U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–416 PDF 2016

EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITY THROUGH 

SCHOOL CHOICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

Serial No. 114–37 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 3, 2016 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 01 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 05 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 03 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 05 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bryan, Rob, Hon., a Representative in Congress from the state of North 

Carolina ......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Huerta, Luis A., Mr., Professor of Education and Public Policy, Teachers 

College, Columbia University ...................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Merriweather, Denisha, Ms., Student, University of South Florida ............ 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Robinson, Gerald, Mr., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute .... 07 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Huerta: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 104 

Mr. Scott: 

Letter dated February 2, 2016 from Americans United (AU) ............... 72 

Letter dated February 2, 2016 from The National Coalition for Public 

Education ................................................................................................ 76 

Letter dated February 3, 2016 from National School Boards Association (NSBA) ............................................................................................ 40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 

OPPORTUNITY THROUGH SCHOOL CHOICE 

Wednesday, February 3, 2016 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center. Hon. John Kline [Chairman of 

the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Guthrie, Rokita, 

Heck, Messer, Byrne, Brat, Carter, Bishop, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, 

Hinojosa, Fudge, Polis, Bonamici, Pocan, Takano, Jeffries, Clark, 

Adams, and DeSaulnier. 

Staff Present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Alexandra Pena, Intern; Mandy 

Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior Education 

Policy Advisor; Sheariah Yousefi, Legislative Assistant; Tylease 

Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin 

Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; 

Christine Godinez, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Rayna Reid, Minority Education Policy 

Counsel; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant; Michael Taylor, 

Minority Education Policy Fellow; and Arika Trim, Minority Press 

Secretary. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce will come to order. Good morning, everyone, welcome to today’s hearing. I want to thank our witnesses 

for joining us as we discuss ways to expand educational opportunity through school choice. 

This committee’s work to improve K–12 education has always 

been guided by the belief that every child regardless of where they 

come from or how much money their parents make should receive 

an excellent education. 

Unfortunately, some schools are failing to provide students that 

opportunity. Too many of our nation’s students are entering high 

school without the critical skills they need to complete their eduCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

cation, and too many graduates are going off to college or entering 

the workforce without the tools they need to succeed in life. 

Everyone here agrees our children deserve better. They deserve 

the opportunity to receive a better education and pursue a better 

life. That is why improving K–12 education continues to be such an 

important priority at the federal, state, and local levels. 

By empowering parents to do what is best for their child, school 

choice has been an instrumental part of that effort. 

When we passed legislation last year to improve K–12 education, 

empowering parents was one of our primary goals because we know 

parents can make the most meaningful difference in their child’s 

education. 

Several reforms in the Every Student Succeeds Act help parents 

do what is best for their child’s education by expanding school 

choice, reforms such as increasing access to quality charter schools 

and magnet schools, protecting home schools from federal interference, and launching a pilot program that will encourage excellent schools to enroll harder to serve students. 

While these reforms are encouraging, education leaders in state 

capitals and local school districts are the real reason why the promise of school choice has touched the lives of so many parents and 

children. The progress we have seen over the last 25 years is remarkable. 

The school choice movement began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 

1990, where local leaders piloted the first private school choice program, known as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The pilot 

provided low income families scholarships to attend a quality 

school. 

Since then, the program has paved the way for thousands of students to receive a better education and inspired 27 other states to 

create different types of private school choice programs, many of 

which have been credited with helping students graduate not only 

from high school but from college as well. 

My home state of Minnesota was not far behind Milwaukee in 

expanding educational opportunities for students and families. We 

never really consider ourselves behind Milwaukee, but in 1991, the 

state passed the nation’s first charter school law, providing parents 

an alternative public school option that better met their child’s 

needs. 

Today, more than 40 states have passed charter school laws 

opening the doors to thousands of schools that have served millions 

of students. 

These are just a few examples of how school choice is helping 

students and families. Last week marked the 5th Annual National 

School Choice Week, where more than 16,000 events in all 50 

states showcased the success of school choice from private school 

scholarships and public charter schools, to home schooling and education savings accounts. 

In all its forms, school choice has provided real hope to mom’s, 

dad’s, and children across the country. 

Today, as we learn more about how states and local communities 

are expanding school choice, I encourage my colleagues to ask how 

we can support these efforts and help more children receive the 

education they deserve. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, for his 

opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today’s hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us as we discuss ways to expand educational opportunity through 

school choice. 

This committee’s work to improve K–12 education has always been guided by the 

belief that every child – regardless of where they come from or how much money 

their parents make – should receive an excellent education. Unfortunately, some 

schools are failing to provide students that opportunity. Too many of our nation’s 

students are entering high school without the critical skills they need to complete 

their education, and too many graduates are going off to college or entering the 

workforce without the tools they need to succeed in life. 

Everyone here agrees our children deserve better. They deserve the opportunity 

to receive a better education and pursue a better life. That’s why improving K–12 

education continues to be such an important priority at the federal, state, and local 

levels. By empowering parents to do what’s best for their child, school choice has 

been an instrumental part of that effort. 

When we passed legislation last year to improve K–12 education, empowering parents was one of our primary goals, because we know parents can make the most 

meaningful difference in their child’s education. Several reforms in the Every Student Succeeds Act help parents do what’s best for their child’s education by expanding school choice, reforms such as: increasing access to quality charter schools and 

magnet schools; protecting home schools from federal interference; and launching a 

pilot program that will encourage excellent schools to enroll harder to serve students. 

While these reforms are encouraging, education leaders in state capitals and local 

school districts are the real reason why the promise of school choice has touched 

the lives of so many parents and children. The progress we have seen over the last 

25 years is remarkable. 

The school choice movement began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1990, where local 

leaders piloted the first private school choice program. Known as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the pilot provided low-income families scholarships to attend 

a quality school. Since then, the program has paved the way for thousands of students to receive a better education and inspired 27 other states to create different 

types of private school choice programs – many of which have been credited with 

helping students graduate not only from high school, but from college as well. 

My home state of Minnesota was not far behind Milwaukee in expanding educational opportunities for students and families. In 1991, the state passed the nation’s first charter school law, providing parents an alternative public school option 

that better met their child’s needs. Today more than 40 states have passed charter 

school laws, opening the doors to thousands of schools that have served millions of 

students. 

These are just a few examples of how school choice is helping students and families. Last week marked the 5th annual National School Choice Week, where more 

than 16,000 events in all 50 states showcased the success of school choice, from private school scholarships and public charter schools to homeschooling and education 

savings accounts. In all its forms, school choice has provided real hope to moms, 

dads, and children across the country. 

Today, as we learn more about how states and local communities are expanding 

school choice, I encourage my colleagues to ask how we can support these efforts 

and help more children receive the education they deserve. 

With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we will discuss the 

private school choice initiatives that have proliferated throughout 

the country for the last 20 years. 

As you know, educational funds provided by the Federal Government do not exist in a vacuum. Drastic cuts in general education 

budgets in a number of states threaten the ability to fully impleCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

ment initiatives to improve the quality of education for students 

nationwide. 

Today, we have before us yet another challenge to the limited 

pool of funding, one that serves to divert public funds to subsidize 

the private education of a relatively small number of children at 

the expense of a larger majority attending public schools. 

More broadly, the legacy of ESEA that improvements in education support a basic civil right and should benefit all of our children—that concept is at risk. 

Private school choice programs, be they vouchers or tax credits 

and educational savings accounts, purport to be part of that same 

legacy. They also claim to provide the neediest children with the 

ability to make a choice to attend higher performing schools beyond 

their means. 

State-collected data show that more than two-thirds of the students in the Wisconsin Choice Program and about half of the Indiana voucher recipients were enrolled in private schools before they 

received the voucher. Instead of providing a choice to students in 

underperforming schools, these programs are using public money to 

pay tuition for students already in private schools. 

Mr. Chairman, in the early 1990s, this committee had a subcommittee hearing in Wisconsin, and information we gleaned from 

that hearing showed that the cost of covering those who were already in private schools, the cost of providing them with a voucher, 

would have diverted the equivalent of about $25,000 per classroom 

into private vouchers, denying the people in public schools that 

benefit. 

In addition to these programs not serving a population they were 

legislatively created to support, once advertised as protecting a civil 

right for low-income families and their children, private school 

choice programs in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida are 

raising eligibility requirements to emaking tuition assistance available to those from much higher income brackets. 

The impact of these changes is not readily apparent considering 

that not all programs require schools to accept vouchers as full tuition compensation. The family well below the poverty level faces 

limitations in the choice of schools available to them – limitations 

that families with more resources do not suffer. 

An example of this can be found right here in our nation’s capital 

where over half of the participants in the D.C. Opportunity Program are enrolled in just 8 out of 50 schools. Tuition at these 

schools is entirely covered by the voucher, but less than a quarter 

of all available schools have viable options, and the idea that parents have a real choice must be called into question. 

Once families overcome barriers to admissions due to financial 

concerns, private school choice sleave them and their students 

without the protections required of public school systems enforced 

by federal statutes. 

Studies have indicated that students in voucher programs are 

less likely to have equitable access to key services such as ESOL 

and special education, services that private schools in many states 

are not obligated to provide. 

Regarding attrition in programs like Wisconsin’s Parental School 

Choice Program, one study found that those who leave by choice or 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

otherwise tend to be the more disadvantaged than those who remain. 

Families are enrolling in private schools with the expectation 

that they will provide greater academic outcomes for their families 

and their children but sadly, this is frequently not the case. Evidence of private schools participating in choice programs increasing 

academic achievement compared to public schools is limited. number of studies in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. 

found no positive effects on student achievement as a result of participation. In fact, participation in scholarship programs in Louisiana was found to have a substantial negative effect on academic 

achievement in math, reading, science, and social studies. 

Today, we are left discussing the false choice for families in need, 

one that puts at risk the idea of our shared future successes, which 

is most certain when we invest in equitable education and educational opportunities for all students, and this may threaten the 

basic civil rights protections of the students that we are trying to 

protect. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, Chairman Kline. Today we will discuss private school choice initiatives, which have proliferated throughout the country over the last 20 years. 

As you know, educational funds provided by the federal government do not exist 

in a vacuum. Drastic cuts to general education budgets in a number of states threaten the ability to fully implement initiatives to improve the quality of education for 

students nationwide. 

Today, we have before us yet another challenge to the limited pool of funding, one 

that serves to divert public funds to subsidize the private education of a relatively 

small number of children at the expense of the larger majority attending public 

schools. 

More broadly, the legacy of ESEA – that improvements to education support a 

basic civil right, and should benefit ALL of our children – is at risk. Private school 

choice programs, be they vouchers or similar programs like tax credits and education savings accounts, purport to be part of that same legacy. They also claim to 

provide the neediest students with the ability to make a ‘‘choice’’ to attend higherperforming schools beyond their means. 

State-collected data showed that more than two-thirds of students in the Wisconsin choice program and half of the Indiana voucher recipients were enrolled in 

private schools before receiving a voucher. Instead of providing a choice to students 

in under-performing public schools, these programs are using public money to pay 

the tuition of students already in private schools. 

In addition, these programs are not serving the population they were allegedly 

created to support. Once advertised as protecting a ‘‘civil right’’ for low-income families and their children, private school choice 

programs in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida are raising eligibility requirements, making tuition assistance available to those from higher income brackets. 

If the impact of these changes is not readily apparent, consider that not all programs require schools to accept vouchers as full tuition compensation. A family well 

below the federal poverty level faces limitations on the choice of schools available 

to them that families with more resources can bypass. An example of this can be 

found right here in our nation’s capital, where over half of the participants in the 

D.C. Opportunity program are enrolled in just eight schools, out of over 50 total. 

Tuition at these eight schools is entirely covered by the award – when less than a 

quarter of all available schools are viable options, the idea that parents have any 

real choice must be called into question. 

Once families overcome barriers to admission due to financial concerns, private 

school choice programs leave them and their students without protections required 

of public school systems and enforced by federal 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

statute. Studies have indicated that students in voucher programs were less likely 

to have equitable access to key services such as ESOL and special education, services that private schools in many states are not obligated to provide. Attrition in 

programs like Wisconsin’s Parental School Choice Program, is high, with one study 

finding those who leave – by choice or otherwise – tend to be more disadvantaged 

than those who remain. 

Families are enrolling private schools with the expectation that they will provide 

greater academic outcomes for their children, but sadly, that is frequently not the 

case. Evidence that private schools participating in choice programs increase academic achievement compared to public schools is limited, and a number of studies 

in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. have found no positive effects on 

student achievement as a result of participation. In fact, participation in the scholarship program in Louisiana was found to have substantial negative effects on academic achievement for math, reading, science, and social studies. 

Today we are left with discussing a false choice for families in need, one that puts 

at risk the idea that our shared future success is most certain when we invest in 

equitable educational opportunities for all students, and threatens to violate basic 

civil rights protections. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to 

Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit 

written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, 

and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 

days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing 

record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses. 

Mr. Gerard Robinson is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Robinson works on 

issues relating to school choice, educational policy, K–12 education, 

for-profit schools, community colleges, and historically black colleges and universities. 

Before joining AEI, Mr. Robinson served as the Commissioner of 

Education for the State of Florida, and Secretary of Education for 

the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

I will now turn to Dr. Foxx to introduce our next witness. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Kline. Today, I have the honor 

of introducing a witness hailing from my home State of North 

Carolina, Representative Rob Bryan. He is well qualified to serve 

as a witness on education and school choice as he spent his first 

two years after college in the Teach for America Program at a 

classroom in inner-city Los Angeles. Today, he is also a member of 

BEST North Carolina, where he works with the North Carolina 

Teacher of the Year, James Ford, to identify the best evidence 

based strategies to pay, evaluate, and retain teachers. 

