    [Senate Hearing 114-525]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-525

                       THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES FOR
      LOW	INCOME FAMILIES: REAUTHORIZING THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP
                                    PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 4, 2015

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    22-473 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                        Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
                           Courtney J. Allen, Counsel
           Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
                  Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
               John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
        Michael Santora, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Carper
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Benjamin C. Grazda, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Carper...............................................     3
        Senator Booker...............................................    27
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    30
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    43
        Senator Carper...............................................    45

                                    WITNESS
                          Wednesday, November 4, 2015

    Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      California.....................................................     5
    Hon. Tim Scott, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina..     6
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the
      District of Columbia...........................................     8
    Hon. Kevin P. Chavous, Chairman, Serving Our Children,
      Washington, D.C................................................    12
    Mary Elizabeth Blaufuss, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Archbishop Carroll High School, Washington, D.C................    15
    Gary Jones, Parent, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,
      Washington, D.C................................................    17
    Linda Cruz Catalan, Student, The Field School, Washington, D.C...    19
    Christopher A. Lubienski, Ph.D., Professor, Education Policy,
      Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois, Champaign,
      Illinois.......................................................    20

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Blaufuss, Mary Elizabeth:
        Testimony....................................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
    Chavous, Hon. Kevin P.:
        Testimony....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Cruz Catalan, Linda:
        Testimony....................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
        Testimony....................................................     5
    Holmes Norton, Hon. Eleanor:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Jones, Gary:
        Testimony....................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Lubienski, Christopher A.:
        Testimony....................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
    Scott, Hon. Tim:
        Testimony....................................................     6

                                    APPENDIX

    Statements submitted for the Record from:
        American Association of University Women.....................    75
        American Civil Liberties Union...............................    77
        Baptist Joint Committee......................................    80
        Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc...............    81
        Government Accountability Office.............................    82
        National Coalition for Public Education......................    93
        Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America............    97
        Secular Coalition for America................................    98
        Dr. Patrick Wolf, Distinguished Professor of Education
          Policy, University of Arkansas.............................   101
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
        Mr. Chavous..................................................   115
        Ms. Blaufuss.................................................   121
        Mr. Lubienski................................................   123

