    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      EDUCATION WITHOUT LIMITS: EXPLORING
                         THE BENEFITS OF SCHOOL CHOICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   Before The

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
                           ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
                                    WORKFORCE

                          U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-4

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-916 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                        TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Virginia,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    KEVIN KILEY, California              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana

                         R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
                  Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                       KEVIN KILEY, California, Chairman

    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on March 11, 2025...................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Kiley, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
          Elementary, and Secondary Education........................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
          Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.............     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11

                                   WITNESSES

        McShane, Dr. Michael, Director of National Research, EdChoice    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Clark, Jenny, Founder and Director, Love Your School.........    21
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Levin, Jessica, Litigation Director, Education Law Center....    29
            Prepared statement of....................................    31
        Blanks, Walter, Jr., Spokesman, American Federation for
          Children...................................................    49
            Prepared statement of....................................    51

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Ranking Member Bonamici:
            2024 Report, titled ``Private School Vouchers, Education
              Savings Accounts, and Tax Incentive Programs''.........    57
            Document from All4Ed, titled ``The Public Wants Public
              Schools, Not Vouchers''................................   149
            Letter dated March 11, 2025, from Americans United for
              Separation of Church and State.........................   151
            Letter dated March 10, 2025, from Consortium for
              Constituents With Disabilities.........................   162
            Letter dated March 10, 2025, from The Center for Learner
              Equity.................................................   164
            Letter dated February 10, 2025, from the National
              Coalition for Public Education.........................   166
            Article dated July 16, 2025, from ProPublica titled
              ``School Vouchers Were Supposed to Save Taxpayer Money.
              Instead They Blew a Massive Hole in Arizona's Budget''.   171
            Article dated October 12, 2024, from ProPublica titled
              ``In a State With School Vouchers for All, Low-Income
              Families Aren't Choosing to Use Them''.................   175
            Letter dated March 11, 2025, from the National Parent
              Teacher Association (National PTA).....................   189
            Letter for the record dated March 10, 2025, from the
              National Center for Learning Disabilities..............   193
        Lee, Hon. Summer L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Pennsylvania:
            October 2022 GAO report titled ``Charter Schools That
              Received Federal Funding to Open or Expand Were
              Generally Less Likely to Close Than Other Similar
              Charter Schools''......................................    93
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia:
            Article dated February 3, 2025, titled ``Could More
              School Vouchers Counter NAEP Slump? 3 Reasons Why Not''   195
            Article dated February 18, 2025, from the Indiana Daily
              Student, titled ``Indiana is nearing universal school
              choice. Critics decry `slow bleed' on public
              education''............................................   199
            Article dated March 7, 2025, titled ``GOP voucher plan
              would divert billions in taxes to private schools''....   205
        Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan:
            Letter dated February 3, 2025, from the American
              Federation for Children................................   210

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Ms. Jessica Levin........................................   212

                      EDUCATION WITHOUT LIMITS: EXPLORING
                         THE BENEFITS OF SCHOOL CHOICE

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 11, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
                                    Secondary Education
                          Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kevin Kiley
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kiley, Miller, Owens, Moylan,
    Mackenzie, Harris, Messmer, Walberg, Bonamici, Hayes, Lee,
    Mannion, Wilson, Adams, and Scott.
        Also present: Representative Allen.
        Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
    Technology; Maren Emmerson, Intern; Dara Gardner, Einstein
    Fellow; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
    Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Isaiah Knox,
    Legislative Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis,
    Staff Director; Georgie Littlefair, Investigator; Danny Marca,
    Systems Administrator; John Martin, Deputy Director of
    Workforce Policy/Counsel; R.J. Martin, Professional Staff
    Member; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; Eli Mitchell,
    Legislative Assistant; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and
    Digital Director; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Sara
    Robertson, Press Secretary; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of
    Education and Human Services Policy; Ann Vogel, Director of
    Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; Ariel Box,
    Minority Intern; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel;
    Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Staff Assistant; Bryan Gonzalez,
    Minority Grad Intern; Rashage Green, Minority Director of
    Education Policy & Counsel; Brandom Hernandez, Minority CHCI
    Fellow; Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Jo Howard,
    Minority Grad Intern; Samantha Wilkerson, Minority Professional
    Staff; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Marie McGrew,
    Minority Press Assistant; Randi Petty, Minority Deputy Chief of
    Staff; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Theresa
    Tilling-Thompson, Minority Professional Staff; Elizabeth
    Tomoloju, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of
    IT.
        Chairman Kiley. The Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
    Elementary and Secondary Education will come to order. I note
    that a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to call a recess at any time.
        Education outcomes in the United States continue to
    plummet. The recently released nation's report card paints an
    alarming picture. Math and reading scores continue to decline
    despite a steady increase in overall spending. As a result,
    millions of young people are being deprived of the skills
    needed for success in college careers and life.
        This is also a long-term risk to our Nation's prosperity
    and security. We are at risk of losing our edge to countries
    that are doing a better job educating the next generation.
    Amidst this troubling landscape there are positive outliers.
        Across the Nation there are many outstanding schools of all
    kinds, with dedicated teachers and administrators that are
    defying the odds and getting tremendous results for their
    students.
        In particular, states and communities that have embraced
    school choice in all of its forms are defying the national
    trend. These success stories provide a starting point for the
    education reform that America needs. Indeed, America's
    education landscape is increasingly a tale of two models.
        On one hand, some states have used every lever of policy to
    limit the options available to families. These jurisdictions
    share certain perverse features. Students are assigned to a
    neighborhood school with few, if any alternatives. Instruction
    is driven by top-down bureaucratic requirements with little
    regard for learning outcomes.
        Educators are given lifetime job security and denied
    meaningful professional development. The same things are done
    year after year impervious to changes in the world, technology,
    or the science of learning. With parents kept at arms-length
    through it all. This is the model behind American educational
    decline. It is the model that the Biden administration did
    everything possible to reinforce.
        Fortunately, a second model has gained significant traction
    in recent years. It flips every aspect of this failed model on
    its head. Parents select the school that is right for their
    child. Educators receive the support they need and are expected
    to perform. Schools that fail to get results lose students and
    eventually may cease to exist.
        Those that succeed attract more students and continue to
    innovate and grow , with parents in the driver's seat through
    and through. This is the school choice model, which President
    Trump's first education executive orders aim to reinforce.
    There are now 81 private school choice programs across 33
    states, serving 1.2 million students, which is about double the
    number of students served just 3 years ago.
        The percentage of school-aged students home schooling has
    roughly doubled since 2019. There are also a variety of school
    choice programs within traditional public school systems, such
    as those that allow open enrollment with a district, or
    transfers across districts, so we are offered choices like
    magnet schools or career education focused schools.
        The form of school choice that I believe shows perhaps the
    greatest promise in elevating student achievement, and closing
    achievement gaps at scale is charter schools. Since 2005, the
    number of charter schools has doubled, and charter enrollment
    has tripled to over 3.7 million students.
        Unlike traditional public schools, to which students get
    assigned based on their neighborhood, charters are schools of
    choice that families elect to attend. Such schools are publicly
    funded, but they only receive that funding if they attract
    families to opt in, and they are held accountable for student
    learning outcomes.
        In exchange, charters are generally freed from top-down
    bureaucratical requirements, and can operate with greater
    flexibility and autonomy, allowing them to innovate in line
    with their own educational vision. This model has proven
    enormously successful.
        A 2023 Stanford CREDO study found that charter students
    gain an additional 6 days of learning in math, and six to 18
    days in reading per year compared to their district school
    peers. These gains are especially significant for historically
    underserved communities.
        Take two powerful examples. The Success Academy Charter
    Network has over 50 schools in New York City serving mostly
    low-income minority students. Success Academy has ranked No. 1
    in the entire State of New York in math scores. The KIPP
    Charter Network, which stands for Knowledge is Power Program,
    has over 240 schools nationwide focused on underserved
    communities.
        A 2023 Mathematica study found KIPP students were twice as
    likely to complete college as their peers. The opposition to
    charters by the Biden administration and political leaders in
    states like California, is also revealing. After all, these are
    public schools that are open to all tuition free, yet they have
    become the target of funding cuts, enrollment caps, authorizing
    obstacles and harassing regulations.
        From Gavin Newsom to Bill de Blasio to Joe Biden, a certain
    faction of the Democrat party has been bent on closing public
    charter schools and stopping new ones from opening.
        This proves beyond doubt that opposition to school choice
    is not about protecting the public school system. That is just
    a self-serving justification concocted by those who want to
    preserve a failed education model and cater to the interests
    that feed off of it, while denying choices to parents, and
    dooming students to less promising lives.
        Beyond charters, generally, research shows that students in
    school choice programs do better academically, their parents
    are more satisfied, and the students are more likely to
    graduate. We also know that parents overwhelmingly want these
    options. More than 70 percent of respondents to a Real Clear
    opinion research survey support school choice, and that
    includes 82 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Democrats,
    and 67 percent of independents.
        How many issues can you find that level of agreement on? A
    January 2025 survey similarly found that 81 percent of voters
    agree that the government should empower parents and prioritize
    individual students' needs by providing greater access and more
    choices to assure children receive the best possible education.
        Here is the thing, school choice is also key to creating
    better traditional public schools. Research suggests that
    traditional public schools perform better when they face
    competition from school choice. We should all want traditional
    public schools to be the best that they can be.
        While it is true that many have embraced woke ideologies,
    there are also many teachers and school leaders who are doing
    an admirable job to help students learn. Embracing school
    choice means that parents should have a range of high-quality
    education options, and that includes their neighborhood public
    school.
        Education is fundamentally a State and local issue, but
    there is a limited role for the Federal Government as well. For
    example, the Educational Choice for Children Act, which I am
    cosponsoring, would create a Federal tax credit so that donors
    could better fund private scholarships for children across the
    Nation.
        This bill would help ensure that students, even in states
    without school choice programs, those that have adopted this
    failed model, could access the education they need and deserve.
    In addition, Federal charter school grants, which President
    Biden tried to reduce, are vital for many founders starting new
    charters, or replicating successful schools.
        Finally, we can highlight the benefits of school choice and
    encourage the expansion of successful programs across the
    country. This can be the year that we begin reversing the
    decline of American education, and today's hearing is an
    important first step. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member
    for an opening statement.
        [The statement of Chairman Kiley follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today. I want to begin by
    acknowledging the role that public schools play in our
    communities, our economy, and in democracy. With the
    overwhelming majority of students in public schools, public
    education is the foundation on which we build our future.
        Public schools serve the needs of every child, regardless
    of background or income. That is why we need to protect public
    education, and importantly, funding for public education, from
    voucher scams that funnel taxpayer dollars into private
    institutions. That being said, I, and most Democrats, support a
    wide-range of options within the public school system.
        In many states and districts, families have choices among
    magnet schools, public charter schools, as the Chairman
    mentioned, and intradistrict and interdistrict open enrollment
    policies. For example, in the district I represent, we have
    some of the top magnet programs in the State, including
    Portland's Benson Polytechnic High School, a CTE magnet school,
    that offers major programs in automotive, building
    construction, electrical engineering, health occupations, media
    production, and more.
        The Beaverton School District has many choices, an
    international magnet, arts and communication magnet, and the
    Beaverton Academy of Science and Engineering. These valuable
    opportunities are offered to all students, and most
    importantly, they are offered at free public schools that are
    required to comply with The Individuals with Disabilities Act.
        I want to note that the Chairman mentioned woke ideologies,
    and just another reminder that the Federal Government does not
    by law set curriculum.
        Let us talk about universal vouchers, which are often
    pushed with little or no income restrictions, meaning that
    every student, whether from a single parent home where the mom
    is working and making minimum wage, or from a billionaire
    family like Elon Musk's, they could all receive the same amount
    of taxpayer money, all while the public schools that serve the
    rest, the majority, are left to do more with less.
        In this discussion we must consider rural areas. In the
    district I represent, I have urban areas, but I have a lot of
    rural school districts where the public school is the heart of
    the community, and the only option is a public school.
        In those rural school districts, I know what kind of
    reaction I would get if I told them that part of their public
    school funding was cut, but here is a voucher so your student
    could go to another school. There is no other school.
        There is very little chance of bridging that funding gap,
    leaving them to either make cuts, increase class sizes or both.
    That is the main reason why several states, including Nebraska,
    Kentucky, Colorado, they have all rejected voucher schemes.
        Moreover, what message does it send to teachers and
    students who are already feeling the strain of a system that is
    underfunded and overburdened? Stripping away already strained
    public schools of more funding to support private schools is
    not the answer.
        The solution is clear, we must invest in public education,
    so every child has the chance to thrive in the classroom. It is
    also worth noting that voucher schemes permit private schools
    to discriminate against students based on disability, religion
    and other factors, and they have also been found to increase
    segregation. People across the country remain legitimately
    concerned about the use of taxpayer dollars for religious
    schools because it is so intertwined that it violates the
    constitutional principle of separation of church and State.
        For many reasons, the argument to support universal
    vouchers based on NAEP scores, it is really not persuasive.
    Test scores are one way to evaluate student success. We had a
    global pandemic that led to social isolation, and according to
    the American Psychological Association, there is a mental
    health crisis among youth.
        There is increasing, and some say excessive use of
    electronic devices by kids, and importantly the scores of high
    performers stayed pretty much the same. It was scores for low
    performers that plummeted. That is not a case for vouchers, it
    is a case for funding--fully funding, Title I, McKinney-Vento,
    and other programs that support low-income students.
        We cannot ignore facts. Voucher programs do not improve
    student outcomes. Research shows that in states with large
    voucher programs, like Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, students using
    vouchers tend to perform worse than their peers in public
    schools. These programs are a misuse of taxpayer dollars, and
    they contribute again, to discrimination, segregation, and a
    lack of accountability.
        Speaking of a lack of accountability, a recent study about
    the Arizona voucher program found that the State imposes no
    transparency or accountability requirements on private schools
    that receive taxpayer dollars through the state's voucher
    program. Additionally, Arizona parents who are shopping for a
    school say it is difficult to get any independently verified
    information about the quality of instruction, or financial
    stability of these private schools that are getting public
    dollars.
        Public education is already under attack from this
    administration. We know that, with the looming threat of an
    executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. Let
    us not make things worse by allowing the use of public funding
    for private schools.
        Instead of funding private schools, we need to invest in
    public education so every child, no matter their Zip Code,
    deserves access to a high-quality education. I look forward to
    the conversation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Bonamici follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all
    members who wish to insert written statements into the record
    may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
    electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days
    after this hearing, which is March 25, 2025. Without objection,
    the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such
    statements and other extraneous material noted during the
    hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record.
        I note for the Subcommittee that some of my colleagues who
    are not permanent members of this Subcommittee may be waiving
    on for the purpose of today's hearing. I will now introduce our
    four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Michael
    McShane, who is Director of Research at EdChoice in
    Indianapolis, Indiana.
        Our second witness is Mrs. Jenny Clark, who is the Founder
    and Executive Director of Love Your School in Scottsdale,
    Arizona. Our third witness is Ms. Jessica Levin, who is
    Litigation Director, and Director of Public Funds, Public
    Schools, at the Education Law Center in Newark, New Jersey.
        Our fourth witness is Mr. Walter Blanks, Jr., who is
    National Spokesperson at the American Federation for Children,
    which is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. We thank the witnesses
    for being here today, and we look forward to your testimony.
        Pursuant to Committee Rules, I would ask that you each
    limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute summary of your
    written statement. The clock will count down from 3 minutes, as
    Committee members have many questions for you, and we would
    like to spend as much time as possible on questions.
        However, pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and Committee
    practice, we will not cutoff your testimony until you reach the
    5-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
    aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to
    the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Dr. McShane for your
    testimony.

        STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL McSHANE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
               RESEARCH, EDCHOICE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

        Mr. McShane. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
    and Subcommittee members. Seventy years ago, the economist
    Milton Friedman wrote a short paper titled, ``The Role of
    Government in Education.'' In it, he argued that the government
    had a role in funding and regulating education, but did not
    need to directly operate it.
        Independent and autonomous schools could educate children,
    and parents could choose between different school models based
    on their needs and desires. This idea, school choice, is the
    topic of today's hearing. He closed the piece by predicting
    what such a system might yield, writing ``The result of these
    measures would be a sizable reduction in the direct activities
    of government, yet a great widening in the educational
    opportunities open to our children.''
        They would bring a healthy increase in the variety of
    educational institutions available, and in competition amongst
    them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace
    of progress in this area, as it has in so many others.
        We are not yet in Milton Friedman's ideal system, but the
    growth in educational options in recent years has redirected
    the American education system toward his vision, and we have
    some initial findings to see if his predictions have come true.
        Choice programs have widened the educational opportunities
    open to our children, and the variety of educational
    institutions available to them. There are 8,150 charter schools
    educating 3.7 million students, 3,105 magnet schools educating
    2.7 million students, more than 415,000 students enrolled in
    open enrollment programs, and more than 6,750 private schools
    participating in choice programs, educating 1.2 million
    students.
        Choice programs have nurtured the growth of different
    school models, from progressive, Montessori and Waldorf
    schools, to more traditional classical schools, schools from a
    variety of faith traditions and secular schools, micro schools,
    hybrid home schools and co-ops, and probably new models that I
    do not even know about yet.
        Choice programs have sparked competition. 29 studies have
    been conducted on the effects of private school choice on
    students who remain in public schools, 26 have found positive
    results, 1 found no result, and only 2 found negative results.
    Third, private initiative has quickened the pace of progress.
        New and innovative schools are progress in themselves, but
    looking at the results for students participating in private
    school choice programs, 17 random assignment studies have been
    conducted, 11 found positive results for some rural students, 4
    found no effect, and only 2 found negative effects.
        Looking at student retainment results, 7 studies have been
    completed with 5 finding positive effects, and 2 finding none.
    Our work is not done. Many students and families across this
    country still want more options. We need to learn from the
    programs that states are implementing to refine and improve
    them. We need to address other challenges that students and
    schools face.
        The task before us today is the very one Dr. Freidman
    articulated back in 1955, where ``The government would serve
    its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible
    hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy.'' Thank
    you.
        [The Statement of Mr. McShane follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will next recognize
    Mrs. Clark for your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF MRS. JENNY CLARK, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
      FUNDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LOVE YOUR SCHOOL, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA

        Mrs. Clark. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, good
    morning, and thank you for this opportunity to testify before
    the Subcommittee today, as it explores the benefits of school
    choice. My name is Jenny Clark, and I am the Founder and CEO of
    Love Your School, an Arizona based nonprofit, that helps
    families navigate their school options in Arizona, Alabama,
    West Virginia, and hopefully the rest of the country very soon.
        I am a wife and a mother of five school-aged children,
    three which have diagnosed learning disabilities, and I founded
    Love Your School in 2019. Since then, our team has helped
    thousands of families access the educational setting that best
    meets their child's unique needs.
        I know firsthand with my own children, and through our work
    at Love Your School, how transformative education freedom can
    be for families, especially education savings accounts, or
    ESAs. Our family's school choice journey began 8 years ago as
    we homeschooled our two eldest sons, and noticed they were
    struggling with reading.
        I reached out to my local school district and requested an
    evaluation under IDEA's Child Find process. Initially, the
    District told us that our boys simply lacked proper
    instruction. Knowing how much my husband and I worked on their
    reading instruction, we disagreed with the District.
        We received an independent educational evaluation, and it
    revealed that both of them had, among other diagnoses, severe
    dyslexia and dysgraphia. Unfortunately, the District had no
    dyslexia specific programming. Instead, they offered 30 minutes
    of site word support a week, which we knew would not help
    remediate their dyslexia.
        During this time, we first learned of Arizona's Empowerment
    Scholarship Account Program, and after jumping through a
    variety of hoops for the next several months, my boys finally
    qualified for Arizona's ESA Program, and this changed
    everything for my boys, and for our family.
        With the $7,500.00 ESA Scholarship, we finally had access
    to a variety of dyslexia specific educational resources,
    audiobooks, and amazing online programs, like synthesis school,
    things that boosted their confidence as they progressed in
    their reading and writing.
        The ESA Scholarship has been truly transformative in
    shaping the trajectory of my children's future. According to
    the latest NAEP scores, tens of millions of children across the
    country cannot read proficiently. It is a national crisis. Like
    my boys, I know many of these children would benefit
    tremendously from an ESA. Through our work at Love Your School,
    we have seen how Arizona's ESA Program has been revolutionary
    lifeline for thousands of children.
        Once Arizona's ESA Program became universal in 2022,
    meaning every school-aged child now qualifies, the program has
    rapidly grown from around 12,000 children to as of yesterday, a
    little over 87,000. Arizona's ESA Program is the most flexible
    in the country when it comes to accessing educational expenses
    and tutors and therapists.
        It is by far the most supportive of students with
    disabilities. Arizona's ESA Scholarship is 90 percent of the
    State per pupil funding, and that includes weighted funding for
    students with disabilities. Our program saves taxpayers money,
    and allows parents to direct their children's education,
    regardless of their income or Zip Code. After all, we know
    loving families always know what is best for their children's
    education. Thank you.
        [The Statement of Mrs. Clark follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will next recognize
    Ms. Levin.

    STATEMENT OF MS. JESSICA LEVIN, LITIGATION DIRECTOR, EDUCATION
                     LAW CENTER, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

        Ms. Levin. I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to
    offer testimony today. My name is Jessica Levin, and I am the
    Litigation Director at Education Law Center, a nonprofit
    organization that pursues justice and equity for public school
    students. I also direct Public Funds Public Schools, a national
    campaign led by ELC to ensure public funds for education are
    used to support and strengthen public schools, the cornerstone
    of our democracy.
        Let me begin by saying that private school vouchers do not
    benefit students and families, nor the public. There is an
    ever-mounting body of evidence that they do not provide a
    better education for the most vulnerable, high-need students,
    and in fact, cause great harm to students, families and
    communities.
        I have submitted lengthy written testimony supported by
    extensive citation, so today I will highlight a few points. The
    laws that establish and govern voucher programs are notably
    devoid of meaningful quality or accountability standards. The
    data shows that academic outcomes for voucher students are
    dismal.
        Study after study in places like Louisiana, Indiana, and
    Ohio, reveal that vouchers actually have a detrimental academic
    impact on participating students. Professor Josh Cowen has
    explained that the negative educational effects of voucher
    programs are ``on par with what the COVID-19 pandemic did to
    test scores, and larger than Hurricane Katrina's impacts on
    academics in New Orleans.''
        Policymakers should heed this evidence. Moreover, vouchers
    are only truly accessible by the few but harm the many.
    Vouchers frequently do not come close to covering the full cost
    of private school tuition, let alone other essentials that are
    provided for free in public schools.
        Thus, vouchers simply shift the cost of many core
    educational resources to families. Data from multiple states
    shows the majority of vouchers are used by more affluent
    families who are already sending their children to private
    schools, and not the low-income families they purport to
    target.
        Vouchers harm often under-resourced rural public schools
    with no benefit to rural students, who generally do not have
    geographic access to private schools. Roughly one in five
    students attend schools in rural communities, but those
    districts cannot take advantage of the same economies of scale
    as larger ones, and they have fewer resources to pay for fixed
    education costs.
        Moreover, public schools are often the backbone of rural
    communities, playing a pivotal role in social and economic
    activities, and are often the largest employer. When rural
    public schools lose resources or close, the entire community
    suffers. Vouchers harm students with disabilities, who make up
    about 15 percent of students across the country, and who lose
    most of their legal rights under special education and
    disability laws when they use vouchers to attend private
    school.
        Voucher students with disabilities have no right to the
    specific programs and services they need to make educational
    progress, and they lose IDEA and Section 504 protections
    against unfair discipline and segregation from non-disabled
    peers. Parents lose rights to receive notification, provide
    input, and seek judicial remedies regarding their child's
    special education.
        Parents are often not made aware of the loss of these
    rights. A seminal GAO report found that 83 percent of those
    using vouchers specifically for students with disabilities were
    in a program that provided either no information, or
    misinformation about changes in IDEA rights.
        The government should protect students from discrimination,
    not fund it. Students who use vouchers to attend private
    schools are not covered by many essential civil rights laws,
    thus voucher programs funnel taxpayer funds to schools that can
    and often do discriminate against students with disabilities,
    English learners, LGBTQ students, students of minority
    religions and others.
        Finally, voucher programs divert funding and resources from
    public schools and exploding voucher costs devaState State
    budgets. Make no mistake, states like Arizona and Florida are
    prime examples, siphoning billions of dollars to disastrous and
    unaccountable universal voucher programs, and creating massive
    budget holes.
        Many public schools around the Nation face chronic and
    severe underfunding and diverting much needed funds to pay for
    vouchers exacerbates that lack of resources. At the same time,
    voucher programs concentrate higher need more expensive to
    educate students in public schools, as many private schools
    refuse, or are unable to serve them.
        Often, students who took a voucher, but did not receive the
    promised benefits, returned to public schools, but the funds do
    not return with them. In the meantime, the loss of funding may
    have led the public school district to make difficult cuts, and
    even to close neighborhood schools with devastating
    consequences.
        It is a myth that public school families lack any
    educational options. First, the overwhelming majority of
    children across the country attend public schools, and the vast
    majority of parents are satisfied with their children's
    education. Second, there are numerous public school options, in
    addition to a student's neighborhood school, including magnet
    schools, interdistrict public school choice programs, and
    charter schools.
        We know what needs to be done to help all students succeed;
    adequately fund evidence-backed programs in public schools that
    welcome all students. Vouchers are not a solution to the issue
    of educational choice, nor any other challenge facing our
    schools and nation.
        There is already quite a bit of school choice in public
    education, and the affluent families that take vouchers are
    already paying for private education. In fact, vouchers are a
    windfall for them, and a significant harm for the Nation's
    public schools and students.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, and I
    welcome your questions.
        [The Statement of Ms. Levin follows:]
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kiley. Thank you. I will last recognize Mr. Blanks
    for your testimony.

       STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER BLANKS, JR., SPOKESMAN, AMERICAN
             FEDERATION FOR CHILDREN, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

        Mr. Blanks. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
    Committee on Education and Workforce, my name is Walter Blanks,
    Jr., and I am a Spokesperson for the American Federation for
    Children. I am here today because school choice changed my
    life.
        Before I begin, I would like to thank my wife, because
    today is our son's first birthday. Instead of partying like,
    you know, most families would in Nashville, we are here, doing
    very important work, and it is an honor to have my son growing
    up, seeing his father do work that is very, very important to
    him.
        I grew up in Columbus, Ohio, where my local public school
    was failing me. Every day I walked into a classroom where I
    felt unseen, unheard, and unchallenged. I struggled
    academically, and my parents knew that if something did not
    change, I would never reach my full potential.
        Like so many families, we could not afford private school
    tuition on our own. My parents reached their breaking point
    when I found myself sitting in the principal's office after
    being jumped by a group of other students. Instead of
    addressing the immediate issue, the principal turned to my
    mother and said, ``If you give us 5 years, we'll have the
    middle school turned around, and the high school turned around,
    and Walter will be able to thrive.''
        Without hesitation my mother, who took off work to come and
    see her baby, bruised up in school, looked at him in the eye
    and said, ``In 5 years Walter will either be in jail, or in a
    body bag, and we don't have time for either of those things.''
    She took my hand, and we left, and from that moment on I never
    stepped foot in that school again.
        Thankfully, my parents applied for, and I received a
    scholarship, a school choice scholarship, through the State of
    Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Program, which gave me the
    opportunity to attend a private school that completely
    transformed my life.
        For the first time I was in an environment that nurtured my
    potential. I went from a student who struggled to a student who
    was finding great success in his academic journey. The
    opportunity set me on a path that led me to where I am now,
    advocating for students who are just like I was.
        My journey has taken me to places that I could have never
    imagined, including the White House where I met President
    Trump. I will never forget looking him straight in the eye and
    telling him that I wanted to have his job someday. That moment
    was not just about ambition, it was about recognizing that when
    students are given the right opportunities, there are no limits
    to what they can achieve.
        My life is living proof of that. Now, I have the honor to
    add sitting before Congress and sharing my story to that list
    as well. Unfortunately, too many students across the country
    are still waiting for their chance. That is why I also support
    the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would give
    students in every State access to scholarships, opening doors
    to schools that best meet their needs that are currently
    closed.
        For some, it is a difference between struggling and
    succeeding. For others, like myself, it was quite literally a
    lifesaver. I appreciate the members of this Committee who have
    supported this important bill, and I urge every Representative
    to support this lifechanging opportunity.
        Every child deserves the same opportunity I had, the chance
    to succeed, to dream big, and to write their own futures. I
    have had great success because of my school choice journey, and
    I firmly believe more students should have that chance. Thank
    you.
        [The Statement of Mr. Blanks follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Happy birthday to your
    son. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now question witnesses
    under the 5-minute rule. I will first recognize the Chairman of
    the Full Committee, Mr. Walberg.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    panel for being here. With the most recent NAEP scores that
    continue to show the downhill slide that is out there, I do not
    even know why we need this hearing because choice is what is
    going to change it all around, and the choice that comes
    through vouchers, the full opportunity for parents to make the
    best decisions for their students to support the teachers that
    will do the best job for their students is what we are
    concerned with here.
        Thank you for being here this morning. Dr. McShane, one of
    the most frequent arguments we hear against--and we heard it
    today, against school choice is that it harms traditional
    public schools, but unbiased research simply does not bear this
    out. Can you talk more about what the research actually says,
    and why school choice does not harm traditional public schools?
        Mr. McShane. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the
    question. Yes, this is one of the most consistent findings we
    see in the private school choice literature that students who
    remain in public schools, their scores actually do better in
    the face of--if you want to call it competition, or the effects
    of the program that are there.
        I think the way of thinking about it is sometimes we have
    gotten into a bit of an outmoded way of talking about schools
    where we say these are the good schools, and these are the bad
    schools.
        I think it is--we need to move to a way of thinking about
    fit, that certain students fit in certain schools better than
    others. There may be schools that on average in an aggregate
    look good on paper, but there are students that are struggling
    in them, and there are students that are doing--schools that
    look like they are doing poorly, but students that are doing
    well in there.
        As students are able to move to a school that best fits
    them, we tend to think about it in the term of that student,
    they get to go to a school that is a better fit for them. You
    can also think about the school where that student left.
        If they were not having a great time, they could be taking
    time, resources, et cetera, so the students in the school that
    they have could actually be better off, so it could be a rising
    tide that raises all boats, and that seems to be what the
    empirical literature tells us.
        Mr. Walberg. It is generally an all above plan, works best,
    and gives more opportunity, does it not? What fits best for
    your child. We are doing the same for our grandchildren now,
    with the opportunities that they have, with the dyslexia and
    others.
        Ms. Clark, thank you for being here. You mentioned that
    school choice matters for all children. I certainly agree, but
    I think it is especially important for children of special
    needs. Could you talk more about why that is?
        Ms. Clark. Yes, thank you for the question. It is very
    interesting because in Arizona the number of families that are
    on our ESA Program, the percentage, if you will, of students
    with disabilities, is actually higher than the Arizona public
    school system.
        About 18 percent of students on the Arizona ESA Program are
    students with disabilities, whose families believed that they
    were not being served in their local public school system. Of
    that 18 percent, 50 percent of those students with disabilities
    are students with autism. We know that one in five students
    have a learning disability in reading, usually dyslexia.
        Now, the number for autism is around 1 in 33 boys have a
    diagnosis of autism. Families are choosing Arizona's ESA
    Program because they feel like they are doing more for their
    student with disabilities with less money than what the public
    school is doing.
        Mr. Walberg. Yes. Good to hear. Mr. Blanks, I will not say
    anything about Go Blue since you are from Columbus.
    Congratulations for the national championship, but let me ask
    you this, and I appreciate your life story that you have to
    give.
        Many critics of school choice say that private schools
    cream skin, which in other words says that they only take the
    most academically gifted and talented students, and that is why
    some of these schools have high scores.
        Tell me about the school you attended with a voucher. Do
    you think your new school only accepted the most talented
    accomplished students?
        Mr. Blanks. Well, thank you for that question. That
    championship was long, long overdue. Yes, so the school that I
    attended, actually I failed the entry test twice. The Principal
    and the Superintendent took a liking to me, for what reasons I
    am not sure, but they saw a lot of potential in me.
        They chose to bring me on anyway and accepting me actually
    forced them to open up an entire sixth grade wing, so they had
    to take on more students to justify just bringing me on. We
    often refer to ourselves as the Class of Rejects, because most
    of us were coming from schools that had failed us and then
    lower academic outcomes.
        All of us struggled during that time, and so in my
    experience, the school did everything that they could to bring
    the students who were struggling the most, and coming from
    tough environments, to a school where they could actually
    thrive.
        Mr. Walberg. They wanted to perform education on you?
        Mr. Blanks. Correct.
        Mr. Walberg. They made the cream of the crop, so thank you
    for being here. My time is expired, I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. I will now recognize the Ranking Member for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses. You know, nearly one in five K-12 students attend
    school in a rural community, and rural schools are in
    particular, reliant on the Federal funding. They typically have
    a smaller population, which means a smaller tax base. They are
    also vital employers, and they provide many services to the
    communities, for example, shelters for natural disasters, food
    pantries, before and after care.
        Importantly, students in rural areas do not have private
    schools geographically close to them to make a voucher useful.
    We have seen many conservative State lawmakers from rural
    districts oppose statewide voucher programs for that reason,
    including recently when 16 rural Republicans in Georgia voted
    to defeat a school voucher bill.
        In Texas, where the House voted to block any State funding
    for being used for vouchers, I want to ask you, Ms. Levin, how
    does the implementation of a school voucher program affect
    rural schools and the funding of rural schools, and are
    vouchers a viable alternative to the students who go to school
    there? How would vouchers affect the greater community in a
    rural area?
        Ms. Levin. Thank you for the question. Vouchers are
    devastating to rural communities, and they do not provide any
    benefits. As you and I have mentioned, there are very few
    private school options for students in rural communities, but
    the rural public schools that serve them, have less elasticity,
    less room in their budget than many larger, urban and suburban
    districts, so any cuts to their budgets can be devastating for
    school programs, including for them to cover their fixed costs,
    such as a library, or the heating or cooling in a school.
        Ms. Bonamici. I know as a former State Legislator, and I
    know there are other former State Legislators here, it is not
    always easy to find the funding to fill those gaps.
        Ms. Levin. That is exactly right, and so when voucher
    programs take money away from State budgets, or public
    education budgets specifically statewide, that is going to
    affect rural school budgets. They are getting no benefit, but
    they are losing those programs and services, as well as
    devastating the wider community that relies on that.
        Ms. Bonamici. I have another question too. We know that
    private schools often deny admission to children with
    disabilities, or subject them to inappropriate, or unfair
    discipline, and even expulsion.
        I would like to enter into the record a report by NCLD, the
    National Center for Learning Disabilities, called ``Private
    School Vouchers Education Savings Account and Tax Incentive
    Programs, Implications and Considerations for Students with
    Disabilities.'' It was originally published in 2017, but
    updated in 2024, and it provides examples of this type of
    school conduct, enter into the record.
        Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
        [The Information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Ms. Levin, when students with
    disabilities do attend a private school under a voucher
    program, they are considered parentally placed in a private
    school, and thus they forfeit many rights and protections under
    the IDEA.
        As a result, the schools are considered to be complying
    with the law, even when the students are not receiving the same
    quality and quantity of services they would in a public school
    that are mandated with an IEP, individualized education
    program, such as speech, occupational and physical therapy.
        Ms. Levin, do private school vouchers adequately serve
    students with disabilities?
        Ms. Levin. They do not, and they actively hurt their
    rights. As you said, the students lose many of their rights,
    their parents lose the right to participate and have close
    contact with their education. They lose rights under Section
    504 and the ADA as well.
        Ms. Bonamici. Just to clarify, the families of children
    with disabilities when they take a private school voucher, they
    actually lose their rights?
        Ms. Levin. That is correct. They lose the vast majority of
    their rights.
        Ms. Bonamici. Now, Mr. Blanks, I have--thank you for
    sharing your story. I have a yes or no question. Your
    organization, the American Federation for Children, that was
    organized and funded by the DeVos family. Is that correct? Just
    for context, yes or no?
        Mr. Blanks. Yes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am going to
    yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
        Chairman Kiley. The Representative from North Carolina, Mr.
    Harris, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all
    of you on the panel that I have had the pleasure of reading
    your testimoneys, as well as hearing you this morning, and very
    appreciative of you being here and your time.
        Parents in my district have told me time and again that
    school choice is a priority of theirs. They really long for
    anything that we can do at the Federal level to make that
    easier. Mr. Blanks, today I appreciated your testimony. It was
    inspiring.
        We have heard lots of claims from the other side of the
    aisle made in opposition to school choice. Some are going to
    argue that school choice resegregates schools. We have heard
    that school choice deprives children with disabilities of their
    rights. We have heard that support for school choice is really
    a smokescreen for trying to destroy public education.
        Is it just me, or is the conversation that one side of this
    debate is having is totally disconnected from the conversations
    that real families are having around their kitchen tables about
    how best to educate their kids?
        Mr. Blanks. Yes. Yes, I firmly believe that when we are
    having these discussions about education that the other side
    will typically leave out the personal experience. Stories like
    my own, or why parents want to send their child to a different
    school in the first place.
        I am here to talk about my own experience, and as I have
    done this work, I have heard a lot about how vouchers are
    schemes, or scams, or whatever the case may be, but it was my
    lifesaving device for me and for my family. We did not have
    support. We did not have any other option.
        I was stuck in this school, and I would beg my mom every
    day not to send me to that school. I do find some of those
    comments offensive, but I am proud to stand behind the very
    policies that changed my life and put me on the path that I am
    on now today.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. God bless your mom for having
    the courage and the strength and determination to respond the
    way she did when she was asked to give a 5-year reprieve to get
    things right.
        Mrs. Clark, your story represents one of those parents who
    wants options. Another objection we might hear to school choice
    is that there is no accountability if the school fails to serve
    children with special needs. I notice you went through the IDEA
    process, and it sounds as if the public school system failed
    your child.
        What would you say to critics who believe that the
    traditional public schools are the only safe place for children
    with special needs and learning disabilities?
        Mrs. Clark. Thank you for the question. Well, I would say
    that is absolutely false, and we can look at the demand of
    parents of students with disabilities for school choice
    programs. You know, there is a sad running joke amongst parents
    of students with disabilities, and it essentially goes like if
    you have not cried in an IEP meeting with a public school, you
    do not really have a student with a disability.
        We all know, as parents of students with disabilities, how
    incredibly difficult the process is to actually get the
    services that our children need in the public school system, so
    this idea that IDEA is somehow benefiting all students in the
    public school system, is absolutely false.
        Contrary to what you have heard, we do not lose all of our
    rights when we choose a school choice scholarship program. IDEA
    Part B proportionate share funding, that has been around since
    the beginning of IDEA, says that a proportion of all of the
    funds that come to the State should be used for students with
    disabilities that are in private schools and home schools.
        I know. One of my children on an ESA received IDEA funding
    from their local public school just last year. There is a lot
    of misinformation out there around IDEA.
        Mr. Harris. Well, you also mentioned in your testimony that
    even at the State level in order to qualify for Arizona's
    Empowerment Scholarship Account Program, you had to jump
    through a variety of hoops for several months. Could you take
    just a moment and elaborate on some of the reasons why it took
    so long?
        Mrs. Clark. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    Prior to Arizona's ESA Program being universal, where every
    student qualified in 2022, families like myself had to go
    through the public school system process to have our students
    evaluated. That was an extra expense on the public school
    system, but the public school system is the one that had to