Representative Bryan is a member of the North Carolina House 

of Representatives, where he is the chairman of the Education Appropriations Subcommittee, and a member of the Education Committee. He also co-chaired the North Carolina General Assembly’s 

Educator Compensation and Effectiveness Taskforce. 

In addition to his work in education, Representative Bryan 

serves as a lawyer at the Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice law 

firm. He graduated from fine North Carolina universities, UNC– 

Chapel Hill and the Duke University’s Law School. He and his 

wife, Dottie have six children and attend Uptown Church. It may 

be his parenting six children that give him the best expertise. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. Let me resume with the 

introduction for today’s witnesses. Dr. Luis Huerta is an Associate 

Professor of Education and Public Policy at Teachers College, Columbia University, in New York City. 

I always get a kick out of this. My script actually says New York 

City, New York. We want to be thorough on these things. 

He served as a research associate and coordinator for K–12 education policy research at Policy Analysis for California Education 

Center, and taught in the California Public School System for six 

years. 

Currently, Dr. Huerta’s research focuses on education policy, decentralized, related to school choice reforms, privatization in education, and school finance inequities present throughout school reform. 

Ms. Denisha Merriweather is a graduate student at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. Ms. Merriweather is the 

recipient of a tax credit scholarship in Florida. She attributes her 

academic and career success to the opportunities provided through 

the Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which awarded her the opportunity to attend and graduate from the Esprit de Corps Center for 

Learning in Jacksonville, Florida. 

Let me now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right 

hand. Thank you. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman KLINE. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain or remind you of our lighting system. We allow 5 

minutes for each witness to provide testimony. When you begin, 

the light in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the 

light will turn yellow. At the 5 minute mark, the light will turn 

red, and I would ask you to please try to wrap up your testimony. 

I do not know that I have ever actually gaveled down a witness 

because they did not close in 5 minutes, but if you would please 

try to wrap up in respect for the other witnesses, and then when 

we come to questions and answers, we will hold to the 5 minute 

rule that I have been known to gavel down, including on me. 

Okay, I think we are ready to go. Let me recognize Mr. Robinson 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF GERARD ROBINSON, RESIDENT FELLOW, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. ROBINSON. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 

Scott, members of the committee. My name is Gerard Robinson. I 

am a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. What 

I share with you today are my own opinions and do not necessarily 

reflect those of the AEI. 

I have had an opportunity to work in education since 1991, and 

I have seen the impact of school choice policies and programs on 

families and children through the lens of an advocate, president of 

a non-profit organization, state leader in Virginia and Florida, and 

as a researcher. 

I can tell you quite clearly that school choice is not a sound bite, 

it is a social movement. From 1990 to 2015, over 40 states have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

introduced different types of school choice legislation, both public 

and private. Today, I will talk briefly about four, charter schools, 

vouchers, tax credits, and education savings accounts. 

I have had an opportunity to see all these programs in action, 

and one thing I would like to say up front is there is a misconception that school choice only helps wealthy families. The reality is 

families with means already exercise school choice. They do so by 

moving into neighborhoods where they have great schools, both 

public and private. School choice is simply expanding the doors of 

opportunity to families who may not have that opportunity. 

One example is in the charter school movement what started off 

initially as an experiment to provide teachers a stronger voice and 

innovative ideas in public schools has now mushroomed into a 

movement where we have 2.9 million students in 43 states in 6,723 

charter schools, who are doing well. 

Taxpayers and families simply want to know one thing, do they 

work. According to a CREDO study in 2015 that looked at 42 areas 

in 22 states, they identified there were at least 40 days’ worth of 

learning gain for students in math, and 28 days in reading. There 

was particular growth for African American students, 36 learning 

days for math and 26 for reading. Similar growth for Hispanic students. We also found growth as well for Asian students, particularly in math. 

Frankly, there were also some challenges, our Native American 

students and some of our white students scored less well than their 

peers. 

We move now to vouchers, it was mentioned earlier, vouchers in 

Milwaukee. I had a chance to work there firsthand. Same question, 

is it making a difference? Well, according to at least 13 gold standard studies, six have found that the students in a voucher program 

had gains, four in particular found there were gains for African 

American students, two found no major differences, and at least 

one found there were negative differences, particularly in the 

sciences and math, and in particular, that was Louisiana. 

Vouchers made a tremendous impact on the lives of students in 

Milwaukee and other areas, and we can talk further about that 

point. 

Tax credits, I would say one of the faster growing movements in 

the private school sector. You now have a number of students, over 

approximately 200,000, who are involved in tax credits. The same 

question, do they work? 

If you take a look at Florida, which has the largest tax credit 

program in the country, over 72,000 students there, Dr. Figlio, a 

professor at Northwestern University, studied a program for a 

number of years, and he found two things. In a 2014 study, he 

identified there was at least a year’s growth for students who were 

in that program. 

Why is that important? The majority of the students who participated in that program, (a) came from lower performing public 

schools and tend to be among the lower performing students who 

left public schools, and secondly, they have an opportunity now to 

see gains in that area. 

Next is education savings accounts. We now have those in Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and it started off in Arizona. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

Smaller movement, but we expect to see some growth in that area. 

There are currently 6,772 students who are involved in that program in Florida, Arizona, and Mississippi. 

If there is something that Congress can do to support school 

choice, here are a few examples. Number one is to encourage states 

to take full advantage of language that you have in ESSA to allow 

them to be innovative with public funds. 

Number two is to make Title I funds portable. I know that 

caused a great deal of consternation for the Congress, maybe one 

place where we can find middle ground is to allow states to make 

that decision. 

Third is to make IDEA funds available through a statewide 

voucher. Fourth is to continue to support statewide vouchers. Fifth, 

either direct the Congressional Budget Office or the General Accounting Office to figure out what federal regulations are in place, 

to how we can streamline those to help funds support ESSAs, and 

lastly, redesign 529s so families can have that information earlier. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 98416.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 98416.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 98416.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 98416.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 98416.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 98416.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 98416.007
17 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Bryan? 

TESTIMONY OF ROB BRYAN, NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BRYAN. It is an honor for me to be here this morning. As you 

guys are well aware, legislators, like the laborers in the Bible parables, arrive at different times and play different roles in harvesting and planting crops. By that I mean sponsoring and getting 

good legislation passed. 

Working for school choice and opportunity scholarships in particular has been a long labor. In North Carolina, there was much 

sowing of seeds to expand opportunities for parents and students 

across our state. 

As a freshman legislator in 2013, I had the privilege of arriving 

at the right time to be a part of those first fruits for school choice 

in North Carolina. 

By way of my background, and going back about 20 years, I was 

an early Teach for America teacher in a bilingual classroom in 

inner-city Los Angeles. Between my two years of teaching, I was 

the first intern at the Center for Education Reform right here in 

D.C. 

These experiences have shaped my perspective as a legislator 

and made me a fan of expanding school choice options, especially 

for low income families who typically have the fewest options. 

All this led me to be the primary sponsor of the opportunity 

scholarship law, which provides roughly 6,000 low income students 

and their families a scholarship to go to the school of their choice. 

Moreover, I am proud that this historic legislation had bipartisan 

leadership, with two Republicans and two Democrats serving as 

the primary sponsors standing together to make this opportunity 

a reality for thousands of students. 

We also had our state’s first school choice program, the special 

needs education grant, passed in 2011, which was also passed with 

broad bipartisan support. 

Unfortunately, many establishment folks in education and often 

the press are not fans of opportunity scholarships. They outline 

fears and pessimism, concerns over bad schools and lack of regulation, while neglecting our hopes, the opportunities, and the evidence. 

As a lawyer, I appreciate looking at the evidence. There are significant pieces of evidence that are available in discussing opportunity scholarships. I think in reverse order of importance, they are 

that opportunity scholarships actually save money, both at the 

state and local level. They improve public schools, and most importantly, they improve outcomes for students. 

I think this has been good policy for North Carolina and for the 

rest of the country. Where does this policy intersect with reality for 

the families in each of your districts and mine? It is easy for us 

to fail to recognize the real lives impacted. The needs of these families are compelling. The opportunity scholarship program and our 

existing special needs program have provided new opportunities 

and challenges. 

Our special needs scholarship to date, all the funds have been 

used, and there are over 500 families on a waiting list. Our opporCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

tunity scholarship program has over 13,000 applicants, and this 

figure will go up as the application period has just opened again. 

I know numbers are thrown at all of us constantly, but please 

try to individualize these numbers. Think about each one of the 

families that is hoping, waiting for a scholarship. I have had to 

look these parents in the eyes, and it can wait no longer. We need 

to provide choices for them. 

Distinguished members of this committee, we expect options and 

choices in today’s world. Many families who can afford to are already exercising those options. 

I am happy to say that North Carolina through the passage and 

implementation of these scholarship programs is now creating 

pathways for lower income and working families to participate in 

parental school choice, and they are doing so by the thousands. 

Unfortunately, thousands more need your help. Although I am 

here representing the great State of North Carolina, I know there 

are other states like ours who appreciate the fact that you, our 

members of the United States House of Representatives, are exploring ideas of how more can be done to help families like the ones 

I have described. 

I am also glad to be here to highlight the impact, the positive impact opportunity scholarships are having in North Carolina. As I 

look out my window on the 35th floor, I look down and see First 

Baptist Church. First Baptist Church is now housing the 

Brookstone Schools, which is an academically excellent urban 

Christian school serving low-income families. This school has a rich 

history of engaging, educating, and empowering students that come 

out of poverty and often the most dysfunction families and communities. 

Brookstone Schools participate in the opportunity scholarship 

program where they have enrolled 23 students this year. I am fortunate to see much of the City of Charlotte out my window, but 

this view of the Brookstone Schools has become my favorite. 

Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished 

members of the committee, I want to thank you again for your initiative in holding this hearing, and I am honored to have had the 

opportunity to share with you this morning. 

[The statement of Mr. Bryan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 98416.008
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 98416.009
21 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. Dr. Huerta? 

TESTIMONY OF LUIS A. HUERTA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC POLICY, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HUERTA. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 

Scott, and members of the House Education and Workforce Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. 

My presentation this morning will focus on many of the claims 

promoted by many voucher advocates followed by a discussion of 

assumptions linked to these claims, and more importantly, the evidence that provides facts that dispel the many claims, some of 

which we have already heard. 

I will focus on issues of achievement, as well as less discussed 

issues linked to the supply side response and potential pitfalls that 

have not been considered by policy makers as voucher and tuition 

tax credit programs go to scale. 

The first claim that we often hear is that private schools are 

more cost effective and efficient in educating all students compared 

to public schools. This claim equates private school tuition often 

with the cost of actually educating students, and assumes that private schools can actually educate all students, including special ed, 

limited English proficient, and other students with higher needs, 

more cost effectively than public schools. 

The claim fails to acknowledge that the cost differentials including services provided and types of students that are served are important in fully accounting for the real cost of voucher and tuition 

tax credit programs. 

Measuring the cost effectiveness of private schools must also 

weigh the quality amount of services provided to all students, including the number and types of students, church subsidies and endowments that are provided that are not accounted for in public accounting, low cost facilities and low wage teachers. We know teachers in private schools usually earn about 20 to 25 percent less than 

public schools. The administrative and financial burdens of operating these choice programs which fall on the state. 

In addition, measuring efficiency must also weigh the challenges 

of taking voucher and tuition tax credit programs to scale. Increased demand for private schooling will require participating private schools to actually address the needs of all students with diversities, and provide services equivalent to the public school systems, which could essentially address some of these cost differentials. 

The next claim that we often hear is voucher and tuition tax 

credit programs will enhance school choice by making private 

school tuition more affordable and increasing access for all students. 

This claim assumes that voucher and tuition tax credit programs 

offer an adequate economic incentive to offset the cost of private 

school tuition for all families. This claim fails to acknowledge that 

the expansion of private school choice is more dependent on a criteria schools use in choosing students and less dependent on giving 

parents the ability to choose schools. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

Private school tuition rates are not regulated by states, nor do 

states actually collect accurate information on private school tuition rates. Without an accurate account of actual tuition costs, parents are not informed of additional costs they must bear. The scholarship amounts may result in only partial payment in some cases, 

which will threaten the guarantee that is linked to most state constitutions, to provide a free and public education. 

Another issue that is seldom not talked about is tuition elasticity, which is dependent on which private schools participate, the 

subsidy amounts, and the types of students that private schools actually serve. 

Because states do not regulate tuition prices, families that use 

the benefit to enter private schools today may not have sufficient 

residual income to pay for tuition later. 

Another issue is supply side response, which is seldom accounted 

for, and that is specifically the extent of open seats that are available and how open seats should become made available as we go 

to scale. 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been very active in 

lobbying for tuition subsidies, and it is also realistic in acknowledging that a much larger benefit is needed to entice families to 

exit public schools. There have been estimates by the Minnesota 

Catholic Conference that for them to actually increase the supply 

of empty seats, they would have to have a subsidy in the amount 

of $14,000 to $16,000 to actually increase capital improvements. 

I am going to switch to academic achievement issues, which has 

already been mentioned. The claim is that private schools are more 

effective than public schools in addressing students’ academic 

needs and improving students’ educational outcomes. 

This claim assumes that private schools are more effective in 

serving the educational needs of all students, including special ed, 

English language learners, and other students. 

Evidence of voucher program effectiveness remains uncertain, 

and with inconsistent effects on student academic growth, and 

thus, these results should be interpreted with high caution. 

