[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7061-H7077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 480 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1552
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 10) to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holding in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the Scholarships
for Opportunity and Results, or SOAR, Reauthorization Act.
The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues the three-sector approach to
education within the District of Columbia. This approach gives equal
funding to D.C. Public Schools, D.C. Public Charter Schools, and the
Opportunity Scholarship Program, often referred to as the OSP.
The OSP gives scholarships to children in low-income families to
attend a private school so that those children can experience a quality
education. The average OSP family makes less than $22,000 per year.
These scholarships allow families to place their children in learning-
rich environments.
District of Columbia Public Schools rank at the top in spending per
student, but are near the bottom in academic performance. The
Opportunity Scholarship Program gives these students the education they
deserve so they can pursue the American Dream.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 works not only to provide scholarships to
students who need them the most, but also to improve the current state
of public school and public charter school education. This bill
authorizes equal funding for D.C. Public Schools and for D.C. Public
Charter Schools in addition to the Opportunity scholarships.
My friends across the aisle claim that the SOAR Act takes money away
from public education. However, that is quite the opposite. The SOAR
Act increases funding for public education in the District of Columbia.
In fact, since the three-sector approach has been in effect, D.C.
Public Schools and D.C. Public Charter Schools have received a combined
$435 million in Federal funding for school improvement.
Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia schools would not have
received these funds had it not been for the OSP and this three-sector
approach. Now we are debating reauthorizing this approach and giving
$20 million annually to each sector for 5 years, $300 million across 5
years for D.C. education.
It is hard to imagine how anyone who advocates for public education
would oppose such an approach that has poured millions of dollars into
the D.C. public education system, particularly since the OSP is getting
a great return on its investment and is producing results. The OSP
produces $2.62 in benefits for every dollar spent on the program,
according to a study conducted by one of the program's evaluators.
[[Page H7062]]
Mr. Chairman, you would be hard pressed to find another government
program that generates this sort of result and bang for your buck. We
are talking about a 162 percent return on investment here, an
investment that has not taken one dime from public education.
Mr. Chairman, it is good stuff. We talk about how to keep this
program going because it is really affecting real people and real
lives. We talk about the individual students and their families, but it
is also borne out in the statistics.
The Opportunity Scholarship students are averaging a 90 percent
graduation rate--90 percent--compared to D.C. Public Schools, which was
roughly less than a 60 percent graduation rate in 2013 and 2014.
Further, some 88 percent of the Opportunity Scholarship participants
enroll in college. Not only are they graduating high school at record
levels above and beyond what is happening in public schools, but they
are also going on to higher education.
These children, though, are more than a graduation statistic. Their
individual lives have been forever changed because of the OSP.
I want to remind our colleagues about Joseph Kelley's son, Rashawn
Williams. He had fallen behind in every single subject. His father had
to get the courts involved to ensure that his school was following its
requirements pursuant to Rashawn's individual education plan. Mr.
Kelley was able to get Rashawn a scholarship through the Opportunity
Scholarship Program and has said: ``I truly shudder to think where my
son would be today without it.''
Mr. Chairman, the OSP is changing outcomes for the least advantaged.
The program places kids in safer high-quality schools that allow them
to receive a good education. It brings funding to all sectors of
education in D.C. to improve education opportunities for all.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the bill requires all
participating Opportunity Scholarship schools to be accredited. The
accreditation standards give the taxpayer--and, more importantly,
Opportunity Scholarship families--assurances that District students are
receiving the education they deserve.
The Opportunity Scholarship currently limits entrance based on a
control group for an evaluation study. H.R. 10 removes this arbitrary
requirement, instituting a new study to track the results of the
Opportunity Scholarships. Removing this barrier to entry increases
access to the program and means more families can be afforded quality
education for their children.
Mr. Chairman, we had the opportunity to debate this bill in the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I appreciate the
perspectives heard from both sides. We had a good, productive field
hearing.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of
the House, our friend and colleague, for authoring this legislation. He
has poured his heart and soul out, trying to do what he can do to help
these young children. It has had a very positive effect on so many
lives and in future generations. It is something we can all be proud
about.
He has worked tirelessly to bring opportunity to students within the
District of Columbia, and he will be remembered by this body for his
effort to bring a quality education to all. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give students in the District
of Columbia the opportunity for a quality education by reauthorizing a
program that actually works and produces results. It affects real
lives. It is called the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't really expect to be on the floor this
afternoon managing this bill. Ironically, I was scheduled to host a
briefing today for Members and staff on the constitutionality of the
District of Columbia statehood bill, where I was going to show a 17-
minute HBO ``Last Week Tonight'' clip from John Oliver that lampoons
the Congress for denying District residents their voting rights, budget
and legislative autonomy, and statehood.
Instead, here I am on the floor in a virtual reality show not
speaking about the right to self-government, but fighting this latest
attempt by the Republican Congress to impose its ideology on D.C.
residents.
{time} 1600
I ask to include the D.C. Council's letter opposing this bill in the
Record.
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, October 8, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairperson, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Chairperson Chaffetz: We write as locally elected officials
to express our opposition to renewed efforts to expand a
federally funded school voucher program in the District of
Columbia. We appreciate your interest in providing support to
public education in the District. We strongly believe,
however, that federal funds should be invested in the
existing public education system--both public schools and
public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private
schools.
We support the decision by Congress and the President
several years ago to phase out the voucher program. Multiple
U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that the
program has not lived up to the promises made by proponents.
These studies along with two troubling Government
Accountability Office reports have also revealed that many of
the students participating in the voucher program attend
private schools with fewer resources and lower standards than
our public schools. The evidence is clear that the use of
vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on
overall student achievement in math or reading, or for
students from schools in need of improvement.
We have serious concerns about using government funds to
send our students to private schools that do not have to
adhere to the same standards and accountability as do public
and public charter schools. For example, private religious
schools, which 80% of students with vouchers attend, operate
outside the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human
Rights Act. Moreover, the voucher proposal is inequitable: if
fully funded, the authorization would provide many more
dollars per student for vouchers than is allocated per
student in public schools and public charter schools.
Although we believe that students who are already receiving
a voucher should have the opportunity to maintain and use
that voucher through graduation from high school, we do not
support expansion of the program to new students. The
District devotes considerable funds to public education, and
our local policies promote choice for parents. Indeed, over
the past decade the quality of public education in D.C. has
increased, as a result of reforms and targeted investment.
Families can choose from an array of educational institutions
based on publicly available performance metrics, both within
the D.C. Public Schools system and among the myriad public
charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has
called the progress of D.C. Public Schools ``remarkable'',
while the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has
ranked the District's charter sector as the best in the
country.
Despite such ample evidence that the Congressionally
imposed voucher program is ineffective, while D.C. public
schools improve every year, some members of Congress continue
to see our city as their personal petri dish. It is insulting
to our constituents, who vote for us but not for any voting
member of Congress, that some of your colleagues push their
personal agendas on D.C. in a way they could never do in
their home states. Attacking D.C. home rule, including any
expansion of the voucher program, is irresponsible governing
on the part of Congress.
We call on you to respect the wishes of the District's
elected officials on the quintessentially local matter of
education as you consider this issue.
Sincerely,
David Grosso, DC Council, At-Large, Chairperson Committee
on Education; Charles Allen, DC Council, Ward 6,
Member, Committee on Education; LaRuby May, DC Council,
Ward 8; Elissa Silverman, DC Council, At-Large; Anita
Bonds, DC Council, At-Large, Member, Committee on
Education; Yvette Alexander, DC Council, Ward 7,
Member, Committee on Education; Brianne Nadeau, DC
Council, Ward 1; Jack Evans, DC Council, Ward 2.
Ms. NORTON. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I have sought a compromise that should
be acceptable to Republicans, as it is to President Obama.
We support, and I repeat, we support allowing our current D.C.
voucher students to remain in the program until graduation. That
ensures D.C. would have voucher students for many years to come.
That is the kind of sensible compromise that Congress must get back
to or be content with the label ``least productive Congress,'' as it
has come to be known each year under this majority.
[[Page H7063]]
This bill goes beyond the compromise, we have offered, by seeking to
admit new students as well. We are here so that Speaker John Boehner
has a capstone to his own political career. The D.C. voucher program is
his pet project, not D.C.'s. The Speaker has introduced only two bills
this Congress: a bill on the Iran nuclear agreement and this bill.
Even if Members do not respect D.C.'s right to self-government, they
should at least care whether the program improves achievement, which
was the stated reason for vouchers in the first place. Far from helping
students, however, the program has demonstrably failed.
According to the congressionally mandated evaluation of the program's
effectiveness, this program, these vouchers, have failed to improve
academic achievement, as measured by objective math and reading testing
scores.
Most importantly, the program has not had significant impacts--that
is also from the congressionally mandated evaluation--has not had
``significant impacts'' on the achievement of students whom the program
was designed to most benefit: those who previously attended low-
performing public schools.
The majority cites improved high school graduation rates. However,
the evaluation did not examine dropout rates or the rigor of the
schools' curriculum or graduation requirements.
The majority also cites high college attendance rates. However, the
evaluation did not measure college attendance rates.
Even if the program were successful, Mr. Chairman, it would still not
be needed, at least in the District of Columbia, which has perhaps the
most robust public school choice program in the country. Almost 50
percent of our public school students attend charter schools, which the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranked as the strongest in
the Nation. In addition, 75 percent of public school students in the
District attend out-of-boundary schools. What D.C. has developed
amounts to a model choice education program.
Moreover, the D.C. public schools have made some of the most
impressive improvements in the country, by any measure, spurred by
competition from the rapidly growing D.C. charter schools, not from the
small number of voucher schools. In fact, a 2013 assessment of D.C.
public schools indicated that the District had made the greatest
improvement of any urban school district in the Nation.
D.C. charter schools have even higher educational achievement and
attainment than D.C. public schools. D.C. charter schools outperform
D.C. public schools across traditionally disadvantaged groups,
including African Americans and low-income students, and have a higher
percentage of such students, precisely the students the voucher program
was ostensibly designed to serve.
Greater confidence in D.C.'s public schools is also clear. D.C.
public school enrollment has increased for 7 consecutive years, right
alongside the very large number of charter schools.
If Congress wants to support D.C. students, we ask that you support
our home rule public choice, not impose yours. Any new funding for
education in the District should reinforce the hard work of our city,
our parents, and our residents, who have shown the Nation how to build
a fully accountable public school choice program. D.C. residents, not
unaccountable Members of Congress, know best what our children need and
how to govern our own affairs.
During this debate, Mr. Chairman, we will consider an amendment I
have offered to restore the scientific integrity of the program's
evaluation, one like the evaluation Congress has always mandated, and
another to crack down on so-called voucher mills.
Given that the Speaker's bill will surely pass, I want to work with
Members who support vouchers to ensure that our voucher students attend
high-quality schools, like our accredited Catholic and other parochial
schools, not fly-by-night, often storefront schools in low-income
neighborhoods that were opened only after the voucher program was
created to get access to unrestricted Federal funds.
I appreciate that the majority indicated in committee and on the
floor that they also want to prevent voucher mills. I look forward to
continuing to work with them as this bill moves forward to protect our
families from voucher mills.
Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, Congress gave the District authority
to establish its own education system; and unlike some other local
jurisdictions, D.C. has never created a voucher program. Instead, like
many D.C. bills in Congress, this bill seeks to impose a program on the
District that does not have national support.
Just think of it. Only 3 months ago, both the House and Senate
defeated Republican national private voucher amendments on the floor.
Members reject private school vouchers for their own constituents but
want to impose them on mine. No wonder.
Since 1970, every single referendum to establish State-funded
vouchers or tuition tax credits has failed, and by large margins. Now
the majority wants to do to the District what it would not dare do at
home. The recent vote to deny voucher funding on a national level shows
where Republicans really stand.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for this opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today, after looking in the eyes of
the kids, students, their parents, eyes filled with hope and
opportunity and success.
I come to the floor today to add my support for H.R. 10, the SOAR
Reauthorization Act, because it works. This legislation will ensure the
continuation of the successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,
which was established by Congress in 2004, to provide eligible low-
income families in the District of Columbia with the opportunity to
attend the school of their choice.
Innovative programs like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program are
necessary to fix our broken educational system and prepare our children
for the 21st century workforce, and I am confounded that any of my
colleagues would oppose a program that provides students with an
opportunity for a better education, especially one that has been an
unqualified success.
