[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 133 (Thursday, September 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11943-S11957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2765) making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
DeWine/Landrieu amendment No. 1783 in the nature of a
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in just a moment my colleague and friend
from California will be offering an amendment. Before she does that, I
again thank her for her contribution to this bill.
When this bill was being marked up in the Appropriations Committee,
she came to Senator Stevens, the chairman, Senator Gregg, myself, and
the other members of the committee and said she believed the bill could
be improved--specifically, the section having to do with the
scholarships for the children in the District of Columbia.
She made some suggestions. Quite frankly, as I told her on the phone
later, I was just sorry I had not come up with those ideas because,
frankly, she significantly improved the bill. So I wish to publicly
again thank her for the suggestions she made. We incorporated those
suggestions, those ideas, into the bill in the committee.
She said: We want to make sure this bill is constitutional. She had
some ideas in regard to that. We incorporated them into the bill. She
also said: ``Let's make sure the mayor--who has been such a strong
advocate for the scholarship program, the mayor of the District of
Columbia--let's make sure he is intricately involved in this program,
the designing of the program, the running of the program; let's make
sure he is tied into this program, and that we can, in fact, do
that.'' We made those changes as well.
Third, she said: ``Let's make sure there is accountability so we can
measure the results.'' We made some changes to accomplish that as well.
The amendment she will offer and describe in a moment builds on the
changes that we have already made but
[[Page S11944]]
goes further and breaks new ground and perfects the bill even further.
I am anxious to hear her description of the amendment. I have taken a
look at it. It is an excellent amendment.
I yield the floor and anxiously await her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 1787 To Amendment No. 1783
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, my
colleague from Ohio. I appreciate his sentiments.
Once in a while, by something we do, we can make a tangible and
immediate difference in the lives of others. This is one such instance.
In this case, what I hope to do is send an amendment to the desk, have
Senator DeWine's second degree, and then I would like to speak to the
underpinnings of this scholarship program, which some people call a
voucher program, and my rationale as to why I think this Mayor's
request to try a pilot small voucher program in the District of
Columbia should be granted.
I begin by sending the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 1787 to amendment No. 1783.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the DC Student Opportunity Scholarship Program
regarding student assessments)
On page 31, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 32, line 2, and insert the following:
(c) Student Assessments.--The Secretary may not approve an
application from an eligible entity for a grant under this
title unless the eligible entity's application--
(1) ensures that the eligible entity will--
(A) assess the academic achievement of all participating
eligible students;
(B) use the same assessments every school year that are
used for school year 2003-2004 by the District of Columbia
Public Schools to assess the achievement of District of
Columbia public school students under section 1111(b)(3)(A)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(A)), to assess participating eligible
students in the same grades as such public school students;
(C) provide assessment results and other relevant
information to the Secretary or to the entity conducting the
evaluation under section 9 so that the Secretary or the
entity, respectively, can conduct an evaluation that shall
include, but not be limited to, a comparison of the academic
achievement of participating eligible students in the
assessments described in this subsection to the achievement
of--
(i) students in the same grades in the District of Columbia
public schools; and
(ii) the eligible students in the same grades in District
of Columbia public schools who sought to participate in the
scholarship program but were not selected; and
(D) disclose any personally identifiable information only
to the parents of the student to whom the information
relates; and
(2) describes how the eligible entity will ensure that the
parents of each student who applies for a scholarship under
this title (regardless of whether the student receives the
scholarship), and the parents of each student participating
in the scholarship program under this title, agree that the
student will participate in the assessments used by the
District of Columbia Public Schools to assess the achievement
of District of Columbia public school students under section
1111(b)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(A)), for the period for which
the student applied for or received the scholarship,
respectively.
(d) Independent Evaluation.--The Secretary and Mayor of the
District of Columbia shall jointly select an independent
entity to evaluate annually the performance of students who
received scholarships under the 5-year pilot program under
this title, and shall make the evaluations public. The first
evaluation shall be completed and made available not later
than 9 months after the entity is selected pursuant to the
preceding sentence.
(e) Teacher Quality.--Each teacher who instructs
participating eligible students under the scholarship program
shall possess a college degree.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been in public office for 30
years. I have always supported schools. I supported every charter
amendment, and every bond issue to be helpful to schools. I have
supported every vote to increase dollars to schools. I voted to support
charter schools, magnet schools, alternative schools. I have campaigned
for increasing Title I moneys that go to schools that teach poor
children to try to correct the formula so the money goes where the
child goes.
As a Mayor for 9 years, 3 of those years I bailed out the school
district with $3 million a year so that teacher salary increases could
be paid during those years. I have traveled to many cities to see what
innovative public education programs have been put into play. I have
never before supported a voucher program. I do so now with a great
commitment to see if this program can succeed. I do so now because
those of us who believe strongly in public education--and that is 100
Members of the Senate--have perhaps been too concerned with the
structure of education, the rhetoric of education, and not concerned
enough about what actually works on the streets and in the
neighborhoods and communities of America.
This was brought to my attention 3 years ago when the Mayor of
Oakland, Jerry Brown, called me and said: My schools have deep
troubles. There are so many failing youngsters. I want to try something
new. I would like to try a military school, all voluntary, aimed to be
geared for excellence, college preparatory. I want to have the poorest
of the poor admitted to this school.
I thought about it for a while.
He said: I have been turned down by the local board of education. But
that is not going to stop me.
He went to the State and got a special charter from the State. He
came back here and convinced Jerry Lewis in the House, me in the
Senate, to put some money in a bill to allow him to begin.
I spoke to Jerry Brown this morning. I said: Jerry, I want to give
the Senate a brief progress report. How is it going in your military
school?
He said: We have our startup problems, but we are doing pretty well.
We have 350 youngsters. Some drop out. We have discipline. We have
uniforms. We have the National Guard participating. These youngsters, 3
years later, are testing to the equivalent of the second best middle
school in Oakland.
So it was a new model. It was refused by the educational
establishment. But it is working for some youngsters.
When I went to public school in San Francisco, there were 350
students in the school. The class sizes were under 20. There were no
other languages other than English spoken. That is certainly not the
case for the most part in public education today. It has changed
dramatically. Schools have student populations in the hundreds. Classes
are way up in numbers. Language has run up to 40 different languages in
a school. The economic and social disparity of this great diverse
society makes teaching in the elementary school grades much more
difficult.
I have come to believe that if I can make a difference to work for
new models in education, I am going to do it. Education is primarily a
local institution. Policy is set by local leaders. The Federal
Government provides maybe 7 percent of educational dollars and most of
those through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I strongly believe that Mayors should have an input. This Mayor has
asked for dollars not to be taken from public schools but new dollars:
new dollars to be put in public schools, $13 million; new dollars to be
put in chartered schools, $13 million; and new dollars to try a
scholarship program to try something different.
What he has seen in the District of Columbia is too much failure.
Despite the fact that each youngster receives $10,852 a year--the third
highest in the United States,--despite the fact that of the amount of
money that comes into education, test scores are dismal.
Of fourth graders in the District of Columbia schools, only 10
percent read proficiently. Of eighth graders, only 12 percent read
proficiently.
Think about what that means. If you are in the eighth grade and you
can't read, what good is high school? You can't read to learn. Reading
is a predicate to learning, just as discipline is a predicate to
learning. So these youngsters become doomed.
This is not my assessment. This was a national assessment that was
done in March of 2000. Of eighth graders, 77 percent are below the
grade level in math. Twelve percent are proficient in reading.
[[Page S11945]]
I am supporting this because the Mayor wants it. I am supporting it
because it is not a precedent. It is a pilot. It is 5 years. The
voucher is adequate. It is $7,500. There are 9,049 students in the
District of Columbia in failing schools.
This would cover 2,000 of those youngsters; 2,000 of those youngsters
would have an opportunity to have some choice in where they go to
school. Would they go to a religious school or a secular school? That
is up to the parent; it depends on the cost. Some families would be
able to put in some additional funds, if the private school tuition is
above $7,500.
But I know for a fact there are plenty of schools where the tuition
is below the $7,500. As I said in the committee, I helped a youngster
go to one of these parochial schools in the District. The tuition is
$3,800 a year. I have watched her blossom. I have watched the
discipline work for her. I have watched the small classes work for her.
I have watched the additional time the teacher spends with her work. I
see her reading way above grade now. I see her proud of her uniform
that she wears, so there is no competition for clothes. It is just one
model.
The key thing that comes through to me, as somebody who listens to
average people perhaps more than I do the policy wonks when it comes to
education, is different models work for different children. We all know
with our own children, what works for one child doesn't necessarily
work for another. Therefore, what public education needs to do is stop
worrying about structures and bureaucracies and bigness and worry about
what is not working for these children. What do we do to provide a
different environment? Do we divide up our campuses in a number of
smaller schools? Do we build schools in office buildings--small
schools, maybe with a hundred youngsters--so children can be closer to
their families? What do we do? What new models do we look at?
All this Mayor is saying is these are failing schools. Why should the
poor child not have the same access as the wealthy child does? That is
all he is asking for. He is saying let's try it for 5 years, and then
let's compare progress and let's see if this model can work for these
District youngsters.
Interestingly enough, I am looking at the list of failing schools,
and I see four are elementary, four are middle/junior high; and then it
jumps to eight for senior high. What is the lesson in that one
statistic? The lesson in that one statistic is if you have four
elementary schools failing, you are going to add to that in high
school; you are going to have more high schools failing and more
difficulty in high school.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN FAILING SCHOOLS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, ENROLLMENT FOR SELECTED SCHOOLS AS OF SY 02-03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary
Bruce-Monroe ES.......................................... 370
Stanton.................................................. 622
Wilkinson................................................ 508
Fletcher-Johnson EC...................................... 528
Middle/Junior High
Evans MS................................................. 259
Sousa MS................................................. 420
Johnson JHS.............................................. 646
R.H. Terrell JHS......................................... 294
Senior High
Anacostia SHS............................................ 693
Ballou SHS............................................... 964
Coolidge SHS............................................. 843
Eastern SHS.............................................. 968
Roosevelt SHS............................................ 821
M.M. Washington CSHS..................................... 329
Woodson SHS.............................................. 788
------------
Total kids low performing schools...................... 9049
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Mayor has asked for a 5-year
pilot. He said it would be for the less affluent. They are defined by
families of 4 at 185 percent of poverty. This is a family of 4 that
earns $34,000 a year, or below, and these children would be given
priority by lottery to have an opportunity to go to another school. It
is like a golden key. It gives them an opportunity to try something
else. It is voluntary. Nobody is forced to do it. Why is everybody so
threatened by it? No one is forced to do it. If a family wants to try
it, this provides them with that opportunity.