For example, an analysis of voucher studies completed prior to 

2009 by C.E. Rouse, professor at Princeton, concluded that research 

on vouchers finds relatively small achievement gains for voucher 

students, most of which are not statistically different than zero, 

and secondary effects on remaining public schools, such as competition, are not positive. 

Voucher advocates continue to cite the so-called ‘‘gold standard 

studies’’ promoted by the Friedman Foundation. Remember, the 

Friedman Foundation is a voucher advocacy group, irresponsibly 

failing to acknowledge that many limitations that the very authors 

of these studies warn against in their research have not been posted on their Web site. 

Specifically, the studies promoted by the Friedman Foundation 

failed to report inconsistent findings across these so-called gold 

standard studies. For example, some of the studies reflect positive 

gains for some students but not across all grade levels that received the voucher treatment. Some studies that reflect positive impacts do not include all voucher students, leaving out a significant 

portion of the sample. Also, most positive effects are isolated to a 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

specific grade level and to a specific student characteristic, and seldom in both reading and math, and across all grade levels. 

In other words, results are haphazard, inconsistent, and some of 

the very authors that are cited in these so-called gold standard 

studies actually worry about these inconsistent results that should 

not be used to inform policy decisions. 

We already heard the most recent findings from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program where there was no conclusive evidence of the students that participated after 5 years, and we have 

also heard about the Louisiana study that recently came out, where 

we actually see some negative effects on students that actually took 

on vouchers. 

Lastly, Lubienski & Lubienski, and Chris Lubienski has testified 

before this committee, looked at a study that has looked at public 

versus traditional school achievement, has indicated that when we 

control for specific characteristics, that public schools in general 

outperform kids that are in private schools. 

I will provide more recommendations in the question and answer 

session. Thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Huerta follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 98416.010
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 98416.011
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 98416.012
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 98416.013
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 98416.014
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 98416.015
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 98416.016
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 98416.017
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 98416.018
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 98416.019
34 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Ms. Merriweather, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DENISHA MERRIWEATHER, STUDENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me today. It is an esteemed honor to share my story with everyone. 

When I was growing up, college was a dream that I did not even 

know I had, and if it was not for the educational option Florida 

gave me 12 years ago, I would not be sitting here today. 

If you were to rewind my life back when I was in elementary 

school, you would see someone totally different, someone who was 

disruptive, the teachers dreaded having come through the door, 

someone who got into physical fights with her classmates, someone 

who was destined to drop out before she made it to high school, but 

thankfully, I did not become a statistic. 

Growing up, I was a student who did not pick up concepts and 

ideas very quickly, and I struggled to keep up with my classmates. 

I moved around town constantly when I lived with my biological 

mother, and consequently, that meant I missed a lot of days of 

school, my grades were terrible, and everything seemed to go down 

hill. 

Each time I moved, it was very hard for me to adjust to my different school, the different teachers, different classmates. I got 

picked on by students because I was doing so poorly in school. I 

was often bullied. I kept getting into fights, and to make matters 

worse, I ended up failing the third grade not once but twice. 

All too well, it seemed my future was mapped out for me. I would 

follow in the footsteps of my mother, my brother, and my uncle, 

who all dropped out of school. 

I hated going to school, and it was a nightmare. I thought school 

was a punishment for being the kid. One of the first things my godmother wanted to do when I began to live with her permanently 

the summer before my 6th grade year, was to find a better school 

environment for me, and that is when she heard about Esprit de 

Corps Center for Learning, a small private school in Jacksonville, 

Florida, but she could not afford the tuition. 

A friend of hers told her about the tax credit scholarship program, Step Up for Students. Although she had to pay a little bit 

more to go along with the scholarship, she was willing to sacrifice 

for my education. And to be honest, Esprit de Corps was just the 

change I needed. 

Before I even stepped foot on my new school’s campus, I met 

with one of the teachers there, and she helped me to learn my 

times tables with my reading because it was so low, and some 

other concepts that I could not grasp. When I started at Esprit de 

Corps in the 6th grade, the adjustment was fairly smooth because 

of the extra attention that I received. 

This class size was so small, I only had eight students in my 

class, and it was awesome because the teachers could walk around 

and ask us questions about things that we had questions on and 

things we did not know we had questions on. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

As the time at Esprit de Corps passed, by the first semester, my 

grades went from Ds and Fs to As and Bs, and I continued to make 

the Honor Roll constantly. 

I say here to you guys today that Esprit de Corps really changed 

my life. It gave me a new perspective on education, and it gave me 

a passion to want to learn. They even helped me to fund my ACT, 

SAT, and college application fees. 

The motto at Esprit de Corps is a school where learning is a joy, 

excellence is the norm, and superiority is our goal, and that was 

insistently graved into me. Although when I first started at Esprit 

de Corps, I was behind, it became a competition, and I wanted to 

meet their expectations. 

In 2010, I became the first in my family to graduate from high 

school, and in 2014, I became the first in my family to earn my 

Bachelor’s degree, and in 2017, I will be the first to earn my graduate degree. 

The cycle of poverty is ending in my family because of the Florida tax credit scholarship. I received a quality education and because of my example, my siblings are now seeing how to take advantage of educational opportunities that come their way. 

I am committed to advocating for educational options because so 

many doors have been opened for me, and I want to create those 

same open doors for other students. I have seen the power of tailored education demonstrated in my own life, and I would like to 

see it expanded in future generations and in this one. 

It has proven to be effective in my life, school choice, and I am 

so thankful to share my story with you guys today. Thank you so 

much. 

[The statement of Ms. Merriweather follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 98416.020
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 98416.021
38 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. A fantastic story, thank you very 

much for sharing that. We are going to start questioning. I am 

going to yield my time to someone who has been working on school 

choice for apparently two or three lifetimes, Mr. Messer. I yield my 

time to you. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are a man of your 

word. Thank you for holding this hearing. You are a great advocate 

for kids and have spent a career as an advocate for educational 

choice opportunities. 

Ms. Merriweather, I am moved by your story. As somebody who 

has worked very hard on these issues in Indiana before my time 

in Congress, I have talked to hundreds of people who have a story 

just like yours. It is part of why I have so much passion for this 

issue. 

You know, there are several reasons that I am so passionate 

about school choice. Part of it is I believe it is the civil rights issue 

of our time. It gets to the essence of the American idea, this idea 

in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, that 

we all are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness. In modern life, we take that as your opportunity to live the 

American dream. To have that dream a reality in modern America, 

it all starts with an education. 

Secondly, I am passionate about this because, you know, there is 

a lot in this debate that is complicated, but there are some things 

that are not very complicated. To me, what is not very complicated 

is this: if we want to determine what the best option is for a child, 

we ought to ask their parents. The best way to determine what is 

the best path for a child’s future is to let that parent decide what 

is the best option for them. 

I have seen in Indiana what happens when those options open 

up. In Indiana, we now have 200,000 families, 200,000 kids, who 

are taking advantage of educational opportunities through vouchers, through charters, through public school choice opportunities, 

virtual school, and the like. 

It is amazing, as Mr. Bryan talked about, as he has seen in 

North Carolina. When the families come—each year, we have a 

rally at our state house where thousands of families show up. They 

are part of this program and advocating for it to continue in the 

future. Those families are a mosaic of our state. Every race, color, 

and creed, religion, economic background, all just looking for an opportunity to have their shot at the American dream. 

You know, today’s conversation will no doubt talk about a lot of 

the complexities that come with providing educational opportunities for kids in America, what is the appropriate role of the Federal 

Government, what’s the pitfalls, philosophical concerns. 

All that debate is legitimate; right? We all need to remember as 

we work through that debate that as we wait, as we frankly dither, 

millions of kids in this country are going to go to a school today 

where they do not really have a chance to succeed, and we can do 

better. We can make sure that every kid in America has a chance. 

So now, with that, and again I appreciate the chairman giving 

me the opportunity to start here, you know, it is interesting as we 

talk about statistics, one of the things that has changed as this 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

movement, as Mr. Robinson talked about, has evolved, is the popularity of these programs. 

A recent poll came out, released just a few days ago, by the Beck 

Research and the American Federation for Children, and it says 

choice programs, educational choice are favored, 74 percent of parents favor these options, 23 percent oppose. Seventy-six percent of 

African Americans favor, 20 oppose. Seventy-six percent of Latino’s 

favor, 21 oppose. Millennials now, 75 percent favor. 

Mr. Robinson, could you talk a little, why do you think these programs—why do you think parents support school choice? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Parents support school choice because they simply want what is best for their own children. You know, it is interesting that education may be one of the few human endeavors 

where the customers’ voice at times seems not to matter. In other 

places, if customers say I do not want to buy your product, guess 

what, in some places, your business is going to actually cease to 

exist. 

When we ask parents what kind of school do you want, they 

want a school that has strong academics, a school that is safe, so 

what parents have done simply is to say we would like to have access to the tax dollars we invest in our system. Remember, it is the 

taxpayers’ money, and they see that it is important. 

I had a chance, in fact, I moved to Milwaukee for two years to 

study where at that time had the most robust three sector initiatives in the nation, one-third of its school age population decided 

not to enroll themselves in the traditional public school system. 

It was not because they did not like public schools. It was because they liked parental options. I think often we overuse the conjunction ‘‘or,’’ it is either ‘‘private school or public school,’’ when 

really it is an ‘‘and’’ aspect. They like it because it is making a 

great difference. 

When you look today and realize there is over 27,000 students 

enrolled in Milwaukee where in 1990 there were a few hundred 

students at several schools, that is not by accident. 

It was mentioned earlier about supply side. Be very clear. If 

there is a demand, there will be a supply. There has been a growth 

in the private schools that have grown in Milwaukee and other cities that have taken place, even Washington, D.C. where you have 

a healthy market, we have seen changes. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today’s 

debate. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. I thought I was going 

to have to gavel down my own time there for just a minute. Mr. 

Scott, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin questioning, I would like to submit three letters for the record by national groups in opposition to using public funds for private schools. 

One from the National School Boards Association, one from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a final one 

from the National Coalition for Public Education. 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 98416.022
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 98416.023
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 98416.024
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 98416.025
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 98416.026
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 98416.027
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 98416.028
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 98416.029
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 98416.030
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 98416.031
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 98416.032
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 98416.033
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 98416.034
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 98416.035
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 98416.036
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 98416.037
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 98416.038
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 98416.039
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 98416.040
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 98416.041
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 98416.042
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 98416.043
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 98416.044
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 98416.045
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 98416.046
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 98416.047
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 98416.048
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 98416.049
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 98416.050
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 98416.051
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 98416.052
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 98416.053
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 98416.054
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 98416.055
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 98416.056
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 98416.057
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 98416.058
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 98416.059
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 98416.060
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 98416.061
80 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to make 

a comment about portability because that has been, I think, misunderstood. This committee already rejected the idea of using Title 

I funds in private schools, and we also ended up rejecting the idea 

that the money ‘‘followed the child.’’ Well, the money already follows the child. The formula is based on the number of children you 

have in a particular school. 

When you have a straight per capita calculation, you lose the 

plus up that is in Title I for concentrations of poverty. If you have 

15 percent poverty, you get a little more. If you have 30 percent 

poverty, you get a little more. When you go to a straight per capita 

allocation, you lose that plus up for poverty, which has the effect 

of moving money from very low income areas to very high income 

areas. 

We want to make sure that people understand what ‘‘portability’’ 

meant, and we ended up keeping the formula where it is so that 

those high concentrations of poverty get more money, and that is 

the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

Mr. Huerta, we have had studies that show that basically public 

school choice on average is average. Can you make a comment on 

that, some are better, some are worse, and on average, they are average? 

Mr. HUERTA. First, let me talk about the general numbers we 

know about, looking at public school student performance versus 

private school student performance. 

The study by Lubienski that I cited using 2003 NAEP, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress Scores, which public and private school students are assessed on this, clearly indicated—this is 

only looking at 4th grade students—that students in public schools 

once controlled for specific characteristics, and this study used individual characteristics such as whether families were reading to 

their kids at night, and these are characteristics that were not 

used in previous studies, but the evidence clearly showed that kids 

in public schools outscored kids that were in private schools. 

Now, it is also important to note that public schools are not failing at large. Certainly, there is a crisis in some of our urban areas 

where we have some failing schools, but I think it is very important to just remind ourselves that public schools are not failing, 

which is where the majority of our students are in the United 

States. 

With regards to the evidence, just building a little bit more on 

what I talked about in my testimony, that when it comes to vouchers specifically, we continue to hear advocates talk about these socalled ‘‘gold standard studies.’’ 

A new study that is just coming out from Lubienski, who I have 

mentioned already, will be looking point by point to all the 12 or 

13 so-called ‘‘gold standard studies.’’ I already made some of the 

points earlier with regard to the uneven impact that we have seen 

that has been claimed as positive impact by many voucher advocates in a lot of these studies. 

The interesting part about these so-called ‘‘13 studies’’ is the very 

authors of these studies, the majority of them, actually explicitly 

warn policy makers in using this data to extrapolate and to make 

any sort of policy decisions because of the unevenness, yet the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

Friedman Foundation has taken the liberty to use some of this evidence without acknowledging these very important caveats and 

warnings that these very authors have actually talked about. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I have several other questions I want to 

get in before my time has expired. Do you have evidence to show 

what portion—you talk about an opportunity, what portion of the 

students getting vouchers today would already be in private school? 

Mr. HUERTA. I am sorry, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. How many people that get vouchers today would already have been in private school even without the voucher. 

Mr. HUERTA. I do not have the exact numbers. It varies by state. 

