[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HELPING STUDENTS SUCCEED THROUGH THE POWER OF SCHOOL CHOICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 2, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-827 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Duncan Hunter, California Virginia
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Jared Polis, Colorado
Luke Messer, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Northern Mariana Islands
David Brat, Virginia Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark Takano, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Donald Norcross, New Jersey
Francis Rooney, Florida Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Adriano Espaillat, New York
A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia
Brandon Renz, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
Duncan Hunter, California Jared Polis, Colorado
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Luke Messer, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
David Brat, Virginia Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Susan A. Davis, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 2, 2017................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education............. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Carter, Ms. Almo J., Parent.................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Kubacki, Mr. Kevin, Chief Executive Director, The
Neighborhood Charter Network............................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Cherry, Mrs. Nina, Parent.................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Williams, Mr. Michael L., Manager, Former Commissioner of
Education, Texas Education Agency.......................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional Submissions:
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
Article: Educational Investment That Works And Is
Affordable............................................. 98
Mr. Polis:
Letter dated March 30, 2001, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 104
Letter dated June 27, 2003, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 107
Letter dated July 1, 2003, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 110
Letter dated June 27, 2005, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 113
Letter dated August 22, 2007, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 116
Letter dated August 29, 2007, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 118
Chairman Rokita:
Estimated Charter Public School Enrollment, 2016-17...... 122
Letter dated November 7, 2012, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 127
Letter dated March 30, 2001, from the United States
Department of Education................................ 129
Slide: #SchoolChoice by the Numbers...................... 150
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia:
Letter February 1, 2017, from National PTA............... 31
Letter February 1, 2017, from National School Boards
Association (NSBA)..................................... 34
Letter February 1, 2017, from American Federation of
Teachers (AFT)......................................... 66
Letter February 1, 2017, from Texas Association of School
Boards (TASB).......................................... 68
Letter February 1, 2017, from National Education
Association (NEA)...................................... 70
Letter February 1, 2017, from National Coalition for
Public Education (NCPE)................................ 72
Questions submitted for the record....................... 152
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon to:
Mr. Kubacki.............................................. 155
Mr. Williams............................................. 157
Response to questions submitted:
Mrs. Cherry.............................................. 158
Mr. Kubacki.............................................. 160
Mr. Williams............................................. 162
HELPING STUDENTS SUCCEED THROUGH THE POWER OF SCHOOL CHOICE
----------
Thursday, February 2, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Roe, Messer, Brat,
Garrett, Polis, Grijalva, Fudge, Bonamici, and Davis.
Also Present: Representatives Foxx, Allen, Takano, Adams,
Scott, and Courtney.
Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Member
Services and Coalitions; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications
Director; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay,
Deputy Press Secretary; James Mullen, Director of Information
Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Brandon Renz,
Staff Director; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and
Senior Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Leslie Tatum,
Professional Staff Member; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Sheariah Yousefi, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli,
Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera,
Minority Press Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Deputy
Education Policy Director; Denise Forte, Minority Staff
Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Doug
Hodum, Minority Education Policy Fellow; Kimberly Knackstedt,
Minority Disability Policy Advisor; and Aneesh Sahni, Minority
Education Policy Fellow.
Chairman Rokita. Good morning. A quorum being present the
subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education will come to order. Welcome to the first hearing of
the subcommittee for the 115th Congress. I thank everyone for
their cooperation. We are starting a little bit late, only to
accommodate the prayer breakfast held today in our Nation's
Capital. I also want to extend a special welcome to our new
ranking member, my friend, Representative Jared Polis of
Colorado. I look forward to working together in the weeks and
months ahead. I suspect we will continue to have our
differences, but there is no doubt we share the same goal of
helping to ensure every child is prepared to succeed in life.
Congratulations and welcome.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. In recent years, this subcommittee has
helped advance positive legislative solutions for America's
students and families. At the center of those efforts has
always been the desire to make sure every child has the
opportunity to receive an excellent education. That is a mantra
we repeat often around here, and for good reason, it is a
critical goal, and it guides much of the work we do in this
subcommittee. And it is with that goal in mind that we enacted
legislation to put K-12 education back in the hands of those
who know best what students need, their parents, and State and
local leaders.
We also made significant progress advancing reforms to
improve career and technical education, child nutrition
assistance, and student privacy. Because there is still a lot
of work to do before we reach our shared goal, we will continue
working together to deliver the solutions our Nation's children
and families deserve and need. We are here today to discuss one
of those solutions: school choice.
Across the country, efforts are underway to empower parents
with more options when it comes to their children's education.
My home State of Indiana, for example, operates a scholarship
program to help children from low-income families, children in
failing schools, and children with special needs so, that they
receive the high-quality education necessary to succeed, both
in the classroom and in life. The State also provides tax
credits to individuals and employers who donate to nonprofit
organizations that award scholarships to these students. And as
I am sure our witness, Mr. Kubacki, will explain, Indiana's
charter school community has been helping students succeed for
years now.
Because these and similar efforts nationwide -- similar
efforts nationwide, charter schools are currently serving close
to 3 million students, and nearly 400,000 kids are benefiting
from a private school choice program, more than ever before, as
we can see from the chart above.
While these numbers will help illustrate the growing
popularity of school choice, they don't fully capture the hope
and opportunity school choice provides, in my opinion. At a
committee hearing last year, we heard from a truly inspiring
young woman named Denisha Merriweather. Explaining how school
choice changed her life, Denisha said, quote, ``The cycle of
poverty is ending in my family, thanks to the Florida tax
credit scholarship. So many opportunities have been given to
me, and I want to create the same for other children just like
me,'' end quote.
``The cycle of poverty is ending in my family.'' Those are
pretty powerful words, and Denisha's is a powerful story. Not
only did school choice provide her life-changing opportunities,
but those opportunities have inspired her to help change the
lives of others. Already, the first in her family to graduate
from high school and college, Denisha is now working to become
the first in her family to receive a graduate degree. She has
committed to using that degree to advocate for expanding
educational opportunities to other disadvantaged children and
families.
Denisha is just one of the countless individuals whose
lives have been changed because their families had a choice.
With a new Congress and new administration, we now have an
opportunity to extend the power of school choice to other
families as well. We will look for opportunities to advance
school choice and continue our work to improve traditional
public schools. But make no mistake, these two efforts do go
hand in hand. We will never turn our backs on the millions of
students who attend our Nation's public schools, but we also
want to ensure parents have the opportunity to choose the best
school for their children. And this won't be easy.
In fact, there is already opposition building against the
idea of empowering parents with more choices. In many ways,
this explains the smear campaign against Betsy DeVos, the
President's nominee to serve as Secretary of Education. She has
shown her commitment to all children through her words, and
more importantly, through her actions. Mrs. DeVos has dedicated
her life to helping some of our Nation's most disadvantaged
students. Because she stands firmly for parental choice, she is
being attacked, maligned across the country.
No one on this committee would ever leave their children
trapped in a failing school. I challenge anyone on this
committee to say they would. Yet, some would deny other parents
their very right to do what is best for their children. If we
are serious about improving K-12 education, we have to demand
better. The Every Student Succeeds Act is the perfect example
of what we can accomplish together when we put the interests of
students above politics -- when we focus on policies, not press
releases. I remain optimistic that this Congress, we will
choose students and advance policies to ensure every child
receives an excellent education.
With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Polis.
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education for the 115th
Congress. Allow me to extend a special welcome to our new ranking
member, Representative Jared Polis. I look forward to working together
in the weeks and months ahead. I suspect we will continue to have our
differences, but there's no doubt we share the same goal of helping to
ensure every child is prepared to succeed in life. Congratulations and
welcome, Ranking Member Polis.
In recent years, this subcommittee has helped advance positive,
legislative solutions for America's students and families. At the
center of those efforts has always been the desire to make sure every
child has the opportunity to receive an excellent education. That's a
mantra we repeat often around here, and for good reason. It's a
critical goal, and it guides much of the work we do on this
subcommittee.
It is with that goal in mind that we enacted legislation to put K-
12 education back in the hands of those who know best what students
need--parents and state and local leaders. We also made significant
progress advancing reforms to improve career and technical education,
child nutrition assistance, and student privacy. Because there is still
a lot of work to do before we reach our shared goal, we will continue
working together to deliver the solutions our nation's children and
families deserve. We're here today to discuss one of those solutions:
school choice.
Across the country, efforts are underway to empower parents with
more options when it comes to their children's education. My home state
of Indiana, for example, operates a scholarship program to help
children from low-income families, children in failing schools, or
children with special needs receive the high-quality education
necessary to succeed both in the classroom and in life. The state also
provides tax credits to individuals and employers who donate to
nonprofit organizations that award scholarships to students. And as I'm
sure our witness Mr. Kubacki will explain, Indiana's charter school
community has been helping students succeed for years.
Because of these and similar efforts nationwide, charter schools
are currently serving close to 3 million students, and nearly 400,000
kids are benefitting from a private school choice program - more than
ever before. While these numbers help illustrate the growing popularity
of school choice, they don't fully capture the hope and opportunity
school choice provides.
At a committee hearing last year, we heard from a truly inspiring
young woman named Denisha Merriweather. Explaining how school choice
changed her life, Denisha said:
``The cycle of poverty is ending in my family, thanks to the
Florida Tax Credit Scholarship. many opportunities have been given to
me, and I want to create the same for other children just like me.''
The cycle of poverty is ending in my family. Those are powerful
words, and Denisha's is a powerful story. Not only did school choice
provide her life-changing opportunities, but those opportunities have
inspired her to help change the lives of others. Already the first in
her family to graduate from high school and college, Denisha is now
working to become the first in her family to receive a graduate degree.
She is committed to using that degree to advocate for expanding
educational opportunities to other disadvantaged children and families.
Denisha is just one of countless individuals whose lives have been
changed because their families had a choice. With a new Congress and a
new administration, we now have an opportunity to extend the power of
school choice to other families as well. We will look for opportunities
to advance school choice and continue our work to improve traditional
public schools.
Make no mistake: These two efforts go hand in hand. We will never
turn our backs on the millions of students who attend our nation's
public schools, but we also want to ensure parents have the opportunity
to choose the best school for their children.
It won't be easy. In fact, there is already opposition building
against the idea of empowering parents with more choices. In many ways,
this explains the smear campaign against Betsy DeVos, the president's
nominee to serve as Secretary of Education. She has shown her
commitment to all children through her words, and more importantly,
through her actions. Mrs. DeVos has dedicated her life to helping some
of our nation's most disadvantaged students. Because she stands firmly
for parental choice, she is being attacked and maligned across the
country.
No one on this committee would ever leave their child trapped in a
failing school. No one. Yet, some would deny other parents the right to
do what's best for their children. If we are serious about improving K-
12 education, we have to demand better. The Every Student Succeeds Act
is the perfect example of what we can accomplish when we put the
interests of students above politics. When we focus on policies--not
press releases. I remain optimistic that this Congress will choose
students and advance policies to ensure every child receives an
excellent education.
With that, I will now recognize the ranking member, Congressman
Polis, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Polis. I want to thank Chairman Rokita. And in
particular, I wanted to thank him for delaying the opening of
this committee as we have members, including myself, returning
from the prayer breakfast. I know there will be many others
joining us that are still on their way back.
I applaud the topic of today's hearing. I am certainly a
strong supporter of high quality public school choice. Choice
is something that is a fundamental American value in a consumer
society: we want to choose our clothes; we want to choose our
food; we want to choose our schools to reflect our values and
what we value. And before coming to Congress, I have experience
in this sector, having founded two public charter schools, one
for recent immigrants and English language learners, and
another to meet the unique learning needs of homeless and at-
risk youth in transitional housing.
Both of those schools, New America School and Academy of
Urban Learning, meet the unique needs and challenges of
students meeting them where they are, and provide a chance for
them to be able to break the challenges they face, and defy
expectations, and succeed and live the American Dream.
I am proud of Colorado. I feel Colorado is an example of
public school choice laws that work and how educational
opportunities can be a tool for advancing equity and quality in
our public education system. An example is Denver public
schools, which was named the best large school district for
choice in the country by Brookings Institution in 2015. The way
Denver works really helps empower parents through a transparent
and non-discriminatory enrollment process, meaningful
partnerships between charter schools, innovation schools,
district schools and strong community support.
We have, among the different types of schools that serve
children in this country, district-run public schools, public
charter schools and independent schools. Of course, there is no
single recipe for success. I can point to schools in any of
those categories, public charter schools, district schools,
independent schools, that I would do anything to avoid having
my child of 5 attend, and I can point to schools in any of
those categories, independent, district-run, and charter that I
would be proud to send my child to.
