[Senate Hearing 112-195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-195
THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES: SAVING THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-622 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RAND PAUL, Kentucky
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Rachel R. Sotsky, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Lieberman
Elyse F. Greenwald, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amanda Wood, Minority Deputy General Counsel
Kenneth Altman, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Collins
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 3
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 27
Senator Collins.............................................. 29
WITNESSES
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Hon. Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia................ 4
Hon. Kwame R. Brown, Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia....................................................... 7
Kevin P. Chavous, Chairman, Board of Directors, Black Alliance
for Educational Options........................................ 15
Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director, D.C. Parents for School
Choice......................................................... 18
Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D., Professor and 21st Century Chair in
School Choice, Department of Education Reform, University of
Arkansas....................................................... 21
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Brown, Hon. Kwame R.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Chavous, Kevin P.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Ford, Virginia Walden:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Gray, Hon. Vincent C.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Wolf, Patrick J., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 48
APPENDIX
CRS Report for Congress titled ``District of Columbia Opportunity
Scholarship Program: Implementation Status and Policy Issues,''
January 28, 2010, by Rebecca R. Skinner, Specialist in
Education Policy, and Erin D. Caffrey, Analyst in Education
Policy, submitted for the Record by Senator Lieberman.......... 60
Additional letters and prepared statements submitted for the
Record from:
American Association of School Administrators, letter dated
February 15, 2011.......................................... 79
American Association of University Women, prepared statement. 81
Anti-Defamation League, letter dated February 15, 2011....... 87
American Jewish Committee (AJC), letter dated February 15,
2011....................................................... 88
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, prepared
statement.................................................. 89
Dr. Martin Carnoy, Vida Jacks Professor of Education,
Stanford University, prepared statement.................... 91
DC Vote, letter dated February 15, 2011...................... 97
Senator Richard J. Durbin, prepared statement................ 99
National Council of Jewish Women, letter dated February 15,
[2010] 2011................................................ 101
National Coalition for Public Education, prepared statement.. 102
National Coalition for Public Education, letter dated
February 8, 2011........................................... 109
National Coalition for Parental Options, letter dated March
1, 2011.................................................... 112
National School Boards Association, letter dated February 15,
2011....................................................... 114
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, letter
dated February 16, 2011.................................... 116
People For the American Way, letter dated February 16, 2011.. 117
Secular Coalition for America, letter dated February 16, 2011 120
Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator, District of Columbia (Shadow),
prepared statement......................................... 122
THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES:
SAVING THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:25 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman and Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. I thank all the witnesses for being here. I want to
particularly welcome Mayor Vincent Gray and Chairman Kwame
Brown.
This is a cause, and I suppose a debate, that has gone on
for a period of years now since this program was adopted in
2003. Senator Collins and I have been strong supporters of it.
We have had frustrating times the last few years as we have not
succeeded in adding new students to this critically important
program, but we are not giving up because we believe in it so
deeply.
I am just going to speak a little bit and put my statement
in the record.
This program was adopted for a very fundamental reason
which was that by all the objective indicators we saw, too many
children in the District of Columbia were not receiving their
God given, certainly constitutionally protected, right to an
equal opportunity of an equal education. Our judgment was, in
adopting this program, that we had to focus on the children,
and really more particularly on the individual children and how
we could maximize their opportunity for an equal education and
a ladder up in American society.
In other words, we decided to focus on the child instead of
the particular institution that was delivering the education to
the child. Obviously most of our children in the District of
Columbia and throughout America will always be educated in
public schools, I was, and I would not be where I am today if I
had not received the education I got in the public schools in
Stamford, Connecticut, but the fact is that a lot of children
in the District are not receiving--there was, at that time, and
unfortunately still, D.C. public schools ranked last on a
series of national evaluations, 51 out of 51, and so we created
this program, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), to
give support to low-income children to attend private schools
as their ladder up.
We also, just to meet the argument that we were not going
to take this money out of available public school funds and
created a tripartite program where we gave equal amounts of
money to the public schools, additional money, money they would
not otherwise have received which is a considerable amount over
the years we have been going to give to the charter schools
which have done really exceptional work.
The public schools of the District, I think, are improving,
but by objective indicators they are not there yet. It was a
very compelling, poignant moment last year when then chancellor
Michelle Rhee came out for our proposal and she said, ``I am
devoting all my energy to the public schools, but until I can
look every parent of a child in the District in the eye and say
you can get the education you want your children to get in the
D.C. public schools, I cannot oppose this program in good
conscience.''
So, unfortunately for a lot of reasons it did not make it.
Usually I try to see the arguments on the other side. This one
I have trouble with.
I know, Mayor, you and I have a different position and we
will have a good, respectful discussion about it. We have, as I
said, new faces today--Mayor Gray, Chairman Brown. We have
some, I would not call them old faces, but familiar faces:
Kevin Chavous, youthful, whatever his age, and extremely
dynamic; Virginia Walden Ford represents the parents of D.C.
children in these programs; and then Dr. Wolf who has done an
independent evaluation.
I will say as we begin this battle again this year that
there is one new face, at least in one new place that gives us
hope that we are going to succeed this year and that is that
John Boehner is the Speaker of the House and he has been a
consistent and fervent supporter of this program and, frankly,
I think it is personal because he came from a large, low-income
family and the education he received--in that case in the
Catholic school system--he feels helped him to get at least the
footing on the ladder that now has taken him to be Speaker of
the House, third in line for the Presidency of the United
States.
So, the Speaker does not usually introduce bills. That is a
custom over in the House, but he decided to co-sponsor the
reauthorization of this tripartite program and that is really
good news. This is going to be complicated, but we are starting
this year with a reason for hopefulness and I hope we can end
it in a way that not only creates opportunity, again through
the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, but again puts more
money into the charter schools and the public schools of the
District of Columbia.
I thank everybody for being here. I know that the mayor and
chairman have to go to a memorial service and do not have a lot
of time, so I welcome them. We will get to them in a moment.
Senator Collins, thank you for your partnership on this
cause as well as so many others. I would welcome your opening
statement now.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let
me thank you not only for your eloquent statement this morning,
but for continuing this fight. It reflects the deep compassion
that you have for each and every child in the District of
Columbia and I know that there are so many families in the
District who are so grateful for your untiring advocacy on
their behalf.
A year has passed since we last discussed, at a hearing in
this room, how we could best support the efforts of parents and
students in the District to secure a high-quality education. At
that time, we heard the inspiring personal success stories of
participants in the opportunity scholarship program.
Ronald Holassie is here again today. He is in the audience.
He talked about how the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
had literally changed his life and I so remember his taking on
one of our colleagues who was proposing that the program be
terminated and he said these memorable words, which echo today.
He pointed out to this Senator that D.C. schools did not get
bad overnight and they are not going to get better overnight
either. And I thought that summed up so well why we are here
and why we are advocating this important program and I know
today, both Ronald and his younger brother, Richard, are vivid
examples of this program's success.
I had an opportunity to talk to him briefly before the
hearing. He is now a senior and is looking at colleges. This is
the difference that this program can make, and the testimony
last year helped to highlight the real world implications for
families in the District of this Administration's unfortunate
decision last year to prevent new students from joining this
successful program and their words still echo today as we
consider the Administration's newest misguided proposal to kill
the program altogether. While not unexpected, this decision is
both disappointing and shortsighted.
As the Federal Department of Education's own Institute of
Education Sciences makes clear, students who participated in
this program are more likely to graduate from high school than
those who did not. That is a clear indicator of this program's
success, so I am very proud to have joined the Chairman in
reintroducing legislation to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
This program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is
illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll
their children into the program. Since its inception, more than
8,400 students have applied for scholarships and this morning a
new poll is being released that provides further evidence of
the support of District residents for this program. Seventy-
four percent of D.C. residents want Congress to restore and
expand the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program. Seventy-five percent believe that the academic results
of the program provide a convincing reason to reauthorize the
program. Seventy-seven percent agree that all options should be
on the table. And here is something that is even more
heartening: 83 percent of the respondents believe that even if
the program can only benefit some children, they should have
the right to participate.
I think that those are convincing statistics of the broad-
based support in the District for this program.
Let me just end by echoing the Chairman's point that when
this program was first established 6 years ago, it was because
the leaders of the District of Columbia became so frustrated
with the institutionalized failure within the public school
system, so they worked with Congress and with President George
W. Bush's Administration to come up with the three-sector
approach that provided additional funding for D.C. public
schools, for D.C.'s public charter schools, and new
scholarships for low-income families.
It was a three-pronged approach that did not slight the
public schools but have helped the public schools to become
stronger. So, I hope that we can rectify what I believe to be a
real injustice to the children of the District and I look
forward to continuing to work with the Chairman.
Since I am going to, unfortunately, have to leave at 10:15,
let me just make one final point. If Congress does not
reauthorize this program, it is estimated that 93 percent of
the students would attend a school in need of improvement,
corrective actioning, or restructuring, as designated under the
No Child Left Behind Act. In other words, 93 percent of the
children would be returned to schools that do not measure up.
We simply cannot allow that to happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Collins,
for your really eloquent statement.
Mayor Gray, it is an honor to welcome you here for the
first time. We have this historic connection through this
Committee with the District, although of course we respect your
autonomy and try to protect it, but it is an honor to welcome
you as the new mayor and to look forward to your testimony now.
TESTIMONY OF HON. VINCENT C. GRAY,\1\ MAYOR, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Mayor Gray. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you both
for having me this morning, Senator Lieberman and Senator
Collins and any other Members that may be here this morning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mayor Gray appears in the Appendix on
page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and I want to thank you for the opportunity to share my views
on public education and educational choice.
How we educate our children is one of the most defining and
politically leveraged issues facing the United States today.
Education is, and has been, a vehicle of personal enrichment,
individual fulfillment, and professional success for many
Americans. And for this Nation, it is the key to our continued
global competitiveness in an ever changing marketplace.
I share the Committee's interest in the successful
education of the children of the District of Columbia, and
experience it more profoundly because of my role as Mayor and
chief executive. Just so you know, I am a native Washingtonian,
a K-12 product of the D.C. public schools, and I attended
undergraduate and graduate school at George Washington
University.
Today, this Committee will receive testimony from several
people on whether the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
should be reauthorized.
Let me begin by expressing my views on education and how
the District of Columbia's parents and children best can be
served. Anyone who knows me knows that I am an unwavering
advocate for children and I have been for many years. Simply
put, I am a strong and long-time advocate for quality education
for children in our city.
When I was elected Chair of the Council of the District of
Columbia, one of the many questions that faced me was how I
intended to organize the Council's committee structure. I made
a decision that the Committee of the Whole, of which I served
as Chair, would have oversight responsibility for education. It
was my intention to elevate the issue of education to one where
every council member would participate in the direction,
decisionmaking, and oversight of public education. After almost
4 years of serving as Chair, and holding numerous hearings, my
opinions on education are even clearer.
First, I believe we must continue smart education reform,
and make it sustainable. Within the past 4 years, the District
of Columbia public schools has engaged in important and
substantive reforms. These reforms have resulted in increased
interest in and enrollment for the D.C. public schools, and
must be continued to ensure a high quality education for
District children.
Second, I believe we must look at education as a lifelong
endeavor. Education begins long before kindergarten and
continues long after high school. It is this core belief that
led me to aggressively pursue the availability and expansion of
pre-kindergarten education programs; to champion the creation
of the District of Columbia Community College; and to provide
increased funding for the University of the District of
Columbia.
Before becoming a Council member in 2005, I served as the
Executive Director of Covenant House Washington, a Catholic-
based organization that works with homeless, runaway and at-
risk youth. I saw many young people who themselves were already
parents. One of the programs I established was an early
childhood intervention program for children of these youth, and
in the same spirit, as Council Chairman, I championed
legislation embracing a commitment to universal pre-
kindergarten services in our traditional public schools and
charter schools.
Third, I believe we must work with our students, parents,
public school employees and community as a part of the
solution, not scapegoat them for our problems. I am committed
to a collaborative approach to education reform. The very
people who must buy in if schools are to be thriving
communities--parents, teachers, community leaders, and school
administrators--must be part of the discussion and active
participants in decisionmaking.
Finally, I believe we must restore accountability and sound
management to our schools. Until we are on the road to economic
recovery solidly, everyone will say ``we must all learn to do
more with less.'' While this is true, we must learn how to
leverage and manage those resources more efficiently. I am
committed to the accountability and sound fiscal management of
our education system.
Almost 2 years ago, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Education, Arne Duncan, announced that no additional D.C.
school children would be introduced into the voucher program
because of the uncertainty of funding over the long-term. At
that time, more than 1,900 children were enrolled in the
program and the decision of whether they would be allowed to
continue their education in this way was completely outside of
their parents' control.
Even though I have not been a supporter of vouchers as an
educational option, I supported the three-sector approach when
it appeared that the Opportunity Scholarship Program was at its
end. Why? Because, as someone who deeply cares about children,
I did not want to see these children abruptly removed from
their private school placements. Thus, what I supported was a
program in which all the children enrolled would be able to
continue until they graduated from the 12th grade but that
there would be no new enrollment.
My emphasis was, and continues to be, on building a solid
public education system consisting of traditional public
schools and charters.
Decisions about educational options in the District of
Columbia ought to be made at the State and local level just as
these choices are made across this Nation. And we do have
choice. In addition to our traditional public education within
the D.C. public school system, we have what may be the most
robust charter school movement in the Nation.
Prior to 1996, District parents had just one choice in
public education for their children--the D.C. public schools.
This changed in 1996 when charters became officially a part of
the District's educational landscape with the passage of the
D.C. School Reform Act. The Act established the District of
Columbia Public Charter School Board and authorized the Board
of Education to charter schools.
During the first year of the charter school movement, there
were 160 students enrolled in public charters. Today, the
Public Charter School Board oversees 52 schools, 93 campuses
and more than 28,000 students. Public charter schools serve
approximately 39 percent of all public school students in
Washington, DC. The public charter school movement has
experienced explosive growth over the past 15 years. In fact, 2
years ago the city, at the request of the Catholic Archdiocese
of Washington, approved seven of its schools to become charter
schools and today, they are operating in that capacity funded
through the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula operation, and
regulated and monitored by the D.C. Public Charter School
Board.
Charter schools continue to be the vehicle that allows the
majority of District parents to exercise their freedom of
choice in public education and since each charter school is
autonomous, we have one of the most diverse array of public
education options in the country.
The reality of parents choosing charter schools as their
preferred method of choice was evidenced at the Annual
Recruitment Expo sponsored by the D.C. Public Charter School
Board, D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, and
Friends of Choice in Urban Schools.
This year's expo, held at the Walter E. Washington
Convention Center, experienced record setting participation
when more than 2,000 people came to meet with charter school
leaders and learn more about specific schools. I attended the
event and encouraged charter school administrators to expand
their movement further into Pre-K and to add Special Education
so additional children could be served.
The success of the District's public charter schools cannot
be questioned. The high school graduation rate for D.C. public
charter schools is 8 percent higher than the U.S. national
average. Moreover, economically disadvantaged students in D.C.
middle and high school public charter schools are nearly twice
as likely to rank proficient in reading and math as their peers
in traditional public schools.
For many years our public schools in the District had a
dismal performance. But public education indeed is improving,
in substantial part because of the constructive environment
created by the existence of traditional and charter public
schools. Soon to be released data will confirm that, for the
first time in decades, enrollment in public education in our
city is growing. This is the path we must continue to pursue.
Education is the great liberator. It was for me many years
ago and it has been for so many others. I am committed to
building a solid, predictable, high performing birth through
age 24 public education system and we are making significant
progress, especially with the choices available through our
charter movement.
Mr. Chairman, I have more in my written testimony, but in
the interest of time I will submit that for the record.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mayor, and without
objection we will record your full statement in the record.
Kwame Brown is the Chairman of the D.C. Council and we
welcome you and your testimony now.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KWAME R. BROWN,\1\ CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Brown. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Collins, and other Members of this distinguished Committee. I
am Kwame R. Brown, Chairman of the Council of the District of
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears in the Appendix on
page 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my pleasure to speak before you today on the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011 (SORA). It
is a pleasure, also, to participate in any forum amongst
lawmakers that are genuinely committed to assuring that every
child has a quality education.
I would like to take this occasion to thank you, Senator
Lieberman, and Senator Collins for your long-standing support
for the District, especially your advocacy for voting rights
for D.C. residents. Your sense of fairness and willingness to
advocate for us all will not be forgotten.
You have my complete and written testimony so I will
summarize my main points for you this morning.
I believe there is no single more important issue for the
future of our city than ensuring that every child has access to
a quality education. Virtually every major issue before our
council depends on pushing ahead with educational reform. I
support your bill as it carries a three-sector approach by
authorizing $60 million to benefit students in the D.C. public
schools, public charter schools, and non-public schools. This
bill also makes some needed improvements in the Opportunity
Program which should raise the bar for participating schools.
As you know, in the last 5 years our city has implemented
some of the most transformational education initiatives that
our city has ever seen. I am absolutely confident in the Mayor
of the District of Columbia and his commitment to make
education not only a priority but also move it in a way that
one day we will not be talking about opportunity scholarship
programs because the D.C.'s public school system will be at a
level where they will not be needed. With mayoral control of
the schools, universal Pre-K, and landmark teacher's contracts,
we have done a lot of work in the last couple of years in the
District of Columbia in education.
And while students are scoring below the national average
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we still
have seen some of the highest growth in the Nation in both
reading and math on this test over the last couple of years.
D.C. public schools are improving and we have an incredible
charter school community, which are demonstrated by the
increasing enrollment in both. Our parents have more quality
choices now than ever before. I believe that we are on the
right path, but we still have a long way to go before a child
has access to high-quality education.
Most of the discussion on this bill will focus on the non-
public sector. While I recognize and respect the concerns of
both sides of this issue, I believe that the Opportunity
Scholarship Program can increase the number of quality
educational options for low-income families.
The data suggests that students participating in the
program and their entire families are benefiting from this
experience. Let me say that I have had an opportunity to talk
to several families and single moms who express their support
of the program. But, nothing was more compelling than being in
Safeway grocery store on Good Hope Road and speaking to a
grandmother about the program. I could not look her in the eye
and tell her that she should not have the opportunity to at
least apply to have a better life for her grandkid.
I admit that I was initially uncomfortable with the idea of
vouchers in the District of Columbia because I felt that they
were being presented in a way for students and families to
leave D.C. public schools. While I support quality choices for
families, I could never support the use of vouchers as an
exercise or an excuse to avoid improving our public school
system.
We must invest in our public schools, and we are doing just
that. I support this bill because it authorizes funds for all
three sectors, and it will support improvements in D.C. public
schools and D.C. public charter schools, which the majority of
our students are attending.
As a native Washingtonian and a graduate of D.C. public
schools, with two small kids in D.C. public schools--one in the
third grade and one in the fifth grade--and a wife who is a
teacher by trade, I am all-in with moving education reform
forward as quickly as we possibly can.
Now, I would like to take a minute to highlight a couple
aspects of your bill that I particularly support. First, it
helps address some problems on how the Opportunity Scholarship
Program is administered by including tougher requirements for
participating schools and an evaluation process, which will
help ensure that non-public options for our families are at the
highest possible quality.
Second, the bill authorizes up to 2 percent of funds for
the program for parental outreach and coaching. It also
authorizes an additional 1 percent for supplemental tutoring
for student participants, which will help ensure that the
transfer to non-public schools is as smooth as possible for
families.
There are, however, a couple of aspects that are concerning
to me. While I support raising the scholarship cap to $12,000
for grades 9 through 12, which offers an incentive for high
schools to create additional slots, I plan to ask advocates of
the program for an analysis of the supply and demand for the
program on a grade-by-grade level. I am concerned about whether
raising the cap will meet the demand for our middle schools and
our high schools. I urge you to consider this analysis as you
move the bill forward.
I am also concerned that families who benefit from the
program are placed in a position of uncertainty. I urge those
who will support this bill--and the funding assuming passage of
this bill--to make a commitment to fund it for a full 5 years,
which will enable families to plan accordingly.
I urge you to work directly with the Mayor of the District
of Columbia as well as D.C. public schools and charter schools,
to ensure that this bill allows them to identify the greatest
needs for funding, and support what they feel are the most
compelling areas of school reform.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your sincere
commitment to identifying resources to help our city in the
area of education reform. Unfortunately, some of your efforts
are somewhat undercut by the attempts of some of your
colleagues to slash funding from other D.C. priorities. For an
example, it just does not make any sense to see plans being
sent around that cut funding to Metro since a large number of
our students, including those using vouchers, rely on public
transportation to get to and from school. Many of your staffers
use it, many of the government employees use it, and to see
that type of reduction is unacceptable.
I hope that you will work with us to ensure that education
funding, either directly or indirectly, does not come out of
other programs.
Also, the discussions I am hearing regarding the
elimination of the D.C. Tuition Assistance Program (DCTAG) is
something that is unacceptable. That program allows students to
go to schools outside of the District of Columbia and pay in-
state rates. I hope that program will be saved.
Third, section eight of your bill that deals with non-
discrimination, I ask that we make sure that participating
schools follow our local human rights law as it relates to
discrimination.
Last, there is some information that I heard, and I am not
sure if it is correct, that says--and I want to make sure that
this is clear--that no Federal dollar should go to any private
school that does not charge tuition, I do not know if that is
correct, but I thought I would articulate it because I have
been hearing that and I would hope that you would take a look
at that.
Now, in closing, I want to thank you both for championing
D.C. voting rights and express what it means to a lot of the
residents of the District of Columbia who deserve to have every
opportunity as everyone else in the country.
Senator Collins, I want to specifically thank you for what
you have done to triple the money for early reading incentives
as well as the law you authorized for those teachers, who are
spending money out of their pocket on supplies, allowing them
to get up to a $250 tax deduction. I think that is appropriate
and well deserved and hopefully continues.
And last but not least, thank you for your support of Pell
Grants. You have been a champion of that.
I look forward to any questions that you may have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Chairman Brown, for
your testimony and for the comments about parts of our
legislation.
Senator Collins and I will each take a 7-minute round of
questions and that should enable us to get you both out in time
to get to the memorial service.
