[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5362-S5367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Ashcroft, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Gregg):
S. 847. A bill to provide scholarship assistance for District of
Columbia elementary and secondary school students; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENT OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1997
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today is a very important day for students
in the District of Columbia. Today, I join Senator Lieberman, Senator
Brownback, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Gregg in introducing the
District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also
known as the DC SOS Act. The DC SOS Act provides immediate relief to
thousands of the District's neediest students who are consigned to
failing, violent public schools. This bill is a direct response to the
needs of thousands of families in our Capital City who have, for too
long, been expected to accept under-performing and often violent
schools for their children. The DC SOS Act provides real educational
opportunities to almost 4,000 District students.
Many of you may remember that a very similar initiative was
introduced by former Representative Gunderson, and included in the 1996
D.C. appropriations bill. At that time, a majority of the Senate, 56
Senators in all, were supportive of the idea to provide scholarships to
poor students in the District of Columbia. Tragically, that program,
which would have benefited 5,000 of our Nation's most needy students,
was blocked by the threat of a filibuster.
During the 1996 D.C. Appropriations debate, many of those who opposed
providing scholarships for poor District students argued that the
initiative was opposed by the residents of the District. That argument
cannot be used this time. A recent bipartisan survey conducted in the
District of Columbia found that fully 64 percent of Washingtonians
would send their children to private school if they had the option and
if money were not an issue; 61 percent of single parents think that
creating a school choice program for the District is an excellent or
good use of taxpayer dollars. And those most likely to opt out of the
public system are residents of the wards 7 and 8, the areas with the
most troubled public schools. Clearly, the residents of the District
are ready for a change.
But these surveys should not surprise us. The D.C. schools have not
improved since the defeat of the D.C. scholarship program in 1996.
Rather, the schools got so bad that the D.C. Control Board fired
Superintendent Franklin Smith, stripped control of the school from the
D.C. Board of Education, and installed a new Chief Executive and
Superintendent, retired Army Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. Perhaps General
Becton can turn the D.C. school system around. But I am not willing to
tell a family who fears for the safety of their child that they should
wait and given General Becton 5 or 10 years to test his approaches,
especially because changes have been promised by five new
superintendents in the last 15 years.
In February of this year, the Washington Post ran a five-part series
on the D.C. school system, chronicling its complete breakdown. A school
system where jobs for bureaucrats are more important than providing
textbooks. A school system that employs almost nine times more central
office administrators than the national average, despite a decreasing
student population, and a shortage of qualified teachers and
principals.
Many of the district's 152 schools are in a state of terrible
disrepair. Students and teachers contend with leaking roofs, bitterly
cold classrooms, and thousands of fire code violations. Yet, in 1996,
the D.C. Board of Education allocated $1.4 million for its own use, an
amount far greater than that spent by neighboring counties, and
$200,000 more than is spent by the Chicago school system, which is five
times larger.
Unfortunately, these problems of infrastructure are minor concerns
compared to violence and basic educational failure. Violence in the
schools is at an alltime high--both student on student, and student on
teacher--even as the violent crime rate in the country as a whole
drops. And stories of academic mediocrity have become so common that
they have lost their power to shock. Why is there no public outcry that
the D.C. school district, which spends the most per pupil of any
district in the country, has the Nation's lowest reported scores on the
NAEP exams? Where is the outrage that only 35 percent of students are
reading at grade level?
Students are routinely promoted regardless of whether they have
progressed in their studies and graduate from the school system with
little to show for their 12 years of schooling. Eighty-five percent of
D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of the District
of Columbia need 2 years of remedial education before beginning their
course work toward degrees. And more than half of all graduates who
took the U.S. Armed Forces Qualification Test in 1994 failed. This last
statistic is particularly troubling, because it blocks a traditional
escape route from disadvantage.
We are asking poor, inner-city children and their parents to tolerate
circumstances that most middle-class and affluent Americans would not
tolerate for one moment. Why should these families have to suffer
violence and the lack of educational opportunities for another week,
let alone the years that General Becton himself admits it will be
before reform has any effect?
But those of us concerned about this issue face an obstacle. No one
seems outraged enough about the betrayal of these children by
indifferent adults to make major changes. Not suburban whites, who are
often satisfied with their schools. Not politicians, some of whom are
either blindly obedient to teachers unions or may simply have different
political constituencies than these kids and their parents.
The DC SOS Act is an attempt to end this conspiracy of complacency.