So clearly there is no silver bullet. We wish there were,
that simply by having every school run by a district or having
every school run as a charter, or having every school run
independently will somehow make every school excellent. It
doesn't work that way. There are different models, there are
different advantages and disadvantages to both.
The shortcoming with many of the school choice proposals
that are being advanced currently are that they allow
independent schools to maintain selective admission
requirements. It requires students with disabilities to sign
away their rights under the Individual with Disabilities Act,
or IDEA, and withhold information from parents regarding
student performance.
For a market to work, it really relies on two things: under
the laws of economics, it relies on perfect information, or as
perfect information as you can have, a/k/a transparency,
accountability, and it relies on rational choice. I think
everybody would agree that we highly value that parents are
always trying to make the best choices for their child. I don't
think we doubt that. Where some of the choice proposals are
problematic is they don't afford parents in communities the
type of relevant information they need in terms of transparency
into what is and isn't occurring, particularly on the
independent school side. But that is a criticism that frankly,
in some areas, has also been valid on the charter school side.
I would add, in some areas, it is valid on the district side as
well. Parents should be entitled to more information about how
schools are doing.
We have examples of programs that work and don't work. In
Ohio, which has been noted for having a weak authorizing law
for charter schools, there have been a number of instances of
schools that have falsified attendance records. In Louisiana,
low-quality curriculum and voucher-participating schools have
produced bad results for students. In Wisconsin, there has been
double-dipping in general education funds that have supported
students that were already enrolled in private schools.
So I hope that today's hearing makes clear to the American
people that everybody supports and values choice. It's a
question around what the parameters of choice are, and what
that market, which needs to be designed to benefit students and
families first, needs to look like.
In this 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the
Supreme Court affirmed that education is necessary for personal
and economic success; saying that ``State-funded education is a
right that must be made available to all on equal terms.'' If
we are truly committed to fulfilling the promise of Brown v.
Board of Education for all of our children, regardless of not
only race, but income, and ZIP Code, and language status and
disability, we need to invest in making sure that schools serve
all kids successfully.
I join Chairman Rokita in commending this committee and
this Congress in rewriting the Every Student Succeeds Act,
ESSA. We look forward to engaging in the oversight of that work
through this committee. I have seen, of course, Republicans and
Democrats on this committee join with regard to expressing
concern for civil rights. But unfortunately, many of us on my
side of the aisle, myself included, fear that the Republican
school choice proposals are a back door for undermining the
civil rights protections that we wrote into ESSA, including
those for students with learning disabilities.
Under IDEA, students with disabilities are guaranteed a
free and appropriate education. But the private school
education programs that exist, where students are sent to
independent schools, have no obligation to ESSA, and parents'
surveys show that too many private schools require parents to
fully or partially sign away their rights under IDEA. I would
point that out in contrast to private placement that occurs
through school districts with private providers where parents
maintain those rights under IDEA.
What we need are school choice programs that empower
parents and students with transparency and the information they
need and quality choices. Many of the Republican school choice
proposals that have been presented before us offer false
choices that could only exacerbate educational inequities by
requiring that parents sign away their rights, stripping
parents of their voice and undermining important civil rights
for students.
I wanted to address one final concern I have with school
choice programs. As co-chair of the congressional lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender equality caucus, I have concerns
about the rights of our gay and lesbian students in voucher
programs. A 2013 study found that at least 115 private schools
that participate in Georgia's voucher program have or promote
anti-gay or anti-lesbian admission, scholarship, and discipline
policies. Some voucher participating schools in Georgia, and I
suspect throughout the Nation, have policies stating that a
student can be expelled for identifying as gay or lesbian.
Now our Nation was built on the principle of equality for
all Americans, regardless of what people think of the way
people choose to live their lives in our free society. Public
schools, and that includes schools that are publicly funded,
and if independent schools are going to be publicly funded,
they would have to play by these rules, cannot discriminate and
have to be a safe, welcoming, learning environment for all
students, regardless of those kind of individual issues in
their own lives, so their faith, or lack thereof, or their
sexual orientation.
Our Nation was built on the principle of equality for all
Americans. And it is essential that we empower communities
rather than promote policies that treat various Americans as
second class citizens.
I look forward to today's hearing from today's witnesses
about how we can strengthen our public education system, rather
than dismantle it. I thank you and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you, Chairman Rokita, for hosting this morning's hearing on
such an important topic. It's no secret that I'm a strong supporter of
high-quality public school choice. Before coming to Congress, I founded
two public charter schools. One school provides education for recent
immigrants and English Language Learners, and another serves homeless
and at-risk youth. Both of these schools are meeting the unique needs
and challenges of its students, and providing a chance at the great
public education that they deserve.
Colorado is an example of how public school choice can be done
well, and how it can be a valuable tool for advancing equity in our
public school system. That's the school choice I know and the school
choice I believe in. A great example is Denver Public Schools, which
was named the best large school district for choice in the country by
the Brookings Institution in 2015. Denver truly empowers parents
through a transparent and non-discriminatory enrollment process,
meaningful partnerships between charter and district schools, and
strong community support.
Unfortunately, not all public school choice is made equal. In a
number of states, weak charter school laws undermine accountability and
transparency, and for-profit corporations running charter schools put
profits before students.
Republican school choice proposals allow private schools to
maintain selective admission requirements, require students with
disabilities to sign away their rights under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and withhold information from
parents regarding their student's performance.
There are numerous examples of the failures of this type of system.
In Michigan, 79 percent of charter schools are run by for-profit
corporations, and they have some of the worst schools in the nation. In
Ohio, a school falsified attendance records to receive additional
taxpayer funding. In Louisiana, low-quality curriculum in voucher-
participating schools has produced dismal results for students. In
Wisconsin, general education funds have been drained - largely to
support students already enrolled in private schools. In Georgia, data
shows that it is actually upper income families who benefit from the
state's voucher program, meaning taxpayers are actually subsidizing
private education for the wealthy.
I hope that today's hearing makes clear to the American people that
Republican school choice is not the type of choice that will achieve
equity of educational opportunity for all children. In its 1954 ruling
in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court affirmed that
education is necessary for personal and economic success, stating that
state-funded education is a right that must be made available to all on
equal terms. If we are truly committed to fulfilling the promise of
Brown for all of our children regardless of zip code, income, race,
language status, or disability, we should invest in our public
education system instead of siphoning public dollars away from public
schools for unaccountable private schools.
Just last year, this Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to
write the Every Student Succeeds Act. Under ESSA, public schools are
required to transparently report the performance of vulnerable students
and address issues when schools are not appropriately serving these
students. I've seen firsthand Republicans' on this committee's concern
for civil rights. But unfortunately, Republican school choice is a
backdoor to undermining those civil rights protections we wrote into
ESSA. Under IDEA, students with disabilities are guaranteed a free and
appropriate education. But private school voucher programs have no
obligation to ESSA, and parent surveys show that too many private
schools require parents to fully or partially sign away their rights
under IDEA. I deeply believe that all students with disabilities
deserve the protections and supports to provide them with an equal
opportunity at a high-quality education as any other student.
Finally, as co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, I
have deep concerns about the rights of our LGBT students in voucher
programs. A 2013 study found that at least 115 private schools
participating in Georgia's voucher program have or promote anti-LGBT
admission, scholarship, and discipline policies. Some voucher
participating schools in Georgia, and I suspect throughout the nation,
have policies stating that a student can be expelled for identifying as
LGBT or coming out as LGBT. Our nation was built on the principle of
equality for all Americans--including racial minorities, individuals
with disabilities, and the LGBT community. It is essential that we
further empower these communities rather than promote policies that
treat them as second-class citizens.
Republican school choice does not empower parents or students; it
is a false choice that only further exacerbates educational inequities,
strips parents of their voice, and undermines important civil rights
protections for parents and students.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about how
meaningful choice that supports parents and students can be used to
strengthen our system of public education, not dismantle it. Thank you,
and I yield back.
______
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee Rule 7(c), all members will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements
and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to
be submitted for the official hearing record.
I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished
witnesses. First we have Mr. Michael Williams. He is a former
education commissioner with the Texas Education Agency. Prior
to this position, Mr. Williams served as the assistant
Secretary of Education for Civil Rights with the U.S.
Department of Education under President George H.W. Bush.
Currently, Mr. Williams serves as the distinguished leader in
residence at the University of North Texas at Dallas. Welcome,
sir.
Ms. Almo Carter, a mother living and working in Washington,
D.C. Mrs. Carter's son, who has Fragile X Syndrome, attends a
D.C. public school and receives services through the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Ms. Carter
served as the former chair of the interagency coordinating
council, which is an advisory panel required under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Welcome, Ms.
Carter.
Mr. Kevin Kubacki, serves as executive director of the
Neighborhood Charter Network, a grassroots organization that
manages two public charter schools in Indianapolis, in the
great State of Indiana. Enlace Academy and the Kindezi Academy.
Prior to this position, Mr. Kubacki served as a school leader
with Enlace Academy and as a teacher, coordinator, and coach
with the Indianapolis-based schools, Cathedral High School and
St. Matthews School. Welcome, sir, I appreciate your
leadership.
And finally, Mrs. Nina Cherry is the mother of four
children who attend Tampa Bay Christian Academy in Tampa,
Florida. Prior to attending Tampa Bay Christian Academy, the
Cherry children attended an A-rated public school in Pasco
County but had to relocate. In order to provide the best
education for their children, Mr. and Mrs. Cherry enrolled them
in Tampa Bay Christian Academy with assistance from the Florida
tax credit scholarship that I mentioned during my opening
remarks. As a result of the excellent education received at
Tampa Bay Christian Academy, all four of the Cherry children
are on the honor roll and excelling. Welcome, ma'am.
I will now ask the witnesses to raise your right-hand.
Seeing their hands raised, do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Chairman Rokita. Please let the record reflect that all
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. It is pretty self-
explanatory. And I outline it only in addition for you as a
reminder to those of us up here. When you begin, the light in
front of you will be green; when 1 minute is left, it will be
yellow; and when time has expired, the light will, of course,
turn red, at which time you should have wrapped up your
remarks. I will hold the members to that same standard, 5
minutes each for their questions.
And we will start with you, Mr. Williams. You are
recognized now for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF
EDUCATION, TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
Mr. Williams. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
Polis, and I see Chairwoman Foxx and members of the committee
on Education and the Workforce. Thank you for the opportunity
to visit with you today. I am Michael Williams, a lifetime
proponent, beneficiary and servant of America's public schools.
I am the proud son of two public school teachers. My mother
retired after 40 years, and worked as a high school counselor.
My father was a math teacher and football and track coach, and
retired after 43 years with the honor of being inducted into
the Texas High School Coaches Hall of Fame.
I graduated from public schools in Midland, Texas. I'm here
to tell you something that has become clear to me during my
years of work in education. School choice, including private
school choice, is not a threat to strong public schools.
Parents are a child's first and most important educators, they
are also a child's best advocates. Allowing parents to choose
the best education options to meet their child's unique needs
is good for our education system, and our schools. But most
important, it is good for our children. That is why the
education system ought to empower parents to make education
choices based on what they know their children need to be
successful.
My home State of Texas has the second largest K-12 student
enrollment with over 4.29 million students, and has experienced
an increase of 1.2 million students over the past 15 years. On
most majors, graduation rates, NAEP scores, SAT, ACT scores, AP
participation and scores, Texas student performance is on the
rise, especially when you compare subpopulations from State to
State.
However, deficient student outcomes persist and the
academic achievement gap remains extremely stark. Only 49
percent of all white students performed at proficient or above
on the NAEP 2013 8th grade reading. Academic outcomes are more
dismal for Hispanic and black students, only 20 and 17 percent
of whom performed at proficient or above. Texas desperately
needs high quality seats for these students. And private school
choice could help serve them without significantly impacting
public school enrollment.
Despite what you may have heard, private school choice is
not at the expense of public school students. In fact, 31 of 33
empirical studies found that choice improved the performance of
neighboring traditional public schools. The reality is that
choice encourages public schools to be more responsive to
students' needs and parent's preferences.
In my work, I have come to understand how truly unique each
State's educational landscape is. As commissioner, I work with
local school districts to create solutions that fit them best.
It became apparent how distant some Federal education policies
were from the children served. It is important to strike the
right balance between accountability for public dollars and the
autonomy essential for private schooling, and that is best
accomplished at the State level. Based on my experience as
Texas education commissioner, our State's accountability system
-- and I would dare say that of other States, would not
appropriately fit private school enrolling choice program
participants.
