[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REIMAGINING EDUCATION: HOW CHARTER
SCHOOLS ARE CLOSING GAPS AND
OPENING DOORS
=======================================================================
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, MAY 14, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-224 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
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 JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAMES COMER, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California 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 VACANCY
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
RANDY FINE, Florida
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 JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JOHN W. MANNION, New York
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 14, 2025..................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Kiley, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education............. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
WITNESSES
Griffith, David, Associate Director of Research, Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.......................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Moskowitz, Eva, CEO and President of National Strategy and
Advancement, Success Academy Charter Schools............... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Siegel-Hawley, Dr. Genevieve, Professor of Educational
Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University............... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Cobb, Darryl, President, Charter School Growth Fund.......... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Ranking Member Bonamici:
Statement dated May 21, 2024, from the National Council
on Disability (NCD).................................... 58
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Dr. Siegel-Hawley........................................ 61
REIMAGINING EDUCATION: HOW CHARTER
SCHOOLS ARE CLOSING GAPS AND
OPENING DOORS
----------
Wednesday, May 14, 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 10:31 a.m. in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kevin Kiley
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Kiley, Owens, Moylan, Walberg,
Bonamici, Lee, Wilson, and Scott.
Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; Dara Gardner, Einstein Fellow; Wilson He, APAICS
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; Danny Marca, Director of Information
Technology; RJ Martin, Professional Staff Member; Audra
McGeorge, Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative
Assistant; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press
Secretary and Digital Director; Ian Prince, Professional Staff
Member; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino, Intern;
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; James
Whittaker, General Counsel; Ellie Berenson, Minority Press
Assistant; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Rashage
Green, Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel; Brandom
Hernandez, Minority CHCI Fellow; Christian Haines, Minority
General Counsel; Samantha Wilkerson, Minority Professional
Staff; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director;
Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Eleazar Padilla,
Minority Staff Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff
Director; Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
Chairman Kiley. Good morning. 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 recess at any time.
Over the past 25 years, charter schools have emerged as the
single most impactful reform in the American Public Education.
Designed to provide public tuition free alternatives, with
increased flexibility in exchange for accountability, charter
schools have grown from a handful in the early 1990's to over
8,150 schools serving more than 3.7 million students nationwide
by 2024.
In addition to providing parents with meaningful choices
for their children, research shows that charter schools have
particularly benefited low-income students and students of
color and urban areas, creating new and innovative education
models, extended learning time, and higher college readiness
rates. Indeed, a 2023 study from Stanford's Center for Research
on Education Outcomes showed that, in math, charter school
students learned the equivalent of an additional 6 days per
year, and reading added 16 days of learning.
The results are especially striking for at risk students.
Students in poverty achieve an additional 23 days of learning
and reading, and 17 days in math. Many charters have narrowed
or even eliminated achievement gaps. Results like these are
remarkable. As the recent nation's report card made clear, our
education system has been in a State of steady and alarming
decline, but charters are a rare bright spot.
It is uncommon to find widespread education innovation that
succeeds helping millions of students year after year, but
charter schools do exactly that. The benefits of charter
schools go beyond just academic results.
Charters open doors to innovation for teachers and
administrators. Charter school autonomy encourages teachers to
pioneer fresh teaching methods, schools to develop better
hiring practices, and educational boards to innovate in budget
management.
Charter schools also make it easier for parents to find the
schools aligned with their family's values. Perhaps, that is
why a national survey found that 81 percent of parents support
expanding the number of slots in existing charter schools in
their area, and 78 percent want more charter school offerings
in their area.
Today we will hear testimony about charters across the
country that are getting amazing results for their students. We
will hear that charter schools are among the best educational
options for high poverty and minority students. We will hear
expert testimony that charter schools actually motivate
traditional public schools to improve because of the healthy
effects of competition.
Indeed, there is a tipping point for charter school
enrollment in a given region that lifts up all students,
whether they are in charters or not. Somehow, despite this
incredible record of success, charter schools have come under
attack from certain elected officials and special interests who
are intent on keeping students trapped in failing schools.
Nowhere is this more evident than in my home State of
California, a State that once led the way on charter school
expansion but is now ground zero for the assault on educational
freedom. California has more charter school students than any
other State, with over 700,000 children attending 1,281
schools.
These schools serve over 12 percent of all public school
students and overwhelmingly serve low-income and minority
families. Since taking office, Governor Gavin Newsom has led a
relentless campaign to dismantle the charter school success
story. His administration has signed laws to block new
charters, deny renewals and choke existing schools with red
tape and funding cuts.
The two prong strategy is playing out as we speak. First,
use State law and district politics to block new charter
schools and deny renewals and expansions for existing ones.
Second, strip successful schools of their autonomy and bury
them under the very bureaucracy and laborious constraints that
have paralyzed traditional schools. The goal is clear, protect
a failing monopoly by eliminating competition.
Instead of replicating what works, politicians in
California and other states are punishing success, and students
are paying the price. At this moment, we have an opportunity to
support charters in powerful ways and expand their enrollment
nationwide. Congress can pass the High-Quality Charter Schools
Act, which, through strategic tax credits, aims to vastly
expand the numbers of proven successful charters across the
country.
Specifically, the bill establishes a 75 percent Federal tax
credit for charitable contributions toward the startup costs of
nonprofit charter school organizations that have a proven track
record of excellence. If the High-Quality Charter Schools Act
were to become law, we would see tremendous schools like
Success Academy and KIPP, multiply across the country, with up
to six million more students enrolling.
This would be an enormous benefit, not only those students,
but to all students, as the expansion of charter schools, along
with the private school choice enabled by the Education of
Choice for Children Act, would be a powerful force for
education reform across the country.
I do have to say, I was very disappointed when the text of
the Reconciliation Bill for the Ways and Means Committee came
out a couple days ago that there was nothing for charter school
families in that text. It was a tremendous victory to see the
tax credit envisioned by the ECCA included, but it was
incomprehensible to me that the bill would not seek to use
this, perhaps once in a generation opportunity, to expand the
charter school movement across the country.
We have democrat politicians, like Gavin Newsome, or
politicians in New York, who have been attacking charter
schools relentlessly, despite their incredible success. If
republicans are not willing to stand up for charters, then I do
not know who will be, so I am strongly encouraging my
colleagues to assure that the final text includes tax
incentives to vastly expand the number of charter schools
across the country.
With that said, I am looking forward to today's hearing. I
would like to thank all of our witnesses for attending, and 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 very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses for being here. Charter schools, as a
reminder, are public schools that receive taxpayer dollars. At
their best, they offer potential for innovation, flexibility,
and responsiveness to community needs. At their worst, and too
often in practice, they operate without adequate oversight,
without sufficient safeguards for civil rights, and without the
transparency required of traditional public schools.
That matters because the consequences fall heavily on black
and brown students. This Saturday marks 71 years since the
landmark Supreme Court Brown versus Board of Education
decision, yet our Nation still struggles to provide equitable
access and opportunity for all students.
Without meaningful guardrails, charter schools could become
a driver of segregation, and we have seen this before. After
Brown, resistance to integration took many forms: private
segregation academies, neighborhood school policies, and later
school choice plans. Today we must ask whether we are repeating
that history under a different name.
The data is sobering. Charter schools on average are more
racially isolated than traditional public schools in nearly
every State and major metropolitan area. Research shows that
the expansion of charter schools has measurably increased
school segregation. It has reduced the likelihood that Black
and Hispanic students attend schools with peers of other races,
and that racial isolation is often paired with economic
isolation, compounding inequality.
It is not a theoretical concern. Segregated schools are
under resourced schools. They are more likely to employ less
experienced teachers, offer fewer advanced courses, and
struggle to provide essential student supports. This harms not
only students of color, but the entire promise of public
education.