                       THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES FOR
                       LOW-INCOME FAMILIES: REAUTHORIZING
                    THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Sasse, Carper, Heitkamp, and
    Booker.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order.
        I want to welcome everybody here. We have a distinguished
    first panel. I certainly want to welcome the students and
    teachers and administrators from Cornerstone Academy, Calvary
    Christian Academy, and Archbishop Carroll High School. All of
    these schools participate in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
    Program (OSP). So, we really do appreciate having a full
    hearing room, and I am really looking forward to the testimony.
        I would ask unanimous consent to have my formal opening
    statement included in the record\1\ and I just want to keep my
    opening comments relatively short, but also just off the top of
    my head.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 43
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I became involved and a strong supporter of school choice
    many years before I ran for the U.S. Senate. I got involved in
    the local school system. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, we sent
    our kids to a Catholic school system in Oshkosh, Wisconsin,
    which struggled. It is very difficult for private schools to
    survive when the parents are obviously paying property taxes.
    We all want to do that to support public schools. But then have
    to also pay private tuition for the schools.
        I come from the private sector. I ran a plastics
    manufacturing business for 31 years. I would have loved to have
    been a monopoly. I did not really like competition. But because
    of free market competition, my prices were lower, my quality
    was higher, as was my customer service. That is what free
    market competition does. It guarantees the lowest possible
    price and cost, the best possible quality, the best possible
    level of customer service.
        Gee, would it not be great to have that kind of discipline
    in our school system for our children, for their opportunities?
    So, I am just naturally inclined to support competition and
    opportunities, because this is all about providing our children
    with the tools they need to become productive citizens. It is
    about opportunity. It is about giving people a choice. It is
    about giving people a chance.
        I want to just quickly run through some numbers.
    Fortunately, in the State of Wisconsin, we were some real
    trailblazers here. With the efforts of people like Polly
    Williams and other courageous people in Wisconsin, we have had
    a school choice program offering for quite a few years. To
    date, more than 290,000 students in Wisconsin have been able to
    participate in that type of opportunity. On an annual basis, it
    is about 30,000 out of a total enrollment in Wisconsin of about
    863,000, but it is primarily in Milwaukee, where we have
    enrollment of 77,000 students. Twenty-five thousand are taking
    advantage of the Opportunity Scholarships in Wisconsin. In
    D.C., it is about 85,000 children enrolled in K through 12.
    Only 1,400 have that possibility.
        As a business person, as an accountant, one of the things I
    just have to take a look at is I have to take a look at costs.
    In Milwaukee--in Wisconsin, it costs, on average, about $12,000
    per year to educate a child. Now, again, as a business person,
    if I take $12,000, let us say times 20 students, that is
    $240,000. I think if you give me 20 students and $240,000, I
    would do a pretty good job of educating those 20 kids. Now, I
    realize it is more complex than that and there are some real
    challenges.
        In the District of Columbia, it costs about $28,000 per
    student. That includes building costs. If you pull the building
    costs out of that, it is close to $20,000. Now, do the math on
    that. Twenty-thousand or $28,000 times 20 is somewhere between
    $400,000 to $569,000 per 20 pupils. A lot of times, we do not
    really kind of put it in those terms, but literally $400,000 to
    over $500,000 per 20 students, a classroom. Again, you give me
    $400,000 to $550,000 to educate 20 kids, I would do a pretty
    good job.
        Now, it is also a fact that these Opportunity Scholarships
    cost dramatically less than that. In the District of Columbia,
    depending on which figure you are looking at, it is somewhere
    between 44 percent of the full cost or 63 percent of the just
    spending on students--44 to 63 percent. And you could make a
    strong case for Opportunity Scholarships just on the basis of
    saving the school district money.
        So, you put the numbers, you put all those things aside,
    the bottom line is this is about providing opportunity to our
    children so that they can, again, obtain the tools to lead a
    successful life. Opportunity should not be determined by
    winning a lottery.
        Anybody who has seen the movie, ``Waiting for Superman,''
    and it is a hard movie to watch, as we see some kids winning
    the
    lottery, getting a shot at a productive life, and other
    children losing--it should not be like that, not here in
    America, not in the District of Columbia.
        So, again, I just really want to commend Senator Feinstein
    and Senator Scott and other people that have really worked hard
    on this issue for many years, to provide that opportunity to
    our children.
        And with that, I will turn it over to Senator Tom Carper
    for his opening statement.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    the hearing today, and to our witnesses, three of my favorite
    people are lined up here before us, Senator Feinstein, Senator
    Scott, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. It is great to see
    you, Eleanor. Thank you so much for coming over here to join
    us.
        Before I came to work here with all of you, I had the
    privilege of being a Governor in my State. For 8 years, we
    focused on raising student achievement, thought it was the most
    important thing that we did. We focused on--it was part of the
    idea of how do we, one, strengthen the basic building block of
    our society, our families, and we thought that was pretty
    important, education. The other thing is we are always focused
    on how to provide a nurturing environment for job creation and
    job preservation, and if you do not have a world class
    workforce, kids coming out of our high schools who can read,
    who can write, who can think, who can do math, who are good
    with science and technology, then you have a problem in this
    day and age. So, we focused on all of that.
        We measured our progress, or lack of progress, and
    recently, a couple of years ago, I think, Stanford and Harvard
    actually did a study of all 50 States. They looked at academic
    progress from 1993, the year I became Governor, through 2003,
    and they found that some States did pretty well in terms of
    academic progress. Delaware is No. 3 out of 50 in terms of our
    progress. So, we had a long ways to go to start with. We
    started in a hole and we made progress.
        We still struggle. I will be real honest with you. We still
    struggle to try to make sure that every kid has a chance to
    learn and does learn and goes on to graduate. I am pleased with
    our graduation rates in our State. I think we are up, way up,
    from where we were just a couple of years ago, but there is
    still more work to be done.
        The important thing for us in Delaware is to find out what
    works, and I think the best predictor of kids doing well in
    school is the expectation and the involvement of their parents.
    If you have a kid who is being raised by someone who does not
    care about their education, not involved with their child's
    education, or their grandchild's education, or the niece or
    nephew's education, do not be surprised when great things do
    not happen. If you do not have teachers, if you do not have
    great school leadership, do not be surprised if wonderful
    things do not happen in those schools, because those are
    incredibly important, as well.
        This is a program that would not exist but for, I think,
    John Boehner, Speaker Boehner, a good friend of mine, I suspect
    of all of ours. For him, this is real important. This is a big
    legacy for him. We all have legacy issues that we have worked
    on. Senator Feinstein and us and our Committee have worked real
    hard of late on information sharing/cybersecurity legislation,
    and that is going to be part of your legacy and, hopefully,
    part of ours and help us strengthen our economic recovery in
    this country and do other good things, as well. But, this is
    important to John Boehner. And, that is not why I think we
    should support the program, but I think it means we have an
    obligation to make sure that it is as good as it can be.
        There are critics of this program. I am not going to spend
    the time going through the criticisms of the program. But, it
    is important that we have good metrics for the program, we find
    out what is working and what is not, and the stuff, the areas
    where it is not working, let us do something about it. There
    are some schools where this program helps to fund that I do not
    think any of
    us--look, I would say, why would we do that with Federal money?
    So, let us just be open minded about this.
        I will close with this thought. Among the other Committees
    I serve on with Senator Scott is the Finance Committee, and
    about 2 years ago, we had a hearing on deficit reduction and
    had some really smart people there to talk to us about deficit
    reduction to our Finance Committee. One of the guys was Alan
    Blinder. Alan Blinder now teaches economics at Princeton. He
    used to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve when Alan
    Greenspan was our Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
        So, Alan Blinder was testifying before us and he said on
    deficit reduction, the 800-pound gorilla in the room on deficit
    reduction is reducing health care costs, getting better costs
    and reducing health care costs at the same time, and he was
    right. When it came time for us to ask questions of our
    witnesses that day, I asked him, I said, Dr. Blinder, you said
    the 800-pound gorilla in the room on deficit reduction is
    health care costs. If we do not get our arms around it, we are
    doomed. And, he said, ``That is right.'' I said, just tell us,
    if you were in our shoes, what would you do about it? And he
    sat there, and he sat there, and finally he said, ``Find out
    what works, do more of that.'' That is all he said. ``Find out
    what works and do more of that.''
        In Delaware, we did not go to the kind of system we have in
    this program that we are talking about here, but we did go to
    charter schools, public charter schools. Next October, or next
    September when schools convene in Wilmington, Delaware, half of
    the kids in Wilmington, Delaware, public schools, will be going
    to a charter school. If they do not work, we close them. If
    they do work, we try and replicate them and figure out what we
    can do.
        We have public school choice in Delaware. You can choose to
    move from school to school within your district. You can even
    go outside your district. The money follows the kid, to foster
    competition, the kind of competition that our Chairman was
    talking about.
        So, could competition help us? Sure, it can. But it is
    important that whether it is a charter school or traditional
    public school or a voucher program like this one, we have to be
    using good metrics and always looking for how do we make this
    better. How do we make sure that we are getting our money's
    worth for our taxpayers and doing what is fair for the kids and
    their families.
        With that, I will ask my real statement be made part of the
    record and we will move on.\1\ Thank you all for joining us.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the
    Appendix on page 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper did mention the
    cybersecurity bill. This is another example of what can be
    accomplished when you concentrate on the areas of agreement
    that unite us, that unify us, as opposed to exploit our
    differences.
        So, again, I want to welcome our distinguished panel. We
    have Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from the
    State of California; Senator Tim Scott, the junior Senator from
    the State of South Carolina; and Delegate Eleanor Holmes
    Norton, Delegate to the U.S. Congress representing the District
    of Columbia.
        We will start with Senator Feinstein, and we realize you
    are going to have to leave after your testimony, but we really
    do appreciate you taking time. Senator Feinstein.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A UNITED STATES
                  SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman,
    and thank you, Senator Carper, for your comments. Senator
    Sasse, great to have you here. I also want to thank Senator
    Scott and Senator Booker for their support of this program. And
    it is great to see Eleanor Holmes Norton, a woman I greatly
    admire, and I welcome her to the lesser side of the Congress.
    [Laughter.]
        My history with this program goes back to 2003. As an
    appropriator, the first appropriation was thought to be a tie
    vote. I received a visit from Mayor Williams, and he made a
    pitch to me for the program and I voted for the program, and it
    was a tie vote and I broke that tie. So, I have taken great
    interest in the program since then and watched it and hope to
    see it continue to mature.
        I really believe that we have to, as you said, Senator,
    have competition in the system. I come from a big State. I have
    watched public education for 50 years carefully. I have seen
    California go from one of the best to way down the list. And,
    so, competition and charter schools and parochial and private
    schools all have a role to play.
        The question comes, ``Should somebody that does not have
    the money for a parochial or private school be denied that
    opportunity?,'' and that is where this scholarship opportunity
    program comes in, because it clearly says, ``No.'' We believe
    in competition. We want to open the door to competition and an
    amount will be provided to make this opportunity real.
        So, this program provides low-income students with up to
    $8,381 to attend elementary school and middle school, and up to
    $12,572 to attend high school. So, it is consequential. It may
    not do the whole job, but for a family that needs help, it
    gives that family the leg up.
        Students have to meet only two requirements to apply for a
    scholarship. Their families must be low-income and have lived
    in the District for at least 5 years, and the scholarships can
    be used for tuition, for uniforms, for books, and public
    transportation.
        I personally have an example in the District of someone who
    did very well in this program. Very early on in her life, she
    had a troubled public school education. I got to know her as a
    3-year-old. I had the privilege of helping her go to a Catholic
    school both in middle school and also in high school. She got
    into Stanford University and this past fall she got her
    Master's degree. So, alternative styles and venues of education
    can be helpful, and somehow, we have to open our hearts and our
    pocketbooks to this.
        I believe so strongly that I have sent my staff out to some
    36 of the 47 schools in the program. My staff made visits,
    talked with parents and administrators about how the program
    could be improved, and reported on what they saw. There were a
    number of schools, 12 out of the 47, that did not have
    accreditation, and I believe very strongly they should have
    accreditation. I think this is the next step to really improve
    education in this venue.
        And, I am very pleased that in both the Senate and the
    House bill, there is a portion that accredits the schools, in
    other words, says they must be accredited within a certain
    period of time, and I think that is an important improvement
    and benefit.
        But, I guess what I want to say is that I feel very
    committed to this pathway. I have supported the Knowledge is
    Power Program (KIPP) schools, other charter schools. I have
    seen them make a difference in low-income neighborhoods in
    California. And, I really believe that where education has to
    provide this equal opportunity is to low-income families. If
    they want to have a choice, we ought to make it possible for
    them to have that choice. So, I am a locked and loaded
    supporter of alternative education.
        I just wanted to thank this Committee for your efforts and
    support. I think it is a model, and I think it can be
    developed, it can be improved. I spoke with former Mayor
    Williams about this at a dinner held not long ago, and I gather
    there is a new leadership group that is going to play a major
    role in school development in this particular venue.
        So, thank you. I am very happy to be a strong supporter of
    the program.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, thank you, Senator Feinstein, for
    your support, and you certainly have our commitment to work
    with you, with your leadership on this issue. Senator Scott.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TIM SCOTT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
                    FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking
    Member Carper, and to all the other members of the Committee.
        Senator Feinstein, it is certainly good to find an issue
    that we can work together on, and this is a very important
    issue for our Nation.
        And, frankly, when you think about the issue of choice, you
    think about a way for us to combat poverty, to grow our
    economy, and to really unleash the potential of so many kids
