedly the target of the program.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ People for the American Way Foundation (February 2005). Flaws 
and Failings: A Preliminary Look at the Problems Already Encountered in 
the Implementation of the District of Columbia's New Federally Mandated 
School Voucher Program. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://
site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=report_flaws_and_failings.
    \12\ People for the American Way Foundation (February 2005). Flaws 
and Failings: A Preliminary Look at the Problems Already Encountered in 
the Implementation of the District of Columbia's New Federally Mandated 
School Voucher Program. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://
site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=report_flaws_and_failings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the program expired in 2008, it was funded by the fiscal 
year 2009 Appropriations Act for one additional year. The current 
version of fiscal year 2010 Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act (S. 1432) is similar to the budget request proposed 
by President Obama, which would fund the program until students 
currently receiving vouchers graduate from high school. The bill 
includes $12.2 million for the program, limits the program to those 
students who received scholarships in the 2009-2010 school year, and 
includes an additional $1 million for new testing requirements. The 
bill also includes important provisions from the fiscal year 2009 
Appropriations Act that require schools to have certificates of 
occupancy and ensure that core subject teachers have bachelor's 
degrees.
    While AAUW's general concerns about vouchers as discussed above 
apply to this program, we are especially troubled that most of the 
private schools that receive funding under the program do not have to 
follow title IX. Title IX is the Federal civil rights law prohibiting 
sex discrimination in education programs and activities that receive 
Federal financial assistance. The only private schools in the program 
that have to comply with title IX are schools that receive Federal 
money in addition to the voucher funding. While commonly known for 
creating opportunities for women and girls in athletics, title IX 
affects all areas of education. It has made it possible for women to 
pursue careers as lawyers, doctors, mechanics, scientists, and 
professional athletes. Because schools that participate in this voucher 
program are exempt from title IX, they can discriminate based on 
gender. This means schools can base admissions decisions on gender, 
limit opportunities for girls to play athletics, and base curriculum on 
outdated gender stereotypes. By exempting schools under this program 
from title IX, the voucher program creates an environment that is not 
only ripe for gender discrimination, but has no protections in place 
should that discrimination occur.
    In addition to civil rights concerns, the D.C. voucher program has 
not been shown to improve academic achievement. In April 2009, the 
Department of Education released a new report which found no 
improvement in academic achievement for those students receiving 
vouchers from public schools in need of improvement--the target 
audience of the voucher program.\13\ An earlier report from June 2008 
found that ``after 2 years, there was no statistically significant 
difference in test scores in general between students who were offered 
an OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] scholarship and students who 
were not offered a scholarship.'' In addition, while ``the Program had 
a positive impact on overall parent satisfaction and parent perceptions 
of school safety . . . [s]tudents had a different view of their schools 
than did their parents.'' Overall, student satisfaction was unaffected 
by the voucher program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 
Statistics (April 2009). Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program: Impact After Three Years. Retrieved April 3, 2009 from http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf.
    \14\ U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 
Statistics (June 2008). Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program: Impacts After Two Years Executive Summary. Retrieved June 16, 
2008 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, a November 2007 GAO report revealed numerous problems 
with the District of Columbia voucher program, including a lack of 
detailed fiscal policies and not adhering to procedures for making 
scholarship payments. The report also found that many of the 
participating schools conducted classes in unsuitable learning 
environments taught by teachers lacking bachelor's degrees. In many 
cases, parents were not informed of these deficiencies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. Government Accounting Office (November 2007). District of 
Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program: Additional Politics and 
Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program Operations. GAO-
08-9 Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d089.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AAUW will continue to urge Congress and the Obama Administration to 
end the D.C. voucher program--a program which does not work and has 
already expired. AAUW believes the appropriate strategy for improving 
our Nation's schools is to direct resources toward improving public 
schools, rather than diverting public funds into private institutions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of People For the American Way
    On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members of People For the 
American Way, we urge you to focus scarce Federal resources on programs 
that will create opportunity for all public school students and not 
just a select few. Accordingly, we oppose the experimental D.C. private 
school voucher program, which has failed to provide any significant 
improvement in the educational attainment of the enrolled students. 
Furthermore, this program continues to undermine fundamental 
constitutional principles as well as the core accountability 
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.
    As a civil rights organization dedicated to protecting core 
constitutional principles, People For the American Way opposes the D.C. 
private school voucher program because it is a blatant infringement 
upon the separation of church and State and fails to adequately protect 
the civil rights of all students. The D.C. private school voucher 
program federally funds and permits private institutions to 
discriminate against students and staff based upon religion, gender, 
and limited English proficiency. Notably, this program even allows 
private schools to discriminate against students by picking and 
choosing which students to educate; public schools on the other hand 
must educate every child. The end result is the undermining of the 
diversity upon which this country flourishes.
    Claims that funding of the voucher program is necessary to ensure 
increased funding for the D.C. public school system is a ruse created 
by the previous Administration to move an ideological agenda. 
Throughout the tenure of the experimental D.C. private school voucher 
program, D.C. public and charter schools could have utilized the nearly 
$70 million in funds allocated to the voucher program for critical 
school safety measures and repairs. Instead, this funding was used to 
support a program that has consistently been found to have ``no 
significant impact on student achievement.'' In fact, the most recent 
study by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009\1\ revealed that 
there were no significant differences in reading or math for D.C. 
private school voucher students who came from schools identified as in 
need of improvement (SINI). This same study further found that the 
program may not be reaching enough SINI students, the top priority for 
the voucher program upon its creation, when compared with other student 
groups. Uplifting SINI students was the purported reason for the 
support of some Senators when the program was initially funded and 
failing on this point alone should be reason enough for the program's 
elimination. D.C. public school students deserve better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 
Impacts After Three Years,'' Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, Mar. 2009, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/
20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons outlined above, People For the American Way opposes 
the D.C. private school voucher program. The evidence is clear that it 
has not proven to be an effective educational tool. To the contrary, 
this program has actually hindered the improvement of our public 
educational system. Federally funding such programs symbolizes a 
deprioritization of the public schools and their students.
    While we believe that there are more appropriate ways to phase out 
the current D.C. private school voucher program, we applaud President 
Obama's recognition that taxpayer-funded private school voucher schemes 
are ineffective and not the answer. The Appropriations Committee has 
already agreed with the President in reporting a bill where no new 
students can be admitted to the program. We hope that you will continue 
to support our public school students and phase out the D.C. private 
school voucher program.
                                 ______
                                 
       Prepared Statement of African American Ministers In Action
    On behalf of thousands of clergy members, pastors, and African 
American community leaders within the African American Ministers In 
Action (AAMIA) network of People For the American Way, I write in 
opposition to the D.C. private school voucher program. As pastors, 
community leaders, and civically engaged citizens of faith, we stand 
against any measure or legislation that does not significantly uplift 
and improve our communities. The D.C. private school voucher program is 
one such measure.
    From the very beginning, AAMIA has stood against the D.C. private 
school voucher program. By displacing funding, the D.C. private school 
voucher program has not only diverted taxpayer money from meeting the 
critical school safety, repair, and other needs of our congregants and 
parishioners, but has also failed to provide any significant academic 
improvements to our children's education. In fact, the most recent 
study by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009\1\ revealed that 
there were no significant differences in reading or math for D.C. 
private school voucher students who came from schools identified as in 
need of improvement (SINI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 
Impacts After Three Years,'' Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, Mar. 2009, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/
20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the D.C. private school voucher program is an 
infringement upon the separation of church and State that fails to 
adequately protect the civil rights of all students and staff. The 
program federally funds and permits private institutions to 
discriminate against students and staff based upon religion, gender, 
limited English proficiency, and disability. It even allows merit-based 
discrimination; while public schools must educate every child, private 
schools can pick and choose. Hence, those students most in need will 
continue to be left behind. This has already been shown to occur in 
evaluations of the D.C. voucher program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program,'' U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, Nov. 2007, http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d089.pdf.
    ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts 
After Three Years,'' Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 
of Education, Mar. 2009, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/
20094050.pdf. ``Flaws and Failings: A Preliminary Look at the Problems 
Already Encountered in the Implementation of the District of Columbia's 
New Federally Mandated School Voucher Program,'' People For the 
American Way Foundation, Feb. 2005, http://site.pfaw.org/site/
PageServer?pagename=report_flaws_and_failings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We ask you, as the Appropriations Committee did during its July 
markup, to make ``school choice'' a decision to choose what is best for 
our public schoolchildren, our communities and our schools. Supporting 
the voucher program means agreeing to fund private institutions that 
are unaccountable to the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Hence, not only do we have financial unaccountability, but academic as 
well while our public schools continue to fall into disrepair. This is 
unacceptable.
    As faith leaders we must oppose any legislation that ignores and 
exacerbates the concerns of our communities. Federally funded voucher 
programs like the D.C. program symbolize the government's 
deprioritization of the public schools and therefore its students. 
Funding for D.C. public school students should not be leveraged against 
the continuation of an ideological agenda to promote adequate Federal 
funding of private schools. This is not the role of the Federal 
Government. Thus, we ask you to continue on the path charted by the 
July-reported bill and stand for our communities by supporting the 
phase out of a program that ignores the real concerns of the D.C. 
public school students and District residents.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Americans United for Separation of Church and 
                                 State
    Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans 
United) submits this testimony to the Subcommittee on Financial 
Services and General Government of the United States Senate 
Appropriations Committee for the hearing entitled: ``A Review and 
Assessment of the Use, Impact, and Accomplishments of Federal 
Appropriations Provided to Improve the Education of Children in the 
District of Columbia.'' Though the hearing will focus on D.C. public 
school reform, charter schools, and the voucher program, this testimony 
will solely focus on the D.C. voucher program. In particular, we hope 
to explain why the D.C. voucher program has not only failed to improve 
education in the District of Columbia, but has actually served as a 
detriment to the system.
    Americans United is a non-partisan organization founded in 1947 by 
a broad coalition of religious, educational, and civic leaders that is 
dedicated to preserving the separation of church and State as the way 
to ensure religious liberty for all Americans. Since our inception, we 
have opposed the funneling of public money to private and religious 
schools through mechanisms such as private school vouchers and tuition 
tax credits.
    We opposed the D.C. voucher program at its inception for various 
reasons: because vouchers do not improve the education of participants 
in the program, undermine the public school system, and offend the 
principles of church-State separation by primarily funding religious 
private schools. Now that the voucher program has been in place for 
several years, there are studies and evidence proving each of these 
predictions true.
                       the history of the program
    The D.C. voucher program was created as an experimental 5-year 
pilot program in 2004. The program was created against the wishes of 
D.C. citizens, the District's only congressional representative, and 
the majority of elected officials in the District of Columbia. The 
Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed the program by just 
one vote (209-208), on an evening when many representatives who oppose 
vouchers were attending a presidential primary debate in Baltimore and 
when the vote was held open for an unusually long 40-minute period. The 
vote was not a completely partisan vote, as 14 Republicans, along with 
194 Democrats, opposed the bill.
    The full Senate did not vote on the issue. Indeed, the voucher 
language was pulled from the D.C. Appropriations bill because it was 
clear the measure would not pass with the language. The program only 
passed in the Senate when it was later added to the conference report 
of a $280 billion omnibus appropriations bill.
 the d.c. voucher program has failed to improve educational opportunity
    During its pilot phase, the voucher program has proven ineffective 
and has not improved the educational achievement of D.C. students. 
First, this voucher program has not improved student achievement. To 
the contrary, reports issued by the Department of Education in 2007, 
2008, and 2009 all demonstrate that the target group of students 
(students from ``schools in need of improvement'') showed no 
improvement in reading or math achievement as compared to students who 
did not participate.\1\ These three studies also revealed that the 
voucher program had no effect on student reports of school safety, 
satisfaction, motivation, or engagement.\2\ And, they revealed that 
many of the students in the voucher program were less likely to have 
access to key services--such as ESL programs, learning support and 
special needs programs, and counselors--than students who were not part 
of the program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years xviii, xxvi, 
xxiv-xxx, 35, and 40 (April 2009), http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/
20094050/pdf/20094050_1.pdf; U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation 
of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Two Years 
34-38 (June 2008), http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084024.pdf; U.S. 
Department of Education, Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program: Impacts After One Year xviii, xx, 44, and 46, (June 2007), 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074009.pdf.
    \2\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxvi, xviii, 35, 
40, 44-45, 49-50; 2008 U.S. Department of Education Report at 42-43, 
50, and 57; and 2007 U.S. Department of Education Report at xix and 1-
4.
    \3\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxii, and 17; 2008 
U.S. Department of Education Report at xvii, and 16; 2007 U.S. 
Department of Education Report at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A November 2007 United States Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) Report\4\ was also critical of the D.C. voucher program. The 
study found that ``accountability and internal control were 
inadequate.'' \5\ For example, Federal tax dollars were paid to private 
schools that did not even charge tuition and on schools that employed 
teachers who lacked bachelor's degrees.\6\ The report also found that 
parents were given ``incomplete,'' ``inaccurate,'' and even 
``misleading'' information about the private schools their children 
attended.\7\ Furthermore, the study concluded that the voucher program 
has not met its goal of serving students in schools in need of 
improvement: less than one-quarter of the students offered vouchers 
under the program were from these schools.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, (Nov. 2007), http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d089.pdf.
    \5\ Id. at 36.
    \6\ Id. at 22-33, 33, 34.
    \7\ Id. at 36.
    \8\ Id. at 23-24, 26, 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 d.c. vouchers undermine public schools
    Public schools are open and non-discriminatory in their acceptance 
of all students, and are the unifying factor among the diverse range of 
ethnic and religious communities in our society. Public schools are the 
only schools that must meet the needs of all students. They do not turn 
children or families away. They serve children with physical, 
emotional, and mental disabilities, those who are extremely gifted, and 
those who are learning challenged, right along with children without 
special needs.
    Vouchers undermine this vital function, however, by placing some of 
the most motivated students into private schools, leaving the students 
who are most difficult to educate behind in the public schools. The 
D.C. voucher program also diverts desperately needed resources away 
from the public school system to fund the education of the few voucher 
students. The government would better serve our children by using these 
funds to make the public schools stronger and safer.
    On all counts--improving achievement, using funds effectively, 
providing opportunities for students in schools in need of improvement, 
and improving public schools--the D.C. voucher program has failed.
  the d.c. voucher program violates the constitutional standards set 
                            forth in zelman
    On June 27, 2002, the Supreme Court decided Zelman v. Simmons 
Harris,\9\ which held that the Cleveland, Ohio, private school voucher 
program does not violate the United States Constitution. The Zelman 
decision, however, does not mean that all school voucher programs are 
constitutional. Zelman makes clear that voucher programs must meet 
strict requirements in order to satisfy the U.S. Constitution.\10\ And, 
the D.C. voucher scheme, which differs from the Cleveland program in 
significant ways, does not meet those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
    \10\ Thirty-seven States have church/State provisions that are even 
stricter than the U.S. Constitution and some States also have education 
specific provisions. Therefore, voucher schemes are likely to violate a 
State's constitution even if they do not violate the U.S. Constitution. 
See e.g., Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Voucher Program Allows Government-Funded Discrimination
    First, unlike the Ohio voucher scheme, the D.C. scheme permits 
religious schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring 
and on the basis of gender in admission.\11\ A central principle of our 
constitutional order, however, is that ``the Constitution does not 
permit the State to aid discrimination.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Compare Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 3313.976 (A)(6) with Public Law 
108-199 Stat. 3 (2004); see also Zelman.
    \12\ Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465-66 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to raising constitutional concerns, federally 
subsidized religious discrimination raises significant public policy 
concerns. When funding any school, whether public or private, the 
government should not surrender the longstanding principle of equal 
treatment for all--all students should be treated the same regardless 
of sex and all teachers the same regardless of religion. Taxpayer money 
should not fund programs that harm the fundamental civil rights of 
students and teachers.
The D.C. Voucher Program Does Not Give Parents a Wholly Genuine and 
        Independent Choice of Schools
    The fundamental holding in Zelman is that a voucher program that 
includes religious schools must ``provide genuine opportunities for . . 
. parents to select secular educational options for their school-age 
children.'' \13\ Vouchers may only go to religious schools if they are 
chosen ``by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual 
recipients.'' \14\ It appears, however, that the D.C. system does not 
meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Zelman, 536 U.S. at 655. This point was recently reaffirmed by 
the Ninth Circuit in Winn v. Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org., 562 
F.3d 1002, 1015-1018 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a voucher scheme 
was unconstitutional because parents did not have ``true choice'' about 
which schools their children can attend with the State aid.
    \14\ Zelman, 536 U.S. at 652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to recent congressional testimony by the Headmaster of 
Sidwell Friends School, the Washington Scholarship Fund (the 
administrator of the D.C. program) does not allow parents to choose 
among all participating schools but rather has directed students to 
certain schools.\15\ Thus, the choice of schools appears to be in the 
hands of the Washington Scholarship Fund and not the parents. As a 
result, parents do not have a wholly independent and private choice of 
schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Preserving School 
Choice for All: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs, 11th Congress (May 13, 2009) at 
177:45-178:35, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing& Hearing_ID=0358fc7c-ce9e4008-
b0d0-f0131a10dc43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Voucher Program Provides an Incentive To Attend Religious 
        Schools
    The D.C. program also is distinguishable from the Cleveland voucher 
scheme and proves constitutionally suspect because it provides an 
incentive to attend private religious schools. Zelman permitted the 
voucher scheme in Cleveland because it found that the program did not 
use financial incentives to skew students towards religious 
schools.\16\ This is because any student choosing to accept a voucher 
was required to copay a portion of the private school tuition. (The 
Cleveland vouchers were capped at the either 75 percent or 90 percent 
of the school tuition (depending on the family income) or $2,500, 
whichever was less.) Attending a private school (with a copay), 
therefore, would be more costly than attending a public school (for 
free). In fact, the Court concluded that there was a disincentive to go 
to a religious school because attending the secular public school would 
cost a family nothing, but attending a religious school would, in all 
cases, require a copay.\17\ The D.C. scheme, however, does not require 
a copay. Thus, in some instances, students attend private religious 
schools at no additional cost because the $7,500 voucher covers the 
entire tuition. Thus, D.C. parents can get a free religious education 
at taxpayer expense. Unlike the Cleveland program, therefore, there is 
no disincentive to attend the private religious school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Zelman, 536 U.S. at 653-54.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, in Zelman, although a copay was required, the copay 
that schools could charge was capped for students below the poverty 
level. Thus, for those priority students, attending private religious 
schools would cost about the same as attending a private secular school 
even though religious schools are traditionally much less expensive 
than secular private schools. In the District of Columbia, there is no 
copay cap. For D.C. students accepting a voucher, therefore, there is 
an incentive to choose a religious private school over a secular 
private school. The $7,500 voucher may cover tuition at a traditionally 
less expensive religious private school, but is unlikely to cover the 
tuition at a secular private school. Thus, attending a religious school 
will cost a parent less (with little or no copay) than attending a 
secular private school (with a large copay). The incentive to attend a 
religious school is highlighted by the fact that approximately 75 
percent of all students in the program attend private religious 
schools.\18\ Because the structure, unlike the structure in Zelman, 
sets up an incentive to attend religious schools, the program is 
constitutionally suspect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 2008 U.S. Department of Education Report at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The D.C. voucher program has not improved the D.C. school system 
and has not improved the educational achievement of D.C. voucher 
participants. Furthermore, the program is constitutionally suspect. The 
Federal Government should be funding public schools rather than 
funneling taxpayer funds to private schools that lack accountability, 
religious liberty, and civil rights standards.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Public Education
    The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) submits this 
testimony to the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee 
of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations for a hearing entitled: 
``A Review and Assessment of the Use, Impact, and Accomplishments of 
the Federal Appropriations Provided to Improve the Education of 
Children in the District of Columbia.'' Although this hearing will 
focus on D.C. public school reform, D.C. charter schools, and the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, this testimony will focus solely on 
the voucher program.
    The National Coalition for Public Education is comprised of more 
than 50 education, civic, civil rights, and religious organizations 
devoted to the support of public schools. Founded in 1978, NCPE opposes 
the funneling of public money to private and religious schools through 
such mechanisms as tuition tax credits and vouchers. A list of the 
members of NCPE is attached.
    We strongly believe that the D.C. voucher program should not be 
reauthorized. The three Federal Department of Education studies \1\ and 
the 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study \2\ prove that 
the program is not improving student achievement, access to student 
resources, student motivation, or student perceptions of safety. Rather 
than continuing to spend millions of dollars on a program that has 
proven ineffective and that is geared towards only helping a small 
fraction of D.C. students, we believe that the money should be 
redirected to programs that help improve public education for all 
students in the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 2007 Report can be found at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/
20074009.pdf. The 2008 Report can be found at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
pdf/20084024.pdf. And, the 2009 Report can be found at http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050_1.pdf.
    \2\ The GAO Report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d089.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We acknowledge that some advocates may be able to point to some 
students who have gone to exemplary schools and seen improvement from 
the program. But according to government studies, these students are, 
unfortunately, the exception rather than the rule. First, according to 
the GAO study, only 3 percent of the students in the program attended 
the elite D.C. schools that cost $20,000 or more a year. The reason 
students can attend these schools is not so much the $7,500 voucher as 
it is the additional $12,500-plus they receive in scholarships from 
private programs or the private school itself. A more complete 
examination of the program, such as the GAO in 2007, shows that some 
children in the program were being sent to schools without occupancy 
certificates and to schools where over half the teachers lack 
bachelor's degrees. Surely this is not a program that is serving the 
students well. Second, the studies show that the voucher program is not 
causing significant gains in academic achievement, increasing 
educational resources, or improving the school environment to justify 
continuing the program.
                       the history of the program
    The D.C. voucher program was created as an experimental 5-year 
pilot program in 2004. The program was created against the wishes of 
D.C. citizens, the District's only congressional Representative, and 
the majority of elected officials in the District of Columbia. The 
Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed the program by just 
one vote (209-208), on an evening when many Representatives who oppose 
vouchers were attending a presidential primary debate in Baltimore and 
when the vote was held open for an unusually long 40-minute period. The 
vote was not a completely partisan vote, as 14 Republicans, along with 
194 Democrats, opposed the bill.
    The full Senate did not vote on the issue. Indeed, the voucher 
language was pulled from the D.C. Appropriations bill because it was 
clear the measure would not pass with the language. The program only 
passed in the Senate when it was later added to the conference report 
of a $280 billion omnibus appropriations bill.
                      the value of public schools
    Open and non-discriminatory in their acceptance of all students, 
American public schools are a unifying factor among the diverse range 
of ethnic and religious communities in our society. Public schools are 
the only schools that must meet the needs of all students. They do not 
turn children or families away. They serve children with physical, 
emotional, and mental disabilities, those who are extremely gifted and 
those who are learning challenged, right along with children without 
special needs.
    Vouchers undermine this vital function, however, by placing some of 
the most motivated students into private schools, leaving the students 
who are most difficult to educate behind in the public schools. The 
D.C. voucher program also diverts desperately needed resources away 
from the public school system to fund the education of the few voucher 
students. The government would better serve our children by using these 
funds to make the public schools stronger and safer.
    Public schools are not failing. Rather, they are striving to 
respond to the swift, substantive changes in society and the calls for 
reform. We, as citizens, must create an environment of support so 
public schools can continue to change and improve. We must shift from 
bashing public schools to empowering continual public school 
improvement. Only then can we create the public will and motivation to 
accomplish for true reform.
            students from ``schools in need of improvement''
    The purpose of the D.C. voucher program was to improve the learning 
environment and academic achievement of D.C. students who attend 
``schools in need of improvement'' (SINI). Yet the GAO study shows that 
such students are underrepresented in the program. Furthermore, the 
Department of Education reports issued in 2007, 2008, and 2009 show 
that these students perform no better in math or reading than their 
counterparts in the D.C. school system. The evidence is clear that the 
program is not serving its main purpose.
                          academic achievement
    Another goal of the voucher program is to improve student academic 
achievement, but studies show the program has failed to reach that 
goal. Again, the Department of Education reports analyzing the D.C. 
voucher program issued in 2007, 2008, and 2009 all found that the 
voucher program is not significantly improving student achievement.
    First, as already explained, the Department of Education studies of 
the D.C. program have found that students from SINI schools, which are 
the students targeted by the program, have shown no improvement in 
reading or math due to the voucher program.
    Minor increases in reading achievement found by the 2009 study did 
not apply to the key students in the program. Students who had attended 
SINI schools before entering the program and students who were in the 
lower third of test score performance before entering the program did 
not improve in reading. These students, of course, are the very 
students who proponents of the program purport it would help. Yet, the 
studies show that they are not improving academically.
    The two subgroups of students who showed the most improvement in 
reading were students for which Federal Government intervention is the 
least justifiable: students who did not come from SINI schools and 
students who were in the top two-thirds of the test score distribution 
when they entered the program.
    Second, the studies have concluded that the D.C. program has had no 
impact on the math achievement of students overall or of any of the ten 
subgroups of students in the study.
    Furthermore, the Department of Education reports also found that 
many of the children who left the D.C. voucher program did so because 
the voucher schools did not provide the academic support they needed: 
of the students who left the voucher program in the first year, 45 
percent stated that it was because the ``child did not get the academic 
support he/she needed at the private school.'' The number shot to 54 
percent in the second year and was at 39 percent in the third year.
    Finally, the 2007 GAO Report also found that many of the voucher 
schools examined in its study were not accredited, and there is no 
evidence they submitted documentation proving educational soundness.
                          academic atmosphere
    Proponents of the voucher program argue that the voucher program 
permits students to attend schools that are safer, provide better 
resources, and create a better learning environment. All of the 
federally administered studies, however, prove this theory wrong.
    Although all three Department of Education studies show that 
parents believe that students in the voucher program are safer at 
school than those who did not participate, students have reported that 
participating in the program has had no impact on their actual school 
experience with dangerous activities.
    Participation in the voucher program has also had no impact on 
student motivation and engagement. The 2008 and 2009 Department of 
Education studies have found that participating in the program has no 
statistically significant impacts on students' aspirations for the 
future, frequency of doing homework, time spent reading for fun, 
engagement in extracurricular activities, or attendance or tardiness 
rates.
    The voucher program also fails to offer participating students 
greater educational resources. In fact, the Department of Education 
studies show that students participating in the program are actually 
less likely to have access to ESL programs, learning support and 
special needs programs, tutors, counselors, cafeterias, and nurse's 
offices than students not in the program. And, the 2009 study shows 
that students in the program have no increase in access to before- and 
after-school programs.
    Furthermore, the voucher program does not provide participating 
students with better teachers than are available at the public schools. 
To the contrary, the GAO Report found that, at some schools, less than 
half of the teachers had even obtained a bachelor's degree. And, the 
2009 Department of Education study revealed that the students 
participating in the voucher program rated their teacher's attitude no 
better than students who did not participate in the program. In 
addition, this study found that the student-teacher ratio for those 
students participating in the program was no better than those who were 
not in the program.
    Again, proponents' claims are not supported by the Federal studies.
        lack of oversight, accountability, and internal controls
    The 2007 GAO Report found troubling facts about the operation of 
voucher program. First, the GAO found that the grant administrator had 
not ensured that the participating schools adhered to the rules of the 
program or D.C. laws. For example, the administrator permitted schools 
to participate--and allowed students to attend schools--even though 
they lacked a valid D.C. occupancy certificate, failed to submit 
required financial data, and failed to submit required annual reports 
on operational reports with basic information on curriculum, teachers' 
education, and school facilities. Indeed, some participating schools 
failed to submit information on accreditation or educational soundness, 
yet voucher students were directed to and attended those schools.
    The grant administrator also paid tuition for students to schools 
that actually did not charge tuition and made disbursements to other 
schools without requiring them to submit the proper paperwork.
    The GAO report also criticized the grant administrator for 
providing inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete information to parents 
about the participating schools. Indeed, the administrator incorrectly 
reported information on some schools that could have significantly 
affected parents' choice of schools, such as the percentage of teachers 
who had at least a bachelor's degree and tuition rates.
                       student access to vouchers
    This voucher program does not provide school ``choice'' to 
students. To the contrary, it provides private schools with the 
opportunity to obtain Federal funding to enroll the students of their 
choice. Indeed, the participating private schools can maintain their 
admission standards even for voucher students. So only those who meet 
the schools requirements, including academic testing, will be admitted 
to the school. Religious schools can also reject students based on 
gender. Thus, even students who qualify for a voucher may never be able 
to use that voucher if a private school does not accept them into its 
school.
    Thus, it is no surprise that certain groups of students have less 
access to voucher schools than others. For example, students with 
special needs often cannot find a private school that can serve them: 
The Department of Education reports show that a significant number of 
students had to reject their vouchers because they were unable to find 
a participating school that offered services for their learning or 
physical disability or other special needs. Indeed, in the first year 
of the program, 21 percent of the students who rejected a voucher did 
so for this reason, 17 percent rejected it for this reason in the 
second year, and 16 percent rejected it for this reason in the third 
year.
    High school students also have less access to voucher schools: For 
the school year 2005-2006, only about 70 openings were available at the 
high school level.
    And, according to the GAO Report, students seeking non-religious 
schools also have a limited number from which to choose, since most 
participating private schools were Catholic or Protestant, and these 
schools offered the most openings. Indeed, in the third year of the 
program, 82 percent of students in the program attended a faith-based 
school.
    Furthermore, the 2008 study revealed that 8 percent of the students 
who left their voucher school did so because religious activities at 
the private school made the student uncomfortable. And 2 percent of 
students didn't even accept a voucher because they did not want to 
attend a school that provided religious instruction.
                             discrimination
    Religious schools that participate in the program are allowed to 
discriminate in admission on the basis of gender and in hiring on the 
basis of religion. A central principle of our constitutional order, 
however, is that ``the Constitution does not permit the State to aid 
discrimination.'' Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465-66 (1973).
    In addition to raising constitutional concerns, federally 
subsidized religious discrimination raises significant public policy 
concerns. When funding any school, whether public or private, the 
government should not surrender the longstanding principle of equal 
treatment for all--all students should be treated the same regardless 
of sex and all teachers the same regardless of religion. Taxpayer money 
should not fund programs that harm the fundamental civil rights of 
students and teachers.
                       funding religious schools
    Many of the members of our coalition object to taxpayer funds going 
towards religious education. Though the religious groups in our 
coalition value religious education and recognize that parochial 
schools can serve a valuable role for many children, they also 
recognize that because most parochial schools either cannot or do not 
wish to separate the religious components of the education they offer 
from the academic programs, these schools must be funded by voluntary 
contributions, not taxation. One of the most dearly held principles of 
religious liberty is that government should not compel any citizen to 
furnish funds in support of a religion with which he or she disagrees, 
or even a religion with which he or she does agree. The D.C. voucher 
program, however, violates that central tenet: it uses taxpayer money 
to fund primarily religious education. Indeed, approximately 82 percent 
of the students participating in the program attend religious schools. 
Parents certainly may choose such an education for their children, but 
no taxpayer should be required to pay for another's religious 
education.
    Religious organizations and schools that rely on voluntary 
participation and contributions are likely to flourish. Government 
funds, however, threaten to shift religious schools' monetary source 
from the followers of their religion to the government treasury. And, 
with that shift, they also risk losing their religious identity, 
teachings, and message. To remain healthy, a religious school should 
follow the dictates of its adherents rather than the dictates of a 
government uninterested in its religious mission. To do this, they must 
reject government funding.
                               conclusion
    NCPE is committed to supporting public school education for all 
students in the District of Columbia. The D.C. voucher program, 
however, undermines public schools and generally does not significantly 
improve the academic resources, environment, or academic achievement 
for students--whether participating or not participating in the 
program. If Congress wants to improve education in the District, it 
should focus on programs that have proven results and that improve 
education for all students--not a select few.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this important 
issue.
    The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) is comprised of 
more than 60 education, civic, civil rights, and religious 
organizations devoted to the support of public schools. Founded in 
1978, NCPE opposes the funneling of public money to private and 
religious schools through such mechanisms as tuition tax credits and 
vouchers.
    American Alliance for Health Physical Education, Recreation and 
Dance--AAHPERD; American Association of Colleges for Teacher 
Education--AACTE; American Association of School Administrators--AASA; 
American Association of University Women--AAUW; American Civil 
Liberties Union--ACLU; American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees--AFSCME; American Federation of Teachers--AFT; 
American Humanist Association--AHA; American Jewish Committee--AJC; 
American Jewish Congress--AJCongress; Americans for Democratic Action--
ADA; Americans for Religious Liberty--ARL; Americans United for 
Separation of Church and State--AU; Anti-Defamation League--ADL; ASPIRA 
Association, Inc.; Association of Educational Service Agencies--AESA; 
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development--ASCD; Baptist 
Joint Committee for Religious Liberty--(BJC); Center for Inquiry; 
Center for Law and Education--CLE; Child Welfare League of America, 
Inc.--CWLA; Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity 
Disorder--CHADD; Council for Exceptional Children--CEC; Council of 
Chief State School Officers--CCSSO; Council of the Great City Schools--
CGCS; General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists; Hadassah; 
International Reading Association--IRA; The Interfaith Alliance--TIA; 
Jewish Council for Public Affairs--JCPA; Labor Council for Latin 
American Advancement--LCLAA; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights--
LCCR; League of Women Voters--LWV; Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund--MALDEF; NA'AMAT USA; National Alliance of Black 
School Educators--NABSE; National Association for Bilingual Education--
NABE; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--
NAACP; National Association of Elementary School Principals--NAESP; 
National Association of Partners in Education--NAPE; National 
Association of School Psychologists--NASP; National Association of 
Secondary School Principals--NASSP; National Association of State 
Boards of Education--NASBE; National Association of State Directors of 
Special Education--NASDSE; National Black Child Development Institute--
NBCDI; National Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty--
National PEARL; National Council of Jewish Women--NCJW; National 
Education Association--NEA; National Education Knowledge Industry 
Association--NEKIA; National Parent Teacher Association--National PTA; 
National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition--NREAC; National Rural 
Education Association--NREA; National School Boards Association--NSBA; 
National Urban League--NUL; New York City Board of Education--NYCBOE; 
Northwest Religious Liberty Association--NRLA; People For the American 
Way--PFAW; Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office--PCUSA; School 
Social Work Association of America--SSWAA; Secular Coalition for 
America; Service Employees International Union--SEIU; Union for Reform 
Judaism--URJ; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations--
UUAC; United Automobile Workers--UAW; United Church of Christ, Justice 
and Witness Ministries; United Methodist General Board of Church and 
Society--UMC-GBCS; Women of Reform Judaism--WRJ.
                                 ______
                                 