In introducing this bill today, I join with a coalition of members in
both House of Congress who seek to provide scholarships for low-income
students in the District of Columbia to enable them to attend the
public or private school of
[[Page S5363]]
their choice or to receive tutoring assistance. This bill is the single
most practical, immediate, effective way to help actual children, with
flesh and blood and futures, rather than continuing to ignore this very
serious situation.
I find it inconceivable that anyone, in good conscience, could
condemn the District's low income children to attend schools that not
only fail to educate them, but cannot even assure their personal
safety. Some of the public schools in this city have become wastelands
of violence and despair. We cannot begin to imagine the fears of a
mother who is forced, required, compelled to send her child through
barbed wire and metal detectors into a combat zone, masquerading as an
educational institution.
The introduction, and ultimate passage of this bill, will signal a
fundamental shift in priorities. It would indicate to parents in the
District of Columbia and all across America that we care about their
children more than we care about maintaining the status quo; that we
understand the depth of the problem in our Nation's public schools and
that we are finally willing to address it.
Opponents of this bill should carefully consider what they would do
if they had a child assigned to a school where physical attacks,
robberies, and drug sales were rampant. Low-income parents, who face
this circumstance every day, deserve a voice and a choice.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the D.C. Student
Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997. With this bill we signal our
intention to provide a safe and effective school for every child in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this act, the District of
Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 847
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PRECEDENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``District
of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Public education in the District of Columbia is in a
crisis, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The District of Columbia schools have the lowest
average of any school system in the Nation on the National
Assessment of Education Progress.
(B) 72 percent of fourth graders in the District of
Columbia tested below basic proficiency on the National
Assessment of Education Progress in 1994.
(C) Since 1991, there has been a net decline in the reading
skills of District of Columbia students as measured in scores
on the standardized Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.
(D) At least 40 percent of District of Columbia students
drop out of or leave the school system before graduation.
(E) The National Education Goals Panel reported in 1996
that both students and teachers in District of Columbia
schools are subjected to levels of violence that are twice
the national average.
(F) Nearly two-thirds of District of Columbia teachers
reported that violent student behavior is a serious
impediment to teaching.
(G) Many of the District of Columbia's 152 schools are in a
state of terrible disrepair, including leaking roofs,
bitterly cold classrooms, and numerous fire code violations.
(2) Significant improvements in the education of
educationally deprived children in the District of Columbia
can be accomplished by--
(A) increasing educational opportunities for the children
by expanding the range of educational choices that best meet
the needs of the children;
(B) fostering diversity and competition among school
programs for the children;
(C) providing the families of the children more of the
educational choices already available to affluent families;
and
(D) enhancing the overall quality of education in the
District of Columbia by increasing parental involvement in
the direction of the education of the children.
(3) The 350 private schools in the District of Columbia and
the surrounding area offer a more safe and stable learning
environment than many of the public schools.
(4) Costs are often much lower in private schools than
corresponding costs in public schools.
(5) Not all children are alike and therefore there is no
one school or program that fits the needs of all children.
(6) The formation of sound values and moral character is
crucial to helping young people escape from lives of poverty,
family break-up, drug abuse, crime, and school failure.
(7) In addition to offering knowledge and skills, education
should contribute positively to the formation of the internal
norms and values which are vital to a child's success in life
and to the well-being of society.
(8) Schools should help to provide young people with a
sound moral foundation which is consistent with the values of
their parents. To find such a school, parents need a full
range of choice to determine where their children can best be
educated.
(c) Precedents.--The United States Supreme Court has
determined that programs giving parents choice and increased
input in their children's education, including the choice of
a religious education, do not violate the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has held that as long as the beneficiary
decides where education funds will be spent on such
individual's behalf, public funds can be used for education
in a religious institution because the public entity has
neither advanced nor hindered a particular religion and
therefore has not violated the establishment clause of the
first amendment to the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents
include--
(1) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); and Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) which held that parents have
the primary role in and are the primary decision makers in
all areas regarding the education and upbringing of their
children;
(2) Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) which declared a
Minnesota tax deduction program that provided State income
tax benefits for educational expenditures by parents,
including tuition in religiously affiliated schools, does not
violate the Constitution;
(3) Witters v. Department of Services for the Blind, 474
U.S. 481 (1986) in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that public funds for the vocational training of the blind
could be used at a Bible college for ministry training; and
(4) Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S.
