U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

66–622 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–195 

THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES: SAVING 

THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

RACHEL R. SOTSKY, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Lieberman 

ELYSE F. GREENWALD, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMANDA WOOD, Minority Deputy General Counsel 

KENNETH ALTMAN, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Collins 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 27 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 29 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

Hon. Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia ............................................. 4 

Hon. Kwame R. Brown, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia ............ 7 

Kevin P. Chavous, Chairman, Board of Directors, Black Alliance for Educational Options ................................................................................................... 15 

Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director, D.C. Parents for School Choice ...... 18 

Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D., Professor and 21st Century Chair in School Choice, 

Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas .............................. 21 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Brown, Hon. Kwame R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Chavous, Kevin P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Ford, Virginia Walden: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Gray, Hon. Vincent C.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Wolf, Patrick J., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX 

CRS Report for Congress titled ‘‘District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship 

Program: Implementation Status and Policy Issues,’’ January 28, 2010, 

by Rebecca R. Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy, and Erin D. Caffrey, 

Analyst in Education Policy, submitted for the Record by Senator 

Lieberman ............................................................................................................. 60 

Additional letters and prepared statements submitted for the Record from: 

American Association of School Administrators, letter dated February 

15, 2011 .......................................................................................................... 79 

American Association of University Women, prepared statement ............... 81 

Anti-Defamation League, letter dated February 15, 2011 ............................ 87 

American Jewish Committee (AJC), letter dated February 15, 2011 .......... 88 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 89 

Dr. Martin Carnoy, Vida Jacks Professor of Education, Stanford University, prepared statement .............................................................................. 91 

DC Vote, letter dated February 15, 2011 ....................................................... 97 

Senator Richard J. Durbin, prepared statement ........................................... 99 

Page

IV 

Additional letters and prepared statements submitted for the Record from— 

Continued 

National Council of Jewish Women, letter dated February 15, [2010] 

2011 ................................................................................................................ 101 

National Coalition for Public Education, prepared statement ...................... 102 

National Coalition for Public Education, letter dated February 8, 2011 ..... 109 

National Coalition for Parental Options, letter dated March 1, 2011 ......... 112 

National School Boards Association, letter dated February 15, 2011 .......... 114 

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, letter dated February 16, 2011 ............................................................................................... 116 

People For the American Way, letter dated February 16, 2011 ................... 117 

Secular Coalition for America, letter dated February 16, 2011 .................... 120 

Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator, District of Columbia (Shadow), prepared 

statement ....................................................................................................... 122 

(1) 

THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES: 

SAVING THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY 

SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:25 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman and Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to 

order. I thank all the witnesses for being here. I want to particularly welcome Mayor Vincent Gray and Chairman Kwame Brown. 

This is a cause, and I suppose a debate, that has gone on for a 

period of years now since this program was adopted in 2003. Senator Collins and I have been strong supporters of it. We have had 

frustrating times the last few years as we have not succeeded in 

adding new students to this critically important program, but we 

are not giving up because we believe in it so deeply. 

I am just going to speak a little bit and put my statement in the 

record. 

This program was adopted for a very fundamental reason which 

was that by all the objective indicators we saw, too many children 

in the District of Columbia were not receiving their God given, certainly constitutionally protected, right to an equal opportunity of 

an equal education. Our judgment was, in adopting this program, 

that we had to focus on the children, and really more particularly 

on the individual children and how we could maximize their opportunity for an equal education and a ladder up in American society. 

In other words, we decided to focus on the child instead of the 

particular institution that was delivering the education to the 

child. Obviously most of our children in the District of Columbia 

and throughout America will always be educated in public schools, 

I was, and I would not be where I am today if I had not received 

the education I got in the public schools in Stamford, Connecticut, 

but the fact is that a lot of children in the District are not receiving—there was, at that time, and unfortunately still, D.C. public 

schools ranked last on a series of national evaluations, 51 out of 

51, and so we created this program, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 

2 

Program (OSP), to give support to low-income children to attend 

private schools as their ladder up. 

We also, just to meet the argument that we were not going to 

take this money out of available public school funds and created a 

tripartite program where we gave equal amounts of money to the 

public schools, additional money, money they would not otherwise 

have received which is a considerable amount over the years we 

have been going to give to the charter schools which have done 

really exceptional work. 

The public schools of the District, I think, are improving, but by 

objective indicators they are not there yet. It was a very compelling, poignant moment last year when then chancellor Michelle 

Rhee came out for our proposal and she said, ‘‘I am devoting all 

my energy to the public schools, but until I can look every parent 

of a child in the District in the eye and say you can get the education you want your children to get in the D.C. public schools, I 

cannot oppose this program in good conscience.’’ 

So, unfortunately for a lot of reasons it did not make it. Usually 

I try to see the arguments on the other side. This one I have trouble with. 

I know, Mayor, you and I have a different position and we will 

have a good, respectful discussion about it. We have, as I said, new 

faces today—Mayor Gray, Chairman Brown. We have some, I 

would not call them old faces, but familiar faces: Kevin Chavous, 

youthful, whatever his age, and extremely dynamic; Virginia Walden Ford represents the parents of D.C. children in these programs; and then Dr. Wolf who has done an independent evaluation. 

I will say as we begin this battle again this year that there is 

one new face, at least in one new place that gives us hope that we 

are going to succeed this year and that is that John Boehner is the 

Speaker of the House and he has been a consistent and fervent 

supporter of this program and, frankly, I think it is personal because he came from a large, low-income family and the education 

he received—in that case in the Catholic school system—he feels 

helped him to get at least the footing on the ladder that now has 

taken him to be Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency of the United States. 

So, the Speaker does not usually introduce bills. That is a custom 

over in the House, but he decided to co-sponsor the reauthorization 

of this tripartite program and that is really good news. This is 

going to be complicated, but we are starting this year with a reason 

for hopefulness and I hope we can end it in a way that not only 

creates opportunity, again through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, but again puts more money into the charter schools 

and the public schools of the District of Columbia. 

I thank everybody for being here. I know that the mayor and 

chairman have to go to a memorial service and do not have a lot 

of time, so I welcome them. We will get to them in a moment. 

Senator Collins, thank you for your partnership on this cause as 

well as so many others. I would welcome your opening statement 

now. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me thank you not only for your eloquent statement this morning, 

but for continuing this fight. It reflects the deep compassion that 

you have for each and every child in the District of Columbia and 

I know that there are so many families in the District who are so 

grateful for your untiring advocacy on their behalf. 

A year has passed since we last discussed, at a hearing in this 

room, how we could best support the efforts of parents and students in the District to secure a high-quality education. At that 

time, we heard the inspiring personal success stories of participants in the opportunity scholarship program. 

Ronald Holassie is here again today. He is in the audience. He 

talked about how the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program had 

literally changed his life and I so remember his taking on one of 

our colleagues who was proposing that the program be terminated 

and he said these memorable words, which echo today. He pointed 

out to this Senator that D.C. schools did not get bad overnight and 

they are not going to get better overnight either. And I thought 

that summed up so well why we are here and why we are advocating this important program and I know today, both Ronald and 

his younger brother, Richard, are vivid examples of this program’s 

success. 

I had an opportunity to talk to him briefly before the hearing. 

He is now a senior and is looking at colleges. This is the difference 

that this program can make, and the testimony last year helped to 

highlight the real world implications for families in the District of 

this Administration’s unfortunate decision last year to prevent new 

students from joining this successful program and their words still 

echo today as we consider the Administration’s newest misguided 

proposal to kill the program altogether. While not unexpected, this 

decision is both disappointing and shortsighted. 