      Prepared Statement of the National School Boards Association
    The National School Boards Association (NSBA), representing 95,000 
local school board members across the Nation through our State school 
boards associations, urges you to voice opposition to continued funding 
of the expired Washington, DC, private school voucher program during 
the hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services 
and General Government scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, 2009. The 
hearing aims to examine the impact of Federal funding on improving the 
education of students in Washington, DC.
    The $14 million a year pilot program currently provides vouchers 
worth up to $7,500 each for approximately 1,700 students. This funding 
has not produced effective student outcomes based on research that has 
repeatedly shown that the voucher program has failed to raise the 
achievement of students, particularly those who are low performing. 
Created as a 5-year pilot program, it expired in 2008. The fiscal year 
2009 omnibus appropriations bill provided an additional year of funding 
(for the 2009-2010 school year) to allow current students to smoothly 
transition out of the voucher program. The legislation stipulated that 
additional funding would not be available unless Congress decides to 
reauthorize it and the D.C. City Council approves it. Given the 
program's ineffectiveness (as outlined in more detail below), and the 
disproportionate funding allocated to relatively few students despite 
the unmet needs of the D.C. public schools, NSBA believes extending the 
voucher program is not warranted and that such funding should be 
redirected to public schools to improve the performance for all 
students.
    When Congress created the voucher program in 2003, the goal was to 
raise student achievement with a priority for students who attend 
``schools in need of improvement'' (SINI) under the No Child Left 
Behind Act (NCLB). However, all three of the congressionally mandated 
Department of Education studies have concluded that the voucher program 
has had no significant effect on the overall academic achievement of 
these students.\1\ In fact, a 2007 U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report found that students from SINI were underrepresented 
in voucher schools.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 
Impacts After Three Years,'' Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, April 2009; ``Evaluation of the D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impact After Two Years,'' Institute of 
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, June 2008; 
``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impact After 
One Year,'' Institute of Education Science, U.S. Department of 
Education, June 2007.
    \2\ ``District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program,'' U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, Nov. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In all 3 years (2007, 2008 and 2009), the studies found no 
significant impact on math achievement of students who were in voucher 
schools compared to their peers in public schools. In years one and 
two, no significant impact was found on reading achievement. In year 
three, the study showed the reading achievement of some students 
improved, but it is noteworthy that students coming from SINI schools 
and those who entered the voucher program in the lower third of the 
test-score distribution showed no improvement in reading \3\--the very 
group the program intended to help. The two groups of students who 
showed the most improvement in reading were students for which Federal 
Government intervention is the least justifiable: students who did not 
come from SINI schools and students who were already high performing 
when they entered the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 
Impacts After Three Years,'' Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, all three studies found that participating in the 
voucher program had no impact on student safety, satisfaction, 
motivation or engagement.\4\ Students attending voucher schools also 
have less access to key services such as English-as-a-second-language 
programs, special needs services, school nurses, counselors, cafeteria, 
after school programs and tutors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxvi, xviii, 35, 
44-45, 49-50; 2008 U.S. Department of Education Report at 42-43, 50, 
and 57; 2007 U.S. Department of Education Report at xix and 1-4.
    \5\ 2009 U.S. Department of Education Report at xxii and 17-18; 
2008 U.S. Department of Education Report at xvii and 16; 2007 U.S. 
Department of Education Report at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only does the experimental program lack academic evidence to 
support its continuation, the 2007 GAO report documented numerous 
accountability shortcomings, including Federal taxpayer dollars paying 
tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, schools 
that lacked a city occupancy permit, and schools employing teachers 
without bachelor's degrees.\6\ It also noted that children with 
physical or learning disabilities are underrepresented compared to 
public schools.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 2007 GAO Report at 22, 33-35.
    \7\ 2007 GAO Report at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A continuation of this failed program will not support Congress' 
goal to invest in what works in education. Now is not the time to 
divert funding from public schools, which are increasingly held 
accountable for student achievement under the escalating requirements 
of NCLB. Private schools are not held to the standards and 
accountability under NCLB. More support is needed for public schools as 
educators and policymakers look to raise academic standards, teacher 
quality and graduation rates to ensure our students are competitive in 
the 21st century global economy. They also must respond to increasing 
demands for services for students with special needs and limited 
English proficiency who generally do not meet the admission standards 
of private school.
    NSBA believes the objective evidence does not support the continued 
funding of the only federally funded school voucher program. We urge 
you to voice your opposition to funding the Washington, DC voucher 
program.







  A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE USE, IMPACT, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROVIDED TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN 
                        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

                           U.S. Senate,    
         Subcommittee on Financial Services
                            and General Government,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin, Alexander, and Collins.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

    Senator Durbin. Good morning. I'm pleased to reconvene this 
hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government.
    I apologize for the inconvenience on September 16, when we 
last gathered, and floor votes made it necessary to postpone 
the completion of the hearing. I'm glad to see that most of the 
witnesses were able to return today.
    I welcome my distinguished ranking member, Senator Collins, 
and other colleagues, who will join us on the dais later.
    Ms. Levy, Mr. Cane, Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill, thank you for 
taking the time to appear. I also want to thank Mr. Cork for 
returning, as well, to testify on a few additional questions.
    Former Mayor Anthony Williams was here for the last 
hearing, and I'm sorry that he couldn't testify, but without 
objection, his written statement will be made part of the 
record of this hearing.
    [The statement follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Anthony Williams, Former Mayor, District of 
                                Columbia
    Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and other distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, my name is Anthony Williams and it is an 
honor to be before you today. I have sat in this seat more than a dozen 
times during my service as mayor of the District of Columbia, and while 
it's a bit different not to be the person responsible for spending the 
funding under discussion today, I have the same passions today as in 
2003 when we began with you a discussion on what was then a 
speculative, bold idea: That the Federal Government ought to invest in 
educational reform in the Nation's capital.
    I think it's useful to review briefly how the three-sector 
education initiative evolved and what sort of challenges we faced in 
2003. At first, it was hard to rally people to look at education reform 
across public, public charter, and private schools. Everyone, 
understandably, was focused on their sector, their school, or their 
child. But I quickly earned some recruits along the way, including 
Kevin Chavous, then-chairman of the Council's Committee on Education, 
and soon enough there was a critical mass of civic leadership who 
thought the District could, indeed, become the locus of unprecedented 
educational reform.
    To no one's surprise, though, it was an uneven start. Our public 
schools had not caught the ``reform bug'' yet and the ability to change 
from within needed considerable prodding. However, the funds provided 
by this subcommittee make possible some good programs, including 
important summer school initiatives. As is well known, my able and 
dynamic successor, Adrian Fenty, had better luck than I did in taking 
control of the schools, pushing the reset button at DCPS, and along 
with his innovative and brave Chancellor, Michelle Rhee, has since 
earned the District national attention as they try to fix decades of 
neglect and dysfunction in DCPS. They have my enthusiastic support and 
encouragement. I know they have yours, too.
    Our public charter school movement, though very promising and 
innovative in 2003, was still fledgling and there were some who thought 
this ``newfangled'' way of educating our children had probably peaked. 
We now know that was far from accurate. The District of Columbia's 
public charter school movement is a national model. Parents have 
responded to their innovation and responsiveness by enrolling thousands 
upon thousands of more children in public charter schools. Six years of 
funding from this subcommittee has been spent well and made a profound 
impact in public charter schools' ability to secure adequate physical 
space for classrooms. The subcommittee should take a bow in having 
helped this along.
    This subcommittee also launched the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program, the first federally funded voucher program for K-12 students. 
I continue to support this program strongly, and have done what I can 
to help it survive and will continue to protect it as long as 
necessary. When I hear the public discourse about healthcare reform, I 
can't help but think about the public discourse on the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program. Opponents have muddied the waters with 
misrepresentation of the facts and non sequiturs.
    This subcommittee insisted that the scholarship program have a 
robust evaluation component so that after 5 years, everyone could 
rationally discuss whether or not children using the program fared 
better. So the Department of Education did just that: They funded an 
independent evaluation that shows two undisputable facts: (1) Children 
in the program earned better test scores with educational choices and 
(2) parents are remarkably happy with their children's educational 
settings. I hear lots of rhetoric that ``vouchers don't work'' and, Mr. 
Chairman, I believe that is profoundly inaccurate.
    Some base more specious arguments against the OSP on the GAO report 
from a couple of years ago. As Mayor of the District for 8 years, 
programs under me were the subject of dozens of GAO reports. The report 
made some recommendations for improvement in program management that 
were implemented happily by the program operator. The subcommittee is 
right to continue looking at issues pertaining to school participation 
in the OSP and various compliance issues. But please don't lose sight 
of the basic fact that the program is fulfilling its basic mission and 
advancing the educational lives of thousands of low-income children.
    No one, including Chancellor Rhee, feels that the D.C. OSP 
undermines public education in the city. In fact, she and Mayor Fenty 
both support the three sector initiative. They believe in initiatives 
and policies that put children first and that focus on what works for 
low-income families. I believe that some of the opposition to the D.C. 
OSP comes from a latent feeling among a few people who just don't think 
low-incomes families can (or should be able to) choose wisely among 
educational options for their children. I have met countless mothers 
and fathers and grandparents who, with the leg up provided by D.C. OSP, 
have rescued their children and grandchildren from lives with iffy 
futures and literally changed their families' whole outlook on life.
    Basically, Mr. Chairman, I think the adage, ``If it's not broken, 
don't fix it'' applies here. My city has embraced the three sector 
initiative. All three sectors are doing well and parents' confidence in 
the future is increasing. A recent poll sponsored by a coalition of 
local organizations, including D.C. Children First, found that 74 
percent of respondents (the same number who favor public charter 
schools) said they favor or strongly favor the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. Support for the program is even higher--over 80 percent--for 
parents with school-aged children.
    Our Mayor, a majority of the City Council, and a broad array of 
civic leaders support what this subcommittee has done, so I urge you 
not to complicate the political balance we have crafted and to renew 
all three sectors. I support the bi-partisan reauthorization bill put 
forth by Senator Lieberman enthusiastically and hope that the Congress 
will pass it.
    Everyone knows that the District has a ``special,'' some say 
``peculiar,'' others say ``maddening'' relationship with the Federal 
Government. I think it's a combination of all three. I think you should 
look at the three sector funding initiative in that light--namely, 
something that makes sense in the context of the ``special'' 
relationship between Congress and the capital city. Those who would 
argue for or against vouchers as an expression of national policy ought 
to take leave from the question at hand and work with the Congress, 
Mayor and City Council, Chancellor, parents, and other District leaders 
on renewing the three-sector program--because it's working, it's making 
a difference in children's lives, and it deserves not be caught in a 
national food fight over ideology.
    Mr. Chairman, K-12 education in the District of Columbia, though it 
has a long way to go, is undergoing a transformation worthy of its 
status as a world capital. Our Mayor is aggressively changing the 
status quo in public schools. Our public charter schools represent the 
templar for the other cities. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 
is giving greater voice and empowerment to low-income families with 
proven success for children. Thank you for making this possible . . . 
and keep it going.