1 (1993) which held that a deaf child could receive an
interpreter, paid for by the public, in a private religiously
affiliated school under the Individual with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.). The case held that
providing an interpreter in a religiously affiliated school
did not violate the establishment clause of the first
amendment of the Constitution.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors of the
Corporation established under section 3(b)(1);
(2) the term ``Corporation'' means the District of Columbia
Scholarship Corporation established under section 3(a);
(3) the term ``eligible institution''--
(A) in the case of an eligible institution serving a
student who receives a tuition scholarship under section
4(d)(1), means a public, private, or independent elementary
or secondary school; and
(B) in the case of an eligible institution serving a
student who receives an enhanced achievement scholarship
under section 4(d)(2), means an elementary or secondary
school, or an entity that provides services to a student
enrolled in an elementary or secondary school to enhance such
student's achievement through activities described in section
4(d)(2); and
(4) the term ``poverty line'' means the income official
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION.
(a) General Requirements.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a
private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``District
of Columbia Scholarship Corporation'', which is neither an
agency nor establishment of the United States Government or
the District of Columbia Government.
(2) Duties.--The Corporation shall have the responsibility
and authority to administer, publicize, and evaluate the
scholarship program in accordance with this Act, and to
determine student and school eligibility for participation in
such program.
(3) Consultation.--The Corporation shall exercise its
authority--
(A) in a manner consistent with maximizing educational
opportunities for the maximum number of interested families;
and
(B) in consultation with the District of Columbia Board of
Education or entity exercising administrative jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia Public Schools, the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools,
and other school scholarship programs in the District of
Columbia.
(4) Application of provisions.--The Corporation shall be
subject to the provisions of this Act, and, to the extent
consistent with this Act, to the District of Columbia
Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et seq.).
(5) Residence.--The Corporation shall have its place of
business in the District of Columbia and shall be considered,
for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of
the District of Columbia.
(6) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury a fund that
shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund,
to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
[[Page S5364]]
(7) Disbursement.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make
available and disburse to the Corporation, before October 15
of each fiscal year or not later than 15 days after the date
of enactment of an Act making appropriations for the District
of Columbia for such year, whichever occurs later, such funds
as have been appropriated to the District of Columbia
Scholarship Fund for the fiscal year in which such
disbursement is made.
(8) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated
under this Act shall remain available until expended.
(9) Uses.--Funds authorized to be appropriated under this
Act shall be used by the Corporation in a prudent and
financially responsible manner, solely for scholarships,
contracts, and administrative costs.
(10) Authorization.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund--
(i) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
(ii) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
(iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2002.
(B) Limitation.--Not more than $500,000 of the amount
appropriated to carry out this Act for any fiscal year may be
used by the Corporation for any purpose other than assistance
to students.
(b) Organization and Management; Board of Directors.--
(1) Board of directors; membership.--
(A) In general.--The Corporation shall have a Board of
Directors (referred to in this Act as the ``Board''),
comprised of 7 members with 6 members of the Board appointed
by the President not later than 30 days after receipt of
nominations from the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the majority leader of the Senate.
(B) House nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 of
the members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with
the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(C) Senate nominations.--The President shall appoint 3
members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the
majority leader of the Senate in consultation with the
minority leader of the Senate.
(D) Deadline.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives
and majority leader of the Senate shall submit their
nominations to the President not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(E) Appointee of mayor.--The Mayor shall appoint 1 member
of the Board not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(F) Possible interim members.--If the President does not
appoint the 6 members of the Board in the 30-day period
described in subparagraph (A), then the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 2 members of the Board, and the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority
Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 1 of the Board, from
among the individuals nominated pursuant to subparagraphs (A)
and (B), as the case may be. The appointees under the
preceding sentence together with the appointee of the Mayor,
shall serve as an interim Board with all the powers and other
duties of the Board described in this Act, until the
President makes the appointments as described in this
subsection.
(2) Powers.--All powers of the Corporation shall vest in
and be exercised under the authority of the Board.
(3) Elections.--Members of the Board annually shall elect 1
of the members of the Board to be chairperson of the Board.
(4) Residency.--All members appointed to the Board shall be
residents of the District of Columbia at the time of
appointment and while serving on the Board.
(5) Nonemployee.--No member of the Board may be an employee
of the United States Government or the District of Columbia
Government when appointed to or during tenure on the Board,
unless the individual is on a leave of absence from such a
position while serving on the Board.
(6) Incorporation.--The members of the initial Board shall
serve as incorporators and shall take whatever steps are
necessary to establish the Corporation under the District of
Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et
seq.).