As the Federal Department of Education’s own Institute of Education Sciences makes clear, students who participated in this program are more likely to graduate from high school than those who 

did not. That is a clear indicator of this program’s success, so I am 

very proud to have joined the Chairman in reintroducing legislation to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

This program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated 

by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children into the 

program. Since its inception, more than 8,400 students have applied for scholarships and this morning a new poll is being released 

that provides further evidence of the support of District residents 

for this program. Seventy-four percent of D.C. residents want Congress to restore and expand the highly effective D.C. Opportunity 

Scholarship Program. Seventy-five percent believe that the academic results of the program provide a convincing reason to reauthorize the program. Seventy-seven percent agree that all options 

should be on the table. And here is something that is even more 

heartening: 83 percent of the respondents believe that even if the 

program can only benefit some children, they should have the right 

to participate. 

I think that those are convincing statistics of the broad-based 

support in the District for this program. 

4 

1The prepared statement of Mayor Gray appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

Let me just end by echoing the Chairman’s point that when this 

program was first established 6 years ago, it was because the leaders of the District of Columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure within the public school system, so they worked 

with Congress and with President George W. Bush’s Administration to come up with the three-sector approach that provided additional funding for D.C. public schools, for D.C.’s public charter 

schools, and new scholarships for low-income families. 

It was a three-pronged approach that did not slight the public 

schools but have helped the public schools to become stronger. So, 

I hope that we can rectify what I believe to be a real injustice to 

the children of the District and I look forward to continuing to 

work with the Chairman. 

Since I am going to, unfortunately, have to leave at 10:15, let me 

just make one final point. If Congress does not reauthorize this 

program, it is estimated that 93 percent of the students would attend a school in need of improvement, corrective actioning, or restructuring, as designated under the No Child Left Behind Act. In 

other words, 93 percent of the children would be returned to 

schools that do not measure up. We simply cannot allow that to 

happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins, 

for your really eloquent statement. 

Mayor Gray, it is an honor to welcome you here for the first time. 

We have this historic connection through this Committee with the 

District, although of course we respect your autonomy and try to 

protect it, but it is an honor to welcome you as the new mayor and 

to look forward to your testimony now. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. VINCENT C. GRAY,1 MAYOR, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

Mayor GRAY. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you both for 

having me this morning, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins 

and any other Members that may be here this morning. 

I am Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia, and I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to share my views on public 

education and educational choice. 

How we educate our children is one of the most defining and politically leveraged issues facing the United States today. Education 

is, and has been, a vehicle of personal enrichment, individual fulfillment, and professional success for many Americans. And for this 

Nation, it is the key to our continued global competitiveness in an 

ever changing marketplace. 

I share the Committee’s interest in the successful education of 

the children of the District of Columbia, and experience it more 

profoundly because of my role as Mayor and chief executive. Just 

so you know, I am a native Washingtonian, a K-12 product of the 

D.C. public schools, and I attended undergraduate and graduate 

school at George Washington University. 

Today, this Committee will receive testimony from several people 

on whether the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program should be 

reauthorized. 

5 

Let me begin by expressing my views on education and how the 

District of Columbia’s parents and children best can be served. 

Anyone who knows me knows that I am an unwavering advocate 

for children and I have been for many years. Simply put, I am a 

strong and long-time advocate for quality education for children in 

our city. 

When I was elected Chair of the Council of the District of Columbia, one of the many questions that faced me was how I intended 

to organize the Council’s committee structure. I made a decision 

that the Committee of the Whole, of which I served as Chair, would 

have oversight responsibility for education. It was my intention to 

elevate the issue of education to one where every council member 

would participate in the direction, decisionmaking, and oversight of 

public education. After almost 4 years of serving as Chair, and 

holding numerous hearings, my opinions on education are even 

clearer. 

First, I believe we must continue smart education reform, and 

make it sustainable. Within the past 4 years, the District of Columbia public schools has engaged in important and substantive reforms. These reforms have resulted in increased interest in and 

enrollment for the D.C. public schools, and must be continued to 

ensure a high quality education for District children. 

Second, I believe we must look at education as a lifelong endeavor. Education begins long before kindergarten and continues long 

after high school. It is this core belief that led me to aggressively 

pursue the availability and expansion of pre-kindergarten education programs; to champion the creation of the District of Columbia Community College; and to provide increased funding for the 

University of the District of Columbia. 

Before becoming a Council member in 2005, I served as the Executive Director of Covenant House Washington, a Catholic-based organization that works with homeless, runaway and at-risk youth. 

I saw many young people who themselves were already parents. 

One of the programs I established was an early childhood intervention program for children of these youth, and in the same spirit, 

as Council Chairman, I championed legislation embracing a commitment to universal pre-kindergarten services in our traditional 

public schools and charter schools. 

Third, I believe we must work with our students, parents, public 

school employees and community as a part of the solution, not 

scapegoat them for our problems. I am committed to a collaborative 

approach to education reform. The very people who must buy in if 

schools are to be thriving communities—parents, teachers, community leaders, and school administrators—must be part of the discussion and active participants in decisionmaking. 

Finally, I believe we must restore accountability and sound management to our schools. Until we are on the road to economic recovery solidly, everyone will say ‘‘we must all learn to do more with 

less.’’ While this is true, we must learn how to leverage and manage those resources more efficiently. I am committed to the accountability and sound fiscal management of our education system. 

Almost 2 years ago, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Education, Arne Duncan, announced that no additional D.C. school 

children would be introduced into the voucher program because of 

6 

the uncertainty of funding over the long-term. At that time, more 

than 1,900 children were enrolled in the program and the decision 

of whether they would be allowed to continue their education in 

this way was completely outside of their parents’ control. 

Even though I have not been a supporter of vouchers as an educational option, I supported the three-sector approach when it appeared that the Opportunity Scholarship Program was at its end. 

Why? Because, as someone who deeply cares about children, I did 

not want to see these children abruptly removed from their private 

school placements. Thus, what I supported was a program in which 

all the children enrolled would be able to continue until they graduated from the 12th grade but that there would be no new enrollment. 

My emphasis was, and continues to be, on building a solid public 

education system consisting of traditional public schools and charters. 

Decisions about educational options in the District of Columbia 

ought to be made at the State and local level just as these choices 

are made across this Nation. And we do have choice. In addition 

to our traditional public education within the D.C. public school 

system, we have what may be the most robust charter school movement in the Nation. 

Prior to 1996, District parents had just one choice in public education for their children—the D.C. public schools. This changed in 

1996 when charters became officially a part of the District’s educational landscape with the passage of the D.C. School Reform Act. 

The Act established the District of Columbia Public Charter School 

Board and authorized the Board of Education to charter schools. 

During the first year of the charter school movement, there were 

160 students enrolled in public charters. Today, the Public Charter 

School Board oversees 52 schools, 93 campuses and more than 

28,000 students. Public charter schools serve approximately 39 percent of all public school students in Washington, DC. The public 

charter school movement has experienced explosive growth over the 

past 15 years. In fact, 2 years ago the city, at the request of the 

Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, approved seven of its schools 

to become charter schools and today, they are operating in that capacity funded through the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula 

operation, and regulated and monitored by the D.C. Public Charter 

School Board. 

Charter schools continue to be the vehicle that allows the majority of District parents to exercise their freedom of choice in public 

education and since each charter school is autonomous, we have 

one of the most diverse array of public education options in the 

country. 

The reality of parents choosing charter schools as their preferred 

method of choice was evidenced at the Annual Recruitment Expo 

sponsored by the D.C. Public Charter School Board, D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, and Friends of Choice in Urban 

Schools. 

This year’s expo, held at the Walter E. Washington Convention 

Center, experienced record setting participation when more than 

2,000 people came to meet with charter school leaders and learn 

more about specific schools. I attended the event and encouraged 

7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

charter school administrators to expand their movement further 

into Pre-K and to add Special Education so additional children 

could be served. 

The success of the District’s public charter schools cannot be 

questioned. The high school graduation rate for D.C. public charter 

schools is 8 percent higher than the U.S. national average. Moreover, economically disadvantaged students in D.C. middle and high 

school public charter schools are nearly twice as likely to rank proficient in reading and math as their peers in traditional public 

schools. 

For many years our public schools in the District had a dismal 

performance. But public education indeed is improving, in substantial part because of the constructive environment created by the existence of traditional and charter public schools. Soon to be released data will confirm that, for the first time in decades, enrollment in public education in our city is growing. This is the path 

we must continue to pursue. 

Education is the great liberator. It was for me many years ago 

and it has been for so many others. I am committed to building a 

solid, predictable, high performing birth through age 24 public education system and we are making significant progress, especially 

with the choices available through our charter movement. 

Mr. Chairman, I have more in my written testimony, but in the 

interest of time I will submit that for the record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Mayor, and without 

objection we will record your full statement in the record. 

Kwame Brown is the Chairman of the D.C. Council and we welcome you and your testimony now. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. KWAME R. BROWN,1 CHAIRMAN, 

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. BROWN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Collins, and other Members of this distinguished Committee. I am 

Kwame R. Brown, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. 

It is my pleasure to speak before you today on the Scholarships 

for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011 (SORA). It is a pleasure, 

also, to participate in any forum amongst lawmakers that are 

genuinely committed to assuring that every child has a quality 

education. 

I would like to take this occasion to thank you, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Collins for your long-standing support for the 

District, especially your advocacy for voting rights for D.C. residents. Your sense of fairness and willingness to advocate for us all 

will not be forgotten. 

You have my complete and written testimony so I will summarize my main points for you this morning. 

I believe there is no single more important issue for the future 

of our city than ensuring that every child has access to a quality 

education. Virtually every major issue before our council depends 

on pushing ahead with educational reform. I support your bill as 

it carries a three-sector approach by authorizing $60 million to benVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:31 Jan 23, 2012 Jkt 066622 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66622.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

efit students in the D.C. public schools, public charter schools, and 

non-public schools. This bill also makes some needed improvements 

in the Opportunity Program which should raise the bar for participating schools. 

As you know, in the last 5 years our city has implemented some 

of the most transformational education initiatives that our city has 

ever seen. I am absolutely confident in the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia and his commitment to make education not only a priority but also move it in a way that one day we will not be talking 

about opportunity scholarship programs because the D.C.’s public 

school system will be at a level where they will not be needed. With 

mayoral control of the schools, universal Pre-K, and landmark 

teacher’s contracts, we have done a lot of work in the last couple 

of years in the District of Columbia in education. 

And while students are scoring below the national average on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress, we still have seen 

some of the highest growth in the Nation in both reading and math 

on this test over the last couple of years. D.C. public schools are 

improving and we have an incredible charter school community, 

which are demonstrated by the increasing enrollment in both. Our 

parents have more quality choices now than ever before. I believe 

that we are on the right path, but we still have a long way to go 

before a child has access to high-quality education. 

Most of the discussion on this bill will focus on the non-public 

sector. While I recognize and respect the concerns of both sides of 

this issue, I believe that the Opportunity Scholarship Program can 

increase the number of quality educational options for low-income 

families. 

The data suggests that students participating in the program 

and their entire families are benefiting from this experience. Let 

me say that I have had an opportunity to talk to several families 

and single moms who express their support of the program. But, 

nothing was more compelling than being in Safeway grocery store 

on Good Hope Road and speaking to a grandmother about the program. I could not look her in the eye and tell her that she should 

not have the opportunity to at least apply to have a better life for 

her grandkid. 

I admit that I was initially uncomfortable with the idea of vouchers in the District of Columbia because I felt that they were being 

presented in a way for students and families to leave D.C. public 

schools. While I support quality choices for families, I could never 

support the use of vouchers as an exercise or an excuse to avoid 

improving our public school system. 

We must invest in our public schools, and we are doing just that. 

I support this bill because it authorizes funds for all three sectors, 

and it will support improvements in D.C. public schools and D.C. 

public charter schools, which the majority of our students are attending. 

As a native Washingtonian and a graduate of D.C. public schools, 

with two small kids in D.C. public schools—one in the third grade 

and one in the fifth grade—and a wife who is a teacher by trade, 

I am all-in with moving education reform forward as quickly as we 

possibly can. 

9 

Now, I would like to take a minute to highlight a couple aspects 

of your bill that I particularly support. First, it helps address some 

problems on how the Opportunity Scholarship Program is administered by including tougher requirements for participating schools 

and an evaluation process, which will help ensure that non-public 

options for our families are at the highest possible quality. 

Second, the bill authorizes up to 2 percent of funds for the program for parental outreach and coaching. It also authorizes an additional 1 percent for supplemental tutoring for student participants, which will help ensure that the transfer to non-public 

schools is as smooth as possible for families. 

There are, however, a couple of aspects that are concerning to me. While I support raising the scholarship cap to $12,000 for 

grades 9 through 12, which offers an incentive for high schools to 

create additional slots, I plan to ask advocates of the program for 

an analysis of the supply and demand for the program on a gradeby-grade level. I am concerned about whether raising the cap will 

meet the demand for our middle schools and our high schools. I 

urge you to consider this analysis as you move the bill forward. 

I am also concerned that families who benefit from the program 

are placed in a position of uncertainty. I urge those who will support this bill—and the funding assuming passage of this bill—to 

make a commitment to fund it for a full 5 years, which will enable 

families to plan accordingly. 

I urge you to work directly with the Mayor of the District of Columbia as well as D.C. public schools and charter schools, to ensure 

that this bill allows them to identify the greatest needs for funding, 

and support what they feel are the most compelling areas of school 

reform. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your sincere commitment to identifying resources to help our city in the area of education reform. Unfortunately, some of your efforts are somewhat 

undercut by the attempts of some of your colleagues to slash funding from other D.C. priorities. For an example, it just does not 

make any sense to see plans being sent around that cut funding 

to Metro since a large number of our students, including those 

using vouchers, rely on public transportation to get to and from 

school. Many of your staffers use it, many of the government employees use it, and to see that type of reduction is unacceptable. 

I hope that you will work with us to ensure that education funding, either directly or indirectly, does not come out of other programs. 

Also, the discussions I am hearing regarding the elimination of 

the D.C. Tuition Assistance Program (DCTAG) is something that is 

unacceptable. That program allows students to go to schools outside of the District of Columbia and pay in-state rates. I hope that 

program will be saved. 

Third, section eight of your bill that deals with non-discrimination, I ask that we make sure that participating schools follow our 

local human rights law as it relates to discrimination. 

Last, there is some information that I heard, and I am not sure 

if it is correct, that says—and I want to make sure that this is 

clear—that no Federal dollar should go to any private school that 

does not charge tuition, I do not know if that is correct, but I 

10 

thought I would articulate it because I have been hearing that and 

I would hope that you would take a look at that. 

Now, in closing, I want to thank you both for championing D.C. 

voting rights and express what it means to a lot of the residents 

of the District of Columbia who deserve to have every opportunity 

as everyone else in the country. 

Senator Collins, I want to specifically thank you for what you 

have done to triple the money for early reading incentives as well 

as the law you authorized for those teachers, who are spending 

money out of their pocket on supplies, allowing them to get up to 

a $250 tax deduction. I think that is appropriate and well deserved 

and hopefully continues. 

And last but not least, thank you for your support of Pell Grants. 

You have been a champion of that. 

I look forward to any questions that you may have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Chairman Brown, for 

your testimony and for the comments about parts of our legislation. 

Senator Collins and I will each take a 7-minute round of questions and that should enable us to get you both out in time to get 

to the memorial service. 

Mayor, let us talk about the state of education in the District 

now, and again, the District has a unique status, we talked about 

voting rights, it has suffered in some ways from that unique status, 

but it is, after all, our Nation’s capital and we want it to have at 

least equal treatment, not only in these programs, but in the ones 

that Chairman Brown has talked about. We would like it to be an 

example for the rest of the country and the rest of the world, people who visit here. 

The fact is that I agree with you, the D.C. public school’s student 

performance on tests has improved, that the charter schools have 

had a remarkable effect as well, but that still on the Nation’s Report Card and the National Assessment of Education Progress Test, 

the students’ scores from D.C. are last. For example on the most 

recent test, only 11 percent of D.C. 8th grade public school students 

were considered proficient or advanced in math, and only 13 percent of D.C. 8th grade students were considered proficient or advanced in reading. 

So, I am sure you would agree—in fact, you did in your statement, that we made progress but we have a ways to go, and I 

wanted to ask you, in light of those facts, to respond to the argument that we have made and Chairman Brown has made this 

morning, that one way to look at the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 

Program is as a temporary program during the time period when 

we are trying to improve the public schools so they really do give 

every child an equal educational opportunity. 

Mayor GRAY. Well, first of all, I guess being ranked last is an interesting phenomenon because we are ranked last among States 

even though we are not accorded the opportunity to be a State. I 

am not sure, frankly, Senator, that that is the most fair comparison 

because we are an entirely urban area and when you start to look 

at other urban areas like Los Angeles and New York, Boston, Detroit, or other cities, I think you would probably find a different experience. But as you pointed out, the experience that is most important is how our children are doing—— 

11 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mayor GRAY. [continuing]. And I believe our children are doing 

better. Have we reached the point where we want to be? Absolutely 

not. But when you look at the environment that we have created 

with our D.C. public schools, the environment that we created with 

our charter schools, it is clear that the competition is creating an 

opportunity for all boats to rise. 

My own view, my own desire, frankly, is to devote as much resources, energy, and commitment as we possibly can to improving 

public sector education because I think ultimately that is where the 

answer lies. 

I certainly am appreciative of the support of both of you. You 

have been great friends of the District of Columbia, but this happens to be an instance where I want to devote my full time, my 

full energy, to being able to improve the public education sector. 

We have been under charter schools now probably for about 13 

to 14 years and there has been a huge increase in the enrollment 

because they have been so successful. We are seeing, for the first 

time in decades, probably four decades, an increase in enrollment 

in our traditional public schools. I think that is an incredibly hopeful sign and I frankly think having our students in an environment 

where they can challenge each other, where the excellent students, 

the capable students, are in an environment where they can bring 

the others along, will rebound to the benefit of everyone at the end 

of the day. 

We have been into mayoral control now just for 4 years and I 

think it was the right decision. I heartily supported it as a member 

of the Council of the District of Columbia, heartily supported that 

option, and I really want to devote my full time and attention to 

that, recognizing that, again, we are improving, our enrollment is 

growing, and it is evident, frankly, just by the shear numbers of 

students. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me ask, in that sense, a practical 

question, because I think we all agree that in the end, the public 

schools ought to be the answer. 

You mentioned in your testimony that you had supported, overall, the concept of the three-part program and, in fact, just thinking 

about your commitment to public schools and the charter program 

here, because of the way this D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program was devised, there has been considerable additional funding 

that has come to the public and charter schools here in the District. 

The numbers that I have since the beginning of the program, the 

D.C. public schools have received $146.5 million under this threepart program that they would not have received otherwise. The 

public charter schools have received $104.5 million that they would 

not have received otherwise, and the Opportunity Scholarship program has received $96.7 million. 

So, I think if you can imagine a circumstance where funding for 

the Opportunity Scholarship Program was terminated altogether, 

including for the students in the program now, I think particularly 

considering the budget stress we are under, that there is a high 

probability that the District would lose that additional funding that 

you have received for the public schools and the charter schools. 

12 

And so to a certain extent, my final question to you is, with all 

those advantages involved for the public schools and the charter 

schools, what is the harm in having the opportunity Scholarship 

Program part of this three-part program? How can it hurt to allow 

a certain number of students, small number, really, to have the 

scholarship to go to a private school while we are working with all 

this extra money to improve the public schools? 

Mayor GRAY. Well, again, we are deeply appreciative of the resources that have been provided and they have been even more important to us in this recessionary environment that we have been 

operating now certainly for the better part of the last 3 years, and 

without those resources there is no question that we would not 

have been able to improve our public education efforts to the extent 

that we have. 

I supposed if I was asked for my druthers it would be that we 

can invest all of those resources in improving our public education 

sector. 

When you look at choice in the District of Columbia, I think we 

are second to none. When you have 52 public charter schools or 93 

campuses, at this stage, when you look at what they offer, very tailored curricula, public policy schools, legal options, arts and performing arts, and other opportunities, we have an enormous array 

of opportunities that are available to our kids. We are seeing the 

same experience moving not quite as rapidly, but moving in the 

traditional public schools as well. So, certainly we would be at a 

disadvantage if we were to lose those resources, but again if you 

ask me my druthers, it would be to take all of those resources and 

invest them in creating the best public education system that we 

possibly can in the Nation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I hear you and as you know in life, we do 

not always get our druthers, and—— 

Mayor GRAY. We know that one, do we not? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We know that. And, if I may slightly 

amend an old tune, it takes three to tango here in the Congress— 

which is to say the President, the Senate, and the House—to get 

anything adopted. I think there is a very strong feeling about the 

Opportunity Scholarship Program in the House Majority this year 

and I think we will continue this discussion. 

I am just speaking for myself now, but I think that the extra 

funding that has come to the D.C. public and charter schools under 

this three-part program will be in serious jeopardy if the Opportunity Scholarship Program is not also part of what is funded. 

Mayor GRAY. If I can just quickly underscore—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mayor GRAY [continuing]. What I said in my testimony to you, 

Senator Lieberman, and that is, I heartily supported every child 

who was in the Opportunity Scholarship Program continuing. That 

was absolutely essential to me. I did not want to see any child 

taken out of a program in which they were participating and benefiting without the parents having the opportunity to make that 

choice, and that is why I said, let us continue this program out to 

the point where all the children in it have a chance to finish it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mayor. Senator 

Collins. 

13 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, your 

last comment is exactly what I want to ask you about. In your testimony, and just now in response to Senator Lieberman, you supported Secretary Duncan’s proposal in which all of the children currently enrolled in the Opportunity Scholarship Program would be 

able to continue until they graduate from the 12th grade, but there 

would be no new enrollments. 

I have to tell you that I have never understood the Secretary’s 

reasoning in that regard and it suggests to me a political decision 

and not one that is based on a fair valuation of the program. Think 

about it, if a child is in kindergarten as of last year, that child 

would be allowed to stay in the D.C. Scholarship Program for another 12 years. If the program is not living up to its potential as 

Secretary Duncan must think, because he is not allowing new enrollments, then why would you allow children to continue to stay 

in the program? This just does not make sense to me. Either the 

program is a successful program, in which case we ought to be allowing new enrollments, or it is a failed program, in which case we 

should be taking children out of it, not allowing someone who is in 

kindergarten to be in it for another 12 years. 

So, I truly do not understand the reasoning behind the Secretary’s decision. It just does not make sense to me and you have 

endorsed that decision today. And I do not mean to put you on the 

spot, but I truly do not understand that reasoning and I wondered 

if you could give me your perspective. 

Mayor GRAY. Well, my view is not based on a political decision, 

it is based on the opportunity for these parents and these children 

to continue in a placement that they have felt best served their 

children. I did not want them uprooted because of a political decision, I wanted them to be able to have a chance to continue in the 

placement that they were in, but I also wanted to be able to have 

the optimum opportunity to be able to build a public education system. 

So, again, my position on this is not based on a political calculation, it is more based on what choice that those parents would 

make at that particular moment. I do not know that they would 

continue if the child is in the kindergarten to first grade that they 

would not choose at some point to come back to one of our schools 

in the District of Columbia. As I indicated earlier, seven of those 

schools that would have been part of the Opportunity Scholarship 

Program, are now part of our charter movement because the Catholic Archdiocese asked us to take over those schools and operate 

them. 

So, mine was an effort simply to try to be as sensitive as I possibly could to the families and the children involved, but at the 

same time recognize we are building a strong public education system, and to devote my maximum energy and resources to that. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, on the Catholic schools, I will tell you 

that based on my discussions with the Archdiocese, the reason that 

those schools have now become charter schools is they basically are 

bankrupt, and if this program were continued, they would still be 

operating as Catholic schools. I realize that is a whole other issue, 

but I have to say I think either this program is a good program 

that benefits students, which is what I believe, as part of the threeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:31 Jan 23, 2012 Jkt 066622 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66622.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14 

sector approach, then we should allow it to continue and have it 

be open to others. If it is not a good program, then why would we 

allow students to continue for potentially another 12 years in it 

and I just think that is inconsistent. 

Chairman Brown, in my remaining time, let me ask you a question, and I appreciate your kind comments about my work on education issues which I do care deeply about. Could you provide us 

with some insight into the D.C. Council’s thoughts or positions on 

the three-sector program based on your discussions with your council colleagues? What are the views that you are hearing about 

whether the three-pronged approach should be continued? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, most of the conversations that we have are 

about making sure that public education in the District of Columbia is successful. All of our energy and time has been spent making 

sure that we improve the lives of our children who are being sent 

to D.C. public schools and D.C. public charter schools. I believe 

that my colleagues whom I have talked to, every single one of 

them, believe in trying to support this particular mayor who is 

working hard and has worked with us side-by-side as a colleague 

on these tough issues. 

When it comes to the voucher program, there has been little dialogue because most of our energy is spent making sure that there 

is no reason to have any voucher program because we are going to 

have a successful school system. 

Senator COLLINS. That is certainly the goal for all of us, but I 

would go back to the comment that Ronald made at our last hearing a year ago, and that is that D.C. schools did not get bad overnight, they are not going to become good overnight. They are clearly improving and I think the three-sector approach has helped lift 

the quality of the schools, but as the Chairman’s statistics show, 

we still have a ways to go. 

I also want to second what the Chairman said. I believe that unless there is a three-sector approach, the money for D.C. public 

schools and D.C. public charter schools, will be in jeopardy. I do not 

see Congress, in this environment—and all of us have public 

schools in our own States that are really suffering and that need 

funding—approving anything other than a three-sector approach. 

So, I hope as deliberations in the council go on that you will both 

keep in touch with us and, again, I thank you both for being here 

today. 

I know that we all have the same goal. We may have different 

means of getting there, but our goal is the same. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Well, said. 

Mayor Gray, Chairman Brown, thanks for your time. We will continue to discuss this and all the other issues that are important to 

you and your leadership capacities, and obviously to the people of 

the District of Columbia. Thanks very much for being with us this 

morning. 

Mayor GRAY. Thank you Senator. Thank you both, again for having us here today and thank you, frankly, for your support of our 

city on so many fronts. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Thanks to both of you. 

15 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Chavous appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will not change that. Thank you. 

Have a good day. 

We will call the second panel, Kevin Chavous, Chairman of the 

Board of Directors of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, 

Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director of D.C. Parents for 

School Choice, and Patrick J. Wolf, Professor and 21st Century 

Chair in School Choice at the Department of Education Reform at 

the University of Arkansas. 

Well, good morning and thank you. I saw Ronald Holassie here. 

Is he still here? Maybe he went out. I just wanted to recognize the 

much-quoted student in the D.C. school system. 

Thank you, the three of you, for being here. You are familiar 

faces, but your testimony continues to be important to us and, Mr. 

Chavous, it is our honor to call on you first. 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN P. CHAVOUS,1 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, BLACK ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Collins, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. 

Let me add some perspective particularly based on hearing from 

the Mayor and the Chairman on this whole issue. Fifty-six years 

ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that segregation in our 

schools was unconstitutional. They said it was wrong. They said it 

was un-American. And they said that equality for all mattered. 

Brown v. the Board of Education sparked the flame of true and 

honest civil rights in our country, but it was only the beginning of 

a struggle we as a Nation deal with each and every day. 

Today, we are fighting for a different kind of equality, an America where all children, no matter their income, can attend the very 

best schools. Quite frankly, as you know and I know, that we can 

no longer accept the pattern of mediocrity in our schools, we can 

no longer accept failure, we can no longer tolerate excuses from 

central offices. If we are to achieve equality we seek, we must act 

and we must act now. 

That is why I support school choice, parental choice. That is why 

I believe in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

Mr. Chairman, it is not a battle of ideology, it is a continuation 

of the fight for civil rights in our country. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program sends a clear message to families, to children, and to our community: If you are poor, 

if you are stuck in a school that is failing, that is unsafe, and that 

no amount of money can fix right away, we are not going to make 

an experiment of you, we are going to help you, now, and we are 

going to do it, not 5 years from now, but today. And we are going 

to give you a chance at success. The essence of the program, Mr. 

Chairman, is in its name: Opportunity. 

Some can call the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program a scholarship program. You can call it a voucher program. I call it a lifeline. 

And so does Tiffany Dunston. Tiffany, like Ronald, was an OSP 

student who ended up being valedictorian at Archbishop Carroll 

16 

High School here in the District. Tiffany now attends Syracuse 

University. Candidly, Tiffany says she would not have made it but 

for the Opportunity Scholarship that she received. But poignantly 

her biggest hope is that more children are given the opportunity 

she was given. 

Mr. Chairman, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has 

provided scholarships allowing the lowest-income D.C. children to 

attend better schools, private schools that are mere blocks away 

from the public schools that long ago stopped serving their needs. 

The program is open to everyone. There is no discrimination, no 

academic test for entrance, no cherry-picking. And while it is not 

easy for many of those children to make the transition the results 

have been stunning. Graduation rates are 91 percent for those who 

used their scholarships. Improved reading scores have taken place 

for those students. And parental satisfaction is overwhelming. 

The U.S. Department of Education has said that the program is 

one of the most effective programs they have ever studied. By any 

measure, by any test, by any rational standard, this hearing should 

be about how we can expand this program not just in Washington, 

D.C. but as a model for all other parts of the nation. Instead, by 

a cruel twist of political fate, and for whatever reason, be it petty 

allegiances or scores to settle, the creative and aggressive opponents of this program are weaving a false narrative about how the 

program was started and how it has worked. 

They say, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that it was forced or foisted upon the residents of the District of Columbia. They say it was 

imposed on us by the Republicans and that the people of the District did not want it. 

Well, that is an interesting story, but it is simply not true, Mr. 

Chairman. I know, I was there. 

I served on the D.C. Council for 12 years. I was chairman of the 

education committee. I am a lifelong Democrat. And in the past, 

while I was on the council in the early years, I did oppose education programs that were proposed for the District of Columbia by 

some Congressional Republicans. I thought they were draconian. I 

thought they were unnecessary. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 

was not forced on us, quite the opposite, I like to think that the 

parents of this city forced the program on Congress. Hundreds, 

probably thousands, of parents, many in this room and especially 

the lady to my left, Virginia Walden Ford—many of these parents 

fought for this program. They came to Capitol Hill every day. They 

wanted help immediately. They were tireless, dedicated, fearless, 

and determined in their efforts to give their children better lives. 

To say that this program was imposed on the District of Columbia is to rewrite history, and, in one broad brush white-out the 

hard work of these parents. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is offensive. 

For my part, I personally worked with Mayor Anthony Williams, 

Education Secretary Rod Paige, School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz, and the President of the United States to help make 

this program a reality. It was a collaboration. And just as you and 

Senator Collins alluded to in your discussions with the Mayor and 

Chairman Brown, we insisted on a three-sector approach—funding 

17 

for the scholarship program, for charter schools, and for public 

schools. We worked very hard to develop a program that fit the 

unique educational needs of the District where not one dime, Mr. 

Chairman, as you mentioned, was diverted from public schools. 

I say this not to codify my role in the process but to tell you the 

truth, this was no imposition. This program was a collaborative solution and we knew there may be a political cost and for some of 

us, there was, but we all knew that there is never a price that is 

too high to pay for doing what is right for children. 

If you doubt that this program has support and has succeeded, 

look at the application numbers to which Senator Collins alluded. 

They do not lie. 

Nearly 9,000 parents applied for their children to participate in 

the program, even when there were only 3,300 slots over the 5-year 

life of the program. Nearly 8,000 residents signed a petition supporting reauthorization of the program. And just recently, over the 

last month, Mr. Chairman, the Black Alliance for Educational Options has signed up 500 parents who said that they would apply 

for the program if new slots were made available. 