Having been responsible for ensuring equal access to
education, and the enforcement of civil rights throughout this
Nation, I am deeply committed to guaranteeing that all students
are treated with respect and dignity, and are free from
discrimination in their learning environment.
Currently, public students with special needs who are
eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, have rights to a free and appropriate public
education, and individual services among others. The special
needs community has fought extremely hard over the decades to
guarantee these rights. An American education has certainly
come a long way. Some choice programs are targeted at providing
students with disabilities, access to high quality educational
options. When parents of IDEA-eligible students choose to place
their child in a private school with the help of a State-funded
choice program, do IDEA rights follow that child?
If an IDEA-eligible student's parents have chosen to place
their child in a private school with a choice scholarship, that
child is considered a parentally-placed private school student.
That student has the same IDEA rights as all other parentally-
placed private school students. This is a path parents can
choose independent from the school district if a private
school's education program better fits the needs of that IDEA-
eligible child.
So in conclusion, this is not about private versus public.
It is not about -- this is about empowering parents with the
ability to choose among high quality, diverse opportunities to
fit the unique needs of their children. The vast majority of
parents will choose their local public school. Private school
choice provides additional high quality options for parents.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Ms. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ALMO J. CARTER, PARENT
Ms. Carter. Thank you. Good morning also, Chairman Rokita,
Ranking Member Polis, and Chairwoman Foxx. On behalf of my son,
Jacob, I am very pleased to be able to speak here, have this
opportunity for not only Jacob, but all children with
disabilities. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on the
issue of school choice and equitable access to quality
education.
My name is Almo Carter, and almost 9 years ago, I brought
home from the hospital a baby boy, who I adopted as a single
parent. Jacob grew in my heart those 38 weeks before he was
born in 2008. And I am thrilled to nurture, raise up, and love
him.
With my impending return to work fast approaching, I
selected a wonderful child care center. Immediately following
placement, I noticed that infants as young as 4 months were
meeting developmental milestones that Jacob, who was 7 months
at the time, was barely approaching. Over the next 15 months, a
series of doctor visits revealed Jacob's underlying diagnosis
of Fragile X Syndrome, followed by pervasive developmental
disorder, not otherwise specified.
During this time, we were introduced to the Strong Start
D.C. Early Intervention Program. I will stop at nothing to
ensure that Jacob realizes his full potential, and develops
into a productive and positively contributing member of
society. Not every parent has this time, nor the ability and
wherewithal to do so.
Shortly after we discovered Jacob's disabilities, I placed
him at Easter Seals, where Jacob could interact with typically
developing peers and receive therapeutic services in accordance
with IDEA. Before Jacob turned 3 years old, we started the
transition process through early stages. Filled with optimism
and encouraged by Jacob's prognosis, I wanted to make sure that
he had -- that I knew what those educational opportunities were
for him in our community.
I started with our neighborhood public school, and although
it had an autism classroom, it was not a placement with which I
felt comfortable. I also decided to consider some of the high
performing charter schools, and explore their programming for
students with disabilities. After attending several charter
school open houses, I was not convinced that my school choice
options understood and were equipped to appropriately educate
Jacob. I ended up applying to a few charter schools through the
lottery process, but we were unsuccessful in securing a slot.
With the help of his multidisciplinary team, I placed Jacob
in the D.C. public schools' Flagship Autism Program, and he
started public school at age 4. After staffing challenges at
the school, and changes in Jacob's education requirements as he
expanded his capacity to learn, we made an immediate change
through his IEP to a general education classroom where it was
required he receive specialized instruction, both inside and
outside the general education setting.
All schools, whether public, charter, vouchers or virtual,
must, in my opinion, comply with the same comprehensive
accountability standards and safeguards in order to be
equitable. However, right now, only public schools and public
charter schools are held to these accountability standards and
safeguards. When evaluating public school choices, it is
imperative for families to understand the safeguards and
protections of IDEA and they are given consistent information
with which to compare and analyze. Each public school choice
option should be transparent in communication and held
accountable for their responsibility to educate children. A
school's number one goal should be the appropriate, effective,
and successful education of all students, including those with
disabilities.
When a violation of IDEA occurs, parents have recourse
under IDEA to activate their due process rights. In my
experience, private school choice programs do not provide
protections and parental rights akin to those that a public
school system has. In most situations, parents of students with
disabilities are stripped of their rights when they enter a
private school with a voucher, if the private school even
accepts the student with a disability in the first place.
Candidly, I perceive the risk of private school choice
options to be too great and not worth the possibility of
foreclosing Jacob's equitable access to an appropriate quality
education. For Jacob -- as a mother, I will continue to
advocate on behalf of my son and other students with
disabilities to help ensure that they are all afforded
equitable access to a quality education.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Carter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thanks, Ms. Carter.
Mr. Kubacki, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN KUBACKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARTER NETWORK
Mr. Kubacki. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Kevin Kubacki, and I am
the executive director of the Neighborhood Charter Network in
Indianapolis. Thank you for inviting me to discuss how our
schools, Enlace Academy and Kindezi Academy, illustrate that
school choice can transform the lives of children.
I began this work as a charter school leader because I am,
first and foremost, a father. I know what it is like to hold
the hand of each one of my three children on the walk on the
first day of kindergarten. And I remember vividly hoping that
the school would see my children the way I see them. That the
school would recognize their individual strengths and truly
make them the best versions of themselves. It takes incredible
trust for a parent to hand over their most precious creation to
a school. And I believe that schools must honor that trust. As
a father, I refuse to accept that other parents might not feel
the same trust in their own school. With a dedicated talented
and diverse board, and equally diverse and talented staff, we
launched Enlace Academy in 2013 to give those parents another
choice.
Enlace is the founding elementary school for the
Neighborhood Charter Network's growing family of public charter
schools in Indianapolis that believes that every child can and
will learn. The schools located on Indianapolis' west side
serving families living in the international marketplace
neighborhood were predominantly English language learners.
In order to address the specific needs of each and every
one of our students, we use a personalized, blended learning
approach paired with intentional character development that is
rooted in core values: lead with love, embrace uniqueness,
foster character and ignite imagination, so our children can
become leaders who choose their own futures in high school,
college, and beyond.
Enlace Academy is a grassroots charter school whose name
``Enlace'' derives from the Spanish word for ``link'' or
``connection,'' because the school seeks to be the hub of
community for her families in creating meaningful connections
with community partners, so that our whole families can be
healthy and happy. Enlace currently has 365 students, 93
percent of whom are living in poverty. Nearly two-thirds of our
students are English language learners, the highest percentage
of any school in the State of Indiana.
As a result of our high levels of family engagement and
commitment, we have created a stable learning environment for
our students with a 90 percent retention rate, and 96 percent
attendance rate. Additionally, on the State assessment, our
gross score of 115 points far exceeded the State average and
earned us an A rating, which only 24 percent of the schools in
Indiana received. We have done all of this without having to
expel students. We truly believe all children can and will
learn.
We are proud of the amazing work our dedicated staff and
students who are committed to achieving excellence each and
every day. We also believe that our high student achievement
results from rigorous systems of accountability. As a public
school, we are held accountable to the State requirements for
all schools. As a charter school, we are additionally held
accountable to our authorizer for high academic achievement,
strong financial health, and ethical governance practices. Most
importantly, though, we are held accountable to the families we
serve, because ultimately, if we don't honor the trust they
place in us, they can choose another school that better meets
their needs.
We are excited to be serving families in Indianapolis right
now because of the strong school choice legislation that
exists, paired with the collective responsibility for the
children that is felt by charter schools in Indianapolis public
schools, our partner district. Enlace Academy is one of the
first charter schools to partner with IPS as an innovation
network school. In this symbiotic partnership, we are able to
access the economies of scale of the district, and utilize the
district facility, and in exchange, we have the autonomy to
educate kids in our innovative school model whose State
assessment scores are counted for the district.
Furthermore, after seeing success in Enlace Academy, the
district extended the partnership by allowing us to implement
our successful practices in restarting one of their most
academically challenged schools. We launched this in August as
our second school, Kindezi Academy. The name Kindezi originates
as an African philosophy that preaches taking collective
ownership of the education of the children, an apt name given
the collaborative educational narrative in Indianapolis today.
While we did receive the charter school's program grant
funding when launching Enlace Academy, that option was not
available in Indiana when we launched Kindezi. And it is only
through the strong partnership we share with IPS that our
school's open and profoundly changing lives today.
I am so proud to be managing schools that provide parents
with options that can meet the unique needs of their children,
and ensure they reach their potential. Parents, not ZIP Codes,
get to decide what school meets the specific needs of their
children. Charter schools provide parents with options for
their child to access a high-quality education.
The charter community now numbers more than 3 million
students, and continues to grow as more parents see the power
of school choice. I believe offering parents broad school
choice helps all students to compete and serve and attract
students to their schools.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this
morning and look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Kubacki follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Cherry, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF NINA CHERRY, PARENT
Mrs. Cherry. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
Polis, and Chairwoman Foxx, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is an honor to be here to share my family's
school choice story with you. My name is Nina Cherry. I live
with my husband, Demetrius, and our four children in Tampa,
Florida. School choice provided my family with the hope and
stability my children badly needed. And from the school choice
community, we were welcomed into, I know my family's story is
not all that unique. For parents, it is not about public school
versus private schools. We are just looking for schools that
meet our children's needs.
My children were thriving in a wonderful A-rated Pasco
County public school. When my husband's sales commission
plummeted, we lost our permanent home. Without our home, our
children were no longer zoned for the public school where they
learned and thrived. It was an extremely difficult time for us.
We spent several months couch-surfing as a family of six,
staying with friends and family until my husband can find a new
job. As we bounced from school zone to school zone, I decided
that I didn't want my children's education to suffer because of
our family's economic struggles.
I heard about Florida's tax credit scholarship program from
a friend, and I immediately applied. I was so relieved and
beyond thrilled when my children were granted the scholarship.
I began looking into some of Florida's 1,700 private schools
that enroll tax credit scholarship students. When I toured
Tampa Bay Christian Academy, I knew everything was going to be
okay. The scholarship provided by Florida's program enables us
to send all four of our children to Tampa Bay Christian
Academy. During that dark time, I was so grateful that
Demetrius and I could concentrate on getting back on our feet,
knowing that we found a school that meets our children's needs,
educationally.
Florida's tax credit scholarship program was a lifeline for
our family, and I am so thankful we live in a State that
provides school choice. Our entire family has felt welcome by
the school choice community and our school. Tampa Bay Christian
provides the family environment I wanted for my children,
especially during this hard time.
Since my children enrolled in Tampa Bay Christian Academy,
I have joined the school staff as the administrative assistant.
I also serve as a senior class adviser and mentor older girls
at the school. With my employee discount, we pay some tuition
for each child, but the scholarship makes educating our
children in the environment that works best for them possible.
But the scholarship makes educating our children and the
environment that works best for my children's needs. Our
children are thriving at Tampa Bay Christian, and all four of
them are on honor roll. Some people who don't really understand
school choice programs claim they don't have enough
accountability.
For my children's education the primary accountability
rests with Demetrius and me. If we don't feel that the school
is serving our kids well, we are empowered to communicate our
concerns to the school. If we decide another school would meet
our children needs better, we can move them to that school.
In Florida, the tax credit scholarship follows a child,
even if the child transfers during the school year. One of the
reasons we chose Tampa Bay Christian Academy is because it
holds my kids to a high expectation, and there is a culture of
high achievement. Also, Florida tax credit scholarship students
have to take an annual test. At Tampa Bay Christian Academy, my
children are assessed annually in math and reading. And the
teachers can use the test results to help my kids learn more
throughout the year.
I know my school choice story is not unique. There are over
97,000 students using Florida's tax credit scholarships this
school year. There are over 400,000 students nationwide
benefiting from private school choice programs, plus millions
of students benefiting from charter schools, magnet programs,
and open enrollment.
I am very supportive of providing a wide range of options
for families. Children vary in so many ways. Family situations
change, and students' academic and emotional needs can change
as well. School choice programs, like the Florida tax credit
scholarship program, allow parents to find the environment
where the children will learn best.
Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you once again for
holding this hearing and communicating to families across the
country that you are committed to expanding their educational
opportunities. I hope that sharing my story here will help make
an impact on other families.
[The statement of Mrs. Cherry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. Cherry.
We will now entertain member questionings. In the interest
of accommodating as many members as possible in their
schedules, I am going to go last in my questioning.
With that, I will recognize the chairwoman of the full
committee, Dr. Foxx, for 5 minutes.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, and I want to
thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I noted such
good time management on your part, too.