Again, these are schools identified for improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring. That is the language from the bill. And
priority is given to students and families who lack financial resources
to take advantage of educational opportunities. That is the language in
the bill. So for $7,500 a child, 2,000 youngsters will have an
opportunity to try this, to see if it makes a difference.
It might offer some smaller classes, or uniforms; it might offer more
attention; it might offer an easier learning environment; it may offer
better discipline. Certainly, there will be some curriculum changes.
There will certainly be more emphasis on reading, writing, and
arithmetic--the basics, if you will.
Now we have in the Appropriations Committee, thanks to the
accommodation of Senator DeWine and Senator Judd Gregg, made several
changes in the original bill. It was brought to my attention to take a
look at the Zelman Supreme Court case. Senator Voinovich mentioned that
to us. I believe he was Governor of Ohio when Cleveland put forward
this program, and it went up to the Supreme Court in a case called
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. So we took that case and this bill and we
tried to bring them together so that we added religion to the general
nondiscrimination clause, which also covers race, color, national
origin, and sex, and extend the nondiscrimination clause to both
schools and the entity operating the voucher program. We added language
clarifying that the bill does not override title VII to ensure that we
don't change title VII's provisions permitting religious discrimination
under certain circumstances.
We deleted certain other language which we thought might impact the
establishment clause. We increased the role of the Mayor to make the
Mayor responsible for the details and functioning and accountability of
this program, and to ensure the proper use of public funds by the
schools participating in this voucher program.
The amendment I have sent to the desk is an additional strengthening
of the testing and evaluation components of the bill to try to ensure
that scholarship students are taught by quality teachers. Essentially
what this bill says is every voucher child must be taught by a teacher
that at least has a college education. Additionally, we have changed
the testing requirements. I have had a conversation with Cardinal
McCarrick. Since about one-third of the private schools in the
Districts are Catholic schools, I talked to the Cardinal about the
advisability of having the same tests given to a student on a voucher
in a parochial, or secular school, as would be given to a student in
the public school. He agreed that would be a very significant thing to
do.
I would like to read into the Record a portion of the letter from
Cardinal McCarrick.
. . . I want to assure you that we are not only open to
being accountable for any public funds which the families of
our students receive, but anxious to be able to prove the
value of our education. This would mean being willing to
administer the same set of examinations that are given in the
public school system.
I was happy to be able to tell you that in the District of
Columbia 47% of our students are non-Catholic--
Forty-seven percent of the students in the DC Catholic schools are
non-Catholic--
and in the heavily impacted inner city areas it goes up to
67% or higher. My great predecessor, Cardinal Hickey, used to
say that we don't educate them because they are Catholic, but
because we are Catholic and we accept this as a
responsibility for being good neighbors and committed to
serving the community.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Archdiocese of Washington,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2003.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: It was good to be able to speak to
you on the phone on Friday. I promised to send you this
letter to clarify the situation of our Catholic schools in
the District of Columbia. First of all, I want to assure you
that we are not only open to being accountable for any public
funds which the families of our students receive, but anxious
to be able to prove the value of our education. This would
mean being willing to administer the same set of examinations
that are given in the public school system.
I was happy to be able to tell you that in the District of
Columbia 47% of our students
[[Page S11946]]
are non-Catholic and in the heavily impacted inner city areas
it goes up to 67% or higher. My great predecessor, Cardinal
Hickey, used to say that we don't educate them because they
are Catholic, but because we are Catholic and we accept this
as a responsibility for being good neighbors and committed to
serving the community.
I am so greatful to you for your concern for the parents of
these children. So many of our parents work three jobs and
more to be able to afford the education in our schools. The
help that this legislation would make available would be such
a blessing for them.
If there is any further information that you might find
useful, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me.
With every good wish and deepest gratitude, I am
Sincerely,
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick,
Archbishop of Washington.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have a provision in this bill that a scholarship
recipient would essentially be tested against a control group with the
same test given in the public school setting as in the private school
setting.
The first component of my amendment requires that the managing entity
that will run the voucher program give voucher students--not every
student in private school--the same assessments they took in public
schools. It also requires that the Secretary of Education, in
conjunction with the Mayor, appoint an independent evaluator to study
all aspects of the voucher program, with a strong focus on the academic
progress of the students in the program.
The independent evaluator, which could be a think tank, could be an
independent entity, will be required to evaluate the test scores of
voucher students over the 5-year period, as well as the scores of a
randomly selected group of comparable students who applied for vouchers
but did not get them.
The test scores of the control group for which no voucher is
available will be studied and measured against the scores of the
voucher students.
The evaluator will be required to report back to the Congress every
year on the progress, for the duration of the 5-year pilot. This
amendment also requires that the test scores of both recipients and the
student control group, as I said, would be studied, obviously, against
one another.
I think we have a very practical, very doable trial proposal. I know
on this side of the aisle there are a lot of objections to it, and I
must say I am deeply puzzled by them because I do not understand what
the fear is. Traditionally, the argument against vouchers always has
been it takes money away from the public school. This does not. It adds
money to the public school. Another argument always has been, how do we
really know the students will do better? We have the testing and
evaluation component in place.
Finally, the program is restricted to those most in need. These will
be the poorest families in DC who will participate. They will all be
families of four, earning under $34,000 a year. So for 5 years, a child
who is not making it, whose parent may be at wit's end, will have an
opportunity to say, aha, I might be able to get one of those vouchers.
Let's see if John, Sam, Gloria, or Betty can make it in another
setting. In other words, let's try another model for our child.
Affluent people do this all the time. Affluent people have that
opportunity. If their child does not do well in one setting, they can
place their child in another setting. Why shouldn't the poor person
have that same opportunity? This is the weight of our argument. This is
the candor of our argument. I hope this is the caring point of our
argument, because if this passes, 2,000 children will be able to take
that pilot and 5 years from now we will know a lot more than we know
today.
I have gotten a lot of flak because I am supporting it. And guess
what. I do not care. I have finally reached the stage in my career, I
do not care. I am going to do what I sincerely believe is right. I have
spent the time. I have gone to the schools, I have seen what works, I
have seen what does not work. Believe it or not, I have always been
sort of a political figure for the streets as opposed to the policy
wonks. I know different things work on the streets that often do not
work on the bookshelves. So we will see. It is kind of interesting.
I have a member of my own staff who I do not think was very much in
favor of me trying this, but at one point she came up to me and said: I
must tell you something. I grew up in Anacostia. My parents could
afford to send me to a Catholic school, and I went to that school. I
saw so many of my peers get into such trouble and it conditioned the
whole remainder of their life. Now today, she is a distinguished
attorney with a solid career and a solid job.
My concern in education has always been K-6. It has always been
teaching the basic fundamentals to kids so they could go on and learn,
because if they do not have the basic fundamentals, it is so
humiliating.
As mayor, I used to go out to Bayview Hunter's Point every Monday. I
spent the afternoon with children. I talked to children. It took me 6
months to get them to look me in the eye, to be able to pronounce their
names, to be able to talk directly to another human being. It took the
time, the energy, and the effort. Through no fault of their own, in
many cases our public institutions are so overburdened, with so many
different issues, that it is difficult to provide everything for every
child. Obviously, some children need more than they are getting.
I hope there will be others on my side of the aisle who will give
this program a chance. I believe it will meet the test of
constitutionality. I believe it is a bona fide pilot. I intend to stay
with it and see what happens and see that the evaluation and the
testing is adequate and carried out correctly and see what we learn for
the future for our children.
Once again, I thank Senator DeWine for his courtesy in working with
me. He really has been terrific and I appreciate it very much.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for a
wonderful speech, but, more important than that, for her commitment to
the children of the District of Columbia. Her position on this issue is
so typical of her career and what I have seen her do during the time I
have been in the Senate, during the time I have served with her. That
is, she does not necessarily take the conventional position. She
studies issues. She goes out and looks at the issue. She goes out and
sees what the issues are and tries to understand them. As she says, she
listens to the street. She listens to the people. She finds out what is
going on, and that clearly is what she has done in this particular
case.
Again, as I have said on this floor before, I applaud her. I applaud
her for her contribution to this bill. This is a better bill than it
would have been but for the Senator from California. I thank her for
her contribution.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I say one more thing? Will the Senator yield to
me for a moment?
Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First of all, again, I thank the Senator. It has been
a great pleasure for me to work with him. I really appreciate it.
I have just been alerted that the Mayor is here. I understand the
Mayor of the District of Columbia can come on the floor of the Senate.
I believe very strongly, because mayors run their cities, they are
responsible. Yet, in education, it is very often so frustrating because
they do not have control. This is the Mayor who wants to leave a legacy
of an improved education system for the District.
Those of us who read the Washington Post this morning, and the
Mayor's comments addressed, I guess, to the editorial board of the
Washington Post, understand the frustration. I have always been one who
had a great appreciation for Dick Daley, of Chicago, who went to the
State legislature and said: Give me control of appointment of the
school board. And they did. He appointed some of his people to the
school board and turned around the Chicago public schools. I think in a
way that has set a real pattern for public education in America. I had
the privilege of visiting those schools and spending a day in Chicago.
I ask consent that the Mayor be allowed to come on the floor of the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mayor of the District of Columbia is
authorized to be on the floor of the Senate under the rules.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[[Page S11947]]
Just to continue on for a moment, I think what's going to happen in
America is that more mayors of big cities will get more control over
the schools, whether it is by appointing the school board or whether it
is by having a separate entity involved in it. In the case of Chicago,
I remember the Mayor appointed his chief of staff as head of the school
board and his budget person, Paul G. Vallas, as superintendent of
public instruction. So they had a working team to really turn the
public school system around.
I would like to welcome the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the
floor of the Senate.
Welcome, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much.
I want everybody to know this is your request and your program. I
don't know how many votes on our side of the aisle we will have for it,
but I think it is a very important program to try. I think it is very
important. I think because of the testing we have built into it, the
same tests, the evaluation component, the fact is that your feet are
going to be to the fire because this is your program and it is going to
succeed or fail based on your energy, your staying power, your drive,
your motivation. And I know it is there.
To the Presiding Officer, and to the manager of the bill, I have made
my arguments. I am happy to answer any questions there may be, but I am
hopeful this amendment will be agreed to and we will have an
opportunity to try this pilot program.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio
giving me the opportunity to speak at a time while the Senator from
California is still in the Chamber and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia is still here.