Research shows that many charter schools face additional
challenges, for example, teachers tend to be less experienced
and have higher turnover rates than those in traditional public
schools. Charter schools close at a higher rate than
traditional public schools, and they have found in some cases
to have higher risks of waste, fraud and abuse than traditional
public schools.
I served in the Oregon Legislature, and I was on a
committee formed to examine Oregon's charter school policies
and practices 10 years after our enabling statute passed, and
we had many questions then that remain unresolved today,
including: How are charter schools determining which students
to enroll? Who serves on their boards? To whom are they
accountable? What happens to students when charter schools
close? How could we prevent charter schools with poor outcomes,
especially online charter schools, from proliferating?
A November 2024 report by the National Center for Charter
School Accountability and the Network for Public Education
called, ``Doomed to Fail, an Analysis of Charter School
Closures from 1998 to 2022,'' found that more than 25 percent
of charter schools closed within 5 years of opening. This
increases to 49 percent within 15 years of opening.
Several audits by the Office of Inspector General in the
U.S. Department of Education identified problems with charter
schools and charter management organizations, including
conflicts of interest; lack of accountability of Federal funds;
waste, fraud, and abuse; and failure to provide students the
services that are required by Federal programs, and also
unresolved compliance issues, among others.
This hearing is not about attacking charter schools as a
concept. It is about a responsibility to every student, a
responsibility to guarantee that the growth of charter schools
does not come at the expense of equity, inclusion, and civil
rights, and the rest of the more than 90 percent of the
students who attend traditional public schools. It is our
responsibility to examine whether current policies help us move
forward, or if they reinforce the barriers we spent generations
trying to dismantle.
Congress has tools to advance these goals. We have the
Strength in Diversity Act and the Equity and Inclusion
Enforcement Act that offer targeted supports to school
districts that are working to develop, implement, and expand
desegregation initiatives.
The bill I co-lead with Representative DeLauro, the
Championing of Honest and Responsible Transparency in Education
Reform (or CHARTER) Act, would prevent for-profit entities from
managing charter schools and siphoning taxpayer dollars from
children for their financial gain, rather than for the benefit
of the students they enroll.
Together, these bills would help close achievement gaps,
support integration and accountability, and fulfill the vision
laid out in Brown. We also must look beyond charter schools as
part of the conversation. We should be asking what we can do to
improve our Nation's public education system for all students
in all public schools, to help them succeed to the best of
their abilities.
In 2015, we passed the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds
Act. That law intended for funding to be directed to those most
in need to address achievement gaps. ESSA provides flexibility
to states and districts to determine how to make improvements,
and it focuses on a well-rounded education that includes the
arts and better-quality assessments, but ESSA has never been
implemented with fidelity since it was signed into law. That, I
submit, would be a worthy task for this Committee.
It is also important to address the other issues that
affects a student's ability to learn, including hunger, mental
health, and access to facilities that are free from lead and
asbestos.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the irony of my
Republican colleagues continuing their hearings about ``closing
gaps and opening doors'' in education while the President is
actively dismantling the Department of Education and
terminating grants for public education initiatives. President
Trump's budget proposal invests additional funds in charter
schools but slashes 4.5 billion dollars from other K-12
education programs, where again, as a reminder, more than 90
percent of the students are enrolled. Republicans on this
Committee just voted to cut 330 billion dollars from higher
education, ending the student loan programs that truly open
doors of opportunities for underserved communities.
I hope today we see a real commitment to making public
education accessible, accountable, and exceptional for every
student. Schools that receive public dollars must be part of a
public education system that is accountable, transparent, and
committed to equity. We cannot afford to ignore the evidence.
If we are serious about giving every child, regardless of race
or ZIP Code, the opportunity to thrive, we must design our
school system to deliver on that promise.
I also look forward to the conversation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The Statement of Ranking Member Bonamici follows:]
Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being
here.
Charter schools, as a reminder, are public schools that receive
taxpayer dollars. At their best, they offer the potential for
innovation, flexibility, and responsiveness to community needs. At
their worst, and too often in practice, they operate without adequate
oversight, without sufficient safeguards for civil rights, and without
the transparency required of traditional public schools. That matters,
because the consequences fall most heavily on Black and brown
students.This Saturday marks 71 years since the landmark Supreme Court
Brown v. Board of Education decision, yet our nation still struggles to
provide equitable access and opportunity for all students. Without
meaningful guardrails, charter schools can become a driver of
segregation. We have seen this before. After Brown, resistance to
integration took many forms: private segregation academies,
neighborhood school policies, and later, school choice plans. Today, we
must ask whether we are repeating that history under a different name.
The data is sobering. Charter schools, on average, are more
racially isolated than traditional public schools in nearly every state
and major metropolitan area. Research shows that the expansion of
charter schools has measurably increased school segregation. It has
reduced the likelihood that Black and Hispanic students attend school
with peers of other races. That racial isolation is often paired with
economic isolation, compounding inequality.
This is not a theoretical concern. Segregated schools are under-
resourced schools. They are more likely to employ less-experienced
teachers, offer fewer advanced courses, and struggle to provide
essential student supports. When we concentrate disadvantage, we limit
opportunity. That harms not only students of color, but the entire
promise of public education.
Research shows that many charter schools face additional
challenges. For example, teachers tend to be less experienced and have
higher turnover rates than those in traditional public schools. Charter
schools close at a higher rate than traditional public schools. They
have been found to have higher risks of waste, fraud, and abuse than
traditional public schools.
When I served in the Oregon legislature, I was on a committee
formed to examine Oregon charter school policies and practices 10 years
after our enabling statute passed. We had many questions then that
remain unresolved today, including--How are charter schools determining
which students to enroll? Who serves on their boards? To whom are they
accountable? What happens to students when charter schools close? How
can we prevent charter schools with poor outcomes, especially online
charter schools, from proliferating?
A November 2024 report by the National Center for Charter School
Accountability and the Network for Public Education called ``Doomed to
Fail: An Analysis of Charter School Closures from 1998 to 2022'' found
that more than 25 percent of charter schools close within five years of
opening, and this increases to 49 percent within fifteen years of
opening.
Several audits by the Office of Inspector General in the U.S.
Department of Education identified problems with charter schools and
charter management organizations, including conflicts of interest; lack
of accountability of federal funds; waste, fraud, and abuse; failure to
provide students the services required by federal programs; and
unresolved compliance issues, among others.
This hearing is not about attacking charter schools as a concept.
It is about our responsibility to everyone. Our responsibility to
ensure that public dollars support schools that serve the public good.
Our responsibility to ensure that the growth of charter schools does
not come at the expense of equity, inclusion, and civil rights and the
rest of more than 90 percent of students who attend public schools. And
our responsibility is to examine whether current policies help us move
forward or if they reinforce the very barriers we have spent
generations trying to dismantle.
Congress has the tools to help. The Strength in Diversity Act and
the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act offer targeted support to
school districts that are working to develop, implement, or expand
desegregation initiatives. The bill that I co-lead with Representative
DeLauro, the Championing Honest and Responsible Transparency in
Education Reform (or CHARTER) Act, would prevent for-profit entities
from managing charter schools and siphoning taxpayer dollars from
children for their financial gain rather than the students they serve.
Together, these bills would help close achievement gaps, support
integration and accountability, and fulfill the vision laid out in
Brown. We must also look beyond charter schools as part of this
conversation. We should be asking what we can do to improve our
nation's public education system for all students in all public schools
to help them succeed to the best of their abilities.