Mr. Williams, not everyone knows this, but my first
experience in public office was on my local school board, and I
went to public schools. I served for 12 years on the local
school board. It is always frustrating to me that advocates for
public education see parental choice across the full range of
available educational options as such a threat. It seems to me
that those of us who support greater educational choice need to
do a better job of explaining our support. We do not oppose
public education. Your experience makes it clear you do not
oppose public education. So how can proponents of school choice
make it clear that support for giving parents more options to
find the right school for their children does not arise from
opposition to public education?
Mr. Williams. Madam Chairwoman, I think what we have to do
fundamentally is to have a conversation with the American
people about the value of learning and that parents are
entitled to make a decision that they believe is in the best
interest of their children. Children have different interests,
children have different learning styles. Some parents may want
a youngster to be imbued with a certain kind of, perhaps, a
religious experience during their learning. And what you are
trying to do is match the student with the proper learning
environment to be able to make sure that youngster can succeed
in life. And so, public school -- there is a great value to
public school, I was a State commissioner. But there is also an
opportunity and a value for a private learning experience as
well.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Kubacki, you state in your testimony that your schools
have accountability to States, your authorizer, and most
importantly, to parents. Can you expound on why the
accountability to parents is the most important aspect of the
accountability your schools face? And what does that
accountability look like?
Mr. Kubacki. Absolutely. We invite the parents to be part
of our team for educating the child. It goes back to the
proverb of ``it takes a village'' to educate children. And so
what we do is we put a lot of work in the front end before we
open the school, and then continually, as the school is in
session, to continually invite the parents in. We have monthly
family events where families can come in and see what has been
going on in the school. Parents are invited to -- we have an
open door policy where they are invited to come to the
classrooms. We connect with the parents to make sure they have
a clear understanding of the progress of their students, both
educationally and in their character development. And we see
them just as our partners. And we know that if we are not
serving to meet the needs of the parents, that they are going
to find a school that does meet those needs. And so for us, we
pay very special attention to what are the unique needs for all
of the families. And as the name Enlace suggests, we will also
try to connect those parents to services that they may be able
to utilize to help make sure that the home environment is
stable so that the children can come to school ready to learn.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Cherry, you said in your testimony that the primary
accountability rests with you and your husband, Demetrius. You
are empowered to find the school that best meets your
children's needs. What reaction do you have when you hear the
arguments that parents can't be trusted to make the right
decision for their children?
Mrs. Cherry. Thank you for the question. I don't believe
that's true at all. As a parent, we know our children better
than anybody. We know what needs they have. We know the
different unique learning styles they have. So it kind of
saddens me that there's people that think that parents don't
know what's best for their child. Because for me and my
husband, we do know what's best for our children.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, very much. And Ms. Carter, I
want to say to you thank you so much for being willing to adopt
your child. I think anyone who adopts a child is to be
commended, and certainly what you have done to be an advocate
is to be commended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the chairwoman. The ranking member
is going to employ a bit of the same model that I have on my
side so with that, I would recognize the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Bobby Scott --
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. -- for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to
submit six documents for the record, letters opposing the
harmful Republican school choice proposals from the National
PTA, the National School Boards Association, American
Federation of Teachers, Texas Association of School Boards,
National Education Association, and finally, a letter signed by
50 national organizations, including disability advocacy
organizations and civil rights organizations, all opposing
private school vouchers.
Chairman Rokita. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the challenges
we have as legislators is making the best use of the taxpayer's
dollars. We know that we don't have enough money for teacher
salaries and counselors, after-school programs, reading
recovery programs, programs we know actually work. We also know
that research on voucher programs are clear, they do not lead
to academic benefits for low-income students. Studies on school
choice programs in Cleveland, Milwaukee, in Washington, D.C.,
found that students in these programs do not perform any better
than students who do not receive the vouchers. In fact, in both
in Louisiana and Ohio, students participating in voucher
programs actually performed notably worse than their public
school counterparts. So if you have no evidence this is
actually working, it is a challenge of why we should be
spending money in that rather than things we know that actually
work.
Mr. Williams, in the program -- in the voucher programs
that you had oversight of, was the number of vouchers infinite
or were they limited?
Chairman Rokita. Mr. Williams, why don't you use your
microphone, please.
Mr. Williams. As Commissioner of Education in the State of
Texas, I did not have jurisdiction over private voucher
programs.
Mr. Scott. And the programs you are aware of, are the
vouchers infinite or are they limited?
Mr. Williams. They are both. I mean -- some of the programs
are limited, as is, I think, we have --
Mr. Scott. Then how do you decide who gets a voucher and
who doesn't get a voucher?
Mr. Williams. That is going to be decided by the State, by
the State education agency as it develops its program.
Mr. Scott. So the choice isn't on the part of the parents,
the choice is whoever gets to decide who gets a voucher.
On the programs that you have, have you seen studies that
show that the number of people in private schools actually go
up when you have a voucher program?
Mr. Williams. The number of participants or --
Mr. Scott. Number of total students in a school system in
private schools, does the number in private schools go up when
you have a voucher program, and the number of people in public
schools go down?
Mr. Williams. It goes down but slightly. I mean, you think
about --
Mr. Scott. Doesn't go down by the number of the people in
the voucher program. If you have 1,000 vouchers, the number of
people in public school doesn't go down by a 1,000. Is that
right?
Mr. Williams. It does not.
Mr. Scott. Ok.
Mr. Williams. And in Texas, it would not because of the
dramatic increase in terms of enrollment, that we sort of
enroll about 85,000 new students in Texas schools every year so
that would not have an adverse impact upon the number of
youngsters in Texas schools. As I was going to say earlier --
Mr. Scott. A lot of the vouchers go to people that would
have been in private school anyway.
Mr. Williams. It could very -- that could happen, that
could happen.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Williams. But it also could go to individuals that
would not otherwise be in private school.
Mr. Scott. In fact, two-thirds of the students in Wisconsin
and half the students in Indiana were already enrolled in
private schools before they received a voucher.
On civil rights, people talk about the choice of public
schools, Mr. Williams. Who gets to choose who gets into a
school, is it the school or the parent?
Mr. Williams. Well, it's going to be the parent, going to
make the determination about which school they wish to go to.
Mr. Scott. And does the school have to take them?
Mr. Williams. It depends upon how we established as State
education administrations, how we establish what the rules of
eligibility and rules of being able to come into that --
Mr. Scott. Do any of the rules allow the school to decide
who gets in and who doesn't get in?
Mr. Williams. There are certain circumstances under which
that might occur, yes.
Mr. Scott. So it's not the parent, it's the school. What
about disciplinary processes? Does the school get to decide its
disciplinary processes where they can kick kids out of school?
Mr. Williams. The rules for discipline will be no different
whether that youngster is coming to that school with a voucher
or whether that youngster is coming to school without one.
Mr. Scott. That's right. The school decides the discipline
program.
Mr. Williams. If I --
Mr. Scott. In IDEA. My time is about to run out. InIDEA --
if the school does not want to meet the needs of the student,
it is the parents' obligation to find a school that does want
to meet those, rather than everybody has to comply with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?
Mr. Williams. Those parents will always have the
opportunity to return to their home public school. That is
always there.
Mr. Scott. The point is that the school does not -- thank
you, Mr. Chairman -- the school does not have to comply with
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that's one of
the problems with many of these vouchers.
Mr. Williams. I am sure we'll have an opportunity for me to
discuss that later.
Chairman Rokita. Mr. Williams, do you want to answer the
question very briefly?
Mr. Williams. It has been longstanding for -- at the
Department of Education, that IDEA does not attend to those
privately placed students.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messer, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Messer. With all due respect to my friend from
Virginia, so much information -- so much misinformation and so
little time. I mean, we as policymakers sometimes make
uncomplicated things very complicated. The reality is this: we
work through these policies as a Nation. If we stay focused on
kids and we stay focused on parents, this all gets really
simple. Some of the information he put forward -- Mr. Scott put
forward -- he mentioned the fact that some studies show that
kids don't improve much in these programs. Firstly, no studies
show legitimate decline. The fact of the matter is that
parents' satisfaction in these schools is very high, which is
another way of saying that the parents that choose to send
their child to a school feel much better about the life of
their child.
Ms. Carter and Mrs. Cherry -- I admire Mr. Williams and
Kubacki for your leadership and for being here as well. As
parents, I admire you for coming here and testifying -- Ms.
Carter, I actually have a nephew who is autistic, and certainly
empathize with your point that we need to make sure every kid
in America has the opportunity to go to a great school, and we
are falling far short of that as a Nation. And what school
choice is really about is trying to make sure that in an
imperfect world, we give every kid a chance. And I believe in
school choice, because I trust America's parents. I trust that
in the imperfect world we live in, that the best way to figure
out what is best for a child is to empower a parent. And Ms.
Cherry, I notice the school that you go to is called Tampa Bay
Christian, which I would assume has a faith-based component to
it. Is that -right?
Mrs. Cherry. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Messer. And one of the things I believe that we all
have to understand in modern America today, that we already
have school choice if you can afford it. If you can afford to
move, if you are in a ZIP Code that has a failing school or if
you can afford to pay for another private school option, you
have that choice. Would you be able to send your child to a
faith-based private school without this program?
Mrs. Cherry. Absolutely not.
Mr. Messer. Are you finding that, I would think, an
important element of your education experience for your
children?
Mrs. Cherry. Yes. The Step-Up for Students Scholarship and
Tampa Bay Christian Academy have been an anchor for my family.
Mr. Messer. I think, again, when we focus on parents and we
focus on families, we just remember why shouldn't everybody
have that chance? I don't know that we are ever going to come
up with a program that is perfect. We sure weren't perfect
before we started trying to find these alternative solutions.
But we had parents in many places in America today, let's own
it, there's a million people on charter school wait lists
around America, parents who want the chance to send the child
somewhere else and can't because they can't afford to do it.
And it's wrong, and it's long past time that we do something
about it in America.
Now Mr. Williams, I would love to give you an opportunity
to respond to some of Mr. Scott's comments, but elaborate a
little bit on these -- I thought you mentioned at the very
beginning, but elaborate a little on this idea that when a
parent chooses to go to a school, a private school, that they
should be treated like everyone else at that school, but to try
to turn every school in America into one uniform bland model, I
think, wouldn't provide better opportunities for our kids.
Mr. Williams. If I could, I would respond to two things:
Number one is that a parent is making a fundamental choice, and
I would go back to what Ranking Member Polis said at the
beginning, obviously, it is extremely important for them to
have adequate information.
Mr. Messer. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And it is extremely important for them to be
able to make a knowing and intelligent decision. If we provide
them with that information, and some parents -- and they do it
today -- some parents make the decision to take their kid out
of a public school, and take that youngster with a disability
to a private school today, because private schools today are
indeed educating youngsters with disabilities. And they do it
understanding that fate is not available to them. They do it
understanding that they won't have an IEP, but they say there
is something else at that school that -- that is why I want my
youngster there. Every parent won't make that decision. And
that is the beauty of what you are deciding, what you are
working on. Every parent won't make that decision, but some
parents do and some parents will.
The other thing is, as I mentioned in my opening remarks,
there are 31, I think, there is an indication -- 31 of 33
empirical studies found that choice did improve student
outcomes. While I was the commissioner in Texas and not
Louisiana, and not fully conversant in the Louisiana study, I
realized that was a snapshot in time, that was a study at the
beginning of that program, and we expect it to get better
results and better scores as it goes along.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Colorado, Ranking Member Polis, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Rokita. You know, I want to
point out as we debate this, that over 90 percent of the
students in this country go to public schools of some form, so
we are obviously spending a lot of time debating that other 8
or 9 percent, but 90 percent of students go to public schools,
including magnet schools, and neighborhood schools, and charter
schools, and alternative schools, and from all those and many
more, there are all sorts of models of public schools from the
Montessori Sot, to rigorous college prep, to experiential, to
arts-focused. So, you know, it would be nice for the committee
to spend at least 90 percent of our time focusing about some of
the things that are occurring on the public side, as Mr.
Kubacki runs a public school, I'm sure can attest to as well.
I want to hone down on something that Mr. Williams said
along the same lines that Mr. Scott asked. I want to give Mr.
Williams the opportunity to clarify a statement he made. His
words, I fear, might have been a bit misleading with regards to
those who are unfamiliar with requirements of the IDEA, because
it gets very technical and very legalistic.
Mr. Williams, in your testimony, you stated that if a
public school district has made FAPE, Free Appropriate Public
Education, available to an IDEA-eligible student, and the
student's parents have, instead, chosen to place their child in
a private school with a State-funded private school choice
scholarship, that child is considered a parentally placed
private school student. That's what you mentioned.