On average, students in the Opportunity Scholarship Program have a
graduation rate of 90 percent, well above the national average, as well
as D.C.'s overall graduation rate of 58 percent. These students
continue to succeed in their pursuit of higher education, with 88
percent of the graduates going on to attend a 2- or 4-year college or
university.
While the benefits to D.C. children are clear, the program also plays
an important role in empowering parents to make the best choice for
their kids and engaging them in their educational and academic
progress. A recent survey of parents found that 85 percent of parents
are happy with their child's current Opportunity Scholarship Program
school.
H.R. 10 has garnered the support from a wide array of stakeholders.
Just yesterday, in an op-ed entitled ``A Misguided Attack on D.C.'s
Needy Students,'' The Washington Post editorial board defended the SOAR
Act and wrote in support of reauthorizing the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program, noting that over 6,100 children have benefited
from the program, while thousands more are on waiting lists.
The Washington Post also notes that nearly 75 percent of D.C.
residents support the program, which has provided more than $600
million in funding for traditional public schools, charter public
schools, and the voucher program.
It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not take
any funding away from D.C. public schools. In fact, the legislation
authorizes equal funding to public schools, charter schools, and
scholarships.
With an average family income of less than $22,000 for participating
families, this program really is a lifeline for low-income D.C.
families, offering students up to $1,572 to pay for tuition, fees, and
transportation. Why, Mr. Chairman, would any of us want to prohibit
these students and families from opportunity and success?
This is a hand up to the American Dream. Ensuring our children have
access to the best possible education
[[Page H7064]]
should not be a partisan issue, and receiving a quality education
should not be limited to people of means.
I urge my colleagues to continue supporting this program and pass
H.R. 10. It is the right thing to do. Let's do it for the kids.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply want to say, once again, that no child currently enrolled in
the program under the compromise that I have offered would be stricken
from the program and all current voucher students could stay until
graduation. It is new students that we object to, given the evaluation
that shows that the program had not met its goal, which was to improve
reading and math scores. By contrast, we have had improvement in
reading and math scores both in the D.C. public schools and the D.C.
charter schools.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there is no waiting list for vouchers in the
District of Columbia. However, there are long waiting lists for our
charter schools, and now, even for some public schools.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
{time} 1615
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from D.C.
Mr. Chair, it is extremely unfortunate that we are here yet again
debating legislation that would interfere with the ability of D.C.
residents to make decisions for themselves. So far this Congress, the
House has attempted to block laws that would protect District women's
reproductive rights and reform Washington's drug laws. And now we are
asked to continue a failed private school voucher program, a program
that a majority of the D.C. Council opposes and on which they are not
even consulted, a program that D.C.'s own longtime Congresswoman
opposes.
I am shocked at the arrogance of this body to set aside the will of
the citizens of the District of Columbia so fleetingly. It is
disgraceful that in this building, a symbol of our democracy, we impose
such policies on a city that does not even get a vote on these
decisions.
Additionally, I oppose this bill because it weakens D.C.'s public
school system. Instead of taking public dollars to outsource our
children's education to private schools, we should be focusing on truly
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We need an
updated ESEA that strengthens public schools for all our children and
prepares students for the globally competitive world we live in.
Education should be the great equalizer, and every student should
have access to the best education, regardless of their ZIP Code or
their socioeconomic status. There are public schools in this country
that are among the very best in the world. I am proud that several of
them are in my district.
Mr. Chair, we know that public schools can work when we properly
support them; but, unfortunately, for certain communities, far too many
schools continue to struggle due to lack of resources on one hand and
relentless attempts to undermine them on the other. Private vouchers
only further perpetuate these inequities by siphoning additional
resources for few students while leaving the rest behind in underfunded
public schools.
In our global economy, it is more essential than ever that every
child receives a quality education. To do that, our public schools need
adequate resources. Diverting public money to private and parochial
schools only worsens the problem.
I support access to a world-class public education for all students;
but too often, the majority in this body undercut that goal, whether
through the so-called Student Success Act that leaves students in a
lurch or today's SOAR bill that sorely misses the point.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the people of the District of
Columbia and their elected representative, Ms. Norton. Most
importantly, listen to the teachers and the parents who oppose this
bill, and reject this legislation.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chairman of the Republican
Policy Committee.
Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support today of H.R. 10, the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
I want to commend Speaker Boehner for introducing this important
legislation and thank him for a lifetime of extraordinary leadership on
this issue. Throughout his speakership and under his leadership as a
former chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Speaker Boehner improved educational opportunities for all students.
Literally thousands of kids have access to the American Dream because
of his dedication to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. As
chairman of the Congressional School Choice Caucus, I was honored to
have Speaker Boehner keynote a rally earlier this year with hundreds of
Opportunity Scholarship recipients.
I have to tell you, I am amazed at some of the rhetoric that I have
been hearing today, talking about it is disgraceful that this
legislation is before you.
I will tell you what is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that any child
in America has to go to a terrible school, and it is disgraceful that
anyone would say that we should do anything but make sure that every
one of these kids has an opportunity to go somewhere where they will
have a chance to succeed.
Every child deserves equal access to a great education. Lots of kids
have great public school options in America. Other families can afford
to send their kids to private school if they don't have a great public
school option. This debate today is about what we do for those who
don't.
Unfortunately, too many kids in our country have their destiny
determined by their ZIP Code. These children are stuck in poorly
performing schools, and their parents feel powerless to do anything
about it.
That is why education choice and the Opportunity Scholarship Program
matter. Programs like D.C. OSP allow parents to choose the best
educational environment for their child. The freedom provided by school
choice levels the playing field and helps ensure all children have a
chance to succeed.
This legislation will continue to bring greater educational
opportunities to the most underprivileged students in the District of
Columbia, and it takes zero--let me repeat that--zero dollars away from
D.C. Public Schools. Because of this legislation, more than 6,000
students have had the opportunity to attend a great school. Even
better, an incredible 90 percent of D.C. OSP students graduate from
high school. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is clearly a
success and needs to continue.
Mr. Chair, I hope for a day when we will be talking about even bolder
proposals on this floor, because the truth is we already have school
choice in America if you can afford it. The only real question is: What
are we going to do for everybody else?
Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that
all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights.
In modern America, the pursuit of happiness comes on the back of a
quality education.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I want to remind the gentleman that the $100
million doesn't come out of the air, that this majority is cutting $2
billion from K-12. Most of our children are K-12. That money has to
come from somewhere. We know it comes from education funds.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, legislation
that would reauthorize the D.C. private school voucher program.
This bill prioritizes an ideological agenda over the rights of D.C.
residents to self-govern and, more importantly, over the rights of all
students to get a quality education.
In study after study, the voucher program has failed to show any
meaningful improvement in student achievement, safety, satisfaction,
motivation, or engagement; yet since 2003, it has received nearly $190
million while failing to adhere to basic accountability standards.
Its funding should be dedicated to improving our underfunded and
underresourced public school system, a school system that is required
by law to serve all students.
[[Page H7065]]
Unlike public schools, private schools receiving voucher students
have no requirement to serve all students. Specifically, they are able
to--and do--reject students based on prior academic achievement,
language ability, socioeconomic background, and other discriminatory
factors.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. TAKANO. Many do not offer the necessary services for students
with disabilities.
It is a mistake to continue funding a program that fails to serve all
students, damages the public school system, and disregards the
District's right to choose its own education policy.
I thank the gentlewoman from D.C. for yielding me the time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each
side has.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 17 minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I love America. America should be number
one, and America's capital should be number one.
I love to talk to immigrants who do so much of the work in our
Capital City. They all know America is great. They gush about how
anybody can work in America and realize the American Dream.
But when I ask about their kids and where they go to school, they
almost uniformly send their kids to Maryland or Virginia schools. Even
immigrants who can barely speak English and come from Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Eritrea, or Nigeria know that D.C. schools mean stay away.
How embarrassing for our country that new immigrants who barely speak
English view our Nation's Capital schools with contempt.
Finally, President Obama, we love you and Michelle for the love you
show your daughters. You show your love for your daughters by spending
some of your substantial salary to keep your daughters out of the D.C.
Public Schools. Please, President Obama, show a little love for the
children who don't have such wealthy parents and sign the SOAR Act.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I just want to tell the gentleman that the so-
called immigrants that he speaks to who send their children to schools
in Maryland and Virginia live in Maryland and Virginia. Eighty percent
of the jobs in the District of Columbia go to people who live in the
suburbs.
As to the schools in the District of Columbia, as I have indicated,
there are waiting lines to get into almost all the charter schools, and
the D.C. public schools have improved so much that some of them also
have waiting lines.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), our very distinguished ranking member.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
for yielding and for her leadership.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10. We have been told
that the purpose of this bill is to help all D.C. children get a better
education. I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not do
that.
Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public
education. But this bill proposes to spend more than $100 million over
5 years to fund vouchers to send public school students in the District
of Columbia to private schools while House Republicans are proposing to
cut $2 billion from public K-12 education nationally.
Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand firsthand the
complexities of turning around struggling inner-city schools. Almost 10
years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my own
neighborhood schools--and I am still involved in that--the Maritime
Industries Academy High School.
It takes vision, commitment, accountability, and, yes, resources to
begin the process of turning troubled schools around. However, it is
impossible to turn around public schools if we divert public resources
to private schools.
Put simply, H.R. 10 attempts to help a few students at the expense of
the vast majority of the District's children.
By dividing the funding it would provide among D.C.'s public schools,
public charter schools, and private school vouchers, H.R. 10 provides a
third of its total funding to a tiny fraction of the District's
students. Specifically, the bill would fund vouchers to enable only
1,442 students--a tiny fraction of the District's 47,548 students--to
attend private schools.
The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the
impact of the Federal Government's limited resources to serve all of
the District's students.
Since this bill last passed in 2011 over my strong objection and
along party lines, studies of the program have demonstrated that the
use of a voucher had no effect on academic achievement, as measured by
math and reading scores, school safety, student satisfaction with their
school, or motivation and engagement.
Previous studies of this program show that 50 percent of the students
from the first two cohorts of the D.C. voucher program eventually
dropped out of the program. Students in the program are also less
likely to attend a school that offers support programs for those that
are academically challenged or have learning difficulties.
In addition, this bill is a direct assault on D.C.'s home rule that
was rushed through our committee shortly after Speaker Boehner
announced his retirement, and the bill is not supported by D.C.'s
elected representative in Congress or a majority of the D.C. City
Council.
So all the rhetoric justifying massive cuts to education funding--all
the talk about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and
about making sacrifices--all that goes out the window when Republicans
want to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools.
{time} 1630
As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality
public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited
taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the
educational needs of all of our children. This bill does not do that. I
urge our colleagues to reject H.R. 10.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Chaffetz for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. It is a
bill to continue the popular and successful D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
This program is based on the simple notion that every child deserves
an excellent education regardless of the family's background, income,
or ZIP Code. The program provides scholarships to students in low-
income families so they can escape underperforming schools and receive
the quality education they need to excel both in the classroom and
later in life. Our investment in this effort is paying off.
Last year, 90 percent of 12th graders who received a D.C. Opportunity
scholarship graduated from a high-quality school, and 88 percent went
on to pursue a college degree. What is more, when asked if they were
satisfied with the child's education, 85 percent of the parents
responded ``yes.'' It is no wonder every year the demand for
scholarships far exceeds the number of scholarships available. These
positive results also explain why this important program has long
enjoyed bipartisan support.
Of course, there are some who don't believe these vulnerable families
deserve the opportunity to do what is best for their children's
education. At a time when this administration has spent billions of
dollars pushing its own pet projects and priorities, it has routinely
put this modest, successful program on the chopping block. Fortunately,
Mr. Chairman, a majority in Congress has continued to stand by these
students and families by continuing to support the program, and Speaker
John Boehner has always stood at the forefront of those efforts.