    Senator Durbin. I mentioned earlier, in my first hearing, 
that we're focusing on the special Federal appropriated 
payments for school improvement in the District of Columbia. It 
may be the first time since 2004 that we've really brought 
together in one forum the key officials for public schools, 
charter schools, and the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
    The objective today is simple, and that's to determine 
whether or not we are, in fact, having a positive impact on the 
education of students in Washington, DC, based on the new and 
additional Federal investments.
    I believe that Federal funding has helped improve education 
in the District of Columbia and leverage important reforms. 
But, we know that more needs to be done, and I'm optimistic 
that we can achieve those goals.
    As for the voucher program, I believe the Department of 
Education study makes it clear that there are still unresolved 
issues about the effectiveness of the program, and questions 
about the administration, which we'll discuss today.
    Now that Congress has invested close to $350 million in 
special Federal payments to support D.C. children over the past 
6 years--over and above, incidentally, the Federal grant funds 
available to the District--it's time for an honest appraisal. 
Have those resources made a difference? How do we know that? 
What progress has been made? What results have been 
demonstrated? And, what lies ahead?
    I look forward to hearing the perspectives of these issues 
from our panelists. And before turning to Senator Collins for 
her opening remarks, I note the subcommittee has received a 
statement and additional materials for the record from Senator 
Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs, who was at our last hearing 
and, unfortunately, didn't get a chance to testify. Both 
Senator Collins and I have apologized to him profusely and will 
make it up to him somehow, but he was kind enough to care 
enough and show up, and I wish we could have had his testimony 
in person. His statement was included and printed in the 
September 16 hearing.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Collins.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

    Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, I'll be brief, because I gave an extensive statement 
at our hearing on September 16.
    The bottom line for me is, the District of Columbia has 
failed its children for many years by denying them the chance 
for a good education, thereby relegating them to lives of 
limited choices and lost opportunities.
    I know that the chairman shares my belief that the schools 
in our Nation's capital should be a model of excellence and 
successful innovation for the rest of the country, and that is 
our goal. I believe that the three sector education initiative 
helps bring us closer to that goal, though we have a long ways 
to go.
    As the chairman's indicated, Senator Lieberman, with whom 
I've introduced a bill that several of our colleagues, 
including Senator Alexander, have cosponsored, to extend the 
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, attempted to testify last 
time, can't be here today. So, I just want to quote one phrase, 
or one section, of his testimony, which has been submitted for 
the record. He said, ``Each dollar appropriated to the program 
is a dollar well spent, and I strongly urge the subcommittee to 
provide funds for the program, to allow it to continue in full 
force.''
    Regarding the Opportunity Scholarship Program, Senator 
Lieberman noted, ``This program is helping disadvantaged 
students in the District. As such, it is not the whole solution 
to improving educational opportunity in our Nation's capital, 
but it should be part of the solution.''
    I would also note that, at our last hearing, Chancellor 
Rhee indicated her support for a continuation of the three 
sector approach. And I think we should follow her advice, as 
well.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record a 
letter that I received from the chairman of the board and 
members of the executive committee of the Washington 
Scholarship Fund that is dated September 21, 2009. The letter 
accounts for all 1,716 D.C. OSP students and the schools that 
they attended during fiscal year--or school year 2008-2009.
    [The information follows:]
                               Washington Scholarship Fund,
                                                September 21, 2009.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, 
        Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, 
        D.C.
    Dear Senator Durbin: Thank you once again for permitting the 
Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF) to testify at the hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on September 
16.
    This letter is signed by the Chairman of the Board of WSF and by 
all members of its Executive Committee, in addition to its President 
and CEO. We are doing so because we want to express to you and to all 
members of the Subcommittee our confidence that Federal taxpayer monies 
dedicated to the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) have been 
thoughtfully and prudently stewarded.
    We would like to note as well that our student tracking and 
scholarship payment accounting processes have been carefully developed 
through our close work with the U.S. Department of Education's (DOE's) 
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) and Institute of Education 
Sciences (IES) in connection with IES's administration of the 
federally-mandated evaluation of the OSP on these matters. These 
processes have been further developed and refined in response to 
recommendations made to WSF by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) in connection with its audit of the OSP on these matters, 
conducted in 2006 and 2007. We are confident in the integrity and 
accuracy of our student tracking and scholarship payment accounting 
processes, and are mindful of and committed to honoring our fiduciary 
obligations as the administrator of the OSP and as the steward of 
federal funds.
    Pursuant to your request, we have attached to this letter an 
accounting as of September 30, 2008, of the OSP students placed in each 
school participating in the OSP for the 2008-2009 school year (please 
refer to Attachment A). As you will see, this accounting reports that 
1,716 OSP students were placed in these schools as of the beginning of 
the last school year.
    We will quickly acknowledge that there may well be differences 
between the information contained in the attachment and that shared 
with you by the schools from which you have gathered OSP student 
enrollment data directly.
    Why might that be the case?
    First, a school may have provided student enrollment data as of a 
point in the school year other than September 2008. If schools provided 
data as of June 2009, their reported number of OSP enrollees would 
likely be lower than the number reported in our attachment because of 
natural attrition during the school year. Students might leave a school 
because their family has moved out of the District, because their 
family has moved within the District and found a different school more 
convenient, or because of a host of other personal, financial or like 
reasons. As of June 2009, our records show that 1,625 students were 
enrolled in participating schools, a reduction in total enrollment of 
91 students.
    Second, a school may have provided student enrollment data as of 
September 2009, the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year. If they did 
so, the number of students reported by a school may be lower, 
reflecting in part the decision of the U.S. Department of Education to 
prohibit 216 eligible students from using their scholarships for the 
current school year.
    Third, a school may have provided student enrollment data based on 
the number of students for whom an OSP payment was made and that number 
may be higher or lower than the number reported in our attachment. Why 
would that happen? In our experience, some eligible OSP students 
discontinue enrollment at a school during the course of the school 
year, and some students begin enrollment after the beginning of the 
school year. These inflows and outflows of students are typical of the 
dynamic movement of student populations over the course of any given 
school year in all schools, whether traditional public, public charter, 
or non-public. For students using their OSP scholarships for only part 
of the school year, tuition payments are prorated so that the 
participating school is paid only for the days during which the student 
is actually enrolled at the school. Because of student inflows and 
outflows during the course of the school year, the total number of 
students for whom scholarship payments (whether full or partial) are 
made during the course of the school year may well differ from the 
total OSP student enrollment at the beginning of the school year.
    Based on the information you have gathered directly from OSP 
schools, you said at the hearing that you believed that there were 389 
fewer OSP students in the program than the 1,716 students reported at 
the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year and that those 389 students 
were thus ``unaccounted for.'' We believe that the 389-student 
difference between the opening enrollment of 1,716 and the information 
provided to you by individual schools is in fact ``accounted for'' by 
at least three factors:
  --You said that five or more schools had not provided you with 
        enrollment information. While we do not know which schools did 
        not report to you, it is likely that a very significant 
        proportion of what you regard as the 389 ``unaccounted for'' 
        students--perhaps as many as 300 or more--were in fact enrolled 
        at these schools during the 2008-2009 school year.
  --For the reasons outlined above, schools might have provided OSP 
        student enrollment information as of the end of the 2008-2009 
        school year or at any of varying points in time over the course 
        of the 2008-2009 school year. Given the natural attrition that 
        occurs during the course of the school year, the aggregate 
        number of OSP students enrolled at the end of the school year 
        will be less than the number of students enrolled at the 
        beginning of the school year, accounting, in our view, for a 
        portion of the seeming 389-student difference you cite.
  --And we believe that one or more schools may have reported OSP 
        student enrollment for the current 2009-2010 school year. Given 
        the likely decline in 2009-2010 school year due in part to the 
        decisions of the Department of Education, such number is likely 
        to be less than the enrollment figures for the beginning of the 
        2008-2009 school year, accounting again for a portion of the 
        seeming 389-student difference.
    For these reasons, we believe that the 389 ``unaccounted for'' 
students are, in fact, ``accounted for'' since they are either enrolled 
in the schools that did not report school enrollment to you or since 
they represent the natural decline in overall enrollment between the 
beginning of the school year (1,716 students) and the end of the school 
year (1,625 students). Our confidence in this matter is based on the 
fact that our school payment records carefully document the schools and 
the students to and for whom payments are made.
    Regardless of the source of any differences between the enrollment 
information you have received from schools and the enrollment 
information we have provided to you, we want to assure you that we can 
and will fully document any discrepancies in the information provided 
by any particular school and the information provided in this letter.
    Most importantly, let us restate what we said at the outset of this 
letter. We are fully confident that WSF has prudently stewarded the 
Federal dollars applied to this program. We stand ready to resolve any 
and all discrepancies in the data that give rise to any concern in this 
regard.
    Finally, you and your fellow Subcommittee members broached several 
other important issues and questions at the September 16 hearing. We 
will address each of these issues and questions the Subcommittee raised 
at the hearing in a further letter.
    We very much would appreciate the opportunity personally to meet 
with you and your staff to review together all relevant information 
concerning the Opportunity Scholarship Program and to address and 
resolve any and all of questions and concerns relating to the Program 
and our administration of it that you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have. We of course will be available to meet with you 
at any time convenient to you.
    Thank you, Senator Durbin, for engaging with us on these important 
matters. We look forward to working closely with you and your staff in 
further service to the low-income families the Federal government 
serves through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
            Sincerely,
                                     Joseph E. Robert, Jr.,
             Chairman and CEO, J.E. Robert Companies, WSF Chairman.
                                            C. Boyden Gray,
   Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, WSF Vice Chairman.
                                      Lawrence C. Nussdorf,
         President and COO, Clark Enterprises, Inc., WSF Treasurer.
                                         George Vradenburg,
                                  President, Vradenburg Foundation.
                                         Curtin Winsor III,
                                      Chairman, Bank of Georgetown.
                                           Gregory M. Cork,
                    President and CEO, Washington Scholarship Fund.
                                 ______
                                 

ATTACHMENT A.--ACCOUNTING OF D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM--2008-
                            2009 SCHOOL YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of OSP
                                                             Students
                                                             Placed in
                         Schools                             Schools,
                                                           September 30,
                                                               2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academia de La Recta Porta..............................              28
Academy for Ideal Education (two campuses)..............              84
Ambassador Baptist Church Christian School..............              57
Annunciation School.....................................              22
Archbishop Carroll High School..........................             141
Beauvoir School.........................................               1
Blessed Sacrament Elementary School.....................               4
Bridges Academy.........................................              94
Calvary Christian Academy...............................             128
Clara Muhammad School...................................              20
Cornerstone Beulah Christian Academy (two campuses).....              48
Dupont Park Seventh Day Adventist School................              92
Edmund Burke School.....................................               5
Georgetown Day School...................................               3
Georgetown Visitation School............................               3
Gonzaga College High School.............................               4
Holy Redeemer Catholic School...........................              80
Holy Trinity School.....................................               6
Howard University Early Learning Programs...............               1
Kingsbury Day School of Kingsbury Center, Inc.\1\.......  ..............
Kuumba Learning Center..................................              14
Learning, Life, and Leadership Christian Academy........              13
Lowell School...........................................               1
Metropolitan Day School.................................              22
Monroe School...........................................               1
Muhammad University of Islam............................               9
Nannie Helen Burroughs School...........................              54
National Cathedral School...............................               1
National Presbyterian School............................               3
Naylor Road School......................................             101
New Macedonia Christian Academy.........................               2
Our Lady of Victory School..............................              18
Preparatory School of D.C...............................              10
Randall Hyland Private School of D.C....................               2
Roots Activity Learning Center..........................              26
Sacred Heart School.....................................              98
San Miguel Middle School................................               6
Sheridan School.........................................               1
Sidwell Friends School..................................               2
St. Ann's Academy.......................................              62
St. Anselm's Abbey School...............................               3
St. Anthony Catholic School.............................              57
St. Augustine School....................................             143
St. Francis Xavier School...............................              87
St. John's College High School..........................              13
St. Peter's Interparish School..........................              10
St. Thomas More Catholic School.........................             110
Washington Jesuit Academy...............................              12
Washington Middle School For Girls......................              14
                                                         ---------------
      Grand Total.......................................           1,716
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This school placed their first OSP student for the 2008-09 school
  year after September 30, 2008.

    Senator Collins. You, Mr. Chairman, raised some very 
important questions about the accountability of those funds, so 
I'm pleased that the board has answered those questions in this 
letter.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would ask your permission to have my entire statement be 
included in the record.
    Senator Durbin. Without objection, Senator Collins. The 
entire statement will be included. And, without objection, the 
entry that she wishes to add to the record will be included.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Susan Collins
    Good morning. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening the second half 
of our hearing to review the impact of the federal three-sector 
education initiative for the District of Columbia.
    I will be brief, since my statement from September 16th is already 
included in the hearing record. For many years, the District of 
Columbia has failed its children by denying them the chance to receive 
a decent education, thereby relegating them to lives of limited choices 
and few opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the schools in our nation's 
capital should be a model of excellence and successful innovation for 
the rest of the country. With that goal at the forefront, starting in 
fiscal year 2004, we designed a three-sector education initiative to 
provide federal resources to improve the educational opportunities for 
children in the District of Columbia. Since that time we have provided 
over $330 million in federal funds to support the three-sector 
education initiative in D.C. This is above and beyond the federal 
education formula funds that the District receives.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe that this three-sector initiative has been 
a success. I was impressed by Chancellor Rhee's unqualified support for 
the continuation of the initiative when she testified before our 
subcommittee on September 16th. Recently, the principal investigator 
for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program reported that the reading 
effects of the D.C. OSP show the largest achievement impact of any 
education policy program yet evaluated in a randomized control trial by 
the U.S. Department of Education. We should all be proud of these 
results, and lean on that evidence as reason enough to reauthorize this 
important program.
    Senator Lieberman was unable to appear before the subcommittee 
today, but he has been a leader in the efforts to reauthorize the 
three-sector education initiative in the District of Columbia. His 
statement has been made a part of the record, and I would like to 
briefly quote from it: ``. . . each dollar appropriated to the program 
is a dollar well spent and I strongly urge this subcommittee to provide 
funds for the program to allow it to continue in full force.'' 
Regarding the D.C. OSP, Senator Lieberman notes that ``this program is 
helping disadvantaged students in the District. As such, it is not the 
whole solution to improving educational opportunity in our Nation's 
capital, but it should be part of the solution.''
    Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should take careful notice of 
Senator Lieberman's comments since he is the Chairman of the program's 
authorizing committee. Indeed, this past May, we held a hearing in the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to review the 
impact of the D.C. OSP. Based on the compelling witness testimony and 
the impressive results of the independent evaluation of its positive 
effects, he and I began work on a bill to reauthorize the D.C. OSP for 
5 years. Together with Senators Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd, Ensign, and 
Alexander, he and I have recently introduced that bill. It is our hope 
that the D.C. OSP can continue to provide excellent educational 
opportunities for thousands of D.C. students.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a letter from 
the Chairman of the Board and members of the Executive Committee of the 
Washington Scholarship Fund, dated September 21, 2009. The letter 
accounts for all 1,716 D.C. OSP students and the schools they attended 
during school year 2008-2009. I understand that, historically, WSF does 
its ``head count'' in late September or early October to give schools 
enough time to finalize their enrollments, and WSF has usually released 
OSP student numbers soon thereafter. I understand that WSF does not yet 
have the numbers for the current 2009-2010 school year. Therefore, I 
would like WSF to provide information about the placement of the 1,716 
D.C. OSP students for the current school year as soon as it becomes 
available.
    Finally, I would like to note that on September 17--the day after 
our hearing--the Department of Education selected WSF to administer the 
D.C. OSP for the 2009-2010 school year. This award followed a 
competitive process and is the sixth continuous award that WSF has 
received to implement the D.C. OSP.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for reconvening this hearing and I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses.

    Senator Durbin. Senator Alexander, thank you for joining us 
again. Do you want to make an opening comment?

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

    Senator Alexander. Only to say, I'm here because I 
appreciate the way you conducted the last hearing, you and 
Senator Collins, and I thought you----
    Senator Durbin. You were surprised----
    Senator Alexander. No, I didn't say that.
    I didn't say that. I just was impressed. Let's say that.
    And, I'm glad you and Senator Collins are doing this. Just 
to make one point, it seemed to me that the line of questioning 
that the chairman was making was to try to make sure that the 
schools that the Opportunity Scholarship Program children 
attended were good schools and that somebody was checking to 
make sure of that. And, I think that's a line of inquiry I'd 
like to hear more about today.
    I looked up the law for private schools which said that the 
private schools in the District has to require information--it 
has to give the superintendent of public schools information 
about the amount of instruction, character of the instruction, 
qualifications of the staff, et cetera. So, Chancellor Rhee, 
who says she'd like to continue this three-pronged approach for 
5 years--I mean, that's one check. A second check would be the 
charter schools, the charter school board apparently works hard 
on that. And then there's the accreditation process, which, my 
experience says, is not as extensive for K through 12 schools 
as it is for higher education, but at least it's an option 
that's out there. And the charter schools are all required to 
at least be in the process of accreditation.
    So, I'm interested to see where we come down on the very 
good questions you were asking about. How do you make sure that 
all the schools they're attending are good schools?
    Thank you for holding this hearing.
    Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Alexander.
    Mary Levy, former director, Public Education Reform Project 
of the Washington Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights and Urban 
Affairs will testify first. She is going to be followed by 
Robert Cane, executive director of the Friends of Choice in 
Urban Schools, Dr. Patricia Weitzel-O'Neill, superintendent of 
schools for the Archdiocese of Washington, and Greg Cork, 
executive director of the Washington Scholarship Fund.
    Ms. Levy had a chance to testify last time, but because 
she's been kind enough to return, I'm going to give her a 
moment, if she'd like, to highlight some of her remarks, or add 
anything to her previous testimony, before we entertain the 
others.
STATEMENT OF MARY LEVY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON 
            LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND 
            URBAN AFFAIRS
    Ms. Levy. Thank you, and good morning.
    I've been studying the D.C. public schools, and especially 
their finances and staffing, for 30 years. As a parent of 
children now graduated, and as a lawyer who specializes in 
education finance, I'll just give a 1-minute summary of what I 
said before.
    We're very grateful for the Federal payment. It has enabled 
the school system to pursue reforms that need to be pursued 
without having to cut into the classroom, and we thank you.
    It's too early to know what the outcomes are for student 
achievement. The reforms are a mix; some enhancements and a lot 
of just wiping out whatever was there.
    And I've read the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reports. They agree with my own observations. And, yes, there 
is a strategy of workforce replacement, which I think has some 
worrisome consequences. I would say that I've been to this 
movie before. We have different actors, different sets, but 
it's the same plot. I just hope that the ending is different 
this time.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Mr. Cane?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT CANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS 
            OF CHOICE IN URBAN SCHOOLS
    Mr. Cane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and 
Senator Alexander.
    My name is Robert Cane. I'm executive director of Friends 
of Choice in Urban Schools. Focus has been in nonprofit in the 
District of Columbia since 1996, and our mission is to provide 
advocacy, technical assistance, and other support to the D.C. 
public charter schools. And, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify.
    I want to make four points today. I think they're fairly 
straightforward. And I'd like to make them in connection with 
these graphs that you see over here and you have in your 
packet.



    The first point I want to make is that the District of 
Columbia's public charter schools are wildly popular with the 
families of the District of Columbia and the general public. 
This graph shows the astonishing growth of the public charter 
schools from two campuses and 160 students, in 1996, to almost 
26,000 students; during the last school year, 36 percent of all 
the public school students in the District of Columbia. And 
that's second only to New Orleans. Our schools are now on 99 
campuses. It should be noted that 96 percent of the students in 
the District's public charter schools are Black or Latino, and 
80 percent are economically disadvantaged. Although we've grown 
so much, many of our charter schools have extensive waiting 
lists. Capital City Public Charter School, which was the first 
public school visited by President Obama after his election, 
had 1,350 applications, this school year, for 45 places. And 
they're not alone.



    The second graph, which we don't need to spend any time on, 
but in a recent survey, it showed that three-quarters of the 
voters of the District of Columbia support the public charter 
schools.
    The next point I'd like to make is that, although everybody 
knows, and everybody says, correctly, that we have a long way 
to go, the public charter schools have made significant 
progress in student academic performance, and are ahead of the 
curve when it comes to school reform. 



    This graph shows that the public charter schools have 
improved students' performance on standardized tests, 
especially at the secondary level, which is the column on the 
right. And it should be noted that disadvantaged and African-
American students are nearly--in secondary schools--are nearly 
twice as likely to score ``proficient'' or ``advanced'' as 
their peers in the school system neighborhood schools. 



    The next graph shows the public charter school graduation 
rate, which is a very important statistic. And you'll see on 
the left, that the charter school rate approaches 90 percent, 
which is well above the national average for graduation. And 
please keep in mind that the national average includes many 
schools that are much wealthier than the D.C. schools; suburban 
schools and other--and schools from other areas worlds apart 
from the District of Columbia.
    The next point I'd like to make--come on, Vanna--the next 
point I'd like to make has to deal with everybody's favorite 
subject, which is accountability. The dwindling number of 
people in the District of Columbia who oppose the public 
charter schools like to tell reporters, and anyone else who'll 
listen, that anybody can open up one of these charter schools 
and that, once they're open, they're not held to account by 
anyone. And these are outright falsehoods. And I have a couple 
of graphs that demonstrate what the facts are.



    This graph you have before you shows that two-thirds of all 
the applications for charters--that is, to start charter 
schools--since 1996 have been denied, and only 34 percent have 
been approved to open.


    The next graph shows that, of those schools that have 
opened, more than one-quarter have been closed by their charter 
authorizer. And we had some discussion about these closers last 
week. 



    And the next graph, I think, is extremely telling, and that 
is that 100 percent of all the public charter schools in the 
District of Columbia that have been closed, regardless of the 
stated reason for the closure, have been in the bottom quartile 
of academic performance. So, that means that the charter 
authorizers--we now just have one, the Public Charter School 
Board--are closing the right schools: the schools that are not 
performing. And we expect further closures this year and in 
coming years. And this is as it should be.
    Our belief is that the only true accountability in public 
education is taking away the right to operate, for people who 
aren't doing the job. And this is the great advantage of the 
public charter schools. And it's interesting, and very 
desirable, that this brand of accountability is now being 
adopted by the city-run public schools.



    The final point I wish to make is that the D.C. government 
seems to have taken the wrong message from the success and 
popularity of the public charter schools. This graph shows that 
the government provides one school building for every 366 DCPS 
kids, and one for every 1,045 public charter school kids. 
Buildings, getting access to unused, abandoned school buildings 
has been a problem, certainly for the 11 years that I've been 
doing this job.



    And the final graph shows the huge per-student funding 
advantage that the D.C. government gives to the school system. 
You may have questions about this later, but I think you can 
see the school system funding is on the right, and the public 
charter school funding is on the left. And, I wish I could 
explain why the D.C. government has failed to respond in a 
positive way to the great and success and popularity of the 
public charter schools, but I can't. But, I can say that it's 
bad public policy to treat public charter school students and 
their families differently than DCPS students and their 
families. It's also morally indefensible and unkind to children 
from some of the District's most vulnerable communities.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cane, before you go further I'm a 
little confused by your graph 9.
    Mr. Cane. Uh-huh.
    Senator Durbin. You're not suggesting that for the D.C. 
public schools that the annual cost per student is $5,895, are 
you?
    Mr. Cane. No. This relates to facilities funding outside 
the uniform per-student funding formula. The uniform per-
student funding formula provides operating expenses. And 
there's a legal requirement that similarly situated students in 
the charter schools and DCPS students be funded at the same 
level. This is funding beyond that; for capital, and in the 
case of DCPS, for----
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Mr. Cane [continuing]. Some other things.
    Senator Durbin. Thanks for that clarification.
    Mr. Cane. Thank you.
    I'm going to wrap up, here, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee.
    But, I want to say that the District of Columbia, through 
its public charter schools, has been a leader in public school 
reform since 1996. The great changes being made at DCPS since 
Michelle Rhee came on the scene are very much in this tradition 
and welcome.
    We appreciate the Senate's ongoing interest in these 
reforms, and hope it will continue.
    Thank you, very much.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you, as well.
    [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Robert Cane
    Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is 
Robert Cane, and I've been executive director of Friends of Choice in 
Urban Schools since 1998. FOCUS supports D.C.'s burgeoning public 
charter school movement through advocacy and technical assistance.
    I'd like to make four simple points today about D.C.'s public 
charter schools:
  --The public charter schools are wildly popular with D.C. families 
        and the public at large;
  --There's a good reason for this popularity: The public charter 
        schools have improved the academic performance of the 
        District's most disadvantaged students;
  --D.C.'s public charter school leaders must perform for their 
        students or they will be sent packing; and
  --D.C.'s public charter schools have succeeded in spite of 
        inequitable funding and poor access to abandoned school 
        buildings.
                               popularity
    If you'll refer to graph #1 you'll see the astonishing growth of 
D.C.'s public charter schools--from 160 kids on two campuses in 1996 to 
nearly 26,000 on 98 campuses last school year. Of these students, 96 
percent are black or Latino and around 80 percent come from 
economically disadvantaged homes.
    Public charter school enrollment represents 36 percent of all 
public school students in the District of Columbia, second only to New 
Orleans. And we're still growing, with another 2,000 students expected 
this year. Many of the public charters have extensive waiting lists. 
For example, Capital City PCS, recently held up as a model for the 
Nation by President Obama, last spring received 1,350 applications for 
just 45 places. And Two Rivers PCS took in 1,116 applications for 38 
places.
    The public charter schools are equally popular with the public at 
large. A recent opinion poll showed that 74 percent of D.C. residents 
support the public charters [graph #2].
                     improved academic performance
    As you know, educating inner city youth is a huge challenge, and 
D.C.'s public schools have struggled for decades to make headway. But 
even though no charter school leader would claim victory in this 
battle, it is clear that the public charters have made significant 
progress and are ahead of the curve when it comes to school reform.
    Graph #3 shows that the public charter schools have improved their 
students' performance on standardized tests, especially at the 
secondary level. In fact, disadvantaged and African American secondary 
school students are nearly twice as likely to score proficient or 
advanced on these tests as their peers in DCPS neighborhood schools. 
And graph #4 demonstrates that the charters' graduation rate, which is 
approaching 90 percent, significantly exceeds the national average, 
even though the average includes wealthy suburbs and other areas a 
world apart from the District.
                             accountability
    The dwindling number of those who oppose D.C.'s public charter 
schools like to tell reporters that anyone can open one of these 
schools and that once they're open they are not held to account.
    These are outright falsehoods. Graph #5 shows that fully two-thirds 
of all applications for a charter have been denied. Graph #6 shows that 
of the 78 schools chartered since 1996 more than a quarter have lost 
their right to operate. And graph #7 shows that 100 percent of these 
closed schools were in the bottom quartile of student academic 
achievement.
    More schools likely will lose their charters at the end of this 
school year. This is as it should be; the only true accountability in 
public education--and the great advantage of the public charter 
schools--is the ability to send packing those who are failing to 
produce results. This brand of accountability is now beginning to be 
adopted by the city-run schools.
   inequitable treatment of public charter schools and their students
    Judging by its actions, the D.C. government appears to have taken 
the wrong message from the popularity and performance of the public 
charter schools. Graph #8 shows the continuing problem of inequitable 
access to public school buildings: one for every 366 DCPS kids and for 
every 1,045 public charter school students. And graph #9 shows the huge 
per-student funding advantage the government gives to DCPS. This is 
despite the fact that D.C. law requires that students in both types of 
public school receive the same number of tax-payer dollars.
    We do not know why the D.C. government has failed to respond in a 
positive way to the great success of the public charter schools. We can 
say, however, that it is bad public policy to treat public charter 
school students and their families differently than DCPS students and 
their families, not to mention morally indefensible and unkind to 
children from some of the District's most vulnerable communities. We 
hope this school year will bring a change in this long-standing 
practice.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the District of 
Columbia, through its public charter schools, has been a leader in 
public school reform since 1996. The great changes being made at DCPS 
since Michelle Rhee came on the scene are in this tradition and are 
most welcome. We appreciate the Senate's ongoing interest in these 
reforms and hope it will continue.
    Thank you.