    qualify our students as a student with disability.
        There was, you know, an extra process, an extra burden
    there. Also in Arizona, you used to have to attend public
    school, either in person or online for 100 days. It was very
    difficult for families with students of disabilities, or
    families that were moving into the State.
        Mr. Harris. All right. Well, eliminating bureaucracy is one
    of the most important reforms I believe that we can make at the
    Federal level. We could never forget that parental rights will
    always take precedence over government, and the taxpayer
    dollars have got to be accountable to the taxpayer themselves.
        I will ask you this, Mrs. Clark, do you think that
    eliminating or reducing the role of the Department of Education
    would give more power to the states and people to influence
    education?
        Mrs. Clark. Yes. I absolutely do. Ending the Department of
    Education, or greatly disempowering it is something that I hope
    to see very soon.
        Mr. Harris. Well, it is clear under our Constitution, the
    Federal Government was never supposed to have such an outsized
    role in education, with the number of students failing core
    subjects growing in our Nation. It is clear that the status quo
    is not working, as we have heard today.
        What I am hearing is that parents and states are more than
    ready to step up and make sure that children get the best
    education, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Connecticut, Ms.
    Hayes, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses for
    being here today. I want to first frame my comments with the
    information that I was a public school teacher before I came to
    Congress. Sixteen years I taught as a high school history
    teacher.
        I just want to provide some context for much of what you
    are hearing. This hearing is about school choice, yet it is
    trying--they are trying to position it as vouchers and public
    charter schools are the same thing. They are not. Vouchers are
    very different, and that is not what we are talking about.
        At the top of the hearing the Chairman talked about 81
    private school programs that serve 1 million students, yet the
    school that he highlighted as being successful, Success
    Academy, is in fact a public charter school.
        Chairman Kiley. Will the gentlewoman yield?
        Mrs. Hayes. No, I will not. Many public schools offer
    school choice to parents, and that is not what we are talking
    about here today. I heard quotes from an economist from the
    1950's, 70 years ago, so much has happened in public education
    I would encourage you to engage in that conversation.
        Again, we have witnesses at the table right off the White
    House guest list. In your testimony where you said, Mr. Blanks,
    that you failed an entry test two times before they finally
    decided to allow you access to the school, just reiterates the
    fact that these schools are not for everybody.
        It is a system of winners and losers. To the idea about
    segregation in schools, the Department of Education actually
    protects civil rights. If we are talking about the most
    important reform Congress can make, it is increasing the
    funding for IDEA from 16 percent to the 40 percent that
    Congress promised that it would do.
        Schools are funded locally, so local property taxes decide
    many of the decisions that we are talking about here today. I
    do have a few questions, and I want to move quickly because I
    have lots of questions. Ms. Clark, just yes or no. You said
    that you had to do an independent educational assessment for
    your children in order to understand their academic needs. Did
    your family pay for that out of pocket?
        Mrs. Clark. No. The district did. It is part of the law.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. You talked about--you home schooled
    your three children. Was your family able to do that because
    you had stable income?
        Mrs. Clark. No. My husband was in law school at the time.
    We were on loans.
        Mrs. Hayes. OK. $7,500 was given to your family to cover
    your children's dyslexia educational supports. Was that the
    total cost of those supports?
        Mrs. Clark. It was $7,500 per student, and yes, it was the
    full cost of those supports, half of the public school funding.
        Mrs. Hayes. $7,500 in total for dyslexia funding,
    educational funding for the entire year for one student?
        Mrs. Clark. Yes, that is correct.
        Mrs. Hayes. I would disagree with that because--and I can
    tell you why. Public schools offer many of the wraparound
    supports and services, so it is not just what happens in the
    classroom. It is the occupational supports, the technical
    supports, the social workers, all of those things.
        I know, and anyone who has ever looked at a public school
    budget knows that those services are not provided for
    $7,500.00. Ms. Levin, can you explain just briefly, going into
    greater detail, why private schools are not mandated to follow
    the same reporting requirements as most public schools?
        Ms. Levin. Yes. Thank you for the question, and I come from
    a family of educators, so I thank you for that as well. It is
    because of the deliberate choice in the statutes, legislators
    choose not to put accountability measures in these bills, and
    you have to ask yourself why.
        Mrs. Hayes. When a student is not accepted to these schools
    because I have yet to find one charter school, one of these
    private voucher programs that supports all of the special
    education needs of these students, and part of IDEA says that
    students need to be educated alongside their non-disabled
    peers.
        When those children do not have success in those schools
    and go back to the public school system, can you explain a
    little bit about what happens in that case with their funding?
        Ms. Levin. Often the student returns to a public school,
    but the money has already gone to the private school, so the
    public school now has less money, and it has a higher
    concentration of higher need students to serve with those fewer
    resources.
        Mrs. Hayes. Can the public school refuse to accept those
    students now that the funding source is gone?
        Ms. Levin. It cannot.
        Mrs. Hayes. They cannot. That is what I thought. I mean
    everybody knows that. Again, I would caution people. Yes, we
    want parents involved, education is a partnership between
    parents, families, their teachers, everyone, but this idea of
    private voucher programs is absolutely a sham.
        It is moving taxpayer moneys to a profit source for the
    billionaire class. That is not what public education is
    supposed to do. I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will note that I
    cited Success Academy, and kept specifically as examples of
    outstanding public charter schools. The problem is that many in
    this party, including President Joe Biden, have been attacking
    public charter schools.
        With that, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. My home State of Indiana stands as
    a national leader in pro school choice legislation. Back in
    2011, our State Legislature passed the Indiana Choice
    Scholarship Program that has become--since become the largest
    single voucher program in the United States.
        This session the House is looking to pass universal school
    choice vouchers that would further increase options for Hoosier
    families to educate their children in the best environment that
    fits their individual needs. At the Federal level, as we
    Members of Congress should follow these steps.
        I am proud to join my friend, Adrian Smith, and other
    distinguished colleagues on this Committee, in co-sponsoring
    the Education Choice for Children Act, a bill that would
    provide K through 12 scholarships to as many as 2 million
    students across the country to attend the school that best
    meets their needs.
        Dr. McShane, Indiana is a leader in school choice reform,
    creating the large voucher program in the country, and it has
    seen 32 percent growth this past year. Now, the State is
    looking to move universal vouchers allowing parents to choose
    specialized programs that fit their children's needs, or
    schools that align with their religious and moral values,
    regardless of their income level.
        How would a Federal universal program like this fit into
    Milton Freidman's idea of a government's role in education?
        Mr. McShane. I think it would be relatively well aligned
    with that. As I mentioned, Milton Freidman's idea, which is
    oftentimes caricatured to be a sort of free for all of schools,
    he thought that schools could be independently operated.
    Parents could freely choose between them, but to say it would
    play a role in financially supporting them, which sounds like
    what would be happening in that bill.
        Mr. Messmer. OK. Thank you. Just to clarify, in Indiana to
    accept vouchers, a school must submit to the same
    accountability standards as any of the public schools. As a
    followup to that, Mr. McShane, do you think it is possible that
    giving parents choice, what is best for their option, including
    vouchers, charters, and unrestricted public to public
    transfers, could lead to better outcomes for all students by
    creating competition?
        Mr. McShane. Yes. I mean as I mentioned earlier, there is a
    very strong empirical literature on the competitive effects of
    private school vouchers. It is a consistent finding, met
    analyses, studies that put these together have found that
    result. I have no reason to believe that it would not continue
    into the future.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Mr. Blanks, one of the important
    aspects of Education Choice for Children Act is that it creates
    a lifeline for students trapped in local schools, school
    districts or states, that will likely never pass school choice
    policies for themselves.
        It is vital that these students have access to educational
    options. You live in a State that established a voucher
    program, but not every student is so fortunate. Why do you
    think it is important for students nationwide, rather than just
    select states that have choice?
        Mr. Blanks. Yes, well, thank you for that question. It is
    absolutely vital because like you alluded to, there are some
    states that have been slow to pass school choice legislation at
    the State level. The ECCA would allow some of those families
    who have currently being locked out of options to tap into some
    of those dollars.
        Now I live in Tennessee, where the Governor was monumental
    in passing the educational savings account for the State. For a
    State like ours, when my wife and I are talking about, you
    know, where we are going to send our son, what is his
    educational bring up going to look like with the ECCA on top of
    a State level, you know, program, that means more resources,
    more access, more opportunities, really for me as a father to
    be in the driver's seat of my child's education.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Mrs. Clark, there are many families
    in my district in Indiana who are affected by learning
    disorders like your children and need the benefit of choosing a
    program that will fit the needs of their child and learning
    disabilities.
        Indiana implemented a similar program called the Indiana
    Education Scholarship Account that provides access to students
    with disabilities and their families, access to an educational
    environment that best meets their needs. As a parent, how do
    you think these types of programs can improve to further assist
    those that our public school system tends to leave behind.
        Mrs. Clark. Well, one of the best parts of the ESA Programs
    and School Choice Programs for students with disabilities is
    all of the innovation that happens because parents now have the
    funding, and we can go online and find, you know, an incredible
    math AI tutor.
        We can download those, you know, automated flashcards. We
    can do all these new and exciting things. This whole new arena
    of education entrepreneurship has come out of giving parents
    control of their education dollars.
        A lot of the new things that our family has tried that have
    really helped our kids have been because we have an ESA, and
    because, you know, the public schools, as big as they are, they
    tend to not be able to move very quickly when it comes to
    addressing individual student needs.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Kiley. The Representative from New York, Mr.
    Mannion, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, thank you to
    Ranking Member Bonamici, and thank you to our witnesses for
    joining us here today. I was a former public school teacher for
    almost 30 years, teaching AP biology, chemistry, in a 15 to 1
    living environment.
        I am also the husband of a fellow educator. I care deeply
    about ensuring that all students have access to a safe and
    supportive learning environment. Throughout my career in the
    classroom, and then also in the State Senate, I worked to
    strengthen public education, and advocate for policies that
    ensure that every child can succeed.
        My father was on public assistance. I came from a working-
    class blue-collar background, and my parents chose to send me
    to a private Catholic school. My parents paid school tax
    dollars, property tax dollars, but they made the decision
    because they emphasized Catholic education for me and others,
    my wife the same, to send me to a Catholic school.
        When my wife and I had our first child, our plan was to
    send our children to Catholic schools until my son at three and
    a half was diagnosed with autism. He had speech levels of a 9-
    month-old. At that point we made the very difficult decision to
    send him through the public school CSEA, or excuse me, CPSE
    process.
        We attempted to send him to a private Pre-K school, and he
    was not accepted. We knew that the only way that our son would
    receive the necessary, intensive, early intervention for him to
    be successful, was to send him to a public school. Then my two
    children, younger than him, also attended public schools.
        They are all thriving, including my oldest, who is a
    college graduate, lives independently, drives his own vehicle,
    which he purchased. Voucher and voucherlike proposals divert
    funds away from public schools, and they will not address the
    needs of our educational system or improve student outcomes.
        Public schools are exceptional public schools in Central
    New York, and across the country simply cannot afford an
    additional financial strain by sending tax dollars to other
    places, and the Federal Government should not be in the
    business of subsidizing private education.
        I am particularly concerned about the negative impacts that
    these proposals have on students with IEPs, who rely on
    protections and services guaranteed to them in public schools.
    On that subject, I will ask my first question to Ms. Levin. Ms.
    Levin, when the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act
    was enacted in 1975, it authorized Federal funding to cover 40
    percent on average per pupil spending nationwide to provide
    public education services.
        Fifty years later IDEA is funded at only 13 or 14 percent.
    Given that Congress has yet to fulfill its original commitment
    to fully fund IDEA, what do you make of proposals to allocate
    Federal funds to private school voucher programs instead of
    prioritizing support for students with disabilities in public
    schools?
        Ms. Levin. Thank you. It is a very misguided and dangerous
    policy. The Federal funding for IDEA has never reached more
    than 16 or 17 percent versus that 40 percent promise, which may
    not even be enough. We are funding a second system of schools
    with these proposals would fund a second system, that does not
    even serve most students with disabilities.
        Mr. Mannion. In my district we have a very significant New
    American and refuge population. What impact would voucher
    proposals have on English language learners, most of whom
    depend on public schools for specialized instruction and
    supports that is not always provided in private schools?
        How might a private school voucher program affect English
    language learners and their access to educational resources?
        Ms. Levin. The vast majority of those students would still
    depend upon public schools because very few private education
    options have the resources or the programs to serve their
    means, and now the public schools would have just a higher
    concentration of higher needs students.
        As a special education attorney, and an attorney for many
    English learners, I have seen firsthand the importance of the
    protections in the Federal civil rights statutes that give them
    their rights in school.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I yield my time
    back.
        Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Utah, Mr. Owens, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Chair, this is a
    very, very important conversation. I have noticed I have a
    couple things in common with some of our witnesses. Mr. Blanks,
    my dad went to Ohio State. I was born in Columbus, Ohio, he was
    getting his Ph.D. there during that time.
        Ms. Levin, I think you came out of Oakland, am I correct?
    OK.
        Ms. Levin. Yes.
        Mr. Owens. Well, I played with the Oakland Raiders, so we
    have some things in common here. I have just a couple of
    things. Mr. Blanks, you mentioned--Mr. Blanks, you mentioned
    earlier, what do you say to those who believe that failing
    schools in time would be given--given times would be able to
    turn things around and be able to address the issues that you
    mentioned that you had.
        Mr. Blanks. Yes, well in my experience more often than not,
    the needs of the students are not met, and so that instance
    with my mother happened almost 20 years ago, and to pull the
    current--the educational outcomes of that school, 13 percent of
    the students are proficient in math, and 34 percent are
    proficient in reading, in both of those categories for the
    State of Ohio, the school is considered well below
    expectations, almost 20 years ago.
        For my mom, who said we do not have that kind of time, but
    think over the last two decades how many students have shuffled
    through the school, and some of them have done well. I know
    one, in particular, that was in the same class I was, is now
    playing for the Buffalo Bills, doing very well.
        The public education system was great for him, but it
    simply was not for me, and so I needed another option, and so
    to tell my mom to wait 5 years was not an acceptable answer.
        Mr. Owens. Good for your mom. That is called wisdom. By the
    way, I have been hearing this for 40-50 years, just give us
    time, meanwhile we are losing kids by the droves. I have, Ms.