[[Page H7066]]
Few have fought harder or longer for the educational opportunities of
D.C. students than Speaker Boehner. In fact, throughout his more than
20 years in public office, John Boehner has been a tireless champion
for families who simply want the opportunity--any opportunity--for
their children to receive a quality education. The D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program began under his leadership. Thanks to his efforts,
this initiative has made a positive difference in the lives of
thousands of students across the District. This act reflects his
continued commitment to these families. More importantly, it reaffirms
a bipartisan commitment to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and
the D.C. schoolchildren it serves.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to help more low-income students
and support this legislation.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this morning, a Member said that a letter had come from
a member of the city council, Anita Bonds, asking that her name be
removed from the letter sent by the council, the majority of the
council, saying that they opposed reauthorization of this bill. That
member has since called me. She writes:
``Dear Member of Congress,
``Due to some confusion about my position on the District
of Columbia voucher bill (H.R. 10), I want to make my
position clear. I oppose this bill, and I intend to remain a
signatory of the letter previously acknowledged that seven of
my colleagues on the D.C. Council and I sent to Chairman
Jason Chaffetz dated October 8, 2015, in oppostion to the
bill.''
Signed, Councilmember At-large, Anita Bonds.
Mr. Chairman, I submit her letter for the Record.
Council of the
District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, October 21, 2015.
Dear Member of Congress, Due to some confusion about my
position on the District of Columbia school voucher bill
(H.R. 10), I want to make my position clear. I oppose this
bill, and I intend to remain a signatory of the letter
previously acknowledged that seven of my colleagues on the
D.C. Council and I sent to Chairman Jason Chaffetz dated
October 8, 2015, in opposition to the bill.
Sincerely,
Anita Bonds.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 10, the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. In the 10
months that I have been here, one of the neat things that I have
experienced is when we participated in a site visit with the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee under Chairman Chaffetz earlier this
year and had a firsthand opportunity to interact with the kids and
families about the success of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
I was recently reminded just a couple weeks ago when I was sitting in
the hearing seeing the families, seeing the moms who were just beaming
with pride about their children having this special opportunity. In the
2013 and 2014 school year, the Opportunity Scholarship Program had a
graduation rate of 89 percent, which is astonishing compared to the
D.C. Public Schools graduation rate of 58 percent.
As a former minister, I have taken groups in the heart of the inner
cities, places like New York and Baltimore. Specifically, in Cleveland,
there is a school there called Sunbeam Elementary School. Thieves had
stolen the copper off the weathervane, the school was filthy, and there
was a metal detector for an elementary school. We brought in a team of
60 or 65 people and refurbished the school and did our best. But do you
know what? That was only a temporary fix. The SOAR Act is a fix that
lasts for a lifetime. It gives scholarships to children in low-income
D.C. families to attend a private school. This piece of legislation
also allows parents the opportunity to provide a quality education for
their children.
I believe that education will only be successful if two foundational
truths are rediscovered: first, that parents know what is best for
their child, and they should have the freedom to pursue the path that
works for them; secondly, and finally, States must stand up to the
Federal Government to reclaim their freedom to educate their children.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, once again, let's get this straight. The control study
did not evaluate college attendance. It was not a part of the study.
Now, it did evaluate graduation rates. Mr. Chairman, what it did not
evaluate was dropout rates.
Private schools are notorious for sending back to the District of
Columbia children who they think are not doing well or they are not
acting as they think they should act. Unless we had those figures, we
would have no idea what the graduation rates were, because the
graduation rates are those who were left in the school and did not get
sent back.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 10.
Now, why would I rise in support of this? If you hear the rhetoric
from the other side, you are saying this is not a program that works;
but if you compare the results, it does work. When you just hear that
only 55 percent of people in D.C. Public Schools graduate from high
school and yet if they have an opportunity to go to this other school,
89 percent graduate, my goodness, what more do you need to understand?
Look, it is very evident about what is going on here. If you want our
children to succeed, if you want our children to excel, and if you want
America to be able to compete worldwide, then education is the answer.
The true issue here is a moral issue and a civil rights issue.
I really believe that President Obama, in 2008, was on to something.
This is what the President said:
The single most important factor in determining student
achievement is not the color of their skin, it is not where
they come from, it is not their parents or how much money
their parents have. It is who their teacher is.
Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing that has made this country
exceptional, it is that we have allowed everyone the opportunity to
rise from whatever level they started at to whatever level they can
achieve. It is only possible through education. This program works.
Mr. Chairman, $60 million is going to be equally divided between the
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, D.C. Public Schools, and the D.C.
Public Charter Schools. When we give this money to the parents of these
children, when they get a chance to see their children excel, when they
get a chance to see their children grow, and when they see a chance for
their children to have great success, how can we sit in America's House
and debate about is this really what it is all about?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Members can keep repeating all they want to figures
that have come from the air. The only thing evaluated by the
congressionally mandated evaluation was the test scores. Our public
school students and our charter school students have to take these
tests. These children took these tests.
Our public school students are doing better--not nearly as good as
they should--and so are our charter schools. In fact, our charter
schools are doing even better than our public school students, and
these students didn't move at all. That is what the congressionally
mandated study showed.
As to civil rights, these schools are exempted from many of the civil
rights laws, and for that reason, the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the NAACP, and a number of organizations wrote
opposing reauthorization of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford.)
Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think that there is one fundamental question in this
debate, and that is: Should a child be trapped in a school that traps
them? Should a child be trapped in a school
[[Page H7067]]
that, for whatever reason, isn't working for them but would forever
limit their capacity and their potential in life? To me, that is what
H.R. 10 is all about.
I think it is important to remember that 98 percent of the kids that
have entered this program have come from schools that were not
performing; and in that regard, this is simply a way out, it is a hand
up. I think it fundamentally recognizes that dignity and worth that
comes with giving somebody a choice.
I think it is something that every human being wants, which is simply
a choice. I think it is a recognition of the fact that one size never
fits all, that God makes us all different, and therefore a plethora of
different choices is vital in the marketplace.
Finally, it is recognition of the fact that the marketplace has the
ability to create choices that might take forever in other systems,
time that these kids do not have. I would ask that we refocus on the
kids.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know about other Members' districts, but I
challenge Members to meet what the District of Columbia has done to
keep students from being trapped in bad schools.
In your districts, can 75 percent of the children choose to go to a
better performing district? They can in mine.
In your district, are there 110 publicly accountable charter schools
as an alternative to your own traditional public schools? There are in
mine.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership in
bringing this excellent bill to the floor. This bill--of which, in full
disclosure, I am an original cosponsor of--will continue to promote
school choice and provide Opportunity scholarships to D.C. students
that are most in need, while also expanding D.C. Public Charter
Schools, therefore providing more opportunities for Washington students
to excel and set themselves up for productive and successful lives.
Now, to date, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has been an
educational lifeline for more than 6,000 children from very low-income
D.C. families, and more than 16,000 have applied to participate since
the 2004-05 school year. Quite simply put, this program works.
It is no secret I am a big proponent of school choice. As chairman of
the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee,
I have heard about the challenges many students in schools are facing,
and I firmly believe that when parents have a choice, kids have a
chance. This program, which has helped pave the way for others like it
across the country, gives that chance, and it creates a healthy
competition that causes all schools to improve, therefore helping all
students, even those who aren't in the program.
As I have seen in my home State of Indiana and across this great
country touring schools and visiting classrooms, Opportunity
scholarships provide students a hand up in improving their lives, their
family's lives, and their communities. That is why we have a moral
obligation to pass this legislation and why I urge my colleagues to
join me and join the others here on the floor in reauthorizing the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Mr. Chairman, a great education is a great equalizer. It opens doors
to unlimited possibilities and provides students the tools that they
need to succeed in life.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
Speaker Boehner led the Nation over 10 years ago when he provided
flexibility to Washington, D.C., children and their parents through
School Choice. I believe that School Choice is paramount to increasing
educational gains for all children, but especially our Nation's
students who are most in need.
The SOAR Act gives scholarships to low-income students to attend a
private school, providing them an opportunity to access a quality
education that would otherwise be out of reach.
School Choice has proven to be successful in Washington, D.C., as
students using their scholarships have a 90 percent graduation rate
compared to the 58 percent graduation rate for D.C. public schools in
2013 and 2014.
We heard today that these statistics have been questioned, and we
hope that the public schools are improving. But with this act would
they actually be improving?
I encourage my colleagues to stand up for School Choice by supporting
the SOAR Act.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would draw our Members' attention to the editorial board comments
from yesterday. This is from the Washington Post: A misguided attack on
D.C.'s needy students.
I want to remind people, as they did in this document here in this
editorial, that eight council members seem unaware that the program was
established in 2004 at the initiation of the then-D.C. Mayor Anthony
Williams, who was also supported by the chairman of the Council's
Education Committee, and it has produced results.
The graduation rates are amazingly good, at roughly 90 percent,
compared to D.C. public schools that are less than 60 percent. I think
that is strong evidence that it is a winner, that it does provide a
good opportunity for people, and that it should be reauthorized.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each
side has remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 6 minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the author of this
piece of legislation and the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding,
and thank all my colleagues who are supporting this legislation today.
Many of us remember the story of ``The Little Engine That Could.''
What happened was that the train full of toys wanted to get over the
mountain to get to the kids on the other side. The big engine said: No,
I cannot. The rusty old engine said: No, I cannot. But the little
engine says: I'm not very big, but I think I can. I think I can.
Well, from the beginning, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
has been the little engine that could. We started this back in 2003
with the help of D.C.'s Mayor at the time, Anthony Williams, and D.C.
councilman Kevin Chavous.
For years the government was promising the Moon to D.C. families and
spending the Moon, essentially, but nothing changed. So we said: If we
are going to support public schools and charter schools, let's also
give low-income families the chance to apply for scholarships to attend
the school of their choice. Let's give them that power.
Because if you have got the resources, you already have school
choice. You can send your kids to whatever school you want to send them
to. You can move from the neighborhood you are in to where they have
got a better school. But if you are poor and you are stuck in a bad
neighborhood and your child doesn't have that chance or, frankly, any
chance, they are just dead in the water.
Well, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has been that little
lifeline that could. All told, 6,100 students have escaped
underperforming schools. In that time, the program has received some
16,000 applications. Last spring 90 percent of 12th graders using the
Opportunity scholarships graduated and
[[Page H7068]]
88 percent enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college. Of the 1,400 students in
the program this year, 87.4 percent would have been in a school that
the government has identified as in need of improvement.
These are the kind of results parents dream of for their kids. And
while it is my name on the bill, the best champions of this program are
some of the most fearless kids you will ever see.
Not only did they have to overcome the doubts of the education
establishment, they also had to withstand efforts by some of the most
powerful people in this city to kill this program.
So today I am asking each of you to support H.R. 10, which
reauthorizes this program for another 5 years. Here is why. Yes, this
issue is personal to me and has been for a long time. But, frankly, it
ought to be personal to every single Member of this body.
Those of us who work here, who make a good living here, owe something
to the kids in this town. We owe these kids a fighting chance at
success.
So what I am asking you to do today is help these kids get over the
mountain. Help us keep building the movement that could. Vote for H.R.
10.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Speaker has said that, without this program, these children would
have been in bad neighborhood schools. Well, I think it must be noted
that the District of Columbia has done more to make sure that those
children are not trapped in such schools than any district I have yet
read about or heard of.
I have noted that 75 percent--that means the overwhelming number--of
children stuck in neighborhood schools that they believe are not good
schools go to the other side of town, if necessary, to a better school.
Far from being trapped, they are encouraged to choose a better school.
And I have also cited the 110 charter schools that increase their
choices.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that many of the voucher
parents whom I have met with--after all, they are my constituents--have
said to me that they tried to get into one of our charter schools, but
the waiting lists were too long, which is why they went to the voucher
schools.
Now, isn't it interesting that the voucher schools have no waiting
list, but the D.C. charter schools and many of our public schools have
waiting lists, so much so that D.C. has had to combine the public
schools and the charter schools on one list in a lottery so that
families can choose which school to go to.
How many Members on that side of the aisle have a lottery that lets
the children, the parents, choose the best school for them to go to? Do
not dare tell me that the District of Columbia leaves children trapped
in failing schools. It has gone out of its way to do just the opposite.
And what does it get for it? The imposition by this body of yet
another alternative. It is true that, a former mayor, who himself went
to Catholic schools, said he was for vouchers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I
ask you, then, since the District of Columbia has control of its own
education apparatus, why hasn't the District of Columbia set up its own
voucher schools? Some other districts have done that. Because the
majority, they don't prefer vouchers, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 2
minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why I oppose this
bill. First, it has failed the goal that the Congress gave it. Bring
these children's test scores up. The public schools have brought their
test scores up. The public charter schools have done even better in
bringing their test scores up. These children's test scores have not
risen.