I greatly respect the leadership shown by the Mayor of the District
of Columbia and by the Senator from California, who are willing to take
a fresh look at children who need help. This leadership is based upon
their own experiences and common sense, and wisdom to try something
different.
I listened very carefully to the Senator from California. I was
thinking the Senate is a good place for someone with a lot of
experiences on the street and in the Mayor's office, in political
campaigns, and in legislative bodies. She is someone who has enough
experience to come to her own conclusions.
This is a terribly important decision. It would not even be before us
if the Mayor and other local officials in the District of Columbia had
not asked for it because too many of the changes that have been
suggested in education are often suggested in the tone of: This is good
for you. But, it rarely ever happens unless somebody says: I want this
for my child, or my school district.
I remember in Milwaukee 15 years ago, there was a strange confluence
of circumstances that led Milwaukee to try to give the poorest families
in the city more choices of school for their children. It only happened
because Polly Williams, who was the State representative and was the
leader of Jesse Jackson's campaign in Wisconsin, and the Democratic
mayor of Milwaukee, and the Republican Governor, Governor--now
Secretary--Thompson, all happened to come to the same conclusion. They
all thought outside the box. They all did things that were different.
But the person that really made the most difference, with great
respect to the mayor and with great respect to the Governor at that
time, was Polly Williams, who represented parents who said: I want this
for my child.
What we are hearing today in the Senate, and what the Senator from
California has so beautifully stated, and the Mayor has brought to our
attention, is that we have several thousand families in the District of
Columbia who are saying to us: We want this for our child. We see the
results. We see the figures the Senator from California cited: In
eighth grade only a few children are reading at the eighth grade level,
so few children are able to do math, this lack of academic success is
almost a guarantee of a lack of success in life.
I was glad I had the assignment of being the Presiding Officer at the
time when the Senator from California made her speech. I wanted to add
to that in a couple of ways.
I think she beautifully distinguished between this proposal and a
broad voucher program. We have argued those up and down the street for
years. But here is what the Senator from California reminded us is
different about this proposal:
No. 1, the Mayor wants it. If we were in a State, if we were in the
State of California, or Tennessee, or Ohio, the money we are talking
about would really be the State's money; in effect, it would be money
the State was spending the way the State wanted to spend it. We just
happen to be in the District of Columbia where the money is collected a
little differently. This is money that local people really ought to be
able to decide how to spend, and they want to spend it this way. That
is one big difference.
The Senator from California said this is a pilot program. One might
argue that there is not such a thing in Federal Government; that every
program lasts forever. But it doesn't have to last forever. This is a
chance to try to give 2,000 poor children from failing schools one
option to see if they can succeed in their educational life.
We don't have many pilot programs with this idea. We have one in
Milwaukee where it worked well, I thought. I have been to those
schools. We learned a lot. We have some programs in Ohio, which the
Presiding Officer helped to implement.
In the Nation's Capital, it might be good to have a look and see
whether this idea works or not. The Senator from California suggested
in her amendment some provisions which will help make sure that it gets
a fair test--requiring scholarship students to take tests similar to
other students in the District, requiring the Secretary of Education
and the Mayor to select an independent entity for evaluation, and to
say that the teachers of these children who are on scholarships should
be as well qualified as possible. Those are very sensible additions.
The Mayor wants it. It is a pilot program. And it helps 2,000 of the
poorest children in failing schools by giving them $7,500 a year of new
money. This comes from no other educational program. If it is not spent
for this, it goes right back into the Federal budgets. It is new money
to give them that choice.
Pilot programs and studies sometimes help us learn things. For
example, Vanderbilt University did a very interesting report that was
published in September of 2001.
The Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of Columbia
might be interested in this, too. They took a group of schools, all of
which have the characteristics of potential failing schools. In this
group of schools, 35 percent of the students changed school every year,
and 50 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price
lunches.
The parents of the children in those schools had a modest education
themselves. It is a recipe for failure when compared to most of our
schools. Yet in these schools--instead of having only 1 of 10 or 1 of
20 8th graders who score proficient in math or reading, these schools
are first in the country and second in the country among African-
American students, according to the National Assessment for Educational
Progress in Math and Reading.
What schools are these? These are the schools on the military bases
across the country. All of us can speculate as to why that is true.
There might be more discipline in a military school or military
environment. Another one might be that the school reports to the
commanding officer of the base.
The Senator from California has just increased the accountability of
the schools in these scholarship programs by saying the Mayor is
directly responsible. The Mayor of the District of Columbia is going to
be paying attention to these schools and these scholarship kids.
There is another thing we might learn from this study of the
military. There is one other provision which I found very interesting.
At the military post schools where the military children who live on
the base go to school, parents must go to the parent-teacher
conference. They don't have a choice. They can be court-marshaled if
they don't go. They are ordered to go. I guess that might be the single
most important thing.
If this education has all of these aspects--and everyone is an
expert. Everybody has 1,000 ideas. There are two
[[Page S11948]]
things we know for absolute sure. The thing that makes the most
difference in a child's education is the parent and the second thing is
the teacher. Everything else all added up into a lump counts for
relatively little compared to those first two.
It might be that if there are 2,000 families who go to the trouble of
helping their kids move from a failing school into another school that
these parents will have increased parental involvement. This might be
what makes the difference in terms of their child's success. But we
don't know that unless we try to find out, which we can do over the
next 5 years if we support the Senator's amendment and then we support
the bill that is reported.
There are a couple of other things I would like to say. The Senator
from California said that she has lived long enough to do what she
thought was right and that she was puzzled by the opposition to this
program. I have to admit that I am puzzled, too. On my side of the
aisle, I am not always in lockstep with all of the Republican ideas
that come along because I have lived long enough to make up my own mind
about things.
But on the idea of saying that poor children shouldn't have the same
choices of schools that middle-income and rich kids have, I have never
really understood the opposition. It has always puzzled me.
Let me give an example of why. This is not some idea from the Moon.
The idea of giving families choices in educational institutions has
been the single most successful social program we have ever had in our
country's history. Most people would say that the GI bill after World
War II has been our most successful social program. What happened after
World War II?
At a time when only 5 or 10 percent of Americans were going to
college, the Government said to the veterans: When you come home, to
pay you back, we are going to give you a scholarship to go wherever you
want to go to school. They said: You may go to Berkeley. You may take
this money to Fisk University. You might go to Hastings in California.
You can to Vanderbilt, you can go to the University of Tennessee, you
can go to Ohio State, or to Notre Dame, or Kenyon. You can go to
Yeshiva. You can go to a Brigham Young University. Wherever you want to
go you can go to an accredited university.
A great many of the veterans returning from World War II used their
GI bills to go to high schools. Many of them went to Catholic high
schools. At that time, we began to allow Government scholarships to
follow students to the educational institutions of their choice.
At that time, about 20 percent of our higher educational institutions
were public. About 80 percent of the students went to private schools.
It sounds strange today because now we have big public universities.
In Ohio you had all of those wonderful institutions--Miami, Kenyon,
Oberlin--all the colleges in Ohio. And Ohio State wasn't all that big
at the end of World War II. A lot of the colleges that are universities
today were just small teachers colleges.
What has been the effect of allowing Federal dollars to follow
students to the educational institution of their choice since World War
II? What happened is that it has created more opportunities for
Americans more than any other program we have ever passed. It has
created not just some of the best universities in the world but almost
all of the best universities in the world. It continues today in the
form of the Federal Pell grant and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.
One-half or more of students who go to colleges or universities in
California or in Ohio or in Tennessee go to college with a Federal
grant or with a loan following them to the college or university of
their choice.
When I was president of the University of Tennessee, it never
occurred to me to come to the Senate and say: Senator DeWine, I hope
you will pass a law that keeps Federal dollars from following a
Tennessee student to Vanderbilt or to Fisk or to Maryville College or
Carson-Newman College or Howard University or Brigham Young or Yeshiva
because they are private, public, or parochial. It never occurred to
me. I wanted the students to have all of those choices. It helped them
and it helped our university.
If we have the tradition of choice in America, and if we have 60
years of funding educational institutions by allowing the money to
follow the student to the school of their choice, it has always puzzled
me as to why we exempt grade schools and high schools. We even allow
Federal scholarships to let money follow preschoolers to Head Start or
the child care program of their choice. Many States allow juniors and
seniors in high school to let money follow them to the college of their
choice.
We have gotten in this rut, and it is not clear how we got there but
some people are determined to keep it forever. The ones paying the
price are the poor kids of America.
We just finished what has turned out to be a very unpopular set of
tests in Tennessee and America, the leave no child behind test. In our
State, some of the superintendents and teachers were up in arms. They
said: We are not a failing school.
I said: I would not get too proud or too embarrassed about the scores
in Tennessee or California because all the leave no child behind tests
are demonstrating is what we already know, which is that in most of our
schools in America, even some of our finest schools, there are some
children who are not learning to read. They are not learning to
compute. Almost all of those children are disadvantaged.
We can ignore that and adopt a new slogan that says leave no more
than 35 percent of our children behind and go right on to decide to try
some other things.
As the Senator from California said, one thing we could try is to
allow the District of Columbia to spend its money helping 2,000 of
those children who are poor and in failing schools, help them go to a
school of their parents' choice and see whether that helps.
Some people say the school choice plan is a think-tank plan, maybe a
conservative plan, maybe even a Republican plan. It is none of that.
Let me give an example. One of the most distinguished educators in
America is a man named Ted Sizer, at Harvard University, a graduate
student during the Lyndon Johnson days. He was a ``power to the
people,'' Johnson liberal Democrat. As his graduate degree thesis in
the late 1960s, Ted Sizer published a proposal called ``The Poor Kids
Bill of Rights.'' The idea was that part of the war on poverty, under
the LBJ programs, the Federal Government should give $5,000, in 1969
dollars, to every poor kid--he defined poor as middle income or below;
which meant half the kids--give $5,000 to half the children in America
and let it follow them to the school of their choice.
That proposal came out of the 1960s from Ted Sizer, out of Harvard,
out of Lyndon Johnson's philosophy. It is as true to that philosophy as
it is to Milton Friedman's philosophy.
I like better what the Senator from California said. She was not so
interested in a philosophy. She was interested in parents and kids on
the street. That is who we should be listening to. If the Mayor and the
chairman of the city school board say: We have tried everything. We are
spending $11,000 per kid; we are putting more money into charter
schools; we are improving our schools, but we have all these children
who are not learning to read, could we not try to give them a chance to
go to some of the same schools that they could go to if their parents
had some money? That is all they are saying.