    Levin, I am of course very impressed with your background.
    Magna Cum Laude from Cornell University, University of Oxford,
    and JD Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.
        I am going to guess that is because you had a remarkable
    foundation. You have parents that truly focused on your
    educational process. Am I correct?
        Ms. Levin. That was certainly a very important part of it.
        Mr. Owens. OK. Would you have had the same experience you
    think if you lived in the Baltimore area with 28 schools, you
    have 2,000 seniors with zero proficiency in math? Or in
    California, a study back in 2017, 75 percent of the black boys
    could not read, pass reading and writing tests. Would you still
    have succeeded in those kind of situations in the public school
    system do you think?
        Ms. Levin. I think that we need to fully fund our public
    schools to make sure that all students have the opportunity,
    and Educational Law Center advocates for that across the
    country. Private school choice----
        Mr. Owens. So, did you go to a public school system?
        Ms. Levin. No. I went to a private school.
        Mr. Owens. OK. You went to Head-Royce School. I spent time
    in Oakland. You had a choice in Oakland to go to public schools
    also, why did your parents do that for you?
        Ms. Levin. Well, I would remind you that children generally
    do not choose the school that they go to----
        Mr. Owens. No, your parents did. Your parents had a choice.
        Ms. Levin. Yes, correct.
        Mr. Owens. Your parents paid 30 to $50,000 a year for your
    choice. What gets me is how people like yourself, and I would
    say it is across the board, parents who have an option, they
    put their kids in the best schools. They know that is an
    investment for their kid's future, and yet you come here and
    say how well that does not work.
        I just want to repeat, I want to read this real quick. ``In
    reality, students who use vouchers experience worse educational
    outcomes than their public school peers.'' Obviously, your
    parents did not think that way because they put you in a
    private school. ``In private schools, they're subject to few,
    if any, quality and accountability standards.''
        I guess my question is this, if we had a system in which we
    were focused on the student versus the institution, if parents
    had a choice, like your parents did, had a choice, and it did
    not come out of the State funds. We have something called
    education choice, that does not come--not one red cent comes
    out of the district, out of a local--would you be OK with
    choice if that was the case?
        If parents had a choice, but it did not come out of the
    public school system, which obviously we are, you know, very
    focused on, would you be OK with that kind of choice?
        Ms. Levin. No. We oppose any type of private school choice
    program.
        Mr. Owens. Of course.
        Ms. Levin. I would note that I, as an independent person,
    have looked at the evidence, and looked at policy, and made my
    own independent judgment.
        Mr. Owens. Would you put your children in a school system
    here in Baltimore? If you are stuck there? If you did not have
    a choice of what we are talking about with everybody else,
    would you be OK to leave your child in a school that is failing
    with zero proficiency in math?
        Ms. Levin. I will absolutely put any children I have,
    including the one I am expecting, into public schools. As I
    said, I come from a family----
        Mr. Owens. In a good public--in Baltimore public schools,
    we are not talking about good public schools. We are talking
    about schools that are failing our kids. Would you be willing
    to put your child in a school that everybody else, all these
    parents are trying to get their kids out of?
        Ms. Levin. I do not believe that our public schools are
    failing. I believe that that is a narrative created at the
    national level.
        Mr. Owens. I think there is a word called ``Hutzpah,''
    there is a lot of Hutzpah. When I sit down and talk to people
    at the table here that are dealing with this every single day,
    and their kids are failing. We have had too much of this.
    Anyway, that being said, I am excited about the fact that we
    are going to have a choice process, and kids are going to be
    able to get out and be successful in the future, so I look
    forward to that. I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Owens, for that very
    revealing line of questioning. Ms. Adams from North Carolina is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for your testimony, and for being here. I know that
    we all want what is best for students but let us be clear. This
    is not about choice, it is about privatization. Now, I went to
    public schools. My children went to public schools. My
    grandchildren as well.
        I taught 40 years as a college professor, and prepared
    students to become teachers, so I know a little bit about this.
    84 percent of American kids are in public schools, instead of
    strengthening them, this agenda pulls funding away, sending
    taxpayer dollars to private schools with little oversight, and
    no accountability.
        Now, I have always been about fairness, Mr. Chairman, and
    so I am going to request that we hold a hearing on investing in
    public schools because public schools are not failing, they are
    being failed. If we care about our kids, we should be investing
    in public education, not undermining it.
        Ms. Levin, my question to you, we know that diverse schools
    benefit students in real measurable ways, higher academic
    achievement, better college and career outcomes, even higher
    lifetime earnings.
        Despite our country being more diverse than ever, our
    public schools remain deeply segregated, and the numbers are
    getting worse. A 2022 GAO report found that more than one in
    three public K through 12 students attends a racially
    segregated school.
        My question is what impact do school choice and voucher
    programs have on segregation? Do they increase diversity and
    access, or do they just reinforce existing inequalities?
        Ms. Levin. Thank you for the question. I also thank you for
    focusing on the research and facts, rather than ad hominem
    attacks. Private school choice programs have been shown, and
    research continues to come out showing that they increase
    segregative effects in public school systems, and in private
    schools.
        Also, I think it is very important to note that these
    programs were popularized in the modern era, not just by Milton
    Freidman, but by segregationists, who were trying to avoid the
    integration mandate in Brown vs. Board of Education, and I
    think that we need a very strong justification for continuing a
    policy that has those ugly origins, and we do not have it
    because those policies continue segregative effects today.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. When public schools mismanage funds,
    there is oversight. There is accountability, and there are
    consequences, but with private voucher schools we are seeing
    cases where taxpayer dollars are flowing to schools that barely
    exist, or in some cases do not exist at all.
        I represent North Carolina's 12th District. We had a school
    taking public money, but the State could not even confirm where
    it was physically located, and so the State Bureau of
    Investigation had to step in. Tell me what is stopping this
    kind of thing from happening more often, and what safeguards
    should be in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not
    being misused in private voucher programs?
        Ms. Levin. There is almost nothing stopping it, and I can
    tell you from having read hundreds of voucher bills over the
    years, that they are having fewer and fewer accountability and
    transparency measures. This is a deliberate choice by
    legislators, because they do know about the fraud, abuse, and
    waste that happens in many states, including North Carolina.
        There is no type of amendment or reform that can make a
    private school voucher program a good public policy, not to
    mention constitutional under State law. If we are going to give
    money to private schools, we have to ask why are we not
    subjecting them to any of the accountability requirements that
    apply to public?
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. President Trump says that he had
    nothing to do with Project 2025, but let us be clear. The plan
    is right there in black and white. A 10-year roadmap to
    completely dismantle the Federal role in K-12 education.
        I am here to stand up for our students, but it alarmingly
    seems that President Trump has a different vision, one that
    puts low-income students, and students with disabilities at
    severe risk.
        Secretary McMahon, she is already laying the groundwork to
    make that happen, end Federal K-12 funding if it disappears,
    funding that keeps the light on in classrooms, and supports
    special education, and ensures low-income kids get the
    resources they need.
        What does that actually look like for the schools and
    communities that rely on this support, Ms. Levin?
        Ms. Levin. Cutting Federal education funding would be
    devastating, especially to districts that rely heavily on Title
    I funding for low-income students, IDEA funding for students
    with disabilities, McKinney-Vento funding and many others. It
    would mean that those districts would not have the resources,
    they are already under resourced. They would lose even further
    on essential services.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, I asked a
    question earlier in the beginning. I certainly hope you would
    take it into consideration that we have a hearing that would
    address the public education, and the importance of that. Thank
    you very much, I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
    myself for 5 minutes. Just to understand your position, Ms.
    Levin, do you think that private school should be abolished?
        Ms. Levin. No, I do not.
        Chairman Kiley. OK, because you referred to my colleague's
    line of questioning as an ad hominem attack, but I think that
    totally misses the point. Do you think that your parents are
    well within their rights to send you to a private school that
    costs tens of thousands of dollars in tuition?
        Ms. Levin. At their own expense, yes.
        Chairman Kiley. You support the right of Kamala Harris,
    Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, to send their child to private school?
        Ms. Levin. I am an attorney, and the law supports their
    right, and I support it as well.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. You support the right of families to
    choose private schools if they can afford it. Is that right?
        Ms. Levin. That is correct. I do believe that public
    education though is the cornerstone of our democracy, and I, as
    an individual, firmly support it.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. Do you see how that might rub some
    people the wrong way when you support school choice for wealthy
    families, but oppose efforts to extend that same opportunity to
    lower income families?
        Ms. Levin. I believe that our public schools should be as
    well funded, and as wonderful as our private schools, I think
    that that is something that the American people widely agree
    on, but policymakers need to find the political will to finally
    fully fund our public schools, and the evidence backed programs
    that help all students in places that welcome all students.
        Chairman Kiley. You talk about rural schools. Let us say
    that you are in one of these rural communities that only has
    one public school, and unfortunately, it is not very good. What
    would you tell the parents in that community?
        Ms. Levin. I would advocate alongside them as we do for
    better public funding for their public schools.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. Maybe that will solve the problem,
    maybe it will not. Meanwhile, their child is not being taught
    to read. You just tell them tough luck?
        Ms. Levin. No. I, as an attorney, would advocate for their
    rights under the law, which I would note largely do not apply
    to private school students.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. You think that that is going to somehow
    instantly transform this school, so that they are taught to
    read?
        Ms. Levin. I think that there is no chance of people's
    rights being enforced when they do not have them.
        Chairman Kiley. Let us think about Arizona, Ms. Clark, if
    you are a parent in that same situation. This is their sort of
    example, that has come up again and again, what about in a
    rural community? If you were in the situation where there is
    really only one public school, and you have access to an ESA,
    what are your options then?
        Mrs. Clark. Well, we have thousands of families in Arizona
    in rural communities, who are utilizing our state's ESA
    Program, and they are utilizing it because it works. They are
    not trapped by maybe one public school that is not serving them
    well, maybe is not teaching their child to read. They can
    launch a micro school.
        They can create a co-op. They could hire a teacher, and
    pool their ESA funds with other families, which many of them
    have done. They can do online schools. There are thousands of
    incredible online schools. They would have access to all of
    those things with an ESA.
        Chairman Kiley. What do you think, Ms. Levin? Might that
    get you better results in the near term than writing a letter
    to your State Legislator?
        Ms. Levin. The research says that it would not. The
    overwhelming research shows that online schools do not perform
    as well as brick and mortar schools, particularly for our most
    vulnerable.
        Chairman Kiley. Well, I do not know about that. I mean, Dr.
    McShane gave us a lot of research that says quite the contrary.
    I mean you are from California, and you have told us again that
    the solution is just full funding. California is pretty well
    funded. How is California doing with education?
        Ms. Levin. The solution to be clear is not just full
    funding.
        Chairman Kiley. OK.
        Ms. Levin. Full funding is a necessary, though not a
    sufficient condition for an adequate education.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. What are the other things.
        Ms. Levin. We need policy. We need to fund policies that
    are evidence-backed and that work.
        Chairman Kiley. Like what?
        Ms. Levin. Like teacher preparation, like preschool, like
    sufficient services for students with disabilities, and I would
    be happy to provide the Committee with much more research
    backed evidence.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. In California, we are not doing well.
    You did not answer the question, but that is the truth, so I
    guess even though we have all that funding, we just do not have
    the right policies in those other areas. Is that what it is?
        Ms. Levin. Well, California has improved its public school
    funding. That does not necessarily mean it has sufficient
    funding to serve the needs well of every student.
        Chairman Kiley. Uh-huh. Are you aware that California had
    the longest school shutdown in the country during COVID?
        Ms. Levin. I will take your word for it.
        Chairman Kiley. Do you think that was a good thing, or was
    that a mistake?
        Ms. Levin. I believe that during a catastrophic early years
    of a pandemic, that schools sometimes needed to stay close to
    protect both students, especially students with disabilities.
        Chairman Kiley. Do you support California's decision to
    stay--have its schools closed longer than any State in the
    country?
        Ms. Levin. I support the decision of each State and
    locality making the choice that was right for them.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. Interesting, but you do not support
    that when it comes to issues on school choice?
        Ms. Levin. When it comes to issues like school choice, I
    support the policies that are going to benefit students, not
    harm them, and the evidence is overwhelming.
        Chairman Kiley. Well, the evidence is overwhelming that
    school closures harmed students. That is not even really up for
    debate at this point. You are a supporter of charter schools
    though, is that right?
        Ms. Levin. Yes, though they have to be like all public
    policy, implemented well, designed well, and with safeguards to
    protect students' rights.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. When President Biden tried to cut
    Federal charter school grants, did you speak out against that?
        Ms. Levin. Well, President Biden was a little more targeted
    than I think your characterizing. For example, I do not support
    and Education Law Center does not support for profit charter
    schools. They should not be funded with Federal money.
        Chairman Kiley. Just for the record, do Federal civil
    rights laws apply to private schools? Yes or no?
        Ms. Levin. Largely not.
        Chairman Kiley. Federal civil rights laws you are saying do
    not apply to private schools?
        Ms. Levin. Largely not. Some provisions do, but many do not
    of IDEA, Title VI, the EEOA, Title IX, some of them only
    apply--many of them only apply to schools that receive Federal
    funding, which is an increasingly low number of private
    schools, especially high schools.
        Chairman Kiley. That is largely untrue. For an employer,
    there are Federal civil rights protections that do not depend
    on whether you are a public or private employer, but in any
    case, I will now recognize the--who is the next Democrat
    witness, Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Public education is
    important to me, right? I am a product of public education from
    Pre-K through college, including programs like Head Start. When
    I listen to our colleagues on the other side I am always
    baffled by the conversation, because I feel like sometimes it
    maybe intentionally misses the points.
        We have talked, and we will continue to talk about good
    public schools, or passing public schools versus failing public
    schools, instead of talking about failing public policy,
    failing funding schemes, failing bureaucracy. We know that we
    have a system of inequitably funded schools in this country
    where the quality of your education can largely be determined
    by your Zip Code, or your family's wealth.
        In my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, our funding scheme
    was so inequitable that the Court said we needed to go back to
    the drawing board. Republicans would love to believe that the
    solution is dismantling the Department of Education to give us
    local choice.
        What they are actually giving us is the responsibility of
    subsidizing education to localities, where people will pay
    higher property taxes to fund the discrimination of children.