Moreover, I can't fail to note how recently the majority has cut K-12
by $2 billion while taking $100 million out of, obviously, education
funds to fund a private school voucher bill.
Mr. Chairman, not everybody on my side of the aisle is for public
charter schools, but I have supported public charter schools because my
own constituents wanted and needed a way out of neighborhood schools
very often.
Yet, even though I come to this floor with home rule choices, this
body is insisting on its choices, knowing full well that nobody in the
District of Columbia can vote against their choices.
And it says to the District of Columbia residents: No matter what you
do, people, no matter how good your choices are, no matter how much you
meet the standards we often talk about when it comes to choice, you,
who have no vote on this floor, who will not vote on this bill when the
bell rings in a few minutes, must do what we say.
That, my good friends, is not a chapter in democracy. It shows once
again that Republican do whatever they care to do to the District of
Columbia, even when they reject the same choice for their own
constituents, and vote down for their constituents what they now impose
on mine. Just a few months ago, the House and Senate voted down
vouchers, but today--today--they will vote to impose these same
vouchers on the District of Columbia.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to correct the record there. I think, obviously, somebody
misspoke. The House did not vote on vouchers in this Congress. That is
not what has happened.
Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record the letter we got from 500
families, D.C. residents, urging us in the adoption of this.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2015.
Dear Representatives: We are a large and diverse number of
parents of children attending various schools within the
District of Columbia. We write to urge your support of the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act
(SOAR) (H.R. 10).
The SOAR Act is bipartisan legislation which ensures our
rights as parents to choose the best public, charter or
private school for our children. It not only provides up to
$20 million for Opportunity Scholarships for low-income
families to attend private schools, but also authorizes an
additional $40 million per year for public and charter
schools in the District of Columbia. This three-sector
initiative provides opportunities for all our children to
succeed!
Nearly 6,200 children from very low-income families in the
city have attended private schools through the Opportunity
Scholarship Program over the past eleven years--88% coming
from areas zoned for schools in need of improvement and 97%
African-American or Hispanic. These students graduate at
rates 30 points higher than the city's public schools and
have a near 90 percent college enrollment rate. These are
proven results!
The SOAR Act is an example of what works in education. When
we can choose the best public, charter, or private school for
our children, there are not only more opportunities to engage
in their education, but also for them to achieve greater
academic excellence. These outcomes strengthen the city's
education system as a whole.
We believe that maintaining and fully funding all
educational options are critically important for the city's
families, especially low-income families served by the
Opportunity Scholarship Program. No child should be denied a
safe, quality education because of their family income or zip
code.
We therefore urge you to support the swift passage of the
SOAR Act.
Sincerely,
Ms. Nichelle Cluff, Mrs. Ifeyinwa Ikoli, Ms. Stephanie
Montgomery, Ms. Mary Montgomery, Ms. Nina Harris, Ms. Eboni
Purvis, Ms. Juliette Randolph, Ms. Ashley Adams, Ms. Naa
Borle Sakeyfio, Mrs. Mariama Bah, Ms. Mia Wilson, Mrs. Sherri
Calhoun, Ms. Lamonica Jeffrey, Mr. Darrell Cousar, Mr. James
Calhoun, Mr. Andrew Cyr, Ms. Kayann McCalla, Mrs. Aldrina
Cabrera, Ms. Kiana Wright, Ms. Albertine Cole.
Ms. Dianna Coley, Ms. Tonya Carter, Ms. Giovanna Grayson,
Ms. Luciana Udeozor, Ms. Andrea Davis, Mrs. Obiagel nuel-
Ejiofor, Mr. Emmanuel Ejiofor, Mr. Rogers Ferguson, Mr. Girma
Mihretu, Ms. Molita Gaskins, Ms. Latoya Myers, Ms. Djenane
Jeanty, Ms. Keona Lewis, Mrs. Nicole Knott, Mr. Rudy Knott,
Mr. Hanna Boku, Mr. Rashawn McCain, Ms. Ann Mmayie, Ms. Rita
Pineda, Mr. Okechukwu Mbarah.
Mr. Carlings McPhail, Ms. Ann Meruh, Ms. Shantel Powell-
Morgan, Mrs. Marguerita Ramos, Mrs. Muanza Sangamay, Ms.
Felicia Thomas, Ms. Sydney Williams, Ms. Caren Kirkland, Mrs.
Temitope Tayo, Mr. Anthony Ugorji, Ms. Natasha Tutt, Ms. Dina
Bayou, Ms. Natasha Tutt, Mr. Calvin Wright, Mrs. Julia
Ugorji, Mrs. Chinwe Mbarah, Mr. Souleymane Bah, Julie
McLaughlin, Sheila Martinez, Susan Morais.
Joan Sapienza, Eddie Donahue, Jeseph Yohe, Carter
Jefferson, Vincent Browning, Jonathan Bender, Peter Frantz,
Ellen Graper, Elizabeth LeBras, Kiandra Willis, Robert
McKeon, Marcela Price Souaya, Stephen Lennon, Aleasa Chiles-
Feggins, Sally Leakamariam, Juleanna Glover, Christopher
Reiter, Cristina Khalaf, Tom Shea, Sean Vincent.
Karen Brennan, Ceci Smith, Adrienne Vincent, Pedro Smith,
Donna Gibson, Colleen Cavanagh, Chris Long, Aleasa Chiles-
Feggins, Mariela Alardon-Yohe, Jennifer Browning, Philippa
Bender, Melanie Jefferson, Veronica Nyhan Jones, Michael
[[Page H7069]]
Truscott, Eavan O'Halloran, Sakinah Dupree, Morris Redd, Ron
Josey, Susana Ramos-Izquierdo, Aimee Donahue.
Marisse Rovira, Linda Girardi, Sharlene Mentor, Lisa
Richa, James McLaughlin, Glenda Morales, Samuel Parker
III, Clarence Jones, Leyla Y. Teos, Mavian Nouget, Kip
Ross, Beatriz Lopez, Charles Malloy, Steve Trynosky,
Carlos Aquino, Yanira Reyes, Nelly Romero, Sandra Huerta,
Eboni Curry, Amanda Lawrence.
Laura Hernandez, Mogus Meles, Danielle Aguirre, Julie
Corsig, Andy Corsig, Alan Joaquin, Stephen Connors, Colton
Campbell, Amy Dean, Flavio Cumpiano, John Menditto, Michelle
Theic, Liza Figueroa, Shenelle Henry, Glenda Urquilla, Kelly
Brown, Maria Granados, Catie Malloy, Ingrid Mejia, Jill
Trynosky.
Marlene Aquino, Roselia Gonzalez, Nubia Easil, Jessica
Martinez, Beatriz Jansen, Juan Carlos Acajabon Mendez, Betiel
Zekarias, Maria Torres, Carrie Hillegass, Mike Hillegass,
Barbara Richitt, Victoria Connors, Kiandra Willis, Marilyn
Campbell, Bob Dean, Felice Goodwin, Shanti Stanton, Molly
Robert, Jen MacLennan, Michael Grady.
Sharon Blume, Brendan O'Brien, Kenia Reyes, Salvador
Hernandez, Rob Grabarz, Bentley Storm, Molly Bruno, Jennifer
Leonard, Geoff Morrell, Christy Reap, Genet Demisse, Javier
Aguirre, Neil McGrail, Kai Schmitz, Jimmy Kemp, Kathy
Hagerup, Stephanie McGovern, Yohannes Z. Hadgu, Thomas
Fitton, Melinda Johnson.
Theresa Nahazar, Ann McAllister, Dan Goodwin, Daphne de
Souza, Darren MacLennan, Alexandra Walsh, Andrew Blume, Greg
Talbot, Darren Jansen, Susan Tanis, Sarah Grabarz, Ashley
Storm, Jaclyn Madden, Barton Leonard, Ann Morrell, Pat Reap,
Jana Patterson, Barbara Swaboda, Stephanie McGrail, Adriana
Schmitz.
Susan Kemp, Brian Crowley, John McGovern, Michael Scanlon,
Kelly Fitton, Bassam Khalaf, John Nahazar, John McAllister,
Marc Sozio, Tyson Redpath, Laverne Lightbourne, Nick Milano,
Trisha Corcoran, Eleanor Hopkins, Liza Lindenberg, Katie
Krantz, John Morrissey, Joe Patterson, Chima Oluigbo, Sonia
Cruz.
Mercedes Rubio, Eddie Donahue, Gilbert Richa, Nick
Saunders, Stephen Sexton, Thomas Faust, Meg Molloy, Michelle
Wolf, Bruce Cormier, Ryan Angier, Jen Rowan, Lauren Buckley,
Collin Cullen, Mary Santiviago, Kelly Sozio, Renee Redpath,
Kevin Madden, Susan Milano, Joe Corcoran, Mary Glaser
McCahan.
Kate McAuliffe, Meg Knight, Ann Morrissey, Courtney
Knowles, Nnenna Oluigbo, Robert Cruz-Reyes, Lydia Dolan,
Lauren Lennon, Tom Knight, Joe Beemsterboer, Sarah Sexton,
Larisa Faust, Jim Molloy, Kristin Lindquist, Sarah Cormier,
Katreena Vigil Pineda, Mike Rowan, Mark Buckley, Brenda
Cullen, Sergio Santiviago, Gary Fabiano.
Rene McGuffin, Jorge Costa, Meghan Deerin, Kelly Stanton,
Art Frye, John McGill, Mike Bruno, Matt Ritz, Margaret Bond,
Billy MacArtee, Anthony Puglisi, Monica Micklos, Tim Yost,
Ray Powers, Chris Dolan, Darrell Clark, Chris Connolly, Joni
Veith, Courtney Taylor, Athena Meyers.
Joshua Corless, Allison Sheedy, Robin Barth, Sam Depoy,
Jung Kang, Connie Fabiano, David McGuffin, Michelle Costa, JB
Deerin, Mike Stanton, Barbara Frye, Stephanie McGill, Anne
Zorc, Erin Ritz, Chris Delaney, Elena MacArtee, Laura
Puglisi, Jeff Micklos, Liz Yost, Tom Hohman.
Desiree Gabbidon, Yves Clark, Michelle Connolly, Tom Veith,
Jay Taylor, Greg Meyers, Shannon Corless, Stefan Hagerup, Woo
Lee, Marty Depoy, Stephanie O'Leary, Susan O'Keefe, Luwam
Berhane, Patti Exposito, Michael Henry, Dan Hickey, Carmen
Burducea, Joseph Finnegan, Michael Hyatte, Peter Komives.
Eric Stogoski, Fred Dombo, Dave Madden, Justin Glasgow,
Bernardo Ahlbom, Mark Emery, Doug Skomy, Stephen Grimberg,
Brendan Delaney, John DiMartino, Jeffrey MacKinnon, Hirut
Teklu, Erika Lopez-Padilla, Michelle Marshall, Abebe Kebede,
Shayla Mack, Tesfaye Bune, Michael O'Keefe, Daniel McCahan,
Lorenzo Exposito.
Sarah Henry, Stephanie Hickey, Radu Burducea, Elizabeth
Finnegan, Theresa Hyatte, Irina Komives, Julia Stogoski,
Michelle Dombo, Lisa Madden, Megan Glasgow, Tatiana Ahlborn,
Celina Emery, Mary Skorny, Christina Grimberg, Celine
Delaney, Ginny Treanor, Gail MacKinnon, Mekuria Gebremichael
Bint, Renee Lopez-Padilla, Emebet Worku.
Carlotte Crawford, Solomon Meshesha, Etsegent Demissie, Sri
Winarti, Denisha Dempster, Demssie Gebremedhin, Alembanchi
Taye, Tezita Woldegebriel, Tesfaye Abebu Bune, Magie Maling,
Jessica Cabrera, LaShawn Debnam, Barbara Destry, Jaanai
Johnson, Hewan Abera, Siddiq Anderson, Markina Bailey, Odessa
Brown, Rosa Caiza Maldonado, Sharon Coffey.
Dianna Coley, Felicia Dyson, Ruth Fekadu, Dana Grinage,
Sandra Hall, Lakia Harris, Shirlene Jackson, Francine
Johnson, Nicole Johnson, Rajeeyah Burks, Mohamad Nugroho,
Woinishet Gelete, Johnny Kassa, Cynthia Downes, Genet
Tirksso, Wosen Admasu, Sara Caceres, Johanna Rizo Martinez,
Nikita Pray, Estela Arellano.