I am very glad to have been here today to hear the Senator from
California address the Senate. I am glad she is here to make a
difference. I am glad the District of Columbia Mayor is here to make a
difference too.
Everyone, after being here for a while, looks to the end of their
careers and wonders what it will look like when looking back. My guess
is when the Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia look back--these decisions, which are courageous in a
political sense, are decisions they will take great pride in years to
come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the inclusion of the
District of Columbia School Choice Program contained within the fiscal
year 2004 District of Columbia appropriations bill. I urge my
colleagues to defeat any attempt to weaken or remove the program.
[[Page S11949]]
I also rise to support the amendment of Senator Feinstein which
strengthens that provision in the appropriations bill.
First of all, I applaud the efforts of my friend, the senior Senator
from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, for his efforts to expand school choice for the
parents and schools of the District. I also applaud the leadership of
Senator Gregg moving this issue forward. I also applaud Senator
Feinstein for her courageous support of this program and her very
thoughtful amendment to the amendment to the appropriations bill.
My father, a first generation American, used to say that America
enjoys more of the world's bounty than any other nation because of the
free enterprise system and our educational system. This is true today
as it was years ago. It we expect to remain competitive in the world
marketplace and maintain our standard of living, this country needs to
rededicate itself to the free enterprise and most importantly our
educational system.
Some in Congress believe rededicating ourselves to this Nation's
educational system means simply throwing more money at the issue,
closing our eyes, hoping it will solve itself.
If spending alone ensured a quality education, the District would be
one of the best school systems in the Nation. For the school year that
ended June 2001, the District spent an average of $10,852 per student.
That is the third highest in the Nation. However, the 2002 national
assessment of educational progress showed fourth grade students in the
District held the lowest scores for writing and tied with Los Angeles
for the lowest score in reading. That means 27 percent of fourth
graders in the District scored below the basic level in writing, and 69
percent tested below the basic level in reading.
What a dismal message on the state of education for the families who
live in the shining city on the hill, the Nation's Capital. What a
terrible record to send throughout the country and the world.
We, in Congress, are obligated to do more to help the children in our
Nation's Capital. I have often said that the greatest thing one could
do for their fellow human being is to help them fully develop their
God-given talents so they can take care of themselves, their families,
and make a contribution to society. We need to empower families and
children with more than just additional funding.
When I was first elected Governor of Ohio in 1990, I pledged to the
people that I would draw a line in the sand for this generation of
children in Ohio by making their health education my administration's
top priority. As I look back, I am proud of that record in Ohio. When I
left the Governor's mansion in 1998 for the Senate, Ohio led the Nation
in State funding for Head Start. Every eligible child whose parents
wanted them in a Head Start Program, early education had a place for
them. Many of these Head Start facilities were sponsored by religious
organizations and located on the premises of religious organizations.
We were among the Nation's leaders in providing health care for
uninsured children. Ohio increased funding for children and family
programs by 47 percent while holding State spending to its lowest rate
in 30 years. These actions and accomplishments were rooted in the
belief that future generations of Ohioans would be served by a
government that strived to empower families.
As the Presiding Officer knows, education begins with a family. A
parent must be a child's first teacher. It was in this context that
Ohio became one of the first States to undertake the challenges of
implementing school choice. My colleagues in the Senate know how
tumultuous a battle that program faced. It went on for years and
finally ended up in the Supreme Court.
At the beginning of the Cleveland scholarship program, we provided
2,000 scholarships to children in grades kindergarten through third
grade that would follow them through the eighth grade. Depending on the
family's income level, the State paid between 75 and 90 percent of the
cost of education. The scholarship amount did not exceed $2,250, which
provided a significant portion of the tuition at one of the
participating nonpublic schools in Cleveland. The State also provided
an equal number of $500 tutoring grants to those students who did not
receive scholarships but whose parents felt they needed additional help
for their children.
The response to our program was overwhelming. The State received
nearly 7,000 applications from Cleveland parents. More than half of the
applicants were from households dependent on welfare, and half were
from minorities. It was evident from the sheer number of applicants
that parents were demanding options that the Cleveland Scholarship
Program provided.
Today, the program has expanded. Effective July 1, 2003, students who
had previously received a scholarship are now eligible to receive a
scholarship for grade 9 in the 2003-2004 school year. And beginning in
the 2004-2005 school year, a student who received a scholarship in the
9th grade will be eligible to receive a scholarship in the 10th grade.
We are moving them along. Additionally, the scholarship amount has
increased. The capped tuition for the 2003-2004 school year is now
$3,000.
From its humble beginnings in 1996, with 2,000 students, and total
scholarships of $2.9 million, the program has more than doubled its
enrollment. Today it covers some 5,200 students. Additionally, total
scholarship amounts have increased to almost $10 million.
Since 1998, Indiana University's Center for Evaluation has been
conducting longitudinal studies regarding the Cleveland Scholarship
Program. So we have been watching it. We put the money out so we could
watch how this thing has progressed.
In its most recent study, the center found that students who have
participated in the Cleveland Scholarship Program since kindergarten
have achieved significantly higher levels than public school students
in reading and language skills.
I would also like to call my colleagues' attention to the results of
an evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program that was conducted 2
years after it began by Paul Peterson of Harvard University.
In his study, Dr. Peterson found that parents of voucher recipients
were consistently more satisfied with many aspects of their child's
education than were parents of students in the Cleveland Public
Schools. From the quality of academic programs to school discipline,
teachers' skills, class size, and so forth, parents whose children were
participants in the Cleveland Scholarship Program showed greater
satisfaction and enthusiasm than did parents in the Cleveland Public
School System.
The Cleveland Scholarship Program is merely one component of a
renewal in our education system that needs to occur. I do not stand
before the Senate and claim it is a cure-all for all troubled school
districts. I think it is very important. Those of us who are supporting
Senator DeWine's and Senator Feinstein's amendment are not claiming
this is going to be the cure-all for troubled school districts. What we
are saying is that it is another option on the education smorgasbord.
And as the Presiding Officer so eloquently stated, why not look at some
other programs that are out there? A business that is not doing very
well starts to look at itself saying: What are other things we could be
doing? Let's do some research and development. Let's look at some new
ideas. Let's try something else.
I must tell you, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs subcommittee
with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, I support this as one
of many options. We need to expand our vision. Instead of putting on
our blinders, let's look at some other programs. The legislation offers
the positive step toward empowering parents in the District by
increasing their involvement in their child's education and offering
them more choices.
Families in the District of Columbia have limited opportunity for
choice in their children's education, and families have wholeheartedly
embraced school choice. In 1996, the first charter schools opened in
the District. The 39 charter schools operating in the District of
Columbia only educate 1 in 7 children in the District. That is 15
percent of the students. Hundreds--hundreds--are on waiting lists.
Additionally, the Washington Scholarship Fund, a private, nonprofit
organization, that provides scholarships for economically disadvantaged
families, received over 7,500 applications for 1,000 available
scholarships. It is clear that the parents of children in the District
of Columbia want more options.
[[Page S11950]]
When I came to the Senate, I said I would not mandate a scholarship
program on any jurisdiction; they had to want it. It is clear to me
that the District of Columbia wants this. And it is just as clear that
the District is within the responsibility of the Congress. They are our
responsibility. We are not mandating every school district in America.
We are increasing options for families in the District of Columbia.
Some would contend this is going to be running throughout the United
States of America. We are concentrating our attention on our
responsibility: the city on the hill, the Nation's Capital--our
responsibility. And we are saying we want to give the parents of those
children more options.
The most important thing is that this proposal for fiscal year 2004
has been drafted in consultation with and has the approval of Mayor
Anthony Williams--I have talked to him about it; he is passionate about
it--Council Member Kevin Chavous, chair of the Council's Committee of
Education, Libraries, and Recreation; and Ms. Peggy Cooper Cafritz,
president of the DC Board of Education. They are for this. They want
this for their children. They are asking us for it.
The bill also contains $13 million for charter schools and $13
million for public schools to assist them with requirements under No
Child Left Behind for teacher recruitment, training, and similar
programs. Combined, the funds for these three programs represent the
largest Federal contribution to the District of Columbia in the history
of this country.
Unfortunately, the debate is not focused on the $39 million in new
funds for the District. Oh, no. It is on the $13 million being
considered for the scholarships. The proposed scholarship program would
be authorized for 5 years, giving Congress the opportunity to monitor
and evaluate the progress of schools and students--5 years. Let's watch
it, just as we did in Cleveland with the longitudinal studies. Let's
see how it works out. It would be overseen by the District of Columbia
and the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Finally, it is a scholarship program that will help the neediest
families in the District, the ones about whom the Presiding Officer so
eloquently spoke. Eligible students are children attending low-
performing public schools and whose household incomes do not exceed 200
percent of the poverty level. We are talking about a relatively small
number of students. I think it is something like 2,000 students
who would be eligible for the program.
I would like to stress to my colleagues that this is all new Federal
money for students in the District of Columbia. Let me repeat: This is
all new money. These scholarships are one piece of a larger proposal to
address the educational needs in Washington, DC.
Certainly there is a role for Congress to play. We in Congress have
increasingly recognized the need for the Federal Government to serve as
the State for the District, a necessity considering the unique
relationship between the District of Columbia and the Federal
Government.
For example, just 4 years ago, I was the chief sponsor in the Senate
of the DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program, which was enacted in 1999.
This program provides grants for students graduating from DC high
schools to attend public universities and colleges nationwide at in-
State tuition rates. In other words, we put the students in the
District in the same position as if they lived in the State of
Tennessee or the State of Ohio. There is a subsidy by the State so they
could go on and get higher education.
It also provides smaller grants for students to attend private
institutions in the DC metropolitan area and private historically black
colleges and universities nationwide. So we have expanded it beyond
just public. We now have private and historically black colleges
included. This program has been enormously successful.
There is one final point I would like to discuss. Critics of
scholarships argue that scholarships are ways for private schools,
especially religious schools, to get rich quick. Incredible, just
incredible. It is not true. As my colleagues may know, tuition for a
student does not cover the full cost of educating a child. The
difference currently is made up by private donations.