Look at what the District residents say. As Senator Collins indicated, this scientific public opinion poll shows that three-quarters 

of District residents want this program restored, reauthorized, and 

expanded. 

Maybe the people know something that some of our leaders do 

not. They want this program and they know it works. 

Mr. Chairman, people who oppose the program will do anything 

to prevent its reauthorization and the truth is indeed no barrier. 

They will cast aspersions on the families, tell tall tales about the 

schools, question the motives of supporters, and rewrite history 

with righteous indignation. But for me, none of this matters. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it does not matter because I carry 

with me the memory of the family that came into my office one day 

many years ago, a mother and a father coming to see their councilmen and they were in tears. They told me their son would die if 

he did not have a chance to go to a better school. It was just that 

serious for them, a matter of life and death. They had no money; 

they were losing hope, and they told me to fight for their son. 

Do not talk, Mr. Councilman, fight. 

And there was no way that day or any day going forward that 

I could tell that family or any other to wait until our public schools 

were completely fixed. The truth is, public schools here are getting 

better, they are improving, and I support our public schools and 

our teachers. But as long as there are still families like the one 

that visited my office, we have no choice but to provide all options 

to our children, immediate options so that no child is forced to suffer or falter or fail. 

To borrow a line from Malcolm X, we must educate our children 

‘‘by any means necessary.’’ Public schools, charter schools, virtual 

schools, magnate schools, home schooling and, yes, Mr. Chairman, 

Opportunity Scholarships. We need nothing short of a revolution in 

education and I urge you and Members of this Committee to be on 

the right side of that history, the side of opportunity, the side of 

hope, the side of the families and their dreams for their children. 

18 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Ford appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

At the end of the day it is not about protecting the system which 

we all would like to see do better, it is about giving our children 

an equal opportunity. I urge this Committee to reauthorize this 

program. I thank you personally, Mr. Chairman, for your steadfast 

support, and let us renew hope for a better future for our District 

and our Nation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. That was an excellent statement. I appreciate every part of it. I am struck also by what you 

said, that this is not an ideological battle, it is a battle for civil 

rights and there is a new group that has formed called the ‘‘No Labels Movement.’’ 

It is about not having people focus on their party labels, but it 

is also true in this particular case, it is a bit odd, even, because 

I think by conventional terms, you would say that this program is 

a liberal program in terms of being a human service equal opportunity program, and yet somehow the conventional labels get 

turned around. And I think if we see it as what it is, which is a 

civil rights program, then maybe we can create some common 

ground to get this done again, and I am confident we are going to 

get it done. 

Virginia Walden Ford has been a great leader in this effort, Executive Director of the D.C. Parents for School Choice. Thank you 

for returning again and for all you do every day to keep this program alive. 

TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD,1 EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, D.C. PARENTS FOR SCHOOL CHOICE 

Ms. FORD. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. You have been our 

champion over the years and we appreciate you and Ranking Member Collins, and other Members giving us a chance to come and 

speak on behalf of the transformational D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

Not long ago, I was talking to my 27-year-old son about our life, 

about our family’s lives. For a brief moment, I looked at him and 

I saw the 13-year-old boy who by the time he entered his freshman 

year of high school was several grade levels behind and getting in 

trouble, in class and out. He felt like no one but me cared if he 

learned, and he felt as if he was not safe in that environment. He 

was really struggling. 

As a single mother of three, I felt powerless to help him. I remembered, in that moment, how out of the blue, an answer to a 

prayer or a miracle, a neighbor offered us a scholarship for my son, 

William, to attend any school I chose. It was just unbelievable, and 

we chose a school that would keep him safe, nurture his talents, 

and prepare him for life. 

When I came back to the present, I saw before me this wonderful 

young man who has just made me proud and will continue to make 

me proud, who has served in the Armed Forces, served in Iraq, and 

is just an incredible kid, and I know that scholarship made the difference. 

But in receiving the scholarship for my son, I remember asking, 

‘‘Why me?’’ I mean, I was happy, but why not other families around 

19 

me, especially those that lived in my community where I was 

watching their children not fare so well. 

So, I embarked on a remarkable personal journey that has allowed me to meet so many parent, thousands of them over the 

years, who only want what I wanted: A chance for their children. 

I have met parents who live in every corner of this city. It did 

not matter what ward they called home; they were crying out for 

options. They were willing to fight peaceably to improve the educational futures of their children. They did not ask for much, just 

that their political leaders would allow them to access the amazing 

private schools right in their own neighborhoods instead of forcing 

their children to attend neighborhood public schools that were not 

improving, were not safe, and were not healthy environments. 

Together we came and talked with you and your colleagues. We 

told you how our children could not wait for 5 more years for our 

public schools to fix themselves. We told you that our children 

needed immediate options. We told you that even though many of 

us struggled to make ends meet, it did not mean our hopes for our 

children were not just as high as the hopes you have for yours. And 

you listened. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program became 

law. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provided that immediate option, that ray of hope, to 3,300 children. These are children 

who are very poor. These are kids that, in many places, would have 

been written off, consigned to lives of mediocrity or worse. Thanks 

to you and your colleagues, they were not. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program gave them a chance 

to go to schools that made them scholars. It made them important 

in the eyes of the world. It gave them the inspiration to succeed. 

It has been, like the scholarship I received for my son, a miracle. 

Chairman Lieberman, and too the other Members of the Committee and Ranking Member Collins, I know very well that this 

program is not just about peace of mind. It is about the improvement and expansion of the young minds we have been called to 

serve and when you stack this program up to the other educational 

initiatives that have been tried in our city over the past two decades, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a resounding 

academic success. 

Parents love it. Parents like Patricia Williams, Joe Kelly, or 

Sheila Jackson, who are all here with their children today. Patricia, Joe, and Sheila feel safe knowing their children are going to 

school where they have been treated well, where they are encouraged to be creative, and where they are pushed to excel. 

Now, some people say we cannot restore and extend this program 

because not enough low-income children would receive scholarships. That is about the worst argument I have ever heard. I am 

reminded of the example of Harriet Tubman, and I just love this 

story, the African-American abolitionist and famous conductor of 

the Underground Railroad. While she worked to abolish slavery, 

Tubman made 19 trips into the south and transported 300 slaves 

into freedom. 

Harriet Tubman knew that she could not personally rescue all of 

the slaves in America, but she knew that she could save some, and 

what an amazing difference she made in each of their lives. She 

20 

certainly did not just give up and I would ask everyone in this 

room today: Would you go back in history and tell Harriet Tubman 

that her efforts, her struggle, her worth, should be scrapped, ended, 

cancelled, or eliminated? The course of history has shown us that 

it was worth it to the cause of equality in our Nation and that fight 

continues today. 

The sad part is that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 

is, for now, closed down to new parents and families, even the siblings of current participants, who desperately want to access it. I 

cannot tell you the number of calls I have received from parents 

who are distraught that the government is shuttering, what they 

believe, shuttering the program. It is just devastating. It is tragic. 

And it deprives so many children of the opportunity to see their 

greatest dreams come true. 

The parents who call me all ask me one thing: Why can one of 

their older children be allowed to attend a great school, while their 

younger one is forced into a failing one? Why did the program end 

this year, just when they were about to apply? 

I do not have an answer to these parents. I am here because I 

hope, I pray, that you do. 

Mr. Chairman, you have the power to answer these parents, you 

and your colleagues, you and the other Members of the Committee 

and Senator Collins and others. You will not only answer their 

questions, you will answer their prayers. You will empower their 

families. You will change their children’s lives. This program is just 

that powerful and I have seen it, and you can restore it. We must 

restore this. 

Mary McLeod Bethune said: ‘‘We have a powerful potential in 

our youth, and we must have the courage to change old ideas and 

practices so that we may direct their power toward good ends.’’ 

Let us move forward today and do just that with a full reauthorization of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

And, again, thank you for your support over the years. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. That was not only an excellent statement, it was an inspiring statement. If I could get every 

one of my colleagues to face the two of you—— 

Ms. FORD. We will do it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN [continuing]. And hear what you said 

today, I do not think we would have any problem passing this. 

I really appreciate it. I was struck also by something you said 

about your personal experience, that you had a neighbor who came 

through and provided a scholarship for your son. What if instead 

of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program being funded by tax 

dollars, some wealthy individual came forward, created a foundation, and then created this opportunity scholarship program? I 

think everybody would embrace it. So, what is the difference that 

we are putting public money into this? 

Public money is the main source of funding for education, obviously, overwhelmingly in our country and it just does not make 

sense, so that the good fortune that you happened to have for your 

son is something we are trying to expand as you have for other 

children and give them an equal opportunity. 

The other thing you said, and Mr. Chavous said also, is that besides all the principle that is at work here, that we are on the right 

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

side, we feel so strongly. If the program was not working, it would 

be a harder case for us to make even though I support the idea of 

choice and competition, but Dr. Wolf has done independent work 

that, to me, says the program is working and in that sense it would 

be really unjust not to continue it and to continue to add children 

to it. 

So, Dr. Wolf, we welcome you back again and look forward now 

to hearing about your latest research into this program. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. WOLF, PH.D.,1 PROFESSOR AND 

21ST CENTURY CHAIR IN SCHOOL CHOICE, DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION REFORM, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be with you today to 

discuss what we know about the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. I served as the principal investigator of an outstanding team 

of researchers who conducted a congressionally-mandated independent study of the OSP supported by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. 

I am also a professor at the University of Arkansas with more 

than a decade of experience evaluating school choice programs 

across the country. 

Although the facts that I present to you today are taken directly 

from our recently completed impact evaluation, the ideas and opinions I express are my own professional judgments and do not necessarily represent any official positions of the evaluation team, the 

University of Arkansas or the U.S. Department of Education. 

Senator Lieberman, because this statute required that the evaluation use the most rigorous research method possible, we relied 

on lotteries of eligible OSP applicants to create two statistically 

equivalent groups who were followed over time and whose outcomes were compared. 

Our method is called a Randomized Control Trial or Experiment 

and is widely viewed as the gold standard for evaluating programs. 

We were able to follow the smaller first cohort of participants in 

the experiment over 5 years and the much larger second cohort for 

4 years. We therefore characterized the program impacts in our 

final report as the results in the final year or the results after 4 

or more years. 

Our analysis also indicated the confidence we should have in our 

ability to rule out statistical noise as the reason for any observed 

differences between the scholarship treatment group and the control group. 

When we could rule out random factors as a cause of differences 

with high confidence, we characterized the impact of the program 

as statistically significant. The level of confidence surrounding such 

judgments ranges from zero to 99.9 percent, though we simplified 

the analysis by using the specific cut point of 95 percent confidence 

to judge whether impacts were statistically significant. 

Researchers use a variety of cut points for determining statistical 

significance, most commonly 90 or 95 percent. 

22 

1 Exhibit 1 appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

In the interest of transparency, I will describe the specific confidence level that we can associate with each OSP impact and leave 

it to members to judge if those levels are convincing. 

Our evaluation focused on two distinct measures of program impact. The impact of a scholarship offer, called ‘‘Intent to Treat’’ 

(ITT), is the simple difference between the treatment group average and control group average for a given outcome. Since about 22 

percent of the students offered Opportunity Scholarships never 

used them to transfer to a private school, we also adjust the ITT 

impact to account for ‘‘never users’’ yielding the experimental impact of actually using a scholarship, called the ‘‘Impact on the 

Treated’’ (IOT). 

The most important outcome we examined in our evaluation was 

the program’s impact on student educational attainment as measured by the rate of high school graduation. President Obama and 

Secretary Duncan have cited getting more students through high 

school as the highest priority of education policy because graduating is closely associated with a variety of positive personal and 

social outcomes including higher lifetime earnings and lower rates 

of unemployment and crime. 

Based on parent reports, the students in our study graduate from 

high school at significantly higher rates as a result of the OSP. As 

portrayed in Exhibit 1, the treatment group students graduated at 

a rate of 82 percent, that is 12 percentage points higher than the 

control group rate of 70 percent.1

The actual use of an Opportunity Scholarship increased the probability of graduating from 70 percent to 91 percent, a positive impact of 21 percentage points. We are more than 99 percent confident that access to school choice through the Opportunity Scholarship Program was the reason why OSP students graduated at 

these much higher rates. 

The positive impact of the OSP on high school graduation was 

also clear for the high priority students in the study who applied 

to the program from schools designated as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ (SINI). These were the students that Senator Collins mentioned as a high priority of the program and she mentioned the fact 

that if the program were eliminated the students would have to return to, for the most part, these schools designated ‘‘in need of improvement.’’ 

The offer of an Opportunity Scholarship increased the graduation 

rate for SINI students from 66 percent to 79 percent. Actually 

using a scholarship boosted their likelihood of high school graduation by 20 percentage points, from 66 percent to 86 percent. This 

positive impact of the OSP was statistically significant with more 

than 98 percent confidence. 

Conclusive experimental results permit us to make reliable forecasts. 

Cecelia Rouse, a member of President’s Council of Economic Advisors, has determined that each additional high school graduate 

saves the Nation an average of $260,000 as a result of higher taxable earnings and lower demands for social services. That means 

23 

1 Exhibit 2 appears in the Appendix on page 54. 

2 Exhibit 3 appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

that the 449 additional high school graduates due to the operation 

of the OSP will save our Nation approximately $116 million. 

These experimental results also mean that approximately 111 

students in the experimental control group will fail to graduate 

from high school simply because they were denied access to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

The evidence that students achieved at higher levels due to the 

OSP is less conclusive than the evidence that they graduated at 

higher rates. Our analysis of test score data across all years of the 

study merely suggest that OSP students likely benefited academically from the program in reading but probably not in math. 

The statistical probability that the OSP had a positive impact on 

student reading scores was 91 percent after 2 years, 99 percent 

after 3 years, and 94 percent after 4 or more years as depicted in 

Exhibit 2.1

Although the students offered opportunity scholarships on average scored higher than the control group in math as well, those differences were so small each year that we cannot rule out statistical 

noise, with any reasonable level of confidence, as their cause. 

Parents were more satisfied with their child’s school as a result 

of the OSP. The proportion of parents who assigned a high grade 

of A or B to their child’s school was 8 percentage points higher if 

they were in the treatment group, and 10 percentage points higher 

based on scholarship use. This impact was statistically significant 

with more than 99 percent confidence. Parents also viewed their 

children as safer in school if they participated in the program, an 

impact that was statistically significant with 98 percent confidence. 

Students in grades 4 through 12, when asked similar questions, 

were no more likely to be satisfied with their school or described 

it as safe if they were in the OSP. 

How impressive are the academic impacts of the OSP? When 

compared to 13 other experimental studies sponsored by the Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Evaluation, the educational attainment and achievement impacts from the 

OSP rank as the second most impressive to date, as shown in Exhibit 3.2

Only the impacts from problem-based economics instruction have 

been larger than those from the OSP. Nine of the 14 studies found 

no statistically significant results at all, or a disappointing mix of 

positive and negative impacts. 

Mr. Chairman, actual people often speak more eloquently than 

do scientists. I close by quoting the words of an OSP parent who 

attended a focus group and spoke of her son who used a scholarship to attend a private high school. ‘‘When my son dressed in that 

uniform with that green blazer, the white shirt, tie, gray trousers 

and he looked like a gentleman and a scholar and he had his hair 

cut and his glasses and he was just grinning from ear to ear that 

he was going to be a part of that [private school culture] and he 

went to school that day and he was excited about going to school.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, there are more details in my written testimony 

and also in this scintillating 208 page report. Thank you. 

24 

1The CRS report appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Dr. Wolf, that was great. And I 

was going to say before you ended the way you did that numbers 

are dry but as you well know and as you show by your work, you 

are talking about real people, real children, so when we talk about 

the graduation rates, the impact, it is really quite remarkable. 