And you also said that student would then have the same
IDEA rights as all other IDEA-eligible, parentally placed
private school students. So I want to hone down on that and I
want to be clear about which IDEA rights parentally placed
private school students enjoy.
Parentally placed private school students give up their
right to a free and appropriate public education, which we call
FAPE and related services, an obligation to provide the
services under Federal law. So parents who use a State-funded
private school voucher give up their right to FAPE, meaning the
school district is not required to pay for FAPE, including
things like private placements. And the private school, then,
is not required by law to provide any particular special
education-related service that would meet the requirements of
FAPE, like speech therapy, or assistive technology, or whatever
that might be, so long as the student remains in that private
school.
The only exception to this would be limited child fine
services, perhaps an evaluation to determine IDEA eligibility
if the evaluation had not been conducted previously. But
Federal IDEA funds, and the right to Free Appropriate Public
Education and individual services that come with an IEP, do not
follow parentally placed students to private schools. Only when
an IEP team determines a private school as the best placement,
that's a placement through the school district mechanism, and I
will remind you that parents are part of the IEP team, only
then do full IDEA funding, and more importantly, rights, follow
the student to the private school.
So, Mr. Williams, when a student participates in a State-
funded private school voucher program, does he or she maintain
the right to FAPE?
Mr. Williams. She does not.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
Chairman Rokita. For the record, Mr. Williams, she does
not. Can you use your microphone?
Mr. Williams. She does not.
Mr. Polis. I also wanted to quote one other aspect of your
testimony back to you. You mentioned, quote, ``I am deeply
committed to guaranteeing that all students are treated with
respect and dignity, and are free from discrimination of their
learning environment.'' How can you make that assurance of
schools that don't allow gay or lesbian students to attend, and
to the parents of those gay and lesbian students?
Mr. Williams. I think, first of all, it goes back to what
the other protections afforded to those students under current
Federal law, and I would suggest to you that whatever the
current the Federal law provides those youngsters, those
youngsters would be entitled to.
Mr. Polis. And I would point out to my colleagues, we would
welcome their support to extend the protections of Federal law
on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And I
welcome my friends on the other side of the aisle to join me
and Mr. Cicilline in support of the Equality Act, which would
do just that.
Ms. Carter, in your testimony, you talked about your own
extensive search to find the right school for your son. And you
mentioned you considered many kinds of public schools, public
charter schools, and other district-run schools. The National
Center for Special Education in Charter Schools is taking steps
to help advocate for students with disabilities in charters.
There is a number of processes around helping parents make the
right decision for their child, and in your testimony, you
spoke about applying for a charter, but not being selected in
the lottery system.
Can you share more about your own decision-making process?
And why you personally value school choice and the opportunity
to consider multiple schools? And I understand your child is
not in the neighborhood school, but is in the school that you
found to be most appropriate for your child and with the best
program. So if you could talk about how your process for
finding the best public school for your child in 20 or 30
seconds, that would be great, and you can submit more later.
Ms. Carter. Thank you, excuse me, member Polis. Yes, we --
my experience is based on professional and personal advocacy.
And in that context, it is about research, investigating what
is available. And so, it's important to be able to understand
what I am comparing. So I look to the accountability standards
that are in place. I chose to stay in the public arena simply
because ``A,'' my child has disabilities, as well as the fact
that I am a taxpayer, and I am a public school recipient, so I
support public education. And--
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. I'm
sorry.
Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
ranking member, for holding this hearing about school choice.
Here is an example of some excellent school choices in the
district I am honored to represent. The Beaverton School
District has -- in northwest Oregon, has a really diverse
student body, more than 100 languages, spoken in student homes.
There's an international IB school, a magnet schools focusing
on environmental sciences and health careers, science and
technology program, an arts and communication magnet, which is
where my own daughter went to school. Two of the district
public schools have STEAM-focused curriculum. They have two
districts reported charter schools with language immersion
programs in Spanish and Chinese. There is a community high
school, an early college high school with an optional
partnership with the community college, and an open enrollment
process for students in neighboring districts.
Families in Beaverton district have considerable choice and
don't have to sign away their rights to Federal civil rights
protections, or give up transparency or student achievement
when they make that choice. I wanted to mention, when I
listened to the testimony, parents across this country want a
school for their children that has high expectations, like Ms.
Cherry mentioned. And they want a school that recognizes your
student's individual strengths, like Mr. Kubacki mentioned.
These are qualities are not exclusive to private or religious
or charter schools.
There are great private schools in the district I
represent, they are not taking tax dollars from public schools.
And as policymakers, our focus should be on making sure that
all schools have the resources and the support they need to
maintain those qualities, and I know that the chairman, in his
opening remarks, said parents don't want their children trapped
in a failing school. Now people have different definitions of
what failing school means, schools are buildings, maybe they
are schools where many children are having more challenges. And
we as policymakers should be saying, we don't want any failing
schools. So that should be our focus to make sure that all
students have opportunities.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Carter, students of color,
students with disabilities, LBGTQ students like Mr. Polis was
talking about, are really disproportionately affected by
suspensions and expulsions. Of course, we don't know the data
for voucher programs, because private schools are not required
to publicly report that information. So should public dollars
be used to fund schools that can discriminate against students?
And what safeguards do we need to make sure your son receives a
high-quality education as a student who has rights under the
IDEA?
Ms. Carter. Yes, thank you. First of all, no. No school
should be able to discriminate. We do have laws in place, and
when you are not in a position where you can have access to
laws that protect parents and students with disabilities, or
different students' rights, then--that--therein lies a problem.
And so with IDEA, there are those protections; the FAPE, Free
Appropriate Public Education; there's also, in the least
restrictive environment, so that we don't have students
educated in segregated classrooms which are called self-
contained classrooms.
And we also have the notion of due process, where we have
access to the law, where we have an opportunity to be heard and
given that notice with respect to what the rights are.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I want to ask Mr. Williams a
question before my time expires. But thank you, thank you very
much. Mr. Williams, your testimony didn't discuss the
challenges of school choice programs in rural Texas. I
represent a lot of rural Oregon, and it is not surprising that
rural districts in Texas are some of the strongest opponents of
the proposal in Texas to shift public education funding to
education savings accounts, because rural communities often
have just a single school. It is the community hub that has
been serving the student's parents and grandparents, and it's
where people gather and there is no other school in that town,
or even in a close proximity, so small-town school systems
don't have the economies of scale.
So can you explain to my constituents in Oregon's rural
areas why they should give up needed funding to a handful of
private schools that aren't near their community, especially
when these private choice programs have an unproven academic
outcomes, and do not serve all students?
Mr. Williams. I will start initially, because it is going
to give those families more choices to acquire the learning
that they need for their youngster. We have been having this
conversation in Texas and elsewhere, as if it's the only thing
we are talking about, is moving a youngster from one building,
Thomas Jefferson, to another building, perhaps St. Thomas
Aquinas. But in rural Texas, and we haven't won this argument
yet, but in rural Texas, with that education savings account,
perhaps they can buy Mandarin Chinese from a distance learner -
- distance provider; maybe they can provide -- acquire some
kind of math skill because you can't get a master math teacher
in ``Scatback,'' Texas, maybe you can buy that from --
Ms. Bonamici. My time is about to expire. I appreciate
that. But we just got our graduation rates back and our online
high school had very embarrassing, pathetic graduation rates of
28 percent.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlewoman's current time has
expired.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Brat, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brat. Thank you, Chairman. To the panel and Mr.
Williams, I'll ask the question. I am an educator. I taught
Randolph-Macon College down the road a couple of hours for 18
years, economics and ethics. Went to seminary and then did a
Ph.D. in economics, so I am a confused person. So I just got
back from the prayer breakfast. Very nice, bipartisan, across-
the-aisle stuff. We get along more than the press gives us
credit. And so, this can be a contested issue, right? I mean,
we have differences in strategy, but one of the things I saw--I
taught freshmen--coming into my classroom all the time. And I
think one of the things some of us on this side of the aisle
consider is just kind of the one-size-fits-all nature sometimes
of education. And my public schools are top in the country. So
my kids both got excellent education. But nationwide, we are
now competing with the rest of the world. We all want the kids
to excel, right?
So you can look at the Ps and test scores. I ran
regressions on too much of that stuff for too many years, and I
won't go into all the details. But the point is we have got
kids that don't know what a business is after they graduate
from high school. They don't know a price from a cost from a
profit. They can't define any of it. Right. And then the kids
get to go to college, that's great. But the kids that don't go
to college, they don't know what business is, and they are
going to work.
So I think we have huge work to do, whatever solutions we
all agree on. And then I taught ethics and went to seminary, et
cetera, and there is no such thing as just ethics. Right? There
is the Aristotelian school of ethics, or Kantian ethics, or
Christian ethics, or Confucian ethics. Right? There is no
ethics. And what system of ethics are we teaching in K-12?
None. The kids come to college, they don't know one system of
ethics, they can't name one theologian philosopher, et cetera.
So that's why some on this side of the aisle, we just want to
see some variety when it comes to the curriculum -- the
monopoly model -- it is hard to crack up monopolies, right, in
economics, or monopoly in politics, or monopoly in any business
that doesn't produce the best outcomes.
So we just want to see some variety. And Bobby and I are in
Virginia, we have a tremendous Achievable Dream school that is
in the inner city, and has just done unbelievable job, charter
school, public charter, and they do phenomenal. Right? The kids
are introduced, they walk and meet the police officers, at the
beginning of the day, they have stock market gains, they learn
about business, they got a tennis program, all the kids go to
college and it's phenomenal. And so, we all are trying to find
that for all of our kids. And then getting to my question,
right, the political tensions are high. Right after the
election, everyone's bombing each other on Facebook right now,
and the tone's not good.
So I am trying to keep the tone good. And so, one of the
questions I get back home from constituents that have major
concerns are, we have some of the best public schools in the
country in my area, but we all want to see kids in the poorer
areas, and the inner cities have some choice.
I think that is part of the issue that is on people's minds
right now. But then the question from constituents is ``Well,
won't the school choice movement pull funding from public
schools?'' What would you say to those suburban moms and dads
who are concerned and have anxiety that if we move towards
choice, that money won't come from their public schools? What
is the variety of funding options available that would ease
some of the anxiety out there?
Mr. Williams. Well, depending on how you design it, let us
keep in mind that most of the school choice plans that I have
seen, that whatever the per capita spending amount is, the
voucher, or whatever that is, is less than that, and so there
is still going to be sort of the delta that is available for
the public schools, and that body is no longer in that school.
And so, you are not having to be concerned about that piece,
because you don't have to educate the child, and some dollars
are still get to remain with the public school.
But I think more importantly, what we ought to be doing, I
mean, to my left are three parents that have children with
three different sets of needs. And we should be creating
opportunities for all of those needs to be satisfied in a
public school, public learning environment, and that includes
private schools, because everybody can't -- everybody doesn't
do the same thing. I mean, all these schools aren't designed to
do the same thing. We ought to put parents in the best position
to find the school that meets the needs of their child.
Mr. Brat. That's great. Thank you. I have about 30 seconds.
I'll just kind of add, I teach economics, and in economics, you
try to maximize utility. And so, there -- everyone is going to
debate across the aisle what are the test scores and
comparisons, and they'll say they are not that great, we will
say they are great. Even if we compromise and say, let's say
they are dead even, it seems to me it's kind of analogous to
working for a firm. Sometimes you just want to go to work for
that firm instead of that firm. Right? There is a tone at the
top, you like the CEO, the principal, you like the vice
principal. Your kid may be socially stigmatized at one school,
they feel better going to another school, et cetera. And so
that is my impetus for the school choice option, is I think the
kids do need some variety, parents need some variety. I worked
for several years at the State level --
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Brat. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for
coming in today.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all of you for being here. We know it is a great effort
to do that. Ms. Carter, I wanted to ask you a little bit more
about your experience, I know we have had to cut you off. Just
-- you had to really navigate a very complex school system as
you branched out and looked at everything. Could you talk about
one or two instances where you were testing the transparency of
the system itself, and access to information for a parent, any
parent, but particularly a parent who was interested in the
policies that have been enacted at the Federal level for IDEA
over the years? How did you learn that? How did you actually
get a handle on that?
Ms. Carter. It was challenging.
Mrs. Davis. As a former school board member, I understand
that, so --
Ms. Carter. So it really is searching for opportunities.
When I look at my child, and for him, it is about equitable
access to a high quality, excellent education. And so, it is
understanding who the players are, kind of learning about --
being clear on what my child's needs are, and then searching
for those opportunities that can best meet my child's needs.