(7) General term.--The term of office of each member of the
Board shall be 5 years, except that any member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term
for which the predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
for the remainder of such term.
(8) Consecutive term.--No member of the Board shall be
eligible to serve in excess of 2 consecutive terms of 5 years
each. A partial term shall be considered as 1 full term. Any
vacancy on the Board shall not affect the Board's power, but
shall be filled in a manner consistent with this Act.
(9) No benefit.--No part of the income or assets of the
Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director,
officer, or employee of the Corporation, except as salary or
reasonable compensation for services.
(10) Political activity.--The Corporation may not
contribute to or otherwise support any political party or
candidate for elective public office.
(11) No officers or employees.--The members of the Board
shall not, by reason of such membership, be considered to be
officers or employees of the United States Government or of
the District of Columbia Government.
(12) Stipends.--The members of the Board, while attending
meetings of the Board or while engaged in duties related to
such meetings or other activities of the Board pursuant to
this Act, shall be provided a stipend. Such stipend shall be
at the rate of $150 per day for which the member of the Board
is officially recorded as having worked, except that no
member may be paid a total stipend amount in any calendar
year in excess of $5,000.
(c) Officers and Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Corporation shall have an
Executive Director, and such other staff, as may be appointed
by the Board for terms and at rates of compensation, not to
exceed level EG-16 of the Educational Service of the District
of Columbia, to be fixed by the Board.
(2) Staff.--With the approval of the Board, the Executive
Director may appoint and fix the salary of such additional
personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate.
(3) Annual rate.--No staff of the Corporation may be
compensated by the Corporation at an annual rate of pay
greater than the annual rate of pay of the Executive
Director.
(4) Service.--All officers and employees of the Corporation
shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.
(5) Qualification.--No political test or qualification may
be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other
personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, or
employees of the Corporation.
(d) Powers of the Corporation.--
(1) Generally.--The Corporation is authorized to obtain
grants from, and make contracts with, individuals and with
private, State, and Federal agencies, organizations, and
institutions.
(2) Hiring authority.--The Corporation may hire, or accept
the voluntary services of, consultants, experts, advisory
boards, and panels to aid the Corporation in carrying out
this Act.
(e) Financial Management and Records.--
(1) Audits.--The financial statements of the Corporation
shall be--
(A) maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles for nonprofit corporations; and
(B) audited annually by independent certified public
accountants.
(2) Report.--The report for each such audit shall be
included in the annual report to Congress required by section
13(c).
SEC. 4. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.
(a) Eligible Students.--The Corporation is authorized to
award tuition scholarships under subsection (d)(1) and
enhanced achievement scholarships under subsection (d)(2) to
students in kindergarten through grade 12--
(1) who are residents of the District of Columbia; and
(2) whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the
poverty line.
(b) Scholarship Priority.--
(1) First.--The Corporation shall first award scholarships
to students described in subsection (a) who--
(A) are enrolled in a District of Columbia public school or
preparing to enter a District of Columbia kindergarten,
except that this subparagraph shall apply only for academic
years 1997, 1998, and 1999; or
(B) have received a scholarship from the Corporation in the
year preceding the year for which the scholarship is awarded.
(2) Second.--If funds remain for a fiscal year for awarding
scholarships after awarding scholarships under paragraph (1),
the Corporation shall award scholarships to students
described in subsection (a) who are not described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Special Rule.--The Corporation shall attempt to ensure
an equitable distribution of scholarship funds to students at
diverse academic achievement levels.
(d) Use of Scholarship.--
(1) Tuition scholarships.--A tuition scholarship may be
used for the payment of the cost of the tuition and mandatory
fees at a public, private, or independent school located
within the geographic boundaries of the District of Columbia
or the cost of the tuition and mandatory fees at a public,
private, or independent school located within Montgomery
County, Maryland; Prince Georges County, Maryland; Arlington
County, Virginia; Alexandria City, Virginia; Falls Church
City, Virginia; or Fairfax County, Virginia.
(2) Enhanced achievement scholarship.--An enhanced
achievement scholarship may be used only for the payment of
the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, or
transportation to attend, a program of instruction provided
by an eligible institution which enhances student achievement
of the core curriculum and is operated outside of regular
school hours to supplement the regular school program.
(e) Not School Aid.--A scholarship under this Act shall be
considered assistance to the student and shall not be
considered assistance to an eligible institution.
SEC. 5. SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS AND AMOUNTS.