Sagrario Agaton, Mary Addae, Ruth Barnwell, Meka Burch,
Sherri Calhoun, Catrice Coleman, Barbara Cunningham, Lashawn
Durant, Moanick Fenner, Michelle Glover, Carmen Hall-Ali,
Deborah Jackson, Darlene Johnson, Denise Johnson, Wendy
Jones, Michael Jones, Alfreda Judd, Lynetta McClam, Adrienne
Miles, Claudia Moreno.
Pauline Murray, Brigitta Nyahn, Naha Poindexter, Erin
Skinner, Felicia Thomas, Sharon Waller, Lanita Wood, Ms.
Myeshia Johnson, Ms. Venete Eason, Ms. Kanita Washington,
Mrs. Barbara Graham, Sophie Alozie, Blanca Magarin, Jeanine
Henderson-Lebbie, William Walker, IV, Tigistu Zewdie, Sydonie
Fisher, William James, Akwilina Perry, Monalisa Reno.
Zakia Williams, Shonta Jones, Pamela Matthews, Cecilia
Mensah, Tonya Moore, Priscilla Moultrie, Carolina Novoa,
Deborah M. Parker, Michelle Roberts, Sandra Stackhouse,
Leslie Void, Varnell Washington, Ms. Kitty Dawson, Ms. Mia
Butler, Ms. Tiana Robinson, Mrs. Jill Gelman, Nejat Teman,
Nathaniel Garbla, Tefaye Tamire, Patrice Aubrey.
Fatmatta Kamara, Stephon Knox, Dwishnicka Randolph, Nicole
Wood, Erica Iweanoge, Amanda Brown-Parks, James Parker, Teata
Sanders, Samora St. Firmin, Dionne Clemons, Vernessa
Perry, Donald Matthews, Tashana Ellis, Donita Adams,
Caroline Beruchan, Steven Garrison, Ms. Holly Destry, Ms.
Victoria Heimbold, Mr. Solomon Weldeghebriel, Ms. Jamil
Raspberry.
Anne Hedian, Atchoi Osekre-Bond, Margie Bacon, Jill Wright,
Cathy Falk, Chanda Foreman, Colleen Scheidel, Kenny Stack,
Juliette Randolph, Barbara Andercheck, Indra Thomas, Dog
Harvey, Darah Tracy, Ginger Beverly, Tonya Wright, Brandon
Winder, Antilecia O'Neal, Uanna Ferguson, Aster Robi,
Bernadette Aniekwe.
Patrice Davis, Ms. Maria del Carmen Reyes, Ms. Ingrid
Lucas, Ms. Stephanie Goodloe, Mrs. Helen Andemariam, Michael
Thomasian, Neslyn Moore, Judy Steele, Kathleen Downey, Judith
Home, Niamh O'Mahoney, Arleen Hall, Bobby Rienzo, Teresa
Fitzgerald, LaShawne Thomas, Sarah Kane, Frank Washington,
Mary Ann Welter, Shawn Hunter, Leslie Sherrill.
Donise Yeager, Keyana Caroline, Sandra Gray, Latasha
Monnique Jones Ward, Anthony Speight, Deborah B. Jones, Kim
Atwater, Alvena P. Toland, Loretta Henry, Marilyn Sharpe,
Davon Wilson, Sherry Bryant, Elroy Black, Lisa Newman, Shakia
Henderson, Octavia Powell, Anita M. Harris, Krestin Clay,
Laneka Brakett, Ana Acedo-Garcia.
Garry Jones, John Wallace, Nakeisha Thompson, Donald
Lampkins, Renard Hawkins, Tammy Williams, Tynisha Dunn,
Jovanna Bailey, Latasha Johon, Bobby Perry, Shalita Knight,
Keyana Howard, Kenneth Meredith, Calep Epps, Ty'ron Byers,
Chase Blakney, Curtis Watts, Kishara Odom, Jeffrey Corry,
Antonia Payne.
Denise L. Lowery, Stephanie Payner, Tanya Lambright, Elaine
E. Harris, Elbert Laker, Ryan Storr, Sylvester Bynum, Lavelle
Lamb, Dominique Johnson, Paulette Willims, Martasha Fermine,
Oyhani Williams, Nasir McKeiver, Kenneth Wood, Neta Vaught,
Mary Joyner, Michelle L. McIntyre, Kaitlin Gallagher, Will E.
Henderson, Jeanette Hubbard, Ontavia Lynch, Tasha McKenzie,
James R. Wills, Jr.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I also introduce into the Record The
Washington Post editorial from yesterday, ``A Misguided Attack on
D.C.'s Needy Students,'' actually supporting this.
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2015]
A Misguided Attack on D.C.'s Needy Students
(By Editorial Board)
Is the federally funded scholarship program for poor D.C.
families being forced on an unwilling city? It is safe to say
that thousands of D.C. parents whose children are on the
waiting list for a scholarship do not think so. Nor, we would
venture, do the 6,100 children, predominantly minorities, who
have used the scholarships to attend private schools. For
that matter, students in the city's public schools who have
benefited from the infusion of federal dollars that has
accompanied the voucher program probably would not embrace
the argument either.
So whom do members of the D.C. Council think they are
helping as they urge Congress to kill this program?
Fortunately, it does not appear that the council members
will succeed in inflicting this wound on their city. Congress
appears poised to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program, which provides needy students with up to
$12,572 to pay for tuition, fees and transportation to a
school of their choice. The average family income for
participating families is less than $22,000. A bill extending
the program for five years and championed by outgoing House
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is set for a floor vote
Wednesday, while a bipartisan group of senators has filed a
companion bill that would continue the program through 2025.
Seeking to derail those efforts, a misguided majority of
the D.C. Council, undoubtedly egged on by Del. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (D-D.C.) and other voucher critics, wrote a letter to
Congress objecting to what they portrayed as an intrusion
into local affairs. These eight council members seemed
unaware that the program was established in 2004 at the
initiation of Anthony Williams (D), then D.C.'s mayor, and
with the strong support of Kevin Chavous (D), then chair of
the council's Education Committee. Likewise, they were
unmoved by polling that has shown 74 percent of D.C.
residents support
[[Page H7070]]
the voucher program, which, despite the specious claims of
critics, has improved outcomes for its students without
taking a dime from regular public schools.
Indeed, the three-sector federal approach has brought more
than $600 million to D.C. schools, with traditional public
schools receiving $239 million, charter public schools $195
million and the voucher program $183 million. At stake for
fiscal 2016 is an additional $45 million. It is fantasy to
think there would be additional monies absent vouchers.
School reform has brought improvement throughout the
system. Yet, many parents still lack the choices and the
access to high-quality education that city politicians take
for granted for their own families. We credit D.C. Council
Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) and council members Vincent B.
Orange (D-At Large), Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), Brandon T. Todd
(D-Ward 4) and Kenyan R. McDuffie (D-Ward 5) for not seeking
to deprive those parents of choice, and we hope their eight
colleagues will rethink their position and put constituents'
welfare over misguided ideology.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this program produces
results. I like the variety of choices. And the Delegate has been a
real champion for charter schools, and I applaud her for that, I
support her in that. But the reality is the scholarships that we are
talking about here, the Opportunity scholarships, have yielded the best
results with nearly 90 percent graduation rates and roughly 88 percent
of the people then going on to college. Those are amazing statistics.
But I have heard a lot of derogatory comments. I have heard
everything from misguided, idiotic, disgraceful, weakens, underfunded.
Underfunded? Underfunded? That is offensive to us from Utah. We happen
to have the lowest per pupil funding in the entire United States. We
are not proud of that fact. But the reality is we get roughly $6,500
per student, where in Washington, D.C. you get about $19,500 per
student. It is not even close. And yet here we are championing and
trying to help give more money, more resources, to what are
underperforming students and giving them more choices.
I guess one of the things you should consider is if the Congress does
support this bill, does pass this bill, it is appropriated, would
anybody on the Democratic side of the aisle actually recommend that the
city not take the money?
{time} 1700
If it is so idiotic, if it is so awful, if it is so derogatory, if it
is so negative, then why not cut it off right now? See, they want to
continue to allow it to happen for those who have scholarships now
because they know it is working, and they could never look those
parents in the eye and take it away; but they are going to deny that
choice to future generations where we know there has been demonstrable
success.
So I am proud of Speaker Boehner and what he has done to champion
this bill. I think it is a good bill. With that, I urge the adoption of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 10, which
would continue a flawed program that pursues a partisan ideology at the
expense of a child's quality education.
This bill would reauthorize Washington, D.C.'s private school voucher
program, the only program in the country using federal money to send
children to private and religious schools. The SOAR voucher program was
a five year pilot set to expire in 2008. Despite four studies by the
Department of Education and two General Accountability Office (GAO)
reports concluding that the program wasn't working, Republicans in
Congress are doubling down by allowing taxpayer dollars to prop up
unaccredited, and even unsafe, schools. The last thing we need, as our
students fall further behind their international peers, are voucher
schools operating in relative isolation, free of oversight for
curriculum, quality or management.
SOAR is the only program of its kind for a reason--there's no way our
states would tolerate such nonsense. Sadly, because D.C. has not been
freed from the partisan grips of Congress, it has become commonplace to
see House Republicans impose their politics on D.C., despite widespread
citizen and local government objection, from women's health care to
marijuana reform to street design. There's justification for a program
that funnels millions of dollars into a program shown to be ineffective
and strongly opposed by the people that should matter--the parents, the
educators, and taxpayers who support the system.
Worse, the SOAR Act strips students of constitutional protections of
civil rights: federal funds can flow to schools that do not meet the
federal standards to prevent discrimination against disabled persons,
persons of color, persons of a religious group, women, or any other
protected class. The SOAR Act is a sad step backward for education
policy, civil rights, and good governance, and I strongly oppose it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 10,
the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
H.R. 10 would reauthorize the District of Columbia private school
voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five
years through 2021.
H.R. 10 would reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and
Results Act, which provides Federal support for improving traditional
public schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.), expanding and
improving high-quality D.C. public charter schools, and offering
private school vouchers to a limited number of students.
The Obama Administration continues to strongly oppose the private
school vouchers program within this legislation, known as the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Members of the House should respect the self determination of the
residents of DC by not forcing education policy onto children or their
families at taxpayer expense.
Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that D.C.
vouchers have not yielded statistically significant improvements in
student achievement by scholarship recipients compared to other
students not receiving vouchers.
In addition, H.R. 10 would extend this voucher program to a new
population of students previously attending private schools.
Instead of using Federal resources to support a handful of students
in private schools, the Federal Government should focus its attention
and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for
all students.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this
bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform printed in the bill are adopted and the bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 10
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization
Act'' or the ``SOAR Reauthorization Act''.
(b) References in Act.--Whenever in this Act an amendment
is expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to that section or other provision of the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (division C of
Public Law 112-10; sec. 38-1853.01 et seq., D.C. Official
Code).
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Parents are best equipped to make decisions for their
children, including the educational setting that will best
serve the interests and educational needs of their children.
(2) In 1995, Congress passed the DC School Reform Act,
which granted the District of Columbia the authority to
create public charter schools and gave parents greater
educational options for their children.
(3) In 2003, in partnership with the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, the chairman of the DC Council Education
Committee, and community activists, Congress passed the DC
School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199; 118
Stat. 126), to provide opportunity scholarships to parents of
students in the District of Columbia to enable them to pursue
a high-quality education at a private elementary or secondary
school of their choice.
(4) The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (DC OSP) was
part of a comprehensive three-part funding arrangement that
provided additional funds for both the District of Columbia
public schools and public charter schools of the District of
Columbia. The intent behind the additional resources was to
ensure both District of Columbia public and charter schools
continued to improve.
(5) In 2011, Congress enacted the three-part funding
arrangement when it reauthorized the DC OSP and passed the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act (division
C of Public Law 112-10) with bipartisan support.
(6) While the National Center for Education Statistics
indicates that per pupil expenditure for public schools in
the District of Columbia is the highest in the United States,
performance on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) continues to be near the bottom of the
country when examining scores in mathematics and reading
[[Page H7071]]
for fourth and eighth grades. When Congress passed the DC
School Choice Incentive Act of 2003, students in the District
of Columbia ranked 52 out of 52 States (including the
Department of Defense schools). Since that time, the District
of Columbia has made significant gains in mathematics and
reading. However, students in the District of Columbia still
rank in the bottom three States out of 52 States. According
to the 2013 fourth grade math NAEP results, 34 percent of
students are below basic, 38 percent are at basic, and 28
percent are at proficient or advanced. The 2013 fourth grade
reading results found that 50 percent of fourth grade
students in the District of Columbia are at or below basic,
27 percent are at basic, and 23 percent are proficient or
advanced.