In 2015, we passed the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA). The law intended to ensure that funding continued to be
directed to those most in need and meaningful steps would be taken to
address achievement gaps, while at the same time providing
significantly more flexibility to states and districts to determine how
to make these improvements. It focuses on a well-rounded education that
includes the arts and better-quality assessments. ESSA has not been
implemented with fidelity since it was signed into law; that would be a
worthy task for this committee.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the irony of my Republican
colleagues continuing their hearings about ``closing gaps and opening
doors'' in education while the president is actively dismantling the
Department of Education and terminating grants for public education
initiatives. President Trump's budget proposed to invest additional
funds in charter schools while slashing $4.5 billion from other K-12
education programs. Whereas, again, as a reminder, 90 percent of
students are enrolled. Republicans on this committee just voted to cut
$330 billion from higher education, ending the student loan programs
that truly open doors of opportunity for underserved communities.
I hope that today we will see a real commitment to making public
education accessible, accountable, and exceptional for every student.
Schools that receive public dollars must be part of a public
education system that is accountable, transparent, and committed to
equity. We cannot afford to ignore the evidence. We cannot allow
innovation to become a shield for inequality. If we are serious about
giving every child, regardless of race or ZIP code, a fair shot at
success, then we must design our school system to deliver on that
promise.
I look forward to the conversation and I yield back the balance of
my time.
______
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.
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 the Subcommittee may be waiving on
for the purpose of today's hearing. I will now introduce our
four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. David
Griffith, the Associate Director of Research for the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute in Washington, DC.
Our second witness is one of the truly great education
leaders in America today, Ms. Eva Moskowitz, the CEO and
President of National Strategy and Advancement for the Success
Academy Charter Schools in New York City. Our third witness is
Dr. Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, a Professor of Educational
Leadership at the Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond,
Virginia.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Darryl Cobb, the President of the
Charter School Growth Fund in Chicago, Illinois. 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 countdown 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 also would like to remind the witnesses to be
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
to the Committee. I will first recognize Mr. Griffith for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GRIFFITH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF
RESEARCH, THOMAS B. FORDHAM INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF
COLOMBIA
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and distinguished Committee members, thank you for
the opportunity to testify. My name is David Griffith, and I am
the Associate Director of Research at the Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, a nonprofit think tank committed to advancing
educational excellence for all students.
In the past decade I have been involved in more than a
dozen empirical studies of charter schools, which are also the
subject of my forthcoming dissertation and book. As the charter
school sector continues to grow, it is vital that we
understand, not only how these schools affect the students they
enroll, but how they affect public education systems as a
whole.
Today, I will share the latest findings from my own
research, as well as the work of other leading scholars.
Collectively, these students paid a clear picture. High-quality
charter schools can produce meaningful systemwide benefits for
students.
In recent years, numerous studies have found that enrolling
in a charter school generates significant academic benefits,
particularly in urban areas, and for traditionally
disadvantaged students.
Importantly, this research suggests that unlike nearly
every other K-12 education program, the charter sector has
improved, as it has expanded, for at least four reasons. First,
the percentage of charter schools that are relatively new has
declined, and new schools tend to get better over time.
Second, a growing percentage of charters are affiliated
with mission driven nonprofits, like Success Academy, and these
charter management organizations have a particularly strong
track record.
Third, charter school policy has improved, as states and
localities have learned from one another's experiences with
more choice-based systems. Finally, many low performing
charters have closed.
Critics of charter schools often claim that they hard
traditional school districts, yet research by the Fordham
Institute and others suggest that districts' revenues per pupil
often increase, as charter market share rises, due to so-called
hold harmless policies.
Moreover, a substantial literature now suggests that
district run schools tend to improve in response to competition
from charters. If both enrolled students, and students in
districts schools benefit from charters, their systemwide
effects should be positive.
In a recent national analysis, I examined how marginal
increases in charter school enrollment, or charter market
share, affected the average achievement of all students in a
public school system, including those in traditional public
schools.
Overall, the results suggest that these enrollment
increases are linked to systemwide gains in both reading and
math achievement by the end of middle school, especially in
urban areas, and for traditionally disadvantaged students.
In short, charter schools are not a silver bullet, but they
have demonstrated their ability to raise student achievement
and improve public education systems.
Broadly speaking, charter schools thrive under policies
that prioritize quality over quantity, promote transparency and
accountability, and provide equitable funding. I urge this
Committee to support such policies.
[The Statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will next recognize
Ms. Moskowitz for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. EVA MOSKOWITZ, CEO AND PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL
STRATEGY AND ADVANCEMENT, SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS, NEW
YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Moskowitz. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman and members
of the Committee for having me. It is a great opportunity, and
I appreciate being here. My name again is Eva Moskowitz. I am
the Founder and CEO of Success Academies. I started 19 years
ago with 165 kindergartners and first graders.
Today I am educating 22,000 children across K through 12.
Success Academy is the fourth largest school district in the
State of New York. What I am most proud of is the academic
outcomes. We are No. 1 in the State of New York in mathematics,
including outperforming the most affluent school districts in
the State of New York.
We are No. 3 in reading. Again, not just closing the
achievement gap, but actually reversing the achievement gap.
100 percent of our students for 8 years in a row have gone off
to 4-year colleges, whereas in America, only 22 percent of
students take at least one AP. At Success Academies, 95 percent
of our students have taken and passed one AP.
I am here today to talk about what is that secret sauce,
because it is much simpler than I think sometimes policymakers
or the American public make it seem to be. There are lots of
tools in the toolkit from small class size to more money. I
would argue that providing a structured, joyful, focused
learning environment with an exceptional teacher training and
educational training program, is really our secret sauce.
Not only do we have rigorous academics in elementary
school, but we have robust arts and athletics. I should just
clarify that 94 percent of our kids are black and brown. 80
percent live below the poverty line, and I am sure, as you can
appreciate, living just below the poverty line does not mean
that if you are slightly above it, you are a wealthy person.
Our kids come from economically disadvantaged
neighborhoods, and yet the bar is held high, and they do
exceptionally well. I appreciate, Chairman, your advocacy of
the High-Quality Charter Schools Act. I do not see how we can
be for universal school choice if we do not include both
private school choice, and public school choice, and
unfortunately, that was left out of the equation, and I am
hoping that it can be put back in because this is a unique
opportunity to materially impact the lives of children.
This bill would create and benefit up to 6 million
children, and we can talk about policies in the future, but we
are losing the global educational competition now. America is
at a low point, a historic low point, when it comes to
educational outcomes, and so there is, I feel, a tremendous
sense of urgency to correct course quickly, and these companion
bills would give us an opportunity to pragmatically in a common
sense way advance the cause of children, thank you very much.
[The Statement of Ms. Eva Moskowitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will next recognize
Dr. Siegel-Hawley for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. GENEVIEVE SIEGEL-HAWLEY, PROFESSOR OF
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Good morning, Chair and members of the
Committee. My name is Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and I am a
Professor in the School of Education at VCU. I will be
testifying in my personal capacity today.
Over the past decade and a half, I have studied school
segregation and policy options for addressing it. Charter
schools grew rapidly during that period, as well as broader
interest in the idea of school choice. Both have been an
important focus of my work.
This morning, I will outline the persistence of deep
inequality, and lack of civil rights protections in our charter
schools, and how the Federal Government could better protect
students, families, and their communities. My written testimony
goes into considerable evidence-based detail about these
issues, and I, of course, welcome further questions from the
Committee.
Today, when I speak about civil rights protections or
guardrails, I am talking about the protections that are
supposed to ensure that all of our children have equal access
to educational opportunity, irregardless of their backgrounds.
These rights are protected by our Federal Government through
legislation like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, passed by Congress because of
exclusionary practices in our schools and communities.
My basic argument today is this, charter schools receive
public funding, and therefore, should be equally available to
all students. Allow me to draw your attention to the
persistence of inequality and lack of civil rights protections
in charter schools along several key dimensions.