(a) Awards.--From the funds made available under this Act,
the Corporation shall award a scholarship to a student and
make payments in accordance with section 10 on behalf of such
student to a participating eligible institution chosen by the
parent of the student.
(b) Notification.--Each eligible institution that desires
to receive payment under
[[Page S5365]]
subsection (a) shall notify the Corporation not later than 10
days after--
(1) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under
this Act is enrolled, of the name, address, and grade level
of such student;
(2) the date of the withdrawal or expulsion of any student
receiving a scholarship under this Act, of the withdrawal or
expulsion; and
(3) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under
this Act is refused admission, of the reasons for such a
refusal.
(c) Tuition Scholarship.--
(1) Equal to or below poverty line.--For a student whose
family income is equal to or below the poverty line, a
tuition scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
(A) the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for, and
transportation to attend, an eligible institution; or
(B) $3,200 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted
in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each
of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
(2) Above poverty line.--For a student whose family income
is greater than the poverty line, but not more than 185
percent of the poverty line, a tuition scholarship may not
exceed the lesser of--
(A) 75 percent of the cost of tuition and mandatory fees
for, and transportation to attend, an eligible institution;
or
(B) $2,400 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted
in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each
of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
(d) Enhanced Achievement Scholarship.--An enhanced
achievement scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
(1) the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, or
transportation to attend, a program of instruction at an
eligible institution; or
(2) $500 for 1998, with such amount adjusted in proportion
to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban
consumers published by the Department of Labor for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
SEC. 6. CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Application.--An eligible institution that desires to
receive a payment on behalf of a student who receives a
scholarship under this Act shall file an application with the
Corporation for certification for participation in the
scholarship program under this Act. Each such application
shall--
(1) demonstrate that the eligible institution has operated
with not less than 25 students during the 3 years preceding
the year for which the determination is made unless the
eligible institution is applying for certification as a new
eligible institution under subsection (c);
(2) contain an assurance that the eligible institution will
comply with all applicable requirements of this Act;
(3) contain an annual statement of the eligible
institution's budget; and
(4) describe the eligible institution's proposed program,
including personnel qualifications and fees.
(b) Certification.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), not
later than 60 days after receipt of an application in
accordance with subsection (a), the Corporation shall certify
an eligible institution to participate in the scholarship
program under this Act.
(2) Continuation.--An eligible institution's certification
to participate in the scholarship program shall continue
unless such eligible institution's certification is revoked
in accordance with subsection (d).
(c) New Eligible Institution.--
(1) In general.--An eligible institution that did not
operate with at least 25 students in the 3 years preceding
the year for which the determination is made may apply for a
1-year provisional certification to participate in the
scholarship program under this Act for a single year by
providing to the Corporation not later than July 1 of the
year preceding the year for which the determination is made--
(A) a list of the eligible institution's board of
directors;
(B) letters of support from not less than 10 members of the
community served by such eligible institution;
(C) a business plan;
(D) an intended course of study;
(E) assurances that the eligible institution will begin
operations with not less than 25 students;
(F) assurances that the eligible institution will comply
with all applicable requirements of this Act; and
(G) a statement that satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (a).
(2) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of receipt of an application described in paragraph (1), the
Corporation shall certify in writing the eligible
institution's provisional certification to participate in the
scholarship program under this Act unless the Corporation
determines that good cause exists to deny certification.
(3) Renewal of provisional certification.--After receipt of
an application under paragraph (1) from an eligible
institution that includes a statement of the eligible
institution's budget completed not earlier than 12 months
before the date such application is filed, the Corporation
shall renew an eligible institution's provisional
certification for the second and third years of the school's
participation in the scholarship program under this Act
unless the Corporation finds--
(A) good cause to deny the renewal, including a finding of
a pattern of violation of requirements described in section
7(a); or
(B) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the
students receiving scholarships under this Act and attending
such school to make appropriate progress (as determined by
the Corporation) in academic achievement.
(4) Denial of certification.--If provisional certification
or renewal of provisional certification under this subsection
is denied, then the Corporation shall provide a written
explanation to the eligible institution of the reasons for
such denial.
(d) Revocation of Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--The Corporation, after notice and hearing,
may revoke an eligible institution's certification to
participate in the scholarship program under this Act for a
year succeeding the year for which the determination is made
for--
(A) good cause, including a finding of a pattern of
violation of program requirements described in section 7(a);
or
(B) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the
students receiving scholarships under this Act and attending
such school to make appropriate progress (as determined by
the Corporation) in academic achievement.