Mrs. Davis. Did you have a sense that the school did a good
job in making sure that they had data -- they had backup
information, so they could even describe to you how services
for, say, another child, not by name, but just generally, how
they really demonstrated that they were doing what you were
hoping they would do?
Ms. Carter. The short answer is no. It's about having --
getting access to information. And admittedly, I am a parent
who has time, who has information available to me, so it still
is a pushing, pushing, pushing from the school. And so one of
the things that I focus on is trying to expose and make
available, not just to Jacob, but to all students, and
particularly those with disabilities, asking questions,
pushing. So it is not something that just happened.
Mrs. Davis. I wanted to just let you know, because I am
concerned about this, and I think others are as well. There was
a recent development last evening where my colleagues actually
filed the need to move forward to take away some of the
important protections that children have, which would basically
say to States, you don't have to file -- follow really any
guidelines in tracing the improvement, and tracing the
performance of young people in schools. Would that concern you
that perhaps we're moving away from that, so that States might
really be doing this very differently? If you were to move, for
example, you might move to a State that had decided they
weren't going to follow up with--
Ms. Carter. That would be a--
Ms. Davis. Understanding how we disaggregate data, whether
children of color, whether children who -- where we must adhere
to IDEA would be followed?
Ms. Carter. No. Accountability is key. And so something
like that, if that didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a way
to even measure whether or not there is equitable access, or
even a high-quality education. So these regulations are
critical as it relates to a high quality education --
Mrs. Davis. Yeah. Could I ask the rest of you? Would that
be your concern, or do you think it is important that States
have guidelines to follow, to be sure that they're -- making
sure that all children are receiving a high-quality education?
We disaggregate that data and we know what is going on?
Mr. Williams. I think it is important for us as States to
have some guidance. But I will be honest with you, in many
areas, let's say academic accountability, some of us were there
before the national government was, and I think some of us were
designing assessments and accountability regimes beforehand.
Obviously, No Child Left Behind was birthed somewhere else and
came here. So in some of these matters, I think the States are
in very good stead to be able to protect our citizens, and do
so in a way, that is quite laudatory. But there was no doubt
that having the participation, and maybe even the leadership
and the guidance of the national government would be helpful at
times.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. The
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Ms. Davis, my
colleague, I served on a school board back home in Tucson for
12 years, and I think my question kind of goes to another part
of this whole discussion, it is a discussion of how much of the
Federal dollar, public dollar that goes to public education is
going to be diverted or sent a different direction in terms of
vouchers, for profits, private.
In that position, we had to deal with mandated issues like
IDEA, mandated, and necessary, by the way. Civil rights
protections, equal access for all children, Title IX so that
boys and girls got the same opportunities at all levels, and
English learners.
Laws that controlled what we did, open meeting laws,
financial disclosure in terms of the budget and the audits
attended to that particular school district, and the list goes
on. And the public scrutiny that had to be there in order for a
school district to be functional.
My question is, as we go forward, there are two standards
that seem to appear: there is the standard on public education
in terms of the points I just outlined plus more, and a kind of
nebulous standard as to what we do for private, for-profit
charters that is different. Is there -- and I will ask Mr.
Kubacki and Mr. Williams for a response -- don't you feel that
the reaction to, I think, the proposition that many of us have,
that people should play by the same rules, that if on the
governance of a private for-profit; that there should be
transparency, there should be rules that apply to the
financials; there should be disclosure of salaries; there
should be academic disclosures; and the list goes on, and that
all children coming need to be taken in, given the mandates
that the public schools have. Do you feel that would -- do you
think that is fair to set the same playing field for everybody
-- Mr. Williams, Mr. Kubacki, either one.
Mr. Williams. I think that is a fair aspirational goal, but
I do not believe that is the law you established here. The law
you established here first of all you haven't exercised
jurisdiction over private schools generally, and here you have
exercised jurisdiction in title VI and title IX--
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah but--
Mr. Williams. And IDEA as relates to --
Mr. Grijalva. But Mr. Williams, we are talking about
extending that jurisdiction, you know, if we are talking about
the increased prominence of private schools in terms of the
support they are going to get from the Federal Government in
terms of money. Should requirements follow the money or should
it be open-ended?
Mr. Williams. The recipient of those dollars is not that
private school. The recipient of that dollar is the mother, or
the father, the parent, the guardian, and you haven't exercised
jurisdiction over that individual.
Mr. Grijalva. And as you said, the final arbiter, the
ultimate is the empowerment of that parent, okay. And--but as a
balance, as a check and balance, shouldn't some requirements,
at the minimum, financial disclosure be required? Investment
strategies, open meetings? So we know when these schools meet
and who is governing them? And what decisions they are making-
at the very minimum shouldn't that be a public acknowledgment
as opposed to an individual parent acknowledgement? We are not
eliminating that parent's choice, we are just saying the rest
of us that are helping pay the bill should know what is going
on.
Mr. Williams. You want to have--sort of get to the right
balance between those issues. But I think we have got to be
real careful about treating that private school as if it is a
public school. So is there--
Mr. Grijalva. Given what the nominee for Secretary of
Education and her opposition to any reasonable regulation for
charter schools or for-profit schools, is there a Federal role
in insuring that taxpayer funds are not being abused? Is there?
Mr. Williams. That is a conversation for you to have here,
and there will be some role, of course. The question is how
much of a role, and how do we reach the right balance of
allowing that private school to function and to adequately
serve those youngsters that come to it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And I am broaching that
conversation. I appreciate it.
Yield back.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett's, recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I think the metric that matters here isn't what day of
the week these schools meet, it's not how long they meet. The
metric is student success, right? And so, ultimately, I want to
introduce myself to this committee and this subcommittee, and
I'll tell you that I believe in the nature versus nurture
argument, in nurture. I believe in nurture. I believe that no
child, regardless of their national origin, regardless of their
skin color, regardless of their parents' socioeconomic status
or educational attainment, is more able to succeed or fail than
another, but that if the child is placed in a circumstance
where the child can succeed and encouraged and given
appropriate instruction, that the child will in all likelihood
succeed.
And I believe that there is a fundamental entitlement that
Americans can expect, one fundamental entitlement, and that is
opportunity. And I see children being left behind every single
day by virtue of circumstances beyond their control, and that
is a ZIP Code; that's a parent who loves their child no
differently than I love my own, but who doesn't have the
financial wherewithal to place themselves in the circumstance
where they can assure their children the best educational
opportunity.
And we had this fight again and again during my time in the
State legislature, and there, one party said, look, we have
really good public schools except for where we don't, and we
need to ensure that the young people in those areas also have
an opportunity. Are the children failing those schools? No. The
schools are failing the children. I understand there's a
plethora of inputs: socioeconomic status, educational
attainment of parents, et cetera, et cetera, so forth and so
on. But if we know to a metaphysical certainty that in one ZIP
Code schools are failing, then shouldn't we change how we do
business?
So I would, Mr. Chairman, direct my questions at this
juncture to Ms. Cherry.
Ms. Cherry, you were, in fact -- your children were in
public school in Pasco County.
Mrs. Cherry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. And you were happy, very happy with the
outcomes that your children were seeing in Pasco County, your
husband Demetrius and yourself?
Mrs. Cherry. That is correct.
Mr. Garrett. And we've heard conjecture that people might
flee public schools if these opportunities are made available,
but you only left those public schools in Pasco County after
financial calamity, beyond your control, struck your family. Am
I correct?
Mrs. Cherry. That is correct.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. You would have remained in those schools
with which you were happy.
Mrs. Cherry. That is correct.
Mr. Garrett. And so had Florida not had a system wherein, I
believe, what, 79,000 young people received scholarship
opportunities, your children would be in school where?
Mrs. Cherry. I'm not sure, because when it was time to
enroll, we didn't have a permanent address, so I'm really not
sure.
Mr. Garrett. But, ultimately, you ended up at Tampa Bay
Christian.
Mrs. Cherry. Correct.
Mr. Garrett. Do you feel that the educational opportunities
afforded to your -- was it three or four children?
Mrs. Cherry. There's four.
Mr. Garrett. -- four children at Tampa Bay Christian are
sufficient for them to be able to live successful lives here in
the United States of America?
Mrs. Cherry. Yes, definitely.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. And this was made possible because
somebody in Florida decided to break from the status quo and
think outside the box.
Mrs. Cherry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. And so if somebody hadn't, can you say
with any certainty whatsoever that your children would be
receiving what I would argue they're entitled to, which is the
opportunity provided by a solid education?
Mrs. Cherry. I couldn't say that.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. Thank you.
And -- I talk too fast. Mr. Williams, I would move my
questioning to you. Ultimately, we look a lot at per-pupil
expenditures. And what I've seen from the studies that I've
reviewed in my previous legislative experience, a much smaller
format, was that the per-pupil expenditure does not decrease
commensurate to the number of individuals who leave a school.
In essence that, if we're funding a particular school to the
tune of $12,000 per pupil and a pupil leaves, that only a
percentage of that funding leaves with that pupil. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Williams. That is true. The only thing that changes is
the number of students that the school has.
Mr. Garrett. So, but, if the average per-pupil expenditure
is $12,000, then let's say that $6,000 follows the student, the
money follows the child, then that leaves a surplus at the
school from whence the child came, in most instances. Is that
correct?
Mr. Williams. Correct.
Mr. Garrett. And so, ultimately, now what we have is, if
resources are the question, a greater number of resources per
pupil as that child is subtracted from the total number of
children in the school.
Mr. Williams. Quite possible.
Mr. Garrett. And so, if you could help me, because I'm
completely missing something here, what would the argument
against having a greater per-pupil resource base at what had --
some parent might have identified as a school not providing
their child an opportunity, what would the argument against
that greater per-pupil resource base be? I'm missing it.
Mr. Williams. I can't help you much with that. What I think
it's just simply a fundamental philosophical difference in
allowing folks to move to private schools.
Mr. Garrett. And so, Mr. Chairman, I've got about 15
seconds. Ultimately, though, I'd ask Mr. Kubacki, and I
apologize if I'm pronouncing your name wrong, should the goal
not be that every child receives the education they need to
have the potential to succeed in this Nation?
Mr. Kubacki. Yes.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Wonderful. Yes or no question. The
gentleman's time's expired. I thank the gentleman.
My friend, the former ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mrs. Fudge, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
you all so much for being here today.
Let me just make two comments, the one that my colleague
just made about he couldn't understand why people are concerned
about a student leaving if they retain a certain amount of the
money. It's just basic math. Schools are based upon the number
of kids they project are going to be there. So you still have
to pay all the bills, you have to pay all the teachers. If you
lose a student, it makes a difference.
And as well, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe there comes a
point where we need to raise our hands up here too about
telling the truth. My colleague, Mr. Messer, made a blanket
statement about our ranking member saying that he was not
correct, but, in fact, Mr. Messer had no basis in fact for
making the statement.
Let me just be clear with you. I'm from the State of Ohio.
We have an EdChoice voucher program. A study by the voucher
people indicated last year that students who participated in
that program did considerably worse than similar students in
the public schools. So, in fact, there is indeed a legitimate
decline in achievement in some of these programs. So I just
wanted to make clear to Mr. Messer that , in fact, is the case.
Ms. Carter, school voucher proponents do not believe that
private K-12 schools receiving publicly-funded vouchers should
follow the same rules as public recipients of federal funding.
For example, the nominee for education secretary, Ms. DeVos,
refused to say that all schools receiving federal aid should be
held to the same accountability standards, including IDEA,
which I don't think she even knew what it was.
Could you elaborate on your assertion that all schools
should be held to the same accountability standards and
safeguards?
Ms. Carter. Yes. Thank you. So with respect to the same
standards, that accountability and transparency is something
that can also be measured. And the standardization of that
allows for families to make an informed choice, because choice
is a good thing, but it's about having an informed choice so
that you know that your child has an equitable access to that
high-quality education. So targeted professional development,
training of all the teachers and educators that are going to be
working with students is critical to have that equity, if you
will, and to have a measure that supports the delivery of a
high quality education.
In addition to that, noting that it's an individualized
notion, it's based on the needs of that individual student, and
when you have standardization as it relates to transparency and
accountability, those safeguards, then again, you have
something with which to measure, to compare, and analyze.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. To you as well, Ms. Carter. We've
repeatedly heard that the argument that private school choice
programs provide parents with the opportunity to select the
best school for their children. When describing your search for
quality education options, you stated, the panoply of choice,
this is your words, was narrowed and, in fact, not a viable
choice for your son. Please explain how your choices were
limited in your search because of his disability.
