[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]