Charter school segregation by race and class is stark and
related to unequal educational opportunity. Black and Hispanic
charter school students are more likely to attend segregated
schools with draconian discipline, fewer challenging, or
college prep courses, higher likelihood of closure, higher
teacher and leadership turnover, and less experienced teachers
than Black and Hispanic students in our traditional public
schools.
While the charter sector disproportionately serves students
of color, charter schools can also act as havens for white and
middle-class flight. Charter schools are also less likely
overall to educate students with special needs, and when they
do, charters tend to educate students with less severe
disabilities.
Charter expansion impacts public school segregation and
resources. In large districts where the charter sector expanded
the fastest, school segregation increased the most. Resources
funneled to the charter sector negatively impact public schools
in both urban and rural districts.
Importantly, charter school segregation is not just a
result of family preferences, who, for the record, support
racially integrated schools according to polling conducted on
the 70th anniversary of Brown. Charter school segregation is
also a result of charter schools' choices, their preferences
for certain kinds of students and families.
Charter schools choose through targeted outreach, niche
programming, requiring families to provide their own
transportation, providing limited educational services,
requiring family involvement, and arduous, or criteria-based
application processes. Even though charter schools can shape
enrollment to their advantage, unlike traditional public
schools that must serve all assigned students, charter school
student achievement and outcomes remain a mixed bag.
Civil rights guardrails for school choice can explicitly
counter some of the ways charters shape enrollment and
segregation. We already have longstanding bipartisan support
for the Federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program, which is
designed to create diverse learning opportunities.
Four civil rights guardrails are imperative before any
additional funding is allocated. First, comprehensive outreach
and interest based unified user-friendly application systems,
so that all families can understand their choices, and are able
to easily apply for them.
Second, free transportation to schools that have been
carefully sited, so that a racially and economically diverse
set of families can readily get to them, with geographic
enrollment preferences that encompass a similarly diverse
group.
Third, accountability for enrolling a diverse student
population to include enrollment caps to slow growth linked to
overall school segregation. Fourth, careful attention to
student retention and belonging, including the provision of
crucial student support and educational services for students
with disabilities, multi-lingual learners, and for children who
come to school hungry.
Charter schools can be part of a thriving public-school
ecosystem, but the Federal Government has a crucial role to
play to make this so. For charter schools to live up to their
ideals, and I think my fellow panelists would agree with this
general point, we need smart regulation and oversight. Thank
you.
[The Statement of Dr. Siegel-Hawley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Last, I will recognize
Mr. Cobb for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. DARRYL COBB, PRESIDENT, CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH
FUND, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Cobb. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Kiley, Ranking
Member Bonamici, and members of the Committee. Thank you for
the invitation to participate in today's hearing during
National Charter Schools Week. I am Darryl Cobb, President of
the Charter School Growth Fund, where I have spent the last 15
years focused on growing our Nation's highest performing
charter schools.
Founded in 2005, the Charter School Growth Fund is a
national nonprofit organization that identifies the Nation's
best public charter schools, aggregates philanthropic capital
to fund their expansion, and helps to increase their impact to
prepare all students, in particular, students from underserved
backgrounds, to realize their full potential.
The Charter School Growth Fund portfolio includes over
1,400 high-quality charter schools, serving more than 760,000
students across 34 states, and 75 percent of those students
come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. We support a
diverse set of educational models, college prep models, STEM,
classical, language focused models, health centered models,
career connected models, and everything in between.
At the Charter School Growth Fund, we are model agnostic,
but we believe in strong leadership and strong results. The
evidence of these results is clear. The same 2023 study that
the Chairman recognized, found that Charter School Growth Fund
portfolio schools add an additional 61 days of growth in
reading, and 69 days of growth in math, compared to their
traditional public-school peers.
That is more than a third of a school year of additional
growth every single year. In 2024, the Progressive Policy
Institute found that cities that are significantly expanding
charter schools have seen low-income students, whether they
attend a charter school, or a traditional public school, begin
closing performance gaps with their peers statewide.
It is clear that charter schools lift the tide for all
students. Last year, members of the Charter School Growth Fund
Portfolio opened 61 new charter schools, and increased
enrollment by more than 60,000 students across the country.
Over the last few years, a quarter to a third of all new
charter school openings annually are by members of the Charter
School Growth Fund Portfolio.
Many of these openings are fueled by the Federal CSP
Program, which is administered by the Department of Education.
CSP has been instrumental in fueling charter schools' growth.
Also, the access to suitable facilities and Federal tax-exempt
private activity bonds, which allow reduced borrowing costs,
remain critical to fueling charter school growth across the
country.
As you pursue your policy agenda, I would like to leave you
with three things. One, public charter schools have shown
benefit to all public-school students in charter rich
environments, even those not enrolled in charter schools. Two,
students from traditionally underserved backgrounds have
benefited the most from the innovations and the hard work of
leaders founding charter schools.
Three, the Federal Government has, and must continue to
have, a role in providing the policy environment and resources
necessary for charter schools to thrive. Thank you for the
time.
[The Statement of Mr. Cobb follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. 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 of Michigan, for 5 minutes--for his questions for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing, and thanks to our witnesses for being
here. I think we heard--we heard great evidence on why charters
are good for everybody. You know, the premise of my experience
in education says to me that when you take care of the student,
the parent, and the teacher, you will succeed.
I think Mr. Cobb, your concluding statements clearly
indicated that that is what is going on in charter school, and
thank God, it is also helping the traditional, as we call it,
public school students as well because the competition. Any
information that goes away from that reality is flimflam. That
is a technical term, Mr. Chairman, that I just threw out there.
I mean if you go back in the most recent NAEP, which
segment of public education--which one segment of public
education showed positive educational outcomes? The answer is
charter schools. In Michigan, what I looked at in NAEP was
horrifying to a State that led this Nation in so many ways in
technology and manufacturing, STEM areas, and we are falling
behind because we are throwing caution to wind about supporting
quality education opportunities.
Mr. Griffith, in your testimony you mentioned that high
poverty students tend to do especially well in charter schools.
Why?
Mr. Griffith. Well, I think there are many reasons, but I
will just highlight two. First of all, many of these students
are coming from some of the worst traditional public schools,
so you know, the counterfactual is not great, and they are
looking for a lifeline, and they are looking for, you know,
just a place where they can get a basic education.
I think the second thing that I would highlight is just
high expectations. We did a study of charter schools in North
Carolina, and we found that teachers in charter schools have
systematically higher expectations of their students, and we
all know that, you know, if you have low expectations for
students, they will sink to those expectations, but if you hold
high expectations for them, you know, they will rise to meet
them, so, those are the things I would highlight.
Mr. Walberg. Surprise, surprise. Basic educational
modeling. Thank you. Ms. Moskowitz, the Success Academy seems
to be living out the name of the academy. What do you think are
the key ingredients of the Success Academy model that could,
and should be replicated in other charters?
Ms. Moskowitz. Yes. I would just echo my fellow witness and
make it more concrete. We do not refer to our kids as
kindergarteners, but the college graduating class of 2041. That
is because as soon as they arrive on our campus, we are
expressing our love for them, our belief that they can, and
that self-esteem is going to come through achievement. It is
only through the learning and the struggle that you build self-
confidence in the schooling environment.
We do have extraordinary expectations for students. It does
not mean that their journey is linear, and we have kids who can
be really successful in third grade, and then they get to
middle school, and they struggle with chemistry and physics,
which we teach in middle school, and they need more tutoring.
Fundamentally, we believe in structure, order and teaching
the habits of mind that are going to lead to success, and that
is discipline, hard work, focus and joy in learning.
Mr. Walberg. Yes. Sometimes it takes failure to breed
success as well. Thank you. Mr. Cobb, could you tell me more
about why charter schools can be created around a unique vision
and values, whereas that is harder to do in a traditional
public school? Sorry to give you only 30 seconds.