There are some states that actually require that kids have actually 

been enrolled in public schools prior. There are some states that actually allow students to take a voucher even though they have not 

been previously in private schools. I am sorry, I do not have the 

exact numbers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it a school’s choice or a student’s choice? Do many 

schools have the opportunity to accept who they want? 

Mr. HUERTA. Private schools have the opportunity to accept 

whomever they want. I think that is very important when I talk 

about the supply side, this is something that is seldom talked 

about. Certainly, parents are provided a choice when we expand 

school choice policies, but we have to acknowledge and remember 

that states do not have the ability to compel private schools to accept all students. 

So, sometimes simply providing students or families a choice, it 

could be a false choice if there are not any choices available to 

them. 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bryan, if 

you were advising other state leaders seeking to enact and implement choice policies, how would you recommend they proceed, what 

obstacles can they anticipate, and would you speak to the excellent 

bipartisan support that you have had in North Carolina, if you 

would, in your response? 

Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I think the first thing when I 

was working on a school choice bill was actually seeking out other 

legislators on the other side of the aisle who I thought might be 

supportive, and having conversations with them, trying to have 

conversations with folks across the spectrum, trying to make the 

issue of school choice less combative and more discussion about 

how we can create great outcomes for all of our kids. 

Even public school advocates who really want every money, every 

sort of public dollar going to traditional public school acknowledged 

that we were failing a lot of our kids right now, and they need immediate access to other choices. 

I think talking about it in that way is important. I think making 

sure that you talk to parents and other organizations that care 

about this issue and making sure they are getting the information 

they need to make good decisions. I think the primary thing I 

would say is try to work on it in as bipartisan a manner as possible 

to create a good outcome for kids. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. You also said in your testimony that the 

opportunity scholarships improved public schools and improved 

student outcomes. Dr. Huerta’s testimony questioned those arguments. Could you give us a little bit more information about what 

the experience has been in North Carolina? 

Mr. BRYAN. Sure. I will say as North Carolina’s program was 

challenged, we were just starting, and I think as anyone would acknowledge, when you start a program, you are mostly dealing with 

anecdotes on the front end not actual data. 

I think it is fairly common sense. I talked to our State Board of 

Education chair recently, and he made a comment that the principal of a traditional school—they had opened a charter in that district, and the principal of the traditional school had gone to talk 

to all 38 parents who were going to that charter. He said you know, 

that is exactly what happens when there is another choice for parents, is it makes sure that the people at the traditional school are 

serving their families well. That is what you want to have happening. 

I think when parents have options, it creates the kind of environment where we know that we are serving our students well. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. Mr. Robinson, perhaps you 

could add a little bit to what Representative Bryan was saying 

since North Carolina’s experience is fairly new. Would you talk a 

little bit about the one or two elements, key elements, of school 

choice policies that strongly influence student outcomes, and you do 

not have to go into great detail, but if you would point us to some 

studies or to some results that we could then look at and make a 

part of the record, that would be helpful to us. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Dr. Patrick Wolf at the University of Arkansas 

has been the principal investigator, one of many, but the lead for 

the program in Milwaukee and for the opportunity scholarship program here in Washington, D.C. I would take a look at his studies. 

Secondly, it would be worth mentioning that the Friedman Foundation did not create the concept of a gold standard. Really, when 

you are talking about methodological standards, you are looking at 

control groups and treatment groups. To make sure that there are 

good points there, I just wanted to mention that. 

Having a strong teacher qualified to teach in a school has been 

one way that we have seen a difference. Secondly, inviting parents 

and the community to be involved in the process. We have to remember that we cannot expect nor should we expect public schools 

to do all the work by itself. It takes what I call a civil society approach where there are families, faith based communities, corporations, and others who need to be involved. 

There are public schools who are doing this well. We can learn 

from them in the private sector, and the private sector programs 

are doing equally as well. 

I would also like to add Betts and Tang. They had a 2014 study 

where they looked at 90—52 value added papers on charter schools, 

and they actually found in fact there was some improvements as 

relates to math and reading, particularly over time. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. Ms. Fudge, you are recognized. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all 

for being here today. Ms. Merriweather, my sincere congratulations 

to you for the work you have done. I represent tens of thousands 

of children just like you, and certainly hope they have the same opportunity that you had. Congratulations to you. 

I am an advocate, as many of you are, for the proposition that 

all children have access to a quality education. I just wish that my 

colleagues would fight as much for those with no choice as they do 

for those who have a choice. 

Mr. Bryan, you indicate that the opportunity scholarships improve student outcomes. If this is the case, please explain to me 

why there is such resistance from private schools to report out data 

on yearly student performance and on their school and class demographics, just as public schools must. 

Mr. BRYAN. Thanks for the question. I think it is fundamentally 

one of freedom. I think those schools are worried about government 

sort of being involved. They are all preexisting. One of the things 

we know about them is that they were existing without the government, and they have other parents there, and they may not want 

to release data surrounding other students. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. That is a real shock. They want 

public money but they want freedom. Is that what you said? They 

should not report on tax dollars? 

Mr. BRYAN. You can have reports on tax dollars, and I think we 

do, actually, you have to have a certain number of students so that 

the student data is not made available. There certainly are reports 

that have to be given on the data of how students are performing. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. You gave me the perfect answer, freedom. Mr. Robinson, in your testimony, you cite a report 

by the Friedman Foundation that states the top reasons parents 

choose a private school for their children were school environment, 

smaller class sizes, and more individualized attention for students. 

Is it safe to say that if public schools had adequate funding to 

provide more teachers, which would lower class sizes, and more 

school counselors, classroom aides, and behavior interventions, 

which we know help, would parents be less inclined to seek out private options? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, parents seek out private options for reasons 

other than the ones you mentioned, so— 

Ms. FUDGE. Did you not say that? 

Mr. ROBINSON. What I said was in Georgia, you had Dr. Ben 

Scafidi— 

Ms. FUDGE. Did you say what I just read? Did I misquote you? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes—no. I said that parents choose it for smaller 

classroom, intervention, and other factors. The point you had mentioned, if public schools had A, B, or C, would parents leave. That 

part, I do not know. There are a lot of reasons parents leave. Some 

of the reasons they left were the ones I cited. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Dr. Huerta, we know that programs provide vouchers to students enrolled in K–12 with a maximum voucher amount, at least in Ohio, of $4,250. Most private schools are significantly higher than that. Really, is there in fact a choice for a 

parent, even if they receive a voucher, if they do not have the resources to make up the difference? Do they really have a choice? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

Mr. HUERTA. I think the choice is limited, and I think one of the 

things we have seen in places like Milwaukee and especially we are 

seeing this in Louisiana, one of the newest voucher programs, is 

that the majority of voucher schools that choose to accept students 

are the lower quality and not the long-standing private schools. 

Certainly, we have a lot of parochial schools which have lower 

tuitions that are taking on some of these students, but these are 

the very schools that themselves are now being challenged as the 

demand has increased on whether the actual voucher amount is 

sufficient to continue to actually provide services for a more diverse 

group of students. 

In Milwaukee where we see a voucher amount, I think, in the 

amount of $8,500, and as I mentioned, in Minnesota, the amount 

needed to actually increase capital facilities in these places is much 

higher. We are talking in the range of $14,000 to $15,000 in quality 

private schools. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I am going to close just by saying this, 

I know that all of my colleagues on both side of the aisle believe 

in accountability. We hear it every day, whether it be about the 

budget or some other thing. 

I am certainly hopeful they will be on my side as it relates to 

making sure that we are accountable for the dollars that we take 

from taxpayers, whether they are in a private school, whether they 

are in a parochial school. We are responsible to the people of the 

United States for their resources. 

I would certainly hope that we all would be on the same page 

with that. Secondly, let me just say that I am not really an opponent of charter schools. What I am is a proponent of all schools. 

I wish we would spend as much time on the schools that educate 

95 percent of all our children than the schools that represent 5 percent. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Chairman. Full disclosure, there are no 

charter schools in my district. Mr. Robinson, you started out by 

saying that families make a choice when they move, and you are 

absolutely right. I remember when I moved my family to Johnson 

City, Tennessee. I looked for the best public school there was because I had gone to public schools my entire life. I wanted my children to go to good public schools, but I could that because I had 

the resources to buy a house in that neighborhood. 

Ms. Merriweather, whose story was unbelievable and an incredible story, did not have that choice. Fortunately, because someone 

took an interest and saw real talent in that young woman and invested time in her, she is going to be an advocate for other people. 

That is one of the most compelling stories I have heard, and a big 

shout out to you for that. 

I do have full disclosure. I do have one son, and all my children 

went to public schools, but I have one son, with a heavy heart, I 

have to tell you, has a graduate degree from Vanderbilt. I am very 

sad about that being a UT graduate. 

The point is an education is your ticket out. It is the only chance 

you have. What I cannot understand, if you are going to a failing 

school, why anybody would want to keep a child in that school. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

Why would you let them try if you are failing, why would you not 

let that child, whatever you have to do, because they only have one 

chance, and I can tell you, a parent does not give a hoot about 

meta-analysis or anything else, what they care about is they want 

their child safe and they want their child learning, and parents 

know that. They know when they go to a school—a school has a 

reputation just like a doctor or lawyer or anything else, and we 

know where kids go and learn. 

Look, I do not know the answer to all this, but I do know the 

answer is not keeping a kid in a school that is not working for 

them. 

I would like to ask any of you to answer this. What is the role 

or does the Federal Government have any role in this part of public 

education, a voucher system? Mr. Robinson, I will start with you. 

What role do you see for the government? Expand it, shrink it, 

what is it? 

Mr. ROBINSON. It can serve as an encourager. What you decide 

to do with the ESSA law, letting states have the opportunity to experiment, that is a role. I go back to early in our history where we 

looked at knowledge, religion, and morality being necessary for 

good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 

means of education shall forever be encouraged. 

I see the federal role as an encouraging role, one that allows 

states to do what it can, support where it can, and lead from behind. 

Mr. ROE. In our State of Tennessee, we have had the largest 

gains of any state in the Union. We have moved from the high 40s 

to 25th now in the country, and that is not high enough. We would 

like to be number one. 

We have made community college free in the state, technical college, free in the state. We have opened those opportunities up for 

students so that there are no economic barriers now. 

I think with Ms. Merriweather’s story, her education, her story 

did not just change her life, and she mentioned it, it changed many 

other lives and the success she is going to have with her and her 

family, if she has a family going forward, it will change their lives. 

Education does not just change one person’s life. 

The other thing I want to ask is why would a teacher—Dr. 

Huerta mentioned this—why would a teacher work in a private 

school for significantly less money? Why would a good teacher do 

that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Would you like me to respond? 

Mr. ROE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it is for obvious reasons that I sort of stated 

earlier, and that is we know that private schools are often not educating the diverse groups of students that public schools are responsible for serving. That could make a real difference in the 

classroom environment, and a variety of other factors within 

schools. 

Can I actually reply to your earlier question? 

Mr. ROE. Let me ask this question. My two grandchildren go to 

a private school, and they do for several reasons, but the tuition 

at this school is less than what we pay to educate the public. They 

had a senior class last year whose average ACT score, the class avCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

erage, was 29. In our area, that works pretty well. The public 

school system works very well. 

I can certainly understand my friends who are public school 

teachers and administrators why they do not want the dollars that 

are already thin moved somewhere else. Also, there has to be accountability and success. Where we are, there are no charter 

schools, so obviously our public schools are working. 

Right here in Washington, D.C., I live across the street from a 

public school, they are not working. There are kids that are failing 

and they are spending an enormous amount of money on it, not a 

little bit of money, an enormous amount for failure. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Pocan? 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank you 

for holding this hearing. Let me just add to the echo, Ms. 

Merriweather, congratulations and thank you for sharing your 

story. I think your story is what makes a teacher proud they chose 

the profession they chose, and it is a testament to what good teachers and small class sizes can do, so thank you for sharing that. 

However, unlike Mr. Messer, I think I have a little different experience when it comes to taxpayer funded voucher programs. I 

spent 14 years in the Wisconsin legislature. I was not around for 

the creation of the program, but I was around for 14 years of the 

growth of the program. 

Let me just kind of share my perspective of how things worked 

in Wisconsin. When we first started the program, we had money 

going to schools where the person who ran the school said he could 

put his hand on a book and read it. We had money going to schools 

where they bought Cadillacs with the money for administrators for 

the program. 

From there, some accountability standards came in, but as Ms. 

Fudge brought out, there is still a problem with accountability and 

records. 

I went to South Division High School in Milwaukee, a public 

school, with a low graduation rate of about 50 percent, but when 

a student came from one of these taxpayer funded voucher schools, 

there there was absolutely no records that came with them, so you 

were starting with a blank slate, so while there may be freedom 

for that school, there is no accountability or anything for the student who is trying to go to that high school and how to place that 

person. That is part of the records that we had. 

When I look at the Wisconsin experience, those schools can select 

their students. We had a real controversy especially with students 

with disabilities. The American Legislative Exchange Council, 

which is a corporate bill mill that puts out all these different bills, 

had a special needs scholarship bill—- sounds just like what North 

Carolina passed – every disability group in the state opposed it because they know what is going to happen: more dollars will leave 

the public school system and go to private schools, and only a few 

children will benefit from that, but in general, the public schools 

are going to be left with some of the tougher kids, which costs more 

for the system, and ultimately that hurts public education even 

more. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

They lacked the accountability that I mentioned. We had schools 

shut down. In Wisconsin alone, we had schools shut down literally 

overnight that took taxpayer money, and that cost to the taxpayers 

was about $176 million in the State of Wisconsin. That is the experience that we had. 