    Senator Durbin. Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA WEITZEL-O'NEILL, Ph.D., 
            SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, ARCHDIOCESE OF 
            WASHINGTON
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Good morning, Senator Durbin, Ranking 
Member Collins, Senator Alexander.
    I am Patricia Weitzel-O'Neill. I'm the superintendent for 
the Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Washington, and have 
been participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program since 
its inception in 2004.
    I'd like to thank you for the invitation to speak on behalf 
of the Archdiocese of Washington in support of continuing the 
Three Sector Initiative legislation and the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program.
    And I thank you, Senator Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, 
and all members of this subcommittee, for providing the 
appropriations for this program for these 5 years.
    As a result of your provision for this program, you have 
made it possible for the recipients to attend safe, stable, and 
excellent schools. And, as you know from the testimony, 87 
percent of these students would have been in failing schools in 
the District of Columbia without your good wisdom to fund these 
appropriations.
    Today, I'm proud to confirm that the Archdiocese of 
Washington has supported this program fully by providing seats 
for approximately 900 to 1,000 students each year in the 20 
participating Catholic schools, schools that are all accredited 
by the Middle States Association and have certificates of 
occupancies and adhere to our policies for excellence, which 
require all teachers to have bachelor's degrees, particularly 
those who are teaching in core subject areas, or the equivalent 
international degrees.
    During this time, our student outcomes are measured, for 
all students, by the nationally normed TerraNova Assessment, 
and our Opportunity Scholarship students have participated in 
the rigorous research conducted by the Department of Education 
requiring them to take a second test: the Stanford-9.
    Graduation is the norm in our schools, and it is the 
expectation. Fifty-two of the eighth graders--OSP students--
graduated this past year. Over the last 2 years, 39 students 
graduated from Archbishop Carroll High School, and this year we 
have 122 students enrolled at Carroll, with 30 expected to 
graduate this spring. That means 69 students will have 
graduated from high school this spring. And of those 39 who 
have, 38 have been accepted to colleges and universities 
throughout the United States. And the acceptance rate at 
Archbishop Carroll High School is 98 percent. This is a program 
that works. And the students' success is the data and the 
testimony that stands for this program.
    Today, I'd like to comment on the contribution of Catholic 
education, highlight some of the Archdiocesan support for 
accountability and accountability measures, and summarize why 
it is imperative for this legislation to be authorized.
    We ask you, as stewards of the Nation's capital, to 
recognize that the home of the U.S. Congress is only as strong 
and vibrant as the educational choices provided for all of its 
citizens. No government should allow the right to choose a 
quality education to be cut short by the limits of personal 
income or the lobbying of unions.
    As you know, Catholic education has a well-deserved and 
national reputation for excellence, spanning nearly 300 years. 
And many of you, your colleagues in Congress, and some of our 
country's most famous leaders, are graduates of Catholic 
education, including you, Senator Durbin, as well as Vice 
President Biden, Speaker of the House Pelosi, Congressman 
Boehner, the late Tim Russert, and the late Senator Kennedy. 
You're all evidence of the call to service and commitment to 
others that the Catholic education provides for this country. 
In fact, who among us in this room can say that they have not 
been touched by someone who has received a Catholic education 
and that person has helped to change your life? The graduates 
of Catholic schools live out the social justice mission of 
serving others as leaders and outstanding contributors to our 
country.
    So, when it comes to accountability, the reason we are 
successful is because Catholic schools throughout the country 
and in the Archdiocese of Washington fully support 
accountability measures in education. And as the 
superintendent, I fully support the need to monitor, report, 
and compare measures for student outcomes. It is understood 
that this may require additional testing with the Opportunity 
Scholarship students to ensure they are benefiting from our 
quality education and we are wisely spending the taxpayer 
dollars.
    However, we need to share with you some of the reasons why 
we're currently unable to do this ourselves. That is, these 
concerns that we have do not preclude our participation but, 
rather, we'd like to help inform the discussion on how the 
methodology is constructed.
    Today, we are looking forward to the passage of the 
Scholarship for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) legislation, 
sponsored by Senator Lieberman, and co-sponsored by Senator 
Collins, Senator Alexander, and others.
    And recently I have had the opportunity to work with 
Chancellor Rhee, and look forward to working with Chancellor 
Rhee and the Department of Education so that we can design the 
best model to meet the research needs of the public, and 
support the education of all of our children.
    In conclusion, the Archdiocese of Washington has a proud 
history and longstanding commitment to serving all students. In 
fact, in 2004 this Archdiocese joined Mayor Anthony Williams 
and stepped up in support of the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program.
    We made seats available, and the Archdiocese and our 
parishes have subsidized every Opportunity Scholarship student 
in our schools, making up the difference between tuition 
revenue and cost, as we do for all students in all of our 
schools. Why? Because the program only pays for tuition and 
fees, not the total cost.
    We also know that research, both internally and externally, 
has demonstrated continued growth and mastery in reading, 
language arts, and growth in math, as well, especially for 
those students who remain in the program for 3 years. It takes 
time to change.
    Parents, students, citizens, the majority of the D.C. 
council, favor this program. And just 2 weeks ago, we heard 
Michelle Rhee say how important it was that this program 
continue, and that she and Mayor Fenty support this program. 
Why? Because the District of Columbia is not capable of 
absorbing these students if the program were to end in June 
2010. Given the status of the D.C. schools, the enormous 
deficit the city faces, the current cuts just announced 2 hours 
after her testimony 2 weeks ago, DCPS will not be able to 
provide equitable and quality education for these students who 
are currently growing and succeeding in our schools.
    In fact, President Obama noted to Secretary Duncan, quote, 
``To use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with 
your precious tax dollars, it's not whether the idea is liberal 
or conservative; what matters is, does it work?'' And we know 
this program works.
    So, on behalf of the Opportunity Scholarship students and 
their families, I strongly urge this subcommittee and Congress 
to support the SOAR legislation.
    We are called by our commitment to social justice, and 
therefore, we must recognize that the 8,000 families who've 
applied for this program over the past 4 years are families who 
have a right to choose a quality education. And it should not 
be limited by their income. They are certainly, as we know, not 
limited in ability.
    For any child, but particularly for a child coming from a 
marginal life of poverty, success depends on more than 
academics and test results. We know what comes when a child 
develops a sense of self-worth: Dignity, respect, and self-
confidence. This is the dignity of choice through scholarship. 
This is the culture of respect and hope that our schools 
provide for these children: Hope for the future, hope for the 
District of Columbia, and hope for the Nation. As Archbishop 
Donald Wuerl stated, ``It is difficult to envision what 
political advantage would outweigh--in the scale of human 
lives''--children's lives--``these young people, their future, 
their hope. In making political choices, the faces, futures, 
and hopes of the kids must come first.''
    This must be about the children, not the adults. Children, 
and their families deserve and need these Opportunity 
Scholarship. And today I say to you, the children are depending 
upon you, and we hope that you'll move forward and support the 
SOAR legislation.
    Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Patricia Weitzel-O'Neill, Ph.D.
    Thank you, Senator Durbin and members of the subcommittee for the 
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Archdiocese of Washington in 
support of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and on behalf of 
the nonpublic educational sector in support of continuing the 
legislation that supports the three-sector initiative as approved by 
Congress 5 years ago. The Opportunity Scholarship Program has afforded 
over 1,700 children each year the right to choose to change the course 
of their futures. I am proud to confirm that the Archdiocese of 
Washington has supported this program by providing seats for 
approximately 900 to 1,000 students each year, in the academically 
rich, welcoming and safe environments provided by our schools.
                     a history of excellent schools
    As you know, Catholic education has a well-deserved national 
reputation of excellence and service spanning nearly 300 years. Many of 
you, your colleagues in Congress, and some of our country's most 
outstanding leaders are products of Catholic education, including 
Senator Durbin, Senator Landrieu, the late Senator Kennedy, as well as 
Speaker of the House Pelosi, Congressman Boehner and so many others. 
You are all evidence of the call to service and commitment to others 
that Catholic education has provided to this country. In fact, who 
among us has not been touched by someone who was educated in a Catholic 
school and has made a difference in our lives? Quite simply the 
graduates of Catholic schools live out the social justice mission of 
serving others as they become contributing members of society.
    Catholic education has a rich history in our Nation's capital, 
where the first Catholics arrived in this region in 1634, and by the 
late 1700s, the first Catholic schools were flourishing and had 
established the foundation for education in what is now the District of 
Columbia.
    Since those early days, there has been a deep commitment by the 
Catholic Church to ensure all children have access to a quality 
education. In 1799, the Sisters of the Visitation at Georgetown 
Visitation offered a weekly Saturday school to any girl who wanted to 
learn, including slaves, even though it was illegal at the time to 
teach a slave to read. Today this school serves Opportunity Scholarship 
students. In 1813, Father William Matthews, the pastor of St. 
Patrick's, not only supported Catholic education, but also joined the 
board of trustees for the fledgling D.C. public schools. For 31 years, 
he worked tirelessly to raise money and establish a public school 
system. Fr. Matthews recognized that we all share in the responsibility 
of educating children and part of that responsibility is to not inhibit 
or preclude options.
    In 1858, St. Augustine School was established to serve the black 
community, 4 years before public education became mandatory for black 
children in our Nation's capital. In 1949, 5 years before the landmark 
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education ended 
desegregation in public schools, Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle integrated 
the Catholic schools in our Nation's capital. In 1951, Archbishop 
O'Boyle opened Archbishop Carroll High School--the first integrated 
high school in the city to open as an integrated school and the high 
school that has served Opportunity Scholarship students since the 
program was initiated. Today, 21 Catholic schools continue this legacy 
of faith, hope and learning for thousands of children throughout our 
capital city.
    Today, on behalf of our school families I come to ask for your 
support for the Opportunity Scholarship Program so that the Archdiocese 
of Washington and other nonpublic schools may continue to serve those 
families most in need in the District of Columbia. We are proud to be 
part of this innovative three-sector initiative to improve education 
for every child in the District of Columbia and we ask you, as stewards 
of the Nation's capital, to recognize that the home of the U.S. 
Congress is only as strong and vibrant as the educational choices 
provided for all its citizens. No government should allow the right to 
choose a quality education to be cut short by the limits of personal 
income. In fact, just the other night in his remarks to the joint 
session of Congress, President Barack Obama stressed that we the 
citizens of this country ``do better when there is choice and 
competition.'' The archdiocese's commitment to the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program is about providing the opportunities for all 
families in the District of Columbia to exercise their right to choose 
the best education for their children.
                  program history--an overview of hope
    When the Opportunity Scholarship Program was proposed 5 years ago, 
the Archdiocese of Washington committed up to 1,000 seats for the low-
income families the program would serve. We did this out of concern 
that enough seats might not be available once the program was approved. 
We opened our doors, welcomed the children, adjusted our staffing, 
increased our financial support for those schools and have successfully 
educated these children. As the program administration took shape, the 
schools adjusted to the Federal regulations and reports, and the 
children and families worked to adapt to new surroundings and higher 
expectations. After 4 years the program is working and the students 
have proven themselves capable, committed, enthusiastic and grateful 
for the new-found hope for a brighter future. As one recently put it, 
``The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has changed my life and has 
made me the successful young man standing before you now. I credit this 
program greatly for my success.''----Ronald Holassie, Archbishop 
Carroll High School student, June 2009
    The best measure of success for our high schools is graduation and 
the percentage of graduates who are accepted to colleges and 
universities. At Archbishop Carroll High School, over 98 percent of all 
seniors are accepted to college. Only 48 percent of D.C. public high 
school students even graduate. Since 2007, 38 out the 39 OSP students 
who have graduated from Archbishop Carroll have been accepted by 
multiple college and universities.
    The individual stories of success are many. In 2008, Opportunity 
Scholar Tiffany Dunston was the class valedictorian. She is now a 
sophomore at the University of Syracuse. Current Opportunity Scholar 
Ronald Holassie serves as the deputy youth mayor for the District of 
Columbia. Others are excelling in debate, drama, music, athletics and 
academic programs that rest on the shoulders of a very dedicated and 
highly qualified faculty. It is our hope and expectation that these 
success stories will continue, so long as Congress lets them.
    This past year 879 OSP students were enrolled in Catholic schools: 
of these students, 94 percent were African American and 80 percent were 
non-Catholic. After 3 years, research shows that ``the OSP had a 
positive impact overall on parent's reports of school satisfaction and 
safety.'' (IES Report, April 2009). Our parents recognize the 
significant changes in their children's personal and academic growth as 
they flourish in new communities where no distinctions are made 
regarding one's scholarship status. During this short time we have 
witnessed 8th grade scholarship students graduate yearly and move to 
their high school of choice, with most continuing in Catholic high 
schools.
    All 21 Catholic schools in the District of Columbia participated in 
the Opportunity Scholarship Program this past year, except for the 
Joseph P. Kennedy Institute, which is an ungraded school serving 
persons with disabilities and operated by Catholic Charities. All full-
time teachers hired to work in Catholic schools possess bachelor's 
degrees or the international equivalent and many more have earned 
master's degrees as well as the PhDs and the EdDs. We are extremely 
proud of our faculty and their commitment to the vocation of teaching 
in Catholic schools.
    All Catholic school buildings have certificates of occupancy, and 
all provide safe, secure and welcoming learning environments.
               opportunity scholarships, tuition and cost
    This program was initiated with the requirement that the 
scholarship would pay only for tuition and fees. Yet, in reality, 
tuition at participating parish-based Catholic schools does not cover 
the cost of educating a child. Therefore, at the outset and as the 
program grew, the archdiocese and all nonpublic schools have had to 
face the issue of increasing costs. The Archdiocese of Washington and 
parishes supporting schools have had to subsidize the difference 
between scholarship revenue and cost. On the average, the Catholic 
Church of Washington has contributed about $3,000 for each OSP student 
in an archdiocesan-supported elementary school. The deficit is greater 
at the high school level, where it costs $13,000 per student to be 
educated at Archbishop Carroll High School, yet the scholarship's 
amount has remained at $7,500.
    The archdiocese has chosen to support the Opportunity Scholarship 
students, just as the church has chosen to support all students who 
attend our schools. We do this through the generosity and commitment of 
donors, parishioners and the wider community in the Archdiocese of 
Washington. This is the legacy of Catholic schools in the District of 
Columbia.
    This is about the opportunity for low income families (average 
income under $24,000) to exercise their right to choose a quality 
education for their children. It is not about money--the money does not 
go to the schools or parishes or archdiocese. The check is made out to 
the families and allows them the dignity to decide where their children 
will go to school and then with this scholarship, to pay for their 
children's education just as more fortunate families pay for their 
children.
    Yet the reality must be addressed. Without Congressional support, 
there is little chance that the large number of students who are now 
dependent upon these scholarships will be able to continue in these 
schools past June 2010, the end date of the program. Losing these 
scholarships will profoundly harm these children by forcing them from 
their schools; create abrupt enrollment loss in several participating 
schools, thereby de-stabilizing the schools for the future; and have an 
immediate and significant financial impact on the District of Columbia.
    Grandfathering the current students is not enough. With the loss of 
OSP students currently in the eighth grade or seniors in high schools, 
schools will experience significant decreases in enrollments and 
tuition revenues as there will be no new OSP students. The archdiocese 
and the schools do not have the funds to provide scholarships for the 
many poor students who would have replaced the graduating students if 
the program continued.
    Without the new legislation, 86 percent of these OSP students will 
have to return to schools that have failed to make adequate yearly 
progress as measured by No Child Left Behind. Research has indicated 
that a return to these environments will set these children back 
academically at least a year and surely undo the significant gains 
achieved to date. Moreover, as the program ends and large numbers of 
OSP students transfer out of their schools, these schools will be 
endangered and may have to close as enrollments decrease and tuition to 
cover student costs disappears. As 1,700 displaced OSP students crowd 
public schools city-wide, this exodus will cost $25 million plus $54 
million in lost funds allocated annually to the three sectors--a total 
cost of $79 million. With a projected $800 million shortfall predicted 
for next year, it is unlikely the District of Columbia will be able to 
meet the need.
                    academic growth and achievement
    After 3 years of study, Patrick Wolf, the lead researcher for the 
U.S. Department of Education's outcomes analysis, recently reported 
that ``the D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective 
education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's official 
education research arm so far'' (Wolf, Hoover Institute). Based on the 
trends within the data, he expects the positive gains in scores to 
continue to increase. The study has not yet been completed.
    The major study for the Department of Education by the Institute 
for Education Sciences found that after 3 years students offered 
scholarships and those using their scholarships had significantly 
higher levels of reading achievement than students not offered 
scholarships. (``The Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program: Impacts After Three Years,'' presented by the Institute of 
Education Sciences for the Department of Education, March 2009.) 
Students who have been in the program the longest have the most 
improvement and are reading at a level of 1.5 years ahead of those not 
offered scholarships. The study also found, consistent with the 
previous first and second year studies, that the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program had a positive impact on parents' perceptions of 
school safety and on parental satisfaction.
    Although criticism continues regarding the lack of statistically 
significant gains in the math scores, Dr. Wolf and others have noted 
that OSP students' math scores are in fact improving and that these 
improvements are not happening by chance alone. Further experts from 
Harvard suggest that ``private schools boost reading scores more than 
math scores for a number of reasons, including greater content emphasis 
on reading, the use of phonics . . .'' (Hoover Institute, August 2009). 
It is my opinion, based on my experience in our schools, and as witness 
to conscious instructional decisions, that no child can achieve 
significant gains in math unless he or she can read. The students 
coming into this program arrived reading below grade level and the 
focus of all interventions has been on reading and language skills. It 
is the goal of our inner city schools that all students read at grade 
level by grade three. In fact, ACT has noted that if children are 
literate at grade eight they will succeed in high school and beyond. 
Literacy is one of the most important measures of future success (ACT 
press release, Preparation by Eighth Grade Critical to College and 
Career Readiness, December 10, 2008).
    Academic success is a hallmark of Catholic education and is 
continuously reviewed in all Catholic schools by multiple measures of 
assessment. These outcome measures are shared with parents and used by 
teachers to improve instruction and achievement. All parents receive 
reports and participate in discussions regarding assessment results and 
next steps to support the students.
    All archdiocesan elementary schools annually measure academic 
growth and achievement for all students. The Terra Nova is the 
standardized assessment used by the archdiocese to measure concepts, 
processes and objectives derived from national standards. The test was 
normed from a national cross section of more than 300,000 students in 
both 2000 and 2007 and the Terra Nova is standardized with a random 
sample based on geographic region, school size, socioeconomic status 
and ethnicity within public, parochial and private schools (CTB/McGraw 
Hill, 2009). Analysis of these results focuses only on our student 
data, employing internal peer student comparisons and working to align 
test results with archdiocesan academic standards.
    In keeping with the archdiocesan commitment to measuring academic 
success and creating a culture of academic accountability, the 
Archdiocese of Washington will employ a hierarchical linear growth 
model for analysis beginning this academic year. This approach allows 
all schools to track student progress based on established growth 
targets. The target scores are composite scores based on national 
norms, grade levels and local characteristics. Allowing for continuous 
instructional improvement, this state-of-the-art model provides the 
most accurate data necessary for the archdiocese to measure student 
progress over a span of time and in the context of each individual 
student's performance. These measures will be used to analyze test 
results for all students, including the OSP students.
    The Archdiocese of Washington fully supports accountability in 
education and unequivocally supports the need to monitor and report 
student outcomes with the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This would 
mean including additional testing to ensure that OSP students are not 
only receiving a quality education but that taxpayer money is being 
spent wisely and appropriately. However, we cannot support these 
measures without openly discussing the reasons why we are currently 
unable to do this and our concerns regarding the potential burden 
placed on students and schools to meet these requirements. These 
concerns are not meant to preclude our participation, rather to inform 
and help develop the best process to measure and monitor student 
achievement.
    While the Catholic schools have undertaken many steps to assure 
accountability, we do not participate in a uniform common exam, simply 
because the cost is prohibitive and Federal guidelines exclude Catholic 
schools from using Federal funds to support development of 
accountability measures. As such, funding for resources to pay for 
common exams will be necessary in new legislation. The archdiocese 
welcomes the opportunity to compare our results with other populations. 
In fact, the Catholic Schools Office for the archdiocese has been 
actively seeking ways to compare all students, not just OSP students, 
to students in their local jurisdictions. Currently we are waiting for 
a proposal from CTB/McGraw Hill (author of the Terra Nova) on building 
a conversion scale that would allow our students' Terra Nova scores to 
be statistically equated to the DC-CAS and the State of Maryland 
assessment, the MSA. (Both State-based assessments are designed by CTB/
McGraw Hill and normed to State standards particular to D.C. and 
Maryland.)
    In addition to the Terra Nova, all archdiocesan OSP students 
currently take the Stanford Achievement Test--Version 9 (SAT-9). This 
data is used for the academic achievement research and analysis 
conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Educational 
Sciences. This was the test of choice for the District of Columbia 
schools at the start of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This is a 
nationally normed test and the data has been used to compare the 
treatment and control groups and has required all OSP students and 
control group students in D.C. public schools to take a second 
standardized test each year.
    As the Opportunity Scholarship Program moves forward, the 
archdiocese recognizes the need to participate in the continued 
research protocols designed to assess learning outcomes. I have spoken 
with Chancellor Michelle Rhee, and agree with her regarding the need 
for both of us to be consulted by the research provider as the design 
and delivery of all research protocols are developed. I support an 
assessment of the academic value added by participating schools on a 
school-by-school basis based on the appropriate testing of 
participating eligible students using an agreed upon assessment 
protocol for both the nonpublic and public schools. These assessments 
would be based on the strongest possible research design and would, to 
the extent possible, test students under conditions that yield 
scientifically valid results. This suggests that OSP students' test 
scores be compared to the scores of DCPS students who attend the school 
that the OSP students would have attended based on his or her home 
address.
    Our concerns with administering the DC-CAS to our OSP students are 
two-fold. First, if the DC-CAS is the test of choice, all analysis must 
control for the reality that the DC-CAS is aligned to District of 
Columbia Public School standards; standards not shared by the 
archdiocese. Our curriculum is aligned to the archdiocesan standards. 
DC-OSP students would need to be provided the same preparation 
materials, coaching and time as the DCPS students. Second, 
administering the DC-CAS to our OSP students would place a potential 
burden on them in relation to their classroom work time, with a 
potential of almost 20 days of testing. We will need to examine how to 
monitor testing and ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars and student 
time.
    Our Catholic schools will participate in the research required by 
new legislation and understand the importance of comparing OSP students 
to those in schools they are not attending. We agree that we must 
ensure that the program is successful as defined by ensuring a safe 
school environment, parent and student satisfaction and the ability to 
provide an education that allows students to consistently be prepared 
for high school and beyond. We look forward to the passage of the SOAR 
(Scholarship for Opportunity and Results) legislation and the 
opportunity to work with Chancellor Rhee and the Department of 
Education to design the scientific model that best meets the research 
needs of the public, and yet supports the education of all children in 
the District of Columbia.
    Finally, as we look at the achievements measured by the Department 
of Education and the lead researcher's comments, we must note that Dr. 
Wolf has referenced the fact that when a student transfers from one 
school to another, it takes at least a year for the child to adjust to 
his or her new surroundings. During that time, it is anticipated that 
the child's test scores will drop. If the program does not continue, 
close to 1,700 students will be set back after 4 to 5 years of 
verifiable growth measured by standardized testing.
       citizens of the district of columbia support this program
    Over 8,000 D.C. families have applied for scholarships since the 
program began in 2004, with 3,000 children served. In July 2009, a 
survey of 1,001 registered D.C. voters demonstrated that more than 80 
percent of District parents of school-aged children support the 
program. These families know that the chancellor and mayor are working 
to improve the public schools but they also know, as Michelle Rhee has 
noted, that ``despite the progress of the last 2 years, the situation 
remains dire when less than half of our students can read, write and do 
math at grade level'' (Washington Post, July 24, 2009). It is very 
difficult for families to transfer to schools that are successful and 
many lose out on the lotteries for seats at public charter schools or 
successful public schools (i.e. Janey Elementary). The Chancellor also 
acknowledged that although vouchers won't solve all problems, they are 
an important part of the ``choice dynamic'' and at this time the 
voucher program ``continues to make sense'' (Washington Post, July 24, 
2009).
    The D.C. Council agrees with the Chancellor and the several 
thousand families that rallied in front of the Wilson Building in 
support of this popular program. On June 22, 2009, the majority of 
Council members of the District of Columbia sent a letter to U.S. 
Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Mayor Fenty expressing support for 
the continuation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. After citing 
the success of the program, the seven council members stated: ``We 
believe we simply cannot turn our backs on these families because doing 
so will deny their children the quality education they deserve.''
    It is time for the Congress to accept the facts and recognize that 
failure to support Opportunity Scholarships would put the future on 
hold for the children and families of the District of Columbia. Passing 
this legislation now will only cost a few million dollars compared to 
the billions spent on welfare and stimulus packages. Investing now will 
make a difference.
    The statistics are indisputable. While the per-student cost in the 
D.C. public schools is the third highest in the United States, test 
scores continue to be among the lowest in the Nation. Ninety of 123 
public schools are under some form of Federal notice to improve while 
the majority of the District's teenage public school students attend 
schools that meet the District's own definition of ``persistently 
dangerous'' due to the number of violent crimes. Today many of these 
schools hinder opportunity and do not ensure access to competitive 
education in the future. The Chancellor is to be commended for the 
leadership and vision she has brought to the public schools. It is our 
sincere hope that she will continue to be empowered to bring about the 
much needed changes and continued improvement in all public schools. We 
support her work and the work of the charter schools. Together we all 
provide options for our families and the Chancellor must be given the 
time and support necessary to improve these schools for all children. 
Until that time, we need the Opportunity Scholarships and the funding 
provided for both the public schools and the charter schools as 
outlined in the legislation.
    In an address to Congress, President Barack Obama noted, ``good 
education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a 
prerequisite . . . to ensure that every child has access to a complete 
and competitive education--from the day they are born to the day they 
begin a career.'' The Opportunity Scholarship Program is providing ``a 
pathway to opportunity'' and the right to choose a good school for the 
poor children in the Nation's capital. And just as our country has 
historically provided Federal funding for students to attend Catholic 
colleges and universities, with such programs as the Pell Grants, the 
National Defense Education Act, the GI Bill and the TAG program here in 
the District of Columbia, we also should make the same opportunities 
possible for students in elementary and high school.
    Neither public nor charter nor Catholic schools can educate 
everyone effectively. Each student is unique and has unique learning 
needs. Catholic schools exist for the purpose of meeting specific needs 
and expectations as described in our teaching mission statements, just 
as public schools exist to meet the unique needs and expectations for 
an educated and informed public. Without programs like the Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, we endanger both missions, and the potential for 
families to choose a public, charter or nonpublic school. As the 
current administration works to improve education in the District of 
Columbia, the added expense of a sudden influx of over 1,000 students 
will become an unnecessary burden, while Catholic and nonpublic schools 
will become the exclusive right and privilege of the wealthy. This 
leaves the future generation of D.C. residents weakened and denies the 
opportunity for access to success to both those students who need and 
deserve a great public, charter or Catholic (nonpublic) school.
                               conclusion
    The Archdiocese of Washington has a proud history demonstrating our 
commitment to serving the students in the District of Columbia. In 
2004, this archdiocese stepped up in support of a new program, made 
seats available, and participated in extensive reviews and research. 
The program covers only tuition and fees, not the total cost per pupil. 
The archdiocese and the parishes have subsidized every Opportunity 
Scholarship student attending our schools. We do this because we are 
committed to making a difference in the lives of the children.
    The research both internally and externally has demonstrated 
continued growth and mastery in reading, language arts and subsequently 
growth in math and other subjects. Parent reports testify to the 
overwhelming satisfaction of families and the significance of safe and 
secure environments, where each child is respected and honored. The 
students have lobbied, rallied and testified before the D.C. City 
Council and here in the halls of Congress. The students want to 
continue in this program. The D.C. City Council has written to the 
Secretary of Education asking for his support.
    Our schools have complied with all regulations and look forward to 
continuing the research based on testing and comparative methodologies. 
The District of Columbia is not capable of absorbing these students, 
given the status of the schools and the enormous deficit the city 
faces. The funds requested to support this program are very little when 
compared to the billions of dollars in new Federal grants recently 
released (July 24, 2009) by Secretary Duncan as part of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These are funds that may make a 
difference in the future, but will go to adults, not to families--not 
to children. The cost of this program is a drop in the famous stimulus 
bucket and yet it is the program that works. President Obama noted that 
he expected Secretary Duncan to ``use only one test when deciding what 
ideas to support with your precious tax dollars. It is not whether an 
idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.'' This is the 
one successful program that logic and reason requires everyone to 
support.
    On behalf of all Opportunity Scholarship students and the families 
in the District of Columbia, I strongly urge Congress to support the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program as a part of the three-sector 
initiative and described in the SOAR legislation proposed by Senator 
Lieberman. As noted in this testimony, we are called by our commitment 
to social justice to recognize that the 8,000 families who have applied 
over the past 4 years are families whose right to choose a quality 
education for their children is limited by income, not by ability. 
Unlike the majority of Congress or the Secretary of Education and the 
President of this country, they do not have the means to choose the 
best neighborhoods with the best public schools, or the best private 
schools. For any child, but particularly for a child coming from a life 
of poverty, success depends on more than book learning. It comes when a 
child develops a deep sense of self worth, dignity, respect and self 
confidence. This is the dignity of choice through scholarships. This is 
the culture of hope that our schools provide for these children. Hope 
for the future. Hope for the District of Columbia. Hope for the 
country.
    As Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl has written, ``It is difficult to 
envision what political advantage would outweigh--in the scale of human 
lives--these young people, their future and their hope. In making 
political choices, the faces, futures and the hopes of these kids must 
come first.''
    The children and their families need the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. All who have been entrusted with the responsibility for the 
future of this program must vote to fully fund the legislation. The 
children are depending upon you.
    Thank you.

