[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Page 24175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              DC VOUCHERS

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
discuss my opposition to the voucher provision in the D.C. 
appropriations bill.
  Our government promises every child in the United States a free and 
appropriate public education. The very idea that Federal funds that 
should be going to our Nation's public schools to fulfill that promise 
will instead be siphoned away to private schools is of great concern to 
me.
  As a product of public schools, and the child of a public school 
teacher, I am a strong supporter of the public school system. I often 
say that while we cannot be a Nation of equal outcomes, we can and must 
be a Nation of equal opportunities. Our public schools are the key to 
equal opportunity for all American children.
  Although the voucher program we are discussing today would only 
impact the District of Columbia, it clearly would have national 
implications. It is a calculated first step toward broader voucher 
programs, which would drain resources from our public schools--the very 
schools that are free and open to all children, and accountable to 
parents and taxpayers.
  Simply put, vouchers are not the answer to our educational ills--they 
are bad education policy driven by ideological goals.
  Wouldn't our energy be better focused on strengthening our public 
schools, which can and do succeed with adequate resources? To succeed, 
schools need high-quality teachers, a rigorous curriculum, high 
expectations, parental involvement, and effective management. All of 
these require adequate resources.
  In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which was 
intended to reform public education by establishing high standards for 
every student, providing Federal incentives to boost low-performing 
schools, and creating accountability.
  Unlike vouchers, which even supporters acknowledge would reach only a 
small fraction of children, No Child Left Behind was intended to 
implement proven, effective reforms in all schools not just for a few 
students, but for all students.
  But the administration and this Congress are not living up to the 
promise of No Child Left Behind and are underfunding it by over $8 
billion. This leaves millions of children behind and places additional 
burdens on already burdened State and local education budgets.
  And, on top of underfunding No Child Left Behind, we are now 
considering giving funds to schools that are not even subject to its 
provisions.
  As we know, No Child Left Behind would ensure oversight and 
accountability, including testing standards and teacher qualification 
standards. But the voucher program we are considering today does not 
provide the same system of accountability or oversight of these private 
schools, nor does it set the same criteria for the very people that 
will be teaching our children.
  In fact, this bill allows any private school to apply to participate 
in the program, but there is no evaluation process before they are 
accepted to participate. This leaves D.C. children vulnerable to poor-
performing schools.
  I ask proponents of the bill: How can we ask our public schools to 
fulfill the significant mandates of No Child Left Behind, when we are 
refusing those schools adequate funds and at the same time giving 
Federal money to schools that are not even required to abide by many of 
its mandates?
  Proponents of the voucher program say that it provides parents with 
``choice'' that they do not currently have. This is simply not true. 
The District of Columbia already offers three alternatives to 
traditional public schools. First, D.C. has the largest number of 
public charter schools per capita in the Nation. If we pass this 
voucher program, these charter schools will remain underfunded. Yet we 
still want to give private schools money.
  Second, D.C. has established 15 public transformation schools that 
have, for the first time ever, succeeded in raising the scores of low-
income children in low-performing schools. Again, however, the very 
programs in these transformation schools that have succeeded are now 
seeing cuts in funding. Yet we still want to give private schools 
money.
  Finally, D.C. allows parents who are not content with their 
neighborhood school to send their child to out-of-boundary schools that 
are accountable to public education standards. Yet we still want to 
give private schools money.
  If this is not school choice, then what is? Why can't we give these 
types of schools a chance to succeed rather than undermining them and 
draining funds from their already successful programs?
  Proponents of vouchers also claim that the program in this bill is a 
pilot program and should be given a chance. But Milwaukee and Cleveland 
both tried to implement a voucher program, and a GAO study of the 
programs in these two cities found no or little difference in voucher 
and public school students' performance.
  Our cities have tried vouchers and have not succeeded. Our children 
should not be guinea pigs for programs that have simply not been proven 
effective at raising academic achievement.
  I am not the only one opposed to this program. My friend and 
colleague in the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along 
with the majority of the D.C. City Council and School Board, also 
oppose any voucher program. In addition, the residents of the District 
of Columbia are overwhelmingly opposed to private school vouchers.
  Let's not turn D.C. into a laboratory for school vouchers. Vouchers 
are not the solution to improving educational opportunity in D.C. or 
anywhere else in America. Let's instead focus on fulfilling the promise 
of No Child Left Behind by fully funding it, and giving our public 
schools the resources they need to truly succeed.

                          ____________________