(7) Since the inception of the DC OSP, there has been
strong demand for the program by parents and the citizens of
the District of Columbia. In fact, 74 percent of District of
Columbia residents support continuing the program (based on
the Lester & Associates February 2011 Poll).
(8) Since the program's inception, parental satisfaction
has remained high. The program has also been found to result
in significantly higher graduation rates for those students
who have received and used their opportunity scholarships.
(9) The DC OSP offers low-income families in the District
of Columbia important educational alternatives while public
schools are improved. The program should continue to be
reauthorized as part of a three-part comprehensive funding
strategy for the District of Columbia school system providing
equal funding for public schools, public charter schools, and
opportunity scholarships for students to attend private
schools.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to amend the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act to provide low-
income parents residing in the District of Columbia with
expanded educational opportunities for enrolling their
children in other schools in the District of Columbia, and
provide resources to support educational reforms for District
of Columbia Public Schools and District of Columbia public
charter schools.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF LIMITS ON TYPES OF ELIGIBLE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.
Section 3004(a) (sec. 38-1853.04(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Prohibiting imposition of limits on eligible students
participating in the program.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out the program under this
division, the Secretary may not limit the number of eligible
students receiving scholarships under section 3007(a), and
may not prevent otherwise eligible students from
participating in the program under this Act, on any of the
following grounds:
``(i) The type of school the student previously attended.
``(ii) Whether or not the student previously received a
scholarship or participated in the program.
``(iii) Whether or not the student was a member of the
control group used by the Institute of Education Sciences to
carry out previous evaluations of the program under section
3009.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
may be construed to waive the requirement under section
3005(b)(1)(B) that the entity carrying out the program under
this Act must carry out a random selection process which
gives weight to the priorities described in section 3006 if
more eligible students seek admission in the program than the
program can accommodate.''.
SEC. 4. REQUIRING ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO UTILIZE INTERNAL
FISCAL AND QUALITY CONTROLS.
Section 3005(b)(1) (sec. 38-1853.05(b)(1), D.C. Official
Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(M) how the entity will ensure that it utilizes internal
fiscal and quality controls; and''.
SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF PRIORITIES FOR AWARDING SCHOLARSHIPS
TO DETERMINING ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.
Section 3006(1) (sec. 38-1853.06(1), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``identified for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under
section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)'' and inserting ``identified as a low-
achieving school according to the Office of the State
Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the semicolon at the
end and inserting the following: ``, or whether such students
have, in the past, attended a private school;''.
SEC. 6. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING
SCHOOLS AND ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.
(a) Criminal Background Checks; Compliance With Reporting
Requirements.--Section 3007(a)(4) (sec. 38-1853.07(a)(4),
D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(G) conducts criminal background checks on school
employees who have direct and unsupervised interaction with
students; and
``(H) complies with all requests for data and information
regarding the reporting requirements described in section
3010.''.
(b) Accreditation.--Section 3007(a) (sec. 38-1853.07(a),
D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (5)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Accreditation requirements.--
``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this
division for opportunity scholarships may be used by an
eligible student to enroll in a participating private school
unless one of the following applies:
``(i) In the case of a school that, as of the date of
enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is a participating
school, the school is provisionally or fully accredited by an
accrediting body described in subparagraphs (A) through (G)
of section 2202(16) of the District of Columbia School Reform
Act of 1995 (sec. 38-1802.02(16)(A-G), D.C. Official Code),
or by any other accrediting body determined appropriate by
the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent
for Schools for the purposes of accrediting an elementary or
secondary school.
``(ii) In the case of a school that, as of the day before
the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is a
participating school but does not meet the requirements of
clause (i)--
``(I) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
such Act, the school is pursuing full accreditation by an
accrediting body described in clause (i); and
``(II) not later than 5 years after the date of enactment
of such Act, the school meets the requirements of clause (i),
except that an eligible entity may extend this deadline for a
single 1-year period if the school provides the eligible
entity with evidence from such an accrediting body that the
school's application for accreditation is in process and that
the school will be awarded accreditation before the end of
such period.
``(iii) In the case of a school that, as of the date of
enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is not a
participating school, the school meets the requirements of
clause (i) or, if it does not meet the requirements of clause
(i)--
``(I) at the time the school notifies an eligible entity
that it seeks to be a participating school, the school is
actively pursuing full accreditation by an accrediting body
described in clause (i);
``(II) not later than 5 years after the school notifies an
eligible entity that it seeks to be a participating school,
the school meets the requirements of clause (i), except that
an eligible entity may extend this deadline for a single 1-
year period if the school provides the eligible entity with
evidence from such an accrediting body that the school's
application for accreditation is in process and that the
school will be awarded accreditation before the end of such
period; and
``(III) the school meets all of the other requirements for
participating schools under this Act.
``(B) Reports to eligible entity.--Not later than 5 years
after the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act,
each participating school shall submit to the eligible entity
a certification that the school has been fully or
provisionally accredited in accordance with subparagraph (A),
or has been granted an extension by the eligible entity in
accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii)(II).
``(C) Assisting students in enrolling in other schools.--If
a participating school fails to meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall assist the
parents of the eligible students who attend the school in
identifying, applying to, and enrolling in another
participating school under this Act.''.
(c) Use of Funds for Administrative Expenses and Parental
Assistance.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C. Official
Code) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Administrative Expenses and Parental Assistance.--The
Secretary shall make $2,000,000 of the amount provided under
the grant each year available to an eligible entity receiving
a grant under section 3004(a) to cover the following
expenses:
``(1) The administrative expenses of carrying out its
program under this Act during the year, including--
``(A) determining the eligibility of students to
participate;
``(B) selecting the eligible students to receive
scholarships;
``(C) determining the amount of the scholarships and
issuing the scholarships to eligible students;
``(D) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic
records; and
``(E) conducting site visits as described in section
3005(b)(1)(l).
``(2) The expenses of educating parents about the entity's
program under this Act, and assisting parents through the
application process under this Act, including--
``(A) providing information about the program and the
participating schools to parents of eligible students;
``(B) providing funds to assist parents of students in
meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the
participation of eligible students in the program; and
``(C) streamlining the application process for parents.'';
and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(d) Clarification of Use of Funds for Student Academic
Assistance.--Section
[[Page H7072]]
3007(c) (sec. 38-1853.07(c), D.C. Official Code), as
redesignated by subsection (c)(2), is amended by striking
``identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)'' and
inserting ``identified as a low-achieving school according to
the Office of the State Superintendent of Education of the
District of Columbia''.
(e) Permitting Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From
Previous Fiscal Years.--Section 3007 (sec. 38-1853.07, D.C.
Official Code), as amended by this section, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Permitting Use of Funds Remaining Unobligated From
Previous Fiscal Years.--To the extent that any funds
appropriated for the opportunity scholarship program under
this Act for any fiscal year (including a fiscal year
occurring prior to the enactment of this subsection) remain
unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, the Secretary
shall make such funds available during the next fiscal year
and (if still unobligated as of the end of that fiscal year)
any subsequent fiscal year for scholarships for eligible
students, except that an eligible entity may use not more
than 5 percent of the funds for administrative expenses,
parental assistance, and tutoring, in addition to the amounts
appropriated for such purposes under section 3007(b) and
(c).''.
SEC. 7. PROGRAM EVALUATION.
(a) Revision of Evaluation Procedures and Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Section 3009(a) (sec. 38-1853.09(a), D.C.
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Duties of the secretary and the mayor.--The Secretary
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall--
``(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of
Education Sciences of the Department of Education to evaluate
annually the opportunity scholarship program under this Act;
``(B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and
evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the District of
Columbia public charter schools under this Act; and
``(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c).
``(2) Duties of the secretary.--The Secretary, through a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall--
``(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)--
``(i) is conducted using an acceptable quasi-experimental
research design for determining the effectiveness of the
opportunity scholarship program under this Act which does not
use a control study group consisting of students who applied
for but who did not receive opportunity scholarships; and
``(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); and
``(B) disseminate information on the impact of the
program--
``(i) in increasing academic achievement and educational
attainment of participating eligible students; and
``(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia.
``(3) Duties of the institute of education sciences.--The
Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of
Education shall--
``(A) assess participating eligible students in each of the
grades 3 through 8, as well as one of the grades in the high
school level, by supervising the administration of the same
reading and math assessment used by the District of Columbia
Public Schools to comply with section 1111(b) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b));
``(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating
students in the grades described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the
parents of each student who receives a scholarship under this
Act agree to permit the student to participate in the
evaluations and assessments carried out by the Institute
under this subsection.
``(4) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues to be evaluated
under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:
``(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of
participating eligible students in the measurements described
in paragraph (3) to the academic achievement of a comparison
group of students with similar backgrounds in the District of
Columbia Public Schools.
``(B) The success of the program under this Act in
expanding choice options for parents of participating
eligible students and increasing the satisfaction of such
parents and students with their choice.
``(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible
students choose for their children to participate in the
program, including important characteristics for selecting
schools.
``(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school
graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college
persistence rates, and college graduation rates of
participating eligible students with the rates of students in
the comparison group described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) A comparison of the college enrollment rates, college
persistence rates, and college graduation rates of students
who participated in the program in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, and 2015 as the result of winning the Opportunity
Scholarship Program lottery with the rates of students who
entered but did not win such lottery in those years and who,
as a result, served as the control group for previous
evaluations of the program under this Act.
``(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by
participating eligible students and the schools in the
District of Columbia attended by students in the comparison
group described in subparagraph (A), based on the perceptions
of the students and parents.
``(G) Such other issues with respect to participating
eligible students as the Secretary considers appropriate for
inclusion in the evaluation, such as the impact of the
program on public elementary schools and secondary schools in
the District of Columbia.
``(5) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--
``(A) In general.--Any disclosure of personally
identifiable information shall be in compliance with section
444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known
as the `Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974')
(20 U.S.C. 1232g).
``(B) Students not attending public schools.--With respect
to any student who is not attending a public elementary
school or secondary school, personally identifiable
information may not be disclosed outside of the group of
individuals carrying out the evaluation for such student or
the group of individuals providing information for carrying
out the evaluation of such student, other than to the parents
of such student.''.
(2) Transition from current evaluation.--The Secretary of
Education shall terminate the current evaluations conducted
under section 3009(a) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and
Results Act (sec. 38-1853.09, D.C. Official Code), as in
effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act, after
obtaining data for the 2015-2016 school year, and shall
submit the reports required with respect to the evaluations
in accordance with section 3009(b) of such Act. Effective
with respect to the 2016-2017 school year, the Secretary
shall conduct new evaluations in accordance with the
provisions of section 3009(a) of such Act as amended by this
Act, and as a component of the new evaluations, the Secretary
shall continue to monitor and evaluate the students who were
evaluated in the most recent evaluation under such section
prior to the enactment of this Act, along with their
corresponding test scores and other information.
(b) Duty of Mayor To Ensure Institute Has All Information
Necessary To Carry Out Evaluations.--Section 3011(a)(1) (sec.
38-1853.11(a)(1), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Information necessary to carry out evaluations.--
Ensure that all District of Columbia public schools and
District of Columbia public charter schools make available to
the Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of
Education all of the information the Institute requires to
carry out the assessments and perform the evaluations
required under section 3009(a).''.
SEC. 8. FUNDING FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
(a) Mandatory Withholding of Funds for Failure To Comply
With Conditions.--Section 3011(b) (sec. 38-1853.11(b), D.C.
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Enforcement.--If, after reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary determines that the
Mayor has failed to comply with any of the requirements of
subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in
whole or in part--
``(1) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under section 3014(a)(2), if the failure to comply relates to
the District of Columbia public schools;
``(2) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under section 3014(a)(3), if the failure to comply relates to
the District of Columbia public charter schools; or
``(3) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated
under both section 3014(a)(2) and section 3014(a)(3), if the
failure relates to both the District of Columbia public
schools and the District of Columbia public charter
schools.''.