    The burden of the Federal Government divesting from public
    education will be shouldered by first time home buyers, for
    instance in Pittsburgh, where home ownership is already
    becoming unsustainable by seniors, and in my home school
    district of Woodland Hills, those neighborhoods, who are
    already strained and facing the loss of their social security
    benefits. These additional tax dollars will help charter and
    private schools hand select students that will improve schools'
    outcomes, while maximizing schools' bottom line.
        Our tax dollars will not help the children who will never
    be able to avail themselves of discriminatory school choices.
    Our public education system serves the child who is unhoused or
    transient, the child in the foster care system who does not
    have two well-connected parents to push for scholarships, or
    the family facing divisional divide, who will miss application
    deadlines, reasonably.
        The child that did not have access to Head Start or
    preschool like me, because we did not invest in those. It is
    behind--that child is behind in reading. We need to invest in
    public education because it is the only option for children,
    that so-called parents' rights movement has decided are not
    worth investing in.
        It is also no coincidence that the school choice movement
    is financed by billionaires, like Jeffrey Ash from my
    Commonwealth, who is trying to turn my state's education system
    into his own personal business.
        A business's priority is to a stakeholder, and children
    have no stake in the economic model of school choice. Ms.
    Levin, I want to ask you about charter schools run by for
    profit management companies, as you ended in the last question
    line.
        If a company is maximizing profit, it is not spending all
    public dollars on students, especially students who require
    more resources, which is why charter schools educate fewer
    students with disabilities, than traditional public schools.
        In your opinion, Ms. Levin, are these for-profit charter
    management companies maximizing profit at the cost of students
    and families?
        Ms. Levin. Yes.
        Ms. Lee. Related to moving education to the private sector.
    One of the rationales for school choice is this free-market
    idea that school choice will force public schools to compete
    for funding, thereby, for public schools will improve because
    of that. Does evidence support this? What does the research
    show?
        Ms. Levin. It does not, and neither does common sense.
    There is a lot of school choice right now in the public school
    system, so if competition is good, we are already creating and
    getting those benefits. Providing high-quality education should
    not be accomplished through cutthroat competition.
        It should be accomplished by getting every school the
    resources that it needs.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you. According to the 2022 GAO report, over
    30 percent of Pennsylvania charters that receive Federal
    charter schools program grant funding between 2006 and 2020
    closed or never opened. I request unanimous consent for the
    2022 GAO report on federally funded charter school closures to
    be entered into the record.
        Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
        [The Information of Ms. Lee follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lee. Thank you. I have heard countless stories about
    charter schools closing because of fraud and mismanagement, and
    voucher programs taking advantage of the fact that they have no
    fiscal accountability. How concerned should we be about
    mismanagement, fraud, and corruption if we expand Federal
    support and funding for charters and vouchers.
        Ms. Levin. We should be very concerned. You are right that
    there are numerous reports throughout the country of both
    charter and voucher schools engaging in fraud, waste and abuse
    of public dollars. It is unconscionable to send billions more
    in a Federal voucher program to schools that have almost no
    accountability or transparency requirements.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Ms. Levin. It is clear that school
    choice, this school choice fallacy we are talking about today
    just exacerbates the inequalities, the inequities we already
    have. Wealthy, white families will continue to have their
    choices subsidized by depriving largely black and brown, and
    other marginalized children of educational opportunities.
        If school choice is going to work, children and families do
    need real choices. A for-profit charter school that closes a
    month after opening because of fraud and mismanagement, is not
    a real choice.
        A private school where tuition is twice as much as a child
    scholarship amount, where a child is not entitled to an IEP,
    and where a child could be expelled, for instance, for having
    two moms, is not a real choice.
        An underfunded neighborhood school with larger class sides,
    fewer books, substandard wages for teachers, and deteriorating
    infrastructure because everyone's increasing tax dollars are
    being used to subsidize charters and private. It is also not a
    real choice.
        Families and children are fully funded, high-quality, well-
    resourced public schools, and we can accomplish that, but not
    by giving away more handouts to billionaires that will
    discriminate against the most marginalized students to turn a
    profit. I thank you all for your time, and I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. The Representative
    from Guam, Mr. Moylan, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member,
    and thank you for hosting this important hearing on expanding
    educational choice. School choice allows parents and families
    the freedom to choose the schools that work best for them. In
    my district of Guam, people often work outside their villages,
    sometimes on the opposite side of the island.
        Situations like these sometimes make it difficult for
    parents who want to ensure that they are home for their young
    children when they are out of school. Expanding school choice
    across the board, both private and public, empowers families to
    choose what works, giving needed flexibility in districts like
    my own.
        My question is for Mrs. Clark. You mentioned that your
    family had to jump through a variety of hoops before qualifying
    for educational savings account, we all want to make sure that
    the government funds are spent responsibly. What ways, if any,
    can State lawmakers slash red tape or redundant reporting
    requirements so that families can navigate the system more
    easily?
        Mrs. Clark. Thank you for the question. Well, the whole
    idea behind school choice and ESAs is parents' rights. We want
    to give control back into the hands of parents, so that they
    can direct the dollars, and put them in the education
    environment that best meets their child's needs.
        I advocate for a really flexible ESA programs that are open
    immediately, or what we call universal to all families. It took
    us over 12 years to get that in Arizona, and of course, once we
    have universal ESA the number of students on it just
    skyrocketed because we removed those barriers.
        I also think requiring prior public school attendance, it
    is not good for the public school system, and it is very
    difficult for families, especially students with disabilities
    who often, you know, would have to go enroll their child in a
    public school, and then pull them out just to qualify.
        What I mentioned earlier, we do not want to burden public
    schools, and so allowing families like Arizona has to use a
    private diagnosis of your student with a disability instead of
    having to go through the public school system--you can if you
    want to, but you are no longer required to go through the
    public school system to prove your student has a disability.
        Those are three reforms, and removal of red tape that I
    think other states should consider.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you. I appreciate that. My last question
    will be for Mr. Blanks. You mentioned that school choice
    nurtured your intellectual and academic potential. Can you
    elaborate further on how school choice programs can help create
    pipelines to meaningful, well-paying jobs in rural districts
    like mine?
        Mr. Blanks. Yes, well, thank you for that question. To go
    off of some of that, I was supposed to be a statistic. I was
    supposed to be in prison or not even here today, and if it were
    not for school choice, there is no telling where I would be.
        Thinking about not just the academic portion that school
    choice helps a child, I always say that you may not be in the
    classroom, but you are always a student, and being able to take
    advantage of those opportunities to progress even after
    graduating high school or college, or whatever the case may be,
    has been monumental in my own life.
        I mean, never in a million years would I imagine sitting
    before you all today, and it was all because of my educational
    journey. We can stop a lot of the criminal justice aspect of
    middle-aged people and people my age if they have a great
    education.
        I believe that when we are talking about school choice, and
    we did not hear a lot about why--once again, as I said earlier,
    why families want to send their children to a different school
    in the first place, or why are they not a part of the
    conversation when we are talking about education?
        I have seen up until this point a lot of protection for the
    bureaucracy, and I am here to fight for students. I am here to
    fight for parents and be that voice for them because even just
    looking in the room, there are not too many of them here.
        My perspective is we give every single family school
    choice, and allow parents to drive where they send their child
    to school because that is the most important thing that a
    parent can do for their child.
        Mr. Moylan. Continue the fight, and we are here to support
    you. Thank you very much to the panel, thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you. I have about a minute here. Dr.
    McShane, we have heard various claims regarding the data when
    it comes to school choice programs, could you just take a
    moment to address what we have heard from the minority witness?
        Mr. McShane. We certainly heard a lot. School choice,
    particularly private school choice, has been studied an
    incredible amount over a long period of time.
        I had in my written testimony a summary of I think over 188
    different studies across a variety of different indicators, the
    overwhelming weight of those is positive. That is not to say
    that there are not some studies in some places that have shown
    negative results.
        Whether you are talking about student achievement, those
    students that participate in the program and their test scores,
    talking about student attainment, which is later life outcomes,
    like high school, graduation or college matriculation, whether
    you are looking at actually--there has been some discussion of
    segregation. My understanding of the eight empirical studies
    that have been done, 7 of them showed positive results, and
    only one showed negative results.
        Civic values, a host of other accounts, by and large the
    weight of the evidence is positive.
        Chairman Kiley. It sounds like they are cherry picking
    either poorly designed programs, or outlier examples, to try to
    create a narrative?
        Mr. McShane. Those would be your words, not----
        Chairman Kiley. By the way, we hear that there might be
    some charters or private schools where there is waste, fraud
    and abuse, nothing like that ever happens in the traditional
    public schools, correct?
        Mr. McShane. I am from Kansas City, so we were home to one
    of the most famous and long-running school desegregation
    lawsuits that spent billions and billions upon dollars. The
    Federal Judge, when he dismissed at the end basically put his
    hands up and said yes, we spent so much money, and so much of
    it was just wasted.
        Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair
    declares the Committee in recess subject to the call of the
    Chair. We will plan to reconvene promptly in 5 minutes at
    11:50. Thank you. The Committee now stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Kiley. The Committee is reconvened. The
    Representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and appreciate
    the topic of this hearing today. A great conversation to be had
    about how we can improve the lives and education of students
    all across this country. What I would like to talk about, I
    would like to give just a little background.
        My experience in Pennsylvania is that we have a system
    where charter schools coexist with traditional public schools.
    They are all public schools in Pennsylvania, that is how they
    are characterized in our State law, and that is how they should
    be viewed, is all being equal public schools.
        What I see is that all too often in America today, the
    wealthy have an unlimited set of choices. They can go to
    private school, they can go to parochial school, they can do
    whatever they want because they have that access to resources.
    As you move down that socioeconomic ladder often the number of
    choices narrow.
        Oddly though, maybe the middle class face the worst, or the
    least set of choices because there are scholarships for lower
    income individuals, and that is wonderful. I am not saying that
    is a bad thing, but ultimately those middle-class families who
    do not have the wealth and opportunity to go to the school of
    their choice, and they do not qualify for resources and
    scholarships that are available for low-income students. They
    are left in a situation where they have the least number of
    choices possible.
        This is more just a broad conversation that I want to have
    about how we can expand choice for everybody across the
    spectrum, but at the same time reduce the hostility that I see
    for choice. We see, in Pennsylvania, these schools coexist.
    They are both public schools. That is what they are.
        For some reason there are folks that want to demonize the
    choice of a family that is going outside of the traditional
    public school system. What we see all too often is that it has
    pitted one against another, which is this really odd thing I
    think to do when you are talking about the education of
    children.
        Demonizing the alternative educational system is not
    helping a child. That is not helping them get a better
    education. All too often we see it as a one-zero, you win, we
    lose scenario.
        I would just like to hear from our panelists about what we
    can do to bring down the negative rhetoric that is demonizing
    the alternative, the hatred that is out there that is existing
    in the hearts of so many people that want to restrain choice
    and restrain options.
        How can we have these systems coexist, and what can we do
    to encourage choice and opportunity for everybody as opposed to
    demonizing the alternatives?
        Mrs. Clark. I will start. I have got good news for you. I
    run a Facebook group of over 11,000 Arizona ESA families, and
    they span political spectrums, socioeconomic spectrums, their
    life and their lifestyles look very, very different. There is
    one thing they all have in common--they are on Arizona's ESA
    program.
        A lot of the rhetoric that we hear is perpetuated by large
    special interest groups that are more focused on propping up
    failing systems, than they are focused on students and parents,
    and their rights.
        The good news is that at very ground, most grassroots, most
    basic level, families love school choice programs, and they are
    doing everything they can to make sure that their voices are
    heard, and that their voices surpass the special interest
    rhetoric that we hear from the other side.
        Mr. Blanks. I would jump right behind what Mrs. Clark said.
    Keeping the conversation student centric is--will be far more
    beneficial, not just from checking the temperature on it, but
    also actually creating meaningful policy.
        At the end of the day that is the purpose of education, not
    just public education, education as a whole, it is to ensure
    that our future is secured through educating our children.
        When that is the focus, and those are the conversations, it
    does not really matter if it is a private school, or a charter
    school, or a home school, or whatever the case may be. The end
    goal is to ensure that children are actually being educated.
    Similar to what Mrs. Clark said, there are a lot of political
    interests that have power and are navigating things across the
    board.
        When it comes down to how the children are doing, it is
    pretty simple, and this conversation is a great example of
    that. We have heard that vouchers do not work, or that vouchers
    do not help the lower income minority community. That is me. I
    am that student that was low-income minority and did not have
    any other options.
        When the conversation is framed that way, it is really hard
    to jack up the temperature, and some people will try. I have
    had a lot of experience in that, but at the end of the day if
    we are helping children, that should be our main goal and our
    main priority.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Well, I want to thank you for that. I think
    we do need to elevate and raise up these voices of individuals
    that have succeeded through school choice because we know all
    across the country there are good and bad scenarios in both
    traditional and charter, or other alternative school systems.
        We want to elevate those wonderful outcomes and experiences
    that are being had across the spectrum, regardless of where
    they are, and ultimately leave that choice to the families and
    the parents because they are the ones that are going to best
    determine the situation and the setting that is going to
    benefit their child, and their educational outcome.
        I just want to thank all of you for being here to raise up
    these voices, and we want to continue this conversation. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Kiley. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
    Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
    always been intrigued by the strategy of dealing with totally
    dysfunctional schools by helping a handful of people with a
    voucher get away, and leaving the vast majority still stuck
    behind in the failing school system, did nothing for the vast
    majority of students, except give them less resources than they
    had to begin with.
        Ms. Levin, can the private schools charge more than the
    voucher amount?
        Ms. Levin. Yes, and they often do. They also have been
    shown to raise their prices when vouchers come to their State.
        Mr. Scott. Who pays the difference between the voucher
