[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S765-S766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOOL CHOICE
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
my remarks at the Brookings Institution earlier today be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
School Choice
I am delighted to be here, but I should warn you: Based on
my track record, I'm probably not your most reliable observer
on school choice.
If I take you back to September 1992, I gave a speech at
Ashland University in Ohio, and I predicted that by the year
2000 ``school choice will not be an issue.''
I suggested that an Ashland student writing a thesis in
2000 ought to make the subject parental choice of schools,
because by then, I said, ``It will be a matter of history.
[[Page S766]]
``Your colleagues will wonder along with you as you examine
this strange era when we granted government monopolies
control of the most valuable and important enterprises in
town, and so many people fought furiously to keep doors to
many of the best schools closed to poor children.
``They will ask, how could this have ever happened in
America, at a time when the ideas of freedom, choice and
opportunity were sweeping the rest of the world?''
My prediction might not have been right, but not because we
didn't try.
In 1984, I gave a speech at the University of the South
outlining the ``deep ruts'' into which American K-12
education had fallen. One of those was the lack of school
choice for parents.
In 1985, the National Governors Association (NGA) embarked
on a project called ``Time for Results.'' We divided into
seven task forces, each chaired by a governor, to ask seven
of the toughest questions you could ask about American
education. One of those questions was, ``Why not let parents
choose the schools their children attend?'' The task force
working on that question was chaired by the Democratic
governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, who said then, ``You
know, it is interesting that America is a land of choices. We
have 100 breakfast cereals to choose from, 200 different
makes of cars. But in this one educational area . . . we have
not done a lot in choice.''
Then in 1992, President Bush proposed his ``GI Bill for
Children,'' which was a plan to allow states and cities to
give $1,000 annual scholarships in new federal dollars to
each child of a middle- and low-income family in a
participating state or locality.
Families could spend the scholarships at any lawfully
operated school--public, private or religious.
And up to half of the scholarship could be spent on other
academic programs, like a Saturday math tutoring program or a
summer accelerated language course.
That year, the Carnegie Foundation had reported that 28
percent of our nation's parents would like to send their
child to a different school.
Today, that number is even higher--it is, in fact, more
than twice as high. A recent 2013 Luntz Global study found
that 64 percent of parents said that ``if given the financial
opportunity,'' they would send one or all of their children
to a different school.
The last 23 years have seen some positive changes in the
ability of parents to choose their children's schools.
Today all 50 states and Washington, D.C. offer to some
students alternatives to the school they would normally be
assigned based on their residence.
Approximately 15 percent of school-age children attend a
school other than their school of residence through open-
enrollment programs.
Policies in 42 states allow some, or all, parents to send
their children to public schools outside their districts.
Of those 42 states--15 states require districts to
participate, 23 allow them to participate, and three require
it specifically for low-income students and students in
failing schools.
In 31 states, parents are allowed to choose among schools
within their district.
Of those 31 states--16 states require districts to
participate, 10 allow them to participate, and 6 require it
for low-income students or students in failing schools 6
states.
More than 2.5 million--or nearly five percent of all public
school children--are enrolled in more than 6,000 public
charter schools in 42 states and D.C. Typically parents
choose to enroll their children in these schools.
In addition, today more than 300,000 children are served by
41 private school choice programs across 19 states, D.C., and
Douglas County, Colorado. These programs often give students
who meet certain criteria--usually based on income, special
needs, or academic performance--an opportunity for a voucher,
tax credit program, or education savings account to allow
them to attend private schools.
Also, the option for homeschooling is available in all
states and parents of about three percent of school-age
children choose to homeschool.
Allowing students to choose among schools is not a new idea
for the federal government.
Allowing federal dollars to follow students has been a
successful strategy in American education for 70 years.
In 1944, the G.I. Bill allowed veterans to choose among
colleges, public or private.
Today, about $136 billion in federal grants and loans
continue to follow students to the college or university of
their choice.
Just last year, Congress reauthorized the $2.4 billion
Child Care and Development Block Grant program, or CCDBG,
which, when combined with other federal and state funding,
helps approximately 900,000 families pay for child care of
their choice while they work or attend school, mostly through
vouchers.
These are among the most successful and popular federal
programs--why is it so hard to apply the same sorts of
choices to elementary and secondary schools?
What can the federal government do now to expand the
opportunity parents have to choose the most appropriate
school for their children?
The first is Scholarships for Kids. This is a bill I
introduced that would use $24 billion of the federal dollars
we spend each year on K-12 education and allow states to
create $2,100 scholarships to follow 11 million low-income
children to any public or private school of their parents'
choice.
Also, the discussion draft I've just released to fix No
Child Left Behind gives states the option of using $14.5
billion in Title I money to follow 11 million low income
children to the public school they attend.
Most people agree that Title I money, which is supposed to
help low-income kids, gets diverted to different schools
because of a formula that targets money to districts based on
how much states spend per student. That is largely influenced
by teacher salaries.
The simplest way to solve that problem is to let that money
follow the child to the school they attend. You could do that
to just public schools, which has been the tradition with
Title I money, or to private schools, which is what I would
prefer.
The second is the CHOICE Act. This is a proposal by Senator
Tim Scott to allow about $11 billion the federal government
now spends for children with disabilities to follow those six
million children to the schools their parents believe provide
the best services.
I think it's important to note that these bills do not
require states to do anything--instead they give them the
option to have money follow the child.
The third is the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Senator Scott's CHOICE Act would also expand the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program that began in 2004 and has
provided about 6,000 low-income students in Washington, D.C.
with the opportunity to receive a scholarship to attend a
private school of their parents' choice. Today, far more
parents in the city have applied for the scholarships than
have received them.
The fourth is expanding charter schools. In my final year
as education secretary under President George H. W. Bush, I
wrote every school superintendent in America asking them to
try this new idea from Minnesota called ``start-from-scratch
schools.'' At the time there were only twelve of them. They
were the first charter schools. Today there are more than
6,000.
Charter schools have had strong bipartisan support--
including from President Clinton and Secretary Duncan.
We've got in our discussion draft provisions that would
streamline and update the existing Charter Schools Program
to:
Provide grants to State entities to start new charter
schools and to replicate or expand high-quality charter
schools.
Provide grants to entities to enhance credit methods to
finance charter school facilities.
Provide grants to charter management organizations, like
KIPP or Rocketship in my home state of Tennessee, to
replicate or expand high-quality charter schools.
Our goal is to grow the federal investment in expanding and
replicating high-quality charter schools with a demonstrated
record of success, and hold charter schools accountable for
their performance.
Other senators also have some good proposals. Senators Paul
and Lee both have bills to allow federal dollars from Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to follow low-
income children to the public or private school of their
parents' choice. Senator Rubio has a bill that creates a new
federal tax credit for individual and corporate donations to
organizations that provide low-income students with private
school scholarships.
As for the future, I think I've learned my lesson--I'm not
about to make a prediction.
It looks like it will be a while before school choice will
be a matter of history.
But the progress so many have made is impressive--there is
plenty of opportunity to do more.
As Ross Perot told me in 1984, ``Changing the public
schools of Texas was the hardest, meanest, bloodiest thing
I've ever tried to do.''
Since I'm not going to make a prediction then I'll end with
a question--the same one I asked in 1992: If we trust parents
to choose child care for their children, and we trust them to
help their children choose a college to attend--and both
those systems have been so successful--why do we not also
trust them to choose the best elementary or high school for
their children?
____________________