[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]