    amount and the tuition?
        Ms. Levin. That is on the backs of families as well as
    other non-tuition expenses, making them only accessible to the
    wealthy.
        Mr. Scott. Now, when these voucher programs start off, is
    there any explosion in private school seats?
        Ms. Levin. Yes. There is often fly by night private schools
    in strip malls, and other places that are not suitable, that
    rise up to take advantage of the funds.
        Mr. Scott. Yes. Has that quality been assessed in the new
    schools?
        Ms. Levin. Yes. They are often low-quality, and they often
    close. I believe research shows that about 20 percent of
    schools close within a few years. In Florida, it is 30 percent.
        Mr. Scott. That when they actually get there, they do not
    have any better opportunity than they had to begin with?
        Ms. Levin. That is correct, and they also do not have
    rights.
        Mr. Scott. Well, and well, we will get to rights in just a
    second. Do the schools have their own admission standards?
        Ms. Levin. They do. Voucher laws are written to explicitly
    allow them to keep those standards, even if they are
    discriminatory.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Blanks indicated that he is an example of
    that. He said he was denied twice to the school he applied to.
    What oversight is there on admissions policies?
        Ms. Levin. There is basically none.
        Mr. Scott. Is there any guarantee that those who get a
    voucher can get into a private school?
        Ms. Levin. There is not, and I have spoken with many
    families that may have started with high hopes, especially for
    students with disabilities, and then found that there was no
    school that would accept their child.
        Mr. Scott. Then what happens to them?
        Ms. Levin. Then they remain in public schools, which now
    have fewer resources to serve them.
        Mr. Scott. Do schools set their own discipline standards?
        Ms. Levin. They do, and in most places private schools are
    not subject to anti-bullying laws like public schools are.
        Mr. Scott. Can they expel students?
        Ms. Levin. They can for things like their sexual
    orientation, their disability, their academic achievement
    ability, their English language ability, and many other things
    that would not be allowed in public schools.
        Mr. Scott. What happens to those students?
        Ms. Levin. Those students depend on public schools, which
    again now have fewer resources.
        Mr. Scott. Tell me about the civil rights protections? You
    said even if discriminatory?
        Ms. Levin. That is right. Civil rights protections are
    substantially lower for private school students than public
    school students. I know employment law was mentioned, which is
    different than the rights for students.
        Mr. Scott. You mentioned Title VI, disparate impact cases
    can only be brought by the Department of Education. Are Title
    VI cases brought against private schools?
        Ms. Levin. Title VI only applies to schools that receive
    Federal financial assistance, and that is an increasingly low
    number of private schools.
        Mr. Scott. Is acceptance of a voucher from Federal funding
    is not that a question about whether or not they are even
    subject to any of the civil rights laws like Title VI?
        Ms. Levin. Correct. Private school students do not enjoy
    the protections of many Federal civil rights statutes,
    including Title VI unless there is Federal funding.
        Mr. Scott. You mentioned segregation. I recall, as you
    suggested, the battle cry of segregationists was give us
    state's rights. How do state's rights help enforce civil
    rights?
        Ms. Levin. Well, states can enact civil rights laws that go
    beyond Federal law. Again, they largely, such as special
    education laws, would not apply to students who take a voucher.
        Mr. Scott. What oversight is there for private to be able
    for us to determine whether or not they are good schools or bad
    schools? I would imagine there is a great deal of variability?
        Ms. Levin. Very little, and again, decreasing with each
    passing year, that is a deliberate choice, and we know why.
    It's because the results are not good.
        Mr. Scott. Are they subject to the NAEP tests?
        Ms. Levin. Most private school voucher programs have very
    little or no testing requirements.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kiley. Mr. Allen, or Ms. Miller, the
    Representative from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all of
    our witnesses. This is such an important hearing. Our children
    are the future of our country. First of all, Ranking Member
    Scott just said how concerned he was that students are leaving
    the public schools, and that it would leave a vast majority of
    students behind in a failing school system.
        Exactly, this is the point. Whether they are leaving or
    escaping, I am not sure. They are also concerned that there is
    mismanagement, fraud and corruption in, you know, alternative
    schools, or in how the money would be used, but I want to
    remind everybody that the Chicago Public Schools are spending
    $29,000.00 a year per student.
        It is a 97 percent increase since 2012. They are reading
    under 30 percent at the grade level, probably substantially
    below that. Math, the proficiency is under 20 percent. These
    results are dismal, and the focus should be what is best for
    the students, and empowering the parents.
        Mrs. Clark, thank you so much for your testimony. It seems
    like Arizona's education savings account program has been truly
    transformational for your family. I am hopeful that other State
    Legislators will hear your stories, and stories like yours, and
    consider establishing, or expanding ESA programs.
        What would you say to State Legislators who are on the
    fence about whether the program is worthwhile?
        Mrs. Clark. Thank you for the question. Well, I am a public
    school graduate, Pre-school all the way through college, so let
    me say that upfront. Never did I imagine that my local public
    school would not meet my own children's needs. I was given the
    ESA as the only option for my students with a disability.
        The message I have for other State Legislators is look at
    states like Arizona, like Florida, and the 13 plus other states
    that have passed programs. The demand is there because the
    public school system does not work for every child.
        We spoke earlier that families had different needs and
    goals and interests for their children and passing school
    choice programs allows those families who are stuck in failing
    public schools an option out.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mrs. Clark. Dr. McShane, my
    colleagues on the other side keep saying that school choice
    does not work. What do you think is the disconnect between what
    the research shows and the perceptions of school choice among
    its opponents?
        Mr. McShane. Look, I think that research in its best form,
    is supposed to be a flashlight and not a sledgehammer. It is
    supposed to help us better understand the world, better
    understand our policies, figure out ways to make them better,
    see where they are not working, learn from them.
        It is not supposed to be something that you use to sort of
    bludgeon the people who think differently than you into
    submission. I think we saw a fair amount of that during the
    COVID pandemic for example. Someone waving around, well this
    study shows, and then suddenly we are all supposed to sort of
    change our behavior as a result of that.
        We need to draw from multiple different wells when it comes
    to figuring out what the best course of action is. Research is
    one of those wells, but our values is one of those wells, the
    experiences of the people who participate in programs, our
    religious traditions, ethics, morality, we are supposed to draw
    from all of those.
        One of the beautiful things about being American, is that
    different people draw from those wells differently. One of the
    beautiful things about school choice is it allows a system
    where they can have institutions that reflect those different
    values.
        Mrs. Miller. Absolutely. Decades ago, I took my children
    out of public school to home educate them, so that I could give
    them a Christian education, and use Christian curriculum, and I
    am so thankful for the freedom to do that.
        You know, insanity is doing the same thing over and over
    again and expecting different results. The most--I have been
    saying for a long time, the most racist thing going on in our
    country is forcing children in inner city schools, black and
    brown children, to be forced to stay in failing schools, and
    this has got to end. Thank you so much for our witnesses, and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Ms. Levin, just out of
    curiosity, who are the major funders of your organization?
        Ms. Levin. We receive relatively small grants from a number
    of charitable and other organizations.
        Chairman Kiley. OK. Like the American Federation of
    Teachers, Teachers Unions, any funding from there?
        Ms. Levin. Yes. We do receive small grants from them.
        Chairman Kiley. Such organizations, they generally lose
    money, the more students enroll in private schools and charter
    schools, is that correct?
        Ms. Levin. I would not draw a direct line, no.
        Chairman Kiley. No? When you have more students educated in
    charter schools than private schools, you do not think that
    causes the Teachers Union to lose money.
        Ms. Levin. I think the teachers' union is not concerned so
    much with its bottom line as with its mission of educating more
    children.
        Chairman Kiley. You did not answer my question. I think
    that that is something worth disclosing the next time that you
    testify before the Committee. Let us see, we have I believe one
    more, Ms. Wilson from Florida, on the Democrat side.
        Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Public schools have to
    educate everyone, the gifted, the disabled, the wheelchair
    bound, the mentally challenged, the sick, the orphan, the
    ungovernable, everyone. Charter and private schools cherry
    pick, and refuse entry to any child they do not want.
        They can do that, but public schools cannot, and that is
    wrong. With less funding they have to handle everyone. It is
    unfair, and it is an insane ploy to destroy public education,
    and leave it in shambles, and I implore you to stop supporting
    charter schools, and support our wonderful public schools. I am
    from Florida, and I have seen what happens when we do this.
        Ms. Levin, in your statement, you State that many schools
    around the Nation face chronic and severe underfunding,
    diverting much needed funding from public education to pay for
    private school vouchers exacerbates the lack of resources. I
    harken back to a 2009 Miami-Dade School District Report that
    questioned whether some public schools were attempting to
    select high-performing students for enrollment.
        The report found that advanced students were nearly twice
    as likely to transfer to select public--to select private
    schools, as to continue in their home schools. However, this
    selective enrollment is not unique to Miami. Across the
    country, this is creating a new segregated public school
    system.
        If the private schools are cherry picking the best
    students, diverting funds, and not subject to the same
    oversight, of course they would have an advantage. How do we
    ensure that this does not happen?
        Ms. Levin. We ensure this does not happen by not funding
    voucher programs that have all the flaws that you have just
    articulated, and furthermore, by fully funding public schools
    where of course, there are huge challenges, but where there are
    mechanisms and laws, and also the will of most of the people in
    this country to make things better.
        I do want to go back for one moment to the idea of
    demonizing families and individuals because that is what you do
    when you do not have reasoned and evidence backed arguments.
    Education Law Center, and the scores of public education
    supporters around the country engage in respectful opposition
    to policies that in our considered judgment, would hurt far
    more students than would help them.
        We also oppose policymakers who support those policies who
    should know better. Just to be clear, I am proud to stand
    shoulder to shoulder with educators across the country who are
    fighting for the same things.
        Ms. Wilson. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Georgia, Mr. Allen,
    is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 14 beautiful
    grandchildren, and boy they are different. You know, God
    created every child with unique characteristics, and guess
    what? They deserve the best. The best school for every child.
    It might not be the best school for another.
        Let us be clear. We do not want to lose one child in this
    country. All of us are sick of that, and it is creating real
    problems. At the same time, how do we change the direction? We
    know we are going in the wrong direction. I mean 70 percent of
    the country said this country is going in the wrong direction.
        A lot of it starts right there in education. I bring you
    good news. To fill the need for young students who are
    struggling in public schools, we established Heritage Academy,
    and we give low-income single moms a choice for their child's
    education. These children are receiving a faith-based
    education, and every child has thrived.
        These children, these moms send these children to Heritage
    Academy because basically they are told they are losers in the
    public school system. They are growing both academically and
    spiritually, and most--I think all of them, all awarded a full
    scholarship to any private school they want to go to in my
    district.
        That is the good news. Again, in my State school choice is
    an 80 percent issue. Ms. Clark, one common argument we hear
    about school choice and ESA's in particular, is that they
    defund traditional public schools or otherwise degrade the
    quality of public education. Have you seen that in Arizona?
        Mrs. Clark. Absolutely not. In fact, not a single public
    school has closed in Arizona in the over 12 plus years that we
    have had the ESA program in our State.
        Mr. Allen. OK. Well, I have got to speak up for my
    daughters. I have one daughter that is sending her children to
    a faith-based private school, where she attended. We sent out
    children, because we wanted them to get a faith-based
    education. I have another daughter who is sending hers to
    public school, and she has gotten in there and gotten involved
    in that public school, and you know, the parents have, and it
    is beginning to thrive.
        Now, it took a lot to do that. I applaud. My wife did the
    same thing when our children were in high school. Dr. McShane,
    I have reviewed the data you presented in your testimony. I am
    impressed by how overwhelming the research base favoring school
    choice, which again you know, in Georgia it is an 80 percent
    positive issue, what would help make the public more aware of
    the results you have offered us here today?
        Mr. McShane. Well, research is boring. I noticed when I saw
    in the lineup that I was going to have to open for Jenny and
    Walter, I felt like a band that has to open for two
    significantly better bands, and you are just going to kind of
    get the doors blown off you there.
        It does highlight an important point that ultimately the
    research that I do, the research that others do, the datapoints
    that we collect are real human beings that are trying to do
    right by their children, or children themselves. I think doing
    as much as we can to tell the stories underneath those data
    because research ultimately look, we do averages, right?
        We take all the voucher kids on this side, and all the non-
    voucher kids on this side. We look at what they are, the
    average. We know under averages are big bell curves, right?
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Mr. McShane. There are some people that are doing better,
    there are some that are doing worse. Trying to tell those
    actual stories and learning from them is important.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Right. I understand. Mr. Blanks, thank you
    for coming and testifying today. Your story is--I mean Ben
    Carson is a good friend of mine. He has a similar story, and we
    like to say, you know, we want every child to have the same
    opportunity you had. Thanks for being here, and thank you for
    speaking out for every young person in America because it's
    important.
        Mr. Blanks. Thank you for that. I just want to be very
    clear that I am not the only one. There are thousands of
    students across the country who have benefited from similar
    programs that are thriving, that are doing great work. There is
    an army coming up behind me.
        I could introduce you to hundreds of families. To quote
    Coach Prime, ``I ain't too hard to find.'' I am going to
    continue this work because I believe in it, and I have
    benefited from it, and I have seen the results, and I believe
    that every child should have the same experience that I did.
        Mr. Allen. Well, that is what has made America the great
    country it is today. Thank you. Thanks to all of you, and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses for your time and testimony today. I now
    recognize the Ranking Member for closing remarks.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to my
    closing, I want to clarify that public opinion does not support
    private school vouchers. When people were asked as a part of a
    recent poll whether they prefer increasing Federal funding to
    support public schools, or providing funding to support private
    school vouchers, the majority of voters on both sides of the
    aisle chose public schools, regardless of their age, gender,
    race, political views, education level, or the State that they
    live in.
        In fact, 68 percent of voters chose public schools, while
    only 24 percent chose vouchers, and that number was even higher
    for parents of school aged kids. This includes two-thirds of
    all voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
    All states that have private voucher programs, and I might add
    that overwhelmingly supported President Trump.
        Voucher proposals failed on all three State ballots where
    they appeared in November, Colorado, Nebraska and Kentucky. In
    fact, voters across the country have rejected every ballot
    measure proposing a voucher scheme since 1967, a total of 17
    times. I would like to enter into the record a document
    entitled, ``The Public Wants Public Schools Not Vouchers,'' by
    All4Ed.
        Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
        [The Information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0916.108