Many schools in the District run by the Archdiocese of Washington are
struggling financially and would not be able to support a large influx
of students. The Archdiocese estimates needing an additional $5 million
in the first year alone, should the Archdiocese fill all open seats in
their schools with students on scholarships. It basically means, if
they opened their doors and took advantage of the scholarship program,
for them to do that, they would have to go out and find $5 million
someplace in order to educate these children.
It is the same thing in the city of Cleveland, with our nonpublic
schools. We have hundreds of low-income kids who are not Catholic who
are attending Catholic schools. My mother was a volunteer librarian at
one of them where 70 percent of the kids were non-Catholic. There was
not any proselytizing going on.
The reason they opened their doors is they believed in the two great
commandments--love of God and love of fellow man. They believed the
best way they could witness their faith is by reaching out and making a
difference in the lives of these children, developing their God-given
talents so they can take care of themselves and their families and make
a contribution to society.
I will never forget one of those students was a player on the Ohio
State football team. He was a big center. He went to the school where
my mom was a librarian. I went out there to one of their practices. He
almost picked me up, and he looked at me and said: Are you Mrs.
Voinovich's son?
I said: Yes, I am.
And he talked about the wonderful experience he had at St. Aloysius
and the difference it made in his life so he could go on to high school
and get a scholarship to play football.
This is what we are talking about. Why anyone would deny a student in
the District the opportunity that students have had in the city of
Cleveland and other places throughout the United States is simply
beyond me. It is not the end of the world, if this is adopted. That is
ridiculous. This is a small experiment to give people an option in
their children's education.
Over the years it was argued that the Cleveland scholarship program
was unconstitutional. I argued it was constitutional. I am not going to
make that argument because the Presiding Officer made it in his
presentation just before me, in terms of kids having money. The money
goes to them, and then they can go wherever they want to go. That is in
the American tradition. That is how thousands of Americans got their
college education through the GI bill. The Supreme Court, on June 27,
2002, upheld the Cleveland scholarship program. When they did that, I
labeled it a victory for hope. We have seen wonderful successes in
Cleveland of children excelling in school, when the doors of
opportunity were opened and parents could choose to offer what they
believed is the best education. I believe all families deserve those
options. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for the
families in our Nation's capital.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the DC Appropriations
Subcommittee, I thank Senator DeWine and Senator Landrieu and their
staffs for their hard work on this important legislation.
This is never an easy bill. I have been ranking member of this
subcommittee in years gone by. It appears every Senator or Congressman,
whoever in their weakest moment or wildest dreams wanted to be a mayor
or a member of a city council, decides they can play the role when it
comes to the DC appropriations bill. Thank goodness for Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton who has stood fast year after weary year, beating
off every assault on home rule with some success and a few setbacks.
But this bill is a tough one. It is always a tough one.
Members of Congress will do on this bill what they wouldn't dare do
in their own districts or State. They will force on the District of
Columbia things they would never even consider doing at home. They
think it is easy. This is an area of America which, sadly, does not
have a vote in Congress nor in the Senate. Frankly, they don't have to
answer to the voters of the State. So
[[Page S11951]]
when it comes to experimenting and doing what you would never suggest
at home, it is usually the DC appropriations bill that becomes that
laboratory, that political playground.
Senators DeWine and Landrieu, with very few exceptions, have done
their level best to make certain this year's appropriations bill did
not deteriorate into that particular situation. I want to take a few
minutes to underscore that there is much in this District of Columbia
spending bill that merits our collective endorsement.
As has been outlined, this bill provides $545 million in Federal
funds, the bulk of which will fund the District of Columbia Courts,
Defender Services, and the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency, CSOSA, for the District of Columbia.
Since the enactment of the District of Columbia Revitalization Act of
1997, these three entities are funded entirely by Federal
appropriations. The Revitalization Act made substantial changes in the
financial relationship between the Federal Government and the District
of Columbia and in management of the DC government.
Under revitalization, the Federal Government's cash contributions to
the District budget were substantially reduced. In exchange, financial
responsibility for several governmental functions was transferred from
the District's budget to the Federal Government.
This year additional resources are being provided to the DC courts to
integrate the 18 different computer systems that track offender and
litigant information. In addition, the bill provides an increase of
$6.8 million over the President's budget request which will allow CSOSA
to enhance its supervision of high-risk sex offenders, offenders with
mental health problems, and domestic violence offenders.
In addition, the bill continues level funding for the DC resident
tuition program, a very successful initiative Congress established in
1999 which permits DC high school graduates to attend out of State
schools at in-State tuition rates.
Among other items, the bill also provides Federal funding for
hospital bioterrorism preparedness; for security costs related to the
presence of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia; for
support of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; and for the Children's
National Medical Center.
It is important to recognize and emphasize that about 93 percent of
the funds contained in this bill--fully $7.43 billion, $6.33 billion in
operating expenses plus $1.1 billion in capital outlay funds--are not
Federal funds, but locally-generally revenue which must be approved by
Congress before the mayor can execute his budget and begin spending
these local funds.
The District of Columbia does not enjoy autonomy over the local
portion of its budget but must await a congressional imprimatur.
Senator Susan Collins has introduced bipartisan legislation designed to
change that, which I hope we will have an opportunity to consider
during this session of Congress.
Senator DeWine and Senator Landrieu have collaborated on producing a
thoughtful product. We owe them a debt of gratitude for tenaciously
juggling municipal needs, amid Federal funding constraints.
I have been in their shoes as either chairman or ranking member of
the District of Columbia Subcommittee and was honored to serve. I
quickly learned from that experience that while the DC spending bill is
technically the smallest of the 13 appropriations bills we consider
each year, it usually is among the more contentious ones.
The issue before us is the issue of school vouchers. It is not just
another debate about another DC appropriations measure. If this is
adopted, it will be the first time in the history of the United States
that the Federal Government will pay for private school vouchers in
grades K through 12.
This issue was brought up a few years ago when President Bush
suggested sweeping reform of public education and some of his allies
said: Let's put in school vouchers for private schools at the same
time.
In the Senate we took a vote on that issue. If I am not mistaken, the
vote was 41 in favor of school vouchers, 58 opposed. I raise that vote
because it will be of interest to see what happens now when this issue
goes beyond a national program and is confined to the District of
Columbia. I suspect many of those who said ``we don't want school
vouchers in our State'' are going to say ``but we will allow them to
have school vouchers in the District of Columbia.'' That is
unfortunate. It reflects an attitude toward the District of Columbia
which is not complimentary. Mayor Williams is here on the floor with
Delegate Norton. I respect him very much. We agree on much more than we
disagree, though we disagree on this particular issue. He was treated
with a Faustian bargain. Here was the bargain the Republicans offered
to him. They said: If we give you $13 million for your public schools
that you had not anticipated and $13 million for your charter schools
that you had not anticipated, will you sit still for and embrace and
endorse and help us pass the first federally funded voucher program for
private schools in America?
The District of Columbia struggles with a lot of spending problems.
There are a lot of reasons for it I will not go into. I know he must
have looked at this long and hard and thought: This is something I will
have to agree to. To get $26 million for public schools and charter
schools, I am going to support the Republican voucher program.
That, unfortunately, was the decision he made. I say
``unfortunately'' because my respect for him has not diminished, but I
am concerned that the decision he made for the District of Columbia is
a departure from where the District of Columbia has been year after
year when this appropriations bill has come up. For year after year the
District of Columbia has said to Congress, respect home rule. Let us
make our own decisions. Now this year they have done 180 degrees. The
Mayor has said: When it comes to our schools, which is the
responsibility of DC local government, we are going to allow the
Federal Government--in this case the Congress--to create a school
scholarship program, vouchers for private schools.
DC could have done this on their own. They could have done it over
the years. They didn't. There was a reason they didn't. It isn't that
they didn't consider the possibility of vouchers for private schools.
They considered it and voted on it and overwhelmingly voted against it.
The residents of the District of Columbia, in referendum,
overwhelmingly opposed vouchers for private education, overwhelmingly
opposed diverting public money from public schools into private
schools. That is what the people think about the concept.
It isn't confined to that concept. The Mayor's own city council
opposes this, and the elected members of the school board also oppose
it. But the Mayor and the president of the school board support it.
They have entered into this bargain with the Republicans to go forward
with a voucher program, the first federally funded diversion of public
funds from public schools to private schools in the history of the
United States.
It is momentous. What is particularly noteworthy is that this measure
comes to us not after committee hearings, deliberation, a markup
process with amendments, but comes to us, frankly, in a package in this
appropriations bill which we are now changing with some drama on the
floor of the Senate even as I speak.
Senator Feinstein of California came forward with an amendment. She
had made it clear in the Senate Appropriations Committee that she
supported the voucher plan for the District of Columbia. Many of us
pointed out in that hearing some deficiencies in this plan. Understand,
we were given this voucher program in the Appropriations Committee
where we don't usually entertain anything of that complexity--not that
it isn't done, but it is done rarely--and we were given it on a take-
it-or-leave-it basis. As we considered what was proposed to us, a lot
of questions were raised.
Let me cite an example of one amendment I offered in the
Appropriations Committee to give an idea about the mindset that is
pushing this forward. I offered an amendment which said: You cannot
give vouchers to a private school--public money to a private school--
unless the teachers in the private school receiving the voucher money
have a college degree and the
[[Page S11952]]
school physically complies with the life, health, and safety code of
the District of Columbia.
That seems fairly reasonable for my colleagues who have voted for No
Child Left Behind. Remember the President's program? The President not
only required college degrees for teachers, but imposed even higher
standards of excellence over the years. So to require a college degree
at the private schools where we are sending public tax dollars is not a
huge leap or a radical idea. It is consistent with what the
overwhelming majority of the Senate said would be the minimum standard
for public schools in America. To say that any private school that is
supported with public taxpayer dollars has to be safe for the
children--fire escapes, and alarms, the appropriate exit doors, and the
like--it seems to me is just common sense. I am sorry to report to my
colleagues that amendment was defeated.
Senator Feinstein and the Republicans who support this DC voucher
bill opposed my amendment which would have required a college degree of
teachers at the private schools and would have required that those
schools comply with the life, health, and safety code of the District
of Columbia. I might add something. Per capita, the District of
Columbia has the largest number of charter schools, which are
exceptions to the traditional public school system, of any place in the
United States. And even in the DC charter schools there is a
requirement that teachers at these charter schools have a college
degree.
When I offered the amendment in committee, you should have heard the
debate. I actually heard my colleagues say: Senator Durbin, you don't
understand. These private schools are going to be experimental. We are
going to try innovative approaches.
One Senator said that would rule out home schooling. Home schooling?