(2) Explanation.--If the certification of an eligible
institution is revoked, the Corporation shall provide a
written explanation of its decision to such eligible
institution and require a pro rata refund of the payments
received under this Act.
SEC. 7. PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Requirements.--Each eligible institution participating
in the scholarship program under this Act shall--
(1) provide to the Corporation not later than June 30 of
each year the most recent annual statement of the eligible
institution's budget; and
(2) charge a student that receives a scholarship under this
Act not more than the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for,
and transportation to attend, such eligible institution as
other students who are residents of the District of Columbia
and enrolled in such eligible institution.
(b) Compliance.--The Corporation may require documentation
of compliance with the requirements of subsection (a), but
neither the Corporation nor any governmental entity may
impose additional requirements upon an eligible institution
as a condition of participation in the scholarship program
under this Act.
SEC. 8. CIVIL RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in
the scholarship program under this Act shall comply with
title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not discriminate
on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
(b) Revocation.--Notwithstanding section 7(b), if the
Secretary of Education determines that an eligible
institution participating in the scholarship program under
this Act is in violation of any of the laws listed in
subsection (a), then the Corporation shall revoke such
eligible institution's certification to participate in the
program.
SEC. 9. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of students, or
the obligations of the District of Columbia public schools,
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
SEC. 10. SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Proportional payment.--The Corporation shall make
scholarship payments to participating eligible institutions
for an academic year in 2 installments. The Corporation shall
make the first payment not later than October 15 of the
academic year in an amount equal to one-half the total amount
of the scholarship assistance awarded to students enrolled at
such institution for the academic year. The Corporation shall
make the second payment not later than January 15 of the
academic year in an amount equal to one-half of such total
amount.
(2) Pro rata amounts for student withdrawal.--
(A) Before payment.--If a student receiving a scholarship
withdraws or is expelled from an eligible institution before
a scholarship payment is made, the eligible institution shall
receive a pro rata payment based on the amount of the
scholarship and the number of days the student was enrolled
in the eligible institution.
(B) After payment.--If a student receiving a scholarship
withdraws or is expelled after a scholarship payment is made,
the eligible institution shall refund to the Corporation on a
pro rata basis the proportion of any scholarship payment
received for the remaining days of the school year. Such
refund shall occur not later than 30 days after the date of
the withdrawal or expulsion of the student.
(b) Fund Transfers.--The Corporation shall make scholarship
payments to participating eligible institutions by electronic
funds transfer. If such an arrangement is not available, then
the eligible institution shall submit an alternative payment
proposal to the Corporation for approval.
SEC. 11. APPLICATION SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES.
The Corporation shall implement a schedule and procedures
for processing applications for awarding student scholarships
under this Act that includes a list of certified eligible
institutions, distribution of information to parents and the
general public
[[Page S5366]]
(including through a newspaper of general circulation), and
deadlines for steps in the scholarship application and award
process.
SEC. 12. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in
the scholarship program under this Act shall report not later
than July 30 of each year in a manner prescribed by the
Corporation, the following data:
(1) Student achievement in the eligible institution's
programs.
(2) Grade advancement for scholarship students.
(3) Disciplinary actions taken with respect to scholarship
students.
(4) Graduation, college admission test scores, and college
admission rates, if applicable for scholarship students.
(5) Types and amounts of parental involvement required for
all families of scholarship students.
(6) Student attendance for scholarship and nonscholarship
students.
(7) General information on curriculum, programs,
facilities, credentials of personnel, and disciplinary rules
at the eligible institution.
(8) Number of scholarship students enrolled.
(9) Such other information as may be required by the
Corporation for program appraisal.
(b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used
in such report, except that the Corporation may request such
personal identifiers solely for the purpose of verification.
SEC. 13. PROGRAM APPRAISAL.
(a) Study.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall enter
into a contract, with an evaluating agency that has
demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for an
independent evaluation of the scholarship program under this
Act, including--
(1) a comparison of test scores between scholarship
students and District of Columbia public school students of
similar backgrounds, taking into account the students'
academic achievement at the time of the award of their
scholarships and the students' family income level;
(2) a comparison of graduation rates between scholarship
students and District of Columbia public school students of
similar backgrounds, taking into account the students'
academic achievement at the time of the award of their
scholarships and the students' family income level;
(3) the satisfaction of parents of scholarship students
with the scholarship program; and
(4) the impact of the scholarship program on the District
of Columbia public schools, including changes in the public
school enrollment, and any improvement in the academic
performance of the public schools.