    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. CORK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP 
            FUND
    Mr. Cork. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Senator Collins, 
and Senator Alexander.
    My name is Gregory M. Cork. I'm president and CEO of the 
Washington Scholarship Fund, the organization that administers 
the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, otherwise known as 
the OSP.
    Thank you for permitting me to further address the 
subcommittee today regarding WSF's administration of the OSP.
    The subcommittee has raised important questions and issues 
about the program, and I am eager to engage you on these issues 
and to address each of them.
    WSF shares your goals, Senator Durbin, to provide low-
income District students and families the best possible chance 
at a quality education and a rewarding future.
    First, I want to assure the subcommittee that every dollar 
of Federal funding applied to the OSP, and every OSP student, 
and every OSP check, and every OSP school, is fully accounted 
for. We respectfully ask that the subcommittee sit down with us 
and engage us in a productive dialogue toward resolving and 
questions you might have about the OSP or our administration of 
it.
    Following the subcommittee's September 16 hearing, we 
provided you with OSP student data and explained why there 
might be differences between this information and the 
information you gathered directly from OSP schools. Further, we 
provided you with thorough information and documentation in 
response to your written requests from this past Thursday, 
September 24. Collectively, the information and documentation 
we provided you reflect: One, that our OSP Scholarship payment 
processes and all of our other systems, procedures, and 
controls are meticulous and in full accordance with the Federal 
OSP authorizing statute; two, that the information that we 
provide to OSP families is detailed and useful; three, that WSF 
exercises sound oversight over OSP schools, meets with them 
regularly, and has close and productive relationships with 
them; four, that the vast majority of our participating schools 
are accredited or are in the process of receiving 
accreditation; and five, that our processes for handling 
scholarship payments, including when a student leaves or enters 
a school during the school year, are explicit, comprehensive, 
and even impressive in their attention to our role as stewards 
of Federal dollars.
    We are confident that our administration of the OSP is 
sound. But, perhaps more important, external validation of the 
quality and value of the OSP, and WSF's administration of the 
program, is well documented and utterly reliable.
    The federally mandated evaluation of the OSP has 
demonstrated that there have been real academic gains for OSP 
students and that OSP families are thoroughly satisfied with 
educational options they've never been given before.
    WSF has received clean A-133 audits for the first 4 years 
of our administration of the program, and we fully expect a 
fifth clean audit for 2009, the fifth year of the program.
    The School Choice Demonstration Project's focus group study 
reports that this program has met low-income families' 
educational and social needs and expectations in unprecedented 
ways. As the project noted in its focus group report, ``Parents 
give WSF a lot of credit for the way the OSP has been managed 
and the care and attention they've received from WSF staff.'' 
They cite WSF as playing an extremely important, if not 
indispensable, role in supporting their transition from 
underperforming to higher functioning schools.
    And the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO, in 
its year-long audit of the OSP, found not a hint that Federal 
dollars were being applied in anything other than a responsible 
manner. In fact, in close cooperation with GAO, WSF has 
implemented the GAO recommended procedural mechanisms that have 
helped WSF provide yet further quality service to OSP students 
and families.
    Most important, Senator Durbin and members of the 
subcommittee, the success stories of our families abound. And I 
encourage the subcommittee to ask participating parents 
directly about their experiences in the program.
    I'm honored that one of our parents, Ms. Anquanette 
Williamson, has joined me here today. She's fighting for an 
educational experience that's best for her children. Ms. 
Williamson wanted a safe environment for her kids, Dayonte 
who's a sixth grader, and Donae, in first grade, both at the 
same OSP school. She wanted good academics, and she wanted a 
convenient location. And she wanted Dayonte, the first of her 
children in the OSP, to be challenged.
    Since he's been an Opportunity Scholar, Dayonte hasn't 
gotten straight A's yet, but there have been improvements in 
his grades each year. Ms. Williamson says that Dayonte is--and 
I quote her here--``more interested in school and more engaged 
with his teacher. His teacher stays on top of him.'' She also 
really likes that she can be so directly involved in her 
children's educations. And she has been, as all of us at WSF 
know.
    Better, Ms. Williamson says this, ``This should have been 
here when I was in school. I would have been so much more, 
today. In fact, I'm thinking about going back to school, 
myself.''
    Here's what we at WSF ask: Why shouldn't all low-income 
District residents, while they await the very promising, but 
likely years away reforms for D.C. public schools, get the same 
shot Ms. Williamson and her kids are getting through the OSP?
    We understand that local support is critical to the OSP. 
WSF could not be more gratified by Mayor Fenty's and Chancellor 
Rhee's support of the OSP as they work toward, not only good, 
but great public education system in the Nation's capital. 
Meanwhile, we also appreciate the support of the District City 
Council members, a majority of whom have endorsed the OSP in a 
letter to Secretary Duncan and Mayor Fenty.
    I'd like to acknowledge that with us today here in the room 
is former City Council member Kevin Chavous, who's been a 
tireless champion of the Three Sector Education Reform 
Initiative and of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, 
directly.
    And finally, as you noted, Senator, former Mayor Williams 
was not able to be here today. But, at his request, I am going 
to read just one statement from his prepared testimony that I 
think particularly illustrates why so many D.C. leaders are 
fighting for this program. Says former Mayor Williams, ``K to 
12 education in the District of Columbia, though it has a long 
way to go, is undergoing a transformation worthy of its status 
as the world capital. Our Mayor is aggressively changing the 
status quo in public schools. Our public charter schools 
represent the templar for the other cities. The D.C. 
Opportunity Scholarship Program is giving greater voice and 
empowerment to low-income families, with proven success for 
children. Thank you for making this possible, and keep it 
going.''
    Thank you, very much. I'd be happy to answer your questions 
now.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, I asked my staff for a copy of 
your statement, and I don't believe we received one--that you 
just made for the record. If you'd be kind enough to share it 
with us, if you have additional written copies of what you just 
read?
    Mr. Cork. Happily. Yes.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Gregory M. Cork
    Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Collins, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name is Gregory M. Cork. 
I am president and CEO of the Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF), the 
organization that administers the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 
(the OSP).
    Thank you for permitting me further to address the subcommittee 
today regarding WSF's administration of the OSP. The subcommittee has 
raised important questions and issues about this program, and I am 
eager to address each of these.
    WSF shares your goal, Senator Durbin: To provide low-income 
District students and families the best possible chance at a quality 
education and a rewarding future.
    First, I want to assure the subcommittee that every dollar of 
Federal funding applied to the OSP, and every OSP student, and every 
OSP check, and every OSP school is fully accounted for. We respectfully 
ask that the subcommittee sit down with us and engage us in a 
productive dialogue toward resolving any questions you might have about 
the OSP and WSF's administration of it.
    Following the subcommittee's September 16 hearing, we provided you 
with OSP student data and explained why there might be differences 
between this information and the information you have gathered from OSP 
schools. Further, we have provided you with thorough information and 
documentation in response to your written requests from this past 
Thursday, September 24. Collectively, the information and documentation 
we have provided you reflect:
  --That our OSP scholarship payment processes and all of our other 
        systems, procedures, and controls are meticulous and in full 
        accordance with the Federal OSP authorizing statute;
  --That the information we provide to OSP families is detailed and 
        useful;
  --That WSF exercises sound oversight over OSP schools, meets with 
        them regularly, and has close and productive relationships with 
        them;
  --That the vast majority of our participating schools are accredited, 
        or are in the process of receiving accreditation;
  --And that our processes for handling scholarship payments--including 
        when a student leaves or enters a school during the school 
        year--are explicit, comprehensive, and even impressive in their 
        attention to our role as stewards of Federal dollars.
    Second, we are confident that our administration of the OSP is 
sound. But perhaps more important, external validation of the quality 
and value of the OSP, and WSF's administration of the program, is well-
documented and utterly reliable:
  --The federally mandated evaluation of the OSP has demonstrated that 
        there have been real academic gains for OSP students, and that 
        OSP families are thoroughly satisfied with educational options 
        they've never been given before.
  --WSF has received clean A-133 audits for the first 4 years of our 
        administration of this program, and we fully expect a fifth 
        clean audit for 2009, the fifth year of the program.
  --The School Choice Demonstration Project's focus group study reports 
        that this program has met low-income families' educational and 
        social needs and expectations in unprecedented ways. As the 
        project noted in its focus group report, parents ``give [WSF] a 
        lot of credit for the way the OSP has been managed, and the 
        care and attention they have received from WSF staff,'' and 
        cite WSF as playing ``an extremely important, if not 
        indispensable, role in supporting their transition'' from 
        under-performing to higher-functioning schools.
  --And the U.S. Government Accountability Office (the GAO), in its 
        year-long audit of the OSP, found not a hint that Federal 
        dollars were being applied in anything other than a responsible 
        manner. In fact, in close cooperation with the GAO, WSF has 
        implemented the GAO-recommended procedural mechanisms that have 
        helped WSF provide yet further quality service to OSP students 
        and families.
    Third, most important, the success stories of our families abound, 
and I encourage the subcommittee to ask participating parents directly 
about their experiences in the program.
    Among these parents is Anquanette Williamson, who is fighting for 
an educational experience that's best for her children. Ms. Williamson 
wanted a safe environment for her kids--Dayonte, who's a sixth grader, 
and Donae, in first grade, both at the same OSP school. She wanted good 
academics and she wanted a convenient location--and she wanted Dayonte, 
the first of her children in the OSP, to be challenged.
    Since he's been an Opportunity Scholar, Dayonte hasn't gotten 
straight A's yet, but there have been improvements in his grades each 
year. Ms. Williamson says that Dayonte is--and I quote--``more 
interested in school and more engaged with his teacher. His teacher 
stays on top of him.'' She also really likes that she can be so 
directly involved in her children's educations--and she has been, as 
all of us at WSF know.
    Better, Ms. Williamson says this: ``This should have been here when 
I was in school. I would have been so much more today. In fact, I'm 
thinking about going back to school myself.''
    Here's what we at WSF ask: Why shouldn't all low-income District 
residents--while they await the very promising but likely years-away 
reforms for D.C. Public Schools--get the same shot Ms. Williamson and 
her kids are getting through the OSP?
    Finally, and on this count, we understand that local support is 
critical to the OSP. WSF could not be more gratified by Mayor Fenty's 
and Chancellor Rhee's support of the OSP as they work toward not only a 
good--but a great--public education system for the Nation's Capital. 
Meanwhile, we also appreciate the support of the District's City 
Council members, a majority of whom have endorsed the OSP in a letter 
to Secretary Duncan and Mayor Fenty.
    Mr. Chairman, I now welcome the opportunity to engage you and the 
subcommittee in a constructive dialogue around your questions and 
what's best for low-income D.C. families seeking a quality education 
for their children.

                              United States Senate,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                Washington, DC, September 24, 2009.
Mr. Gregory M. Cork,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Washington Scholarship Fund, 
        Washington, D.C. 20036.
    Dear Mr. Cork: I am writing to invite you to testify at a hearing 
before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and 
General Government to examine and evaluate the use and impact of 
Federal appropriations provided to improve the education of children in 
the District of Columbia.
    The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 2009, at 10:30 
a.m. in Room SD-192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The 
Subcommittee has received your written testimony from September 16, 
2009, and I would appreciate having additional information about the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program as outlined below by Monday, September 
28, at 3 P.M.
  --The number of voucher students in each participating school, 
        tuition, and total enrollment, for each year of the program, at 
        three points during the school year: beginning, middle, and 
        end.
  --Which participating schools are accredited, and by what accrediting 
        body.
  --Records of all school visits, including dates and times, over the 
        life of the program.
  --The information the Washington Scholarship Fund supplies to parents 
        on each participating school.
  --The handling of scholarship money for a student who drops out of a 
        participating school during the school year.
    I ask that your oral testimony be limited to no more than 5 
minutes, to allow ample time for dialogue. Your written testimony may 
contain additional details and will be included in the hearing record 
in its entirety.
    If you have any questions regarding the hearing, please contact 
Marianne Upton at (202) 228-6374. I look forward to your participation 
in this hearing.
            Sincerely,
                                         Richard J. Durbin,
          Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
                                                        Government.