Is that what DC vouchers are about? It strikes me as odd that we would
want to engage in an experiment in private schools with standards far
lower than what we are demanding of our public schools. I have to add,
too, that Senator Feinstein's effort to correct that problem, I don't
believe, has been successful.
Let me give an example. In this amendment Senator Feinstein offers,
which is presently before us, there is a section on teacher quality. In
describing it, she stated that all teachers in the schools receiving
voucher funds must have a college degree. That is not what the
amendment says. What it says is that only those teachers who teach the
students on vouchers need a college degree. So this means, frankly, a
school could put all of the students on vouchers in one classroom with
a teacher with an associate's degree, which is a college degree. So I
don't believe it was very carefully drawn. It doesn't meet the minimum
standards we expect of schools in America.
Let me tell you what else is deficient in the Feinstein amendment.
The amendment falls short of the requirements that we all voted and
imposed on public schools in America, where we said it is not enough to
have a college degree. We said in public schools we are going to
require not only a bachelor's degree, but certification of ability to
teach, and particularly ``subject area mastery.'' What does that mean?
If you want to stand in front of a high school class and teach
chemistry, you must demonstrate that you have taken the appropriate
amount of training in college to teach chemistry. Our understanding is
that all of the statistics show that when the teacher in front of the
classroom has not studied the subject, is merely reading a chapter
ahead to stay ahead of the children, the students don't learn much. So
we have said for public schools across America, this is our minimum
standard--a college degree, bachelor's degree, certification, and
evidence of mastery of the subject.
It means in some of my schools in Illinois that they are saying we
know you have taught biology for many years and you are good at it, but
you don't have the requisite number of college degree hours to meet
President Bush's requirements of No Child Left Behind. You have to take
biology classes in college to meet President Bush's minimum
requirements for public schools.
Turn the page to this debate. In this debate, we hear from Senator
Feinstein and supporters of the DC voucher program that we are not
going to hold the teachers in the private schools receiving Federal tax
dollars to the same standards as teachers in the public schools in the
District of Columbia. Something is wrong with this picture. Either we
were mistaken in imposing the standard on public education, or they are
lax and deficient in not requiring the same standards of teachers in
private schools in the District of Columbia where these children are
going to go to school.
Some of them have said this is just an experiment, and we are just
going to see what happens. I can recall when my own kids were growing
up and the school year started. After a few weeks, you get to meet the
teacher. Before that, you may have said to your son or daughter, how
are things going? They might say: Oh, I really like this teacher, or I
am not getting along with the teacher. And you thought to yourself, I
am going to work with my son or daughter and talk to the teacher and
try to make things right. But there is a real possibility that students
in some schools, public and private, can be thrust into a situation
where they not only have a bad year, they have two straight bad years--
bad years with teachers who are not up to the academic levels that we
should require. The experiment may fail for those students. They may be
in classrooms where the teachers are not ready to teach and where,
frankly, the teachers don't have the background to even consider
teaching.
What happens to that student after one bad year in this experiment?
Can they catch up? It is possible but more difficult. Now give them a
second bad year.
This is an experiment with the lives of students. To think that a
child can have a bad experience in the fourth grade and fifth grade and
then catch up in the sixth grade may be wishful thinking. Some students
are struggling with challenges that I never had and that my kids, thank
goodness, never faced. To put them in this experimental atmosphere
where teachers are not required to have the same basic minimum
qualifications as teachers in public schools is a disservice to those
children and their families.
We hear about experiments taking place in other places, such as
Cleveland and Milwaukee. We read about one in the Washington Post the
other day, where a convicted rapist, a fellow, started Alex's Academics
of Excellence. He received $2.8 million from the State of Wisconsin. It
turned out that the students were not getting the kind of education
they deserved there. They said it was very difficult for anybody to say
no to someone who opened a school and said they were going to abide by
all of the requirements of the law. That experiment failed, but it
didn't just fail for those who wrote the law, it failed for those kids
and their families.
Why would we say, if there is going to be a DC voucher program, that
the teachers in private schools wouldn't at least meet the standards we
require of teachers in public schools? Sadly, the Feinstein amendment
doesn't do that. That may have been her intent, but I am afraid she
didn't quite reach it in terms of satisfying that need.
There is another point that concerns me, too, and that is testing. If
this is to be legitimate and honest, you would have to take the
students who are in private schools and test them with exactly the same
tests students in public schools take. Then you could at least compare
progress. These students may be somewhat self-selected because they
decided to go to a private school. At the end of the day, you ought to
be able to compare test scores, in fairness, to not only the private
schools but to the public schools.
Listen to what the Feinstein amendment says. It says: Student
assessments are not a requirement imposed on the school; rather, it is
placed on the fund recipient--a very unusual allocation of
responsibility--the fund recipient that administers the voucher payout.
I don't understand why the schools don't have this requirement.
The amendment goes on to say that the tests for voucher students must
be the ``same as'' school year 2003-2004. In a way that seems to answer
my challenge that the same tests be administered in the private schools
as in the
[[Page S11953]]
public schools. But read it more closely. If these are the same tests
as required in school years 2003 and 2004, consider that this is
proposed as a 5-year program. So what this means is that all of the
students in all grades would have to be tested as required by No Child
Left Behind for public schools. Why? Because the requirements for
testing in No Child Left Behind take effect and change each year.
So what Senator Feinstein set up as a standard is a testing for this
year only, instead of just saying pointblank the students in these
schools will be tested with the same frequency and the same tests as No
Child Left Behind, she has instead said only one year's testing
standards, 2003-2004.
For example, by 2007, there will be a science assessment required
under No Child Left Behind. So public schools across America will be
taking tests indicating competency in science. Under the Feinstein
amendment, they do not have to worry about that. They are only held to
the standard of 2003-2004.
There is no duty in this law, as we read it, to report the findings
of those tests publicly, even to the parents, only to the Secretary of
Education. Why not? Where I live, the State of Illinois--the State of
Ohio and other States--school test scores are reported publicly so the
parents know, taxpayers know, whether the schools are performing. The
Feinstein amendment does not require this.
Now here is another thing I find curious. The Feinstein amendment
requires the comparison made for those students tested must include
testing not just students still in public schools and students who are
now in private schools being funded with public funds, under vouchers,
but also a third class, those students who applied for vouchers and
were rejected. So we have a third category of students who are going to
be a control group for testing.
I do not quite understand this, but I do think the concept is at
least challengeable, because there is no doubt in my mind that the
private schools are not going to rush to accept students who are going
to be problem students and challenging students. So there will be the
rejected students having been controlled out into a cherry-picked group
being tested separately.
It is possible these students are likely to test worse. The private
schools did not want to take them in because they are going to be held
accountable for some 2003-2004 tests. Why the Senator has decided to
include this, I do not know.
So when we look at this bill overall and consider the elements in it,
I am afraid Senator Feinstein's attempt to correct the problems does
not quite solve the problem. We still have some major deficiencies in
this bill.
What bothers me, too, I read in the paper this morning that the Mayor
has said he wants new authority over education in the public schools of
the District of Columbia. At the risk of stepping on the toes of some
of my friends, I think the Mayor is on the right path. The reason I say
it is this: Many of the people who are supporting voucher programs have
given up on public education, for a variety of reasons. For some
political reasons, they believe the teachers' unions support Democrats
and they are going to go after public education and they are going to
fight the teachers' unions. Others have said, just look at the results.
Some of the public schools are not very good. Therefore, there should
be an alternative.
If one takes an honest approach to this, the first obligation of
elected officials in this country is to the system of education which
built America and the system of education which serves more than 90
percent of America's school children, and that is the public school
system.
I say to the Mayor of Washington, who has joined us today, and all
those who are following the debate, do not give up on public education.
Things are happening that are positive in the District of Columbia.
Frankly, I think they have been ignored and played down and there has
been a disservice by some of the rhetoric we have heard about DC public
schools.
There are good things happening: Charter schools and transformational
schools, big changes that are moving in the right direction. I ask the
Mayor, before he gives up on the public school system and says we have
to have vouchers, that there is no other way but to take public tax
funds and send them to private schools, before he gives up on public
education, come to Chicago. Come and look at what has happened there.
In our Chicago public school system, we have 95 percent minority
students and 85 percent students under the poverty level. Yet in a
rather brief period of time we have seen dramatic increases in test
scores because the mayor of the city of Chicago assumed a personal
responsibility for the public school system, brought in some of the
most talented people he could find, challenged the parents, the
teachers, the principals, and the students to do a better job and got
the results to show for it.
My colleagues do not have to give up on public education. They do not
have to say there is no alternative but to let kids escape public
education and go to private schools. There is a lot more that can be
done. It takes some hard-nosed, tough-minded leadership, but I think
the Mayor may be on the right path in what he said this morning. He is
willing to accept more of this responsibility personally and maybe that
is what is necessary.
The Chicago experience tells me it has been a good experience. When
the mayor had the power and the responsibility, good things happened.
Come with me to the city of Chicago and take a drive through many tough
parts of that great part of town. Homes will be found where people in
the lower and middle income are struggling to keep it together and
then, like a mirage or an oasis, one will see the public school where
over the last several years the Chicago public school system has
dedicated dramatic amounts of money to renovate these schools and bring
them back to a source of pride in the community.
No graffiti will be seen on the walls of the school. Flowers will be
seen planted outside and the people in this neighborhood point to that
public school with pride, because the mayor was proud of those schools
and because the people in the neighborhood are, too.
If that mayor or any mayor had said these public schools are a
failure, we are walking away from them, then frankly it would have
created a negative environment. We need a positive environment for
education. Moving to this voucher plan, without adequate hearing,
without the consideration of the options that are available to us,
frankly is a move in the wrong direction.
I also say to my colleagues that as I read through this bill, they
must, I hope, acknowledge the fact there are several things that could
happen they do not anticipate. For example, there is no prohibition in
this bill that the 1,000 to 2,0000 vouchers that are created, whatever
number they turn out to be, will all be given to children who are
already in private schools. There is no prohibition against that.
Though they start with a premise and a goal of moving kids from lower
performing public schools to higher performing private schools, in fact
the testing is not there for comparison.
Second, there is no requirement that the family of the student
receiving the voucher actually bring the student from a public school
to a private school. This could end up diverting a substantial amount
of money to students, and their families, already enrolled in private
schools. Like it or not, the bill is inartfully drawn, and having been
so poorly drawn, that could be the outcome. So they will not be proving
much of a case there, will they, if students are already in the private
schools?