(b) Rules for Use of Funds Provided for Support of Public
Charter Schools.--Section 3011 (sec. 38-1853.11, D.C.
Official Code) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Specific Rules Regarding Funds Provided for Support
of Public Charter Schools.--The following rules shall apply
with respect to the funds provided under this Act for the
support of District of Columbia public charter schools:
``(1) The Secretary may direct the funds provided for any
fiscal year, or any portion thereof, to the Office of the
State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia
(OSSE).
``(2) The OSSE may transfer the funds to subgrantees who
are specific District of Columbia public charter schools or
networks of such schools or who are District of Columbia-
based non-profit organizations with experience in
successfully providing support or assistance to District of
Columbia public charter schools or networks of schools.
``(3) The funds shall be available to any District of
Columbia public charter school in good standing with the
District of Columbia Charter School Board (Board), and the
OSSE and Board may not restrict the availability
[[Page H7073]]
of the funds to certain types of schools on the basis of the
school's location, governing body, or any other
characteristic.''.
SEC. 9. REVISION OF CURRENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
The Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall revise the memorandum of understanding which
is in effect under section 3012(d) of the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act (sec. 38-1853.12(d), D.C.
Official Code) as of the day before the date of the enactment
of this Act to address the following:
(1) The amendments made by this Act.
(2) The need to ensure that participating schools under
such Act meet fire code standards and maintain certificates
of occupancy.
(3) The need to ensure that District of Columbia public
schools and District of Columbia public charter schools meet
the requirements under such Act to comply with all reasonable
requests for information necessary to carry out the
evaluations required under section 3009(a) of such Act.
SEC. 10. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 3014(a) (sec. 38-1853.14(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended by striking ``each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years''
and inserting ``each of the 9 succeeding fiscal years''.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
school year 2016-2017 and each succeeding school year.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in House Report 114-300. Each further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-300.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 9, beginning line 5, strike ``identified as a low-
achieving school according to the Office of the State
Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia'' and
insert ``identified as one of the lowest-performing schools
under the District of Columbia's accountability system''.
Page 10, beginning line 25, strike ``, or by any other
accrediting body determined appropriate by the District of
Columbia Office of the State Superintendent for Schools for
the purpose of accrediting an elementary or secondary
school''.
Page 16, beginning line 7, strike ``identified as a low-
achieving school according to the Office of the State
Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia'' and
insert ``identified as one of the lowest-performing schools
under the District of Columbia's accountability system''.
Page 18, line 10, strike ``evaluate'' and insert ``report
on''.
Page 21, line 12, strike ``A comparison of'' and insert ``A
report on''.
Page 21, line 18, strike ``with the rates'' and insert ``as
well as the rates''.
Page 21, line 22, after the period add the following:
``Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to waive
section 3004(a)(3)(A)(iii) with respect to any such
student.''.
Page 25, beginning line 20, strike ``may direct the funds
provided for any fiscal year, or any portion thereof,'' and
insert ``shall direct the funds provided for any fiscal
year''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment that I am
offering makes small technical changes to the bill.
First, the amendment substitutes the term ``low achieving schools''
for ``lowest performing schools,'' which corresponds to the language
used by the District of Columbia on this topic.
Second, the amendment makes clear that the Secretary of Education and
the Mayor of the District of Columbia will monitor and report on the
use of funds authorized by this bill.
Third, the amendment clarifies reporting requirements in the bill to
protect students against arbitrary exclusion from the program.
Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Education to direct
funding for public charter schools to the District's Office of the
State Superintendent of Education.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that reflects the ongoing
conversations with the District of Columbia regarding this bill. I urge
its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). Without objection, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I actually agree with the chairman, and the
chairman has consulted with us on these changes, which are technical in
nature.
I do not oppose this amendment. Indeed, I want to thank our chairman
for working with us before this committee markup on this bill on some
additional technical changes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate working with the Delegate.
It is a good working relationship. We have our opposition from time to
time, but she did work with us in this way, and I appreciate her
support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-300.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of section 6 the following new subsection:
(f) Limit on Percentage of Total Student Population of
School Who Receive Opportunity Scholarships.--Section 3007(a)
(sec. 38-1853.07(a), D.C. Official Code), as amended by
subsection (b), is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3),
and (5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and
(6)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Limit on percentage of total student population
receiving opportunity scholarships.--
``(A) In general.--None of the funds provided under this
Act for opportunity scholarships may be used by an eligible
student to enroll in a participating school for a school year
unless the school certifies to the eligible entity that, for
the school year, the number of students enrolled in the
school who receive opportunity scholarships under this Act
does not exceed the number of students enrolled in the school
who do not receive opportunity scholarships under this Act.
``(B) Exceptions.--In determining the number of students
enrolled in a school who receive opportunity scholarships
under this Act for a school year under subparagraph (A),
there shall be excluded any student who was receiving an
opportunity scholarship as of the date of the enactment of
the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization
Act and any student who is the sibling of a student who was
receiving an opportunity scholarship as of the date of the
enactment of such Act.''.
Page 18, strike line 23 and all that follows through page
19, line 5 and insert the following:
``(i) is conducted using the strongest possible research
design for determining the effectiveness of the opportunity
scholarship program under this Act; and''.
Page 20, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the following:
``(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the
parents of each student who applies for a scholarship under
this Act (regardless of whether the student receives the
scholarship) and the parents of each student participating in
the scholarship program under this Act, agree that the
student will participate, if requested by the Institute, in
the measurements given annually by the Institute for the
period for which the student applied for or received the
scholarship, respectively, except that nothing in this
subparagraph shall affect a student's priority for an
opportunity scholarship as provided under section 3006.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Speaker's voucher bill is sure to pass, and I am sure it is
offered with the best of intentions. Therefore, I want to work with him
and with Members and with those in the Senate who support vouchers to
provide much-needed oversight for the millions in
[[Page H7074]]
Federal dollars in this bill. It is in that spirit that I offer a two-
part amendment, and both parts are entirely consistent with the
underlying bill.
The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, said in 2007 and again
in 2013 that the voucher program lacks quality control, transparency,
and information.
In response, the first part of my amendment restores the scientific
integrity of the program's evaluation, copied from prior authorizations
of this bill, and the second prohibits voucher mills, not our
accredited Catholic schools, which are attended by most of our
children, but their competition for vouchers--a small, but significant,
number of private schools that would not exist but for this Federal
funding.
First, my amendment restores the evaluation of the program's
effectiveness that Congress has required since the program was created
in 2004--and I am quoting from Congress--``to be conducted using the
strongest possible research design.''
In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be conducted using
``an acceptable quasi-experimental research design that actually
prohibits the more scientific randomized controlled trial Congress
mandated in prior authorizations.''
Yet the congressionally mandated evaluation said that randomized
controlled trials ``are especially important in the context of School
Choice because families wanting to apply for a Choice program may have
educational goals and aspirations that differ from the average
family's.''
I appreciate that this bill requires for the first time that schools
be accredited, but it gives unaccredited schools 5 years, along with
the grace period of a year, to become accredited.
This time frame is so long that it would allow existing and new
unaccredited schools to accept voucher students well into the decade.
The 50 percent cap that my amendment proposes at least would ensure
that voucher schools would ultimately be eliminated.
For example, the GAO found that six participating voucher schools had
more than 80 percent of their enrollment from voucher students. A
Washington Post investigation found one school where voucher students
comprised 93 percent of the total.
The majority concedes that there is a need for the ongoing evaluation
of the program's effectiveness by requiring a study of this bill, but
after the mandated study showed that vouchers did not improve student
achievement, the majority took care of that by watering down the
mandated evaluation.
The second part of my amendment prohibits fly-by-night, often
storefront school voucher bills by eliminating the percentage of
voucher students in the school to 50 percent of the school's total
enrollment. No current voucher student or sibling would be affected by
the cap.
My amendment would disqualify so-called voucher mills, a small, but
significant, number of schools that cannot survive without government
funding, most of which sprang up in low-income neighborhoods after the
program was created to get unrestricted Federal funds.
Why should the major recipients of voucher funds--our fully
accredited Catholic schools or other parochial and private schools--
have to share the available funding with voucher mills of low quality?
The way to eliminate these unaccredited schools, which are unworthy of
our students, is to require that their enrollment not consist primarily
of voucher students.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Post's investigation, entitled,
``Quality controls lacking for D.C. schools accepting Federal
vouchers,'' be included in the Record.
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2012]
Quality Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal Vouchers
(By Lyndsey Layton and Emma Brown)
Congress created the nation's only federally funded school
voucher program in the District to give the city's poorest
children a chance at a better education than their
neighborhood schools offer.
But a Washington Post review found that hundreds of
students use their voucher dollars to attend schools that are
unaccredited or are in unconventional settings, such as a
family-run K-12 school operating out of a storefront, a
Nation of Islam school based in a converted Deanwood
residence, and a school built around the philosophy of a
Bulgarian psychotherapist.
At a time when public schools face increasing demands for
accountability and transparency, the 52 D.C. private schools
that receive millions of federal voucher dollars are subject
to few quality controls and offer widely disparate
experiences, the Post found.
Some of these schools are heavily dependent on tax dollars,
with more than 90 percent of their students paying with
federal vouchers.
Yet the government has no say over curriculum, quality or
management. And parents trying to select a school have little
independent information, relying mostly on marketing from the
schools.
The director of the nonprofit organization that manages the
D.C. vouchers on behalf of the federal government calls
quality control ``a blind spot.''
``We've raised the question of quality oversight of the
program as sort of a dead zone, a blind spot,'' said Ed
Davies, interim executive director of the D.C. Children and
Youth Investment Trust Corp. ``Currently, we don't have that
authority. It doesn't exist.''
Republicans in Congress established the D.C. voucher
program eight years ago to demonstrate the school-choice
concepts that the party has been espousing since the 1950s.
Vouchers were once thought to be moribund, but came roaring
to life in 2010 in states where Republicans took control.
Fourteen states have created voucher programs or expanded
existing ones in recent years.
Some states, such as Wisconsin, now include middle-class
families in their voucher programs. Other states, including
Virginia, have begun indirectly steering public dollars to
private schools by offering tax credits to those who donate
to scholarship funds.
In some cases, the public has pushed back against the idea
of routing state dollars from public to private schools.
Legal challenges are pending in Colorado and Indiana. In the
November elections, Florida voters rejected a ballot
amendment that would have permitted tax dollars to flow to
religious institutions, including parochial schools. That
would have enabled the state to revive a voucher program that
had been declared unconstitutional in 2006 by its highest
court. Yet Florida continues to offer vouchers for disabled
students who want to attend private schools and awards tax
credits to corporations that donate to private-school
scholarship programs.
In the District, it's clear that vouchers have provided
many children with an education at well-established private
schools that otherwise would have been out of reach, and
their parents rave about the opportunity. Of the 1,584
District students now receiving vouchers, more than half
attend Catholic schools and a handful are enrolled at
prestigious independent schools such as Sidwell Friends,
where President Obama sends his daughters.
But the most comprehensive study of the D.C. program found
``no conclusive evidence'' that the vouchers improved math
and reading test scores for those students who left their
public schools.
The study, released by the U.S. Department of Education in
2010, found that voucher students were more likely to
graduate than peers without vouchers, based on data collected
from families. And parents reported that their children were
safer attending the private schools, though the students
themselves perceived no difference.
Congress set aside $20 million for the D.C. voucher program
this year. Since 2004, the federal government has
appropriated $133 million for the program.
Private schools that participate in the D.C. program don't
have to disclose the number of voucher students they enroll
or how much public money they receive, and many declined to
release such information to The Post.
While public schools must report test scores and take
action when they don't meet goals, private schools
participating in the D.C. voucher program are insulated from
such interference.
The schools must administer a single standardized test, but
can choose the type. Those scores are not made public, and
schools can stay in the voucher program no matter how their
students fare.
Schools that accept vouchers are required to hold a
certificate of occupancy and employ teachers who are college
graduates, but they do not have to be accredited. The Post
found that at least eight of the 52 schools are not
accredited.
Parents, not the government, should determine a school's
quality, according to Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), a proud product of Catholic
schools who designed the voucher program. ``Our belief is
that parents--when provided appropriate information--will
select the best learning environment for their children,'' he
wrote in an e-mail.
At Archbishop Carroll High School, where 40 percent of
students receive vouchers, principal Mary Elizabeth Blaufuss
agrees. ``The question is, to what extent do we trust parents
to make educational decisions for their kids?'' she said.