Ms. Carter. Yes. So with respect to a high quality
education, what's important for Jacob was the fact that
teachers, again, were trained, they had an understanding of
what his disabilities are, what the requirements are, and
that's what IDEA does under FAPE and least restrictive
environment. So I had confidence that I had an understanding,
but I also had something with which to measure whether or not
the particular choices had that.
And when you're looking at private placements, and not
through the public school system, but private placements, they
don't have anything near what would be appropriate for Jacob in
terms of providing those related services that he needs, the
specialized instruction that he needs.
And so, again, our focus was on the public system, because
there are safeguards in place whereby I can go and see and
count on there being accountability associated with what those
services are.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
And I would just say to this committee, I am not an
opponent of charter schools, I am not an opponent of vouchers;
I am a proponent of public schools. Ninety-plus percent of the
children I represent go to public schools. So I need to be sure
that someone is looking out for the 90-plus percent as well as
the 8 to 10 percent.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Adams from North Carolina, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Rokita and Ranking Member
Polis, for allowing me to visit this subcommittee. I do want to
thank our panelists for their testimonies.
And like many of you, the importance of education is
personal to me. I'm a parent, grandparent, I'm also an educator
by training. Forty years, four decades I spent as a professor
at Bennett College in North Carolina preparing students, many
of whom have gone on to be teachers across the country. So --
and it's clear that from the nomination of Betsy DeVos for
Secretary of Education that it appears that the administration
intends to push a private school choice agenda that will, I
believe, undermine public education.
Having said that, Ms. Carter, I want to thank you for
sharing your experience with us today. Fifty million students
who make up, as has just been said, 90 percent of America's
school children attend public schools. All of my children and
grandchildren attended public schools. And so the choice
taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to public schools
serving the vast majority of our students, it diverts them to
private schools.
Ms. Carter, you spoke about your strong sense of duty and
advocacy on behalf of your son, Jacob. Can you speak a little
bit to the amount of time that it took to navigate the school
system, how your journey might have been impacted if you knew
you had a high quality public school in your neighborhood?
Ms. Carter. Yes. If there was a high quality school in my
neighborhood, it certainly would have relieved some of the
anxiety and stress that has gone into the process. And at least
it's something that would be accessible, and, again, not just
to Jacob, but what's available in the community, that
individualized notion that has a place, a centralized place
where Jacob has a chance, a real chance to be successful and to
have access to that high quality education.
Ms. Adams. Okay. The Every Student Succeeds Act requires
States to develop and implement challenging academic standards
to ensure that students are career ready or college prepared,
standards that apply to all students, except for students with
the most significant cognitive abilities who are assessed on
the easier alternate assessment. Private schools such as those
used in many voucher programs are not required to abide by
ESSA. They do not have to set standards, assess students to
ensure that they're college and career ready, or provide
information about academic achievement to parents.
Ms. Carter, you mentioned that your son is included in the
general education classroom with peers of his same age. How
important is it for students with disabilities to be held to
these standards, and can you describe how this has helped Jacob
to be successful in school?
Ms. Carter. Yes. First of all, high expectations, those
standards that are in place -- I have high expectations of
Jacob. I think we as parents all have high expectations of our
children to be successful. And communicating those high
expectations is critical, because when you set the tone and you
-- school systems understand that not only are parents taking
their responsibility seriously, but it's the fact that you are
helping to promote those high quality standards.
Jacob is going to college, and it's a particular thing that
I spend a lot of energy speaking to all the schools, the
administrators, the educators, kind of that same thing. Jacob
is going to college. And as a result of that, I have to make
sure that he is appropriately prepared to be successful in
college.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Mrs. Cherry, did anyone inform you of your right under
Federal law to keep your kids enrolled in their home school
when your family experienced homelessness?
Mrs. Cherry. I actually went to the school and told them
that I was moving. So I had to -- I was actually told that I
was zoned out of the school. There's a process that you had to
go through to get back in, but with the time -- I didn't have
time to do that, so that's why I had to choose.
Ms. Adams. So were you informed, though, that you could
have kept --
Mrs. Cherry. No, I was not. They never told me that.
Ms. Adams. Well, that's the problem. I think parents do not
have the necessary information that they need.
I just wanted to quickly ask Mr. Williams, you know, you
pointed out that many voucher programs don't test at all,
others use tests differently. How are you able to approve the
impact on student achievement and hold schools accountable?
Mr. Williams. I think what you could do here is to direct
us as the SEAs that design accountability programs that would
require some level of testing. And I think most private schools
would be more than happy to use our basic test or use their ACT
or SAT for high schoolers.
What I said in my opening remarks is that our
accountability system that we use today, and I think that of
the other 49 states, would not neatly fit on top of private
schools. That, I would discourage us to do, is to say that the
exact accountability system that I have now for my public
schools and traditional charters, that we apply that directly
to the private schools.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I'm out of time.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expires. I thank
the gentlelady.
Mr. Takano, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Betsy DeVos, the nominee for Secretary of Education has
advocated for a lack of oversight and regulation in Michigan's
charter school law. As a result, it has 33 for-profit
organizations that run 79 percent of the State's charter
schools. Detroit, overwhelmed by bad choices for children,
produced the worst math and reading results among all U.S.
cities.
In my own district, I have a constituent, Sarah Vigrass,
who works for California Virtual Academies, managed by K12
Incorporated, a for-profit education company supported by Ms.
DeVos and her family. In her 10 years there, Sarah has seen
firsthand the decline in amount and quality of materials and
high teacher turnover rates driven by K12 Incorporated,
maximizing their profits and not investing in students.
My question is for Ms. Carter. Ms. Carter, do you believe
for-profit entities can serve their bottom line as well as
their students effectively?
Ms. Carter. No, I do not.
Mr. Takano. And why was a for-profit charter school not the
best option for your son?
Ms. Carter. As it relates to Jacob, because he has
disabilities, it's about individual needs, what his needs are.
And in inquiring these for-profit entities, I discovered that
they could not tell me what they were going to be able to do to
support what his needs are. And the fact that there aren't
standards or there's no accountability as it relates to what
children with disabilities need, and all children, for that
matter, that didn't make me comfortable.
Mr. Takano. Well, it's interesting that the -- I think we
have a public interest in making sure that schools, this idea
of competition and accountability that exists among schools,
but we're not the -- we're totally leaving that out of the
picture in terms of Federal money being used for these schools.
The Department of Education collects extensive data on
public schools, including achievement, enrollment, discipline,
bullying, harassment, and special education information. These
data collection procedures provide transparency to stakeholders
and allow for the Department and State educational agencies to
intervene, if necessary, to reduce and prevent discriminatory
practices. Private schools are not required to report the same
information, even if they accept vouchers in most States.
Ms. Carter, in your testimony, you said you researched and
became very informed about public school choice options in D.C.
Do you feel the transparency of schools about their academic
outcomes, discipline practices, and special educational
services are important in determining the best education for
your son?
Ms. Carter. Yes, I do. And I do because diversity is
critical, diversity in terms of what kinds of students are made
up in the environment, as well as the opportunity for all
children to succeed. Inclusion is critically important. And so
knowing that information is a part of the process of
determining whether or not this particular school choice is
what would be best for my child.
Mr. Takano. In your opinion, what other information is
critical in ensuring your son receives a high quality
education?
Ms. Carter. Knowing the background and the training and the
credentials associated with the educators who are going to be
providing that kind of support and services to my child; in
addition to the related services, speech, occupational therapy,
physical therapy, those kinds of related services that my child
needs; knowing what those credentials are so that I can
evaluate whether or not I feel that this is a good choice for
my child to be successful.
Mr. Takano. And you're telling me that information wasn't
always available to you?
Ms. Carter. Not in a for-profit environment, no.
Mr. Takano. That's interesting.
Mr. Williams, it's come to light that several Trump
appointees to serve in leadership roles at the U.S. Department
of Education have a history of expressing bigoted comments.
These appointees have made blatantly racist, Islamophobic,
transphobic, and homophobic remarks.
Now, as the former head of the Office of Civil Rights at
the Education Department, is it appropriate to have individuals
like this at the helm of ensuring educational equity and
nondiscrimination based on race, religion, and sexual
orientation?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Takano, without accepting the beginning
of your question that they have indeed made such comments, let
me go to what I think is the thrust.
Mr. Takano. I'm just asking you, sir --
Mr. Williams. Let me go to the thrust.
Mr. Takano. No, no. These appointees have also -- look, is
it appropriate for anyone who's made blatant racist,
Islamophobic, transphobic, and homophobic remarks to serve in
these capacities, whose job it is to ensure that there's
educational equity and nondiscrimination? Would you -- would
you countenance --
Mr. Williams. I would love to have an opportunity to answer
the question.
Mr. Takano. Sure.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Allen, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing today.
The best example that I know of school choice is a school
that we developed in my district called Heritage Academy. And
that school is there for those single parents who can't afford
to send their children to a private school. And through some
tax initiatives in the State, business people are able to
support these children. Now we're up to 200 students. And I
attended an assembly there over the holidays, and I have not
seen the energy to learn and to develop musical skills and
athletic skills and reading skills, I've not seen that anywhere
in any school that I think I've ever visited.
And so, again, these are single parents who -- and
unfortunately, there is a huge demand for this school that we
can't meet. I mean, it's -- we're topped out at 200. In many
cases, these kids are actually told that they really don't
belong in the public school system, and the parents don't have
a choice. So that is a tremendous success story and why I
believe that the American people, just like health care, they
want choice. I mean, don't mandate and don't waste my
taxpayers' money, you know.
And so, with that, Mr. Williams, what is your reaction to
the anti-school choice advocates who argue that we should not
give families more choice, because too few of the students can
benefit, and then argue for and actively pursue barriers to
expand those benefits to more students?
Mr. Williams. Well, I'm saddened by it, quite frankly,
because what we ought to be doing, as I've said before, is that
we should be doing our best to find in a way that we can match
youngsters and their particular needs. And youngsters have a
variety of different needs. With our 5.2 million youngsters in
Texas, I'm not going to say we have 5.2 different kinds of
needs, but we've got a wide variety of them. And what we should
be trying to do is to put parents and guardians in the position
to match needs with schools. Kids are very, very different. And
the public schools in Texas, I think, do an outstanding job of
trying to satisfy the needs of those youngsters, but that
doesn't mean there's not another place in the private school
community for us to satisfy those needs as well. There's enough
room and there's enough demand, there's enough challenge for
both traditional public schools and charters and private
schools to be present to provide opportunity for our students.
And going back to something that was asked of me earlier,
you know, at the end of the day, we haven't seen -- in terms of
school choice programs around the country, we haven't seen exit
rates, you know, greater than 8, 9, 10 percent. At the end of
the day, I would still have almost 5 million kids in Texas
public schools. And so we have to be focused on enhancing
public schools while we give parents and guardians the
opportunity that, if they don't want or choose -- want to make
a decision for their kids not to go to a traditional public
school, to find a school that meets that kid's needs somewhere
else.
Mr. Allen. And thank you so much for that response. In
fact, we have a public school, inner city school system in my
district in Lawrence County in the city of Dublin where they
have a STEM school and also kind of an economic school in the
two elementary schools. And parents were there at 5 o'clock in
the morning on a Saturday morning to sign their kids up for one
school or the other. That's what I'm talking about. That
motivates and that is school choice, and it's wonderful.
I have just a short period of time. Mr. Kuback -- Kuback --
Mr. Kubacki. Kubacki.
Mr. Allen. Kuback. Okay. The purpose of school choice is to
provide parents the opportunity to find the right educational
environment for their child. Do you believe charter schools are
the only way to help parents find the right place?
Mr. Kubacki. No.
Mr. Allen. Isn't it important to have a variety of options
for parents to choose from where they're searching for the
right replacement?
Mr. Kubacki. Yes.
Mr. Allen. What are some things that can be done to ensure
parents have access to the choices they want?
Mr. Kubacki. One of the really effective things that we've
started in Indianapolis is our Enroll Indy program, where it is
-- it's an open enrollment program for parents to be able to,
they have one place where they can go, they can see the variety
of options that are available to them. It's one application for
them to fill out. And it makes it a little bit more of an
equitable process for all parents to be able to see their
options and choose in an intelligent way.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. Mr. Courtney, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me visit
for a few minutes here.
And, you know, again, we all have great stories to tell,
the States that we come from. I come from Connecticut, and I
just visited a Blue Ribbon school a couple of weeks ago, which
is an old-fashioned red brick public school with a, you know,
the locally enrolled kids that are there. It also happens to be
a population that is kids whose parents work at the Groton Navy
base. It's the oldest submarine base in our Nation.
And when you talk about challenges, these are kids whose
parents are -- whose fathers largely, but now women are coming
on as part of the submarine force, are deployed and, you know,
very transitory, in and out. I mean, that is a challenge for
the school. But with all of the requirements to honor IDEA, you
know, all the anti-bullying, all the other accountability
measures, they are still just hitting it out of the ballpark in
terms of scores, in terms of math and reading, and has, again,
been recognized nationally in terms of -- so, you know, I think
it's really -- there's a narrative out there that, you know,
public schools are hopeless.
And, you know, visiting that school, you know, a week or so
ago after they got the Blue Ribbon designation, I mean, the
fact of the matter is that good leadership, teamwork, involving
parents, you know, there are public schools that are doing an
outstanding job out there, and, you know, that's, you know,
where the 90 percent of kids are enrolled these days.
Also in Connecticut, since the court ruling came out, Sheff
v. O'Neill, we've employed a magnet school approach to try and
break down racial isolation, because, as Ms. Carter eloquently
stated, you know, trying to, you know, have kids learn in a
more diverse classroom is, I think, something that the Supreme
Court recognized in Brown v. Education, and I think most
thoughtful educators agree is a positive goal.
The charter school track record in terms of that issue of
racial isolation, frankly, is just far inferior to the magnet
school experience. The city of New London, which is one of the
most distressed municipalities in the State of Connecticut now,
is all magnet, and they're drawing kids in from communities
outside of the city limits. They have, again, focuses, because
we're upgrading the submarine force, we're hiring now in terms
of the STEM curriculum, and that with the magnet focus, they
are actually opening doors to both diversity and quality and a
connection to workforce needs that is, I think, you know, one
of the models for how we sort of move forward as a Nation, but
we don't do it by throwing out accountability. These magnet
schools are public budgets that have to, again, pass muster
through all of the process that the boards of education have to
do with their schools, unlike vouchers, which are basically
just disconnected from accountability.
And, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add to the record an
article which, again, describes the magnet school experience in
the State of Connecticut, I ask unanimous consent to have it
entered.
Chairman Rokita. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Courtney. And, again, just the New York Times actually
did an analysis of Connecticut's experience with magnet
school's policy a couple of decades ago compared to the charter
school experience in the city of New York. And what they found
is that the goal of diversity has been, again, far more
successful with the magnet school approach, again, with no
cherry-picking in terms of what kids can go there.
My daughter went to one of these. It was a life-changing
experience for her in terms of just having the opportunity to
interact with kids from different walks of life that would not
have happened in, you know, in a charter necessarily or the
local public school. And, again, there's just no question in
terms of where the value is as far as achieving those goals.
So it's not a binary choice here. It is not vouchers versus
public schools. And, frankly, I am still a believer that we can
improve education for kids through the old-fashioned way, like
the Charles Barnum School in Groton, Connecticut, and that we
can also have a publicly accountable system of attracting kids
from more diverse backgrounds without just basically throwing
money up in the air and hoping it lands in the right place.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
I'm going to recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask some
questions. Again, I appreciate hearing from the witnesses.
I want to start with you, Mr. Williams. Your testimony
talks about the changing behavior of public schools once there
was competition, for lack of a better word, I guess. And it's
been my observation, you know, I've probably been to 100
schools throughout the country, public, private, good, bad,
everything in between, but it would also be my observation,
because competition is part of human nature, you know,
competition works in politics, competition works on a
basketball court, competition works in nearly every facet of
our life, yet we heard this morning from some of the
questioners that they would seem to be desperately afraid of
competition.
When you said behavior was changed or the performance of
neighborhood public schools changed, can you give me some
specifics about what you're talking about?
Mr. Williams. I think in many ways imitation is the highest
form of flattery. What we have seen -- in my experience from
both as commissioner as well as the president of a Catholic
school board, what we've noticed is that the public schools,
let's say, around us at our Mother of Mercy, the public schools
around us, they started extending the hour, the school hour,
because we started extending the school hour and getting better
results. We started having a different kind of parent-teacher
meeting with our parents where we were giving them more and
more information about how well their youngsters were doing and
what we were going to plan for them in the next session or next
semester, and our public schools around us began doing that.
What we see sort of statewide is that we see the offerings
of public schools expand. You now have a charter school, quite
frankly, which is a public school, the charter school now
offering Mandarin Chinese. And now we see other public schools
who are trying to do similar things because they realize that's
what parents really -- some parents really want that.
So in terms of offerings, in terms of how the school
relates to the parents, in terms of sort of how the school
operates day by day in terms of perhaps its hours, perhaps what
it does on the weekends, those kinds of things I've seen that -
-
Chairman Rokita. Have you noticed increased performance of
the neighborhood public school since the introduction of --
Mr. Williams. In that one, I cannot say that the
performance of the --
Chairman Rokita. You can't --
Mr. Williams. -- surrounding the public schools and the
doughnut around it increased significantly. In large part, I
can't say that. At that time, I was not commissioner and I did
not have access to their scores.
Chairman Rokita. Yeah. So you just don't know? It's not
that it didn't happen?
Mr. Williams. Right.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Now, Mr. Kubacki, your testimony is slightly different, not
necessarily contradictory, but different in the sense that you
rely heavily on your relationship with the public school, local
public school district, in order to claim rightfully your
success. Critics of school choice, you know, talk about -- they
don't use the word ``competition,'' they would use a term like,
quote, ``pitted against,'' unquote.
What do you think of the concept of competition as it
relates to your work and your relationship with the public
school system?
Mr. Kubacki. So I don't see it as an either/or choice. I
see that we collaborate with the public schools and are able to
actually work with them to bring our model into even some of
their own most academically challenged schools. I think if you
look at the environment around Enlace when we first started,
the schools that were around that neighborhood, it was kind of
hit or miss whether or not it was a good school. Now, 4 years
into it, all the schools around us have increased. I wouldn't
be so bold as to suggest that we were the only driver behind
that, but I would say that because we've been there and are a
good neighbor, we do collaborate with the schools around us, we
do share best practices. I think it just has helped with the
general academic environment of the neighborhood.
Chairman Rokita. Okay. Thank you. I'm sticking with you,
Mr. Kubacki, your testimony discussed your second school, in
Kindezi school, opened because the district came to you to
restart one of their failing schools. You said that happened
because of the partnership your school had with the district
schools. Expound on that partnership just a little bit.
Mr. Kubacki. Sure. So in Indianapolis, we have legislation
that allows the district to work with 501(c)(3)s to partner in
what's called the Innovation Network Schools. And so it's
symbiotic in that we have access to some of the district
resources, the most important being facility, and the district
then gets our accountability scores as well. So it's a payoff,
and it's granted an added layer of accountability for our
schools, because we are also accountable to our contract with
the district, but I think it lends towards that idea of we
share the collective responsibility for all of the children.
And if something's working really well in a charter school,
then it's something that would be worth bringing into the
public school district.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you. And I have questions for the
other two witnesses as well, but I'd be hypocritical if I let
myself go on, because, as you can see, we're now 14 seconds
over time. So I want to thank the witnesses again for their
testimony.
And I want to recognize the ranking member for his closing
remarks.
Mr. Polis. Well, thank you. I want to thank our witnesses,
and I join Chairman Rokita in that. I want to thank our members
on both sides of the aisle who joined us. Based on attendance,
it's clearly a topic that's important.
Mr. Allen did reference people who are anti-school choice.
I haven't heard anybody on this panel, Democrat or Republican,
who voiced anything other than support for the concept of
school choice and letting parents choose, but, of course, all
school choice is not created equal, and distinctions need to be
made. And my Republican colleagues have oversimplified what
school choice means, even to the point of parents signing away
their rights.
There's certainly a difference between public school choice
and the privatization of education, and we should not lose
sight, as Ms. Fudge said, that over 90 percent of students in
our country are served by public schools. Many of us support
policies that increase choice for high quality public schools,
policies like open enrollment, magnet schools, that Mr.
Courtney mentioned, charter schools, and others. Ms. Carter
eloquently shared her own personal story, of her process for
finding the right school to meet her son's needs.
When it comes to education, a one-size-fits-all policy
simply doesn't work, and choice is important. Ms. Carter did
extensive research and exercised her choice after meeting with
a number of schools, traditional public and charter, and
decided what was best for her son.
That being said, Ms. Carter spoke about some of the
challenges she faced choosing the right school, and that's the
case for many parents. School systems aren't often transparent
enough about options, transportation remains a barrier to
making school choice meaningful, and that's why it's important
that we lift up and support all of our public school options.
It's also why many of us find some of the options that
Republicans have put on the table for private school choice
troubling.
In her confirmation hearing, Donald Trump's nominee for
Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, refused to say that she
wouldn't take money away from public schools to pay for private
vouchers. That should concern any of us who care about public
schools and the 90-plus percent of students that they serve.
Today's hearing also brought to light what Republican
school choice means for students' Federal civil rights
protections. Private schools are often not subject to
requirements under Title VI, Title IX, IDEA, ADA, and ESSA. In
fact, many parents are forced to sign away their rights under
IDEA. I want to be clear on this. We had some clarifying
questions, but the law is clear. Under U.S. Department of
Education guidance, it clearly states that parentally-placed
private school children, and that's in contrast to private
placement students under IDEA, have no individual entitlements
to a fair and appropriate public education. Using the private
vouchers, which is called parentally-placed private school
child, does not have those rights, and, in fact, signs them
away.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit some
2001 guidance, under President Bush's Secretary of Education,
on this issue.
Chairman Rokita. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Polis. And just to quote in part this memo from March
30, 2001, it's still enforced, ``under IDEA, ``such parentally-
placed private school students with disabilities have no
individual entitlement to a free appropriate public education,
including special education-related services in connection with
those placements.''
So, again, it's not about who the provider is. There are
many private providers that through private school placement
under IDEA, the parents maintain those full rights. And I would
add those aren't always private schools; they're often private
services that are contracted by the school district. They can
be, in extreme cases, an entire school, even a boarding school
in another State. And I've heard of that in some cases, if
that's the only appropriate education, but the parents maintain
those rights. And under this advisory and the law, they lose
those rights when they become parentally placed. And so that's
very important to emphasize.
Private schools can also deny admission to students with
special needs and students who identify as LGBT. And for many
of those reasons, we should be concerned about Federal taxpayer
dollars supporting institutions that are allowed to
discriminate.
I'm a strong supporter of school choice, but not the school
privatization proposed by my Republican colleagues. Independent
schools are independent for a reason. They want to remain
independent, and that's perfectly appropriate and a fine
decision that they make. If they want to play by the same rules
as public schools and accept students without discrimination
and without parents signing away their IDEA rights, there's
common ground to find a way to work together. And many school
districts do contract with private providers in their district
under those terms and conditions.
My first and foremost priority is supporting the education
of students across our country, and we want to make sure that
we encourage rather than discourage transparency and
accountability, as well as promote civil rights for all schools
that are publicly funded.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
In closing, I'd like to respond to the gentleman by
submitting some -- also submitting some records -- or excuse,
some documents for the record, some of -- at least one of
which, I noticed, is the same one he referenced. So I'd ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record a study from the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools on the estimated
enrollment in charter public schools for the 2016-2017 school
year, and letters from the Department of Education from 1990,
2001, and from the Obama administration in 2012, each of them
confirming that parents who choose for their child to attend a
private school, including as part of a public scholarship
program, are making a choice, in fact, making a choice that
school is the right fit for their child, as allowed under IDEA
and any of our other civil rights laws.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. So, again, when parents have a choice, I
truly believe every kid has a chance, and that's what this
hearing is about. It was said earlier in this hearing that we
tend, up here and in the Federal Government, generally to
overcomplicate things.
Ms. Carter, I believe you can make the best choice for your
child, as you did, just as Kathy and I can make a great choice
for our Teddy and his little brother Ryan. Teddy, by the way,
has Angelman syndrome, which is a sister syndrome to what your
boy has. So please know, I walk in your shoes on a lot of this
stuff, but I truly believe that we can decide for Teddy what is
best for him and have the options. And I also understand how
difficult it is to get information sometimes. And if I had time
to question Ms. Cherry, I'd ask how she found out the
information in more detail, because I think that is very
important. When parents have a choice, kids have a chance.
So this discussion is going to continue. We're emboldened
with the opportunity of having a partner in the White House and
the Department of Education who can see that same value
proposition and could help us direct more funds, so that
parents do have that choice.
Seeing no other business before the committee, we'll stand
adjourned. Thank you.
[Additional submission by Mr. Rokita follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mrs. Cherry's response to questions submitted for the
record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]