                               Washington Scholarship Fund,
                                                September 28, 2009.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, 
        Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, 
        D.C. 20510-6025.
    Dear Senator Durbin: By this letter, the Washington Scholarship 
Fund (WSF) wishes to provide information and documentation addressing 
the additional questions and issues raised by you and your colleagues 
at the September 16 hearing before the Subcommittee on Financial 
Services and General Government and in subsequent correspondence. This 
letter responds to your request for additional information of September 
24, supplements my September 21 letter, and responds to inquiries 
raised by Subcommittee members on September 16.
    There is compelling external validation that the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program (the OSP) has been of immense value to low-income 
District families, in terms of both academic achievement and parental 
satisfaction. As you are aware, several studies of the OSP--most 
notably, the Federally mandated evaluation of the program undertaken by 
the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES)--
have found very positive evidence of significant academic performance 
improvement and that OSP parents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the 
program. In the initial years of the program, participants in the OSP 
have substantially benefited from improved: Academic achievement; 
parental engagement; classroom discipline and safety; student 
motivation; and parental satisfaction.
    Dr. Patrick Wolf, the independent evaluator of the OSP, concluded 
that in its initial years the program has ``met a tough standard for 
efficacy in serving low-income inner city students.''
    Over the initial 5-year OSP authorization period, WSF has taken 
more than 8,000 applications from low-income District families, many 
with children in failing schools, seeking Opportunity Scholarships. To 
date, more than 2,600 students from low-income families have been able 
to use an Opportunity Scholarship in a District private school. For 
2008-2009, the average income for participating families was just 
$24,312. And 86 percent of scholarship students come from the 
attendance zones of D.C.'s lowest performing schools (Schools In Need 
of Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring, as designated under 
No Child Left Behind).
    We are encouraged by the progress of the OSP to date and by the 
extent to which those on all sides of the political divide are 
committed to working in good faith on this issue. We strongly believe 
that the sole focus should be on the education of the children of the 
District of Columbia. We were impressed by Chancellor Michelle Rhee's 
statement to this Subcommittee that ``part of my job is to try to make 
sure that every single school-age kid gets an excellent education and 
I'm not really as concerned with what kind of school--whether it's a 
private school, a D.C. charter school, or a DCPS school--as long as 
they are in an excellent school getting a great education, then I'm 
happy.'' We share Chancellor Rhee's pragmatic focus on ``what works'' 
for the children of the District of Columbia and are pleased that she 
agrees that the Opportunity Scholarship program continues to have an 
important role in the current ``tri-sector approach.''
    Of course, we also recognize that there is room for improvement in 
any program; thus, we welcome a dialogue about possible changes that 
could further improve the academic achievement of OSP students and 
result in higher participation by quality schools. Toward that end, 
this letter addresses the questions and issues raised by the 
Subcommittee in the following five areas: (1) OSP student enrollment 
data, (2) the handling of scholarship money for students who withdraw 
from a participating school during a school year, (3) WSF's 
responsibilities for oversight of participating schools, (4) school 
accreditation, and (5) WSF's dissemination of information concerning 
academic standards.
Student Enrollment
    At the September 16 hearing, you requested that WSF provide you 
with a list of OSP scholarship payments, by student (but not by name) 
and by school, for the 2008-2009 school year. Attachment A to this 
letter is a list of OSP payments for the 2008-2009 school year by 
unique student identification number. The list includes students who 
did not attend a school for the entire school year, and thus would have 
received only partial scholarships at one or more schools. This is the 
most accurate method of measuring yearly student participation in the 
OSP.\1\ From Attachment A, each OSP dollar expended can be traced to a 
specific student and to a specific school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Upon its completion of its program audit, conducted in 2006 and 
2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) instructed both 
WSF and the program evaluators to report final school-year enrollment 
figures based on the number of students who received a scholarship 
payment--whether full or partial--during the course of a school year. 
Consequently, the final year-end attendance figure for a given school 
per GAO measures will typically be higher than the enrollment figure 
for the beginning of the school year, as it reflects normal enrollment 
shifts as students enroll in a school after the year has started, leave 
a school before the end of the school year, or switch schools within 
the program and therefore receive payments at more than one school in a 
single school year (effectively resulting in some students being 
``counted twice'' for enrollment purposes--i.e., once for each school 
at which the student was enrolled during the school year). For the 
2008-2009 school year, full or partial OSP scholarship payments were 
made for a total of 1,721 students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your letter of September 24 also requested the number of OSP 
students in each participating school for each year of the program, at 
three points during the year (beginning, middle, and end). For 
informational purposes, WSF has traditionally compiled two 
``snapshots'' of student enrollment each school year, in late September 
and late June and we provide these ``snapshots'' of school enrollment 
for the past two school years in Attachment B.\2\ These discrete data 
points serve as benchmarks as to the number of students being served in 
the program and as gauges of the net attrition that has taken place 
during the school year. These snapshots are subject to subsequent 
reconciliations to reflect the inflows and outflows of students over 
the course of the school year, as discussed in our September 21 letter, 
and also will not include students who enroll after late June each 
year. Thus, any review of the expenditure of Federal funds on the 
Opportunity Scholarship program should be based on the detailed data 
set forth in Attachment A, instead of the ``snapshot'' data in 
Attachment B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Despite diligent efforts, we unfortunately are not yet able to 
submit this information for the first 3 years of the program, but will 
submit this information to the Subcommittee as promptly as possible. 
Similarly, your September 24 letter also requested total enrollment and 
the tuition for each participating school for the 5 years of the 
program. This information was submitted for the 2008-2009 school year 
in my letter to you of July 29, 2009, but we have not yet been able to 
compile this information for prior school years. We will, of course, 
submit this information to the Subcommittee as soon as possible. Please 
note that our information about total enrollment in each participating 
school comes from the schools themselves and that we have this 
information only on an annual basis, not at three different points 
during the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repayment of Scholarship Funds for Mid-Semester Student Withdrawals
    Your September 24 information request asks for information on the 
handling of scholarship money for students who withdraw during a school 
semester. Attachment C is an excerpt from our Program Policies and 
Procedures Manual setting out our detailed procedures for making 
scholarship payments and recovering from the schools the appropriate 
amounts when a student withdraws mid-semester. As set forth in the 
Manual at page 3, all tuition and fees (except up-front fees, such as 
books) ``are pro-rated to the day'' for withdrawing students.
    When a student withdraws mid-semester, the school is required to 
repay a pro rata amount of tuition for the semester, calculated on the 
basis of the ratio of the days the student was enrolled during the 
semester to the total number of days in that school's semester. The 
formula used is--
    Amount of tuition refunded =




                                    (# of semester days that have passed as  ...................................
                                     of the date of withdrawal)
(Amount of tuition Paid) - <5-ln    ----------------------------              (tuition amount up to
 [>                                                                           $7,500)<5-ln ]>
                                    # of total days in the school's          ...................................
                                     semester



    The same formula is used to determine the allocation of any fees 
for ongoing programs, such as before-school or after-school programs.
WSF's Responsibilities for School Oversight
    Under the D.C. School Choice Act (as recently amended), WSF 
currently has oversight responsibilities with respect to participating 
schools in the following areas:
  --Financial responsibility of participating schools. See D.C. Code 
        Sec. 38-1851.04(b)(1)(H).
  --The commitment of participating schools to a policy of non-
        discrimination. See D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 38-1851.04(b)(1)(G) & 
        38-1851.07(a).
  --The commitment of participating schools to charge equal tuition to 
        OSP students. See D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 38-1851.04(b)(1)(G) & 38-
        1851.06(a)(1).
  --The commitment of participating schools to provide information 
        about OSP students' academic progress to the independent 
        evaluator (this information does not go to WSF). See D.C. Code 
        Sec. Sec. 38-1851.04(b)(1)(G) & 38-1851.10(a).
  --The commitment of participating schools to provide annual reports 
        to parents about (a) their own child's academic achievement, 
        (b) the aggregate academic achievement of other OSP students at 
        the school in the same grade or level, (c) the aggregate 
        academic achievement of all students at the school in the same 
        grade or level, and (d) information about the safety of the 
        school. See D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 38-1851.04(b)(1)(G) & 38-
        1851.09(c).
  --The obligation of participating schools to have valid certificates 
        of occupancy issued by the District of Columbia and to have 
        only teachers with 4 year bachelor's degrees teaching OSP 
        students in the core subject matter areas. See Omnibus 
        Appropriations Act of 2009, Public Law 111-8, Title IV, 
        Division D (District of Columbia appropriations).
    Outside these areas of oversight entrusted to it by statute, WSF 
currently has no authority to decline to allow a parent to use a 
scholarship for the ``District of Columbia private elementary or 
secondary school of their choice.'' See D.C. Code Sec. 38-
1851.06(a)(1).
    An important management tool that WSF has used to carry out its 
oversight obligations under the statute is a detailed school agreement, 
which sets out all of a participating school's obligations under the 
statute and contractually obligates the school to comply with each of 
these requirements. See Attachment D. Each school leader is required to 
sign a school agreement in each year of the school's participation in 
the OSP and to provide appropriate documentation (such as copies of a 
valid certificate of occupancy).
    WSF's School Oversight Program has established policies, 
procedures, and controls for each of the elements that contribute to 
the coordinated implementation of the OSP. The key documents capturing 
these policies, procedures, and controls are provided here as 
attachments, as follows:
  --School visit procedures (Attachment E).
  --School payment procedures, as discussed above (Attachment C).
  --Financial controls governing Federal funds (Attachment F).
    If a problem arises through these control mechanisms or is reported 
through other channels to WSF, we will investigate the issue and 
determine whether the school is discharging its obligations under the 
statute. To date, the participation of one school has been terminated 
due to WSF's concerns about the school's financial responsibility and 
WSF has worked closely with other schools where financial concerns 
existed in order to ensure that Federal funds were not being placed at 
jeopardy. In addition, WSF has notified two schools this year that they 
do not qualify for participation in the OSP due to their failure to 
obtain valid certificates of occupancy.
    Your September 24 information request also requests information 
about the records of all school visits, over the 5 years of the 
program. A listing of the school visits over the past 3 years is 
attached as Attachment G; we have not yet been able to assemble earlier 
records of school visits but will do so as soon as possible (some 
visits were handled through a contractor in the earliest days of the 
program, so it may not be possible to assemble a comprehensive listing 
of school visits over the life of the program). A copy of the form used 
to gather information during school visits is submitted as Attachment 
H. We will also be supplying the Subcommittee with copies of records of 
all school visits; however, as we know the Subcommittee has expressed 
its concern that it not be provided with identifiable information about 
specific students, it is important that we review these forms prior to 
providing them to the Subcommittee. Once this review is completed, we 
will promptly submit the forms (with confidential information 
redacted).
Accreditation
    Members of the Committee raised questions concerning District of 
Columbia laws concerning accreditation of private schools and 
concerning the number of schools participating in the OSP that are 
accredited. District of Columbia law does not require private schools 
to be accredited. However, at present, in order for school attendance 
to be acceptable under the District's compulsory attendance law, a 
private school must either (a) be accredited (or in the process of 
becoming accredited) by one of a list of approved educational 
accreditation organizations or (b) submit proof acceptable to the 
Superintendent of Education as to the amount of instructional time, the 
character of the instruction, and the qualifications of the staff. See 
D.C. Code of Municipal Regulations, Chapter 21 Sec. 2100.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ We understand that the Office of the State Superintendent of 
Education issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 7, 2009, 
asking for public comments on the elimination of the requirement of 
accreditation or proof concerning the academic instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on our research and information provided by the schools, it 
appears that of the 54 schools currently participating in the 2009-2010 
OSP, 39 are accredited, 5 are in the process of seeking accreditation, 
and 10 are not accredited. Thus, at present 72 percent of the schools 
participating in the program are either accredited or in the 
accreditation process. Attachment I sets forth, as requested in your 
September 24 information request, which participating schools are 
accredited and by which accreditation bodies. In addition, Attachment J 
sets forth a summary of academic information (such as student-teacher 
ratios, average class size, and the percentage of teachers with 
advanced degrees).
Academic Standards
    The purpose of the authorizing statute is to afford low-income 
District residents the options to choose from expanded and better 
educational opportunities. Under the authorizing statute, WSF is not 
currently authorized to exclude a private school that OSSE allows to 
operate from participation in the OSP. However, in order to help OSP 
families choose the best school for their children, WSF provides 
families with a wide range of information on participating schools, 
including information on areas that are widely accepted as instrumental 
in contributing to a child's academic growth and achievement. In 
addition, WSF strongly encourages each parent to personally visit the 
schools they are considering for their children.
    Your September 24 information request asks for ``[t]he information 
that the Washington Scholarship Fund supplies to parents on each 
participating school.'' The annual School Directory provides detailed 
information to families about each participating school, including 
information on the facilities, curriculum, faculty and staff, 
transportation options, and the mission of the school. See Attachment K 
(2008-2009 School Directory). In addition, each family is provided with 
a booklet on ``How to Use Your Scholarship'' that provides practical 
advice and information to assist the parents.
    It is important to note, however, that the written information 
provided in the School Directory has been only the beginning point for 
WSF's communications with parents. During the 2008-2009 school year, 
WSF had a staff of eight case managers whose primary duties were 
communicating with parents, in order to equip them with a detailed base 
of knowledge about the educational options for their children. During 
the last school year, these WSF staffers had more than 25,000 telephone 
conversations in addition to in person meetings with parents, to help 
them to make the best educational choices for their children.
    The School Choice Demonstration Project Report on ``Family 
Reflections on the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship 
Program,'' states that parents ``give [WSF] a lot of credit for the way 
the OSP has been managed, and the care and attention they have received 
from WSF staff,'' and cite WSF's communications as playing ``an 
extremely important, if not indispensable, role in supporting their 
transition'' from under-performing to higher-functioning schools.
Conclusion
    Again, we wish to emphasize our commitment to the low-income 
children and families of the District, and our gratification at the 
tremendous progress made by OSP students and the deep satisfaction of 
their parents with the program. Indeed, the OSP has received more 
external validation than any school choice program in the nation.
    We look forward to exploring every means by which to continue both 
this critical education reform initiative and the vigorous review that 
measures program results and validates the program's authorization.
    We hope the information provided herein and the attachments to this 
letter are helpful toward addressing the questions and issues raised by 
you and your colleagues at the September 16 hearing. Again, we very 
much would appreciate the opportunity personally to meet with you and 
your staff, at any time convenient to you, to review together all 
relevant information concerning the OSP and to address and resolve any 
and all questions and concerns that you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have.
            Sincerely,
                                           Gregory M. Cork,
                      President & CEO, Washington Scholarship Fund.
    Attachments are being retained in the subcommittee files.