Do you want to elaborate anymore on this graduate rate data, especially for our highest priority students? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, graduation is the whole game. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. I mean, education attainment is what we long for, for 

our students. And we have long been disappointed with the graduation rates from high school nationally and particularly in inner cities. 

So, to find a program like the OSP, which clearly improves the 

prospects of high school graduation rather dramatically, is a real 

find and so I think the other exciting thing is we are starting to 

see this in other school choice programs as well. 

There was a very careful study of charter schools in Florida that 

also found that charter schools of choice lead to higher graduation 

rates and we are about to release a report in Milwaukee about the 

effect of their voucher program on graduation rates. I cannot announce the results yet, but you will be interested to see that next 

month. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It sounds like we will not be disappointed. 

You do not have to answer that. [Laughter.] 

The record will note that you smiled. [Laughter.] 

Incidentally, I was really impressed, I had never heard those 

numbers before about the attempt to quantify the different economic impact of a high school graduate on our society and the cost 

result if somebody does not graduate from high school. Let me just 

make this point, which I know you are familiar with, this is another element of the cost impact: The Congressional Research Service (CRS) did a study last year on this D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program1 and talked with the Mayor and the Chairman about 

the tripartite, the support that D.C. got for the public schools and 

charter schools. 

But Rebecca Skinner who did that study concluded that if we 

stopped this program altogether and at that point she talked about 

1,721 voucher recipients transferred back into the city’s public 

schools, it would cost the city approximately $15 million more to 

provide education for those students in the public schools, so it 

would not only be, as was testified to earlier, Senator Collins and 

others, that 93 percent of the students would go back to schools 

that are designated as failing in one way or another under the No 

Child Left Behind Act, but it would add a $15 million price tag for 

the taxpayers of the District. 

Dr. Wolf, you reported that there was initially a statistically significant increase in reading achievement, but ultimately the improvements, while not statistically significant at the 95 percent 

confidence level, were significant at the 90 percent confidence level. 

Given your overall research experience, do you believe that the results we are seeing from the OSP study are in fact significant? 

25 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do. I mean, ideally you want to see 

the result in the range of 95 percent significance or more, then you 

can say it is conclusive, it is undeniable, there is only a 5 percent 

chance that this is a false finding. 

But what we also saw, of course, was a pattern of achievement 

gains over time and given the pattern of gains over time and the 

fact that the final year results were 94 percent—we could be 94 

percent confident. That says to me the preponderance of evidence 

certainly points toward very real reading gains for the participants 

in the program. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, I appreciate that answer and I agree. 

I know this is a field unto itself and I understand setting the 

standard at 95 percent, but 94 percent certainly makes me confident. I hope it would make my colleagues, as we invest in this 

program, confident that there are statistically significant bottom 

lines, to put it in the lay language, the kids in this program are 

doing better at reading as a result of being in the program. 

I do not want to get too deeply into this, but just for the record, 

because I know some people may misuse the notion that it is not 

significant, I wanted to ask you to address a technical term, I 

wanted to ask you to address how a decrease in the test group size 

could impact the accuracy of the data collected and whether the increases we are seeing make a difference for students in the OSP 

program. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent point. A major development happened between the third and fourth year test score 

analyses. Over 200 students graduated out of the testable grades. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. So, the final sample of students we tested was much 

smaller than the sample we tested in the third year and I know 

it included a lot of the Cohort 1 students who graduated out, and 

they had been showing the highest reading gains throughout the 

evaluation. 

Statistical significance is driven by the size of the difference and 

the number of subjects to the study who are providing evidence 

about that, and so we lost about 10 percent of our sample—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Going from Year 3 to Year 4, that alone 

could be one reason why the statistical significance slipped. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK, I appreciate it. Mr. Chavous and Ms. 

Ford, you spoke so well, I do not have a single question to ask you, 

not even a leading question. I give you the opportunity to say anything more you would like before we adjourn the hearing. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. I just thank you for your support, Mr. Chairman, 

and I think you could tell from the testimony of the Mayor and the 

Council, that there is growing support, and Senator Collins asked 

Chairman Brown about where the Council colleagues are and I am 

confident in saying that a majority of the Council supports new 

kids coming into the program. I think that would be made more 

evident over time. 

So, again, we just appreciate your steadfast commitment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is my honor. Ms. Ford. 

Ms. FORD. I would just like to say on behalf of the parents that 

I represent, I hope, that we want to thank you and all of your colVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:31 Jan 23, 2012 Jkt 066622 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66622.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26 

1The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears in the Appendix on page 99. 

leagues that have been so much our champions over the years. I 

mean, I do not know if you realize, you are our heroes because you 

have steadfastly stood beside us and our kids and we really appreciate that, and we will be here for you moving forward. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks. You really touch my heart by 

saying that but this really is our responsibility and you are the 

ones who care enough about your children to really go out of your 

way, and again, on a morning like this, to be here to make the 

point. And you mentioned prayers before, and sometimes prayers 

are answered in unusual ways, but who would have guessed that 

the results of last November’s elections would bring us here this 

morning feeling a lot better about our prospects to reauthorize this 

program? The legislation we put in, the Speaker and I introduced 

it the day after we reconvened. I mean, I cannot state how deeply 

he feels this. He wanted to get it right in, and as far as I know, 

it may be the only piece of legislation he will put his name to this 

year. So, we have reason for our hopes to be higher. 

We all know, it is not over until it is over, but this is so right 

and you have made the case again, and Dr. Wolf, your studies really bring us from the point of principle, and sort of dreams, to the 

point of statistical social science that says this is not only right, but 

it is working. 

Anyway, I cannot thank you enough. Go forward from here with 

some hope. We are just not going to miss any opportunity. This is 

a 5-year reauthorization and I think we have a real shot at it this 

year, and also we need not only to continue to support the students 

in the program, but to fund new places as well. 

So, we will keep the record open for 15 days for any questions, 

additional questions or statements. I have a statement from Senator Durbin that he wanted to put in the record of the hearing.1

With that, I thank you all. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 


66622.001
28 


66622.002
29 


66622.003
30 


66622.004
31 


66622.005
32 


66622.006
33 


66622.007
34 


66622.008
35 


66622.009
36 


66622.010
37 


66622.011
38 


66622.012
39 


66622.013
40 


66622.014
41 


66622.015
42 


66622.016
43 


66622.017
44 


66622.018
45 


66622.019
46 


66622.020
47 


66622.021
48 


66622.022
49 


66622.023
50 


66622.024
51 


66622.025
52 


66622.026
53 


66622.027
54 


66622.028
55 


66622.029
56 


66622.030
57 


66622.031
58 


66622.032
59 


66622.033
60 


66622.034
61 


66622.035
62 


66622.036
63 


66622.037
64 


66622.038
65 


66622.039
66 


66622.040
67 


66622.041
68 


66622.042
69 


66622.043
70 


66622.044
71 


66622.045
72 


66622.046
73 


66622.047
74 


66622.048
75 


66622.049
76 


66622.050
77 


66622.051
78 


66622.052
79 


66622.053
80 


66622.054
81 


66622.055
82 


66622.056
83 


66622.057
84 


66622.058
85 


66622.059
86 


66622.060
87 


66622.061
88 


66622.062
89 


66622.063
90 


66622.064
91 


66622.065
92 


66622.066
93 


66622.067
94 


66622.068
95 


66622.069
96 


66622.070
97 


66622.071
98 


66622.072
99 


66622.073
100 


66622.074
101 


66622.075
102 


66622.076
103 


66622.077
104 


66622.078
105 


66622.079
106 


66622.080
107 


66622.081
108 


66622.082
109 


66622.083
110 


66622.084
111 


66622.085
112 


66622.086
113 


66622.087
114 


66622.088
115 


66622.089
116 


66622.090
117 


66622.091
118 


66622.092
119 


66622.093
120 


66622.094
121 


66622.095
122 


66622.096
123 


66622.097
124 

Æ 


66622.098