Ultimately, it diverted resources from our public school system, 

and it is the government’s responsibility to make sure children 

have access to that opportunity of education. 

That was our experience. And then, I remember when Governor 

Pence came before this committee and I asked him about the rollout in Indiana. I think he said somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the kids who came into the program already attended a private school. 

In Wisconsin, the last expansion we had, 79 percent of the people 

already attended a private school who went into that program. 

That is not so much about education policy, that is really kind 

of like a tax policy. I guess my question to Dr. Huerta especially, 

my experience that I am offering from my state, how different, are 

we the anomaly compared to these other states’ experiences, and 

can you just tell me how that helps public education? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Pocan, I do not think Wisconsin is an anomaly. 

Wisconsin is the longest—Milwaukee is the longest standing voucher program that we have, and it is one of the larger programs. 

The issues that you described in detail are being reported in 

many of the other voucher programs that we have in places like 

Cleveland and already in Louisiana we are already seeing some of 

these issues coming forth. 

I think you are certainly not an anomaly. If I can actually answer your question with sort of a broader statement that was 

brought up in the earlier exchange with regard to what the Federal 

Government can do to begin to address some of these issues, and 

I think the government needs to ask themselves whether placing 

the responsibility of educating students is wise, and placing that 

responsibility on private schools, and we have to remember that equity is not a market value. Private schools are market entities. Equity is not a market value of private schools. 

When we talk about issues around accountability and so forth, 

voucher and tuition tax credit programs threaten public authority 

and the ability of states to actually ensure that a uniform ed system actually advances equity and social cohesion, and the Democratic citizenship of all students. 

When the state does not have the ability to hold private schools 

to account, we are not able to guarantee that those values are actually engrained in our students. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. I only have 12 seconds. Mr. Robinson, if 

you get a chance, because you have had the experience in Wisconsin, give some of those issues that are brought up, really the 

lack of accountability, the problem when they transfer to a public 

school, the problem with the children being cherry picked. I would 

just love to hear you address some of those because I do think 

those are real valid concerns that I experienced in my home state. 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Guthrie? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. 

Merriweather. Again, I will echo. I think you said you were a South 

Florida student. Western Kentucky University is in my district or 

my home town. We got to play in a bowl game. I say that because 

you hired our coach away from us, beloved Willie Taggart. I hope 

you have a chance to meet him or his wife because they are fantastic people and class act, and wish him the best, and thanks for 

coming here today. 

You said this opportunity kept you from being a statistic, and it 

seems as we are listening to this now, you are a statistic because 

we are talking about 79 percent this, 81 percent that. What we are 

seeing is lives that change. 

I think there was one study, I think, that was quoted that said 

did not show gains but the worse other than that was on average 

there are no gains. It gave you an opportunity to find the school 

that fit for you. I think those are things we have to recognize. 

You said also that the voucher or the tax credit did not completely cover your tuition, but it made it affordable for your godmother to be able to make that choice for you. I think a lot of 

things that we are hearing negative towards choice and use of public funds for giving people other educational opportunities, you 

seem to be debunking because it seems to fit your life and you are 

in a graduate program, so we really appreciate you being here and 

sharing your story because it is important for us to hear. 

I worked in the state legislature as well, Mr. Bryan. Thanks for 

your work. The education area is where I worked. My kids went 

to public schools. I have one that is a senior in high school, had 

fantastic opportunities. I think somebody said 95 percent of schools 

are successful. I do not know what the number is, but a vast number of Kentucky schools are extremely successful. 

I will tell you there are some schools that I got to visit that 

weren’t, and I really tried to do a recovery program for schools in 

distress. We could not do charters or vouchers. That just was not 

going to happen politically in Kentucky at the time. I think the 

time is coming. 

We were able to do substantial things through bipartisan, and 

one of my biggest partners in trying to get it through the House 

was the different Majority than mine, the Urban League. The leader of the Urban League in Lexington saw the schools that typically 

were inner-city schools, although we have rural schools that have 

issues and failure. 

Now, I think maybe the time has come in Kentucky. We have a 

new Governor, closely aligned legislature that might move forward 

on charter schools. 

The question—I think there are fair points that were brought up, 

how do you ensure that private schools do not cherry pick students, 

how do you ensure that—I agree with Ms. Fudge, we want to make 

sure that every tax dollar is accountable. 

Mr. Robinson, I guess I am just asking you, Kentucky is looking 

at our charter schools, and when we talk to Governor Bevin or his 

new Secretary Heiner, what states prevent some of the problems 

you are talking about and what states do it right, and what should 

we look at moving forward? We are talking about charter schools 

and vouchers as we speak. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

Mr. ROBINSON. So the issue of cherry picking has been a problem 

for some places and not others. In most states, they have a lottery. 

If there are 100 seats and they have 200 applicants, you have a lottery. I have attended lotteries. I have had a chance to pick the 

balls out or the name. The students who were picked actually enroll. There may be attritions and students may leave, but we are 

not cherry picking every single kid. With 2.9 million kids, a lottery 

is one way to take care of that. 

Number two, some students choose to leave a charter school either because (a) it is just not a good fit, same reason they left a 

traditional school. Some choose to leave because they want to go to 

another school that has a program that is better aligned. 

I will not get into which state is better or not. That will probably 

get me in some trouble. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Just some model states. I do not want to say what 

is better. 

Mr. ROBINSON. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 

they have a report where they have ranked all of the states, and 

you’ve got Minnesota, you have other states. I would say take a 

look at their ranking. They rank on several criteria. Some states 

are doing really well. 

If you want to be a strong charter school state, make sure you 

have a lottery in place, make sure we fully fund charter schools. 

It is a myth that charter schools are receiving all the funding that 

traditional schools are sending, and before we have conversations 

about fully funding public education, let’s truly fund all public 

schools including charter schools. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I am about out of time. Ms. Merriweather, again, 

I had a lady that worked in a factory, was managing a factory, and 

a lady who dropped out of high school, talked her into going back. 

She said the biggest effect on her going back to school was her 

daughter. You say your siblings are moving forward. 

My question is you are in your graduate program, what is next 

for you? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Looking for a job? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Yes, I am actually getting my Master’s in 

social work. Every time I tell someone it is befitting because of my 

family dynamics and me wanting to make a change in my family, 

and yes, my siblings are now seeing my example, and even other 

members in my family, my biological mother, she often tells me, 

you know, thank you so much, you really inspire me and I am so 

happy that I actually gave you basically to my godmother in order 

for her to impart into me. 

It was really amazing that I could get the tax credit scholarship 

and my younger siblings are now receiving it as well, and they are 

taking advantage of the same education. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Jeffries, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the witnesses for 

their presence here today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

Dr. Huerta, how does the percentage of private school students 

who are English language learners compare to the percentage of 

public school students? 

Mr. HUERTA. This is a number that varies again state by state, 

but we know that private schools accept substantially fewer students with English language needs, as well as students with special education needs. On the latter, private schools are not required 

to provide special education to their students. That is very important to consider. 

Even though there are some special ed vouchers that exist in 

several states, voucher schools that accept these students are not 

in any way compelled or held accountable to actually provide the 

same special ed quality services that would have otherwise been 

provided in a public school. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. On that point, Representative Bryan, 

private schools participating in North Carolina’s school voucher/ 

school choice program under law are able to exclude students with 

disabilities and special needs; correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Under North Carolina law, private schools that 

are receiving taxpayer dollars are able to exclude students with 

limited English proficiency; is that correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Under North Carolina law, private schools that 

are receiving taxpayer dollars are able to exclude students with 

certain religious backgrounds; is that correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. There is no—yes, they have their own standard requirements. Of course, they do not get money for any of those 

things either. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But they are able to exclude, even if they are receiving taxpayer dollars related to other students participating in 

the voucher program, they can make the exclusionary decisions 

based on religion; correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. They are an existing private school, so they 

have their own admission standards. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I am not even quite sure that is constitutional, but 

that is a question for another day. Public schools are required to 

educate all students, correct, regardless of religious background, regardless of special needs, regardless of their English language 

learner status; correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, and they get a lot of extra money to do so. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Can you explain to me why it is fair for the taxpayers of North Carolina to essentially fund private school vouchers for schools that can engage in these discriminatory practices 

that you just acknowledged exist under law? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, fundamentally, it is the parents exercising the 

right, which we have been doing since we have been America. We 

give out college grants to folks, they can exercise those at private 

religious universities, you can go to a Jewish college, a Christian 

college, whatever kind of college you want to go to and get public 

dollars for that. It is a parent or in that case a student making a 

choice. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. You do not have a problem with taxpayer dollars 

being used in this fashion where private schools are able to essenCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

tially say ‘‘no, you are an English language learner, we are not 

going to accept you, even if you received a voucher. No, you are a 

special needs student with disabilities, we are not going to accept 

you’’. You do not have an issue with that? 

Mr. BRYAN. Again, they do not get money for those things. We 

give extra money for most of those things, and the standard traditional school gets that money. In these cases, they do not. There 

are schools that do take special need kids. That is the marketplace 

of the private schools. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Given the exclusionary nature, as you have acknowledged, under North Carolina law, some of these students who 

are ELL individuals or special needs students actually do not have 

choice; correct? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, it depends. I think there are schools that do 

provide that. I would love for more kids to have choices. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Mr. Robinson, is the objective of many of 

these programs that you have supported to provide low income students with the broadest range of options? Is that right? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, the majority of programs throughout 

the country that participate in private school sort of voucher initiatives, the majority of states, I should say, they do not cover the full 

cost of tuition; correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Milwaukee does not cover full cost of tuition. It 

is a social justice model where the school accepts $7,200, and it 

varies a little more for high school. When they accept the money, 

they cannot charge tuition beyond that. If they attend a school that 

is $20,000, they accept the $7,200, the rest is gone. Social justice— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is in Milwaukee. The majority of private 

school voucher programs throughout the country do not cover the 

full cost of tuition; correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. No, and it depends on where you are. Let’s look 

at Georgia where they have a special needs scholarship. It can go 

as high as $19,000, depending upon what needs you have. The laws 

are specific and change throughout the state. North Carolina is one 

example, but there are others. It is a myth that all—there are kids 

in voucher programs and others that are ELL students. In Washington, D.C., the opportunities scholarship program, I went to an 

event where you had parents, many of them or their children, 

English is their second language, there are other programs in this 

city, so I would recommend law— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. My time has expired, but in Washington, D.C., 

there are 53 programs participating in the school voucher initiative, and the majority of students only attend eight. That is not 

really school choice. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would now 

like to recognize another champion of school choice, another 

Indianan, a Hoosier, I guess they are, Mr. Rokita. You are recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman for the hearing. I thank the 

witnesses for their time. I want to first go to Mr. Robinson just to 

see if he wants to continue with his answer that Mr. Jeffries questioned him about, if you have any more to add to that. Time ran 

out. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

Mr. ROBINSON. Oh, sure. It is quality versus quantity. Sidwell 

Friends and other high performing schools are part of the program. 

Those are options that would not be in place. Same thing in Milwaukee, same thing in New Orleans and other states. 

The gentleman left from Milwaukee, one point I wanted to mention, it is true there was actually someone who used public dollars 

to buy a Cadillac, there are surely private school providers who use 

the money for different things, the Teachers Union made sure they 

highlighted the private school provider buying the Cadillac, but I 

would like to see the Teachers Union also highlight the thousands 

of children through a quality education who graduated from high 

school and college who are able to actually buy their own Cadillacs 

because of the education they received in a voucher program. 

Mr. ROKITA. Excellent point, Mr. Robinson. That goes to one of 

my other questions. In fact, we are concerned about accountability 

as Mrs. Fudge stated, and that is true, but as to these public school 

choice programs—private school choice programs, like in Milwaukee, is it not true there is scrutiny there. There are reports 

made. When you look at those, that scrutiny, relative to what the 

traditional public school scrutiny is, is it not accurate that these 

programs do get more scrutiny? 

Mr. ROBINSON. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 

actually, I will use the term broadly, regulates and oversees the 

program. If you think there is no accountability, talk to the private 

schools that were closed because of financial malfeasance and other 

problems. 

If you look at Florida, Florida’s program, the tax credit program, 

those students who take public money in fact are required to take 

a test, either the state test or NAEP test, and that information is 

made available to the Department of Education, and we give an update to the legislature. 

In Virginia, we have a tax credit program, relatively new. In November of last year, a report was submitted to the legislature on 

the number of students who were participating. 

Departments of Education for the most part for tax credits could 

be a Department of Revenue or Taxation, are in fact overseeing the 

programs, and trust me, they have actually closed programs, and 

there is accountability there. 

Mr. ROKITA. I have one more line of questioning for you. Your 

testimony focused a lot on research. Dr. Huerta’s testimony focused 

on that, too. As the Ranking Member stated, the data somehow is 

saying that on average, public school choice is just average. Do you 

want to comment on that? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, CREDO said it was more than average, and 

that was 42 urban areas and 22 cities. We looked at the gold standard 13 studies. They are actually showing, for example, you have 

Cohen 2008, eight points in reading, seven points in math. Green 

2001 in Charlotte, six points combined in reading and math. Green 

1998 Milwaukee, six points in reading, 11 points in math. 

Some studies showed, particularly with African American students, five percentage points for math, and particularly those coming from low performing schools. 

At the end of the day, we can debate statistics all night. When 

you talk to parents, what they want to know is a school good, is 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

93 

it safe, and will my child have an opportunity to advance in ways 

I could not. That is how they make their decision. 