(b) Public Review of Data.--All data gathered in the course
of the study described in subsection (a) shall be made
available to the public upon request except that no personal
identifiers shall be made public.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 1 of each
year, the Corporation shall submit a progress report on the
scholarship program to the appropriate committees of
Congress. Such report shall include a review of how
scholarship funds were expended, including the initial
academic achievement levels of students who have participated
in the scholarship program.
(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for the study described in subsection (a), $250,000, which
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 14. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction in any action
challenging the scholarship program under this Act and shall
provide expedited review.
(b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any order of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant
to an action brought under subsection (a) shall be reviewable
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues
Senators Coats and Brownback in introducing the District of Columbia
Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997, also known as the DCSOS
Act.
This legislation is quite similar to the provision that passed the
House last year as part of the D.C. appropriations bill but failed to
make it through conference. It would create a modest tuition
scholarship fund that would enable 2,000 low-income students in the
District to attend the public, private, or parochial school of their
choice. It would also provide direct aid to an additional 2,000 public
school students who want to improve their academic skills through
after-school tutoring.
But the circumstances surrounding this proposal have changed
dramatically since it was considered last year, and I think it's
important to make our colleagues aware of what's happened over the
course of the last several months as they consider the bill we're
introducing today.
Most immediately, the deeply troubled D.C. school system has now hit
rock-bottom. Last fall, the District Control Board officially declared
the schools in crisis, stripped the elected school board of its
authority, and authorized an emergency board of trustees to take over
the city's public schools.
In taking these drastic steps, the Control Board issued a report
documenting the utter dysfunction of this school system--test scores
ranking among the worst in the Nation, students and teachers subjected
to violence at twice the national average, gross mismanagement of
budget and personnel, buildings literally falling apart, and a tragic
misplacement of priorities that puts job preservation ahead of the job
of educating the city's children.
But perhaps the most damning indictment of the D.C. schools came in a
single sentence included in the report: the longer students stay in the
District's public school system, the Control Board concluded, the less
likely they are to succeed educationally. I would urge my colleagues to
think about the import of that statement. Instead of helping these
children learn more with each passing year, the D.C. schools in many
cases have actually become hazardous to the academic health of its
students.
This conclusion should not be all that surprising when you take a
closer look at the environment in which these kids are trying to learn.
For instance, in April we saw a shocking breakdown of discipline at the
Winston Education Center. Several fourth-graders slipped unnoticed into
a sideroom right outside an ongoing class and engaged in oral sex, with
two of the children's parents claiming their children were sexually
assaulted. When the principal learned of the incident, his first
reaction was to judge the sexual activity consensual. And earlier this
month, Washington Post columnist Colbert King reported that a fifth-
grade class at the Harrison Elementary School had gone without a
teacher for the past 4 months. This outrageous situation may well have
continued had King not exposed it and put pressure on the
administration to correct it.
To force children to attend these schools, where the breakdown is so
complete a class can go four months without a teacher, is simply
unconscionable. But that is exactly what is happening in the District
of Columbia, where thousands of students are trapped in decrepit,
dangerous, and disenfranchising schools simply because they cannot
afford any alternative.
That is why we believe there is an urgent need to pass the DCSOS Act.
That acronym is not an accident, for this program would provide at
least 2,000 of the most disadvantaged families in the District with an
educational lifeline, a chance to seek out a school that they believe
will offer their child a brighter future. It would give these families
the same option that thousands of other families have already exercised
by pulling their children from the D.C. public schools or moving out of
town altogether.
Some defenders of the status quo have tried for some time to get us
to believe that the residents of this city don't want that kind of
choice. But a poll that was released this week should shatter that
misguided myth once and for all. This survey found that nearly two-
thirds of public school parents would send their kids to private
schools if money weren't an issue. The poll also shows that there is a
strong base of support for the scholarship program we're proposing
right out of the gate, before we've done anything to educate the public
about it. And most important, it shows that the families we're trying
to help would welcome this assistance, with 62 percent of low-income
parents saying that the kind of choice we're offering would improve the
quality of education for District children.
Some of the opponents of this legislation will continue to argue that
this program, like other attempts to expand opportunities for poor
families, will harm or actually ruin the public schools. To suggest
that this modest program could make a school system already in crisis
any worse defies common sense. In truth, this is a case of the only
thing we have to fear is fear itself--that is, the fear of moving
beyond the status quo. Knowing that the D.C. schools have hit rock
bottom, we shouldn't be closing off any options,
[[Page S5367]]
which is exactly what influential columnist William Raspberry wrote
last week when he endorsed giving choice a chance in the District.