    around this country and, frankly, dozens upon dozens of kids
    right behind us who are desperately looking for opportunities
    to show what they are made of, to give us real examples of the
    power of opportunity is to look at their success of the kids
    behind us, and, frankly, to their parents. To me, the issue of
    school choice is an issue that brings to light an opportunity
    for them to see their kids reach their full potential, and in
    my opinion, that is a very important consideration.
        Too often, we hear conversations about Democrats and
    Republicans, of blue versus red, and the fact of the matter is
    the issue of school choice is not a partisan issue at all. It
    is not an issue about Republicans or Democrats. It is and
    should remain an issue about children. And, we see the success
    of the school choice program, the Opportunity Scholarship
    Program (OSP), all across the city of D.C.
        And, I will tell you, as I thought through my comments for
    this important hearing that Proverbs 22:6 came to mind,
    training up a child in the way that he or she should go, so
    that they can maximize their potential. And, to me, the
    foundation of education is a key component in harnessing that
    potential.
        So many of these journeys start on rough roads, in little
    houses, trailers, small apartments, journeys that are very much
    like my own journey, living in a single-parent household in
    real poverty in North Charleston, going to four different
    elementary schools by the time I was in the third or fourth
    grade. The reality of it is that school choice is an
    opportunity to make sure that kids who grow up in the wrong zip
    codes experience the best of life and not simply the
    underperforming schools that may be in their districts.
        I want to say this, and I want to make sure that I am clear
    about it. I appreciate, love, and have great affection for
    public schools. I am a product of public schools. As a matter
    of fact, if you have a good public school, that is a great
    thing. But, if you do not have a good public school, we should
    make sure that the options are available for the students and
    for their parents. That means every child everywhere in this
    Nation should be afforded the opportunity to maximize their
    potential through school choice.
        And, Chairman Johnson, as you said at the beginning, your
    commitment to this issue started before you were a United
    States Senator. Ron, you were making investments in Milwaukee
    and throughout Wisconsin with your own resources because you
    understand and appreciate the power of education. That is an
    issue that I learned a little later in life, as a kid whose
    parents divorced when I was seven, growing up in a single-
    parent household. I started drifting in the wrong direction. I
    learned very quickly, Senator Sasse, that all drifting seems to
    head in the wrong direction. [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Was there some reason why you directed
    those comments to him?
        Senator Scott. It was his profound maiden speech.
        Senator Carper. He gave a great maiden speech yesterday.
        Senator Scott. Indeed. And, since my time is running out,
    and Senators, we cannot tell time, so I had better hurry up
    here, but the truth of the matter is, by the time I was a
    freshman in high school, I was failing out. I failed world
    geography. I thought I was the only Senator to ever fail
    civics, and then I joined you guys and realized that perhaps
    some of you did not do so well, either. [Laughter.]
        You can say that to your own people. So, anyway, I failed
    Spanish and English, as well. When you fail Spanish and you
    fail English, they do not consider you bilingual. They call you
    bi-ignorant, because you cannot speak any language, and that is
    where I found my unhappy self.
        But, I had the privilege and the blessing of a strong,
    powerful mother who believed in education. She became so
    invested in education for the next 3 years, I caught up, went
    on to Charleston Southern University--``Go Bucks''--and
    graduated with a degree in political science.
        I will tell you this, that when I think about where these
    kids are, here is what I think. I think that we are looking at
    those kids that attend the OSP program have a graduation rate
    of over 90 percent. Those kids in the district that do not go
    to OSP schools have a graduation rate just above 50 percent. We
    are spending a little more than $20,000 per student to make
    sure that we have a 55, 56 percent graduation rate, but we
    spend about 40 cents on the dollar and we see a 90-plus
    graduation rate with parental satisfaction over 90 percent. And
    last year alone, 98 percent of OSP students went on to earn a
    two-or 4-year degree.
        Senators, without much of a question, the divide in our
    Nation between the haves and have-nots can be easily defined by
    family formation--which I am not sure how we control that--and
    education. We do have the opportunity to control that.
        I know my time is running short, so let me just close by
    saying that when you think about why these statistics and why
    these numbers are so important, let me just translate it. Half
    of African-American males do not finish high school in 4 years.
    Too many do not finish at all. And for students who do not
    finish high school, their income, on average, is $19,000. For
    those students who finish high school, their income is 50
    percent higher. For those who go on and finish college, it is
    almost three times higher.
        We do this, by the way, scholarship programs, public
    dollars going to private schools, we do this every single day
    of the year in America. We call those Pell Grants. I took my
    Pell Grant to a small Christian school, Charleston Southern,
    and I will tell you that the unfortunate reality is simply
    this, that if you do not graduate from high school, you do not
    use a Pell Grant. And in my opinion, this is not about the
    numbers, though the numbers are very important. The cost of
    school is very important. This is about human potential.
        Let us not be confused about what we are talking about. We
    are not talking about 20,000 versus 8,500. We are talking about
    making sure that the kids behind me have the same opportunities
    that each and every one of us who serve in this amazing body
    has. It is our opportunity, our responsibility to stand up and
    be counted for these kids that will lead us 1 day. And Lord
    knows, as we look at the entitlement State of America, we are
    going to need them to be taxpayers. God bless you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Scott. Delegate Holmes
    Norton.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,\1\ A DELEGATE
               IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Ms. Norton. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, I very
    much appreciate the opportunity to testify here this morning as
    the Member of Congress who is privileged to represent the
    residents of the District of Columbia. I regret we have no
    representation in this body, but I certainly appreciate your
    attention to our issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Delegate Norton appears in the
    Appendix on page 47.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson, I want to begin by thanking you for your
    bill to make improvements in the District of Columbia criminal
    justice agencies. Your support of that bill here in the Senate
    is an important reason why it is on its way to passage in the
    House.
        Now, I recognize that the bill before you providing
    vouchers for some of our students--and I am very pleased to see
    that among those who have come this morning are some of our
    students who will see how the Congress operates--I recognize
    that this bill may pass, so from the beginning, I have wanted
    to work with my colleagues as the bill moves forward, if it
    does, in support of this program that is $182 million to ensure
    that the youngsters who receive the vouchers indeed get a high-
    quality education. That was the point of the vouchers in the
    first place.
        I think I should first explain my own position. I have long
    supported allowing the current students in the program to
    remain until they graduate from high school. That is also the
    position that the President has taken. I regarded that as a
    reasonable compromise, even in a Congress which does not
    compromise on almost anything any more. But, I thought this was
    a reasonable compromise, considering that the District of
    Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions in the United States
    that has built significant alternatives for its traditional
    public school system.
        I oppose this program because it has failed to improve
    academic achievements, including the students who it was most
    designed to benefit, those from the lowest-performing public
    schools. Now, during the more than 10 years this program has
    been in effect, the same tests show the District of Columbia
    public school's children have improved. The same tests show
    that District of Columbia charter school test scores have
    improved. But these voucher tests do not show similar
    improvement, though that was the reason that the Congress said
    that the District must accept this program.
        This program violates the District's right to self-
    government. The District was not even consulted about this
    program, so might have had a better idea. This program deprives
    students of their Federal civil rights protections. And, most
    of all, it is unnecessary in our city, which, unlike most
    jurisdictions, has seen a growth of public charter schools. You
    will not find in most jurisdictions, as you do in the District
    of Columbia, 44 percent of our children going to public
    accountable charter schools. You will not find in most of these
    districts that 75 percent of the students go to out-of-boundary
    schools, schools of their choice.
        I am proud of our public charter schools. When former
    Speaker Newt Gingrich approached me and said he wanted private
    school vouchers in the District of Columbia, and I was in the
    minority, as I have for most of my time in the Congress, I
    asked him, since the District had a fledgling charter school
    system, only one or two charter schools, but at least it had
    shown a home rule self-government interest in an alternative to
    its public schools, I asked him to work with me on charter
    schools, and that is how we got our charter school board, and
    that is why 44 percent of our children attend charter schools,
    and that is why our charter schools have long waiting lists,
    even though the voucher schools do not have similar waiting
    list.
        Do you want to know what made our schools better? I believe
    in competition, Senator Johnson. It was the competition from
    these very good charter schools, often very near our public
    schools. And that is what, that is the competition that has
    made them into better schools today.
        The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that
    this program in the bill before you lacks quality controls and
    transparency. I very much appreciate that the bill attempts to
    improve the program by requiring students, at the very least,
    to go to accredited schools. But I have to ask you, how could
    this Congress have allowed these students to go to unaccredited
    schools for now more than 10 years, simply because a voucher
    schools sprang up in their neighborhood? Of course,
    accreditation is a relatively low bar.
        Now, there are a number of high-quality schools in this
    program, but Congress should not be funding schools that could
    not exist except for this program's virtually unconditional
    Federal funds. What I am referring to, we have called ``voucher
    mills,'' fly by-night schools that sprang up in some low-income
    neighborhoods only after Congress created this program.
        For example, the GAO found that voucher students comprised
    more than 80 percent of the school enrollment in six schools.
    The Washington Post did its own investigation entitled,
    ``Quality Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal
    Vouchers.'' Reporters spoke to officials of some of these
    schools. An example from one of them was, and I am quoting,
    ``If this program were to end, this school would end.''
        The Senator spoke of competition. If a school has to rely
    primarily on Federal funds to exist, that is reason enough, it
    seems to me, that shows that market demand has not allowed that
    school to attract students, and if it cannot attract students
    on its own, then it should not attract Federal funds on its
    own.
        To accomplish the purpose of eliminating schools that
    should not be funded by Federal funds, because they do not have
    the quality, because they could not exist except for Federal
    funds, I have offered an amendment in the House to limit
    voucher students to 50 percent of a school's total enrollment,
    and that is a fairly liberal requirement. Although my amendment
    was not accepted, I appreciated that the majority indicated
    that they did support eliminating voucher mills. I do not know,
    perhaps there is a better way to do it than my 50 percent
    suggestion. I would be open, and I am certain you would,
    Senator, to any way to make sure that the quality that the
    vouchers were after is there in the schools that are available.
        I do believe that there is a burden on this Congress to
    ensure that the high-quality schools funded by this program,
    such as our accredited Catholic schools, do not have to compete
    for funds with voucher mill schools that would not exist except
    for these Federal funds.
        It is disappointing to me that although prior
    authorizations of this bill included evaluation to be done--and
    here I am quoting the congressional language--``conducted using
    the strongest possible research design.'' Thus far, the program
    has been evaluated using that design. That is how we evaluate
    the children of public schools and the public charter schools,
    and that is how we know whether they are, in fact, improving or
    not improving.
        In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be
    conducted using what it calls an acceptable quasi-experimental
    research design and expressly prohibits using random controlled
    trials. This, even though the researchers involved with this
    evaluation said, and I am quoting them now, that ``random
    controlled trials are especially important in the context of
    school schools, because families wanting to apply for choice
    programs may have educational goals and aspirations that differ
    from the average family.'' In other words, we should be
    comparing apples to apples and not to whatever oranges or other
    fruits happen to spring up in our study.
        I very much appreciate that there is an interest in the
    Congress in our children. Certainly with the help of Speaker
    Gingrich, we got what is now a flourishing charter school
    movement and charter schools that have been evaluated as the
    best charter schools in the country. We ask only to be treated
    as your constituents are treated, to be consulted on matters
    affecting us, and that is why I had decided that it was my
    obligation to come here this morning and to testify before you.
    And I very much appreciate the opportunity that you have given
    me.
        Chairman Johnson. We appreciate your testimony, and, I
    think, rest assured, we may have differences in terms of how
    the opportunity is provided, but it is a goal we all share. We
    want every American, every child, to have the opportunity to
    get a good education so they can build a good life for
    themselves, their families. So, again, we certainly appreciate
    your passion on this and we appreciate your testimony.
        And with that, we will----
        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, if I just may extend my
    thanks, as well, not only for her presence here, but the
    Congresswoman's office has been working with mine assiduously
    on improving this legislation. So, she is not just against it
    and not engaging. She is actually leaning in and trying to help
    correct what she sees as flaws in the current legislation. So,
    she has been tireless and she is working on behalf of a
    District, again, and I hate to editorialize, but it is, in my
    opinion, outrageous that they do not have more representation
    in this body.
        Chairman Johnson. No. And, again, we appreciate the search
    for those areas of agreement to improve. I come from a
    manufacturing background. I am into continuous improvements.
    So, again, we appreciate your testimony and your efforts.
        We will seat the next panel now.
        [Pause.]
        Chairman Johnson. Again, I want to welcome the witnesses.
    We were really privileged to have an overflow crowd here, so we
    invited some of the students and their teachers and
    administrators to come join us in the back of the panel here,
    which is a little unusual, but I kind of like it.
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses
    so if you all would stand up and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give
    before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth?
        Mr. Chavous. I do.
        Ms. Blaufuss. I do.
        Mr. Jones. I do.
        Ms. Catalan. I do.
        Mr. Lubienski. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Our first witness is Kevin Chavous. He is a former member
    of the Council of the District of Columbia and Chair of the
    Council's Education Committee. Mr. Chavous is a founding board
    member and Executive Council for the American Federation for
    Children, the Chairman of Serving Our Children, Board Chair for
    Democrats for Education Reform, and former Board Chair for the
    Black Alliance for Educational Options. Mr. Chavous.

       TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN P. CHAVOUS,\1\ CHAIRMAN,
                 SERVING OUR CHILDREN, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Chavous. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and
    Senator Carper and Members of the Committee, for this
    opportunity to testify on a subject that is near and dear to my
    heart, namely school choice generally and specifically here in
    the District of Columbia, the D.C. OSP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Chavous appears in the Appendix
    on page 49.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you indicated, I served on the D.C. Council for 12 years
    and over half that time I was Chairman of the Education
    Committee, and from that perspective, I developed a keen
    awareness of the plight of many low-income students here in the
    Nation's capital. During my tenure on the Council, it became
    increasingly evident to me that many of the public schools
    serving our children in the most underserved communities were
    failing our students. These students needed options other than
    just the neighborhood public schools that may or may not be
    working.
        Here in the District, despite, as you have heard, having
    some of the highest per pupil expenditures compared to other
    States, our students are dropping out or performing abysmally
    on national assessment tests, and I first sought to promote
    school choice by advocating for charter schools. This is a
    movement that has thrived in the District, demonstrating a high
    demand for school choice among its residents.
        I do want to take this opportunity right now to point out
    that contrary to some of the claims of the critics and even my
    good friend, Delegate Norton, this program had high support in
    the District. Parenthetically, I just might add that I remember
    hearing from my father, he said, you always need to read
    because revisionist history is a dangerous thing. This program
    was not forced upon the city. Indeed, when Secretary Paige and
    President Bush approached Mayor Williams and I in 2003. They
    talked about a scholarship program.
        The city's involvement was clear and evident when it became
    a three-sector strategy. It was Mayor Williams' and I view that
    if we are going to have a Federal program and a Federal
    partnership, let us make it a true Federal partnership and let
    us lift all boats. And that is how we ended up having an equal
    amount of money at the time going to D.C. Public Schools, D.C.
    Public Charter Schools, and the scholarship program.
        And, frankly, over the last 10 years since the program has
    been in existence, all of the money that has come from the
    Federal Government to help this three-sector strategy take
    hold, $239 million have gone to D.C. Public Schools, the vast
    majority, compared to the other two programs. A hundred-and-
    ninety-five million have gone to the charter schools, and $188
    million have gone to the scholarship. So, even with the advent
    of this program, not only has D.C. Public Schools been held
    harmless in terms of not having an impact on their budget, they
    have gotten far more money than the other two sectors, and
    that, again, shows that this was a true partnership.
        I might add that in addition to Mayor Williams and I,
    School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz, the President of
    the School Board at the time, was also supportive.
        I support public schools, and during my tenure as Chair of
    the Education Committee, we fought hard to make sure D.C.
    Public Schools got its fair share. But as a country, we need to
    make sure that our public schools live up to their promise. One
    of the reasons why we supported this program in the beginning
    was Congresswoman Norton referred to the charter schools that
    we had. Mayor Williams and I realized back in 2003 that we had
    thousands of children on the waiting lists for charter schools,
    and still many parents came to us wanting to have other
    options.
        I support the reforms that have taken place under Kaya
    Henderson's leadership and before that her predecessor,
    Michelle Rhee. Their commitment to public school reform and the
    public school reform movement is important and is noteworthy.
        But equal education should be a civil right for all
    students in America. A quality education is the on ramp to
    economic independence. It is the gateway to keeping at risk
    students away from drugs and out of prison. Regrettably, as
    Senator Scott said, equal education opportunity is not the norm
    today. Affluent families get access to the best education
    options, but too often, low-income students have very limited
    and often inadequate choices.
        Given these facts and statistics, it is puzzling to me how
    anyone can be against this program. Here is a program that has
    over a 91 percent graduation rate, over a 90 percent college
    going rate, it has produced thousands of opportunities for kids
    who otherwise would not have them at a time when D.C. Public
    Schools is still in the midst of its reform but still has not
    produced the same graduation rates and results as these schools
    have. What is there not to like?
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, let me
    just briefly, before I close, address a couple of concerns
    raised by the GAO report that was referred to earlier.
        As you indicated, I am the Chairman of Serving Our
    Children. We have board members that include a former parent of
    the program, Donald Hense runs the Friendship Schools, and also
    Mayor Williams. We are one month in as the new administrator of
    the program and it is our desire to make sure that we live up
    to the expectations placed on us to ensure that this program is
    administered effectively.
        There are several things that we will be doing. One is we
    received a significant private grant, much of which will go
    toward implementing major technology upgrades, and we are
    currently talking to companies and receiving those proposals.
    We intend to develop policies and procedures to ensure the
    financial viability and sustainability of the participating
    schools. There was some mention about transparency. We will
    make sure that we are transparent. We intend to enforce the
    policy of ensuring that any unaccredited schools become fully
    accredited within 5 years. We have been working closely with
    Senator Feinstein's office on that. We want to increase program
    participation and awareness. We intend to develop internal
    procedures to ensure that our administrative expenses are
    accurately tracked. All of these things were alluded to in the
    GAO report and we are working diligently and will continue to
    work diligently to improve them.
        In sum, a quality education is the foundation for achieving
    the American dream. Promoting equal education opportunity not
    only benefits disadvantaged children, but, frankly, it benefits
    all American. Equal education opportunity is the key to
    tackling the rampant socioeconomic problems that plague our
    inner cities. And to the extent that we can provide
    opportunities for at-risk youth, our entire Nation benefits
    from reduced crime, a far more productive workforce, and a more
    prosperous economy.
        In the past, in many speeches I have given around the
    country on this topic, I refer to Dr. Martin Luther King's
    message during the civil rights movement regarding the fierce
    urgency of now. People should not have to wait for their civil
    rights, he said at the time, and a quality education today
    should be a civil right, especially in a wealthy country like
    ours. A child should not have to wait three to 5 years for a
    school district reform plan to kick in. We could lose a child,
    or many children, and the dropout statistics suggest we are
    while we wait for the system to improve itself.
        For these reasons, we at Serving Our Children are dedicated
    to the concept that all children can achieve and excel if given
    the opportunity and the right environment. We hope that our
    efforts to ensure that all kids, regardless of geography, zip
    code, socioeconomic status, have an opportunity for quality
    education and a chance to thrive and achieve and reach their
    full potential. It is something that this Committee continues
    to share, and we appreciate your support in the past.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chavous.
        Our next witness is Beth Blaufuss. Ms. Blaufuss is the
    President of Archbishop Carroll High School in Washington, DC,
    where she previously served as the Vice Principal for Academic
    Affairs. Prior to her time at Archbishop Carroll, Ms. Blaufuss
    taught English at Bishop McNamara High School in Prince
    George's County as well as at Maplewood High School in
    Nashville, Tennessee, and the Sydney Grammar School in Sydney,
    Australia. Ms. Blaufuss received her Bachelor's degree from
    Yale College and her Master's in education from Vanderbilt
    University.
        And I just have to note that Ms. Blaufuss hosted Senator
    Carper and myself for a tour of your school and what we
    witnessed was a safe and nurturing environment for learning,
    and I really did appreciate the time that you and your students
    and your other administrators and teachers carved out for us to
    show us what I thought was a very wonderful school. Ms.
    Blaufuss.

     TESTIMONY OF MARY ELIZABETH BLAUFUSS,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARCHBISHOP CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL, WASHINGTON,
                                  D.C.

        Ms. Blaufuss. Thank you, Senator Johnson. It was a joy to
    have you.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Blaufuss appears in the Appendix
    on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the schools privileged to educate Opportunity
    Scholars, thank you. I have seen the impact of the Opportunity
    Scholarship firsthand. The most compelling reason to
    reauthorize it is that it works where it really counts.
        In the 2010 study, Opportunity Scholars were 21 percent
    more likely to graduate from high school than those in the
    control group who qualified for the scholarship but did not win
    the lottery for it. The same researchers called the program,
    quote, ``one of the most effective urban dropout prevention
    programs yet witnessed,'' end quote.
        Since the OSP began, Archbishop Carroll has graduated 221
    Opportunity Scholars. Data from the D.C. Children and Youth
    Investment Trust indicates that 88 percent of OSP graduates go
    on to college, compared to 49 percent of low-income students
    nationally.
        While we often tout the loudest those who go on to colleges
    with national reputations, like Dartmouth or Columbia, many of
    our OSP graduates of whom I am the most proud are those who
    come to us reading behind grade level but who still complete a
    rigorous college prep curriculum, or those like Mark, a student
    who admitted to me that he was not really even thinking about
    college as an option before he came to our school, or graduates
    who have endured periods of homelessness while they are in high
    school.
        The numbers and numerous anecdotes I could share tell the
    same story. The Opportunity Scholarship improves outcomes.
        When the program's researchers controlled for different
    sizes in the treatment and control groups and for clustering in
    specific schools, they did find statistically significant
    reading gains, equivalent to about 1 month of additional
    learning per year. The researchers also State that scoring high
    on tests is less important to a student's graduation prospects
    than academic habits and dispositions, such as self discipline,
    commitment, grit, and determination. OSP schools like Carroll
    foster those crucial dispositions.
        In 2013 and 2014, our school's SAT scores improved at a
    rate double that of the average for all D.C. public and private
    schools. Our graduates now persist in college at a rate 20
    percent higher than the national average. We are just one of
    many private schools in the District innovating every day to do
    better by all of our students.
        As a District of Columbia taxpayer and as a school leader
    who received applications from students attending a very small
    handful of sub-par schools, I embrace measures that preserve
    our schools independent approaches without tolerating fiscal or
    academic irresponsibility. The D.C. charter schools faced
    challenges similar to those of so-called storefront OSP
    schools. In 2007, oversight of charter schools was streamlined
    and schools improved. Similarly, the OSP has a new
    administrator as of this fall. I urge you to allow that
    administrator to prove its effectiveness.
        I am proud of my city's educational progress. The most
    important reason to seek private school choice is not that
    public schools are bad. It is that choice is good. Wealthy and
    middle-income families have the means to explore private
    schools along with public and charter options. It seems
    fundamentally unfair for low-income families to have fewer
    choices than wealthy ones, as Senator Feinstein indicated.
        As OSP graduation data reveal, the mere presence of a full
    range of choices can improve outcomes for a low-income student.
    A growing body of research suggests that socioeconomically
    diverse schools improve achievement and social skills for all
    students. When the gap between high and low-income
    Washingtonians is at its highest since 1979, we risk real
    dangers to all of us if we allow children to grow up with
    unchallenged economic segregation. I would ask this Committee
    to consider the social as well as the academic benefits of OSP.
        Amid talk of data, it is easy to forget that the core of
    education is relationships among students and teachers.
    Education is not some intellectual car wash where we just
    perform a series of operations on kids and they come out bright
    and sparkly. It is a series of leaps that individual students'
    minds and hearts must make. The greater the leaps we ask
    students to make, the stronger must be their relationships with
    the people who are asking them to take those risks.
    Relationships are stronger when we choose them, as families do
    in the OSP.
        Dajanae is a bright, determined Carroll senior who, like
    some Members of Congress, was always convinced that she was
    right and resisted most attempts at constructive criticism,
    often landing her in the dean's office when she first arrived
    at our school. Now, she has become a student leader at Carroll.
    She told me, ``I never would have grown as much if I had not
    come here with the forgiveness and patience of the teachers.''
    She is but one example of the students for whom choice of a
    school community has made all the difference.
        The OSP allows low-income students to foster relationships
    crucial to graduation in the same range of schools upper-income
    families have and I urge you to preserve the program on their
    behalf. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Blaufuss.
        Our next witness is Gary Jones. Mr. Jones is a father of
    five children with his wife of 21 years, Stacy, and resides in
    Ward 8 of the District of Columbia. Three of Mr. Jones'
    children have enrolled in private schools through the D.C.
    Opportunity Scholarship Program. For the past 2 years, Mr.
    Jones has spoken at rallies, attended hearings, and met with
    D.C. officials as a parent advocate of the program. Mr. Jones.