We as thinkers and social scientists, we can debate the nuances, 

but for parents who have to make real world decisions, they are 

making decisions and voting with their feet. I think we should listen to that. The research matters, and it seems to— 

Mr. ROKITA. Excellent. Ms. Merriweather, do you agree with 

what has been said by Mr. Robinson? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. I do, and I just would like to add that when 

the discussion that we are having here today seems to not be the 

discussion of whether we should have school choice or whether we 

should not, it just seems accountability, and I totally agree there 

should be checks and balances with private schools, charter 

schools, virtual schools, all forms of school choice. 

I am thankful to hear that the discussion is not whether this program is not effective and not needed, rather, it is where do we 

come in and make sure everyone is accountable. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. In the time I have remaining, sticking 

with you, Ms. Merriweather, what do you think about the allegation, the comment, the opinion that these programs simply take 

money from low performing schools, from poor neighborhoods, and 

move it to more effluent neighborhoods? 

Is that valid? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. I do not know the rules and regulations of 

it. I just know when I was in school and when my siblings, my biological siblings, were in the public schools, the schools that we went 

to were low performing, and we did not have all the resources that 

we needed, and the teachers dreaded coming to school, and if we 

acted out, which most of us did, we were given punishment that 

was not good. 

When I went to a private school, when I started trying to act out 

and do those types of things, I was chastised in different ways. I 

was given alternative ways to cope with the things that I was feeling at home, the social issues that I was actually dealing with. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Merriweather. Mr. Chairman, it 

seems that what Ms. Merriweather is saying is we need universal 

school choice for every student. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of the 

panelists who are with us today. I could not agree more than with 

the gentleman from Indiana when he said that this is the civil 

rights issue of our time, access to quality education for every single 

student, no matter what their income, no matter what their zip 

code is. 

Ms. Merriweather, you have an inspiring story that fits right into 

that narrative of how do we provide that for every single child in 

this country. It seems like sometimes we get focused on choice is 

a way to get us to that goal, but choice is not the goal itself. 

Representative Bryan, I was looking at some numbers from 

North Carolina, and these are rough numbers, but there approximately 120,000 students served in private schools, about 60,000 

more in charter schools in North Carolina, and you have approximately 1.5 million school age students, children in North Carolina. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

94 

How when you were looking at designing your choice programs— 

did you look at how we build a system? Obviously, you do not have 

the capacity or anywhere close to serve the majority of children, so 

how did you look at designing a system that would actually help 

every child get that opportunity? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, I think that is a good question and actually a 

broader question. I think we looked at a lot of the Florida tax credit program, which had been running for 10 years, and was running 

successfully with public and private schools really partnering in 

some ways. Superintendents that had been opposed to programs 

like this now feeling like they were able to partner with many of 

these private schools. 

We looked at it and focusing really on the most underperforming 

and the highest poverty kids. We were focused on a particular issue 

and an immediate need, which again is if you are a parent and 

your kid is in a school that is not serving them well, you want an 

immediate option to get them in a school that— 

Ms. CLARK. Was that your focus, immediate need? Were you 

looking at all at how to build a system and create opportunities 

through the system? 

Mr. BRYAN. I think it is both. I think we are also doing things 

on the larger scale public school side from making sure we are focusing on our bottom performing schools. 

Ms. CLARK. Do students who apply for a voucher or go into your 

charter school system need to come from underperforming public 

schools? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, generally. 

Ms. CLARK. That is a requirement for getting a voucher? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. You can go in as a kindergartner without—the 

main students are transferring from the public schools. 

Ms. CLARK. Okay, and how does that fit in with private schools, 

as you described, having the freedom not to share information or 

accountability? How do you build a better system when you do not 

have that information on how students are faring? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, the parents know how their students are 

faring, and I think they are the ultimate form of accountability, is 

a parent feeling like their kid is being successful in that school. We 

know— 

Ms. CLARK. How does that feedback from an individual family 

and parent get back to the public school system where the overwhelming majority of students are? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, I mean, the easiest thing is if a parent does 

not like their school, they will not exercise on the option again. 

They will go back to the public school if they do not feel like the 

school is serving them well. 

Ms. CLARK. It is really a program based on the individual family, 

not the school system, not building up all North Carolina schools? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, I mean like any small program, I think there 

is an acknowledgment that the vast bulk of our students, just like 

what has happened in Florida, Florida has had this program for 10 

years, and the vast bulk of students remain in traditional public 

schools. They have also expanded and grown a lot and it has come 

to serve those families very well, understanding their unique 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

95 

needs, they are hard to meet, and sometimes moving to a private 

school environment is a great fit for them. 

Ms. CLARK. Dr. Huerta, have you seen any state or school system 

that has used the school choice program, whether it is charter, private, voucher, to effectively increase opportunity and quality of the 

public school system overall? Have you seen any examples of that? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think we see across states many examples that 

choice has actually increased choices for families, but as I indicated, the evidence is quite mixed with regard to the issues of quality. 

If you are asking me whether choice has increased quality overall— 

Ms. CLARK. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. HUERTA. The facts are clear it does not. We see some level 

evidence that students are performing about the same and then we 

see some very compelling evidence that shows kids in some of the 

privatization mechanisms are actually not faring as well. 

As a mechanism for improvement compared to what we see 

where the majority of kids are, it is a system that has actually not 

shown sufficient evidence. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for 

being here. Ms. Merriweather, you are a beam of sunshine in our 

day today. Thank you for being here and thank you for your story. 

You know it is a honor for us to serve as representatives of the people, but like anything else, sometimes it can be a grind, and sometimes we wonder if we are making a difference, but it is stories like 

yours that keep us going. Thank you. 

I want to ask you, do you know of any other stories similar to 

yours? Have there been other people, friends of yours, that you 

have known? You put it so well. I have always said poverty breeds 

poverty, and we have to break that cycle, and you said that, that 

cycle has been broken. Do you know of any other examples? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Most definitely. I love to tell people, everyone in my class, all six of us, we all went off to college, and we all 

are now in grad school or are working, and we are making a different life for ourselves and many of our parents, you know, had 

to grow up unfortunately in, and that is the story of many of the 

other kids that went to my school. They have made a difference 

and they are excelling in school currently and have graduated from 

high school. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, thank you again. Mr. Bryan, I had the honor 

of serving in the Georgia state legislature for 10 years. I was a cosponsor of both the voucher bill and the special needs scholarship 

bill, and we passed both of those bills, and that we have in effect 

now, and that I understand you have in effect in North Carolina 

as well. 

Can you tell me about the success of that program? Has it been 

successful, and what do you attribute it to? 

Mr. BRYAN. Again, I would say our programs are new, so anything I say is mostly anecdotal. Again, I had the opportunity as I 

mentioned in my opening remarks to go visit a school that is right 

in uptown Charlotte and see 23 of the kids exercising on it, exerCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

96 

cising on the opportunity scholarship, and just to hear stories about 

how excited their families are. The school is performing wonderfully. I do not know the express scores for each of those kids, but 

I know they are doing well, and it is an academically rigorous environment. 

Again, I think it is testimonials like the ones you have heard 

today that make you realize that parents and students are excited 

and happy with their choices. I think that tells you there is success 

happening. 

Mr. CARTER. You see more parental involvement, you see more 

excitement, if you will? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, definitely. We now have rallies with parents 

coming, people who want to get the scholarship, people emailing us 

constantly saying how can I get a scholarship, I would really like 

to get one. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. Mr. Robinson, in some of your recently published work, you say an estimated 18,500 families, children, educators, and charter school employees gathered in Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, I assume, to rally in support of charter schools, 

after the Mayor attempted to stop the growth of charter schools; is 

that correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Correct. 

Mr. CARTER. That to me seems to be a clear sign that there is 

a lot of positive growth and the support behind the charter schools 

and behind their expansion is there. What I want to ask you is 

this, when you see that, what about the remaining, the schools that 

remain? What do you see happen? 

I am a big free market guy. I believe in competition. What I am 

trying to ask is what do you see happen to those other schools? 

Mr. ROBINSON. So, if you look at Milwaukee, the three previous 

superintendents, actually, it is four, said while they had challenges 

and concerns about the program, they actually saw the Milwaukee 

Parental Choice Program encouraging them to do better, so as to 

actually keep more students in public schools. That is a fact. 

You mentioned Georgia. I am on the board of the GOAL Scholarship Program. We are the largest one in Georgia. We have 13,212 

students who we have invested money in, the majority of them low 

income and working class families, making a tremendous difference. 

There are now superintendents and school boards that are saying 

guess what, what are they offering at the private school that we 

can do differently, so that is a change. 

I would also like to say that when I worked for D.C. Public 

Schools here in the 90s, traditional public schools do not educate 

all students, even though they have a constitutional obligation to 

do so, meaning there were some students with special needs that 

were so severe they actually had to partner and contract with private companies, non-profit companies, and for profit companies. 

Guess what? Their charter schools would actually partner with traditional public schools for services as well as those in the non-profit 

and for profit market. 

We often have to go outside of our own realm to get support, but 

places like New York and others are showing there is a demand for 

it, and we should support it. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

97 

Mr. CARTER. Right, so competition works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been an interesting discussion this morning. I want to start by following up on 

an earlier comment. Representative Bryan mentioned Pell Grants 

as if they were analogous to vouchers, but we have not as a country 

made access to higher education a universal right like we have 

with K–12 education. If we do, then it will be a sound analogy, but 

without that, we are talking apples and oranges. 

It has been just a couple of months since our committee helped 

pass the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was a historic achievement, upholding the civil rights legacy of the original Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act. 

That legacy was really part of a sustained commitment to deliver 

support to underserved public schools so every student in every 

community has access to a high-quality education. 

Ms. Merriweather, your story is very inspiring. In fact, it inspires 

me to work even harder to make sure that every student in every 

school has caring teachers and small classes and high expectations. 

I am concerned that today we are discussing the possibility of diverting taxpayer dollars from public schools to give students resources to attend private schools, which frequently are not held accountable to serving all students. 

It is also unfortunate that school privatization efforts also tend 

to be based on the premise that our public schools are failing. That 

term keeps coming up, ‘‘failing schools.’’ Of course, we could do 

more to strengthen public education for all students, and there are 

students who struggle more than others in our schools. 

We made significant progress with the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, but let’s look at what our schools are doing well, especially 

when we consider resource challenges and the expectations that we 

rightly put on our public schools to serve every student, regardless 

of socioeconomic background, ability, or special needs. Today, dropout rates are declining, more students are being challenged in advanced courses, and achievement gaps are narrowing. 

We as policy makers have a responsibility to ensure an excellent 

education for all students in our country, and we should continue 

to work on policies that are consistent with that commitment. 

In my district, Beaverton, Oregon is a school district that has 

several public school options in addition to comprehensive high 

schools. For example, there is an international school and a science 

and technology school, arts, and a health careers option, without 

diverting dollars to private schools. I firmly believe in that kind of 

choice within the public school system. 

Dr. Huerta, I want to follow up on the consequences of school privatization efforts for students with disabilities. There was just an 

article in the Oregonian Newspaper in my state about Joey. Joey 

was attending a Catholic school in Portland, and he has Down Syndrome. He had some behavioral issues at school like many students 

do. His parents are dedicated to their parish, and they were actually paying about $2,000 a month for extra classroom assistance, 

but the school where Joey’s three siblings attended and where his 

friends are, asked Joey to leave. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

98 

Your testimony mentions cost differentials and recognizes that 

delivering high-quality services to students with disabilities requires an investment of resources. So can you discuss how voucher 

programs relate to students like Joey and his circumstances? Do 

they generally offer sufficient resources to permit students like 

Joey to attend parochial and other private schools? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you for your question. There are some private schools nationwide that do provide some special ed services. 

Private schools in general are not required by the states to provide 

the same level and quality of special ed services that public schools 

are, including not having to hire certified teachers that have been 

certified in special education. I think that is very important to remember. 

In states like Florida where there has been a long-standing special ed voucher, when a parent chooses to use that special ed 

voucher and go to a private school, they are also surrendering the 

right that is provided to them by the federal funding for special 

education. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I do not want to interrupt, but I really want to 

get this other question that is so important. I represent a number 

of towns that are small, and they are rural, and their schools are 

the community hubs and sometimes the place where several generations of families have attended, so school privatization does not 

resonate in these towns because the closest alternative school 

might be typically another public school in another small town far 

away. 

How do statewide voucher programs affect financial stability in 

rural public education? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it would have the same effect as it would 

in urban places. There are states that allow some public monies to 

flow to private schools where there are not enough public schools 

available, including resources for books and transportation and a 

variety of other things. 

The effect on the economies of scale in public schools when public 

money is diverted to private schools is similar. There might be a 

larger impact actually in some of these rural areas because the fact 

is the public schools still have to serve the remaining kids even 

when they lose a small proportion of them, and that might have 

a very strong and negative impact on the finances of public schools. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. Dr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Merriweather, like my 

colleagues, I also want to applaud you for appearing here today 

and sharing your very inspirational story. I can tell you for the five 

years I have been on this committee, that is the most moving testimony I have heard, so thank you for being here. 

My state, Nevada, just passed education savings account legislation last year in 2015, and it was just rolled out just this last 

month in January. In that legislation, 96 percent of the students 

statewide would be eligible, special needs and families with incomes up to 100 percent of the free and reduced lunch program 

standard would be able to receive 100 percent of the basic support 

for pupils, others would be eligible to get 90 percent of that basic 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

99 

support, tuition, home schooling, tutoring, educational materials 

and so on. 

In a recent poll, 61 percent of those parents in Nevada said they 

support that program, 21 percent were opposed. Of the 61 percent 

that were pro, 60 percent were union households, 71 percent were 

Hispanic households. 