    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
    And let me say, at the outset, that I thought that 
Superintendent Rhee was very forthcoming and honest in her 
appraisal of the current state of D.C. public schools. And what 
she said--she told me privately, and said it publicly--she 
could not look a parent in the eye, in Washington, DC, and say, 
``Sending your children to public schools is a better outcome, 
or a better choice.'' And she felt that she has a glide path to 
improve the D.C. public schools over the next 5 years, and I 
hope that she's correct. I thought that that was a very honest 
admission on her part, and it's the reason why we are coming 
together and envisioning this continued relationship of the 
three different sectors of education in the District of 
Columbia.
    But, also, at the same time, I think we have a special 
responsibility, in Congress--since we have a special 
relationship with the District of Columbia--to account for the 
money spent and to ask if it's being spent well. And there 
hasn't been enough of that. Some of this has, unfortunately, 
become a matter of faith and, too often, a matter of political 
ideology. And that isn't fair to the kids, nor to the 
taxpayers. And that's the reason for the hearing, is to ask 
these questions and to try to come up with the right answers so 
that we have that on the record.
    I thank you, Mr. Cork, and I believe my staff has said that 
the information that you provided this morning, they've gone 
through, and there is an accounting for the children that you 
said, last time, were--some questions over it. I won't go 
through the whole lead-up to that, but we didn't have the 
information; you wouldn't provide it. When we tried to gather 
it, there were some missing pieces. And now, I think the pieces 
are there, as best we can determine, and the kids are accounted 
for.
    But, I want to go to a point that Mr. Cane raised, here. 
Under the public charter school experience in the District, 
they have turned down two out of three applicants to become 
charter schools. Thirty-four percent have been approved. Mr. 
Cork, how many schools have you turned down, in the Washington 
Scholarship Program, that wanted to become part of this, but 
you felt were not good enough to offer a quality education to 
children under your program?
    Mr. Cork. As I've emphasized so far, no one can be more 
concerned about the quality of the academics in the schools 
participating in the OSP. To date, our experience has been that 
the vast majority of these schools are wonderful schools. 
During the course of the program, two schools have not been 
permitted to participate, and for--typically, for various 
reasons. Finance is one of them. We do require detailed 
financial information from schools; and if they can't provide 
it, we don't let them participate.
    Senator Durbin. So you're saying, out of 59 schools that 
have participated in the program, 2 have been disqualified for 
financial reasons.
    Mr. Cork. One was disqualified after beginning 
participation, others have not been permitted in the program at 
the outset.
    Senator Durbin. What percentage did you turn down, that 
applied to be part of the program? Mr. Cane says they turn down 
two out of three.
    Mr. Cork. As a percentage--as I said, there were two 
schools that were not permitted to participate.
    Senator Durbin. Two out of 59.
    Mr. Cork. Well, there have been different numbers of 
schools participating each year, but, as I recall, two have not 
been permitted to participate.
    Senator Durbin. That's a significant difference. That at 
least, their board would decide that two out of three really 
don't measure up to the standards that they think are 
acceptable for the children, and that, in the circumstances 
with your schools, that there were only two.
    So, let me go to the next question. And that is this--I 
think--I hope I quote you correctly, Mr. Cane.
    Mr. Cork. Mr. Durbin, we have carried out our oversight 
responsibilities over our schools very thoroughly during the 
course of this program. We're talking a lot about what we've 
done to date, and we've done an excellent job in carrying out--
discharging our responsibilities under the statute. Now, we're 
happy to talk about what we can do better, going forward. We 
want----
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, you've been----
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. We want to help you make the schools 
better.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, I wish, when I went to school, I 
could grade myself. But, that isn't how it worked. The teachers 
graded me. And you would like to grade yourself as 
``excellent.'' Let's wait and see what comes out at this 
hearing, all right?
    Two out of 59 schools were turned down, as opposed to two 
out of three for charter schools.
    Mr. Cane, you said, ``only true accountability is taking 
away the right to operate from nonperforming schools.'' I don't 
know if I have you quoted accurately. Is that----
    Mr. Cane. That's correct.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Pretty close to what you said?
    Mr. Cane. That's correct.
    Senator Durbin. And so, after you have turned down two out 
of three schools that want to be charter schools, you have an 
ongoing review of the performance of the charter schools that 
are part of your program?
    Mr. Cane. The short answer is ``yes.'' The way that this 
works is--please remember that those applying to open charter 
schools are not already schools. These are community members 
who come together, and most of them simply do not have the 
skills--the skill set among them to lead the charter 
authorizers to think that they can run a good school. And then, 
after--those who do survive this rigorous application process 
are then subject to a great deal of monitoring by the charter 
authorizer of the D.C. Public Charter School Board now. And if 
they do not measure up over time, then they will be closed 
down; their students will be shifted to another charter school 
or otherwise gotten into school.
    Senator Durbin. And more than a quarter of all D.C. public 
charter schools have been closed over this 13-year period of 
time.
    Mr. Cane. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. Because they didn't measure up.
    Mr. Cane. That's right, sir.
    Senator Durbin. All right. And in terms of accreditation--
and I think Senator Alexander alluded to this earlier--do you 
require accreditation, or an effort toward accreditation, to be 
part of the D.C. public charter schools?
    Mr. Cane. The School Reform Act, which is the D.C. charter 
school law, requires that all public charter schools be 
accredited.
    Senator Durbin. Is it a--one common accreditation, or are 
there different forms of accreditation?
    Mr. Cane. The bill--the law, rather--lists six or seven 
different accrediting entities, and then the public charter 
school board has the authority, under the law, to add entities. 
But, as a practical matter, the vast majority of the schools 
get accredited by the Middle States Accrediting Association.
    Senator Durbin. Ms. Weitzel-O'Neill, you've said that all 
of the schools in the Archdiocese are accredited.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes. The Archdiocese requires that all 
of our schools are either in the process, if they're a newer 
school--or, if not a newer school, then get--they are 
accredited. So, for instance, we have--St. Patrick's, out in 
Rockville, it's now working towards its accreditation. It's 
about 5 years old. But, all schools are required. But, it's 
required by the Archdiocese of Washington.
    I think what's important is that nonpublic schools--private 
schools--and I think Senator Collins alluded to this earlier--
do not have the oversight that we do in the State of Maryland. 
So, my schools, in the State of Maryland, have much more 
oversight by Nancy Grasmick's office--the State education 
office--than we do in the District of Columbia. The District of 
Columbia does not require our nonpublic schools to be 
accredited.
    Senator Durbin. And, Mr. Cork, can you say that all of the 
voucher schools, the 59 voucher schools, are either accredited 
or in the process of being accredited?
    Mr. Cork. Senator, as Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill noted, we don't 
have--the District of Columbia has the authority to determine 
whether a school can be opened, and we've worked very closely 
with the schools participating in the program, and performed 
our oversight over them. You asked about accreditation. The 
majority of the schools participating in our program are 
accredited.
    Senator Durbin. All the public schools are accredited, all 
the charter schools are accredited, all the Archdiocesan 
schools are accredited, and you say a majority of the voucher 
schools are accredited. What are we to make of the schools, 
which are receiving voucher scholarship money, that are not 
accredited?
    Mr. Cork. Many of the schools are excellent schools. Our 
staff visit our schools regularly, and report that----
    Senator Durbin. No, you said your staff visited the schools 
once every 2 years. That was your testimony last week.
    Mr. Cork. Actually, that is not the limit of our----
    Senator Durbin. I asked you about an onsite visit and you--
I can pull out the transcript, but you said, ``once every 2 
years.''
    Mr. Cork. No. We're required to visit at least every 2 
years. But our staff--our staff made 25,000 phone calls last 
year, Senator Durbin, on behalf of our families. Two families--
our staff are in schools every single day. We have direct, 
personal, productive relationships with school leaders and----
    Senator Durbin. Well, that's----
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. With our families.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. A little different than your 
earlier testimony. But, I want to----
    Mr. Cork. As far as accreditation goes, it is not required 
by the District of Columbia. We cannot require the schools to 
be accredited to participate.
    Senator Durbin. So, when you testified----
    Mr. Cork. We encourage accreditation.
    Senator Durbin. Excuse me, sir.
    You testified that, when it came to the information that 
you provide to parents about the voucher schools, you provide--
you were meticulous--that was in--I wrote it down, because we 
don't have your statement--but you said you were meticulous--
detailed, and useful information. So, do you disclose to the 
parents of potential voucher school students that the schools 
they're about to send their kids to are not accredited?
    Mr. Cork. We do disclose that to them, yes.
    Senator Durbin. You tell them that in advance.
    Mr. Cork. Yes. We talk with the parents very thoroughly 
about their options, about every school, what might be best for 
their children. And, in fact, we've found that parents are the 
best people to make that choice, Senator Durbin. It's about 
their kids. And we trust them. We rely on them. We provide them 
all the information that a parent needs to make the best 
decision for their child.
    Senator Durbin. Well, I'm going to turn it over to my 
colleagues, here, but it appears, in District of Columbia here, 
we have different standards: standards for the public schools, 
standards for the charter schools, voluntary standards accepted 
by the Archdiocesan schools, but when it comes to voucher 
schools, it's a little different situation, here.
    Mr. Cork. The District----
    Senator Durbin. Excuse me, sir.
    It's a little different situation, in terms of 
accreditation. And I don't understand why--if this is a common 
standard, why it wouldn't apply to the voucher schools, as 
well.
    Mr. Cork. I don't understand, either, Senator. We're happy 
to talk about new policies that might address this. In fact, as 
I believe--the charter schools have 3 years to receive 
accreditation in order to--is that correct?
    Mr. Cane. It's actually longer. You can't even start the 
accreditation process until you've been in business for 3 
years.
    Mr. Cork. Right. So, maybe we could discuss a new policy 
around private schools in the District, but I cannot legislate 
that myself. I'm happy to talk about our experience, what we 
see with our schools, to work, together with you, toward a 
policy that's best for the kids. We want quality schools for 
our kids. That's the bottom line. And we'll do whatever we have 
to do to make sure that happens.
    Senator Durbin. I'll get into some specific schools after 
the others have had a chance.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cork, let me follow up on the accreditation issue, 
because it is an important issue. The Catholic schools are all 
accredited. The charter schools--the public charter schools are 
either accredited or in the process of being accredited. Let me 
ask you, in a straightforward way, would you support a change 
in the law to require that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
schools be accredited, or in the process of obtaining 
accreditation if they're a brand new school, in order to 
participate in the program?
    Mr. Cork. I think that process is worth considering. And 
so, yes, I would answer your question, but I would say that I'd 
want to see several things put in place to make it a fair 
process. I would want the reviewers to be experts in oversight, 
and to make sound----
    Senator Collins. Well, that's part of the----
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. Right, right----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Accreditation process.
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. Right. That----
    Senator Collins. That's their established process.
    Mr. Cork. And I would want it to be fair to the schools, 
such that they'd have sufficient time to go through the 
process.
    Senator Collins. Superintendent, do you think that would be 
a good change in the law, for us to require--given the fact 
that we're putting Federal funds--that the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship schools be----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Accredited?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes, I do. And I think empowering 
Michelle Rhee's office, as the chancellor of education for the 
District of Columbia, would be a good thing.
    Senator Collins. I thought your point was very interesting, 
about the difference in Maryland versus the District. And I 
don't see the reason for that difference. I don't see the need 
to treat the Opportunity Scholarship schools differently. It 
seems to me accreditation ensures a certain level.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I think part of the issue has been the 
revolving door of the superintendency and chancellor, as noted 
by my colleague here, that we've seen this movie before. And 
the lack of having sustained leadership at the District of 
Columbia level has been part of why the rules are not clear. 
And I would suggest that the most important thing is that 
Michelle Rhee succeed and continue, and that we support her in 
what she needs to do, as opposed--and make sure that she's able 
to hold people accountable and that the unions don't keep 
pushing her back and push her out, as they did with the other 
superintendents. We have to support Michelle.
    Senator Collins. I certainly agree with that.
    Superintendent, let me ask you about another issue that 
we've been contemplating, and that is, how do you do 
comparisons among the students in the public charter schools, 
the students in the D.C. Opportunity schools, and the D.C. 
public schools, so that we can assess the three sectors?
    Now, you gave one excellent example, and that is, we can 
look at graduation rates. And I so commend the Catholic 
schools' experience with achieving high graduation rates.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Thank you.
    Senator Collins. That is real progress for these students. 
And even more impressive is the high rate of college 
acceptance.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Thank you.
    Senator Collins. That really is heartening to me, and that 
suggests that we're making a real difference. So, graduation 
rates are something that, across the board, we can look at. 
But, we don't want to wait until senior year to assess----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I agree.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. What's going on.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I agree.
    Senator Collins. So, that brings up the issue that Senator 
Durbin has, understandably, brought up many times, and that is 
looking at testing so that periodically we can assess how these 
students are doing in the three different sectors.
    Now, you mentioned that you're administering two nationally 
normed reference tests to all of your D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program students.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Collins. And personally, I think the D.C. schools 
ought to be using a nationally normed test, rather than the DC-
CAS test. But, that's an issue upon which reasonable people can 
differ. So, help us figure this out. What is a fair way of 
assessing the effectiveness through testing? Is there a way--
well, first let me say, should we require all students, 
regardless of whether they're in the public charter school or 
the D.C. Opportunity schools or the D.C. public schools, to 
take the DC-CAS test, or is there a way to compare the test 
that you give--is there a way to convert them?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Let me just say quickly, for the sake of everyone present--
and Senator Alexander, you can chime in, because I know you 
know about testing, but there are two kinds of tests right now. 
Five, 6 years ago, everyone in the United States took a 
nationally normed test. The nationally normed reference tests 
are the TerraNova or the Stanford. And that allows you to rank 
order your students. You create--everyone who takes the test 
that year, their scores are rank ordered. You decide where the 
50th percentile is. And what we used to do is report what 
proportion of students were above that proficiency level, which 
was always the 50th percentile. That's what everybody did. And 
we used these nationally normed tests, which is why, 5 years 
ago, the District was using the Stanford test, known as the 
Stanford-9. This year, they now have a Stanford-10. So, that 
was chosen to do the comparison because it takes into account 
the variability of what you're teaching in your schools.
    No Child Left Behind changed the landscape of testing 
dramatically. Every jurisdiction, every State--and the District 
is considered a State, in this case--was required to establish 
their own standards and their own standard reference-based 
test. So, a criterion referenced-based test is what you have 
with the DC-CAS. These tests are designed--and they're very, 
very good tests--they're very good tests for educators, 
parents, and children, because the parent is compared to 
himself or herself, not anybody else. What matters is my child, 
Maggie, doing better at the end of 1 year than she was at the 
start of the year. How close is she to the criteria that was 
set? But it's set for those schools, according to their 
standards.
    The struggle Catholic schools are having right now across 
the United States is that we cannot afford the cost of creating 
norm-referenced tests for our students, based on our standards. 
So, we are still using these nationally normed tests. And in a 
place like Archdiocese of Washington, my archbishop would like 
to see a comparison, just as Senator Durbin, of how our 
students are doing compared to the kids in the State of 
Maryland, where a lot of our schools are, and in the District 
of Columbia. The only way I can do that now is to, hopefully, 
find funding for CTB/McGraw-Hill to create a scale. And that 
scale--a conversion scale--would allow us to convert our 
TerraNova test scores to the equivalent test score on the DC-
CAS or the Maryland State assessment. Both tests--and this is 
the part that's interesting--all these tests are made by CTB/
McGraw-Hill or Pearson. So, there's basically two companies 
that are really winning on No Child Left Behind.
    So, we have a proposal in to CTB/McGraw-Hill. We're trying 
to find out how much it would cost. We really want to do this. 
If we can't--and with the Opportunity Scholarship Program--I 
have met with Michelle Rhee, and we both agree that we can work 
together to develop some scientific methodology that would 
allow us to compare gross scores for the students in both 
populations.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. That would be very helpful.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Alexander.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks, to the witnesses. This is a very interesting 
testimony.
    Dr. O'Neill, so you're saying that, rather than have all 
the kids in the private--in the Opportunity Scholarship schools 
take the same test that D.C. schools give, that you'd rather 
find a way that you and Dr. Rhee might be able to work 
together, to find----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. A way to convert your 
scores, so that we could have some information about that--or 
others could--parents could.
    Senator Collins. Yes. I think one of my concerns is that, 
first of all, the standards that we have in our Catholic 
schools are the standards based more or less on the Maryland 
State standards and the Indiana standards----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. And we've created them. 
So, what our children are required to know and be able to do at 
the end of third grade in math may look different than what's 
going on in the D.C. charter----
    Senator Alexander. Right.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. School or the public 
school. So, what they're tested on would be different.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And so, that puts the kids in our--the 
OSP child to--maybe at a disadvantage. But, more importantly, 
the cost of preparing these students to take a criterion-
referenced test----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. Which is a very lengthy, 
time-intensive test--also will increase the cost of testing, 
and more importantly, it will take these students out of class 
time, when they could----
    Senator Alexander. So, there's a cost issue----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. There's cost----
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. That is a----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. And time.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. That is a real obstacle 
to----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. If the Federal Government can come up 
with the funding, it wouldn't----
    Senator Alexander. So, if we----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. As long as we don't have to come up 
with the funding.
    Senator Alexander. So, would you say, if Senator Durbin 
wants you to take another test, he ought to pay for it? Would 
that be what you'd----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. You'd respectfully say?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah. You know, you would need to pay 
for it.
    Senator Alexander. We're pretty----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I can tell you, we don't have the 
funding.
    Senator Alexander. We're pretty good, here in Congress, at 
coming up with good ideas for State and local groups, and not 
paying for it.
    Now, I thought Senator Durbin--you know, I'm a big 
supporter of kids having choices. I mean, when I moved here, 
the Secretary of Education, we looked all around, and our kids 
chose the best school we could, you know, and the two of them 
are in the Opportunity Scholarship Program. So did President 
Clinton and Hillary, and so did President and Mrs. Obama. And, 
you know, we--I'd like to reduce the number of times that that 
decision is affected just by how much money you have. But, I 
thought Senator Durbin's line of questioning about 
accreditation was worth pursuing.
    And, Dr. O'Neill, you've had experience, now, with--do you 
use the middle States?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes, sir. And I've served on visiting 
teams and----
    Senator Alexander. Is that a useful exercise for you? Put 
aside the D.C. Opportunity Program for a moment. Or is it a 
waste of time?
    Senator Alexander. Oh, no. It is a very useful exercise.
    Senator Alexander. It's a peer--it's basically, your 
peers----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. It's peer----
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Coming in and looking----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. They're--it----
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. You over and----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah. It is peer review. But, for 
instance, when a school is undergoing middle States 
accreditation, they spend a year in self-examination.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And they look at everything in their 
school. They prepare the report. A visiting team of five to six 
people spend 4 or 5--3 to 4 days in the school, depending on 
the size of the school, come out with a report, make 
recommendations to the leadership in Philadelphia----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. And your school is either 
accredited--you also get visits--interim visits. So, for 
instance, St. Thomas More, in ward 8, which is in the----
    Senator Alexander. So, you think it's a useful----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Useful process.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely.
    Senator Alexander. And, in your opinion, would it be 
reasonable if--for D.C. Opportunity--for us to require that----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I think it would be very reasonable.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. Children who attend D.C. 
Opportunity--that use D.C. Opportunity Scholarships to attend 
accredited schools--or schools that are in the process of being 
accredited?
    Senator Alexander. Exactly. And I would say the other 
accrediting system that's fabulous is the southern States 
accrediting agency.
    Senator Alexander. Now, so--while Senator Durbin and 
Senator Collins are here--the way I read the law, though, we 
may be blaming you and Mr. Cork--or, we may be blaming the D.C. 
Opportunity for a program--something we ourselves have done--
we, in Congress. Because, as I read the law, private schools 
aren't required to be accredited. Is that right, Dr. O'Neill?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. At this point in time----
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. No, we're not required--
--
    Senator Alexander. But, no, you're not required to be 
accredited.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. But, we, as the Archdiocese
    Senator Alexander. But, you chose to be.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah.
    Senator Alexander. Is that correct?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Alexander. But, private schools in the District of 
Columbia, under the law, have to be approved by the board of 
education or the chancellor----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. But not by an accrediting 
association. So, you're not required to do that. And, as I read 
the law, it might be that--if I were a parent, and I wanted to 
go to a school, and Senator Durbin and Collins and I all say, 
``Well, the school is not accredited,'' I would read the law 
and say, ``This is to enable me to attend,'' quote, ``the 
school of their choice.'' In other words, it doesn't say 
anything, Senator Durbin, about accreditation. In fact, it says 
the parent is the chooser.
    So, what we've got today is a situation, if I'm reading it 
right--and then I'd like to ask you, Mr. Cork, if you want to 
comment on this--where the law says that private schools in the 
District of Columbia do not have to be accredited. What they do 
have to do, is be approved by the board of education or the 
chancellor. They have to be approved by them. There are some 
specific requirements of what that is. And that's it. And it 
looks to me like it says that, if I'm a parent, that I can take 
my child to a school of my choice, without any requirement of 
accreditation. Is that the way you read it?
    Mr. Cork. I share your understanding, Senator Alexander. 
And you're right, it's all about a parent's choice.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah. It's about a parent's choice. That 
was the wisdom of Congress, 5 years ago. Now, the wisdom of 
Congress might now be that, having looked at it for 5 years, 
and Senator Durbin raising some good questions, maybe we ought 
to change that and say that we think that accreditation is not 
optional for private schools----
    Mr. Cork. Yeah. And----
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. To participate. But, today 
it is optional, under the law we passed, if I'm reading the law 
right.
    Mr. Cork. That's right. Now, we are willing to talk with 
you, as I said; we want to sit down and talk about what would 
be the best policy, going forward. Absolutely.
    Senator Alexander. Well, Senator Collins asked you the 
question--or, don't you think it would be better if you'd just 
go ahead and--my recommendation to you would be that, over the 
next few years, that you just say, ``Yes, that's a pretty good 
requirement. Most of our schools are accredited, or are in the 
process of being accredited, and we'll seriously consider doing 
that, because that would earn the support and confidence of the 
people who are providing a lot of the money.''
    Mr. Cork. Absolutely.
    Senator Alexander. That would be my recommendation.
    Mr. Cork. Yeah. Personally, I think accreditation is a 
great idea, going forward.
    Senator Alexander. Yeah.
    Mr. Cork. Now, remember too though that meanwhile over 
these past 5 years we have worked very closely with our 
families to make sure they have full information to make the 
best decisions for their kids. We--again, we want nothing more 
than to have our participating students in good schools.
    Senator Alexander. Well, we have--Senator Durbin, we--you 
know, we have--we have Pell--this may have been an oversight by 
Congress that's caused this problem. We have--you know, we have 
Pell grants for higher education. We require the colleges and 
universities to be accredited. We did not require that for 
these schools.
    Thank you for the time.
    Senator Durbin. Senator Alexander, you're correct, some of 
us were hoping to have standards included in the voucher 
schools, like college degrees and the same test, and that they 
would pass at least an inspection of their buildings. And those 
amendments were all defeated when I offered them as part of----
    Senator Alexander. Well, that's already in the requirement 
for the----
    Senator Durbin. It's in there because I included it in this 
year's appropriation.
    Senator Alexander. But I mean, as I read the requirements, 
the private school in the District has to go before the board 
of education. There are some very specific things----
    Senator Durbin. Oh, no, I'm not questioning that. I'm just 
saying that--I don't quarrel with what you conclude, that the 
law that we passed could be better. There were some of us who 
suggested that at the time, too.
    I'd like to ask Ms. Weitzel-O'Neill--I want to make sure I 
understand what you said. And you talked about conversion of 
test scores, and so forth. I thought I understood that the 
Archdiocesan schools were prepared to take the same test as----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. We have----
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. The public charter schools.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. We are prepared, and have been. The 
Opportunity Scholarship students currently take the same test 
as the D.C. children who were in the lottery. Starting 5 years 
ago, the Stanford-9 was the standardized test all D.C. children 
took.
    Senator Durbin. Then my question wasn't----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. We all agreed to the same test.
    Senator Durbin. Then my question isn't clear. That you're 
prepared----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And the DC-CAS--am I prepared to have 
the Opportunity Scholarship students take that test? 
Absolutely, if that is the wisdom and choice of the--and as 
long as we can work closely with Michelle Rhee. As she and I 
have both pointed out, we understand the difficulties this will 
create for the children, but we would hope that we could work 
this out in a way that would make it possible.
    Senator Durbin. And can I say publicly here--and I'll stand 
by this--that we need to take that into consideration.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely.
    Senator Durbin. When you convert over to another test, I 
can understand that there could be some periods of time, here, 
for adjustment and reevaluation.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely.
    Senator Durbin. And so, I think there should be fairness on 
both sides.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin. But I think, a common test gives us a 
better standard norm to measure against. And that is what has 
happened in the other three cities with voucher schools, and I 
think it should happen here.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And I would just comment that, in the 
other cities what is unique is that there are shared standards 
because of the State relationship to everyone. Unfortunately, 
the Archdiocese of Washington crosses State lines. And so, it's 
a little weird for us.
    The second thing--and then I would just mention, because it 
would make a difference--and this is just a suggestion--but, 
since No Child Left Behind has splintered every State in such a 
way that all of our tests are different--everyone has a 
different test--we need these conversion scales so that these 
comparisons can be made for all different kinds of legislation. 
As you invest money in education in this country, and until 
Arne Duncan gets that national test and national standard set 
up, it's very difficult for us to make comparisons, because 
everybody has their own separate test in their own world. Yet, 
the conversion scale is mathematically possible.
    And in fact, Senator, you may be familiar, but when the SAT 
changed, they created the conversion scale. So, if you and I 
applied to go back to college today, our SAT scores from not so 
long ago would be compared to the young people today. And their 
scores are way higher than ours, because it's a different test. 
But, there's a conversion scale that would make us feel really 
good about how our test scores are today. So, it works. Higher 
education's been using conversion scales when they change their 
tests. I think it's--again, as Senator Alexander pointed out, 
higher education has given us some very good models to look at.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Mr. Cork, I'm going to ask you to revisit the Kuumba 
Learning Center with me, here. This is one I asked you about 
last time, and how frequently that that school was visited, and 
you said, ``Once every 2 years.'' Today, you've said something 
different. Whatever the standard is, I need for you to clarify 
something. When you sent us the information on the voucher 
schools across the District of Columbia, you said every one of 
them had 100 percent of teachers with at least a bachelor's 
degree. And when it came to the Kuumba Learning Center in your 
directory--school directory for the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, teachers with bachelor's degree or higher: 
25 percent.
    Mr. Cork. First, I want to clarify, I didn't say the school 
is visited only every 2 years. Our policy is that they are 
visited at least on a biennial basis. As I said, our staff are 
in the schools every single day, on the phone with the schools, 
present in the schools, and have close and productive working 
relationships with--I went to Kuumba, by the way, last week. I 
would send my kids there. I think it's a great school.
    Senator Durbin. Okay. Can you answer my question? You say 
that 100 percent of their teachers have college degrees here; 
you directory says 25----
    Mr. Cork. You know what we found out? We found out that 
some schools, where the instructors had graduate degrees, they 
didn't report them as having bachelor degrees, because they 
were being that specific about it. Now, the requirement that 
the schools have 100 percent of teachers having bachelor's 
degrees if they teach core subjects is new.
    Senator Durbin. It is----
    Mr. Cork. And we are going to enforce it. If a school 
doesn't have 100 percent of those teachers with bachelor's 
degrees, they're not going to be in the program. We're not 
going to let them in. Now, as to----
    Senator Durbin. That's what the law requires you----
    Mr. Cork [continuing]. As to specifically what's going on 
at Kuumba right now, I'm happy to work to clarify whatever 
questions you have, to determine whether they do have that 100-
percent rate. Again, the figure you cited, I don't know if it's 
accurate. I suspect it's not.
    Senator Durbin. And let me--I'll just say that--on the 
question of bachelor's degrees, you said 25 percent in your 
directory, and now say 67 percent. So, I don't think the 
discrepancy goes to bachelor's degrees. It's a pretty 
significant discrepancy between what you put in you directory 
and what you reported to us. I'd like to clarify it.
    Now, let me ask you about Bridges Academy. I don't know if 
we have a photo of Bridges Academy. Bridges Academy, again, you 
say has 100 percent college degrees. And then, in the 
directory, 79 percent.
    Mr. Cork. You might as well take that picture down. It's 
the wrong school. Bridges has a brand new, sparkling facility 
that's absolutely gorgeous, and has for 2 years. I apologize if 
that was taken from our Web site. That is not the school.
    And again, your question was specifically what, Senator?
    Senator Durbin. 100 percent versus 79 percent.
    Mr. Cork. Again, we will clarify with you the precise--if 
that's wrong, I apologize for that. But, let me emphasize, 
you've required that 100 percent of the teachers have 
bachelor's degrees to be in the program. If they don't, they 
won't be in the program.
    Senator Durbin. We asked you earlier for records of school 
site visits over the life of the program, and you furnished us 
some charts, and you indicated that data for the earlier years 
was difficult to gather, since you relied on a contractor, in 
the earlier years, to visit the schools. Is that true?
    Mr. Cork. Actually, yes, there were others doing site 
visits during the early going, when--there are 5 months to get 
the program up and running. We had a lot of people 
participating with us and doing all the things we needed to do.
    Senator Durbin. And do you know the name of the contractor 
that was involved?
    Mr. Cork. I wasn't here at the time, but yeah. Fight for 
Children, here in the District, was administering that part of 
the program at the time, and site visits were conducted by 
them. We took them over, once we got up and running, and had 
the full staffing necessary to do it regularly.
    Senator Durbin. Can I ask you about the Academy for Ideal 
Education? Are you familiar with that school?
    Mr. Cork. I am. They're not participating in the program.
    Senator Durbin. Why?
    Mr. Cork. Because they don't have a certificate of 
occupancy.
    Senator Durbin. When did you discover that?
    Mr. Cork. We've been in process with them for months. We've 
been working with them, and with the department of consumer and 
regulatory affairs, to try to determine what the issues were, 
and see whether one could be issued. But, apparently, they've 
not been able to secure a COO. So they're not going to be in 
the program.
    Senator Durbin. They had 84 of their 101 students on 
vouchers in the last school year?
    Mr. Cork. Well, they're not going to have any of the 
Opportunity Scholarship kids now.
    Senator Durbin. They had 84 of their 101 students on 
vouchers in the last school year?
    Mr. Cork. I don't know the specific numbers. I'd have to 
look at my records.
    Senator Durbin. It seems to me that if a school is heavily 
voucher school, it would merit more investigation and 
oversight. Is that a fair conclusion? I mean, Sidwell Friends 
and other day schools and the like may not require this type of 
onsite investigation, with one or two students. But, if you 
have a school that has an overwhelming percentage of its 
students on vouchers, I would hope that there would be more 
oversight, on behalf of your agency.
    Mr. Cork. We provide you with documentation of our very 
rigorous school oversight procedures. There are certain 
triggers that result in us going to look further into a school. 
If there's an increase in enrollment, or more voucher kids are 
using, for a given year, we do. And we do go to the school and 
closely scrutinize what's going on there when we see any number 
of triggers tripped.
    Senator Durbin. How do you ensure the fiscal solvency of 
the schools?
    Mr. Cork. We require audits from each school, when they 
participate in the program. And if they don't have financial 
audits conducted by outside parties, then we require a full set 
of financial documentation that demonstrates financial 
responsibility.
    Senator Durbin. I want to ask about one of your schools, 
the Ambassador Baptist Church Christian School. In the 
documentation you provided me in July for this school, you 
listed a total student body of 53 students for the last school 
year. Last week, your letter noted that there were 57 students 
receiving vouchers. We're trying to reconcile the differences 
in numbers here.
    I've also been informed that this school is not operating 
this year. So, last year the school was educating only voucher 
students, and this year it's closed. What is the situation with 
this school?
    Mr. Cork. As I understand it, Ambassador closed because of 
financial problems.
    Senator Durbin. That's it?
    Mr. Cork. That's the extent of my knowledge, Senator. I'm 
happy to provide you with further information, once I've 
gathered it.
    Senator Durbin. I have a tough time reconciling--``25,000 
phone calls,'' and ``we're on top of this every day'' with some 
of the answers that you're giving me.
    Mr. Cork. You've identified two schools, Senator.
    Senator Durbin. Well, I should, because they've been 
closed. I mean, it really is a question.
    Mr. Cork. No, one has been closed.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. It's rare--excuse me----
    Mr. Cork. One has been closed.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. It's rare, that your schools 
are closed. And I'm asking you the circumstances, and you can't 
give them to me.
    Mr. Cork. Well, you would think you would want a school 
that was having financial issues closed.
    Senator Durbin. Yes.
    Mr. Cork. I mean--we didn't close the school, by the way. 
We're not permitted to close schools. But, the school did 
close, and so, it's no longer in the program.
    The majority of our schools are excellent schools. I would 
send my own children to most of our schools.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Cork, I'm going to have to work with my 
colleagues, here, to see if there will be a reauthorization of 
this program. And it's possible there will be. But, there will 
be rules at least consistent, for your program, with the public 
and charter schools. I mean, we've got to demand the same 
standards, for the sake of the children and their families, of 
your schools that we do of other schools, or question whether 
we should require them of public schools, or charter schools.
    You didn't write this law, and I didn't vote for this law, 
because I thought it was wide open, with opportunities for 
misuse and for exploitation. And some of those have come out 
during the course of this hearing. But, in fairness to the many 
students who are getting good educations through this program, 
we have got to tighten this up. And there's going to have to be 
more accountability from your agency too, when this is all 
over. I mean, there's a lot of money passing through your 
agency into the District of Columbia, and I think it's 
important that these dollars be accounted for, whether they're 
in District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, whatever they may be. 
And I know that today you've had a little different attitude in 
your testimony. And that's up to you. You can do it however you 
wish. But, at the end of the day, we need the answers to these 
questions.
    Mr. Cork. And we want to work with you, Senator. We want to 
sit down with your staff and go through every question you 
have. We're confident in our information. We know we can answer 
every question. We can, and we have, accounted for every single 
dollar. We take that responsibility very, very seriously.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Superintendent, you mentioned the unusual situation that 
the Archdiocese crosses State lines, or crosses the District 
line. I'm curious whether the children who are enrolled in the 
Catholic schools in the District of Columbia follow a Maryland 
curriculum rather than a D.C. curriculum. Do you have the same 
curriculum?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. We have the----
    Senator Collins. Curricula?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. The Archdiocese of Washington has a 
curriculum based on the Archdiocesan standards, which we 
created 5 years ago, with everyone else. And ours is a 
combination of the best of the Indiana standards and the 
Maryland State standards. At that time, those were the two best 
sets of standards in the country, we thought, and fit with our 
high expectations in our schools. On all of our schools--in 
fact, I'm meeting with the principals this afternoon to talk 
about how we use data in the classroom to make decisions and to 
better report our outcomes to our parents. So, we're all--we 
all work together, yes.
    Senator Collins. The point that I'm trying to get at is, 
the DC-CAS test is geared to the D.C. curriculum.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Collins. And your curriculum is more like 
Maryland's standards, correct?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Collins. So, what I'm wondering is whether the test 
that would be more appropriate for your schools in the District 
would be the Maryland test.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. The Maryland State assessment?
    Senator Collins. Yes.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yeah. And that, too, is criterion 
referenced to the standards in the State of Maryland. And since 
we're probably closer to that than we are to the standards in 
the District. But, the reality is, all of these tests, the 
criteria are based on standards; and the local standards are, 
in fact, based on national standards. So----
    Senator Collins. Right.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. It takes a lot of work 
and a lot of analysis to get to this point, where you can 
factor out all the variability. So, yes, we can do the 
comparisons if this is what is mandated. It will be much more 
tedious and much more time-consuming for everyone involved.
    And our hope is--whether we do the DC-CAS or not, whatever 
happens, our real hope is, is that we'll have, for our 
purposes, that scale that will allow us to convert our 
TerraNova and compare it to the Maryland State assessment and 
the DC-CAS, and share with our parents, and the public, how our 
children perform in our schools compared to the public schools 
in both jurisdictions.
    Senator Collins. And that's what we want to see, also----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. Because we are investing 
millions of dollars. And it's an investment that I support. But 
we've got to be able to assess the impact of that investment on 
the students that we're serving. And----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. We----
    Senator Collins [continuing]. I know you share that goal.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely. And we have looked very 
carefully at the Opportunity Scholarship students who have been 
with us over the course of at least 3 years, and we've compared 
their growth to the students who were not participating in the 
scholarship, but have been at our schools on a continuous 
basis. And the rate of growth, the rate of change, is 
absolutely the same as it is for the children who are not. So, 
we've seen a change of 12 percent in math in both those 
students who are in the program and those students who are not 
in the program. So, the growth line is going in the same 
direction. Our goal is to have every Opportunity Scholarship 
student at the highest point of literacy by eighth grade, 
because all of the research shows, if you are literate by 
eighth grade, you will succeed in high school and you will 
succeed in college. And that's the college examination folks 
that have put all that data together.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Those are the best measures of 
success.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Ms. Levy, I have to say that I was a little worried about 
your testimony, because, as you pointed out, you've been an 
advocate and an expert on D.C. schools for 30 years. And yet, I 
detected a weariness, almost, and a lack of optimism.
    Ms. Levy. Uh-huh.
    Senator Collins. So, you talked about that you've seen this 
movie before, that the players are different, and the terrain's 
a little different, and you hope the outcome will be different. 
That was a pretty pessimistic assessment, to me, and it worries 
me, because we can't have the outcome be the same. That's why 
I'm such a strong supporter of the D.C. public charter schools 
and of the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
    But, talk to me a little more about what you see happening 
with D.C. public schools, because after all, we still have an 
awful lot of children who are going to the D.C. public schools, 
and are you encouraged or discouraged by the steps that are 
being taken by Michelle Rhee? What reforms do you think will 
make the biggest difference in D.C. public schools?
    Am I reading you wrong? Are you actually brimming with 
optimism that this is going to turn around? I've asked you 
several questions, but I----
    Ms. Levy. Yes.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. I'd like you to talk further.
    Ms. Levy. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I'm in a 
wait-and-see mode, because I have seen most of these reform 
attempts before. And it all depends on how they're implemented. 
I almost feel like I never want to hear another good idea 
again. If we could just take a mediocre idea, and do it well, 
that would suffice. It's discouraging to see good ideas, that 
have been effective elsewhere, adopted, implemented poorly, and 
then abandoned. Or, the other thing that happens is, they're 
adopted, they're implemented, they work, and still the next 
superintendent throws them out.
    Senator Collins. So----
    Ms. Levy. And that's--we have had continual turnover----
    Senator Collins. Too much of a revolving door.
    Ms. Levy [continuing]. Continual change. We have fired 
teachers over and over again. We have fired principals over and 
over again. We have reconstituted dozens of schools. And it's 
created more disruption. And I'm talking about the past. I'm 
not saying that it won't work this time. But, I can only wait 
and see.
    And I am discouraged by a couple of things. I am 
discouraged by the fact that it is almost impossible to find 
out where the money is going. That should not be. We used to 
know better. It's never been great, but it's always been better 
than it is right now. I am worried that the continual emphasis 
on replacing the workforce will cause our good teachers and 
good principals to leave. We are losing them. And there's a 
history that 50 percent of the new teachers we hire are gone 2 
years later. That's just not a way that we can continue to 
operate. That's the source of pessimism.
    The source of--I won't say ``optimism,'' but--hope is 
that--we do need better teachers, we do need better principals, 
we do need adequate funding. And right now the D.C. public 
schools are very well funded.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Cane, my final question, I'll ask of you.
    The charter school movement in the District appears to have 
been extraordinarily successful, in terms of parental 
satisfaction and demand for slots in the charter schools. Help 
me better understand your ability to accommodate all of those 
parents who want their children to go to charter schools. Are 
there waiting lists? Are you capped in the number of students 
that are allowed into the charter school program, the way that 
the D.C. Opportunity Program is capped?
    Mr. Cane. Well, we're not capped. The number of charter 
schools we can open a year is capped at 20, but we've never, 
ever come anywhere close to that. So, for all intents and 
purposes, we have no caps.
    We have any number of schools--I can't give you the exact 
number--with waiting lists, some of them very significant. We 
have schools that have trouble filling up, especially in their 
first year or two.
    I've been expecting, for 4 or 5 years, that the interest in 
charter schools would level off, and it simply has not done so. 
I'm surprised that we're at 36 percent, going to 38 percent. 
Fortunately, as long as we have, you know, good new schools 
coming in and bad schools going out, we'll be able to 
accommodate these students. But, I can't tell you that--I mean, 
at the moment, I don't know how many more students we could 
accommodate.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you.
    Ms. Weitzel-O'Neill, I'd like to make a general 
observation--and not specific, but general observation--about 
what I've seen. Graduation rates are good. The higher the 
graduation rate, the better, because it means the student 
didn't drop out. College admission is good. It shows that the 
student still has ambition, and is advancing, and has been 
given an opportunity to learn at a higher level. But, I can 
just tell you that it doesn't tell the whole story. We have 
open enrollment at community colleges in Illinois. Two out of 
three of the students who are accepted at community colleges in 
Illinois are not performing at 12th grade level. They have to 
take remedial and transition courses in reading and math. We're 
going to try to teach them the high school courses in community 
college now, and they are going to take loans out and apply for 
Pell Grants to get a high school education. That's the sad 
reality.
    So, all of the things you've said are good, but they don't 
tell the whole story, and the whole story is still challenging 
for all of us. And I don't pick on Archdiocesan schools, or any 
schools, but I think we have to have some honesty about those 
who are college students today. Some are in good schools, well 
prepared to become college students, and will earn a bachelor's 
degree, or go beyond that. Others may not. And that reflects, I 
think, the challenge that we all face in every State and here, 
obviously, in the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Cane, when I take a look at charter schools--and I 
believe in charter schools--I'm glad you're in business, and 
I'm glad you're offering an alternative. And clearly, what 
you've shown us is that the parents, and others, support you in 
that effort. You have schools that are good and some that are 
not as good. Some that are extraordinarily good. And I look at 
the charter schools and wonder what is being learned in the 
process.
    In Chicago and in other parts of my State, when a school is 
failing, they try to reconstitute it. If they can't, they close 
the school. They don't turn the kids away, obviously, but they 
bring in a whole new team, to try to start over and see if they 
can make a difference. And, to my satisfaction and sometimes 
amazement, they do it; taking the same, quote, ``students 
falling behind,'' and turning them around because they've got a 
new team of teachers and a new team of administrators, 
principals, and the like, that really do connect up, and things 
move forward.
    When you take a look at the results in your charter 
schools, and you see--and I won't name names--but you see a 
wide variation in all of your charter schools here. Tell me how 
you look at this, in terms of the charter school movement. Are 
you developing a best-practices model that is going to be part 
of all the charter schools in the District of Columbia? Do they 
sit down and compare notes and talk to one another about what 
works and what doesn't? Are you looking for certain things, 
when it comes to teachers and administrators, realizing that, 
in the failing schools, those aren't there, but in those that 
succeed, you can find them? Do you ask why the KIPP schools are 
off the chart? Can you give me some explanation?
    Mr. Cane. Well, I think if you looked into the high-
performing schools and compared them to each other, they 
undoubtedly have certain characteristics in common, but they 
also have very, very different approaches to educating the 
kids. I think what we too often forget is that schooling 
doesn't go on in school systems, it goes on in individual 
school buildings. And there are different ways to skin this 
cat. So, KIPP is highly successful. No one will argue with 
that. E.L. Haynes is highly successful, but doesn't look, in 
many ways, anything like KIPP.
    The Public Charter School Board, which is the authorizer 
and the monitor of these schools, and makes the decision on who 
opens and who closes, is, right now, in the process of trying 
to do what you suggested; in other words, they're trying to 
look at all these different schools in the same way, I guess, 
in the hopes of being able to more easily decide who's 
succeeding and who's failing, and what works and what doesn't, 
which if they don't go too far on that is okay. But, I think 
it's very important to remember that someone will come along, 
in a year or two, who may, down the road, perform better than 
KIPP with its students, and doesn't desire to do any of the 
things that KIPP is doing.
    Look, we know that the schools that are doing well have a 
longer school day, they have a longer school year. They provide 
enrichment activities, like chess. They grind their teachers 
into dust, you know, making them work 20 hours a day. I mean, 
this is the reality. This is very difficult work. I believe 
that most people are not going to be able to hack it in--
whether it's in public charter schools or DCPS or elsewhere. 
That's why it's so important that we keep this stream of new 
people with bright ideas coming in, and kicking out the people 
whose bright ideas didn't work. But, we do all need to remember 
how extremely difficult this is.
    Senator Durbin. So, I went to these Catholic schools for 19 
years. They don't claim me sometimes, based on my votes. But, I 
went to Catholic schools for 19 years, and my impression, at 
least in the elementary level, was that there was a pretty 
standard education that was offered at Catholic schools. And 
there were certain things we did that maybe other schools 
didn't do. I have no way of comparing, but you know, they just 
continued using a model that they considered to be a good 
model, and I think it ended up, at least in my case, with 
pretty good results.
    Now, you're dealing with some experimentation here. You 
have charter schools that may come to you and say, ``We've got 
a better idea than KIPP. We've got a better idea than anybody. 
And we want to try this experiment in education.'' So, how do 
you decide whether this experiment is worth risking these 
children on such an experiment?
    Mr. Cane. Well, first of all, thank goodness, I don't 
decide. You had Josephine Baker in here at the last hearing, 
and her board and staff make this decision. But, my 
organization focus is heavily involved in this, because we're 
the only people in the District of Columbia who have a formal 
program to help people apply for charter schools. And so, we 
see all of these wildly enthusiastic people with great vision 
and all that sort of thing coming to us every year. I think 
we've had 16 or 18 people asking for our help this year. And we 
will turn away all but two or three of those, because, although 
we don't make a decision on that, we get to decide who we're 
going to help, and we're only going to help people design 
schools and go through this process if we're confident that 
they're going to have good schools when they come out the other 
end. Many of these people do not--after we tell them that they 
don't have what it takes, many of these people decide--most of 
them decide not to apply. Those who do, either with our help or 
on their own, then have to go through an extremely rigorous 
application process; a 125-page application, very, very high 
standards. Once the application is submitted they go through a 
grueling interview process with the Public Charter School 
Board, a technical review, then they have to go through a 
public hearing, and then a decision is made about whether 
they're going to be the one out of three that makes it through 
that process.
    Senator Durbin. I guess what I'm driving at--and I'm glad 
you do just that, with that kind of rigor, determining whether 
or not you want to put the stamp of approval as a D.C. charter 
school on this new approach.
    When I look at my State, particularly at the city of 
Chicago, whether it's in the public school area or the charter 
school area, there are a lot of flowers blooming. And they look 
a lot different. There are some military academies in the 
public school system. And there are some that focus on arts. 
And in the charter schools, we have--I've visited charter 
schools that are just--San Miguel is now a charter school. It's 
read, read, read. And they just never stop reading. I've been 
to other schools that try to deal with the whole student--you 
know, physical education, what they're eating--as part of the 
education. They all have different kinds of approaches to this. 
And I'm wondering--there's value to it, I'm sure, because we 
can do a lot better in education in America. But, I'm wondering 
if we're ever going to come to a conclusion as to what really 
is the right model and approach, or is this going to continue 
to be a blossoming array of opportunities? That's a pretty 
philosophical question, but I'll let you weigh in.
    Mr. Cane. Let me answer very philosophically. We're never 
going to get there. It's always going to be--partly it's about 
improvement, but, you know, in the worst school systems, at the 
worst time, there have always been individual schools that have 
done extremely well. And many school systems around the country 
have decided, ``Okay, well it's working at this school, let's 
make everybody do it.'' And then, to their chagrin, they find 
that it doesn't work.
    The reason that I'm working on public school reform in the 
charter schools is that I believe so strongly in what goes on 
in each individual school, and I don't believe that I or anyone 
else has the wisdom to decide that there's this one way and 
it's going to work for everybody. In fact, I think that's 
counterproductive. So, the public charter schools--I'm not 
saying that the DCPS can't reform. And I'm pulling for them to 
reform. But, I think that the fastest way to get reform is to 
find people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a good 
idea and go into these schools and run them.
    Senator Durbin. All right, my last question. I know I'm 
getting off into the clouds here a little bit. But, if KIPP 
came in tomorrow and said, ``We want to open a third charter 
school,'' you wouldn't say, ``Wait a minute. We've got to try a 
new approach. We've got to experiment.'' You're going to say, 
``Great. You folks know how to do this, and you've proven it 
over and over.'' There's something going on there, at some of 
the best charter schools, that clearly needs to be replicated, 
that I hope my grandson is going to find, and others in the 
District of Columbia are going to find, when they go to charter 
schools.
    Mr. Cane. You know, KIPP doesn't have any trouble getting 
the Public Charter School Board to allow it to open new 
campuses. However, the reason there aren't more KIPP schools 
here and around the country, and the reason that some KIPP 
schools have failed, hard as that is to believe, is because 
it's so difficult to find school leaders and teachers who 
believe in this, who can do this in the right way. So, you 
know, KIPP has a philosophy about how to do education that 
works for KIPP, but it doesn't even work for everybody that 
KIPP hires.
    Senator Durbin. Do you have Teach for America teachers in 
charter schools?
    Mr. Cane. There are a lot of Teach for America teachers in 
charter schools.
    Senator Durbin. And in the----
    Mr. Cane. KIPP uses them.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Public schools, as well?
    Ms. Levy. Oh, yes.
    Senator Durbin. And, Ms. Weitzel-O'Neill, when I came and 
visited----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Holy Redeemer?
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Holy Redeemer school, there 
were Notre Dame students----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Who appeared to be in a 
similar type of commitment, that they were like Teach for 
America----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. ACE teachers from Notre Dame, from the 
Alliance for Catholic Education, yes.
    Senator Durbin. And is it--it sounds to be a similar, 
parallel-type program, in terms of teachers.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes. There are a number of Catholic 
colleges and universities--in fact, they're meeting in Chicago, 
this Friday; I will be with them----
    Senator Durbin. Good for them.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. Talking about how to 
provide--at Loyola--that kind of support to our schools, 
because I think we all know that the quality of an educational 
system, the quality of a school is only as good as the quality 
of the teachers. And so, the teacher education programs are 
critical to the future of our schools.
    But you know, the comment that you were making earlier, I 
couldn't help but think--I spent 20 years in higher education--
as long as we continue to research how people learn, how people 
learn best, and in what environments, there will always be new 
ideas and a quest to continuously improve how we do education 
so that the children get absolutely the best and the most out 
of that time in the classroom.
    Senator Durbin. The problem with education is, everybody's 
an expert.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Oh, that is true.
    Senator Durbin. And I would say that there's also--when you 
reach advanced age status, like myself, you reflect on what 
worked for you--spelling, phonics, diagramming sentences, and--
--
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Which is why the scores in language 
and reading have improved in all of our OSP children, because 
it is the first and most important thing we focus on, because 
if you can't read, you can't do math, you can't do anything 
else.
    Senator Durbin. So, let me ask you--and this is kind of 
stepping back and taking a look--but, you know, when we talk 
about the voucher schools, D.C. Opportunity Scholarships, 
chances are 50 percent we're talking about Catholic schools.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. That's one-half the students.
    So, I visited the Redeemer----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Holy Redeemer.
    Senator Durbin. Holy Redeemer. I ought to get that right. 
And----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And met some great kids.
    Senator Durbin. And also visited--is it the Shaw charter 
schools?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. And--which had formerly been Catholic 
elementary schools, and----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Center City--they were our Center City 
schools, yes, sir.
    Senator Durbin. Shaw was another school I visited.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. Center City I visited.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. And they converted over to become charter 
schools.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes, sir.
    Senator Durbin. Okay.
    Now, can you give me an--well, I don't know if this is a 
matter of public record. You don't have to answer this. What 
does the Washington Archdiocese put into, what does it 
contribute to, its K through 12 education of students each 
year?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Well, in the District of Columbia--I 
think I actually have that number with me--just in providing 
supplement to what it actually costs--for the schools that are 
in the District of Columbia, the subsidy this year from the 
Archdiocese of Washington will be about $1.6 million. That is 
on top of the Archdiocesan tuition assistance that we provide 
for our families in the District.
    Senator Durbin. Do you know how much that might----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. This year, the tuition assistance in 
the District of Columbia is probably about $1 million or $1.5 
million, out of $4 million across the Archdiocese.
    Senator Durbin. And so, I would say somewhere in a range of 
$3 million, a little----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Is being put in by the D.C.--
--
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. That is put in by the Catholic 
Church----
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Washington Archdiocese.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. And our donors, funders 
and the people who support and believe in the tradition we've 
established of serving others, and particularly those who 
really want to see our schools continue to--so, we are there to 
offer the choice to these families.
    Senator Durbin. And the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship brings 
about a little more than $6 million----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Into the Archdiocesan schools, 
through this assistance.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. So, clearly the----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. It's clearly tuition revenue, as--it 
is what the parent is able to pay, because the parent has a 
scholarship, just like a scholarship from the Knights of 
Columbus.
    Senator Durbin. And so, the question being asked in Chicago 
and other places, and I'm sure being asked by some here, is, 
what's the future of Catholic education----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Oh, yes.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. In Washington?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. That's what we're talking about on 
Friday.
    Senator Durbin. Yes. And clearly some of your schools have 
now moved from being Catholic elementary schools in the 
Archdiocese to becoming charter schools.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes, sir.
    Senator Durbin. And I met with----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Mary Anne Stanton.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. Who had your job before, 
didn't she?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. No.
    Senator Durbin. What----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. She was the executive director of the 
Center City School.
    Senator Durbin. But, she had--but, she also----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. She was in charge of 1 school--or, the 
12 schools, excuse me----
    Senator Durbin. Okay.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. At one time, 16.
    Senator Durbin. So, would you like to tell us----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Tell you what happened?
    Senator Durbin. No, you don't have to do that. But, if you 
could just tell us----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. I have a PowerPoint--no.
    Senator Durbin. Do you have a vision that there will be 
more Catholic elementary schools moving toward the Center City 
model charter school status?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. No, I don't. That is not my vision. I 
think it's very important that we have charter schools, public 
schools, nonpublic schools, and particularly parochial schools. 
I think it's important to the economy, to business, and to the 
politics of every city, that there are choices for the families 
when they come to those cities. Our families are different. Our 
children are different. The needs are different. And as you 
know, our parents believed in parental choice, and you made 
sacrifices, and I made sacrifices so that our children can go 
to Catholic schools. But, we do have families who can't afford 
to make any more sacrifices than they already make teaching two 
jobs, and so forth. Just like the young who you met at Holy 
Redeemer whose mother's in the military, and he can't afford it 
without the Opportunity Scholarship.
    But, I think the future, really, is for us to work, as we 
are now, to provide as much opportunity for assistance to those 
who need it, and to do a better job of financing Catholic 
education, and to share with everybody the truth. I'll tell 
you, 5 years ago, when we were working on this legislation, 
Senator Durbin, the most frustrating thing for me was, 
everybody thought it only cost $4,500 to educate a child in our 
Catholic schools, because that was the tuition. And we always 
have had our tuition less than the cost so that all families 
could come. We have to think--we're all working now, across the 
United States--Notre Dame, everyone--to come up with better 
ways of doing this.
    Senator Durbin. And when I asked Ms. Stanton about the 
difference between being a Catholic elementary school and now 
being a D.C. charter school, she pointed out several things. 
Special education was one of them. She said, ``We have more 
resources. We can deal with children who have special needs in 
a better way, in the D.C. charter system.'' But, she also 
pointed to one obvious thing--when you speak of sacrifice: 
Teachers are paid better in the charter school system and in 
the public school system than they're paid in many Catholic 
schools. So, there's a sacrifice being made. And----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. By Catholic schoolteachers.
    Senator Durbin. Very much so.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Absolutely.
    Senator Durbin. Right at the heart of the issue----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Always has been.
    Senator Durbin [continuing]. At the heart of the issue.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Always has been.
    Senator Durbin. And at some point, some of them reach the 
point where they can't do it anymore. I mean, that is one of 
the realities. And I won't second-guess what you're about, 
because I know you have an important mission and some hard 
decisions that have to be made, as we all do, on a regular 
basis.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Well, I thank you for giving us the 
opportunity to have the conversation with you today, because I 
think what we're looking at is the future of the lives of the 
children in the District of Columbia, and the opportunity for 
them to succeed in an environment, as you said, that is 
different from the charter schools. We are Catholic schools. 
And in the most recent survey, in November, of our families in 
the District of Columbia, the three reasons they choose our 
schools is, first, because they're safe and secure. That means 
the children have self-respect, discipline. You could feel it 
when you walked into Holy Redeemer.
    Senator Durbin. I could hear it.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And the second thing is that----
    Senator Durbin. What I----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill [continuing]. Academic excellence. But, 
third, these families want a Christian value-based education, 
so the whole child--not--I'm not talking about nutrition now--
but, the whole child--their soul, their spirit, their love for 
life, and their willingness and wanting to give back to 
others--blooms and grows in these schools. We can't take that 
choice away from families.
    Senator Durbin. I understand what you're saying. I asked 
Ms. Stanton that question directly, what was the difference 
from being a Catholic schoolteacher to being a charter 
schoolteacher, when it came to religion?
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. And they cried.
    Senator Durbin. And she said, ``We teach values here in 
these charter schools, too. You know, we think''----
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. Yes, but they're----
    Senator Durbin. It's different. I understand.
    Dr. Weitzel-O'Neill. It's very, very different. And the 
teachers who have returned to our Catholic schools, and the 
families who have returned to our Catholic schools, will tell 
you it's very, very different.
    Senator Durbin. Ms. Levy, last question for you.
    Ms. Levy. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. So, what do you think of this proposal 
that's before the D.C. public schools now, in terms of the 
teachers being given an option of going on some probationary 
status for a year and then being rewarded or paid based on 
performance?
    Ms. Levy. I think we don't have the tools to measure 
performance at this point. It's been a great disappointment, in 
the past, that--you know, for many years, the union had a veto 
power over changing performances. In the mid 1990s, we got rid 
of that and said the school system has to decide how to 
evaluate teacher performance. And they put in a couple of new 
systems, which weren't really so new and didn't do a good job 
of evaluating, and that's where we are.
    A few weeks ago, a new system was unveiled. I haven't even 
had a chance to look at it. But, that is the most critical tool 
we need. And until we have it, teachers cannot believe that 
they will be treated fairly. And that's a problem, and it's the 
kind of thing that drives good teachers away.
    Senator Durbin. As I understand, though, it's voluntary. 
The teachers can stay in the current system, with tenure and 
cost-of-living adjustments, or decide to opt in to this 
performance-based system. That's the way I understand it. Is 
that the way you understand it?
    Ms. Levy. That was the proposal, but it didn't apply to 
newly hired teachers. The other problem with it, of course, is 
that I do not see any way that the cost could be sustained. It 
was to be done with private money, and right now the school 
system, for the next fiscal year that begins in a couple of 
days, is putting $50 million in stimulus money to replace local 
funds. I don't know how they're going to sustain that when the 
stimulus funds run out. And that's without a teacher pay 
increase at all. So, I think we have to look at financial 
reality, as well as the evaluation system.
    Senator Durbin. In my position, I'm not critical of other 
government leaders who have budget problems.
    We all face challenges.
    I want to thank all those who are here today for coming 
back and participating in this. This is not the last of these 
hearings. I think we have been remiss, on Capitol Hill, of not 
coming together more frequently to ask questions, to make sure 
that we improve the laws that we have, to enforce the laws that 
we have, and to hold one another to high standards.
    I thank you all for being here.
    The record will be open for a week, and we may send some 
questions your way, which I hope you can respond to in a timely 
fashion.
    Thank you.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

    Senator Durbin. This meeting stands recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Tuesday, September 29, the 
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

                                   - 