        Ms. Bonamici. Then I would also like to enter into the
    record the following documents. A letter from Americans United
    for Separation of Church and State opposing school vouchers; a
    letter from the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities;
    Education Task Force opposing the Educational Choice for
    Children Act;
        A letter from the Center for Learner Equity, opposing the
    Educational Choice for Children Act; a letter from the National
    Coalition from Public Education opposing the Educational Choice
    for Children Act; and two articles from ProPublica about
    Arizona's voucher program.
        The first is, ``School Vouchers were Supposed to Save
    Taxpayer Money; Instead they Blew a Massive Hole in Arizona's
    Budget.'' The second, ``In a State with school vouchers for all
    low-income vouchers aren't--low-income voters are not choosing
    to use them primarily because they can't afford the additional
    costs like tuition balance, and cost of transportation.''
        Chairman Kiley. Without objection.

        [The Information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not an educator
    like my colleagues, Representatives Wilson and Hayes, and
    Mannion, but I am a parent. I spent years and hundreds of
    hours, if not thousands of hours as a volunteer in public
    schools. I was fortunate to be able to do that.
        I always thought about all of the kids. At one point my son
    said, ``Mom, do you have to be at school all the time?'' I
    thought about all of the students who did not have involved
    parents. As Ranking Member Scott was saying, what about all the
    rest of the children who do not have maybe an involved parent,
    like Mr. Blanks? Who is speaking for them?
        That is our responsibility to think about all of the
    students in public schools. I also want to followup on
    Representative Mackenzie's comment because he seemed to be only
    focused on public charter schools, and we, as I said in my
    opening, as Democrats, we are pro-choice in the public school
    system.
        I just--he said how do we turn down the level of the
    debate, and make the discussion calmer? It is pretty simple. We
    support choice within the public school system because we know
    public education in this country has been chronically
    underfunded for decades.
        Students are suffering because of it, and we know that the
    majority of funding comes from State and local sources, but
    that Federal funding piece, it is critical, and it is
    especially critical for low-income students, and students with
    disabilities.
        Instead of fully funding public education to improve
    outcomes to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and
    to close those opportunity gaps, the Trump administration is
    threatening to dismantle the Department of Education. What a
    terrible message to send to families, to students, to
    educators, to business leaders that need an educated workforce,
    and to our global allies and competitors, who are making
    education a priority.
        Now Republicans are touting voucher schemes as a solution,
    but vouchers take funding away from public schools, and give it
    to families, often wealthy families, to subsidize sending their
    kids to private school. The evidence does not show that school
    vouchers improve academic outcomes.
        In fact, the research on voucher programs in Indiana,
    Louisiana and Ohio, found negative effects on student
    achievement after leaving the public school system. Vouchers
    also empower private schools to discriminate against
    disadvantaged students, increasing segregation, and they lack
    transparency and accountability, and they are a misuse of
    American tax dollars.
        Of course, we have work to do to improve the public
    education system so it fully meets the needs of all students,
    and inspires them to be successful, creative, critical thinkers
    with a love of learning. It will always be the foundation on
    which we build our country's future.
        We need to make those long-term Federal investments to get
    students back up to speed, to make school safe by addressing
    gun violence, by fixing crumbling school infrastructure, so
    every child, regardless of their background or income can have
    a bright future. The answer is to strengthen, not privatize
    public education.
        Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I continue to
    be surprised by the topics of the Committee's hearings, given
    the ongoing attack on public education, and the Department of
    Education, and even education research.
        Last week, Secretary McMahon sent out a memo, detailing the
    Department of Education's final mission. President Trump walked
    back the planned executive order to dismantle the Department
    after widespread public outcry.
        Mr. Chair, I sincerely appreciate our conversation about
    priorities for the Subcommittee this session, and I know you
    care about students and the future of education, so can we
    engage in a very brief colloquy, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Kiley. Well, I am not sure as to the rules on
    colloquies, but if you would like to pose a question, I would
    be happy to address it in my closing statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. OK. I am going to pose a question. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. Are you--do you share concerns about the
    Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk's ongoing
    efforts to disrupt IDEA, to eliminate funding for rural and
    low-income schools, and access students' and families'
    sensitive personal data?
        If you could also answer, I expect that the majority will
    call Secretary McMahon to the Committee soon, but across the
    country people are asking what DOGE is doing?
        Can we work together, so our Subcommittee has both
    oversight and input into the reshaping of our country's public
    school system by bringing in--as well, as Secretary McMahon,
    Elon Musk, who is the leader of DOGE, either before the Full
    Committee, or the Subcommittee?
        Chairman Kiley. Well, I have not heard anything about many
    of the items that you mentioned, but you used the word disrupt,
    and I do agree that our public education system is in need of
    disruption. We have seen our results fail our kids for too
    long, and they have gotten worse and worse and worse, year
    after year, even though we are spending more and more money.
        The good news is that we see examples throughout the
    country where this sort of positive disruption is occurring in
    a way that lifts up all students and has gotten amazing results
    for students. We have seen some good examples in D.C. We saw it
    in New Orleans after Katrina, where they became an all charter
    network.
        Florida was mentioned from one of the Representatives from
    Florida as somehow a bad example. Florida leads the Nation in
    education outcomes. It usually ranks first, or close to it. On
    the other hand, my State, California, which has done everything
    possible to restrict school choice, ranks among the worst in
    the country, even though it spends a lot, and has added tens of
    billions of dollars to the education budget.
        In fact, in 2019, California was second worst in the entire
    country for education outcomes for kids. Then of course during
    COVID, as I mentioned before, California had the longest school
    shutdown of any State in the entire country, although not
    everyone was kept out of school.
        For example, Gavin Newsom, the Governor who ordered the
    school shutdown, he sent his kids to in-person private school
    during that time. I think that just underlines a theme that
    comes out of today's hearing is that we already have universal
    school choice in this country for people of means, those who
    can afford it.
        I am glad that the Democrat witness got a great opportunity
    growing up to go to an outstanding private school. I am glad
    that Gavin Newsom's kids get to go to a great school, and the
    Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's kids. What I do not like is
    when those very politicians who are advocates who make one
    choice for their own families, then seek to deny that choice,
    use their power to deny that choice, to those who are less
    fortunate.
        I think that that tension is what we are trying to resolve
    here, and we are trying to expand that sort of opportunity. We
    have heard a lot of railing against any form of voucher or
    scholarship or education savings account today, but the reality
    is that those who are making these arguments by and large, do
    not just oppose vouchers or particular voucher programs, they
    oppose school choice in general.
        In fact, we saw that pivot even happen in the midst of this
    hearing where they start off by saying we support public
    charter schools, and then suddenly we hear spurious arguments
    about for-profit charters, 90 percent of charters are non-
    profit, or we hear things like charters can turn away students.
    Absolutely untrue.
        Charters are open to all and are tuition free. That is the
    troubling theme that comes out of this is that the opposition
    is really to anything that disrupts the business model of
    keeping kids trapped in failing schools. It is that business
    model that has led to this education decline in our country.
        What I think we need and what we are seeing emerge is a new
    model where the money follows the student. This is what extends
    opportunities to families who have other options, and it is
    what catalyzes system-wide change.
        I will say in fairness, and I think that the Ranking Member
    is sincere on this, that the Democrat party has been divided on
    the issue of charters. We see some who are clearly anti-charter
    school, but there are some that have been supportive, like when
    President Biden tried to cut charter school grants.
        Several Democrats, including Governor Polis in Colorado,
    came out against that. We have seen bipartisan support for
    great charters like Success Academy and KIPP. I mean Success
    Academy, the No. 1 performing school in the entire State of New
    York.
        Nevertheless, and I have seen this firsthand in my own
    State, there has been a war against all forms of school choice,
    despite the manifold of benefits that we have seen for
    students. I am hoping is that those who are actually interested
    in getting positive education outcomes for kids will move past
    the talking point that we just need to put more money in there,
    since that is obviously a theory that has been falsified.
        Of course we need to adequately fund education, but the
    notion that more money will produce better results without
    actual reform has been proven false time and again. If we can
    find those who are genuinely interested, and I am willing to
    partner with the Ranking Member, and anyone else on this side
    of the aisle, to support those forms of school choice that you
    can get behind.
        Despite the vast differences of opinion we have seen today,
    I am hopeful that we will find some common ground going
    forward, and I really think we do have an opportunity to
    catalyze reforms that will benefit millions of kids, millions
    of families across this country, and set our country on a much
    more promising path going forward.
        Ms. Bonamici. I have not yielded back, but I appreciate the
    remarks. Just a couple of comments.
        Chairman Kiley. I have been addressing my closing
    statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. Yes, but I did not yield back. A couple of
    things, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned addressing the need of
    students trapped in a failing school. I do not want to just
    address the students who feel like they need to escape a
    school. We need to address all of the students, meaning when
    somebody says a school, first of all, a school is a building,
    what is happening to students in that school.
        Do they need smaller class sizes? Do they need arts
    education? Do they need--is there lead in the water? Do they
    need behavioral healthcare? There are many reasons why we
    should not ignore everybody who is in what you were calling a
    failing school.
        With regard to success, if you are using the NAEP scores to
    measure success, we understand as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
    the score is one way to assess a student. When you adjust by
    income, it is truly the low-income students who are really
    struggling.
        I also note, Mr. Chairman, that you did not address whether
    we could expect to hear from Secretary McMahon or Elon Musk, or
    someone from DOGE. I hope you will do that in your closing, and
    I look forward to continuing the conversation, and now I yield
    back.
        Chairman Kiley. Well, that was my closing. I do not think
    we usually yield back and forth on closing statements, but I do
    appreciate the conversation. I look forward to continuing it. I
    would like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to
    testify before the Subcommittee today.
        Without objection, there being no further business, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Subcommittee on Early
    Childhood, Education and Secondary Education was adjourned.]
        [Additional submissions from Ranking Member Bonamici
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions from Rep. Scott follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions from Rep. Walberg follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Ms.
    Jessica Levin follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]