I can go on for some time about the experiments with vouchers in
private schools. I want to close, because I see Senator Kennedy is in
the Chamber and I imagine he would like to make a comment on this bill.
If he does, he is certainly welcome to.
I will close my comments on the Feinstein amendment by urging my
colleagues to oppose it. Senator Feinstein has identified the problem.
She has not identified solutions, not good solutions, not solutions
that are worthy of the first-ever program in the history of the United
States to divert funds from public schools to private schools under a
voucher program.
From my point of view, private schools in many communities add a lot
to education. I am not an enemy of private education. I am a product of
[[Page S11954]]
Catholic education. My wife and I both attended Catholic schools, as
did our children. But we understood our responsibility. Our
responsibility was first to pay our public property taxes, to support
public education, and then if we chose, for religious reasons or
whatever reasons, to send our children to a Catholic school, we
accepted the financial responsibility of paying tuition. It was a
sacrifice for many families. I think they add a lot.
I think we should take care here. We are creating a new system in the
District of Columbia, and there are few protections and safeguards, if
any, to stop the possibility that at some point after we have passed
this bill that some group will decide to open up a private school and
draw in hundreds of thousands of dollars of public taxpayer funds and
the teachers in those schools may not have college degrees, only
associate degrees, the testing in those schools may not match what is
going on in the public schools, and the schools will be allowed to
discriminate against students for such things as disabilities where
they will not allow any children in who have any kind of learning
disability or any physical or mental disability, which would be
allowed, incidentally, under this proposal.
Is that what we want to see happen? Is that what should be the first
test case of this experiment in the voucher program? I think not. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I urge them to think long
and hard that if they voted against vouchers for their States, why is
it now we are making an exception because the case in point involves
the District of Columbia?
These students and their families deserve the same respect as the
students and families in all of our States, and I urge my colleagues to
keep that in mind as we consider this important legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Illinois has
once again demonstrated why he is known as certainly one of the best,
if not the best, debater in the Senate. He does an absolutely excellent
job. I always enjoy debating with him. I thank him for his contribution
to this debate. I know we will have the opportunity to continue to
debate in the days ahead.
My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, will, in a moment,
talk about her amendment and will respond to Senator Durbin's comments
about her amendment. But I would like to make a couple of comments
first about Senator Durbin's comments.
My colleague from Illinois talked about where this plan came from. I
talked earlier about the fact that it is a three-pronged program. That
is what I like about it. I happen to like the fact that a third of the
money goes to the public schools, a third of the money goes to the
charter schools, and a third of the money goes to this new voucher
program.
Somehow, my colleague seems to know--I don't know how, but he seems
to know how this program started. Somehow he seems to know in his
wisdom that this program was some sort of bargain deal. The House
Republicans came to the Mayor and said: Mayor, here's the deal.
It is a funny thing. The Mayor, under the rules of the Senate, cannot
come down here and speak. But if someone would happen to ask the Mayor,
not on the floor--you can't do that; that is against the rules, but if
someone someday would happen to ask the Mayor what the truth is, what
the Mayor would say is that is not true, and this was the Mayor's idea;
that the Mayor and his people said they wanted. This is the program we
want. We want a balanced program because what we want is a choice for
the children and the families of the District of Columbia. We want a
balanced program.
Yes, we want more assistance for the public schools--and the Mayor
has a consistent record of trying to get more money for the public
schools of the District of Columbia, and he is not bashful about that.
He should not be bashful about it. And he is proud about it. Yes, he
wants more money to create more charter schools. Everyone who will vote
on this bill needs to understand when the issue comes, when Senator
Durbin tries to strike the money, what you will be striking is $13
million which will create more charter schools, four or five more
charter schools in the District of Columbia. Everyone needs to
understand that.
The Mayor is proud of the fact that the District of Columbia has
created more charter schools. I must say my colleague, Senator
Landrieu, has been integrally involved in creating those charter
schools. It is something she cares passionately about.
Mr. DURBIN. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. DeWINE. If I may finish the thought and then I will yield.
The Mayor also said: I want more money for my public schools. I want
to continue to improve them. I want more money for the charter schools.
We are proud of what we are doing in that area. And third, I want to
create the voucher program.
So let's clear that up. If anyone has any doubt about it, ask the
Mayor. Go to the source. What the Mayor will say is: It was my idea. I
am the one who had the idea. My people put the program together. We
requested it. This is what we want.
I will be more than happy to yield, not the floor, but for the
purpose of conversation with my colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Ohio.
I would like to ask through the Chair, I certainly will be ready to
yield whenever he would like to ask me a question because I think this
is an important part of the debate, but I ask my colleague if he is
aware of two things. First, the amendment I am going to offer will take
the $13 million out of the school voucher program and divide it equally
among the public and charter schools. The money goes back into public
and charter schools, so they will end up with about $20 million each,
instead of $13 million.
Mr. DeWINE. In response, I have not seen the amendment of my
colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank him for acknowledging that.
Second, I ask my friend and colleague from Ohio if he is aware the
Executive Office of the President released a Statement of
Administration Policy on September 24. In reference to this particular
program it said as follows:
The administration is pleased the committee bill puts $13
million for the President's School Choice Incentive Fund
Initiative. . . .
It doesn't refer to Mayor Williams' School Choice Incentive Fund
Initiative.
Mr. DeWINE. In respond to my colleague, we all like to take credit
for many things. I am sure the President is taking credit for this. I
am sure I will probably take credit for it, too, if it passes. There
will be many fathers and mothers of this program.
All I know is what the Mayor will tell us. The Mayor will say this is
a program he put together.
What I would emphasize to my colleague is that this is a program that
the Mayor says is a balanced program.
I will quote from a letter the Mayor has sent to me. I ask unanimous
consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington, DC, September 11, 2003
Hon. Mike DeWine,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeWine: Thank you for your leadership on the
District of Columbia's FY 2004 Appropriations bill. By any
measure, it is a great bill for the city. In particular, I am
grateful for your support for the District of Columbia School
Improvement Initiative, which will help us advance the
important school reform efforts underway. Certainly, the
private school scholarship element has generated significant
debate, and I hope that I have made the case to your
colleagues that its passage is consonant with home rule and
will strengthen our public education system.
I, along with the Chair of the District Council's Education
Committee, Kevin Chavous, and the School Board President,
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, believe that we must continue to do
everything possible to strengthen our nation's public
schools. This is why, in addition to a private school
scholarship program, we have insisted on strong federal
financial support for both the District of Columbia Public
Schools (DCPS) and the public charter schools.
Since becoming Mayor, I have overseen an increase in the
public education budget by more than 50 percent. This
demonstrates my commitment to public schools as tremendously
important institutions in our city. This increase has allowed
our charter school movement to expand to 40 schools and has
permitted us to launch the Transformation Schools Initiative
in 15 DC public schools,
[[Page S11955]]
which we hope will revitalize our lowest-performing schools.
After consulting with education officials, however, I have
concluded that these aggressive reforms, while promising,
will take years to reach most of our children. So, as these
foundations expand and improve, I think it is prudent to look
to the assets provided by our private schools, at least for a
limited period of time.
The proposed scholarship initiative will not drain
resources from our public school system. I have agreed to
hold the public schools harmless from any loss of local
funding arising from students' enrollments in private schools
through the federally funded scholarship program. Moreover,
because Title I funding is based largely on census data, we
do not anticipate that DC will lose significant federal
funding as a result of this program. Thus, under the
scholarship initiative, our public schools will receive the
same amount of funds as they otherwise would have, in order
to educate fewer students.
Since our city began to debate the issue of expanded school
choice, there has been speculation that this initiative will
have an impact far beyond the borders of Washington, DC. Some
say that what we do in the District will affect national
education policy and the likelihood of pilot programs in
other cities. For me, however, the issue of vouchers is more
localized.
This initiative was designed by District leadership for
District residents and is not being imposed on the District
from outside, as some would have you believe. As mayor, I am
trying to make the best choices for the residents of this
city, and without a state government to which, under normal
circumstances, I would make this request. In this regard, I
believe it is appropriate for the federal government to act
on behalf of the nation's capital when the local mayor and
school board president seek assistance.
You have been a strong supporter of the District of
Columbia and of our aspirations for self-government. Our city
continues to improve in many ways. I hope we can count on
affirmative action from the Senate in support of the School
Choice Improvement Initiative and the entire FY 2004 District
of Columbia Appropriations bill.
Again, I thank you for the extraordinary leadership and
commitment you have shown toward the District. I look forward
to continuing to work closely with you in taking the
necessary actions to support the District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
Mr. DeWINE. This is a letter dated September 11, 2003, to me as
chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, a two-page
letter from Mayor Williams to me.
I would like to quote a part of this letter to my colleagues. This is
the third paragraph:
Since becoming Mayor, I have overseen an increase in the
public education budget by more than 50 percent. This
demonstrates my commitment to public schools as tremendously
important institutions in our city. This increase has allowed
our charter school movement to expand to 40 schools and has
permitted us to launch the Transformation Schools Initiative
in 15 DC public schools, which we hope will revitalize our
lowest-performing schools. After consulting with education
officials, however, I have concluded that these aggressive
reforms, while promising, will take years to reach most of
our children. So, as these foundations expand and improve, I
think it is prudent to look to the assets provided by our
private schools, at least for a limited period of time.
What the Mayor clearly is saying is that as we improve our
public schools, as we have the charter schools, we need
another alternative for some of our students.
Let me quote again, if I could, from the letter:
The proposed scholarship initiative will not drain
resources from our public school system. I have agreed to
hold the public schools harmless from any loss of local
funding arising from students' enrollments in private schools
through the federally funded scholarship program. Moreover,
because Title I funding is based largely on census data, we
do not anticipate that DC will lose significant federal
funding as a result of this program. Thus, under the
scholarship initiative, our public schools will receive the
same amount of funds as they otherwise would have, in order
to educate fewer students.
Let me quote another part of the letter:
This initiative was designed by District leadership for
District residents and is not being imposed on the District
from outside, as some would have you believe. As mayor, I am
trying to make the best choices for the residents of this
city. . . . In this regard, I believe it is appropriate for
the federal government to act on behalf of the nation's
capital when the local mayor and school board president seek
assistance.
At this point, before I yield to my colleague, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator make the request again?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested the yeas and nays.
Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
The question is on the call for the yeas and nays. Is there a
sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I very much disagree with the position of the Senator from Illinois.
I understand this is something that is new. I understand it is
something being tried. I understand it turns counter to a lot of what
has been done in the educational establishment today. But that doesn't
mean it shouldn't be tried.
I wish to correct one point. I asked the Mayor if he believed he got
a Faustian bargain. He said no, he didn't. He said: As a matter of
fact, I proposed the three-pronged asset portion of this. In other
words, one-third of the money would be new money to the schools, one-
third of the money would be new money to charter schools, and one-third
of the money would be new money to try this special scholarship program
for poor children.
I would like the Record to reflect the rationale for the language in
my amendment on the testing. In order to guarantee a valid and
statistically reliable evaluation, we are told it is vital that we have
the scholarship student and those students who applied for the
scholarship but didn't get it take the same test for all 5 years. If
the District should switch tests at some point in the 5-year duration
of the program, we need to continue giving the test to start with,
which today in the District is the Stanford 9 test. That is a norm-
referenced test which is given all over the country, and it would
preserve the evaluation. The use of the same exact test for all 5 years
is critical to be able to compare apples to apples. If the District
changes tests during these 5 years, you have a false comparison; you
have apples to oranges. That is the reason the language is as it is.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I finish?
Any parent applying for this scholarship must agree that their child
will take the Stanford 9 test for all 5 years regardless of whether
they receive a scholarship or not.
Let me tell you what this is all about. I recognize the Senator
doesn't like it. That is fine. He doesn't have to vote for it. But what
this is all about is that 76 percent of DC fourth graders performed
below basic in math, and only 10 percent read proficiently. Only 12
percent of eighth graders read proficiently.
That is what this is all about--to see if, by learning some of the
basics, these children have a better start in education in a different
model, in a different setting, with a different structure than
currently exists in public education. It may work. It may not work. But
these are all poor children. They are all in failing schools. Why not
give them a chance?
I suppose you could fault it by saying, well, everyone who instructs
one of these children in these schools should have more than a college
degree. Sure. I would like to do it. I don't know that we can condition
the requirement in every private secular school or every private
parochial school that may accept one of these children.
I took high school classes from nuns who didn't have college degrees.
And guess what. I got into Stanford based on what I learned in high
school. So I came to realize that these absolute requirements may be
right if we are going into this on a permanent basis, but we are not;
we are going into it on a temporary basis. This pilot gives us an
opportunity to see whether these children progress better in different
settings. What is the difference if those different settings happen to
be private parochial, or they happen to be private secular school
settings?
I cannot tell you how many parents write to me and ask: Can you help
me get my child into a private school? Please help me. These are
parents who have funds. What about the parents who do not have funds?
They don't have a chance at this. All this does is give them that
opportunity.
If you do not like it, don't vote for it. That is easy. But some of
us want to see what works and what doesn't work.
[[Page S11956]]
They said the same thing to Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown about his idea
to start a military school in Oakland. A public military school?
Horrors. The school board voted it down. Fortunately, the Mayor of
Oakland is a persistent personality. He went to the State and got a
special charter to open a military school so that youngsters from the
deeply troubled socioeconomic areas in the city of Oakland would have a
shot of going to college. Now they have 350 kids who are 3 years into
the program, and they are testing as the second best middle school in
Oakland. That is discipline. It is amazing. Different models work for
different youngsters.
That is why I am supporting this approach.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You might not find the ``i'' dotted or the ``t''
crossed exactly the way you would like to have the ``i'' dotted or the
``t'' crossed.
This isn't a program that is national. It is not a program that is
going to exist for 50 years. It is a program that is going to be tried
for 5 years. Either poor children will do better or they won't. And the
test is going to be--
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't know whether I want to yield to the Senator
or not.
Mr. DURBIN. Just say no. No is also an answer.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon?
Mr. DURBIN. No is an answer, if you don't want to answer.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am thinking about it.
Mr. DURBIN. It is your prerogative.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend and colleague from California.
I have no doubt that she offered this amendment--I say through the
Chair--to address some of the concerns raised in the committee.
I ask my friend from California to turn to page 2 of her amendment
and consider paragraph B on page 2. I will read it. It says:
Use the same assessment every school year used for school
year 2003-2004 by the District of Columbia public schools to
assess the achievement of DC public school students.
I will ask the question, and then I will sit down.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fair enough.
Mr. DURBIN. Currently, the DC Public School System, like many public
school systems, is in transition under the No Child Left Behind Act and
the 2005 requirement that students be tested every year. Currently,
their public school students are only tested every other year.
By establishing as a standard for the next 5 years for the District
of Columbia voucher program using the 2003-2004 assessments, the
Senator is saying they will only be tested every other year, while
students in public schools by the year 2005 have to be tested every
year.
If the Senator had said here that you will comply with the No Child
Left Behind Act testing requirement, it would have been easy. But
instead, you picked one particular year, and I don't think you reach
the standard which you have described to our colleagues.
Is that true or not?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What you have just stated and what I have been told
is that in order to have a fair test evaluation and compare apples to
apples, the same test has to be used, which in the District is the
Stanford 9, for the 5-year period. So that is the test now being given.
If the District changes--I think it is called a criterion-based test--
and I gather the District is considering changing them, this control
group would still have to take the Stanford 9 to see if they have
progressed.
Now I am told if somebody says, I am happy to change it, I am told
you cannot get a fair test if we change it.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield the floor, I would like to ask
this question.
Does the Senator understand that by the year 2005 under No Child Left
Behind, every public school in America, including the District of
Columbia, will have to test every grade every year; but in the current
school year, schools are moving toward that goal. In the District of
Columbia they are only testing every other year.
It is not a question of changing the test. I am asking the Senator
from California, does she understand if we stick to the 2003-2004
standard, she will only be testing every other grade while every public
school in the District of Columbia and across the Nation will be moving
to every grade, every year by 2005? Her bill, her standards, will not
be following that same assessment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I understand it, the Stanford 9 is a nationally
norm-referenced test. It can certainly be given every year, and I
believe the Mayor will agree to that.
If your question is, Are you saying the students will be tested every
other year instead of every year, what I am saying is we can use it
every year. If you are saying we want the test to change in the middle
of the test period, I am being told that will mess up any fair
evaluation.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I am not suggesting changing the test. The same test
should be administered in a private school as administered in a public
school.
I am suggesting to the Senator, as she has written this amendment,
the 2003-2004 testing in the D.C. public schools, her standard for 5
years only tests every other grade. By 2005 every grade will be tested.
It is not the substantive test that is the issue. It is a question of
whether every grade will be tested every year.
The reason I raise this, and I hope the Senator agrees, should have
been worked out in the education committee after hearings and markup in
the amendment process. We are doing it on the fly, on the floor,
creating the first private school voucher program in America and
discussing as we go.
That is my concern.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator's concern.
If the Senator from Ohio agrees, I am very happy to have my amendment
modified to provide that the voucher recipients and the students in the
control group be given the same test that all District public schools
students are given.
With respect to this being done in the education committee, I
probably agree, except it would probably get bogged down one way. The
reason it is in the appropriations bill is because the Mayor has come
to us and asked us for the additional money. The additional money is
what brought this on. Once the additional money was in the bill, then
the terms of the money came to bear and the bill had to be written.
It is not easy. There are powerful forces against it. People do not
want to try it. I do. I hope a majority want to try it. We have tried
to do the best we can.
Even more importantly, what has been developed here is a relationship
between the city and Members of this Senate with this Mayor. I happen
to respect this Mayor. I am a taxpaying citizen of this District. I
have been so for 10 years. I used to go down the street where there was
a pothole so big somebody plugged it up with a mattress. I am very
pleased to say, Mr. Mayor, that pothole is gone now. The District is in
much better shape. People are coming back to the District. He wants
this.
The question was also raised, it is easy to do it here. I am not in
my own jurisdiction. I tried to point out, the mayor of Oakland came to
me in my own jurisdiction to do something that was a new model; I
agreed to it. I am going to look at new models and try to support them
where I can, also support teachers, also support Title I, and also
support public education.
Amendment No. 1787 to amendment No. 1783, As Modified
I ask the Member from Ohio if he would be in agreement that we submit
a modification and ask our amendment be modified to reflect that the
test be given annually?
Mr. DeWINE. I would certainly have no objection to that. It at best
is ambiguous. It is always good to clarify.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I direct a question to the Senator from
Ohio?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from California has
the right to modify her amendment. However, to do so, she would have to
send it to the desk.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I modify the amendment on page 2, line 3, strike
``that are used for school year 2003-2004.''
[[Page S11957]]
I send that modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to make that
modification to her amendment. However, she needs to send a
modification to the desk.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 1787), as modified, is as follows:
On page 31, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 32, line 2, and insert the following:
(c) Student Assessments.--The Secretary may not approve an
application from an eligible entity for a grant under this
title unless the eligible entity's application--
(1) ensures that the eligible entity will--
(A) assess the academic achievement of all participating
eligible students;
(B) use the same assessments every school year that are
used by the District of Columbia Public Schools to assess the
achievement of District of Columbia public school students
under section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(A)), to assess
participating eligible students in the same grades as such
public school students;
(C) provide assessment results and other relevant
information to the Secretary or to the entity conducting the
evaluation under section 9 so that the Secretary or the
entity, respectively, can conduct an evaluation that shall
include, but not be limited to, a comparison of the academic
achievement of participating eligible students in the
assessments described in this subsection to the achievement
of--
(i) students in the same grades in the District of Columbia
public schools; and
(ii) the eligible students in the same grades in District
of Columbia public schools who sought to participate in the
scholarship program but were not selected; and
(D) disclose any personally identifiable information only
to the parents of the student to whom the information
relates; and
(2) describes how the eligible entity will ensure that the
parents of each student who applies for a scholarship under
this title (regardless of whether the student receives the
scholarship), and the parents of each student participating
in the scholarship program under this title, agree that the
student will participate in the assessments used by the
District of Columbia Public Schools to assess the achievement
of District of Columbia public school students under section
1111(b)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(A)), for the period for which
the student applied for or received the scholarship,
respectively.
(d) Independent Evaluation.--The Secretary and Mayor of the
District of Columbia shall jointly select an independent
entity to evaluate annually the performance of students who
received scholarships under the 5-year pilot program under
this title, and shall make the evaluations public. The first
evaluation shall be completed and made available not later
than 9 months after the entity is selected pursuant to the
preceding sentence.
(e) Teacher Quality.--Each teacher who instructs
participating eligible students under the scholarship program
shall possess a college degree
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Reid are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Arizona.
____________________