         TESTIMONY OF GARY JONES,\1\ PARENT, D.C. OPPORTUNITY
                 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Jones. Good morning, Senator Johnson. I would like to
    thank you for inviting me here. I would also like to thank the
    Committee members and Ranking Member Carper for also inviting
    me.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the Appendix on
    page 60.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My story is this. My children have had the opportunity to
    attend D.C. schools in all three sectors, public, charter, and
    private schools, throughout the years with varying degrees of
    success. By far, we saw the greatest level of achievement for
    our children when we had them in private schools. Charters did
    not work for my children, while DCPS was mediocre, at best.
        From what I heard earlier from the earlier panel, I have to
    say this about charters. Charter schools, from my research and
    my family's experience, have not met their AYP, the annual year
    progress. When my children were in charter schools, my wife and
    I noticed that several students were being retained in the same
    class, like ninth and tenth grade, like, repeatedly.
        Public schools, like I said, I do not have any animosity
    toward them because my mother was a public school teacher, but,
    again, they were mediocre, at best.
        My three older children were OSP recipients under the old
    Washington Scholarship Fund, an administrator that gave
    siblings a preference for entry. This allowed my son, Joshua,
    and my daughters, Aaliyah and Yasmine, to attend the same
    schools. Joshua received a full scholarship and the sisters
    partial scholarships. This was a huge benefit to my older
    children and to our family, for which my wife and I are truly
    grateful.
        However, due to this Department of Education's
    misinterpretation of the law, my daughter, Sabirah, is in the
    OSP program through high school, yet my youngest daughter,
    Tiffany because she is already enrolled in a private school, is
    considered ineligible.
        I have to tell you, the financial burden is wearing on our
    family. I am currently making ends meet by working two jobs in
    order to keep my daughters together in the same school. They
    are in an educational community that I trust to keep them safe,
    educate them at a level that more than prepares them for
    college, and will give them a better future for their parents.
    Is that not the American dream? Having parental choice in
    education is what will give my children the best chance at the
    American dream.
        I am stunned and I am angry at the attitude of my
    representative, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and her
    opposition to this incredible program. Delegate Norton, like
    President Obama, only supports allowing the current children to
    finish the program while opposing the admitting of new
    students. What makes the children in the program now more
    deserving than the children who desperately want the same
    opportunities?
        Parents in parts of D.C. need good choices now and we
    cannot wait for schools to improve or waiting lists to drop.
    D.C. has a 58 percent dropout rate in the District of Columbia
    Public Schools. My three older children, who, after they left
    the Washington Scholarship Program, they went to Ballou Senior
    High School, where they did graduate, but that was a one-
    percent graduation rate for the seniors each year.
        Ms. Norton talked about accountability. As has been stated,
    more than 98 percent of OSP kids graduate and go on to college.
    That is accountability. Some of the best private schools in
    D.C. participate in the OSP program, including Sidwell Friends,
    where the Obama girls go, Archbishop John Carroll, Georgetown
    Day, Gonzaga, and my children's school, St. Thomas More
    Catholic Academy. Those individuals who are more fortunate can
    afford to send their children to schools on this list.
        The public schools in this city have failed tens of
    thousands
    of children over the years, and while there has been
    improvement--I must be fair, there has been gradual
    improvement--they are nowhere near where they need to be. As a
    parent, what should we do, continue to wait? I do not think
    that is fair.
        Sadly, eight members of the D.C. City Council signed a
    letter saying they oppose the program, one of whom his son
    attends Gonzaga High School, which I found hypocritical. I do
    not remember any of these Council members, including my own,
    who guaranteed me that she was for this program, ask me or any
    of the 1,600 families that take advantage of this fantastic
    program our opinion. Do any of these City Council members have
    any idea how much this initiative generates in additional funds
    for all of the District's children, whether they are in the
    D.C. Public Schools, charter schools, or the OSP schools? Do
    these Council members really want to turn their backs on
    millions of dollars? Where is the logic in that line of
    thinking?
        The D.C. OSP program is an amazing program, and for those
    of us fortunate enough to have a child in this program, we are
    very grateful and we say we thank you from the bottom of our
    hearts.
        It makes a difference. We, the families, have seen this
    program make a difference in our children's lives and want this
    program to be reauthorized. We, the families, want the law to
    be followed so siblings get preference. We, the families, want
    to make sure that other families desperate for a better
    educational environment for their children get this
    opportunity. We, the families, are desperate for an ongoing
    choice. We will continue to fight for those who have not had
    this life-changing opportunity.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support
    of this reauthorization for this program. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
        Our next witness, we are very pleased to have Linda Cruz
    Catalan. Ms. Catalan is a high school senior at the Field
    School, where she has attended for the past 4 years. Outside of
    her study, Ms. Catalan participates in cross country and in a
    traditional Mexican dance ensemble, volunteers at the National
    Museum of Natural History, and tutors with the Latino Student
    Fund and Girls Who Code. Ms. Catalan is considering several
    universities, where she intends to pursue a career in computer
    science. Ms. Catalan.

    TESTIMONY OF LINDA CRUZ CATALAN,\1\ STUDENT, THE FIELD SCHOOL,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Catalan. Thank you. My name is Linda Cruz Catalan and I
    am currently enrolled in the Field School in Washington, D.C.,
    so I am going to talk a little bit more about myself.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Cruz appears in the Appendix on
    page 62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At Field, I have had the opportunity to learn, create, and
    build connections that will last me years and years to come. I
    am extremely lucky to be going to the Field School itself. I
    have always come from a low-income family. My parents work
    extremely hard to pay for clothes, food, and the townhouse we
    live in. They are the two hardest working people I have known
    today and they are extremely resilient. In my mind, they have
    always been the pure image of what it means to make something
    out of nothing.
        Before Field, I went to a school called Oyster Adams
    Bilingual School. This school was a very good stepping stone in
    my life and I was exposed to a lot of cultures and backgrounds.
    Besides seeing kids from middle-class families who could afford
    a high school education for their children, I also saw kids who
    were from lower-income families, like mine. These kids usually
    went on to local high schools, which was next in line for them
    if they did not either pay for a private school education or
    take advantage of programs and scholarships to get them there.
    I saw that a lot of these kids had multiple problems, meaning
    that a large public high school would not be beneficial for
    them.
        At the time I was associated with a program, and still am,
    with a program that gives underprivileged kids these
    opportunities called D.C. Opportunity. They helped me and gave
    me these opportunities, the biggest one being the opportunity
    to go to the Field School. This program awarded me with a
    $12,000 scholarship to attend the school of my choice. Since
    2004, there have been 16,000 children that applied for this
    opportunity in the Washington, DC. area, and I was one of the
    lucky finalists to receive this opportunity to go to the Field
    School.
        So far, through my lifetime, I have seen many
    underprivileged kids that come from lower-class families and do
    not have the opportunity that other scholarships like these are
    giving them, and most of these kids are extremely smart and
    deserve a big future where they can get educated in any
    institution they choose. I recommend that kids enroll in all
    these programs similar to D.C. Opportunity.
        I currently am interested in math programming, engineering,
    and dance, and I wish to explore these things far into my
    future without anybody telling me I cannot do it just because
    of my background and socioeconomic class. If it was not for
    these many opportunities, I would not have been able to explore
    all these in the Field School and have the amazing privilege to
    explore them throughout the college of my choosing. Eventually,
    I wish to have a fruitful career in one of these fields and I
    am confident that I can do so.
        And to add in, I am very thankful for everyone who is
    giving us, a student like me, these opportunities to study in
    college. And, again, I am not saying I had a great education
    from the Montessori I went to from pre-K to kinder and then
    Oyster Adams, but after college, my family struggled to find
    the right education. It was either my neighborhood school that
    I would have gone to, but in that time, I was enrolled in a
    program that found the school right for me. And especially as a
    kid who struggled with being in a middle school class of 35
    kids in one classroom, now, I am able to talk to my teacher
    one-on-one after school and during class, when my smallest
    class now, which is currently computer science, where we are
    only six students in that classroom.
        And, I am extremely grateful for these opportunities that
    teachers, everyone, staff members, everyone in the school are
    offering. And, that is my story. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. I think we all are
    really glad that you got those opportunities, and I think we
    also think you are going to go far, so we really appreciate
    your testimony.
        Our final witness is Dr. Christopher Lubienski. Dr.
    Lubienski is a Professor of Education Policy and the Director
    of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the
    University of Illinois. Dr. Lubienski is a Fellow with the
    National Education Policy Center and Co-Chair of the K through
    12 Working Group with the Scholar Strategy Network at Harvard
    University. Dr. Lubienski has published over 80 academic
    papers, with his most recent publication being ``The Public
    School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private
    Schools.'' Dr. Lubienski.

      TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER A. LUBIENSKI, PH.D.,\1\ PROFESSOR,
     EDUCATION POLICY, ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF
                     ILLINOIS, CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS

        Dr. Lubienski. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to
    speak with you about our shared goal of providing quality
    education for all children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Lubienski appears in the Appendix
    on page 64.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Chris Lubienski. I am a professor at the
    University of Illinois and my research over the past two
    decades has centered on the impacts of school choice policies,
    things like charter schools and vouchers, in the U.S. and in
    other countries, as well.
        Research on school choice and vouchers, in particular, is
    typically focused on the question of academic achievements, and
    for good reason. As you know, the official evaluation of the
    D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program concluded there was no
    conclusive evidence the program affected student achievement.
    After 3 years, there were impacts for some groups of students
    in reading, but not in math, and not for other groups, and not
    overall. Positive impacts were also reported on graduation
    rates for a somewhat different set of students.
        These results generally reflect the findings of other
    voucher studies, where any impacts appear infrequently and
    inconsistently across groups and sub-groups of students, across
    cities, grade levels, and subject areas. Working with my
    collaborator at Illinois, Jameson Brewer, I examined the
    findings of studies frequently held out as the highest quality
    research in support of vouchers, which covered programs in five
    cities, including Washington.
        While the analyses typically found no overall impacts from
    vouchers, in the cases where impacts were evident for some sub-
    groups, any effects were erratic, showing up for some students
    in one subject, but not for the same students in a different
    subject, or year, or in a different city.
        For instance, in a previous evaluation of an earlier
    program in Washington, researchers found a positive impact for
    African-American students in year two, but negative and
    insignificant effects for those same students in years one and
    three, with no impacts on any other ethnic groups. This raises
    questions as to why. Why are we seeing such variability?
        This is somewhat surprising, given the strong theory behind
    vouchers. We have had voucher programs in the U.S. for a
    quarter-century, and the reasons why we thought they would work
    to improve outcomes have not really played out. As Princeton
    economist Cecilia Rouse has observed, the best research to date
    finds relatively small achievement gains for students offered
    vouchers, most of which are not statistically different from
    zero.
        Although the benefits have been somewhat elusive, it is
    quite reasonable to ask, should we still support such programs
    so long as no one is shown to be harmed? I am less persuaded by
    the argument that there is no evidence of harm, simply because
    most studies have not been designed to identify measures of
    negative impacts, and I say that for two reasons.
        First, it is reasonable to think that some students, in
    fact, have not had a positive experience with these programs,
    while others, including many of the people in this room, have
    no doubt benefited substantially from voucher programs. Since
    the overall academic impacts are typically not statistically
    different from zero, that would suggest that for every student
    benefiting, there is approximately one other who has had a
    negative experience.
        And, second, most evaluations have not really studied the
    effects of vouchers on non-voucher schools. Specifically, what
    happens to the children left behind in struggling schools when
    classmates with concerned and motivated parents leave?
        Research going back to the 1960s, including my recent
    federally funded research with Sarah Lubienski, strongly
    suggests that a student's peers have a major influence on that
    student's learning, with this so-called peer effect having a
    much more consistent impact than voucher programs have been
    shown to exert. In fact, it is quite likely that exposure to a
    higher level of what Chingos and Peterson call ``peer quality''
    in private schools explains much of the academic outcomes in
    voucher studies, particularly in reading, for reasons which I
    could explain, and in graduation rates. Unfortunately, this
    issue is not typically examined in studies of voucher programs,
    yet in all likelihood contributes to a diminishing educational
    experience for those students left behind in struggling
    schools.
        In conclusion, there are reasons for caution in hearing
    claims about the benefits of vouchers. Overall, in looking at
    the potential and measured outcomes of these programs, I would
    say that there are better arguments for vouchers than their
    academic impacts.
        Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to share my
    assessment with you and for your interest in this really
    important issue. Thanks.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Lubienski.
        Ms. Catalan, I just want to quickly ask you, you said you
    were lucky to obtain that voucher. How long did you wait to
    find out whether you were one of the lucky lottery winners and
    what was that like waiting?
        Ms. Catalan. Well, I was very nervous of waiting. I think,
    definitely, I am going to go straight to the point that if it
    were not for my parents, I would not have been at the Field
    School, because especially as a middle schooler just focused on
    academics, trying to be a straight-A student, trying to get the
    best grades I can, I really did not think of high school. I did
    not think of the high school I was going to, and my parents are
    the ones, really, who decided, Linda, I think this will be the
    best opportunity for you, where you do not have to stay at that
    one A grade, where you will be able to struggle in classes,
    where you are going to have the opportunity to step up.
        It was--personally, after I found out that I received the
    scholarship, of course, I was very happy, along with the other
    students. I was nervous, as well, because I was going to a
    complete different school. I was going to miss my experience at
    Oyster that I had for the 8 years and--and the wait, I
    definitely cannot talk much about that, because that was most
    of the part of my parents.
        But, again, going back to that, I believe that is
    important, that the parents do know, as well, that there are
    opportunities out there for their kids, because I know students
    now who wish, wow, I wish my parents did this for me, and I
    think that is important.
        Chairman Johnson. So, it was hard working, caring motivated
    parents.
        Ms. Catalan. Yes, and I am thankful.
        Chairman Johnson. I had the same benefit, by the way.
    People say I was a hard worker. That is because my Mom and Dad
    made me. So, glad you have great parents.
        Mr. Chavous, you made a comment that said, it is puzzling
    how anyone can be opposed. I mean, I agree. It is. And, I
    think, Ms. Blaufuss, you said choice is good. Is that not just
    obvious, giving people choice, letting people have the freedom
    to choose opportunity for their children?
        So, that begs the question, why do people oppose?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, I think that this has become such a
    polarizing issue politically largely because of the political
    arm of the Teachers' Union, I think, and it has been couched in
    terms of an either/or proposition. The education of our
    children should not be cast in partisan terms, nor should it be
    cast in terms of either/or. The beauty of choice, as we move
    down this road toward personalized learning--and that is where
    it is all headed.
        Anyone who looks at the trends, just like we all have
    individual smartphones, we are headed toward this brave new
    world of personalized learning where choice is going to matter,
    and you will have kids in high school who will take classes at
    a community college for credits and they will take a virtual
    blended program and go into a traditional setting and they will
    end up with a diverse experience on their way toward
    personalized learning.
        And, the beauty of choice is that it gives parents a stake
    in the game early in the process. When people talk about
    studies and why they are against it, they should look at Paul
    Peterson's work or Patrick Wolf's work, who did the study on
    this program. Beth's comment about it being one of the best
    dropout prevention programs around, I think that the politics,
    the partisanship, and, unfortunately, the tendency not to put
    kids first and their interests first is one of the main reasons
    why this has become so polarizing.
        But, the reality is, and Beth knows this, being hands on,
    is that she made a really good point about beyond the studies,
    if you look at the change, the life trajectory at these
    programs and the kids who get these programs benefit from, and
    the change in their academic habits, the way they view the
    world, their ability to excite what is possible where otherwise
    it was not there, that has had a huge benefit. And I would
    commit that you should look at Paul Peterson's study of those
    African-American kids in New York who received private school
    scholarships and that bears that out.
        Chairman Johnson. So, just quickly, you quoted a 91 percent
    graduation rate of those schools with Opportunity Scholarships
    compared to--do you have just the percentage?
        Mr. Chavous. I think it is--D.C. Public Schools is 60
    percent. It is around 60 percent.
        Chairman Johnson. That is a significant difference right
    there.
        Mr. Chavous. It is a significant----
        Chairman Johnson. And I know Ms. Blaufuss mentioned a 21
    percent higher graduation rate.
        So, just to quickly summarize, you are saying the
    opposition comes from the Teachers' Unions for whatever reason.
    That is the primary opposition to this.
        Mr. Chavous. Yes, and the reality is, the only people who
    really are against school choice are the ones who have it.
        Chairman Johnson. Often, I think, back in the State of
    Wisconsin, the argument is made, well, you are robbing--you are
    taking money away from the public system and allocating it
    there, so you are going to disadvantage kids in public school.
    In case of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, that is
    actually--because of this program, there is another $622
    million per year flowing into the District's schools, right?
        Mr. Chavous. Yes----
        Chairman Johnson. So, there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul

    in this case. There is actually a net increase in funding for
    the D.C.--so that certainly cannot be used as an argument.
        Mr. Chavous. They have more than any other sector over the
    last 10 years.
        Chairman Johnson. So, again, so, tell me in your words, why
    is the Teachers' Union opposed to this in the D.C. school
    system? It makes no sense. You said it is puzzling. I am
    puzzled, as well.
        Mr. Chavous. Well, I do not know why. I do think that, as I
    said, the politics of the day is the biggest challenge. But, I
    also think that people are used to the fight in education, and
    if we really are looking at what is best for kids, then there
    is no way to be against this program.
        Chairman Johnson. I agree.
        Ms. Blaufuss, how do you measure what you instill in
    students in your school? And again, Senator Carper and I were
    there. We saw a safe and nurturing environment. I was in one
    classroom, kind of a quasi-religious--by the way, the number of
    Catholics or percentage of Catholics is slightly more than 20
    percent, right----
        Ms. Blaufuss. It is 24 percent.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. So you are a very ecumenical
    school.
        Ms. Blaufuss. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. One classroom, and the discussion was the
    students' definition of ``love'' versus Webster's definition,
    and I will tell you, what the students as a class came up with
    was a far more meaningful definition of ``love'' than the very
    dry definition. So, just sitting in that safe and nurturing
    environment and hearing that very high level discussion was
    really inspiring. How do you measure that?
        Ms. Blaufuss. I think that is a great question, because
    metrics are incredibly important in education and we look at a
    host of different testing data in order to determine whether we
    are doing right by our students. We just happen to like the
    tests we have chosen. So, we are an International Baccalaureate
    Diploma program school, internationally recognized rigorous
    college preparatory program. So, we use the information that
    those tests tell us not only to figure out how we are doing,
    but to pinpoint solutions to help us do better.
        But, as you point out, there is a whole set of
    characteristics that are going to help someone be successful in
    college, as a parent, as a coworker in a workplace, that we as
    a Nation, I do not think, yet have metrics for. And, I think we
    cannot, as educators, only commit ourselves to those things
    that we are going to measure. And I think that is one of the
    great advantages we have as an institution, is to spend time
    working on how our kids get along, helping cultivate their
    virtue, hearing from them the strategies that help them be more
    virtuous.
        We are still looking for ways to measure virtue. I think if
    anyone comes up with a metric, I would be grateful for it. But,
    nevertheless, we do not let the lack of metrics dictate the
    importance of those characteristics as part of----
        Chairman Johnson. One measure is just having schools that
    are allowed to teach it, and values, and morals, and the
    parental involvement. The reason I thought the Catholic school
    system in Oshkosh was such a special place was because of that
    parental involvement, because they were able to teach morals
    and values and virtue. That is extremely powerful, and I am not
    sure that is going to show up in any test scores or anything
    else, but it sure shows up in character and sure shows up in
    achievement and success in life. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        It is great to see all of you. I am sorry I was not here
    when you started your testimony. I was testifying myself before
    the Senate Budget Committee on a proposal for a 2-year budget
    process for the Federal Government. So, I missed most of your
    testimonies.
        Linda, I caught the tail end of yours and you are one of
    the best witnesses I have seen lately. Actually, this was a
    good panel, how old are you now, 27?
        Ms. Catalan. Seventeen years old. [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Pretty impressive. [Laughter.]
        I listened to all of you, and especially you, Linda,
    testifying, reminded me--and the Chairman has already just said
    this and I am going to reiterate it--I am a recovering
    Governor. I served as Governor of the State of Delaware, a
    great privilege, from 1993 to 2001, and we focused every day on
    raising student achievement, every single day. We adopted
    charter schools, public school choice. If you happen to be a
    kid in a school district--we have 19 school districts. If you
    happen to be a kid and, let us say, you are 6 years old and you
    are a first grader and there are five elementary schools in
    your district, public school choice, if they have room, you can
    go to any one of those other four schools and the money follows
    the student.
        I love competition, and it has been engendered by public
    school choice and charter schools. This next September when
    school reconvenes, about 10 months from now, half the kids in
    the city of Wilmington will be going to public charter schools.
        We have great traditional public schools in Delaware and
    one of them is Mount Pleasant, a high school which is about two
    miles from my home. And, Beth, I go for long runs on Sunday
    mornings before church and I run on their track. But inside
    that school during Monday through Friday, it is an IB school
    and they have done great things, traditional public school, by
    trying something different, experimenting.
        But, I am reminded here today as I was every day I was
    Governor, the greatest predictor of kids doing well in school
    is the expectation of their parents. If you have somebody at
    home, at least one somebody at home in your life that has a
    high expectation of you, not just to say, oh, I expect you to
    do well, but actually help, set an example, personal example,
    work with kids early on, we read with our boys who are now 25
    and 27 almost from the day they were born. They came home from
    the hospital, started reading, continued to read. Even right up
    through the eighth grade, I read to Ben the Harry Potter
    novels. I think I enjoyed that as much as he did, probably
    more. Then he started reading to me, which was even better. Can
    I go to bed, Ben? ``No,'' he said. ``No, Dad. You have to stay
    up until I finish this book.''
        But, a great predictor of kids doing well, expectation of
    their parents. Another great predictor of kids doing well,
    early childhood, and reading is part of it, but the earlier
    that we start, the better. You have a bunch of kids coming into
    kindergarten at the age of five. They do not know their
    letters. They do not know their numbers. They cannot read. They
    cannot do math. They cannot write. And they are sitting next to
    kids who can, and the kids who can just go faster and faster
    and faster, and the kids who cannot go slower and slower and
    slower. And we end up with a situation where we have a lot of
    disruptions, kids acting out, and we see that every day in our
    schools.
        I think the other key is clearly spelling out what we
    expect kids to know and be able to do in math and science and
    English and social studies, have an ability to measure student
    progress there, and having great teachers, great teachers in
    the classrooms who love kids, who know their stuff, who make
    learning fun, make learning relevant to what is going on in the
    lives of kids after on.
        And then we have different ways to try to create
    competition. We have different ways to create competition, and
    I have mentioned a couple that seem to work in our State. We
    have a variety of ways to engender competition here in the
    District of Columbia.
        What I would like to do is in this conversation is just
    have a chance to figure out why, for kids for whom this program
    seems to work, why is it working well and what are some ways we
    can make it better. Everything I do, I know I can do better.
    Everything we have done in education in Delaware, I know we can
    do better and hopefully continue to do better.
        But, let us just look at this program in the District of
    Columbia. Dr. Lubienski, let me just start with you. I think
    this program is going to be reauthorized. I think it is
    important that when it is, is that we do it in a way so that it
    is going to be better, that it is going to be better. Give us
    an idea or two how we can make it better, please.
        Mr. Lubienski. Excellent question. I know that there is
    some discussion about--in the reauthorization of the program
    about how to evaluate that and whether or not you should use
    randomized control trials. I think Representative Norton
    weighed in on that. Can I suggest that randomized control
    trials are seen as being very strong, rigorous experiments that
    answer a very narrow question, and so there was talk about
    moving toward more quasi-experimental approaches.
        Personally, I think that there is value to different types
    of approaches for understanding an intervention like this. What
    I really would like to see in terms of the evaluation is for
    the evaluators also to consider the impacts of the family
    background factors and how those are clustered into different
    schools. I think research has shown pretty convincingly that it
    is not necessarily a voucher or a piece of paper that teaches
    kids. It is these other factors, as well, and we are not really
    considering those in the evaluations of these programs. So, I
    would point in that direction.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
        Linda, just give me one idea, one idea from the experience
    you have had in school, one change we could make that would
    make this program even more effective for a broader range of
    kids.
        Ms. Catalan. I am going to have to agree. From experience
    from students who had complained, actually, about scholarship
    programs and programs like these where there was more
    background research needed in order to, like, be accepted into
    this program, I recently personally, even--I have been through
    this. I recently applied for a scholarship program for college
    and was denied the scholarship because I go to a private
    school, so assuming I have the money to afford for this $41,000
    tuition it is just for tuition for Field School. They assumed
    immediately after I contacted them that I am able to pay for
    this, and I think a lot of background research needs to be----
        Senator Carper. OK. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Jones, give me one really good idea how to make this
    program better, more effective.
        Mr. Jones. Well, again, to piggyback, it is looking into
    the family background, the family history, of the socioeconomic
    condition of the family. I also think that more money should be
    put into the program for immersion programs, like language
    immersion programs, especially in a primary age, a middle
    school age, art immersion programs, things like that. Those
    things help benefit the students and make them more rounded and
    cultured going forward into high school and into college.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Ms. Blaufuss. By the way, it was great being in your
    school. Thanks for the warm welcome. It was much appreciated.
        Ms. Blaufuss. Thank you. I am going to push my luck and
    propose two improvements. One is really continuation of the
    existing legislation, and that is to continue funding for
    academic support as a piece of the bill, and I know the new
    administrator is going to work harder to make sure that money
    is actually used. It was not used in the last 5 years, even
    though it was part of the bill, and I think it is crucial to
    the bill's success.
        The second suggestion I would have is to make being
    currently enrolled in a private school not be a disqualifier.
    To disqualify kids because they are currently enrolled in
    private school seems to imply that a family's economic status
    will be the same from kindergarten through high school. So, it
    assumes that no one is ever going to lose their job, no one's
    dad is ever going to die, no one's parent is ever going to
    suffer from mental illness. So, to say that kids who are
    currently enrolled in private school who otherwise in every way
    qualify for the program are disqualified from it, it seems to
    me fundamentally against the spirit of what the bill is trying
    to accomplish.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Mr. Chavous.
        Mr. Chavous. In addition to us as the new administrator
    really drilling down and dealing with the transparency issue
    and some of the nuts and bolts day-to-day things that they
    mentioned, which we think is important, I also think that there
    are some carryover funds that could be used to maximize some
    scholarships.
        We plan on having an aggressive outreach program with
    parents. The parent engagement piece is always something that
    is put at the end of the priority list. We want to elevate that
    so parents can be educated consumers and understand the
    responsibility of how to pick the right school for their child
    and how to be an advocate for their child, and I think that is
    going to make a huge difference, so that parents like Mr. Jones
    can make educated choices about any of the options that are
    available. But, if we have access to those carryover funds, we
    can give more scholarships to this new breed of educated
    parents that we hope can take advantage of choice here in the
    District.
        Senator Carper. Great. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Booker.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER

        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    holding this, and I appreciate the work that you are doing in a
    bipartisan way to try to advance what I think is important
    legislation.
        I want to thank all the members of the panel for all of
    their extraordinary and enlightening testimony.
        Linda, honestly, I have seen many people testify. Many of
    them would love just a fraction of the poise and confidence you
    showed when you spoke. It is extraordinary. When I was 17, my
    biggest fear was speaking in front of people. I would have been
    shaking and you looked like a pro, better than many Senators,
    so thank you very much.
        And, I just want to say that Kevin Chavous, he and I have
    been friends for decades now, when we both had very large
    Afros---- [Laughter.]
        And I just want to thank you, man. You have been a partner
    and ally of mine, somebody that has been helping me back in the
    days when these issues were not popular at all. So, I am
    grateful that you are here.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off with something,
    because there is too much vilification, in my opinion, in this
    movement, especially around Teachers' Unions. There are States
    in America right now that are Right to Work States that do not
    have strong Teachers' Unions but still have failing schools.
    And, to me, we are too focused in on creating an enemy and not
    nearly focused enough on what needs to get done, which in this
    country that professes to believe in equal opportunity, that
    has children across the country pledging allegiance every
    single day to this ideal of liberty and justice for all, well,
    that is a lie to many kids because they do not get the justice
    of a great education.
        And, Federal policy over the years has allowed certain
    neighborhoods to be drained of their wealth through the Federal
    Housing Administration (FHA) policy that has created ghettos
    through consciously bigoted Federal actions, that has allowed
    certain people to opt out of the public schools.
        I listened to Dr. Lubienski talking about--and I had to
    scratch my head--about the peer impact on when some kids opt
    out and some do not. Well, that is America right now, because
    rich and middle-class kids are getting to opt out of the
    system. And, so, the current landscape reflects our tolerance
    of allowing the wealthy to opt-out of the system, but shrieks
    of do not let poor people do it, dear God and when discussion
    of extending that privilege to low-income families occurs.
        And, so, my point right now is that we must have a focus on
    educating all children. I am sick and tired of seeing the
    pipeline school-to-person play out ending with sending our
    children to prison. In fact, it is eight times more likely for
    a kid who does not graduate from high school to be arrested. We
    are fueling the biggest bureaucratic growth in government. It
    is the prison system, which has gone up 800 percent on the
    Federal level because of the failure to educate our kids, to
    cultivate their genius. That is unacceptable to me.
        And, so, these debates often become about everything but
    poor kids getting a shot. And, by the way, these kids are our
    children. They are the greatest natural resource this country
    has. There are poets and artists and scientists and Senators in
    our schools who are not getting a shot because of these choked
    systems.
        And, so, I am dedicated to the idea that the American
    public--public education is a bedrock, fundamental aspect of
    this country. It is what makes us a great democracy. And the
    fact that we believe that public education should be diverse
    and allow poor kids to have choice, to me, that is something I
    have been fighting for my entire career.
        I am happy to see Eleanor Holmes Norton recognize that
    choice in education encompasses both District schools and
    charter schools. You know that, Kevin. That sentiment would not
    have been heard 5 or 10 years ago. My city, which was recently
    recognized by the Brookings Institution--Newark, where I live--
    as one of the top cities in America for choice, what has
    happened over the 8 years of our choice movement in Newark?
    Black children in my city that are attending schools that beat
    the State average have increased 300 percent. The data, and the
    data from Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO),
    which, about this one city, is extraordinary pertaining to the
    quality education we are providing when we allow parents like
    Gary the greatest power you could have, to choose the destiny
    of your child.
        And, so, this hearing is something rare I have ever seen
    during my time in Washington, where we have a program where
    politicians are basically saying, we are not going to cut
    something here, one program for poverty, in order to put
    something there. We are going to actually increase funding to
    District schools. We are going to increase funding to charter
    schools. And we are going to increase funding to scholarships.
    I wish this Congress was as committed to increasing funding for
    poor kids as it is in this little area called this three-prong
    approach, Kevin, that you were one of the main architects of
    back in the day.
        And, so, what my interest is, is making sure that those
    choices for children, which I deeply believe should extend to
    poor kids in the same manner in which they are entended to rich
    kids, that those choices are quality choices, and this is what
    I want in America, that there is accountability in our schools.
    I do not believe in charter scholarship District schools. I
    have a simple way I look at schools, good schools or bad
    schools, and the problem with a lot of charter schools is they
    do not close. They fail to teach kids at high levels and then
    they keep going in perpetuity.
        And, so, what we need to have, in my opinion, is a robust
    program--if we are going to do this in Washington and deny
    Washington residents the right to control their own schools--
    look, I
    had to deal with that in Newark, having the State take over a
    district--but if we are going to deny the right for
    Washingtonians to choose their own destiny and design a
    program, let us do everything within this program to give poor
    kids choice of quality options. That is the urgency that I have
    right now.
        Now, this bill, and I am going to get to Christopher, if I
    have the time, to say there are flaws in it. There are flaws. I
    do not understand how you can design a scholarship program,
    Kevin, that says some of your kids get about $28,000 per child
    and then another system gets only $12,000 per child. That is
    shortchanging, in my opinion, a whole bunch of kids.
        And, so, if you want to understand why a lot of the
    schools--Sidwell Friends, I could name the private schools in
    this that, if I had children--may God bless me 1 day and get my
    mother off my back---- [Laughter.]
        But if I had kids, if I had kids, I would do whatever--I
    would be in Gary's camp. I am going to do whatever it takes to
    fight to get my children in the best schools possible. This
    scholarship program does not allow that because the scholarship
    amount is too low.
        And, so, I have some questions, Chairman, but I just used
    my 7 minutes to talk a little bit, and----
        Chairman Johnson. You used them very effectively. I
    appreciate it.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, and I will wait for
    another round if I should be so lucky.
        Chairman Johnson. I do need to see a picture of you in that
    Afro, though. [Laughter.]
        I think, quite honestly now, all America wants to see that
    Afro.
        Senator Booker. If Tim Scott shows his pictures, I will
    show mine. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. I do have more questions, so if you stick
    around, you will probably get a chance to ask some. Senator
    Heitkamp.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This obviously is not an issue that affects my
    constituencies much. The underserved constituents in my State
    do not have access to a robust private school system, and so,
    obviously, it is not an issue that we have confronted. But, I
    do have a great deal of sympathy as we look at Native
    Americans, who have experienced historically low rates. You all
    have talked about dropout rates. The lowest dropout rates in
    the country are among Native American students, especially
    those in Indian Country. And, so, I share a lot of this passion
    and I share a lot of the concern that we have about making sure
    all of our schools function, that all of our schools are
    utilizing their resources to do the right thing for the
    children of America.
        We continue to be very challenged in public education, but
    one of the concerns that I have is we have just gone through a
    rewrite of No Child Left Behind in the U.S. Senate, and in that
    rewrite, we were reminded consistently by Senator Lamar
    Alexander that we are not the national school board. We are not
    the national school board. This is something that should be
    left to local choice. This is something that local entities
    should make up their mind.
        And, I am always troubled in an overarching system with
    interference of Congress in local options and local decisions.
    Now, recognizing we cannot segregate or separate that
    relationship very easily, but I think we can be mindful and
    respectful.
        I think, Mr. Chavous, you talked a lot about the D.C.
    Council not supporting this program any more, and why do you
    think that they have taken this position, as a former
    Councilman yourself, and what would they do if we just said, it
    is up to you guys to decide? What would happen?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, first of all, let me just say, Senator,
    that yes, most education funding and policy is locally based,
    as you indicated. But it is clear, and Senator Booker alluded
    to this, that the District and the Federal Government has a
    special, unique relationship.
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. We do not have voting representation, and you
    all do sign off on our budget, which is wholly self-generated.
    And, so, there are different nuances to it. When Mayor Williams
    and I were approached 10 years, 12 years ago about this, it was
    to acknowledge the special relationships where there are some
    burdens and benefits to being citizens of the District and the
    Nation's capital at the same time, and the feeling was, let us
    figure out a way to make sure that the Federal Government has a
    stake in the Nation's capital. So, that was the genesis for the
    partnership----
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes, but I think my point is that where I
    have heard just wonderful testimony and great stories and
    certainly been absolutely charmed by the young woman here, I
    also want to make sure that we are respectful of whatever local
    governance you do have. And, so, as we kind of look forward,
    how do we get everybody--when you were there, this was, yes,
    let us do this program. Let us walk together.
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Senator Heitkamp. And now it seems like we have gotten this
    division. How do we bring people back together at the District
    level to support one unified program without having that debate
    refereed by this Committee?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, one is information is power. I think
    that even in talking to some of the folks who signed the
    letter, they did not realize, for instance, it was a three-
    sector strategy. So, if you get rid of the scholarship amount,
    you will get rid of the money that goes to D.C. Public Schools
    and D.C. Public Charter Schools. I think that you have newer
    members who do not understand the history, and we are told by
    some activists who are against the program that this is a
    voucher program exclusively. They did not understand all of
    that.
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. And, if you also pay close attention, you will
    notice that the Mayor and Chairman of the Council did not sign
    the letter. The Mayor has in the past signed letters in support
    of this program and the Chairman of the Council refused to sign
    this letter.
        So, I think that once we spend more time talking with the
    newer members, because there are several new members in the
    last couple years, about what this--the full impact of this
    partnership really is, they do not want to lose that money and
    they also want to make sure that we do lift all boats. I mean,
    I feel confident that we can bring most people together. Now,
    there are going to be some, and our Congresswoman is one of
    them, who just do not like the program for whatever reason. She
    did not like it ten or 12 years ago. She did not like it when a
    majority of the Council signed a letter a couple years ago. So,
    now with the new members we just have our work to do to educate
    people.
        Senator Heitkamp. And I think that is a critical piece,
    because I was encouraged when Senator Booker talked about how
    the Delegate was actually working with his office to improve
    it. I think we all believe that there should be higher levels
    of accountability. We believe that there should be review of
    the GAO report. But, ultimately, what I am looking for is some
    kind of broader consensus within the D.C. community, whether it
    is the school board or the Council, asking us for what they
    need rather than us telling them what to do, because we should
    not be your school board. Your community should be your school
    board and your school district should be your school board.
        I am not philosophically opposed to anything that moves
    children ahead. and, so, for me, this is not about philosophy
    nearly as much as it is about parental and local control and
    making sure that we hear those voices kind of broadly. And when
    political leadership that is supposed to represent the local
    folks send us mixed messages, it is a tough lift here, because
    we do not want to be your school board. I do not want to be
    your school board.
        Mr. Chavous. No, I appreciate that.
        Senator Heitkamp. I want you guys to be the school board.
        Mr. Chavous. No, I appreciate that, and then that is why
    many of us support statehood, which I expect many of you would
    support it for the same reasons. [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. I am sure the Chairman would be glad to
    answer that question. [Laughter.]
        But, I guess, to the extent that as we proceed with this
    bill you can, through your past experience, work to try and
    develop a better consensus at the----
        Mr. Chavous. Absolutely.
        Senator Heitkamp [continuing]. At the city level, at the
    school district level, with school leaders, so that you can
    come and say this is what--we are not going to make everybody
    happen, but this is what works for us and please be respectful
    of the decisions----
        Mr. Chavous. We are aggressively educating and engaging the
    City Council.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, and thank you all for your
    love of your children, obviously reflected in your advocacy
    here, your amazing testimony, Beth. I was moved by all the work
    that you are doing. Obviously, we think that you might be
    President some day. And, it is important that we still have
    kind of an academic look-back, because anyone can come up with
    a feel good story, but we need to have a broader perspective,
    and so I look forward to working with the D.C. School District.
        Mr. Chavous. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Remember, we are
    trying to concentrate on those areas of agreement. [Laughter.]
        There is a fair amount of agreement on this issue.
        Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Chairman, I did not raise statehood.
    [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. You just did. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Chavous, just real quick, in terms of numbers, I do not
    have the total amount that the District spends on its schools,
    but you do some calculations and it is looking like what the
    Federal Government is providing in this program is about a
    quarter. Is that close, or what is the breakdown----
        Mr. Chavous. I am not sure. I know that there is--over the
    last 10 years, you all have contributed in this program alone
    $239 million. I do not know the total number in terms of other
    contributions.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, the total amount by your testimony
    is $239 million for the public schools, $195 million for
    charters, $188 million for the scholarship program----
        Mr. Chavous. That is right. That is right.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. So that is $622 million in
    total.
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. And if you just take $28,000 times the
    85,000 students, that is close to about $2.4 billion. But, it
    is a pretty significant chunk that the Federal Government is
    contributing.
        I want to go to the demand side of this and how much demand
    is it and what kind of waiting lists, because I was surprised
    by Representative Norton's assertion that there just really is
    not that much demand for this.
        Looking at Milwaukee, we have 77,000 students enrolled in K
    through 12, and because it is a very robust choice program, 33
    percent of those--25,000 students enrolled in the program
    represents 33 percent of student enrollment. Of those eligible,
    it is 42 percent. That is a high level of demand.
        Here in the District, you have 85,000 students and you have
    1,400 enrolled. I cannot believe there is that big of
    difference in terms of the demand for those opportunities.
        Mr. Chavous. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Can you just kind of speak to that, what
    is limiting it?
        Mr. Chavous. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we know there is demand,
    but people do not know what they do not know. So, part of it is
    we have to do a better job of letting people know these
    opportunities exist. For the average parent out there, and Gary
    Jones knows this, they do not even make the distinction between
    public, private, and charter. It is just, as Cory Booker said,
    it is about good schools.
        We know when the program first started, where there was
    more aggressive marketing by the administrator, more
    information in public housing and community centers, the demand
    grew. But over the past several years when there have been
    challenges, as the GAO report alluded to, with the previous
    administrator, when there were challenges in terms of
    relationships with the Department of Education and how many
    scholarships can be let out, the enrollment period, making sure
    that the sign-up period was consistent with the sign-up period
    for charter schools, oftentimes, there was a truncated schedule
    in terms of----
        Chairman Johnson. We make it very difficult.
        Mr. Chavous. It made it very difficult.
        Chairman Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. But, we are confident that with our aggressive
    outreach to let people know that the demand is there and the
    proof is in the pudding, there is a demand of over 8,000 on the
    charter school list, and so we know that parents want more. We
    just have to make sure that they know that there is more out
    there that is available for them.
        Chairman Johnson. In the State of Wisconsin, when I was
    involved in the education system, I know we had an open
    enrollment period, where if you were going to public school,
    you can choose whichever public school you want to go to. You
    had an open enrollment period, but it was in the middle of
    February, and trust me, nobody knew about it. It was only a
    couple of weeks long, if I recall.
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Jones, can you speak to that.
        Mr. Jones. Well, I can say that our city leaders, they
    promote the charters more than they would the OSP private
    schools and parochial schools, and that is why a lot of parents
    do not know about it. Now, from my experience, because people
    have seen me at some of these rallies and have seen me speak, I
    have had people in my neighborhoods and communities walk up to
    me and they are asking me how to enroll their children in the
    OSP programs. When I re-enroll--every year, you have to re-
    enroll your children in the program--there are lines going
    literally around the block and down the street because people
    want better choices for their children.
        So, I do not understand why Ms. Norton is saying that there
    is not a high demand for it. I know that people in Southeast
    Washington, DC. are wanting to get their children into better
    schools. And, like I said, it seems like our city leaders are
    more focused on charters as opposed to the private school
    sector.
        Chairman Johnson. I was pretty moved by your discussion of
    how you have one child, one daughter, that has the voucher, the
    other one that was already in private school so she does not
    qualify. So, then--we sent our kids to the same school and it
    was enormously beneficial that you had siblings in the school
    helping each other out. I mean, I do not want to break out
    those families. What is the rationale if you qualify--if one of
    your children qualified for the Opportunity Scholarship but the
    other one does not? I mean, what is the rationale for that? I
    know Ms. Blaufuss talked about that disqualification. Can you
    speak to that? Any rationale for that?
        Mr. Jones. What was explained to me 2 years ago when I
    first signed my daughters up for it was that the older one
    would probably get the scholarship, but because the program was
    a 5-year program, they had to do the assessments, the younger
    one would have to wait until that 5-year period before she
    could become eligible to receive a scholarship, which to me it
    just did not make any sense. So, that is the only reason that
    was given to us, is that you have to wait until this program is
    done and it is up for reauthorization and we have to do the
    assessments and then she can qualify for it.
        Chairman Johnson. So, right now, you are working two jobs
    to make sure that your children are together in the same
    school----
        Mr. Jones. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. To have that benefit of that
    sibling support system.
        Mr. Jones. Yes. What it was, I had the choice to make. Last
    year, my youngest daughter, Tiffany, she could have stayed in
    DCPS while Sabirah was, like, a quarter of a mile away at St.
    Thomas More. But, I mean, logistically, trying to get both kids
    to school at the same--on time, it was just wearing on me and
    my wife. So, I just made the decision. I was, like forget it. I
    will just have to pay out of pocket and do what I have to do.
        It is not like I did not like their public school when they
    were there, but because of what is going on with the school
    system, they kept closing schools, they were consolidating
    schools. Our school did not get closed, but it got consolidated
    and the principal was promised by the chancellor all these
    resources to help accommodate this influx of students. Well, it
    did not happen. So, I was a parent advocate for DCPS and I am
    fighting for resources and books and things that was promised
    to us by the chancellor and that left me, like with an option.
    Do I keep my child in this organized chaos, what I call it, or
    do I move her and pay out of pocket for it?
        I felt bad, because my children have always been honor roll
    students, but in Tiffany's fourth grade year, they got new
    teachers, young teachers who were not used to teaching kids in
    the inner city. You have 39 students in one class with one
    teacher and no teacher's aide, and she started to struggle. And
    I just could not afford to let my baby stay in that situation.
    So, when fifth grade came around, I said, I am going to put you
    in St. Thomas More. I took a second job to pay the $6,000-plus
    tuition.
        And I am glad I did, because in the fifth grade, it was
    even worse. There was still an influx of students because of
    the consolidation, and instead of having two fifth grade
    teachers, one quit the second day. So, the school was
    scrambling around trying to find another educator for this
    class.
        And, Tiffany has continued to progress in St. Thomas More.
    One of the things I love about it is because they get that--how
    do I say that--their spiritual aspect to it, they give the
    academic access to it, they also, like, when they do struggle,