We need to get past the red herring argument that we must choose
between choice and the public schools. Simply put, supporting this
scholarship program is not the same as abandoning the public school
system. This is not an either-or equation. And to help prove that to
the citizens of the District, we have gone out of the way in this
legislation to make sure that the funding for these scholarships does
not come at the expense of the city's public schools. This is new money
and that point should not be overlooked.
Mr. President, the truth is that we fervently hope that the Board of
Trustees and CEO Gen. Julius Becton can rescue this system and make the
fundamental reforms necessary to give these students the education they
deserve, and we will do what we can to support their efforts. Senator
Brownback and I, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate's D.C.
Oversight Subcommittee, made that very pledge to General Becton at a
hearing we held in April.
But this mission is at a minimum going to take several years, which
begs the question, what happens to those many students who have no
choice but to attend schools that most parents who could afford it have
long since abandoned?
We believe that we have a moral obligation to offer those children a
way out. That is why many of us view this question not just as a matter
of education, but a question of fairness. This is all about our values,
specifically the value we place on giving every child--no matter their
income, where they live or how they live--the opportunity to fulfill
their God-given promise.
No one is claiming that this scholarship program is a magic bullet.
But we strongly believe it will give at least 2,000 disadvantaged
students a shot at a better life. We also believe that by providing
some competition to the public schools, this program will accelerate
the pace of reform within the D.C. school system. Across the country,
the growing numbers of charter schools and private scholarship programs
are forcing public school systems to confront their failures and
building pressure on them to take radical actions to improve the
quality of their educational programs. This is starting to happen
already in the District, and we are optimistic that this legislation
will intensify that movement here.
If nothing else, this legislation will create a program that will
help us test what impact choice has on improving the educational
opportunities of poor families in urban areas, and thereby help us make
informed decisions in the future about whether to expand this kind of
initiative to other cities. There have been some promising signs coming
out of the choice programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland, but the reality
is we don't know with much certainty whether expanding choice will
produce noticeable results. This legislation could establish a national
experiment, and provide us with some real answers to the critical
questions we've been wrestling with. It's for that very reason we call
for a thorough evaluation of the D.C. scholarship program in our
legislation.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is time to give choice a
chance in the District. We cannot in conscience continue to ignore the
plight of these children any longer. They deserve an opportunity to
break out of the nightmarish cycle of poverty, dependency, and violence
and to live the American dream. This bipartisan legislation will begin
to restore hope to some of these families, and I would strongly urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, one of my highest priorities as the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, is to make
sure the children in the Nation's capital are receiving the quality
education they deserve. The District's public schools, unfortunately,
have failed too many students in providing the education they deserve.
The District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997
would change this by giving low-income students the chance to get the
education they need.
Our subcommittee held a hearing a few weeks ago to explore options to
improve public education in the District. Mr. President, I know there
are schools which are working and where students are thriving in their
learning environment. I had the privilege to visit Stuart-Hobson Middle
School. I was impressed by the success of the program at Stuart-Hobson
and how the students took pride in their education. This school,
however, is one of a few exceptions in the District Public School
System.
The facts about the District public schools speak for themselves:
only 22 percent of fourth grade students are at or above basic reading
achievement levels; students on average consistently score below the
national average of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills; students
consistently score below the national Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT].
We cannot continue to trap these students in an educational system that
is failing them.
Gen. Julius Becton, chief executive officer and Superintendent of the
District of Columbia Public Schools, and the District of Columbia
Emergency Transitional School Board of Trustees have said that they
will make significant improvements by the year 2000, and I recognize
and respect the work that lies ahead of them. But, Mr. President, the
year 2000 is 3 school years away. In 3 school years, a child progresses
through grades one through three in which they learn to read, write,
add, subtract, etc. In 3 school years, a high school student gains the
skills and preparation they need for college or for a job. These 3
school years are too valuable to trap these students in the public
school system that has not delivered.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Coats and
Senator Lieberman in introducing this legislation that focuses on the
individual student in the District of Columbia Public Schools. By
providing up to $3,200 in individual scholarships to low-income
families who will choose the school for their children, this bill would
give these students the chance to make sure the next 3 school years do
not go to waste. Improving the chances for these children to get the
education they need is one of the most fundamental elements to restore
the Nation's capital into the shining city the United States deserves.
______