Santa Carballo knew little about the Academia de la Recta
Porta before enrolling her daughter, Emma, through the
voucher program. She chose it because it was across the
street from the Catholic school for boys that her son
attends, also with a voucher, and it seemed better than a
neighborhood public school that has failed for years to meet
achievement targets.
``This is private, it's good,'' said Carballo, an immigrant
from El Salvador who works
[[Page H7075]]
as a waitress and struggles with English. ``It's more
intelligent. And it's religious, it's good. I'm so happy.''
A nondenominational Christian school, the Academia charges
$7,100 a year and occupies a soot-stained storefront between
a halal meat shop and an evening wear boutique on a busy
stretch of Georgia Avenue NW near the Maryland line.
The K-12 school consists of two classrooms. A drum set and
keyboard are stowed in a corner for music class; for gym,
students travel nearly two miles down Georgia Avenue to the
city's Emery Recreation Center.
Annette and Reginald Miles founded the unaccredited school
13 years ago. He is the pastor of the associated church, she
is the school director, their daughter is a teacher and their
grandson is a student.
Annette Miles declined to say how many of her 70 students
receive vouchers. If the program were to end, the Academia
would ``have to stretch with fundraising'' to continue
operating, she said.
To be eligible for a voucher, families must qualify for
food stamps or meet other income requirements.
Through the D.C. program, the federal government pays about
$8,000 a year for each elementary school student and $12,000
for high schoolers. That's less than the $18,000 a year it
costs to educate one child in the D.C. Public Schools. Many
of the participating private schools do not offer costly
services for children with disabilities, who make up about 18
percent of the DCPS school population.
The voucher payments are enough to cover tuition at most
Catholic schools, which enroll about 52 percent of D.C.
voucher students. But they pay only a fraction of costs at
elite institutions such as the Sheridan School in Northwest
D.C., where charges can reach about $30,000 a year.
Tiblez Berhane has a daughter in eighth grade who is
attending Sheridan with a voucher and financial aid from the
school. ``It's wonderful,'' said Berhane, an immigrant from
Eritrea who works in a day-care center. ``We could never
afford this.''
While Sheridan, Sidwell Friends and the Washington
International School each have one voucher student, the
Academy for Ideal Education depends almost entirely on the
federal program.
Founder Paulette Jones-Imaan created the school more than
two decades ago, aiming to provide a nurturing environment
with small classes and a learning model known as
``Suggestopedia,'' a philosophy of learning developed by
Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov that stresses
learning through music, stretching and meditation. Jones-
Imaan melds that philosophy with an African-flavored approach
that includes students addressing teachers as ``Mama'' and
``Baba,'' honorifics meaning mother and father.
Jones-Imaan also founded a K-12 public charter school,
Ideal Academy, based on the same educational philosophy, in
1999. She served on the board for more than a decade.
But the charter school ran into trouble. Last year, the
D.C. Public Charter School Board threatened to close it
because of chronic poor performance. Ideal Academy agreed to
shutter its high school, which had a particularly poor
record, in order to keep its lower grades open. The
preschool-8th grade Ideal Academy was classified as
``inadequate'' this year by the city's charter officials,
which means it could be closed if it doesn't improve.
Meanwhile, the private Academy for Ideal Education
continues on. More than 90 percent of its approximately 60
students are paying the $11,400 tuition with vouchers, Jones-
Imaan said. ``If this program were to end, this school would
end,'' she said.
While some schools have libraries, art studios and athletic
fields, the Muhammad University of Islam occupies the second
floor of a former residence east of the Anacostia River. The
unaccredited K-8 school is supported by the Nation of Islam,
according to director Stephanie Muhammad.
Parents choose the school because of its small classes,
safety and strict discipline, she said.
About one-third of the 55 students hold vouchers. Few of
the others can afford the $5,335 annual tuition, Muhammad
said. They are asked to help defray tuition by raising funds.
Last month, they sold pizzas. This month, it's coffee and
tea.
The classrooms are small, located in what were perhaps once
bedrooms. On the walls are posters of Louis Farrakhan, the
controversial leader of the Nation of Islam.
On a recent visit, the only bathroom in the school had a
floor blackened with dirt and a sink coated in grime. The
bathtub was filled with paint cans and cleaning supplies
concealed by a curtain.
Muhammad said in a subsequent interview that the bathroom
is used only in emergencies, and students typically use a
restroom on the floor below in a day-care center that she had
previously described as unrelated to the school.
Kevin P. Chavous, a former D.C. Council member and now a
senior adviser to American Federation for Children, which
lobbies for voucher programs nationwide, said schools
receiving public funds should meet quality standards. But
supporters of the D.C. program have been focused on
overcoming political challenges, he said.
``There should be some accountability measures in all these
programs,'' Chavous said. ``Our biggest challenge has been
the constant threats to shut this down before we can even
measure the schools.''
Since Congress created the voucher program in 2004, Boehner
and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have regularly
wrestled with Democrats over its fate. Republicans and
Lieberman want to expand the program; Democrats want to phase
it out.
``Our goal is to provide a quality education to all
children--not just a few--which is why the Obama
administration does not believe vouchers are the answer to
America's educational challenges,'' said Justin Hamilton, a
spokesman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and D.C. Mayor Vincent C.
Gray (D) also are opposed to the voucher program, saying
public dollars should go toward improving public schools
where they can help the most students.
Still, the program has offered some children a crucial path
out of troubled city schools.
Ophelia Johnson and her daughters were homeless when she
learned about the voucher program. She obtained vouchers for
both her daughters and enrolled them at the Calvary Christian
Academy, which she credits with providing her children a
secure, caring and consistent environment as she pulled her
life together.
``It's wonderful,'' Johnson said about the voucher program
that allowed her daughters to attend the academy. ``The
atmosphere, the education, and it's also a Christian school.
They taught my girls.''
Now, Johnson is employed, newly remarried and living with
her daughters in a condominium on Capitol Hill. Her older
daughter, Tabitha, is applying to colleges.
``She'll be the first to go in the family,'' Johnson said,
pride in her voice.
Ms. NORTON. The Federal vouchers give these schools the Federal
Government's seal of approval. Considering that the purpose of the
voucher program is to improve student achievement, voucher bills are
inconsistent with the congressional intent and should not be enabled
with Federal funds or get the Federal imprimatur.
I appreciate that the majority indicated in committee and also on
this floor that they, too, oppose voucher mills and are willing to work
with me on this issue. I hope to continue to work with the majority as
the bill moves forward in order to eliminate voucher bills, which
surely no Member supports.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this is the same amendment that Delegate
Norton offered to the bill during markup, but it was rejected by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The amendment would cap the enrollment of OSP students, the
Opportunity Scholarship Program, at 50 percent of the school's
population without affecting current voucher students or siblings. The
amendment would also restore the randomized controlled study
requirement.
Mr. Chairman, this program is about opportunity and choice. Parents
should be able to choose the best schools for their children, and
private schools should have the flexibility to determine whether or not
to enroll OSP students.
I understand the Delegate's concern that students maintain quality
standards. In fact, I share it. That is why H.R. 10 requires
participating OSP schools to achieve accreditation no later than 5
years after the passage of the act. This is a more effective way to
ensure the quality than by arbitrarily excluding students from the
program.
Mr. Chairman, the accreditation process required by H.R. 10 will
ensure education and administrative quality control. The process will
help weed out poor performers from this program without setting a cap
on OSP student enrollment.
As for the return to the control group evaluation, this is
unnecessary for the OSP. The OSP has been rigorously evaluated using
the Gold Standard since 2003, and it has demonstrated positive results.
The Gold Standard Evaluation, using a randomized controlled evaluation,
deliberately limits participation in the program.
Under this evaluation method, some student applicants received
scholarships while other student applicants were placed in a control
group that did not receive scholarships. Given the OSP's proven success
under this standard, it is time to allow as many students to receive
scholarships as funding permits.
[[Page H7076]]
Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the bill does not forsake
evaluation. Instead, the bill requires the OSP students' performance
base to be compared to that of students of similar backgrounds of the
D.C. public schools. The evaluation method means no more students will
be barred from a good education through OSP for the sake of the
experiment.
Mr. Chairman, on average, 2.5 students apply for each scholarship
that is ultimately awarded. We should be focused on meeting the demand
for access to a good education rather than arbitrarily limiting
students' ability to succeed.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, which would
unnecessarily exclude children from the educational opportunities they
desire and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Allen). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Graves of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Allen, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10)
to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, and
for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 480, he reported
the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with a
further amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Scott of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Add at the end of section 6 the following new subsection:
(f) Requiring Protection of Students and Applicants Under
Civil Rights Laws.--Section 3008 (sec. 38-1853.08, D.C.
Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i) Requiring Protection of Students and Applicants Under
Civil Rights Laws.--In addition to meeting the requirements
of subsection (a), an eligible entity or a school may not
participate in the opportunity scholarship program under this
Act unless the eligible entity or school certifies to the
Secretary that the eligible entity or school will provide
each student who applies for or receives an opportunity
scholarship under this Act with all of the applicable
protections available under each of the following laws:
``(1) Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000c et seq.).
``(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.).
``(3) Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (20
U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).
``(4) The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (20
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
``(5) The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(6) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.).
``(7) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et
seq.).
``(8) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).''.
{time} 1715
Mr. CHAFFETZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
I rise to speak in support of the Democratic motion to recommit that
would protect the civil rights of students at schools that receive
vouchers by requiring the schools to certify that they provide each
student with all applicable civil rights protections.
The D.C. voucher program calls into question multiple Federal civil
rights protections and turns a blind eye to the government-funded
discrimination. For example, religious schools that accept vouchers are
permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring, a
violation of traditional principles prohibiting discrimination based on
religion when using Federal money.
The fact is that most religious schools are part of a ministry of the
sponsoring church, and these schools either cannot or will not separate
the religious content from their academic programs. So it is impossible
to prevent a publicly funded voucher program for paying for these
institutions' religious activities and education.
Furthermore, schools that accept vouchers are allowed to discriminate
based on gender in admissions, a violation of the principles of title
IX.
In addition to the discrimination based on religion or sex, the D.C.
voucher program also raises serious concerns about the civil rights of
students with disabilities. IDEA requires that schools that receive
Federal IDEA funds provide appropriate education to all students with
disabilities, but at least one study found that the schools that accept
D.C. vouchers serve students with disabilities at a much lower rate
than public schools.
Failing to meet the needs of students with disabilities is just one
of the shortcomings of the D.C. voucher program, but another issue is
the performance of the school. A 2010 Department of Education report
concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically significant
impact on overall student achievement in math or reading.
Additional studies found that students from schools in need of
improvement have shown no improvement in math or reading due to the
voucher program. Furthermore, participating in the voucher program had
no impact on student safety, satisfaction, motivation, or engagement.
Mr. Speaker, many of those who actually won a voucher cannot use them
because the voucher does not cover the full cost of attending a private
or religious school. As a result, many who win a voucher find that they
cannot use it because they can't afford the remaining cost of the
education. So studies have confirmed that fewer than 25 percent of the
students who use the vouchers are from schools that were ``in need of
improvement.''
The D.C. voucher program fails on all counts. It violates principles
of traditional civil rights laws, it makes no improvement on student
achievement, and it fails to reach the very children it was designed to
help.
Our public schools need more funding, not less. Rather than funnel
taxpayer funding to private or religious schools that lack civil rights
protections and fail to meet the goals of helping the right students,
we should focus our efforts on initiatives that will result in overall
improvement of the educational system for all of our students.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our children by
supporting this motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, Mr. Scott of Virginia is
one of my favorite people in this body. I have the greatest respect.
His perspective is one that I often share.
I would just highlight for this body here, because I do urge a ``no''
vote on this motion to recommit, that we had a field hearing in May. We
have had good debate. We had a good markup.
[[Page H7077]]
We had always projected to move this bill in the fall. I think it is
time to bring up this bill. So we have never had this issue ever
brought to my attention as chairman of the committee.
I would also highlight that section 3008, Nondiscrimination and Other
Requirements for Participating Schools--I will read just point A.
``In General.--An eligible entity or school participating in any
program under this division shall not discriminate against program
participants or applicants on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex.''
I do look forward to working with the gentleman and anybody else on
these issues moving forward, but I would urge a ``no'' vote on the
motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________