Mayor, let us talk about the state of education in the
District now, and again, the District has a unique status, we
talked about voting rights, it has suffered in some ways from
that unique status, but it is, after all, our Nation's capital
and we want it to have at least equal treatment, not only in
these programs, but in the ones that Chairman Brown has talked
about. We would like it to be an example for the rest of the
country and the rest of the world, people who visit here.
The fact is that I agree with you, the D.C. public school's
student performance on tests has improved, that the charter
schools have had a remarkable effect as well, but that still on
the Nation's Report Card and the National Assessment of
Education Progress Test, the students' scores from D.C. are
last. For example on the most recent test, only 11 percent of
D.C. 8th grade public school students were considered
proficient or advanced in math, and only 13 percent of D.C. 8th
grade students were considered proficient or advanced in
reading.
So, I am sure you would agree--in fact, you did in your
statement, that we made progress but we have a ways to go, and
I wanted to ask you, in light of those facts, to respond to the
argument that we have made and Chairman Brown has made this
morning, that one way to look at the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program is as a temporary program during the time
period when we are trying to improve the public schools so they
really do give every child an equal educational opportunity.
Mayor Gray. Well, first of all, I guess being ranked last
is an interesting phenomenon because we are ranked last among
States even though we are not accorded the opportunity to be a
State. I am not sure, frankly, Senator, that that is the most
fair comparison because we are an entirely urban area and when
you start to look at other urban areas like Los Angeles and New
York, Boston, Detroit, or other cities, I think you would
probably find a different experience. But as you pointed out,
the experience that is most important is how our children are
doing----
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mayor Gray. [continuing]. And I believe our children are
doing better. Have we reached the point where we want to be?
Absolutely not. But when you look at the environment that we
have created with our D.C. public schools, the environment that
we created with our charter schools, it is clear that the
competition is creating an opportunity for all boats to rise.
My own view, my own desire, frankly, is to devote as much
resources, energy, and commitment as we possibly can to
improving public sector education because I think ultimately
that is where the answer lies.
I certainly am appreciative of the support of both of you.
You have been great friends of the District of Columbia, but
this happens to be an instance where I want to devote my full
time, my full energy, to being able to improve the public
education sector.
We have been under charter schools now probably for about
13 to 14 years and there has been a huge increase in the
enrollment because they have been so successful. We are seeing,
for the first time in decades, probably four decades, an
increase in enrollment in our traditional public schools. I
think that is an incredibly hopeful sign and I frankly think
having our students in an environment where they can challenge
each other, where the excellent students, the capable students,
are in an environment where they can bring the others along,
will rebound to the benefit of everyone at the end of the day.
We have been into mayoral control now just for 4 years and
I think it was the right decision. I heartily supported it as a
member of the Council of the District of Columbia, heartily
supported that option, and I really want to devote my full time
and attention to that, recognizing that, again, we are
improving, our enrollment is growing, and it is evident,
frankly, just by the shear numbers of students.
Chairman Lieberman. Let me ask, in that sense, a practical
question, because I think we all agree that in the end, the
public schools ought to be the answer.
You mentioned in your testimony that you had supported,
overall, the concept of the three-part program and, in fact,
just thinking about your commitment to public schools and the
charter program here, because of the way this D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program was devised, there has been considerable
additional funding that has come to the public and charter
schools here in the District. The numbers that I have since the
beginning of the program, the D.C. public schools have received
$146.5 million under this three-part program that they would
not have received otherwise. The public charter schools have
received $104.5 million that they would not have received
otherwise, and the Opportunity Scholarship program has received
$96.7 million.
So, I think if you can imagine a circumstance where funding
for the Opportunity Scholarship Program was terminated
altogether, including for the students in the program now, I
think particularly considering the budget stress we are under,
that there is a high probability that the District would lose
that additional funding that you have received for the public
schools and the charter schools.
And so to a certain extent, my final question to you is,
with all those advantages involved for the public schools and
the charter schools, what is the harm in having the opportunity
Scholarship Program part of this three-part program? How can it
hurt to allow a certain number of students, small number,
really, to have the scholarship to go to a private school while
we are working with all this extra money to improve the public
schools?
Mayor Gray. Well, again, we are deeply appreciative of the
resources that have been provided and they have been even more
important to us in this recessionary environment that we have
been operating now certainly for the better part of the last 3
years, and without those resources there is no question that we
would not have been able to improve our public education
efforts to the extent that we have.
I supposed if I was asked for my druthers it would be that
we can invest all of those resources in improving our public
education sector.
When you look at choice in the District of Columbia, I
think we are second to none. When you have 52 public charter
schools or 93 campuses, at this stage, when you look at what
they offer, very tailored curricula, public policy schools,
legal options, arts and performing arts, and other
opportunities, we have an enormous array of opportunities that
are available to our kids. We are seeing the same experience
moving not quite as rapidly, but moving in the traditional
public schools as well. So, certainly we would be at a
disadvantage if we were to lose those resources, but again if
you ask me my druthers, it would be to take all of those
resources and invest them in creating the best public education
system that we possibly can in the Nation.
Chairman Lieberman. I hear you and as you know in life, we
do not always get our druthers, and----
Mayor Gray. We know that one, do we not?
Chairman Lieberman. We know that. And, if I may slightly
amend an old tune, it takes three to tango here in the
Congress--which is to say the President, the Senate, and the
House--to get anything adopted. I think there is a very strong
feeling about the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the House
Majority this year and I think we will continue this
discussion.
I am just speaking for myself now, but I think that the
extra funding that has come to the D.C. public and charter
schools under this three-part program will be in serious
jeopardy if the Opportunity Scholarship Program is not also
part of what is funded.
Mayor Gray. If I can just quickly underscore----
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, sir.
Mayor Gray [continuing]. What I said in my testimony to
you, Senator Lieberman, and that is, I heartily supported every
child who was in the Opportunity Scholarship Program
continuing. That was absolutely essential to me. I did not want
to see any child taken out of a program in which they were
participating and benefiting without the parents having the
opportunity to make that choice, and that is why I said, let us
continue this program out to the point where all the children
in it have a chance to finish it.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mayor.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, your
last comment is exactly what I want to ask you about. In your
testimony, and just now in response to Senator Lieberman, you
supported Secretary Duncan's proposal in which all of the
children currently enrolled in the Opportunity Scholarship
Program would be able to continue until they graduate from the
12th grade, but there would be no new enrollments.
I have to tell you that I have never understood the
Secretary's reasoning in that regard and it suggests to me a
political decision and not one that is based on a fair
valuation of the program. Think about it, if a child is in
kindergarten as of last year, that child would be allowed to
stay in the D.C. Scholarship Program for another 12 years. If
the program is not living up to its potential as Secretary
Duncan must think, because he is not allowing new enrollments,
then why would you allow children to continue to stay in the
program? This just does not make sense to me. Either the
program is a successful program, in which case we ought to be
allowing new enrollments, or it is a failed program, in which
case we should be taking children out of it, not allowing
someone who is in kindergarten to be in it for another 12
years.
So, I truly do not understand the reasoning behind the
Secretary's decision. It just does not make sense to me and you
have endorsed that decision today. And I do not mean to put you
on the spot, but I truly do not understand that reasoning and I
wondered if you could give me your perspective.
Mayor Gray. Well, my view is not based on a political
decision, it is based on the opportunity for these parents and
these children to continue in a placement that they have felt
best served their children. I did not want them uprooted
because of a political decision, I wanted them to be able to
have a chance to continue in the placement that they were in,
but I also wanted to be able to have the optimum opportunity to
be able to build a public education system.
So, again, my position on this is not based on a political
calculation, it is more based on what choice that those parents
would make at that particular moment. I do not know that they
would continue if the child is in the kindergarten to first
grade that they would not choose at some point to come back to
one of our schools in the District of Columbia. As I indicated
earlier, seven of those schools that would have been part of
the Opportunity Scholarship Program, are now part of our
charter movement because the Catholic Archdiocese asked us to
take over those schools and operate them.
So, mine was an effort simply to try to be as sensitive as
I possibly could to the families and the children involved, but
at the same time recognize we are building a strong public
education system, and to devote my maximum energy and resources
to that.
Senator Collins. Well, on the Catholic schools, I will tell
you that based on my discussions with the Archdiocese, the
reason that those schools have now become charter schools is
they basically are bankrupt, and if this program were
continued, they would still be operating as Catholic schools. I
realize that is a whole other issue, but I have to say I think
either this program is a good program that benefits students,
which is what I believe, as part of the three-sector approach,
then we should allow it to continue and have it be open to
others. If it is not a good program, then why would we allow
students to continue for potentially another 12 years in it and
I just think that is inconsistent.
Chairman Brown, in my remaining time, let me ask you a
question, and I appreciate your kind comments about my work on
education issues which I do care deeply about. Could you
provide us with some insight into the D.C. Council's thoughts
or positions on the three-sector program based on your
discussions with your council colleagues? What are the views
that you are hearing about whether the three-pronged approach
should be continued?
Mr. Brown. Well, most of the conversations that we have are
about making sure that public education in the District of
Columbia is successful. All of our energy and time has been
spent making sure that we improve the lives of our children who
are being sent to D.C. public schools and D.C. public charter
schools. I believe that my colleagues whom I have talked to,
every single one of them, believe in trying to support this
particular mayor who is working hard and has worked with us
side-by-side as a colleague on these tough issues.
When it comes to the voucher program, there has been little
dialogue because most of our energy is spent making sure that
there is no reason to have any voucher program because we are
going to have a successful school system.
Senator Collins. That is certainly the goal for all of us,
but I would go back to the comment that Ronald made at our last
hearing a year ago, and that is that D.C. schools did not get
bad overnight, they are not going to become good overnight.
They are clearly improving and I think the three-sector
approach has helped lift the quality of the schools, but as the
Chairman's statistics show, we still have a ways to go.
I also want to second what the Chairman said. I believe
that unless there is a three-sector approach, the money for
D.C. public schools and D.C. public charter schools, will be in
jeopardy. I do not see Congress, in this environment--and all
of us have public schools in our own States that are really
suffering and that need funding--approving anything other than
a three-sector approach. So, I hope as deliberations in the
council go on that you will both keep in touch with us and,
again, I thank you both for being here today.
I know that we all have the same goal. We may have
different means of getting there, but our goal is the same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins. Well, said.
Mayor Gray, Chairman Brown, thanks for your time. We will
continue to discuss this and all the other issues that are
important to you and your leadership capacities, and obviously
to the people of the District of Columbia. Thanks very much for
being with us this morning.
Mayor Gray. Thank you Senator. Thank you both, again for
having us here today and thank you, frankly, for your support
of our city on so many fronts.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. Thanks to both of you.
Chairman Lieberman. We will not change that. Thank you.
Have a good day.
We will call the second panel, Kevin Chavous, Chairman of
the Board of Directors of the Black Alliance for Educational
Options, Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director of D.C.
Parents for School Choice, and Patrick J. Wolf, Professor and
21st Century Chair in School Choice at the Department of
Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.
Well, good morning and thank you. I saw Ronald Holassie
here. Is he still here? Maybe he went out. I just wanted to
recognize the much-quoted student in the D.C. school system.
Thank you, the three of you, for being here. You are
familiar faces, but your testimony continues to be important to
us and, Mr. Chavous, it is our honor to call on you first.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN P. CHAVOUS,\1\ CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
BLACK ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS
Mr. Chavous. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Collins, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak before you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Chavous appears in the Appendix
on page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me add some perspective particularly based on hearing
from the Mayor and the Chairman on this whole issue. Fifty-six
years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that segregation in
our schools was unconstitutional. They said it was wrong. They
said it was un-American. And they said that equality for all
mattered.
Brown v. the Board of Education sparked the flame of true
and honest civil rights in our country, but it was only the
beginning of a struggle we as a Nation deal with each and every
day.
Today, we are fighting for a different kind of equality, an
America where all children, no matter their income, can attend
the very best schools. Quite frankly, as you know and I know,
that we can no longer accept the pattern of mediocrity in our
schools, we can no longer accept failure, we can no longer
tolerate excuses from central offices. If we are to achieve
equality we seek, we must act and we must act now.
That is why I support school choice, parental choice. That
is why I believe in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Mr. Chairman, it is not a battle of ideology, it is a
continuation of the fight for civil rights in our country.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program sends a clear
message to families, to children, and to our community: If you
are poor, if you are stuck in a school that is failing, that is
unsafe, and that no amount of money can fix right away, we are
not going to make an experiment of you, we are going to help
you, now, and we are going to do it, not 5 years from now, but
today. And we are going to give you a chance at success. The
essence of the program, Mr. Chairman, is in its name:
Opportunity.
Some can call the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program a
scholarship program. You can call it a voucher program. I call
it a lifeline.
And so does Tiffany Dunston. Tiffany, like Ronald, was an
OSP student who ended up being valedictorian at Archbishop
Carroll High School here in the District. Tiffany now attends
Syracuse University. Candidly, Tiffany says she would not have
made it but for the Opportunity Scholarship that she received.
But poignantly her biggest hope is that more children are given
the opportunity she was given.
Mr. Chairman, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has
provided scholarships allowing the lowest-income D.C. children
to attend better schools, private schools that are mere blocks
away from the public schools that long ago stopped serving
their needs. The program is open to everyone. There is no
discrimination, no academic test for entrance, no cherry-
picking. And while it is not easy for many of those children to
make the transition the results have been stunning. Graduation
rates are 91 percent for those who used their scholarships.
Improved reading scores have taken place for those students.
And parental satisfaction is overwhelming.
The U.S. Department of Education has said that the program
is one of the most effective programs they have ever studied.
By any measure, by any test, by any rational standard, this
hearing should be about how we can expand this program not just
in Washington, D.C. but as a model for all other parts of the
nation. Instead, by a cruel twist of political fate, and for
whatever reason, be it petty allegiances or scores to settle,
the creative and aggressive opponents of this program are
weaving a false narrative about how the program was started and
how it has worked.
They say, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that it was forced or
foisted upon the residents of the District of Columbia. They
say it was imposed on us by the Republicans and that the people
of the District did not want it.
Well, that is an interesting story, but it is simply not
true, Mr. Chairman. I know, I was there.
I served on the D.C. Council for 12 years. I was chairman
of the education committee. I am a lifelong Democrat. And in
the past, while I was on the council in the early years, I did
oppose education programs that were proposed for the District
of Columbia by some Congressional Republicans. I thought they
were draconian. I thought they were unnecessary.
But, Mr. Chairman, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
was not forced on us, quite the opposite, I like to think that
the parents of this city forced the program on Congress.
Hundreds, probably thousands, of parents, many in this room and
especially the lady to my left, Virginia Walden Ford--many of
these parents fought for this program. They came to Capitol
Hill every day. They wanted help immediately. They were
tireless, dedicated, fearless, and determined in their efforts
to give their children better lives.
To say that this program was imposed on the District of
Columbia is to rewrite history, and, in one broad brush white-
out the hard work of these parents. And frankly, Mr. Chairman,
it is offensive.
For my part, I personally worked with Mayor Anthony
Williams, Education Secretary Rod Paige, School Board President
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, and the President of the United States to
help make this program a reality. It was a collaboration. And
just as you and Senator Collins alluded to in your discussions
with the Mayor and Chairman Brown, we insisted on a three-
sector approach--funding for the scholarship program, for
charter schools, and for public schools. We worked very hard to
develop a program that fit the unique educational needs of the
District where not one dime, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned,
was diverted from public schools.
I say this not to codify my role in the process but to tell
you the truth, this was no imposition. This program was a
collaborative solution and we knew there may be a political
cost and for some of us, there was, but we all knew that there
is never a price that is too high to pay for doing what is
right for children.
If you doubt that this program has support and has
succeeded, look at the application numbers to which Senator
Collins alluded. They do not lie.
Nearly 9,000 parents applied for their children to
participate in the program, even when there were only 3,300
slots over the 5-year life of the program. Nearly 8,000
residents signed a petition supporting reauthorization of the
program. And just recently, over the last month, Mr. Chairman,
the Black Alliance for Educational Options has signed up 500
parents who said that they would apply for the program if new
slots were made available.
Look at what the District residents say. As Senator Collins
indicated, this scientific public opinion poll shows that
three-quarters of District residents want this program
restored, reauthorized, and expanded.
Maybe the people know something that some of our leaders do
not. They want this program and they know it works.
Mr. Chairman, people who oppose the program will do
anything to prevent its reauthorization and the truth is indeed
no barrier. They will cast aspersions on the families, tell
tall tales about the schools, question the motives of
supporters, and rewrite history with righteous indignation. But
for me, none of this matters.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it does not matter because I
carry with me the memory of the family that came into my office
one day many years ago, a mother and a father coming to see
their councilmen and they were in tears. They told me their son
would die if he did not have a chance to go to a better school.
It was just that serious for them, a matter of life and death.
They had no money; they were losing hope, and they told me to
fight for their son.
Do not talk, Mr. Councilman, fight.
And there was no way that day or any day going forward that
I could tell that family or any other to wait until our public
schools were completely fixed. The truth is, public schools
here are getting better, they are improving, and I support our
public schools and our teachers. But as long as there are still
families like the one that visited my office, we have no choice
but to provide all options to our children, immediate options
so that no child is forced to suffer or falter or fail.
To borrow a line from Malcolm X, we must educate our
children ``by any means necessary.'' Public schools, charter
schools, virtual schools, magnate schools, home schooling and,
yes, Mr. Chairman, Opportunity Scholarships. We need nothing
short of a revolution in education and I urge you and Members
of this Committee to be on the right side of that history, the
side of opportunity, the side of hope, the side of the families
and their dreams for their children.
At the end of the day it is not about protecting the system
which we all would like to see do better, it is about giving
our children an equal opportunity. I urge this Committee to
reauthorize this program. I thank you personally, Mr. Chairman,
for your steadfast support, and let us renew hope for a better
future for our District and our Nation.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. That was an excellent
statement. I appreciate every part of it. I am struck also by
what you said, that this is not an ideological battle, it is a
battle for civil rights and there is a new group that has
formed called the ``No Labels Movement.''
It is about not having people focus on their party labels,
but it is also true in this particular case, it is a bit odd,
even, because I think by conventional terms, you would say that
this program is a liberal program in terms of being a human
service equal opportunity program, and yet somehow the
conventional labels get turned around. And I think if we see it
as what it is, which is a civil rights program, then maybe we
can create some common ground to get this done again, and I am
confident we are going to get it done.
Virginia Walden Ford has been a great leader in this
effort, Executive Director of the D.C. Parents for School
Choice. Thank you for returning again and for all you do every
day to keep this program alive.
TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C.
PARENTS FOR SCHOOL CHOICE
Ms. Ford. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. You have been our
champion over the years and we appreciate you and Ranking
Member Collins, and other Members giving us a chance to come
and speak on behalf of the transformational D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Ford appears in the Appendix on
page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not long ago, I was talking to my 27-year-old son about our
life, about our family's lives. For a brief moment, I looked at
him and I saw the 13-year-old boy who by the time he entered
his freshman year of high school was several grade levels
behind and getting in trouble, in class and out. He felt like
no one but me cared if he learned, and he felt as if he was not
safe in that environment. He was really struggling.
As a single mother of three, I felt powerless to help him.
I remembered, in that moment, how out of the blue, an answer to
a prayer or a miracle, a neighbor offered us a scholarship for
my son, William, to attend any school I chose. It was just
unbelievable, and we chose a school that would keep him safe,
nurture his talents, and prepare him for life.
When I came back to the present, I saw before me this
wonderful young man who has just made me proud and will
continue to make me proud, who has served in the Armed Forces,
served in Iraq, and is just an incredible kid, and I know that
scholarship made the difference.
But in receiving the scholarship for my son, I remember
asking, ``Why me?'' I mean, I was happy, but why not other
families around me, especially those that lived in my community
where I was watching their children not fare so well.
So, I embarked on a remarkable personal journey that has
allowed me to meet so many parent, thousands of them over the
years, who only want what I wanted: A chance for their
children.
I have met parents who live in every corner of this city.
It did not matter what ward they called home; they were crying
out for options. They were willing to fight peaceably to
improve the educational futures of their children. They did not
ask for much, just that their political leaders would allow
them to access the amazing private schools right in their own
neighborhoods instead of forcing their children to attend
neighborhood public schools that were not improving, were not
safe, and were not healthy environments.
Together we came and talked with you and your colleagues.
We told you how our children could not wait for 5 more years
for our public schools to fix themselves. We told you that our
children needed immediate options. We told you that even though
many of us struggled to make ends meet, it did not mean our
hopes for our children were not just as high as the hopes you
have for yours. And you listened. The D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program became law.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provided that
immediate option, that ray of hope, to 3,300 children. These
are children who are very poor. These are kids that, in many
places, would have been written off, consigned to lives of
mediocrity or worse. Thanks to you and your colleagues, they
were not.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program gave them a chance
to go to schools that made them scholars. It made them
important in the eyes of the world. It gave them the
inspiration to succeed. It has been, like the scholarship I
received for my son, a miracle.
Chairman Lieberman, and too the other Members of the
Committee and Ranking Member Collins, I know very well that
this program is not just about peace of mind. It is about the
improvement and expansion of the young minds we have been
called to serve and when you stack this program up to the other
educational initiatives that have been tried in our city over
the past two decades, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
is a resounding academic success.
Parents love it. Parents like Patricia Williams, Joe Kelly,
or Sheila Jackson, who are all here with their children today.
Patricia, Joe, and Sheila feel safe knowing their children are
going to school where they have been treated well, where they
are encouraged to be creative, and where they are pushed to
excel.
Now, some people say we cannot restore and extend this
program because not enough low-income children would receive
scholarships. That is about the worst argument I have ever
heard. I am reminded of the example of Harriet Tubman, and I
just love this story, the African-American abolitionist and
famous conductor of the Underground Railroad. While she worked
to abolish slavery, Tubman made 19 trips into the south and
transported 300 slaves into freedom.
Harriet Tubman knew that she could not personally rescue
all of the slaves in America, but she knew that she could save
some, and what an amazing difference she made in each of their
lives. She certainly did not just give up and I would ask
everyone in this room today: Would you go back in history and
tell Harriet Tubman that her efforts, her struggle, her worth,
should be scrapped, ended, cancelled, or eliminated? The course
of history has shown us that it was worth it to the cause of
equality in our Nation and that fight continues today.
The sad part is that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program is, for now, closed down to new parents and families,
even the siblings of current participants, who desperately want
to access it. I cannot tell you the number of calls I have
received from parents who are distraught that the government is
shuttering, what they believe, shuttering the program. It is
just devastating. It is tragic. And it deprives so many
children of the opportunity to see their greatest dreams come
true.
The parents who call me all ask me one thing: Why can one
of their older children be allowed to attend a great school,
while their younger one is forced into a failing one? Why did
the program end this year, just when they were about to apply?
I do not have an answer to these parents. I am here because
I hope, I pray, that you do.
Mr. Chairman, you have the power to answer these parents,
you and your colleagues, you and the other Members of the
Committee and Senator Collins and others. You will not only
answer their questions, you will answer their prayers. You will
empower their families. You will change their children's lives.
This program is just that powerful and I have seen it, and you
can restore it. We must restore this.
Mary McLeod Bethune said: ``We have a powerful potential in
our youth, and we must have the courage to change old ideas and
practices so that we may direct their power toward good ends.''
Let us move forward today and do just that with a full
reauthorization of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
And, again, thank you for your support over the years.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. That was not only an
excellent statement, it was an inspiring statement. If I could
get every one of my colleagues to face the two of you----
Ms. Ford. We will do it.
Chairman Lieberman [continuing]. And hear what you said
today, I do not think we would have any problem passing this.
I really appreciate it. I was struck also by something you
said about your personal experience, that you had a neighbor
who came through and provided a scholarship for your son. What
if instead of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program being
funded by tax dollars, some wealthy individual came forward,
created a foundation, and then created this opportunity
scholarship program? I think everybody would embrace it. So,
what is the difference that we are putting public money into
this?
Public money is the main source of funding for education,
obviously, overwhelmingly in our country and it just does not
make sense, so that the good fortune that you happened to have
for your son is something we are trying to expand as you have
for other children and give them an equal opportunity.
The other thing you said, and Mr. Chavous said also, is
that besides all the principle that is at work here, that we
are on the right side, we feel so strongly. If the program was
not working, it would be a harder case for us to make even
though I support the idea of choice and competition, but Dr.
Wolf has done independent work that, to me, says the program is
working and in that sense it would be really unjust not to
continue it and to continue to add children to it.
So, Dr. Wolf, we welcome you back again and look forward
now to hearing about your latest research into this program.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. WOLF, PH.D.,\1\ PROFESSOR AND 21ST
CENTURY CHAIR IN SCHOOL CHOICE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REFORM,
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be with you today
to discuss what we know about the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program. I served as the principal investigator of an
outstanding team of researchers who conducted a
congressionally-mandated independent study of the OSP supported
by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education
Sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf appears in the Appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also a professor at the University of Arkansas with
more than a decade of experience evaluating school choice
programs across the country.
Although the facts that I present to you today are taken
directly from our recently completed impact evaluation, the
ideas and opinions I express are my own professional judgments
and do not necessarily represent any official positions of the
evaluation team, the University of Arkansas or the U.S.
Department of Education.
Senator Lieberman, because this statute required that the
evaluation use the most rigorous research method possible, we
relied on lotteries of eligible OSP applicants to create two
statistically equivalent groups who were followed over time and
whose outcomes were compared.
Our method is called a Randomized Control Trial or
Experiment and is widely viewed as the gold standard for
evaluating programs.
We were able to follow the smaller first cohort of
participants in the experiment over 5 years and the much larger
second cohort for 4 years. We therefore characterized the
program impacts in our final report as the results in the final
year or the results after 4 or more years.
Our analysis also indicated the confidence we should have
in our ability to rule out statistical noise as the reason for
any observed differences between the scholarship treatment
group and the control group.
When we could rule out random factors as a cause of
differences with high confidence, we characterized the impact
of the program as statistically significant. The level of
confidence surrounding such judgments ranges from zero to 99.9
percent, though we simplified the analysis by using the
specific cut point of 95 percent confidence to judge whether
impacts were statistically significant.
Researchers use a variety of cut points for determining
statistical significance, most commonly 90 or 95 percent.
In the interest of transparency, I will describe the
specific confidence level that we can associate with each OSP
impact and leave it to members to judge if those levels are
convincing.
Our evaluation focused on two distinct measures of program
impact. The impact of a scholarship offer, called ``Intent to
Treat'' (ITT), is the simple difference between the treatment
group average and control group average for a given outcome.
Since about 22 percent of the students offered Opportunity
Scholarships never used them to transfer to a private school,
we also adjust the ITT impact to account for ``never users''
yielding the experimental impact of actually using a
scholarship, called the ``Impact on the Treated'' (IOT).
The most important outcome we examined in our evaluation
was the program's impact on student educational attainment as
measured by the rate of high school graduation. President Obama
and Secretary Duncan have cited getting more students through
high school as the highest priority of education policy because
graduating is closely associated with a variety of positive
personal and social outcomes including higher lifetime earnings
and lower rates of unemployment and crime.
Based on parent reports, the students in our study graduate
from high school at significantly higher rates as a result of
the OSP. As portrayed in Exhibit 1, the treatment group
students graduated at a rate of 82 percent, that is 12
percentage points higher than the control group rate of 70
percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exhibit 1 appears in the Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual use of an Opportunity Scholarship increased the
probability of graduating from 70 percent to 91 percent, a
positive impact of 21 percentage points. We are more than 99
percent confident that access to school choice through the
Opportunity Scholarship Program was the reason why OSP students
graduated at these much higher rates.
The positive impact of the OSP on high school graduation
was also clear for the high priority students in the study who
applied to the program from schools designated as ``in need of
improvement'' (SINI). These were the students that Senator
Collins mentioned as a high priority of the program and she
mentioned the fact that if the program were eliminated the
students would have to return to, for the most part, these
schools designated ``in need of improvement.''
The offer of an Opportunity Scholarship increased the
graduation rate for SINI students from 66 percent to 79
percent. Actually using a scholarship boosted their likelihood
of high school graduation by 20 percentage points, from 66
percent to 86 percent. This positive impact of the OSP was
statistically significant with more than 98 percent confidence.
Conclusive experimental results permit us to make reliable
forecasts.
Cecelia Rouse, a member of President's Council of Economic
Advisors, has determined that each additional high school
graduate saves the Nation an average of $260,000 as a result of
higher taxable earnings and lower demands for social services.
That means that the 449 additional high school graduates due to
the operation of the OSP will save our Nation approximately
$116 million.
These experimental results also mean that approximately 111
students in the experimental control group will fail to
graduate from high school simply because they were denied
access to the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
The evidence that students achieved at higher levels due to
the OSP is less conclusive than the evidence that they
graduated at higher rates. Our analysis of test score data
across all years of the study merely suggest that OSP students
likely benefited academically from the program in reading but
probably not in math.
The statistical probability that the OSP had a positive
impact on student reading scores was 91 percent after 2 years,
99 percent after 3 years, and 94 percent after 4 or more years
as depicted in Exhibit 2.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exhibit 2 appears in the Appendix on page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the students offered opportunity scholarships on
average scored higher than the control group in math as well,
those differences were so small each year that we cannot rule
out statistical noise, with any reasonable level of confidence,
as their cause.
Parents were more satisfied with their child's school as a
result of the OSP. The proportion of parents who assigned a
high grade of A or B to their child's school was 8 percentage
points higher if they were in the treatment group, and 10
percentage points higher based on scholarship use. This impact
was statistically significant with more than 99 percent
confidence. Parents also viewed their children as safer in
school if they participated in the program, an impact that was
statistically significant with 98 percent confidence.
Students in grades 4 through 12, when asked similar
questions, were no more likely to be satisfied with their
school or described it as safe if they were in the OSP.
How impressive are the academic impacts of the OSP? When
compared to 13 other experimental studies sponsored by the
Department of Education's National Center for Educational
Evaluation, the educational attainment and achievement impacts
from the OSP rank as the second most impressive to date, as
shown in Exhibit 3.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Exhibit 3 appears in the Appendix on page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the impacts from problem-based economics instruction
have been larger than those from the OSP. Nine of the 14
studies found no statistically significant results at all, or a
disappointing mix of positive and negative impacts.
Mr. Chairman, actual people often speak more eloquently
than do scientists. I close by quoting the words of an OSP
parent who attended a focus group and spoke of her son who used
a scholarship to attend a private high school. ``When my son
dressed in that uniform with that green blazer, the white
shirt, tie, gray trousers and he looked like a gentleman and a
scholar and he had his hair cut and his glasses and he was just
grinning from ear to ear that he was going to be a part of that
[private school culture] and he went to school that day and he
was excited about going to school.''
Mr. Chairman, there are more details in my written
testimony and also in this scintillating 208 page report. Thank
you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Dr. Wolf, that was great. And I
was going to say before you ended the way you did that numbers
are dry but as you well know and as you show by your work, you
are talking about real people, real children, so when we talk
about the graduation rates, the impact, it is really quite
remarkable.
Do you want to elaborate anymore on this graduate rate
data, especially for our highest priority students?
Mr. Wolf. Well, graduation is the whole game.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, education attainment is what we long for,
for our students. And we have long been disappointed with the
graduation rates from high school nationally and particularly
in inner cities.
So, to find a program like the OSP, which clearly improves
the prospects of high school graduation rather dramatically, is
a real find and so I think the other exciting thing is we are
starting to see this in other school choice programs as well.
There was a very careful study of charter schools in
Florida that also found that charter schools of choice lead to
higher graduation rates and we are about to release a report in
Milwaukee about the effect of their voucher program on
graduation rates. I cannot announce the results yet, but you
will be interested to see that next month.
Chairman Lieberman. It sounds like we will not be
disappointed. You do not have to answer that. [Laughter.]
The record will note that you smiled. [Laughter.]
Incidentally, I was really impressed, I had never heard
those numbers before about the attempt to quantify the
different economic impact of a high school graduate on our
society and the cost result if somebody does not graduate from
high school. Let me just make this point, which I know you are
familiar with, this is another element of the cost impact: The
Congressional Research Service (CRS) did a study last year on
this D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program\1\ and talked with
the Mayor and the Chairman about the tripartite, the support
that D.C. got for the public schools and charter schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CRS report appears in the Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Rebecca Skinner who did that study concluded that if we
stopped this program altogether and at that point she talked
about 1,721 voucher recipients transferred back into the city's
public schools, it would cost the city approximately $15
million more to provide education for those students in the
public schools, so it would not only be, as was testified to
earlier, Senator Collins and others, that 93 percent of the
students would go back to schools that are designated as
failing in one way or another under the No Child Left Behind
Act, but it would add a $15 million price tag for the taxpayers
of the District.
Dr. Wolf, you reported that there was initially a
statistically significant increase in reading achievement, but
ultimately the improvements, while not statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level, were
significant at the 90 percent confidence level. Given your
overall research experience, do you believe that the results we
are seeing from the OSP study are in fact significant?
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I do. I mean, ideally you want to
see the result in the range of 95 percent significance or more,
then you can say it is conclusive, it is undeniable, there is
only a 5 percent chance that this is a false finding.
But what we also saw, of course, was a pattern of
achievement gains over time and given the pattern of gains over
time and the fact that the final year results were 94 percent--
we could be 94 percent confident. That says to me the
preponderance of evidence certainly points toward very real
reading gains for the participants in the program.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, I appreciate that answer and I
agree. I know this is a field unto itself and I understand
setting the standard at 95 percent, but 94 percent certainly
makes me confident. I hope it would make my colleagues, as we
invest in this program, confident that there are statistically
significant bottom lines, to put it in the lay language, the
kids in this program are doing better at reading as a result of
being in the program.
I do not want to get too deeply into this, but just for the
record, because I know some people may misuse the notion that
it is not significant, I wanted to ask you to address a
technical term, I wanted to ask you to address how a decrease
in the test group size could impact the accuracy of the data
collected and whether the increases we are seeing make a
difference for students in the OSP program.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent point. A major
development happened between the third and fourth year test
score analyses. Over 200 students graduated out of the testable
grades.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Wolf. So, the final sample of students we tested was
much smaller than the sample we tested in the third year and I
know it included a lot of the Cohort 1 students who graduated
out, and they had been showing the highest reading gains
throughout the evaluation.
Statistical significance is driven by the size of the
difference and the number of subjects to the study who are
providing evidence about that, and so we lost about 10 percent
of our sample----
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Going from Year 3 to Year 4, that
alone could be one reason why the statistical significance
slipped.
Chairman Lieberman. OK, I appreciate it. Mr. Chavous and
Ms. Ford, you spoke so well, I do not have a single question to
ask you, not even a leading question. I give you the
opportunity to say anything more you would like before we
adjourn the hearing.
Mr. Chavous. I just thank you for your support, Mr.
Chairman, and I think you could tell from the testimony of the
Mayor and the Council, that there is growing support, and
Senator Collins asked Chairman Brown about where the Council
colleagues are and I am confident in saying that a majority of
the Council supports new kids coming into the program. I think
that would be made more evident over time.
So, again, we just appreciate your steadfast commitment.
Chairman Lieberman. It is my honor. Ms. Ford.
Ms. Ford. I would just like to say on behalf of the parents
that I represent, I hope, that we want to thank you and all of
your colleagues that have been so much our champions over the
years. I mean, I do not know if you realize, you are our heroes
because you have steadfastly stood beside us and our kids and
we really appreciate that, and we will be here for you moving
forward.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. You really touch my heart by
saying that but this really is our responsibility and you are
the ones who care enough about your children to really go out
of your way, and again, on a morning like this, to be here to
make the point. And you mentioned prayers before, and sometimes
prayers are answered in unusual ways, but who would have
guessed that the results of last November's elections would
bring us here this morning feeling a lot better about our
prospects to reauthorize this program? The legislation we put
in, the Speaker and I introduced it the day after we
reconvened. I mean, I cannot state how deeply he feels this. He
wanted to get it right in, and as far as I know, it may be the
only piece of legislation he will put his name to this year.
So, we have reason for our hopes to be higher.
We all know, it is not over until it is over, but this is
so right and you have made the case again, and Dr. Wolf, your
studies really bring us from the point of principle, and sort
of dreams, to the point of statistical social science that says
this is not only right, but it is working.
Anyway, I cannot thank you enough. Go forward from here
with some hope. We are just not going to miss any opportunity.
This is a 5-year reauthorization and I think we have a real
shot at it this year, and also we need not only to continue to
support the students in the program, but to fund new places as
well.
So, we will keep the record open for 15 days for any
questions, additional questions or statements. I have a
statement from Senator Durbin that he wanted to put in the
record of the hearing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears in the
Appendix on page 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I thank you all.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------