The program has been called the first universal ESSA program 

nationwide by the Friedman Foundation, and in supporting the 

program, our Governor, Brian Sandoval, stated he believes fixing 

Nevada’s perpetually underperforming education system must include more resources for public schools, and he and our legislature 

actually increased public school funding in the last session, and 

quote ‘‘As well as robust options for school choice.’’ End quote. 

Even with that overwhelming support, as we expected, a court 

case has been filed challenging the new program. 

Mr. Robinson, in your written testimony, you offer several suggestions for congressional action, and you mentioned the possibility 

of a Government Accountability Office study about how federal 

funding rules prevent states, and you specifically mentioned Nevada, from using federal education funding to support the SEAs. 

Do you have an opinion on how those federal rules could hamper 

those efforts? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I used Nevada because you are in fact universal, 

so it was a little different than the other states. If you are looking 

at actually using Title I and IDEA money, it is often tough to do 

because at the federal level, you will set rules, they have to (a) go 

through a Department of Education, and (b) go to the local system. 

There may be ways of actually streamlining that to get that either 

directly to the local district or the superintendent of the school 

board can actually make a decision, or to streamline the process to 

go directly to families particularly if they are the ones using their 

debit card to make purchases for the kind of services you mentioned. 

Mr. HECK. I appreciate that. As you mentioned again, being the 

first universal ESSA program, could you explain what makes Nevada’s program universal versus some of the other ESSA programs 

that are out there around the country? 

Mr. ROBINSON. So, some of the other ESSA programs are focused 

on special populations, either special needs, at times, military, 

yours is open to any student who is within—96 percent of your students who are in the public school system for at least a number of 

days. 

Yours is different in the fact that you can receive one, I can receive one, someone can as well, even though he or she may not be 

special needs or otherwise. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Polis, you are recognized. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the committee 

highlighting School Choice Week, and of course, we are doing it a 

week late, but you know, it is never too late to celebrate school 

choice, and we should celebrate school choice all 52 weeks of the 

year. I want to thank our witnesses for coming before us today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

100 

My home State of Colorado has a number of mechanisms to allow 

parents to choose schools. We have open enrollment within districts. We have open enrollment between districts. We not only 

allow districts to charter schools, we have a state chartering network. 

The history of incorporating privately run schools into the school 

choice network has been legally troubled in Colorado. The first attempt in recent history was in 2003 through an opportunity contract program, which effectively required some of the low performing districts to reach out to private providers within their jurisdiction and create contracts to provide for education. 

This was struck down by our State Supreme Court on local control grounds. We have local control incorporated into our governing 

document and in our constitution. 

The more recent attempt was at the local level where one of our 

large suburban school districts, Douglas County, elected a school 

board that chose to pursue a voucher-like program, and again, 

while they implemented that for a year, it was struck down by the 

Supreme Court on very different grounds, namely using state 

money to fund religious schools. We are one of the states with language in our state’s constitution that prohibits that or not. 

The status of the voucher program with regard to secular schools 

remains in question. There were six secular schools in the initial 

roll out from Douglas County. 

My question for Mr. Robinson is given that legal framework we 

have had in Colorado, the most effective way that we have seen on 

the ground to incorporate private providers into the public education network has been through contract education. 

I see that is not one of the areas you have highlighted. You have 

highlighted tax credits and vouchers. I wonder if you have any 

thoughts on contract education, namely making school districts 

that choose to contract with private providers, and I will give you 

an example, we have had for well over a decade Denver Public 

Schools, one of the largest school districts in our state, fluctuates 

between first and second, contracted with a private provider called 

Escuela Tlalelolco, a predominately Latino school, and effectively 

compensated them for the students that were enrolled there. 

What are your thoughts on contract education and is that something you might be able to incorporate into your global look at 

school choice? 

Mr. ROBINSON. When we mention school choice, we primarily 

have focused on it from 1990 forward, but if we actually go back 

as early as the 1970s, we had school choice in the context of magnet schools and open enrollment, as you mentioned. 

Many school systems today actually already contract with providers, non-profit, and for profit, simply to provide services that it 

cannot. 

I think at times we overuse the term ‘‘privatization’’ as if somehow for profit companies are not involved in education except for 

vouchers, when in fact the desks students sit in, the computers 

they use, the pencils they use, at times, uniforms, all of that often, 

most of that is driven by for profit companies, so we already have 

a contracting system in place, and I think it makes sense where it 

should be used. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

101 

Mr. POLIS. And both school districts, I would point out as well, 

as well as charter schools in Colorado provide contract education 

opportunities, whether that is online or physical. 

My next question is for Mr. Bryan. It came up in the discussion 

when you were asked some questions about your bill from Ms. 

Fudge and others. The students that are publicly funded do take 

the state assessments, is that correct, under your bill? 

Mr. BRYAN. That is correct. 

Mr. POLIS. I want to be clear because there was some discussion 

about that, that somehow there was freedom or escaping accountability. The students that are not publicly funded, that is up to the 

school whether they take the— 

Mr. BRYAN. Let me be clear in my statement. They have to take 

a nationally normed test. That is the requirement. 

Mr. POLIS. Is that the same test that other public school students 

take in your state? 

Mr. BRYAN. Not necessarily. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, you know, again, there sounds like there is an 

accountability problem there. I think where taxpayer funds go, 

there needs to be accountability, and in all the incidences of school 

choice in our state and certainly the voucher programs that I am 

aware of, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C., among others, all of 

those students would take the same test as other public school students. 

Of course, schools that fail to achieve progress would presumably 

face the same consequences as other public schools, which could potentially be loss of funding. It depends under state laws. Regardless of whether a school is a public school, a charter school, or an 

independent school that somehow participates in public education, 

what we as policymakers should care about is quality. 

Last question—we are out of time. I was going to ask about 

IDEA, and mention that many school districts who are already responsible, of course, for meeting the educational needs of each student already contract with many private providers for special education services to ensure that those students’ learning needs are 

met. 

I thank the chair for the hearing and the time, and I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Messer? 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the debate 

we have had today. I think it has been very enlightening. 

Every time I am back in my district, I try to go to a local public 

school. I try to visit charter and alternative schools all around the 

country. I have had the opportunity to go to the BASIS School here 

in Washington, D.C., which is an amazing school where at the junior high level or middle school level, kids are taking Latin, chemistry, biology, physics, and in 7th grade they are doing a second 

language. 

Contrary to some of the testimony by some folks across on your 

side of the dais today, they are taking kids from every zip code in 

the District of Columbia in that school. 

Ms. Merriweather, I was going to turn to you because when I 

have had a chance to meet with these amazing kids, they asked a 

series of very tough questions of the congressman who was there, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

102 

but their first question was this: why cannot every kid in Washington, D.C. have the same opportunity I have here at BASIS. 

Maybe I will just ask you to talk a little bit. You have given 

amazing testimony about the opportunity that came to you. What 

are your thoughts about whether everybody ought to have those 

same kind of chances? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Thank you so much. It is heartfelt. I met a 

little boy, and currently in Florida, the program is being sued, and 

he was looking at me crying, and he said am I going to be kicked 

out of my school. It was so heartbreaking because I actually felt it 

and I asked myself, you know, what if I was not given this opportunity to be able to attend this private school, and would I be the 

same person I am today, and my answer to myself was no. 

It is heartbreaking that every kid does not have the opportunity 

to attend a school of their parents’ choice because so many times 

low income kids are trapped into a district where their schools are 

underperforming. 

I would like to add that the elementary school that I went to, one 

of them, it was—I hate to say this—it was terrible. Today, it is not, 

you know. They turned around and it is a magnet school. 

It is great that there are systems of changing and evolving 

schools, and that is the whole point of this. 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Robinson, I think 

it is important as we talk about framing school choice and what the 

appropriate federal role might be to recognize that over 80 percent 

of the education dollars spent in our country are not federal dollars. It is somewhere south of 20 percent that is being funded by 

the Federal Government, and probably the biggest pool of that is 

Title I dollars, and I think that is roughly $15 billion, right? 

Could you comment just a little, one, about how effectively we 

are using Title I dollars today, and maybe expand upon, you made 

the suggestion that we could look at using those dollars, with what 

I would consider the ultimate local control, allowing it to be portable and for parents to decide how that money would be spent. 

Mr. ROBINSON. I have had a chance to see Title I in action in 

both Virginia and Florida. Let me say many families would find 

themselves in a tough situation in the absence of a Title I program. 

I think what one of your former colleagues many years ago did, Augustus Hawkins, who was a Congress member of my area in Los 

Angeles many years ago, who helped push the idea that there are 

simply some families and communities where there needs to be an 

investment. 

I am glad that is in place. It is a good social safety net. I have 

seen some great results from kids who have gone to Title I schools, 

who with the right investment of teachers, other human resources, 

and frankly technology, have seen some gains. 

Unfortunately, I have also seen some challenges, wasteful investments. Often times, we mention private schools not having all the 

appropriate paperwork. We have some of those challenges in our 

public school sector as well. 

The idea about empowering parents to use Title I if we use the 

idea of a debit card is not per se to divert money away as much 

as to give those parents they have already invested in the system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

103 

It is taxpayer money. It is a state issue. This is one way of actually 

empowering parents to do something differently. 

You frankly will even find some superintendents of school boards 

who may want to experiment with this idea to say let’s try to see 

how it works. Through small evaluative processes, we can actually 

found ways for both public and private institutions to learn from 

each other. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, appreciate your testimony. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott for today’s hearing, giving us an opportunity to focus on 

the improvement of educational opportunities for all students in 

every public school. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my brief opening 

statement be made part of this hearing. 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 98416.062
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 98416.063
106 

Mr. HINOJOSA. My first question is going to be directed at State 

Representative Rob Bryan. Concerns about the effects on academic 

achievement of the North Carolina private school choice programs 

have arisen from both the right and the left, so I am curious about 

data collection regarding student achievement, and what evidence 

demonstrating the efficacy of North Carolina’s private choice programs is available. 

Lastly, how is that data used by the state to ensure an equitable 

education is being provided to students in these programs? 

Mr. BRYAN. The programs are too new to really obtain a lot of 

data, so I could not answer, again, except for anecdotes, but I 

would say again I think when parents choose a program, they keep 

their kid if they are satisfied with the results. Again, they do have 

to take national normed tests, and the parents get all that information. If my kid was not doing well and I move them to another 

school, I am expected to see them doing better or I am not going 

to keep them there. I think that is the best evidence. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Robinson. 

Can you tell us what mechanisms are in place for monitoring the 

private schools in receipt of public dollars through choice programs 

to protect against discrimination and remedy acts of discrimination 

if they occur? 

Mr. ROBINSON. In Milwaukee, we use that as an example. If you 

take a look at the legislation that put that law into action, they actually have a line in there where they say the private schools who 

participate must adhere to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

We also know that over the last three and a half years, I believe, 

the Federal Government looked into an allegation that there was 

rapid discrimination against special needs students in the voucher 

schools in Milwaukee. I believe as of January, they ceased their investigation to find there was in fact no widespread discrimination 

against special needs students. 

Are there some challenges? Absolutely, because we are still dealing with human beings and aspects, but we have put those in 

place. If you take a look at other state laws, they have also included the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make sure that is in place to 

deal with discrimination. 

You also have inspector generals within the Department of Education either internal requests or outside requests to look into that, 

so we have some safeguards in there. I would be lying if I tell you 

there were not slip up’s and things that fell through, but we at 

least put those mechanisms in place to address those issues. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. My next question is for Dr. Huerta. 

Dr. Huerta, based on your research, can you tell us more about 

how voucher and tuition tax credit programs benefit low-income 

families, and in your response to my question, would you also tell 

me if Native American Tribal schools are being impacted by this 

issue we are discussing here today? 

Mr. HUERTA. I will answer the second part of your question, Mr. 

Hinojosa, first, and that is I am not familiar with evidence that has 

that direct impact on Native American students. 

With regard to the first part of your question, we know that 

vouchers and tuition tax credit programs are serving kids that 

come from very diverse income brackets. One of the interesting 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

107 

pieces in the research that I have actually been looking into is the 

extent to which we begin to identify kids from different thresholds, 

because often times, we will measure the impact that vouchers 

might have on kids, for example, for kids that are under the poverty line, but we treat all those kids under that poverty line as one 

monolithic block, and I think it is important to begin to be able to 

disentangle that because we see some evidence that some of the 

low income families that are choosing are the ones that are right 

below that threshold, and those are families that are very different 

than the kids who come from families that are much lower than 

that threshold. 

I want to briefly talk about the issue around accountability and 

specifically the Wisconsin piece that was just brought up. In the 

case that was mentioned by Mr. Robinson, it is important to remember that one of the reasons that the lawyers from the Federal 

Government that were actually investigating what was happening 

in Wisconsin had to make the conclusion they made was because 

schools in Wisconsin are not responsible or not compelled to actually collect a lot of the data that they were actually trying to analyze, specific to the types of kids they are serving, whether kids 

with IEPs’ needs were being served or not. 

The Feds had to actually throw their hands up somewhat because they did not have the data, because the state does not require these private schools to collect or report that data. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. That is interesting. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. My time has expired. I thank you all for your participation here today. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes Sir Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the panel for being here today and your testimony on this important subject. Obviously, I think the American people have spoken, 

and they want choice, and they do want accountability. I think 

each one of you demonstrated that as well. 

Ms. Merriweather, I have had an occasion to visit some universities and some schools in the district. Frankly, in talking with the 

administration at one of the major universities, I was shocked to 

learn, I said what is your biggest challenge, and they said the emotional health of our students. 