    it is not that they come in and they are flying high in every
    class. They give them tutoring after school. The class size is
    somewhere between 12 to 15. They get one-on-one instruction
    when they need it. So, I just had to do what I had to do to
    make sure that they have the best opportunity to go far,
    through college and in life.
        Chairman Johnson. Yes. Well, first of all, thank you for
    being a great parent.
        Real quick, Dr. Lubienski. We started this journey, this
    Committee, with a field hearing in Milwaukee at St. Marcus
    Lutheran School on July 20, and we had an expert kind of like
    yourself in terms of trying to study the outcomes, which is
    very difficult. I mean, it is just very difficult to measure
    all these things.
        But, I look at, as Ms. Blaufuss talked about, just choice
    is good. Kind of keep it simple. The fact that graduation rates
    elevate from 67 percent to 91 percent. And then how do you
    measure what Mr. Jones was just talking about, that nurturing,
    that safety, the moral teaching, the values teaching? How do
    you measure that?
        Mr. Lubienski. That is an excellent question, and parents
    are measuring that by making choices for the types of schools
    that match their preferences for those types of things.
        I would want to caution about the comparison of the
    graduation rates from the voucher program and the D.C. Public
    Schools in general, or Milwaukee Public Schools in general. You
    are looking at two different populations, and so social
    scientists can say there is a likelihood that many of those
    students would have graduated no matter which type of school
    they went to.
        But, if I could respond to the issue about choice and
    choice
    for disadvantaged students, I mean, that is an excellent
    question. I really appreciate what Linda had to say. If not for
    her parents--and that is something to consider. Not everybody
    has parents like that, certainly. Choice can be a good thing.
    As I said, I think there is a strong moral argument for that.
    But is it leading to better outcomes or access to better
    schools? And, the research is much more equivocal about that.
        Last year, there was a study out from the Organization for
    Economic Cooperation and Development using Program for
    International Student Assessment (PISA) data. Countries that
    have higher levels of competition in their schools, more
    choices, are doing no better in terms of academic achievement,
    and schools in those countries that are more competitive and
    are based on choice are doing no better than other schools in
    those countries. However, they did find out that there are
    greater levels of segregation associated with choice. So, I
    think that we have to be concerned about some of those
    unintended outcomes, as well.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Doctor. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
        I am a veteran, Vietnam veteran, came back from Southeast
    Asia, third tour, moved from California to Delaware, enrolled
    in an M.B.A. program and got $250 a month to go to school,
    grateful for every dollar of it. Today, veterans coming back
    from Afghanistan, if they served 3 years in our military, they
    can go to school--they can go to Rutgers free, tuition paid
    for, everything is paid. University of Delaware, University of
    Wisconsin, tuition paid for, books, fees, all that stuff, a
    $1,500 a month housing allowance, as well.
        You have a bunch of for-profit, and some of the for-profit
    colleges and universities in this country are very good, are
    very good. Some of them are not. They are diploma mills. They
    are preparing students for jobs that do not exist. They spend
    more money in recruiting students, a lot of them G.I.s, than
    they actually spend in training and preparing them for work.
        We have a rule under the Federal law. It is called the 90/
    10 rule. Basically, it says that no more than 90 percent of a--
    if you are a for-profit college and university's revenues can
    come from the Federal Government. There is a loophole that
    allows some of them to get up to 100 percent. And if you look
    at the number of schools that are not doing a good job--some
    are even shut down now around the country because they were not
    doing a very good job preparing folks for gainful employment. A
    lot of that can be traced right back to that situation.
        Here is my question. I am told we have some schools in this
    program whose revenues come from, I think 100 percent from
    vouchers from the Federal Government, 100 percent. The reason
    why we have the 90/10 rule is it says there have to be some
    market forces. These schools have to be good enough, these
    colleges and universities have to be good enough that somebody
    is going to spend their own money or work or whatever rather
    than just having the Federal taxpayer pay for it.
        Do you think that it is appropriate for the Federal
    Government really to fund 100 percent of the cost of these
    schools through Federal tuition? Go ahead, please. Beth.
        Ms. Blaufuss. I think that in looking at how one measures
    how the Federal dollars are used and the kinds of institutions
    that are taking them, I would ask us to keep our eye on the
    ball, which is student achievement and student educational
    attainment, rather than looking at the nature of the
    institutions where that is happening. I think the measure of a
    school should be the outcomes of the kids in it.
        So, I think my understanding is that some of the numbers
    that get thrown around, and Kevin may be able to share some of
    those numbers about the particular institutions, I am
    particularly wary of programs like, or amendments like the one
    that Delegate Norton proposed with putting what seems to me
    like an arbitrary cap on the number of OSP students at a
    school. It seems like the measure of a school is the students,
    not the nature of the institution.
        Having said that, all of the schools should be financially
    responsible and should have good financial oversight, which I
    think the regulator will make sure happens. So, I would just
    caution that the ultimate measure should be the kids.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chavous.
        Mr. Chavous. Delegate Norton talked about the voucher mills
    and a lot of these schools popped up right after this bill
    passed. That is not the case. It is my understanding there are
    only two schools that emerged, new schools, after this bill
    passed. I think the vast majority of the schools in the
    program, and we are working on the numbers now, would clearly
    fall within the 90/10 rule and probably even less. I think most
    of the schools--I do not know of any of the schools that are
    100 percent, but I will have to check on that. I just am not
    sure. But, I think that that is an overstated impression. We
    can get you the exact numbers of the percentage of the
    schools--the number of schools and the percentage of kids who
    are on scholarship and how that looks in terms of their overall
    population.
        But, I also think that as we have seen in--what I do not
    want, I do not want us to be precipitous about putting limits
    on the ability to recruit great schools to service the distinct
    populations that we need to have served. In Indiana, for
    instance, where they have a voucher program that is the fastest
    growing in the country, have 30,000 students and it is growing,
    it is now outpacing charter school growth, they are very
    aggressive in finding schools that can serve underprivileged
    children, that serve children with certain acute needs, so that
    they can bring them in and offer those services up.
        And, so, as Beth has said, they are not as focused on the
    percentages, but making sure that they are accredited, they are
    solid programs, and that they will help fill in the gap where
    there is a shortfall in that particular jurisdiction.
        Senator Carper. OK. Same question, very briefly, please.
    Mr. Jones, do you want to just very briefly----
        Mr. Jones. Yes. From my perspective as a parent, these pop-
    up schools that Ms. Norton is saying, again, I believe they are
    overstated. I know there had been a lot of pop-up charters, and
    again, this is from my own experience. There have been charters
    that are notorious for bringing in unaccredited teachers. They
    come in for one or 2 years. There is a lot of attrition going
    on with the teachers. And some of these schools have just been
    used as a prop to gain money for the individuals behind the
    schools, and that is a problem.
        I think that because they have so much autonomy, there is
    really not real genuine oversight to see what their academic
    achievement really is, whereas with schools that are in the OSP
    program, again, schools that I named earlier in my testimony,
    they have a long history of accountability and being accredited
    and being successful. It is the charter schools, really, that
    have been hurting, in my opinion, the D.C. Public Schools as
    well as the OSP program.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
        Linda, do you care to comment on this?
        Ms. Catalan. I am very biased about this, because speaking
    from the Field School, the Field School is a very wealthy
    school and the reason why my family, along with the scholarship
    that D.C. Opportunity gives me, I do not pay any of the tuition
    for Field, and I just personally have always wanted this to
    spread out throughout other public schools and charter schools,
    like it was mentioned before, of having--because I know that,
    definitely, there are schools that I visited, even, looking at
    the kids, looking at the parents, because, well, of course, the
    parents are the ones with the money and it is not evenly spread
    throughout the schools, and I think that is one of the most
    basic, important things that every school should need.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Dr. Lubienski, same question.
        Mr. Lubienski. Thank you. I do not have a position on where
    the cap should be or if there should be a cap. I can tell you
    that the figures that are often cited, for example, 82 percent
    of the parents are satisfied with their children's schools, are
    not very trustworthy because they are surveying parents who are
    currently in the schools and not the dissatisfied ones who have
    left. So, you have to take that into account.
        That said, recent research from Milwaukee, for example,
    shows that parent satisfaction levels are lower when there is a
    higher proportion of voucher students at a given school, and
    you can make of that what you want.
        Senator Carper. All right. Good. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, and again, I just want to say I
    am thrilled that we are potentially making impactful investment
    as a Congress within this program. Again, if you want to talk
    about student achievement, dealing with some of the issues of
    poverty, it would be nice that we could fund programs like
    prenatal care which as I see the Doctor shaking his head in
    affirmation, would ensure all the kids in D.C., in New Jersey,
    and cities across the country got access to prenatal care.
    Models such as nurse-family partnerships, which entail nurse's
    visiting homes in the last trimester and first 2 years of
    infancy, demonstrates incredible data in improving student
    achievement.
        I wish we could be funding many other effective programs.
    The unfortunate thing, however, is that our failure to support
    things that work means that our teachers in public schools,
    District schools, charter schools, all have to deal with
    challenges that they should not have to deal with, and that is
    unfortunate that we are straining the capacity of our schools
    and our police officers because we are failing as a society to
    support things that actually work.
        But in terms of this program, there are a number of changes
    that we have sought to include in a reauthorization. Within one
    year of the enactment of the law, schools must pursue
    accreditation. That seems to me fair. Kevin, is that fair?
        Mr. Chavous. Absolutely. And we have been working with
    Senator Feinstein on that.
        Senator Booker. OK. No, I appreciate that, and that, to me,
    is something that is really important.
        Schools shall have annual reporting, report to parents of
    D.C. OSP students and college acceptance, vocational--again,
    just requiring more reporting. In other words, I have seen what
    some of the District schools have to deal with in terms of
    accountability and reporting and accreditation. That should
    apply, to some degree, to the schools that are participating in
    the program, correct?
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Senator Booker. Kevin, thank you.
        And then the issue I brought up earlier, Kevin, if you can
    just comment on that for me, about the amount of the
    scholarship, because that seems to me something that is very
    frustrating to me, because we call this a choice program, but
    it does not seem like the kids with only $12,000, $12,500, get
    all that much choice. And there are a lot of schools that might
    be participating in the program if that was closer to what the
    per pupil expenditure was of about $28,400. And, one of the
    reasons, I think, one of the collateral consequences of a low
    rate means that those schools that bend over backward to allow
    those kids to come in end up with the very high percentages,
    where maybe you would not have such a high percentage
    concentrated in certain schools if more kids had more robust
    choices higher scholarship amounts would produce. Could you
    address that for me, Kevin?
        Mr. Chavous. Sure, and thank you so much for your support
    over the years and your friendship.
        Senator Booker. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. So, I will say that, look, we would like to
    see bigger and larger amounts. There was an increase when it
    was reauthorized several years ago which was very helpful. And
    if we had a larger appropriation, yes, we could bring more
    schools in the program.
        And I do want to, frankly, give a shout out and a thank you
    to those schools that have higher tuition rates, they still
    take kids and they scholarship the rest. I mean, I think those
    schools have shown a real commitment.
        So, we would like to see larger scholarship amounts. It
    would help us attract more of the high-end schools, and a
    number of those high-end schools, when they do bring in our
    students, they also bring a full investment of tutorial
    services, mentoring. It is like they really welcome those
    students into the family, and she has done an amazing job of
    that, so that there is no stigma attached to them coming in, as
    we have seen.
        Senator Booker. Right.
        Mr. Chavous. So, I think that would be----
        Senator Booker. No, I appreciate it, and I appreciate, Ms.
    Blaufuss, what you were saying, because it resonates with me,
    this idea that government funding large percentages of these
    schools, well, with regard to charters and District schools
    whose government fund the whole thing, and without that
    funding, those schools would not exist. So, the focus should be
    on our children, on parents, and on the performance,
    ultimately, of those schools, as I think Dr. Lubienski gets to,
    and that is really, for me, what I care about. The quality of
    the education received should predominate our discussion first
    and foremost empowering those schools to achieve.
        Again, we disempower public education every day in America
    by sending kids to school who are nutritionally unfit to learn,
    who do not have mental health issues addressed, and then you
    have teachers in public schools, District schools, and private
    schools who have to deal with all kind of things before they
    even get to reading, writing, and arithmetic. I just want to
    keep emphasizing that.
        But, I just want to, real quick, there has been criticism,
    and I think you have had some, for the evaluation of this
    program, and I think we should figure out a way to evaluate the
    program, to create as best as you can a control group. It is
    hard to do that, you would admit, in a program in which you
    would have to deny scholarships to some people in order to
    create that control group, correct?
        Mr. Lubienski. Yes. It is similar to medical trials, where
    there is a group of people that are in the experiment and a
    group that is not and they do not necessarily know which group
    there are in. Here, in this case, they do know if they are
    accepted to the voucher program or not.
        I would say that these effects, these types of programs in
    medical trials, when there is evidence that they are having a
    substantial impact, it is considered unethical to deny
    treatment to the control group.
        Senator Booker. Right.
        Mr. Lubienski. That is not the case here. We have not
    reached anywhere near that level of evidence. Most of the
    evidence suggests that there is not an impact.
        Senator Booker. But, would you agree with me that if the
    scholarship amount was more and kids could go to higher
    performing schools--schools with long track records of success
    that are not accepting our scholarship kids right now, that it
    is most likely that those kids would do better, right?
        Mr. Lubienski. The best predictor, or one of the best--as
    was said earlier, family--parents----
        Senator Booker. The parental----
        Mr. Lubienski [continuing]. Interest is very important, but
    so is the, again, the peer group or the social characteristics
    of the school that the child is learning in. That is an
    excellent predictor of it, regardless of whether it is a
    public, charter, or private school.
        Senator Booker. Right.
        Mr. Lubienski. So, yes. I think taking kids and giving them
    access to these types of schools would be beneficial. But,
    again, I would caution you to think about that is removing--I
    mean, you are clustering higher achieving, motivated peers in
    some places and that you are taking them from elsewhere. So,
    that is going to have, also, negative impacts.
        Senator Booker. But, that is not persuasive to me because
    we have created a society that allows segregation--New Jersey,
    for African-Americans, the fifth most segregated State in the
    Nation, and a lot of that is a family led battle. My parents
    were looking for quality public schools, so we had to get the
    Fair Housing Council, go through court proceedings just to
    battle into a neighborhood so I could go to the schools that I
    went to. And, so, that is not persuasive to me. In other words,
    we are going to punish those children who might have the
    wherewithal or parents when we do not do that for others. I am
    sorry. You can respond to that, if you want.
        Mr. Lubienski. I did not mean to say that we are punishing
    those children. I am saying we are, in fact, punishing children
    who are left behind whose parents do not care enough to make
    the choice. When they are concentrated in schools where all the
    affluent and more motivated peers have left, those are called
    sink schools oftentimes, and I have--those children are
    penalized.
        Senator Booker. Right, but that does not mean that policy
    within those schools--I have seen so-called sink schools in my
    own city that, because of changes within those public schools,
    do extraordinarily well. There are turnaround schools that make
    incredible gains. So, that is not an excuse to just give up on
    those children.
        Mr. Lubienski. I would not at all advocate we should give
    up on them. But, I would suggest that most of the turnaround
    cases we have seen, there tends to be a socioeconomic
    explanation for that. For example, people have pointed to some
    high-poverty schools that have actually succeeded and beat the
    odds. Closer inspection turns out that they are near a campus
    where many of the parents are graduate students. They are low-
    income at that point, but the parents are really focused on
    education. So, those are things that----
        Senator Booker. So, if Kevin's work was able to address the
    accreditation issues, which he is addressing, so we have more
    transparency into what is going on in those schools, if Kevin's
    work, thanks to increased scholarship amounts, helps kids get
    more diversity of schools where they could actually be in
    better schools, if Kevin's work on the accountability measures
    within those schools also helps to improve--really, it sounds
    to me that your biggest concern about this program, correct me
    if I am wrong, is just the fact that when you, like a charter
    school might and like a so-called voucher school might, taking
    one of those kids out hurts--your argument is it is hurting the
    District school, not because it is taking money away, because
    in this case it is not, it is new money, but you are saying it
    is hurting the school because of the peer effect. That would be
    your biggest argument against the program?
        Mr. Lubienski. I am not arguing against the program. I am
    saying that is something that policymakers need to consider,
    that there are often costs involved, and this is, again, from
    the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
    (OECD) report. They talk about benefits and costs being
    unevenly distributed. As more affluent parents leave these
    schools, that does have a negative implication for the peer
    effects for the schools and for the students who are left
    behind.
        Senator Booker. Right, and have you taken time to study
    what is happening in Newark at all?
        Mr. Lubienski. I am aware of Newark and I am aware of the
    CREDO studies, as well, and there are certainly success stories
    like Newark around there. There is a new book out about Newark
    which I have not had the chance to read yet. But, I have gone
    around the country. I talk with different policymakers, and
    they are quite happy to talk about, I am from this city and we
    are doing well in terms of charter schools.
        But, overall, the CREDO studies from earlier suggested
    about, I think it was 17 percent of the charter schools were
    performing above statistically--or demographically comparable
    public schools, and there are reasons to think that that number
    is actually inflated. Twice as many were actually performing at
    a level beneath demographically comparable public schools, and
    the rest were a wash. So, for every Newark, there is an Ohio or
    a Michigan where charter schools are pretty bad.
        Senator Booker. Right. And I guess my point, the last point
    I will make, because my time has expired, is that there are
    enough examples of what is working, and the goal here is to
    learn from that and constantly work to make things better for
    our public schools. And to me, that is what is happening in
    Washington, DC. They have made mistakes in the program in the
    past and they are working to try to continue to make it better.
        And, so, I am grateful for both sides of the aisle, Mr.
    Chairman, working to again deal with some of the mistakes that
    were made, control for some of the bad things, in my opinion,
    that might have happened in the past, really, and chart a
    course forward that works not just for the kids fortunate
    enough to get a scholarship, but really to focus on all three
    sectors within Washington, DC. and to see them improve.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Booker. We have just
    got a couple minutes left on the vote.
        I do ask unanimous consent that a written statement from
    Dr. Patrick Wolf, distinguished Professor of Education Policy
    at the University of Arkansas,\1\  and a written statement from
    the Government Accountability Office, be included in the
    record.\2\ Without objection, so ordered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Patrick Wolf appears in the
    Appendix on page 101.
        \2\ The prepared statement from the Government Accountability
    Office appears in the Appendix on page 82.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. We really do want to thank all of our
    witnesses. We obviously wish you all the best, but Linda, you
    are an extraordinary young woman. We wish you all the best. You
    are going to take advantage of this opportunity and we wish you
    well.
        With that, the hearing record will remain open for the next
    15 days, until November 19, 5 p.m., for the submission of
    statements and questions for the record.
        Again, thank you all for your time, for your thoughtful
    testimony, and your thoughtful answers to our questions.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]