Mr. Cobb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is the
basis of what makes charter schools so powerful. For every
charter school that is created, there were a set of parents, a
set of educators, and a set of board members who came together
and said we have a vision for how we can serve students better,
and we are going to craft that vision into a school that
specifically meets the needs of those students, their parents,
and that community, so that is what all charter schools are
rooted in, is that specific mission and vision for the students
that they educate.
Mr. Walberg. Amazing. Competition in America. It might
work. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Ranking Member Bonamici of Oregon is
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to
extend a warm Oregonian welcome to Mr. Griffith. Nice to see
you. Thank you for being here. Dr. Siegel-Hawley, thank you for
mentioning magnet schools because magnet schools, as we know,
offer choice within the public school system, and the district
in which I live, the Beavertown School District, has many
wonderful magnet programs, and so you really have a level
playing field there.
I wanted to ask you about something I mentioned in my
opening statement, and that's the statistics about closure of
charter schools, about 25 percent closing within 5 years, 49
percent closing within 15 years. Dr. Siegel-Hawley, what effect
do these closures have on students and their families? What
options do they have when the school closes, and what happens
if a charter school closes in the middle of an academic year?
How does it affect students, families, and the local public
schools? I could ask you to be concise because I have some
other questions.
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Okay. Thank you for the question. You
know, my work has not specifically looked at the causes of the
closure, but we have picked up on it in our study of suburban
charter school segregation. We found that new charter schools
were increasingly likely in suburban areas, and that charter
schools were increasingly likely to close in suburban areas, in
our largest U.S. metros, and that particularly impacted Black
and Hispanic students.
I think we can look at qualitative and quantitative
research to understand that the disruption that students,
families and their communities experience in the wake of abrupt
closure is damaging. You know, if strong schools are built on
trust and care and relationship, severing that relationship,
especially mid-year, is really problematic.
Ms. Bonamici. Is it fair to say it is disruptive to the
students and to the public school system if a charter school
closes middle of the year?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Several of you have mentioned the
CREDO Report, the 2023 Credo Report, but I want to direct my
questions to Mr. Griffith and Mr. Cobb. You site that CREDO
report for the premise that schools do better--students do
better in charter schools than in traditional public schools. I
am sure you know that the methodology and conclusions of that
study have been scrutinized and criticized by multiple
education experts, including Diane Ravitch and other education
experts.
We know that parental involvement contributes to student
success and some charter schools actually require or mandate
parental involvement. Even assuming--even assuming that the
CREDO Report shows some benefits from charter schools, how do
you factor in that students in charter schools typically have
more involved parents, and could it be the parental
involvement, rather than the charter school model, that makes a
difference? Mr. Griffith and Mr. Cobb, I will ask you that
question.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. I think the first thing I would say is
that we do not actually observe parental involvement. I
understand that there is a certain amount of parental
involvement that is involved in applying to a charter school,
but that is also true when you are picking a house or choosing
what traditional public school you want your kid to go to.
You know, I do not think we observed that directly in the
data. I guess the other thing I would say is that, you know,
Credo's methodology has been evaluated multiple times,
including by NCES, and the upshot is that, you know, its
estimates are essentially indistinguishable from those of a
randomized control trial.
You know, when it comes to these based outcomes, I think we
should take it seriously.
Ms. Bonamici. I am sorry to cut you off, but I want to get
to Mr. Cobb briefly, and then I have one more question.
Mr. Cobb. Yes. I will comment on your question around
parental involvement. I think I would flip that around, and I
think a lot of times people view oh, our charter schools have
parents who are more involved. I think charter schools are
intentional about creating more paths for parents to be
involved in their student's education, so many of the schools
that we work with, they go out of their way to create a
multiple-pathway model for parents to be involved.
For parents who have lots of time there are opportunities
to be engaged in school. For parents who have less time, they
create a multitude of ways for those parents to be involved.
Ms. Bonamici. Understood, and I submit that that would be a
positive thing to do for the 92 or more percent of students who
are in a traditional public school as well. Ms. Moskowitz,
Success Academy seems to place a lot of focus on test scores.
This is something I have looked at for a long time, including
NAEP and PISA scores.
I have to say that comparing PISA scores with U.S. scores
is worse than comparing an apple to an orange. It is more like
an apple with a forest of trees because we have 50 education
systems, and the PISA countries have one. They also have paid
family leave, universal healthcare, and these policies clearly
affect student outcomes.
Regarding the NAEP scores, wealthier students typically do
better than the low-income students, and I submit that we
should be focusing on poverty and these other policies if we
truly want to improve public education. I want to ask because
your focus seems to be on getting high test scores. What
happens to students in your school if they do not get high test
scores?
Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I would disagree that the focus is
just on test scores. We would not do block play. We would not
treat games as a subject. We would not have the investment in
art and music, chess, dance and athletics, if we were just
interested in test scores. We do think preparing kids for tests
are important, and we frankly think that the New York State
tests, and I would argue most around the country, are table
stakes.
If our kids cannot pass those tests, we are in deep, deep
trouble because the tests are not that hard. What they are
going to have to do in life is a lot harder, so I think we do
need to pay attention to the low bar of State tests. We need to
pay attention to the math scores, the SAT math scores, they are
actually quite easy, and the fact that our students are not
acing those tests should be a national embarrassment.
Ms. Bonamici. I yield back. I thank you for letting me go
over.
Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Utah, Mr. Owens, is
recognized.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it. I want
to start by giving a shoutout to my home State of Utah. We lead
in education because our teachers lead. We have a culture which
our students are first, and I think every State, and every
district that takes that on could see a great amount of
improvement.
We have one of the highest high school graduation rates in
the Nation. Utah students consistently outperform national
averages on the critical benchmarks, like the national report
card from fourth grade math and eighth grade reading. One
example of an exceptional Utah school is America Preparatory
Academy, whose results consistently rank among the highest in
Utah and won the award for the best charter school in the
State.
As a Nation, we have entered a very exciting new era, where
every child, not just the lucky few, can access opportunities
that fit their unique needs and abilities. We have finally
started to view education the way we view other parts of our
economy, through the eyes of the American consumer, it is a
culture built on capitalism.
Competition drives innovation, accountability and better
outcomes. In too many cities, like Chicago, Baltimore and New
York, the education bureaucracy shield themselves from
competition and fail the very students they claim to serve with
70 percent of eighth graders reading below proficiency, the
choice is clear. Do we empower families with options, or keep
listening to the same broken system?
I want to thank Mr. Griffith, Ms. Moskowitz, and Mr. Cobb.
Thank you for your passion. I appreciate what you guys have put
into what you do. You are risk takers, you are innovators, you
think outside the box, and you bring the entrepreneurial spirit
to something that we need to do so much better in education, so
thank you for doing that.
My parents, by the way, were educators, so I totally get
that. I understand where that comes from. I will say Success
Academy is a remarkable place to visit, so thank you for that
opportunity to do that also.
Mr. Griffith, those who have committed to the one size fits
all complain about offering competition to neighborhood public
schools. What does your research say about competition and
public schools' improvement?
Mr. Griffith. I am going to cite the broader literature
instead of my research here. By my count, there are 13 studies
that use student level data that find positive effects, 7 that
find neutral or mixed effects, and 4 that find negative
effects. The preponderance of the literature suggests that
traditional public schools tend to improve.
Mr. Owens. We kind of look at it just to make a statement.
If you think about competition, when anything is competing,
they try to find the best way to make sure the customer comes
to them. That is the way it works in the capitalism system, so
I am not surprised. I think we need to understand that public
schools are also lifted when there is competition.
Mr. Cobb, you mentioned that cities aggressively expand
high-quality charter schools, so their students improve,
including those in traditional public schools. I have long
thought it has been misleading and inaccurate to say that
charter schools are an attack on traditional public schools.
How do you respond to someone that says that your work is
undermining the public education?
Mr. Cobb. Well, the first thing I say is that charter
schools are public schools. They are part of the fabric of
public schooling in our country. They offer parents and
students an opportunity to identify the school that is right
and best fit for them, and the school that is designed to meet
their particular needs.
We see all over the country, including in your home State
of Utah, several schools that specifically focus on students
who have been left behind, or not had success in the
traditional system, and schools built for them, and those
students thrive.
I can think about a school, Wallace Stegner Academy, right
there in Utah, where they have a student population that is
much more disadvantaged than the rest of the State, and their
student outcomes actually outperform the average student in the
State of Utah. Schools designed just like that are the reason
why charter schools are part of the education system and need
to be expanded in all parts of our country.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Ms. Moskowitz, just really quickly. I
have only 30 seconds. We talked about the demographics of your
school. Could you kind of highlight that because I think it is
important for people to realize those who are not familiar with
New York, how many parents are waiting on lists to try to come
through a school like Success Academy. Just a little background
on that please.
Ms. Moskowitz. Last year we had 28,000 applicants for 3,000
spots, and it is quite heartbreaking. The parents who lose the
lottery love their children as much as the parents who win the
lottery, so we do not have a demand problem. We have a supply
problem.
Mr. Owens. I just want to say that I have visited your
school. I remember going upstairs where Success Academy was,
and going downstairs to the public school system, and the list
was so much longer for those downstairs trying to get upstairs.
Thank you for everything you do, for your innovation.
I am thankful that we are finally putting our kids first in
our culture, so with that I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Pennsylvania,
Representative Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a proud product of
public schools, I am deeply committed to a public education
system that supports every child's success, so I stand with all
the students, the parents, the families, the educators, the
community members who are working tirelessly to save their
neighborhood schools from an administration that is determined
to dismantle them.
For many families, neighborhood schools are not just an
option, they are the best option, and if we are doing our jobs
right as government officials, it would be the best option
everywhere. I have toured neighborhood schools, public schools
that have expansive libraries, state-of-the-art facilities,
athletic and performance facilities, central heating and air
conditioning, so many school counselors, some that focus
exclusively on college admissions.
I have also gone to neighborhood schools with curriculums
that, quite frankly, fall short of some of their students'
needs, or erase their history or lived experience, taught by
educators who were grossly underpaid, in crumbling buildings
with lead paint and no ventilation.
The only difference between some of those schools most of
the time is the ZIP Code. These high-quality schools are proof
that we actually do know how to adequately resource
neighborhood schools. Our country's refusal to equitably invest
in Black and Brown schools, our students' neighborhood schools,
is an intentional and systemic choice.
When my colleagues across the aisle hold a hearing about
how we need charter schools to replace failing neighborhood
schools, we cannot let them off the hook from confronting why
some schools are failing. Dr. Siegel-Hawley, based on your work
examining school segregation, why is it that schools in poor
Black and Brown neighborhoods have systemically fewer resources
than more affluent communities, and have charter schools
generally improved this disparity or made it worse?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Thank you for the question. You know, I
think your comments highlight deep and ongoing inequality in
our traditional public schools, and I think the conversation
here today reflects different diagnoses of the issues of the
causes. On the one hand we have a diagnosis related to the lack
of competition, more competition will spur improvement in our
traditional public schools.
Then on the other, we have a diagnosis that racial
segregation and concentrated poverty are the root causes of
educational inequality. The research would suggest that those
root causes remain, and charter schools that do not adequately
address them are not systematically creating better
opportunities for our most marginalized children.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Black and Brown students' neighborhood
schools are not destined to fail, as you seem to be saying, but
they have been sabotaged, and charters siphoning money from
neighborhood schools is a part of that sabotage, even as we can
recognize the success of some charter schools.
Do not get me wrong. Plenty of charter schools are great
schools, with diverse enrollment, inclusive curriculums, and
countless resources, but when a new, fancy charter opens, I
think about the students left behind in neighborhood schools,
now tasked with delivering the same educational services but
with fewer resources.
Where charters can rely on zero tolerance policies to expel
students, they deem too difficult, or implement untenable
academic requirements to push out students they decide cannot
keep up, or simply not offer the services required by a
student's IEP, neighborhood schools continue to accommodate
every student's needs by law.
I also think about the students that never had access to
charters in the first place, students who are unhoused or
transient, or are in foster care systems without a stable home
who do not have a parent with Wi-Fi or endless time to research
schools and fill out complicated applications.
Dr. Siegel-Hawley, very quickly, based on your testimony,
it seems clear that charters do not consistently outperform
neighborhood public schools academically, even while discarding
the students neighborhood schools still have to serve. What
concerns should we have about expanding a schooling model that
often excludes the highest need students and cannot
consistently ensure a student's academic success?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. I think we need to pay careful attention
to the way that charter schools are choosing their families. We
can talk about school choice, but we need to understand how
charters are choosing their students and families and put into
place stronger oversight and accountability for the civil
rights protections and guardrails that would ensure that all
children are able to equally access them.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I just want to say that the Chair of
this Committee opened by saying that we need to protect a
failing monopoly by eliminating competition, and I want to
remark that public schools are not a monopoly because public
schools are not a business, and they should not be governed by
a business model. We should not have school leaders who call
themselves CEOs. This kind of thinking is how we end up with
the Secretary of Education who donated over a million dollars
to a charter school network yet does not know what IDEA stands
for.
The Trump Administration is doing everything in its power,
well beyond its power, to dismantle neighborhood public
schools, cutting funding and so much more. When this rampant
disinvestment from public school impacts neighborhood schools,
my Republican colleagues will hold yet another hearing about
how the only solution for the children that they failed is to
expand a schooling model that discriminates.
We can do better. We can invest equitably in public
education and serve all students while doing so. Thank you, and
I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Guam, Mr. Moylan is
recognized.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our students are our
future, and we should, as a Nation, be investing in that
future. These actions go beyond just spending. We need to make
it easier to succeed, and give our students more pathways, by
empowering families to make the decisions that are right for
their students.
Academic choice is important, and we should empower parents
and families to make the choices that are best for their
students. As elected officials, it is a duty to give our
Nation's students the best chance to succeed. In many cases,
charter schools can offer something different from traditional
public schooling.
In Guam, there are two fantastic examples of this. SIFA
Academy offers something no other school does, Chamorro
Immersion Learning. Programs like these respond to the unique
cultures of the student bodies they serve, contribute to our
rich cultural landscape, and help restore and revitalize our
native languages.
Career Tech, also leads being the only trade centered high
school on the island. C Tech empowers students to enter
workforce with in-demand skills, college credits, and
nationally recognized certifications. Programs like these
prepare our youth for all options after completing high school,
from high paying trade jobs, to college degrees and beyond.
Mr. David, thank you for being here today, and early
congratulations on finishing your Ph.D. In your testimony you
discussed charter schools' positive outcomes in serving
traditionally underserved populations. What have you seen in
your research about charter schools advancing social mobility
compared to traditional public schools?
Mr. Griffith. Well, again, I am going to cite the vastly
larger charter school literature that goes beyond my own work.
We focused a lot on test scores today, and that is partly
because that is where the data is, and we can account for
things comprehensively when we do that, but there is also
substantial literature on other outcomes, including high school
graduation, postsecondary outcomes, labor market outcomes,
civic outcomes like voting, and essentially that literature
overwhelmingly shows that charter schools have positive
effects.
Mr. Moylan. All right. Thank you. Ms. Moskowitz, thank you.
You highlighted in your testimony Success Academy's 100 percent
college acceptance rate. How does that compare with New York
City's traditional school system?
Ms. Moskowitz. It is a little hard to tell exactly because
there is a very high dropout rate in the district, but it is
about 70 percent higher than most high schools in New York
serving comparable populations.
Mr. Moylan. As a followup, in your experiencing what has
been the main driving factors for parents and families to
choose charter schooling over traditional public schooling?
What makes charter schools so attractive to parents?
Ms. Moskowitz. Yes. I wish I could say that parents are
choosing success because we have science 5 days a week, and
because we have a robust chess and backgammon program, and we
send 100 percent of our kids to college, but actually it is
safety. It is the lack of safety in the district school system.
There are food fights in the lunchroom. There are massive
teacher absences in the schools, you know, it is not, you know,
we offer something really robust, but most of our families are
trying to escape a multi-generational failing school. Their
grandmother went to a failing school, and then the mother went
to the failing school, because that is the only option.
Finally, when Success goes into neighborhoods, and other
charters, of course, too, there is finally an option, a non-
failing, non-disorderly option. Now, once they come to Success,
you know, we show the robustness of our program, but the
motivators are actually fairly basic.
Mr. Moylan. I thank you, and I will yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Representative Wilson
of Florida is recognized.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony
today. I must State upfront that I find your claims that
charter schools outperform public schools to be not only
misleading, but entirely deceptive and unfounded.
I am a former public-school teacher, a public-school
principal, a school district executive director, and a school
board member. The local public neighborhood school is the
heartbeat of the community, and you are destroying that. Public
schools are meant to educate everyone, students with
disabilities, the gifted, the wheelchair bound, the sick, the
struggling, the shut in, the orphan, ungovernable, everyone. It
is a big tent.
Charter schools on the other hand, cherry pick, and fall
short of the promise. I can tell you that that is unfair. The
nation's first charter school was established in my district by
Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Liberty City Charter School. It
lasted 3 years.
In my home State of Florida, we see charter schools
exacerbate patterns of resegregation along racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic lines. Poor children are lumped together as for
some kind of experiment. They are put into a Petri dish, and
they say that is good as long as they do not have to go to
school with my white children.
As we approach the anniversary of Brown v. Board of
Education this Saturday, we cannot be in the business of
rolling back the time and contributing to segregation
supporting charter schools. This is shameful. On top of this,
poorly monitored charter schools have shown to deliver subpar
academic results to snatch money from our public schools and
then wash their hands clean of any responsibility.
During my years as an educator and an elected official, I
have never found one charter school that had the same success
as public schools, and I am still looking. Teachers do not have
the same educational background, credentials, training, nor
experience as public school teachers. It is privatizing
education for a profit, profit by greedy nonprofits, religious
groups, and segregationists.
It is a shame that we continue to push our Black and Brown
children to these schools. The marketing is insane. As a former
teacher, let us recap what we have learned. We have learned
that charter schools are good at snatching taxpayer money that
should be going to public schools, leaving the public school
deprived of necessary resources. Then they peddle substandard
education and never deliver. When the damage is done, they
shutdown, close the doors, and leave nothing but chaos in their
wake. That is what we get with charter schools. We simply
cannot continue to regress into an educational landscape where
we fail to keep the promises we made to our children.
With that, I have a few questions.
Dr. Siegel-Hawley, you mentioned that some charter schools
engage in severe disciplinary policies. I can expand on that by
pinpointing the receivers of that severe discipline are Black
boys. Is corporal punishment contradictory to the goal of
promoting students' mental health?
Chairman Kiley. I will note that the Representative's time
is expired, but I will permit you a brief response.
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Yes. My response is yes, and I think
traditional public schools and charter schools have work to do
on disciplinary disparities and eliminating corporal
punishment.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes. My good colleague Ms. Wilson just said
she is still searching for any charter school that outperforms
any traditional public school. Well, I have good news. Your
search is over. Sitting right in front of you is the leader of
a charter school network that is literally No. 1 of all schools
in the State of New York.
Ms. Moskowitz, you mentioned that you have got 28,000
applicants, but for only 3,000 spots. Based on what I have
heard from this side of the dais, perhaps for our democrat
witness, I am sure what you do is you just do like an entrance
exam, you take the 3,000 who do best, and you say you guys get
the spots. Is that right?
Ms. Markowitz. It is a random lottery, and we would not
know how well a 5-year-old is going to do on a State test. If
you have those powers of prediction, you are a better educator
than I am, so it is random lottery, we get what we get, and we
educate every kid. You know, we have 16,000 special needs,
12,000 homeless students, you know, a very high percentage of
non-English learners.
Our demographics look very similar to our collocated
schools, district schools.
Chairman Kiley. That is in the law, right? You have to do a
lottery, or at least----
Ms. Markowitz. That is the law.
Chairman Kiley. That is the law. You do the lottery. Have
you ever--I know there have been studies done that actually
look at what happens then to the students who win the lottery,
versus those who do not. It is sort of a natural controlled
experiment. Have you ever looked at that by the way for Success
Academy?
Ms. Markowitz. Yes. We have done a couple of them. They are
a little outdated now, but winning the lottery has an outsized
impact on academic success.
Chairman Kiley. We got some statistics here from your
schools, you have got 22,000 students, No. 1 in New York in
math. You outperform all of the most affluent schools, No. 3 in
reading. Your students--100 percent go to 4-year colleges, and
95 percent take an AP class.
You have a structured, focused, joyful learning environment
with arts and athletics and chess and backgammon, and this is
all despite the fact that 80 percent of your students are below
the poverty line. Given this incredible success, I am sure that
in Albany, there is just universal bipartisan overwhelming
support for success, and they are always asking you what more
could we do for you to help your schools expand. Is that what
you have experienced?
Ms. Markowitz. No. Being in a blue State has its
challenges, and it has been a 19-year battle just to exist. I
have been sued constantly, the teachers' union has made life
very, very difficult. There is sort of a deep connection in New
York between the unions and the local elected officials, you
know, everything from trying to shut the schools down to
barricading, not allowing children into the school building.
People have referenced Brown v. Board of Ed, I am
experiencing sort of the opposite, where union operatives have
not allowed children to get into the building. It is a pretty
venomous debate, which is really, really unfortunate because I
do think this issue is bipartisan. I think we have got to put
away some of these grand ideological battles.
We are running out of time to materially improve the lives
of children, and you know, all the international data. We can
argue PISA, TIMS, all the international data indicates we are
in the bottom quartile.
Chairman Kiley. Why do you think it is that there is not
the level of universal support for what you are doing when
there should be?
Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I think that it is--there are
narratives that are super convenient. If poverty is the
explanation, and do not get me wrong, poor kids are harder to
educate and have challenges that many of us in this room could
not possibly imagine unless we ourselves have come from
poverty.
It is a factor to be sure, but it is not dispositive. You
can outperform your Zip Code if you provide rigorous
curriculum, if you have loving, nurturing teachers, and
principals. I think the reason it is so--there is so much
animus is because entities like Success are proving that there
is nothing wrong with the children, and that is super
politically threatening.
There is a problem with a system of delivery. You
mentioned, Congressman, that, you know, we are co-located at
Success. On one floor you have a failing district school, and
then you have our school, that is super successful. The school
you visited, we had 100 percent of the kids pass the test, and
the co-located had zero, so it is not a small gap.
It is a giant, giant gap, and we have to take that
seriously, and start to offer pragmatic, concrete solutions to
this problem, or we will not have a great nation.
Chairman Kiley. Very well said. Thank you very much. I will
now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
Scott of Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Griffith, you said
you are doing research. Has that research been peer reviewed?
Mr. Griffith. Generally speaking, no.
Mr. Scott. I think we can assume that there are some good
charter schools, and some bad charter schools. You concluded
that charter schools had a positive effect. Did you rule out,
rather than an effect, it was a correlation?
Mr. Griffith. Yes. I think you can rule that out. We
probably do not have time to get into the methods, okay, but
what is compelling for me, and the reason that I am here, is
that when you look within a school district, and you just look
at the correlation between the level of charter school
penetration for a particular cohort of students, the cohorts
with higher levels of penetration, consistently outperform
those with lower levels of penetration in both subjects, and
for every subgroup. I feel confident in saying there is a----
Mr. Scott. At the charter schools. Well, you have
acknowledged that poor performing charter schools tend to
close?
Mr. Griffith. Yes, that is right, that leaves the good
ones.
Mr. Scott. Okay. How long do students have to get to attend
poor performing schools before they close?
Mr. Griffith. Well, I think it varies.
Mr. Scott. How long do these poor performing schools stay
open before they close?
Mr. Griffith. I think it varies, but I think one thing that
is important to note is that closure rates have declined since
the beginning of the movement, so if you had asked me the
question, you know, 20 years ago, I think there were higher
rates of closure, but as the sector has, as its matured, the
closure rate has declined, and it is less than half of what it
is--what is was in the beginning.
I also would defend the notion of some performance-based
closure, just on the grounds of consumer protection.
Mr. Scott. You will acknowledge, I guess, that students who
are attending poor performance schools, then they close, but
until then they have just got a poor education. Ms. Siegel-
Hawley, Virginia welcomes--it is good to see you. Are charter
schools required to comply with State requirements on teacher
qualifications?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Thank you for the question. If I may
circle back to underscore something that you mentioned around
peer review. I have been thinking about that in this
conversation because we have been sort of talking past each
other with some of the evidence, and there are questions about
whether or not it is flimflam. I just want to say that peer
review is the bedrock of scholarship.
Even though it takes a long time, and even though it is not
always constructive, it is the opportunity for a fresh set of
independent eyes to look at and evaluate and strengthen your
work.
Now, I know policy cycles move really quickly, and it can
be hard to get the peer reviewed evidence in front of
policymakers in time, and that is why there is a role for other
kinds of research that can be quickly disseminated.
I think we have to put a premium on the peer reviewed
evidence, and I have not necessarily heard that today across
all of the conversation. In terms of your question about
teacher quality in charter schools, you know, I do think that
there is a large and growing body of research evidence
suggesting that charter schools employ younger, less
experienced, and lower quality teachers, and that they leave
faster, creating churn that is disruptive for students and
their learning.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Can you say a word about whether or
not charter schools lead to more or less racial segregation?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. I think the research on this is also
clear. Charter schools have been around for 30 years, and over
time many, many, many different studies across contexts have
shown that charter schools are more segregated than our already
segregated traditional public schools, and that they increase
overall segregation.
Mr. Scott. Do disciplinary policies have an effect on that?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. Do discipline policies have an effect on
that? They can in different ways. Charter schools can push
students out. They are not required to educate them. Then that
leaves the traditional public schools to educate those
students.
Mr. Scott. As more and more students go to charter schools,
what happens to the public support for public schools?
Ms. Siegel-Hawley. I have been thinking about this during
the conversation today too, you know, the idea that we could
and should create niche schools that cater to different
family's interests, beliefs, to the exclusion of other family's
is antithetical to what the Supreme Court said unanimously in
Brown about education being the very foundation of good
citizenship.
It is really hard to learn how to care about and share with
people who are different from you if you are in schools where
you are divided into these niche sort of systems.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
the Ranking Member for a closing statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses. This has been an incredibly thought-provoking
conversation this morning. We know as Federal policymakers that
the Federal role in education is about equity, really equity of
opportunity, but we cannot ignore the racial and economic
segregation that continues to define too many of our schools.
We cannot pretend that the consequences of inequity are
theoretical when they are, in fact, visible in outcomes, in
teacher turnover, and resource access.
This is about more than charter schools. It is about
whether the public education system is serving all students.
Although we may differ on the solutions, we should all agree,
that innovation must never come at the expense of civil rights.
Charter schools should not be exempt from the responsibilities
that come with public funding. They must be subject to the same
standards of accountability, equity, and transparency as
traditional public schools. That is not about limiting choice,
it is about promoting fairness.
I will note that we recently introduced a bill to ban
corporal punishment in schools across the country. I invite
anyone to join us on that.
We also must move beyond the false choice between improving
traditional public schools or holding charter schools
accountable, because we can and must do that, do both. The
schools must work for every student and every classroom, and
every ZIP Code.
That means investing in proven strategies, strong
accountability systems, diverse and inclusive schools, and
retaining experienced educators, and comprehensive student
support. Again, magnet schools have that potential to offer
choice within a public school system with a level playing
field.
Congress must pass the Strength in Diversity Act, the
Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act. Also, as someone who was
here along with Mr. Scott and Mr. Walberg and others during
2015 when we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, that must
be implemented with fidelity and not in name only.
Legislation alone is not enough. We need the will to
enforce it and have the courage to follow the data, especially
when it challenges the status quo. We owe that to the legacy of
Brown versus Board of Education, and more importantly, to the
millions of students depending on us to have a public education
system that delivers on its promise.
Mr. Chairman, I have been on this Committee for almost 14
years, and over the years we have had many, many conversations,
and I have heard it again today, references to escaping failing
schools, or the worst schools, and I still do not know what
that means, Mr. Chairman. A school is a building.
If the students are not doing well in a school, we need to
ask the question, as Ms. Moskowitz said, do they need art and
chess and athletics? Are the class sizes too big? Are they
hungry? Are they homeless? Is there lead in the water? Are
there challenges facing them at home that need to be addressed?
Again, a reminder, more than 90 percent of the students in
this country go to traditional public schools. Our role as
policymakers must be to consider all of them, not just the
small percentage of students whose parents have advocated for
them for a charter school.
Let us focus on how do we improve all public schools in the
country, and I look forward to continuing that ongoing
conversation, and I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Thanks very much. Thank you very much to
all of our witnesses. You know, I am struck by the numbers for
Success Academy, 28,000 applicants, 3,000 spots. Put yourself
in the position of a parent who knows that by and large there
are certainly exceptions, but New York City traditional public
schools do not achieve good education outcomes.
Many are unsafe. Then you hear about a school, also a
public school, tuition free, that not only provides a good
education, but outperforms all of the other schools in the
State, and fosters a good culture, and is safe, and parents can
have peace of mind when their child goes to school.
The very difficult thing is that you know your odds are so
low just because the school is so popular. The odds, 3,000 out
of 28,000, it is not all that much better than an actual
lottery ticket. Based upon that turn of chance, a big part of
your child's future hangs in the balance.
Their ability to succeed in school, to go to college, to
succeed in life comes down to the drawing of a lottery ball.
What if we made it so it was not that way? What if we had a
school system throughout this country where all 28,000 of those
applications could actually get a seat at a school like Success
Academy?
What if every child in this country had the opportunity for
that kind of education? We can start working toward that vision
right now. We have an opportunity right now to catalyze a
school choice revolution in this country.
We already have, as part of the Reconciliation Bill, a
groundbreaking form of private school choice, with the
Educational Choice for Children Act, but we need to assure that
charter schools and public-school choice is in that bill as
well.
What hangs in the balance is not just the future of
millions and millions of students, but the future of our
country as well. As we have heard today, the Nation's report
card shows that our public education outcomes across this
country continue to decline. Think about what that is going to
mean for our country, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years down the
road.
We have an opportunity to reverse that decline right now
and begin a new era of educational excellence in America. It is
just a matter of mustering the political will to do so, so
thank you again to our witnesses for testifying before the
Committee. Without objection, there being no further business,
the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Ranking Member Bonamici
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Dr.
Siegel-Hawley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]