Of course, I remember back on my college days. Those were some 

of the best days of my life, toughest days, but was a great time in 

my life. 

I was more shocked to go into a fairly wealthy area of the district 

and talk to an elementary school, and I’m sitting there with the administration, and I said what is your biggest challenge, and they 

said it is the emotional health of our students. 

Now, obviously, there was a time in your life where you were in 

a bad place. I mean you were dealing with things that I think is 

unfair for a young person to have to deal with, to be honest with 

you. I am just totally amazed to hear your courageous and heroic 

story. 

What was it that turned you around? What I told these folks at 

the elementary school is I said we have to address the mind, the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

108 

body, and the spirit, the three aspects of the student. What is it 

that turned your life around? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. I thank you for that because I think you 

bring up a very valid point because sometimes in a school setting, 

we forget that a child is a whole person, and that there are things 

they are dealing with outside of school. 

I think that was it for me really, to be at a school where someone 

was not only interested in my academia, but they were actually interested in my life and bettering my life, and giving me the things 

that I needed. 

I mentioned that they helped me pay for my college applications 

and testing because I would not have been able to do it by myself 

or just with my godmother. They assisted me with that also. They 

cared about the whole person. 

I am not saying that public schools do not either, but there are 

so many students that it is kind of hard to actually invest in each 

one of them. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, by law, I am not sure our public schools can 

address that, the whole, by law. Teachers are restrained from doing 

the very thing that saved your life, because they could be sued. 

I will tell you an example of that. We have a school—of course, 

you know, the facts are this, and we can talk about accountability 

all we want to, but the reason I am in Congress is because of Heritage School in Augusta, Georgia. That is a Christian school. That 

school takes in the kids, innocent kids, who are declared losers in 

the public school system. 

Only one of those children has not graduated from high school, 

and they are pursuing a music career in Nashville, and will probably be able to buy General Motors based on their talent level. 

That is the only student who has not finished high school and most 

of those kids are in college, whereas in Richmond County, we have 

33,000 kids, we graduate about half of them in the public school 

system. 

Mr. Robinson, those are the facts. Why do we keep debating this? 

Mr. ROBINSON. It is about power, and that is what the discussion 

is about, who is going to control public dollars and for what reason. 

There are examples from most of the choice states that they are 

taking hard to serve children. It is simply a fact, but when you 

play power politics, the goal is to try to take information and use 

it for a way to prove the obvious. 

There are some kids who simply did not do well in a traditional 

public school. It does not mean the public school is a horrible place. 

It just was not a good fit for them. 

There also was a comment about if a family is at the cusp of 185 

percent of poverty versus someone who is lower, that they are different students, different kinds of families. Statistically, yes, but 

they are unified around one thing, we want options and we want 

to invest our money the way we see fit. 

At the end of the day, this is about power, but if we want to remain powerful as a nation, we have to invest in our children and 

the schools that work. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. For disclosure, we elected, my wife and I, to 

send our children to a Christian school. Mr. Bryan, we do not reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

109 

gret that. In fact, our children have got a good education and they 

seem to understand a great value system. 

Where in the value system—I am out of time here—from the 

standpoint of what you are doing in North Carolina— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Adams? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member 

Scott. I want to thank the witnesses for testifying. I had another 

meeting that overlapped. I did have a chance to read your testimony. 

Education has been a long passion of mine, especially as it relates to low income students who are often students of color, and 

I am one of those, graduated from high school, public high school 

in Newark, New Jersey, grew up in the ghetto. I taught for 40 

years as an educator in Greensboro, North Carolina. 

I also served in the North Carolina House for 20.5 years, and I 

did not get a chance to serve with you, Representative Bryan, but 

while I was there, I was opposed to efforts to funnel our public dollars to voucher programs, and I am still opposed to that today. I 

do not think that was a good idea. 

However, despite the strong efforts, we were left in North Carolina with an opportunity scholarship program, and I think there 

are still opportunities that are not there for all of our children. 

Representative Bryan, I know you are a strong proponent of the 

program, but I have to let my colleagues who are left here know 

it is not as good as it sounds. 

The program was initially struck down as unconstitutional, rightly asserted that the General Assembly was seeking to push average 

students from low-income families into non-public schools in order 

to avoid the cost of providing them a sound basic education in public schools. 

I just know a greater percentage, 90 percent of our children, will 

be educated in public schools. Unfortunately, the State Supreme 

Court overturned this ruling on ideological lines, and to add insult 

to injury, Chief Justice Marshall or Martin said that those taxpayers who allege that the program failed, failed to show that they 

suffered harm. 

I really find it hard to believe that taking limited funds that the 

North Carolina legislature chose to cut from public dollars and 

sending those to private schools that are not held to the same level 

of accountability is not harmful, it is harmful. 

Dr. Huerta, I have a question for you, if you would expound upon 

some of the harmful outcomes of voucher programs in other states, 

and offer some insight on what you think North Carolina can expect for low-income students. 

Mr. HUERTA. I will expound on the general context here, and I 

think it is important to remind everybody that the voucher and tuition tax credit programs actually contest the common school model 

and erode the ability of the state to be the equalizer when it is 

needed. 

It erodes the ability of the state to actually uphold and advance 

equity and social cohesion, Democratic goals of schooling, and these 

are values that have been long held in education. These tenets are 

actually echoed, and we talked about civil rights today a little bit, 

these are tenets that are basic tenets that were in Brown v. Board, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

110 

when the court stated that education was important, and the court 

at that point said ‘‘Education is important to our Democratic society as required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, and it is the foundation of good citizenship.’’ 

My concern from what the research tells us is that as we shift 

responsibility to educating our students to the private sector where 

equity is not a value, that we are moving further and further away 

from the tenets of Brown v. Board. 

Ms. ADAMS. In your opinion, do these adverse effects have a 

greater impact on students of color, and if so, would you tell us 

why you think that? 

Mr. HUERTA. If students of color are denied access because private schools have the ability to choose, then yes, there will be adverse effects. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Just one follow up, Dr. Huerta. How much 

work would have to be done to actually make vouchers work and 

truly give all students and their families choice? 

Mr. HUERTA. A couple of mechanisms that I think can equalize 

this process. The vouchers have to be a much larger amount. There 

has to be greater accountability on schools that are accepting 

vouchers. 

One of the new trends that we see in some of the recent legislation is the requirement to actually take either a state assessment 

or a nationally normed referenced test, but it is important that 

most of the states who are requiring these tests have no consequences linked to taking a test. Simply requiring a test does not 

equate to accountability. 

There is a mechanism around the access to free and accurate information, which is something that is actually left out of most legislation at the state level, and that is the degree to which parents 

are provided the information needed to actually make these 

choices. 

There is the issue of access, to compelling private schools to actually guarantee access to all students. 

There are mechanisms that can make this process more Democratic. However, the folks who are supporting more privatization 

want to preserve the right of private schools to not be held accountable by the state. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Ms. Stefanik? 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Merriweather, I want to echo my colleagues’ sentiment. Your 

testimony today was truly inspiring, and the courage and confidence that it takes to testify as a young person before Congress, 

I commend you for that. I also commend you for your advocacy in 

ensuring that everyone who is listening to this hearing today understands that achieving a high quality education can truly change 

your life. Thank you for sharing that empowered story. 

I wanted to ask you a question. You talked about small class 

size, additional teacher help, whether it was with your times tables 

or your reading comprehension, educating you as a whole person 

beyond just academic rigor. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

111 

Can you give a little bit more detail on what it was like 

transitioning from your first experience in school to the private 

school that you attended, and what some of those difference were? 

Ms. MERRIWEATHER. Most definitely. So, Esprit de Corps was a 

church based school, a church that I actually attended. Coming 

from a public school where I kind of lived the dual lifestyle of acting out, not really listening to my teachers, and then going to 

church with my godmother, I lived, you know, a dual life. 

Going to Esprit de Corps and actually having most of the people 

that went to the church work at Esprit de Corps, it was very different for me and kind of a culture shock because I was not used 

to having those two worlds collide. 

By me having that experience, I actually was kind of forced innately to behave myself. So, that transition was very different for 

me personally, but it paid off because the acting in the beginning 

became a lifestyle, and I actually wanted to learn, and I actually 

wanted to better myself as an individual. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, and congratulations on being the first 

member of your family to graduate from high school, undergrad, 

and you are on your way to getting your graduate degree, and 

thank you to your godmother for encouraging you to achieve the 

highest quality education that was available to you. 

I wanted to shift gears and build off of my colleague, Ms. 

Bonamici’s, question regarding urban and rural, and the differences within the communities. I represent a rural district in upstate New York. I want to get your ideas, Mr. Robinson, on how 

we can expand educational choices in rural communities, because 

the model is different for upstate New York than New York City. 

Mr. ROBINSON. So, Wisconsin in 2004 to 2007 was trying to figure out how they could actually expand more charter schools into 

the rural areas. That is one state I would say to take a look at. 

Same thing in Georgia. 

If you look at the private school sector, I would say take a look 

at the tax credit scholarship program in Georgia. There are a number of providers, again, I am on GOAL scholarship, which is the 

largest in the state, but if you take a look at the map of Georgia, 

surely we have students in the Atlanta metropolitan area, but we 

serving students in Northern Georgia, Southern Georgia, East and 

West. 

We actually work with school leaders to inform us how best to 

work with them, working with students in the city and rural areas 

are different, not for all the reasons we would think, but there are 

definitely challenges, transportation is one, distance between home 

and school is another, so transportation challenges. 

I think we have learned a lot from listening to them, to figure 

out how we can do it well. It is not an area where I spend a great 

deal of time. I know back in Virginia, we have something called the 

‘‘Horseshoe,’’ and we have a number of families there who have 

challenges, financially and otherwise, but the community college 

system, which I would say is one of the best in the nation, they are 

actually partnering with rural communities, high schools and others, to make sure that adults receive either GEDs, degrees, or actually can go to community school for support. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

112 

I would take a look at the Virginia community college system 

and what they are doing in the Horseshoe with rural families. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you for that. Does technology play a role 

in how that model may differ? We live in the world of Google hangouts, of a tech based society. I think there are opportunities to 

modernize how we educate our children using those technological 

tools. 

I wanted to hear if that is part of your thinking in terms of expanding opportunities in rural communities. 

Mr. ROBINSON. There were at least nine rural school systems in 

Virginia who decided not to apply to National Science Foundation 

as individuals for a grant, they applied together, I believe they received $2 million, and that was to use technology for their students 

in rural Virginia, mostly of parents without passports, to have conversations with students in other countries, opening the door and 

getting to the idea of citizenship. That is one example. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. I think everyone has 

had a chance to engage in the discussion and debate, so I will move 

now to any closing remarks that Mr. Hinojosa might have. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of our 

Ranking Member, I would like to say that it has been very informative to hear each one of our panelists talk to us about the importance of education and how it can change your life, as some of you 

said. 

I want to close by saying that I have not been a teacher, but I 

have been a policymaker at the local school board, at the Texas 

State Board of Education, at the community college on the governing board, and here in this committee for the last 20 years. 

I have learned that the investment that local, state, and the Federal Government can make in early childhood development, talking 

two, three, four year olds, getting to learn to read, is probably the 

best investment we could make, if we are to be able to move them 

to grade level and have them comprehend what they read, what 

they hear, that it will be much easier to get them to graduate from 

high school. 

Which was the biggest problem that I faced during the early 

years of serving as a policymaker where we had only 60 to 65 percent of kindergartners graduating from high school in deep South 

Texas, from San Antonio down to Brownsville, that whole area. 

We now have many of those school districts that are graduating 

at 85 percent, and the difference has been early childhood reading 

and writing that has made them successful and having gone on to 

college. 

Thank you for your contributions, and we look forward to trying 

to put to use your recommendations. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the 

witnesses. Ms. Merriweather, again, you have been an inspiration 

to all of us, and we wish you the very best as you go forward, and 

like Ms. Stefanik, I think we need to thank your godmother. There 

are a lot of people these days who do not have a godmother, so I 

am grateful to God and to your godmother. 

We talked quite a bit today about accountability in choice. Dr. 

Huerta had some data that he was using. Mr. Bryan, I thought you 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

113 

made a very, very good point that there is always going to be accountability when you have a requirement for a nationally normed 

test, if those kids are not doing well, the parents are going to remove those kids. 

I think it is a valid question about accountable to whom, and 

what we are talking about here is families where their children are 

in truly failing schools. Let me hasten to say that I know most, by 

far most, of our public schools, traditional public schools are doing 

very well. 

In some states—the Hoosiers are still here in strength, I see, and 

thank you very much for that, I am sure they are very proud of 

many of their traditional public schools in Indiana, as we are in 

Minnesota, the home of public charter schools, by the way, the 

originators of public charter schools. 

In some cities in Indiana, as in some cities in Minnesota, Minneapolis being one, we are horribly failing our children. When you 

are graduating less than half of your children, you have a real 

problem. 

We worked very hard. I am very pleased with the work that we 

did in ESSA, and I thank you, Mr. Robinson, for your kinds words 

about that, as we are looking for ways to return control to parents 

and to local school boards and to teachers, and all of us know the 

single most important thing—I am not disagreeing with my friend 

and colleague about the importance of early education—the single 

most important thing is a really good teacher. 

If you have a really good teacher, you will probably going to succeed in the classroom. If you do not, it does not matter whether it 

is a private school or public charter school or traditional public 

school. If you have poor teachers, then you are going to have poor 

results. 

All those things warrant our attention and work, and I appreciate the expertise of all the witnesses here today. Your testimony 

and your engagement in our questions was very, very helpful. 

There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER