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

21–259 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–460 

THE MILWAUKEE PARENTAL CHOICE 

PROGRAM: A PIONEER FOR SCHOOL CHOICE 

PROGRAMS NATIONWIDE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2015 

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 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

COURTNEY J. ALLEN, Counsel 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 37 

WITNESS 

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2015 

Justice Shorter, Former MPCP Student and Graduate of Messmer High 

School, Washington, D.C. .................................................................................... 4 

Diana Lopez, Former MPCP Student and Graduate of St. Anthony High 

School, Milwaukee, WI ........................................................................................ 6 

Brother Robert Smith, Former Principal, Messmer High School, Milwaukee, 

WI .......................................................................................................................... 8 

John F. Witte, Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madision .............. 9 

Richard D. Komer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice ................................... 12 

Henry Tyson, Principal, St. Marcus Lutheran School, Milwaukee, WI .............. 15 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Komer, Richard D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Lopez, Diana: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Shorter, Justice: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Smith, Brother Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Tyson, Henry: 

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

Witte, John F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

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

APPENDIX 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

American Association of School Administrators ............................................ 95 

American Association of University Women .................................................. 97 

American Federation of Teachers ................................................................... 99 

Americans United ............................................................................................. 101 

Baptist Joint Committee .................................................................................. 106 

Disability Rights Wisconsin ............................................................................. 107 

The Institute for Science and Human Values ................................................ 109 

Erin Miller ........................................................................................................ 114 

National Association of Secondary School Principals .................................... 116 

The National Coalition for Public Education ................................................. 118 

David Pinno ...................................................................................................... 123 

Cheryle Rebholz ................................................................................................ 124 

Secular Coalition for America ......................................................................... 126 

Stop Special Needs Vouchers Wisconsin ........................................................ 129 
Page

IV 

Statements submitted for the Record from—Continued 

Survival Coalition ............................................................................................. 131 

Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, Inc. ............................................... 133 
(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

THE MILWAUKEE PARENTAL CHOICE 

PROGRAM: A PIONEER FOR SCHOOL CHOICE 

PROGRAMS NATIONWIDE 

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5 p.m., at St. Marcus 

Lutheran School, 2215 North Palmer Street, Milwaukee, WI, Hon. 

Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Enzi, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, 

McCaskill, Tester, Booker, and Peters. 

Senator JOHNSON. Good evening. This hearing of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now 

called to order. I want to thank everybody in the audience for taking time out of your busy schedules to attend what I hope to be 

a very informative hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for their 

time and efforts. I have read all of your testimony, it’s very 

thoughtful; I think it is going to be very helpful and will be informative. 

I certainly want to thank everybody here at St. Marcus. Henry 

Tyson, the Principal, who was very instrumental in helping set this 

thing up. Pastor Mark Jeske whose office I invaded, I appreciate 

that, Pastor. And we have some student volunteers, I want to call 

them up. Joanne, Brielle, Justin, Aleshia, Demia and Ambria, 

thank you all for your help and efforts. If you can give them a 

round of applause, I would appreciate it. 

[Applause.] 

Thank you very much. Let me just explain the purpose of this 

hearing. It is really two—I have two main purposes. I generally 

have a written statement, I will enter that into the record,1 and 

would just like to speak extemporaneously here. 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

has broad jurisdiction in terms of oversight over the entire Federal 

Government. We also have jurisdiction for the District of Columbia. 

I think you may all know that the District of Columbia has its own 

school choice program, it is called the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 

Program; and that is going to be coming up for reauthorization 

here in September, and that is something that my committee is 

highly interested in. And I thought, as we explore that reauthorization, I thought what would be a better place than coming here to 
2 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is really sort of the birthplace, the 

pioneer of school choice in the nation. 

So we are really here today to explore the lessons learned within 

the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which is its official name, and certainly give our hats off to people like Polly Williams, who is no longer with us; Dr. Howard Fuller, who could not 

be here today; and people like Susan George Mitchell. They were 

so instrumental, with a number of people on this panel as well, 

they were so instrumental in pioneering a concept that I do not 

think anybody, even supporters of this program here in Wisconsin, 

believe that we have the perfect model. 

I come from a manufacturing background, a background of continuous improvement. You can always improve things. I think this 

is a very sincere attempt to take a look at what has worked, what 

has not worked, and how can we move forward to really provide 

the opportunities that we all seek. 

And maybe that is something of an opening statement I should 

make as well. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, and I hope we actually have a broad spectrum of opinion 

here in this room today, let us start out today’s hearing with an 

area of agreement. That is certainly how I would start out my business negotiations in my 30-some years in business in the private 

sector. I will not start out negotiating by arguing. I would start out 

trying to figure out all the areas of agreement. 

So here is something we all agree on. We share the same goal. 

We all want a prosperous, a safe and secure Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

and America. We are concerned about each other. We all want 

every American, every Wisconsinite, every Milwaukeean, to have 

the opportunity to build the life for themselves and their family. 

And let us face it, education is key to accessing that opportunity. 

Now, the other part of my jurisdiction of this committee is really 

oversight, as I said, over the District of Columbia. And that also 

is going to be the purpose—I am a little concerned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been conducting a 4-year investigation 

into Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI) as it relates to their administration of the School Choice Program. So we 

want to explore that, and we have a witness that will testify to 

that. 

Let me just tell you the three basic principles that guide my 

thinking on this subject. I truly believe that America has been and 

should be and will be a land of unlimited opportunity. That is the 

first guiding principle. The second guiding principle is I believe 

every child should have the opportunity to access a quality education. And if they are within a system that is not serving them 

well, they ought to have the freedom to choose accessing a different 

system. And, finally, the third principle is my unwavering belief, 

having participated in a free market system, in the ability and the 

benefits of a free market system to basically guaranty three things. 

When I was in the plastics business, I would have loved to have 

been a monopolist, nothing could have been easier. But because I 

had to compete in the marketplace, my prices were lower, my quality was higher, and my level of customer service was also higher. 

That is the three benefits that the free market system guaranties. 

But if you really want to drive quality, if you want a better result, 
3 

if you want lower costs, free market competition actually works. 

And that is really what we are trying to interject with the school 

choice system. Address the basic principle that every child and 

every parent should have the freedom to access a quality education, 

to access that opportunity and, understanding that it is the free 

market that is going to provide better results in the long term. 

Now, just so you understand, my own experience, involvement, 

growing up I was educated in both the public system and the private system. I went to a Lutheran school, Missouri Synod Lutheran 

School, for about 3 years. Otherwise, it is all public education. In 

terms of my own children, they went to both public school as well 

as private school, the Catholic system, in Oshkosh. And it was really when my daughter left the Catholic system and went back to 

Oshkosh North High School I was called in by the principal—doing 

an exit interview. And really wanted to find out, why my daughter 

left. And that began my involvement in the President’s Advisory 

Council really trying to do everything I could to help the Catholic 

school system in Oshkosh survive financially. It is always a struggle, it is a real struggle for private institutions. But just so we had 

a private, competitive model or competitive alternative to the public school system which was really quite good in Oshkosh as well. 

And then my involvement with the Catholic school system led to 

my becoming the business co-chair of the Partners in Education 

Council of our chamber, where we had all the stakeholders. And so 

I have really been involved in a very robust fashion for about 6 or 

7 years prior to my deciding to run for U.S. Senate. So this issue 

is very dear to my heart because it is such a basic and fundamental 

need. 

So with that, I think we have really assembled a pretty good set 

of witnesses. I will briefly identify who we have; and before they 

testify, I will give you a more robust introduction. But we have Ms. 

Justice Shorter, who is a graduate of Messmer High School. We 

have Brother Robert Smith, who was President and Principal of 

Messmer High School. We have Diana Lopez, who is a graduate of 

St. Anthony’s. We have Dr. John Witte who is pretty much the 

knowledge expert in conducting studies on trying to evaluate, exactly how successful the school choice program is. And then we 

have Richard Komer who is a Senior Attorney at the Institute of 

Justice. 

So with that, I will say that when we conclude our hearing, if 

we have time—I have told St. Marcus that I will not invade their 

space for too long—we will probably have an open mic and allow 

members of the audience to come in here and make a 2-minute 

comment to also be involved in this process; and we will also hold 

the record open for additional testimony or written comments you 

also want to make into the Senate hearing. 

So with that, it is the custom of this Senate committee to swear 

in witnesses. And I would also ask Mr. Henry Tyson to stand as 

well because we may take some testimony from him later on. So 

if you all will stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn by Senator Johnson.] 

Our first witness will be Ms. Justice Shorter. Ms. Shorter is a 

graduate of Messmer High School and a former participant in the 

Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Ms. Shorter went on to re-
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Shorter appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

ceive a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Journalism from Marquette University, and is an August 2015 candidate for a Master of Arts Degree in Sustainable Development, International Policy and Management from the School of International Training (SIT) Graduate 

Institute in Washington, D.C. Ms. Shorter. 

TESTIMONY OF JUSTICE SHORTER,1 FORMER MPCP STUDENT 

AND GRADUATE OF MESSMER HIGH SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Ms. SHORTER. Good evening, everyone. I am a bit under the 

weather today. I will be reciting my Statement completely from 

memory, so please bear with me. I thank you in advance for your 

patience and your understanding. 

My educational experiences have taught me the importance of capacity, clarity and equity. In the fall of 2004, my sight began to 

worsen; and I realized that for the foreseeable future, I would be 

recognized as someone who was legally blind. At the time, I was 

already enrolled in the Parental Choice Program as a student at 

Messmer Catholic High School, a place where I was surrounded by 

caring and committed individuals who wanted to ensure that I 

would be able to succeed academically. 

Nevertheless, neither my family nor Messmer could financially 

afford to ensure that I would be able to receive all of the accommodations to support my educational endeavors. My mother and I, 

therefore, needed to research resources; and we independently 

sought out funding from private donors. Thankfully, I was able to 

reconnect with a former mentor who shared my story with a foundation which provided me with additional scholarships. We were 

able to use that funding to purchase several pieces of assistive 

technology. 

Now, that technology coupled with the love, support, attention 

and time that I received from the staff at Messmer allowed me to 

truly thrive and excel academically in each of my courses. Messmer 

also was later able to secure financial assistance from donors which 

has immensely enhanced my educational pursuits as well as the access that I had to adequate accommodations. 

After graduating from Messmer, I went on to Marquette University where I earned my Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism with minors in Justice and Peace Studies as well as entrepreneurship. 

During my time as an undergrad, I studied abroad in Capetown, 

South Africa, where I focused on community development and social entrepreneurship, as well as in Uganda and Rwanda where I 

studied peace and post-conflict reconciliation. In one month, the 

next month, I will officially earn my Master’s Degree in Sustainable Development with an emphasis on international policy and 

management from SIT Graduate Institute in Washington, D.C. 

These educational opportunities have reinforced my belief in capacity, clarity and equity. First, capacity. My family, the staff at 

Messmer, my mentors, my supporters, all firmly believe in my capacity to compete academically and to concur seemingly insurmountable odds. Students with disabilities can indeed achieve their 

academic aspirations. We have the capacity to contribute to class-
5 

rooms, communities, the city of Milwaukee, the State of Wisconsin, 

the United States of America, as well as the rest of the world. 

Second, clarity. Initially my mother and I were quite confused on 

where to go and what to do concerning educational issues associated with my visual impairment. Students with disabilities and 

their families must be properly informed on their rights as well as 

the educational options. I believe that the Department of Public Instruction should indeed provide all schools participating in the Parental Choice Program with the information that they need to raise 

awareness amongst parents about their educational choices as well 

as all available resources for students with disabilities. 

Last, equity. While participating in the Parental Choice Program, 

I received the same voucher as all students including those without 

disabilities which did not fully account for the increased expenses 

associated with my visual impairment, which is why we had to 

seek out additional funding from outside sources. And, thankfully, 

I was surrounded by great and phenomenal individuals who were 

able to help me navigate that process. But not all students have 

access to that, and I believe that they should. 

Consequently, I believe that students with disabilities who are 

voucher recipients should receive equitable access to State aid. We 

have to ensure that the Parental Choice Program fully considers 

and effectively incorporates the additional expenses associated with 

educating students with disabilities. This would allow the schools 

to operate with the security in knowing that they would be able to 

financially support all of the reasonable accommodations consistently throughout a child’s education, especially those children with 

disabilities. 

To be clear, I agree with the principal premise of the Parental 

Choice Program. We should all be able to make the very best 

choices for ourselves, our families, our future. However, the problems with students with disabilities not having access to accommodations when attending private schools on vouchers funded by 

the State of Wisconsin must be rectified. 

Schools and parents should be secure in the knowledge that 

funding from the Parental Choice Program will complement rather 

than complicate the educational choices of students with disabilities. 

This program clearly has the ability to bring forth transformative 

change in the city of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. Moreover, if we focus on capacity, clarity and equity, it has even greater 

potential to serve as a model of what a State of dedicated supporters, parents, educators and legislators can do to ensure the empowerment of students in general and students with disabilities in 

particular. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Shorter. Our next witness will 

be Diana Lopez. And I would ask that you speak very closely into 

the mic. But let me introduce you first. 

Ms. Lopez is a recent high school graduate of St. Anthony’s High 

School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where she graduated third in her 

class. She plans to attend Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, this coming fall where she will major in global affairs and 

minor in Arabic. She is also the recipient of the full tuition Gates 
6 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lopez appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

Millennium Scholarship which is earned by 1,000 minority students around the country. Ms. Lopez. 

TESTIMONY OF DIANA LOPEZ,1 FORMER MPCP STUDENT AND 

GRADUATE OF ST. ANTHONY HIGH SCHOOL, MILWAUKEE, 

WISCONSIN 

Ms. LOPEZ. Hello. I am Diana Yvette Lopez, and I attended St. 

Anthony’s School in Milwaukee, another choice school, from the 

third grade to my high school graduation. 

My whole life has been a series of causes and effects, and I know 

this very well. With this in mind, I knew that in order to do well 

in life and to do what I wanted to do when I grew up, I needed 

to do well in school. I knew that becoming an archeologist in Egypt 

would only be done if I planned it out meticulously. So at the age 

of about nine, I started Googling universities that specialized in 

Egyptology, and I knew that from then on I would have to work 

as hard as I could to be the best in middle school and high school. 

But which middle school would prepare me the best for my future? Before going to St. Anthony’s, I went to a nearby public 

school. Despite being less than 10 minutes apart from each other, 

it felt like a completely different world. At public school, I had always questioned why Christmas had to be called Xmas, and why 

I couldn’t sing Christmas songs. I felt weird that when I was in my 

community, a largely Hispanic community, everything seemed to 

revolve around going to church. But when I went to school, it was 

nonexistent. When I asked about it, I was gently told to let it go. 

I was frustrated. 

Then one day, my grandma took me to pick up my uncle, only 

4 years older than me, from his school, St. Anthony’s. There I saw 

a multitude of kids dressed in fancy uniforms and a bunch of artwork on the wall like the prep schools I had seen in all the movies. 

On the overhead as I walked in, there were prayers and announcements blasting and it just clicked. I called my mom from the school 

office. I would get to dress up in uniforms. And by dressing up in 

the businesslike uniforms they had, I would be better prepared for 

when I had college interviews. 

Middle school was great. I got to learn about so many things, and 

this time I could ask as many questions about any religion, not just 

Catholicism, as I wanted. However, I never knew how valuable 

going to a private school with choice program was until I started 

looking for high schools. I had my sights on a school in Bay View 

here in Milwaukee. It was perfect. They taught French, much needed by archeologists, and they had computer program classes, something I thought was cool. I wanted to go so badly, but the problem 

was the $12,000 tuition. 

I did everything I could. I applied for scholarship and got them 

all, I started saving my money, and I started promising my parents 

I would pay them back for my tuition once I was rich and famous. 

It just was not meant to be for me. My mom lost her job, and my 

little brother was born. My dad was about to lose his job, and we 

were all living paycheck to paycheck. One day they sat me down 
7 

and told me the reality. And in my mind, my whole future just 

crumbled. 

After I cried for days, I looked for alternatives. In the end, I 

chose to go to St. Anthony’s; and because they had the choice program, I was able to go at no cost. In the end, I am happy I graduated from there because not only did I receive a valuable and 

wholesome education, but I let my parents have some breathing 

space and not panic over paying tuition. 

But, again, actions have consequences. Since I went to St. Anthony’s, I was able to talk about religion. Many think that going to 

a Catholic school means being oppressed and kept thinking inside 

the box. However, that is not the case. Naturally curious, I was 

able to ask about my religion and ask my religion teacher about 

the differences between the Muslims and Christian ideals. 

Suddenly, my dream of becoming an Egyptologist dissipated and 

I became interested in global affairs. What if I had never been able 

to ask about religion? Would I have ever discovered my passion? 

Also, because my parents didn’t have to pay for tuition, I was able 

to go to a summer program that revolved around international relations. I fell in love, and to this day I have not wavered. 

During the summer program, there was a representative from 

Yale who gave a speech and I got in contact with her. Never once 

did I think about going to an Ivy League school. However, after 

talking to her, I was convinced I would try as hard as I could to 

get in. A few months ago, after weeks of grueling applications, I 

discovered that I got into Yale and every other school I applied to. 

Now I am going to Yale next fall to study global affairs and Arabic. But the point is what if I had never gone to the summer program and met the woman from Yale because my parents had to 

pay for tuition. Going to a choice school has opened so much for 

me. I was able to go to March For Life in Washington, D.C., this 

past winter; and I got to see firsthand a political movement. 

I have met so many people of the church who have lived all over 

the world and taught me how to speak different phrases in different languages and who have time after time reinforced in me 

the idea of curiosity. My teachers care about me, and they are incredibly knowledgeable in their fields. 

I hear horror stories about neighboring schools having fights 

every day and teachers that do not care about their students. I was 

never afraid of that happening at St. Anthony’s. I was able to get 

the same quality education as someone of a higher socioeconomic 

standing without burdening my parents and sacrificing their peace 

of mind. 

So to those who are thinking about signing your kids up for a 

choice school, think about the consequences of your actions. You 

are sending your child to a school where they do not have to worry 

about negligent teachers or fights every day, where they can ask 

the questions they want, and where you can rest assured that they 

are receiving a quality education. 

To the School Choice Program, I want to thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to ask questions, for giving low income families 

like my own a chance to receive a peace of mind after being that 

one step ahead in the road to my future. I hope to make you proud. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Brother Smith appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Lopez. Our next witness is 

Brother Robert Smith. Brother Smith was the president and principal of Messmer Catholic Schools for 26 years. While leading 

Messmer Catholic Schools, Brother Smith helped create the first 

independent K through 12 Catholic school system in the archdiocese in Milwaukee, increase student enrollment at the Messmer 

High School from 130 to over 700 students, renovate and build additions to two school campuses, and raise over $100 million in student scholarships. Brother Smith. 

TESTIMONY OF BROTHER ROBERT SMITH,1 FORMER PRINCIPAL, MESSMER HIGH SCHOOL, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

Brother SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. Good 

evening, everyone. I am happy to be here. And I hope you are too. 

Back during the times of the suffragette and abolitionist movements, there was a woman by the name of Sojourner Truth who 

freed many slaves, worked harder than most men, and wrote a 

very famous speech titled ‘‘Ain’t I A Woman.’’ Sojourner Truth was 

illiterate, spoke broken Dutch, yet she met two Presidents of the 

United States and was a great preacher who memorized the bible. 

She was invited to come up north to preach at a church; and a 

group of ministers heard about it and sent word down and they 

said: You tell that woman if she comes up here to preach, we gonna 

burn down the church. And in her broken Dutch, Sojourner Truth 

sent word back: You tell them men that if they burn down the 

church, ol’ Sojourner gonna preach from on top of the ashes. 

Tonight we are talking from on top of the ashes. Messmer High 

School in 1984 was closed. It was reopened by a group of folks like 

you, parents and guardians who want a high quality school, a 

Catholic school, in the inner city of Milwaukee. What Henry and 

others have done here, those young ladies coming in nicely dressed, 

articulate, who shook your hand and looked you in the eye, are 

poor kids who have the ability like Sojourner, like Diana, like Justice, to create dreams that will lead the city, State, country and 

world. 

All they need is a chance. And that is what the choice program 

was all about. There is no magic, there is no panacea about it. It 

is hard work, it is sacrifice, it is trusting them and trusting their 

parents and guardians to choose what school they want their children to attend. And that includes schools of every faith. It includes 

cyber schools, it includes home schooling, it includes public schools. 

All of that is school choice. 

What has angered me over the years are some of the things that 

get said that are not misconceptions or mistakes, they are flat out 

lies. To say that private and religious schools do not educate students with disabilities is flat out wrong and has been wrong for 

decades. If you do not believe me, there is a book that you can get 

on eBay titled The Three Archbishops written in the 1920s. In that 

book, Archbishop Sebastian Messmer says: Take our Catholic 

school students, test them; if they do as well or better than the 

public students, then let the money follow the student. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Witte appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

Go and look at yearbooks of religious schools back in the 1930s, 

1940s and 1950s. You will see seeing dogs, Braille machines, that 

were paid for by the religious schools. They did not get reimbursed 

by anybody. They did it because they cared about the education of 

the students. 

At the end of the day, I do not care where a kid goes to school. 

And I have said that for decades. What I care about is that they 

and their parents and guardians get to choose a high quality school 

which can include a school of faith. 

When I hear people talking about, well, we care about our kids 

and education, I expect them to be talking about all kids in the 

State. See, the choice program in Milwaukee started with under a 

thousand students. In 1998, we added religious schools. Today we 

have over 22,000 students in Wisconsin. But we were the oldest 

and biggest school system for years. Today there are 27 States in 

this country with choice programs. That is the miracle. And that 

is the key to the future. 

Before I got into education here, I came from Detroit, Michigan. 

And I was a parole agent. I got burned out from watching people 

go in and out of prison. There were three things that were common. 

No. 1, most of the people coming in or out of prison were dropouts. 

No. 2, they had drug or alcohol problems. And No. 3, they had at 

or below a third grade reading level. So anybody that does not understand that education and a bright future do not walk on the 

same line is missing a lot. 

We need good schools for everyone. And when I talk about education, I am talking about public schools. There are excellent public 

schools in Milwaukee and around this country. But we need people 

to be open to educating all kids in all families and let the parents 

and guardians and students make those choices. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Brother Bob. 

The next witness is Dr. John Witte. Dr. Witte is a Professor 

Emeritus of Political Science and Public Affairs at the University 

of Wisconsin-Madison, Robert M. LaFollette School of Public Affairs. 

Dr. Witte’s research has focused on tax policy, politics and education, including school choice, vouchers and charter schools. Dr. 

Witte was the principal investigator for the School Choice Demonstration Project (SCDP) which studied the longitudinal effects of 

the Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program. Dr. Witte. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. WITTE, PH.D.,1 PROFESSOR 

EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 

Dr. WITTE. Well, thank you, Senator. And it is nice to be back 

here in Milwaukee. It has been a long time since I have been here. 

I was actually born here in 1946, and we left here in 1951 we claim 

because the schools were so rotten. Was not true. 

My career has been studying the voucher program, twice. Two 5- 

year stints, from 1990 to 1996, and then from 2006 to 2012. And 

I have taken the opportunity that was offered me here for this testimony to write a long paper this last week comparing those two. 
10 

We have never looked at both of those studies together, we have 

looked at them separately. 

So I want to give you a combination here of what happens. I am 

just going to say what everybody wants to know. Did it work and 

what worked? OK. And then I am going to give you my normative 

perspective and it will be my own values, and I realize there is a 

lot of room for other values involved in this because I am a little 

bit concerned about the direction of the voucher program today. 

First of all, test scores. Everybody wants test scores, everybody 

complains about test scores; but boy, they sit up straight when you 

start talking about them. I make my living doing it, modeling it, 

doing everything else, and I am very suspicious of them. They have 

a lot of measurement error, a lot of problems with test scores. But 

the test score results have been flat in both times. There’s complications that I could go into later; but more or less we have found 

out that the voucher program and comparison groups in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) do about the same on test scores. 

Sometimes reading is a little higher, sometimes math is a little 

higher. But overall, they do about the same. And, again, there’s 

some complications. 

Parental satisfaction, there’s other dimensions to what qualifies 

as a good education in what we produce. Parent satisfaction and 

student satisfaction have consistently across all 10 years, both the 

first study and the second study, have been positive for the voucher 

program, and really wildly positive in many cases. And one of the 

interesting things is when you ask parents what they are most concerned about in the Milwaukee Public Schools and why they go to 

choice and the vouchers, it has to do with a couple of things. The 

quality of education, the quality of teachers, and safety and discipline within the schools. Those are the things that they are most 

satisfied with in the private schools, when they come to private 

schools, those three dimensions. So it just flips around what they 

are most concerned about and why they are there. 

Student—another thing that we were not able to study the first 

time around, because we did not have the resources, to be fully 

honest about it, and we also only had K–8 schools in the first set 

of schools from 1990 to 1996. This time when we began, I insisted 

that we get enough resources so that we could follow kids through 

graduation. For me, if there’s one measure of quality of education 

in America and one thing we should focus on, it is graduating from 

high school. And good things happen on average if you graduate 

from high school; and bad things, as Brother Bob said, do not happen when you do not graduate from high school. 

We were able to track kids in the graduation and then into college, 4-year colleges, and we are still tracking the kids that began 

in 2006. The news is very good here. The graduation rates among 

voucher students are considerably higher than MPS. And we have 

done this very well. It is also important because there is very little 

measurement error actually in graduating from high school where 

there is a lot of measurement error in test scores. 

The rates may not seem high; but if you are involved with inner 

city education, you will know. It is between 4 and we think closer 

to 7 percent higher graduation and 4 to 7 percent higher attainment in 4-year colleges. They also tend to go to better colleges, and 
11 

we follow them now into their—at the end of their sophomore year, 

and they have a high persistence rate, much higher than the average in the schools, and they are stretching out over the MPS kids 

that go to 4-year colleges. That is a big, powerful finding, the first 

one I think for any voucher program which they usually do not follow kids as far as we have. 

One other thing, there is another type of study that takes place 

within vouchers, and that has to do with what we call competition 

studies. The Senator mentioned this, that is why I want to talk 

about this. Competition studies are basically if you have competition from vouchers in an area, do the public schools get better? OK. 

And we measure these a lot of different ways. 

There have been four studies in Milwaukee going back to 1998, 

actually the first ones, and then our recent one has been done in 

2009–2010, sorry. All of those studies have been positive. There is 

a spillover effect into the public schools that’s positive for vouchers. 

And the more voucher students’ options there are around, the better the results. OK? They are not large, they are not really big, but 

they are statistically significant and they are always positive. 

There have also been a number of studies in Florida that found 

the same thing. So we have a consistent range. Finally, one thing 

that is very important to me and sort of my rub here, and Brother 

Bob mentioned this in the very beginning, when this program 

began, it was to give families that did not have opportunities or alternatives in the Milwaukee Public Schools, to have an alternative 

that many middle class white people had. And that is to 

leave—if they were not satisfied with their public schools, they 

could either buy private school education or they could move to the 

suburbs, which I have studied here in Milwaukee as well, where 

the schools were much more positive. 

Poor African-American primarily students did not have those options, and the voucher program provided those opportunities for the 

first time in many cases. There were no charter schools around, remember, at that time. OK? Now, and there is no question that over 

the years these opportunities have been extended and there have 

been many opportunities, the choice environment is much more 

positive today certainly with places like Messmer High School or 

this high school or a number of other places in the voucher program, the vast majority of the schools in the voucher program, 110 

of them. They provide choices. 

My problem is that when I was first asked to do this, my relatively liberal friends in Madison said you are being snookered 

here. This is not providing opportunities for poor. The real intent 

here is to get the rich people who go to private schools to be subsidized. I said I hope that’s not the case because I am not in favor 

of subsidizing wealthy people to do things. 

I am a little worried now that we are moving in that direction, 

to be honest. I was not in favor of lifting the income limit as high 

as they lifted it. They lifted it to 300 percent of the poverty line 

from 175 percent. Now, statewide is still at 175. 300 percent of the 

poverty line to be eligible for the voucher program is $70,000, 

$70,047 a year for a family of four. $70,000 gets to be up there 

pretty high for people to buy their own private education. So I am 

concerned about that. To this point, I do not think it is necessarily 
12 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Komer appears in the Appendix on page 81. 

going to be that much of a problem. But if it goes that way, you 

go to what’s called a universal voucher program. 

Most people in the United States have always gone to private 

schools for religious reasons. God bless them for that. OK. But it 

is not necessary for me that the government should subsidize people that can afford that. If they cannot afford it, great, go to religious or nonreligious schools. But if they can afford it, we are going 

to spend all of our money—and I think it is going to be drained. 

I think the potential is to drain away the choices for the people 

that need it the most. 

So that is my only concern. Otherwise, I am very happy to be involved with this program all these years. I am just proud that I 

made that decision years ago to do this, and I am proud of being 

friends with Brother Bob. He is not only the greatest speaker 20 

years ago, I swore I would never follow him on a stage again in 

speaking. He is also one hell of an administrator. He built Messmer 

High School. I was in there, the first time we met was in 1991, and 

there were 100 kids in that. And to be honest, he was hanging on 

like this, like a cat hanging onto the wall, because it was coming 

down. And now that school is just magnificent, if you have not been 

there. And also all the other schools that are associated. Thank 

you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Witte. Our next witness is 

Richard Komer. Mr. Komer is a senior attorney for the Institute 

For Justice where he litigates school choice cases in Federal and 

State courts. Prior to joining the Institute, Mr. Komer worked as 

a career civil rights lawyer for the Federal Government, including 

the Departments of Education and Justice, and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Mr. Komer. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD KOMER,1 SENIOR ATTORNEY, 

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 

Mr. KOMER. Thank you. It is a great honor to be here today for 

a wide variety of reasons. But I would like to commend the Senator 

for chairing this hearing because the Milwaukee Public—Parental 

Choice Program holds a special place in the hearts of all of us who 

have advocated for some 25 years for school choice. 

I work at the Institute For Justice, a public interest law firm. 

And one of the things we do is we specialize in defending school 

choice programs. So our institute defended the Milwaukee program 

first in—well, actually, twice. Both times in State court all the way 

to the Wisconsin Supreme Court where fortunately the program 

was upheld both times. 

School choice is an immensely important issue. But what makes 

it worthwhile for those of us who do that are sharing the stage 

with people like Justice Shorter or Diana Lopez who have benefited 

from the school choice programs that we have defended in court. 

For me, coming here is in a sense coming full circle because this 

is literally where modern school choice began, with a program that 

enrolled just over 300 children in I think it was seven private 

schools until one of them dropped out. That is pretty small. 
13 

Today, as Brother Bob mentioned, there are 27 States that have 

over 40 school choice programs; and the 300 school children in the 

original program have become 300,000 children across the United 

States. 

This is an enormous success story. But what also has come full 

circle is that my first involvement with the Milwaukee Parental 

Choice Program way back in 1990 was an effort to kill the program 

by overregulation, by Herbert Grover who was the then superintendent of public instruction here in Milwaukee, who said that 

the private schools participating in the program were de facto public schools and subject to all of the Federal civil rights requirements that public schools are subject to. 

This was a transparent effort to kill the program politically by 

forcing private schools out of the program. They would not participate if they had to provide all of the same services and act like de 

facto public schools. Because many of the Federal regulations, I 

hate to say this, imposed by various Federal agencies are part of 

why public education is the way it is today. And private schools, 

to offer an actual viable alternative, have to be different. 

So that program, Senator Bob Kasten from Milwaukee sent a letter to the Department of Education where I was working at the 

time asking whether Herb Grover was right and that the program 

had to act like—the private schools had to be treated like public 

schools. I got the assignment to respond to that. I was at the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. But we had a crosscutting task force of the special ed. people, the Office of General 

Counsel (OGC), everyone, to try and determine: Are private schools 

public schools if kids get vouchers? And our answer was clear. They 

are not. They are not subject to these laws in the same way that 

public schools are. 

Well, now, 25 years later, the Justice Department is investigating them, PCP, and trying again to say that through the 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), that the private schools 

have to act like the public schools. 

They have done this through trying to force the Department of 

Public Instruction, to basically impose requirements on private 

schools very similar to what Herb Grover tried to do 25 years ago. 

This effort is no more well founded legally than the original effort 

was because for a number of reasons. It is inconsistent with the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, it is inconsistent with the department’s own regulations implementing that act, it is inconsistent 

with the Technical Assistance Manual the Department of Justice 

provides to people as to what their regulations mean and what the 

ADA requires, and it is pretty much inconsistent with common 

sense. Because the rules of statutory instruction at bottom are really just commonsensical rules. And under the ADA, there are two 

titles relevant to their investigation. Title II applies to public entities like DPI. Title III applies to private schools. The private 

schools that participate in the program under Title III are subject 

to a very different legal standard of what constitutes discrimination 

than a public school is. Because private schools do not have unlimited access to public resources. They have access only to what the 

parents are provided by the program and the parents pay the 

school in exchange for services. 
14 

Now, Title III contains a broad exemption for religious schools. 

That exemption is not an exemption the Department of Justice created. It is an exemption the Congress created. And the Justice Department does not get to overcome that exemption in Title III by 

saying that DPI has to enforce a different rule under Title II. 

I am not going to get any more technical than that. But the legal 

rule is that the specific controls the general. It is not complicated 

when you are interpreting something and something is specific. 

What are the responsibilities of private religious schools? They are 

exempted. You do not get to interpret another part and say, oh, no, 

because Wisconsin is giving money to individual families to spend 

at those schools, suddenly they become public schools. That theory 

was rejected by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the original case 

here and it should be rejected when the Department of Justice tries 

to impose it. 

This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern because there is a second 

intervention by the same group of the Department of Justice, the 

Civil Rights Division, Economic Opportunities Section, which has 

tried to throw a monkey wrench into Louisiana’s statewide program which is for students in the worst schools in Louisiana. And 

they have tried by resurrecting a school desegregation case to force 

Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, their DPI, to regulate and limit 

school choice for students otherwise eligible for the program on the 

theory that because miniscule numbers of students are leaving supposedly integrated public schools for African-American private 

schools, that this is undercutting school desegregation. It is an absurd theory. It is so lacking in just basic reasonableness that I do 

not think that the courts are going to let this stand. 

The third thing we have with respect to school choice programs 

is the District of Columbia program. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program was modeled consciously on the Milwaukee program, 

as were inner city programs in Cleveland and New Orleans. All of 

these programs are modeled on the success here in Milwaukee. And 

the D.C. program has shown the same sorts of success as Dr. Witte 

has talked about here in Milwaukee: improved graduation rates, 

improved parental satisfaction, all, I should add, at considerably 

less expense to the public taxpayer than the public schools these 

children left at their parents’ choice. 

Now, the administration, which has been quite enthusiastic 

about school choice when it involves public schools, has opposed 

continuation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and has 

tried to cause it to whither on the vine. It has only been through 

the active intervention of this committee when it was previously 

chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman, a democrat from Connecticut, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, that the 

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is still up and running and 

serving the thousands of children that it does. 

So I would like to just close and, again, thank the Senator for 

holding this hearing, thank him for supporting school choice, and 

hopefully thank him for bringing the hammer down on the U.S. Department of Justice. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Komer. We also should thank 

Mr. Komer because he cut short a vacation in Maine with his family, so he has a little makeup to do there. 
15 

I want to break procedure a little bit. I would like to ask Mr. 

Henry Tyson—is it Doctor?——Mr. Henry Tyson then, the principal 

of St. Marcus. They have been very helpful in obviously opening up 

their school to us here. It’s been relatively disruptive, but we certainly appreciate it. 

I met with Mr. Tyson earlier today. And I just want him to share 

kind of his thoughts and, the model here of—St. Marcus has 

worked. And, Mr. Tyson, why don’t you just go ahead and describe 

that, and we will just have you too share during the questioning 

period. So Mr. Tyson. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. TYSON 

Mr. TYSON. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you all, especially members of the public, for being here tonight and showing 

an interest in this issue. Probably the best way for me to do that 

is to tell St. Marcus’s story and how it fits in with what parents 

are looking for in our city. 

This school actually opened its doors in 1875, and by the late 

1890s was serving 300 children on a relatively ragged building that 

stood on this site until about 2002. In the late 1960s, this neighborhood was decimated by the riots that took place, really centered on 

North Avenue and King Drive, just to our west. And there was 

white flight and the historical Lutheran, white, middle class population fled the city. 

The result of that was that by 1981, the student population had 

shrunk to just 54 children. And at the time, the conversation was 

about whether or not the congregation and the school should stay 

or should it follow the previous student body out to the suburbs 

and elsewhere or just close entirely. 

We got a new pastor in 1980, Pastor Mark Jeske, who along with 

some congregation members worked like crazy to rebirth the school 

and the congregation. Such that by 1997, there were about 80 children in the school. And it was that year that the voucher program 

was opened up to parochial schools. St. Marcus jumped into the 

program that year and by 2000 had just about 100 children in the 

school. And that brought the old building pretty much to capacity. 

So the congregation at that time, in about 2000, recognized that 

there was a huge need in our community. The parents were desperate for access to high quality schools. And the school building 

at that time was filled to capacity, so they started a five and a half 

million dollar capital campaign. And in 2003 were able to open a 

new school building just on the other side of that wall that was designed for 300 children. 

And as they did that, as that school opened in 2003, it was accompanied by a very specific vision. And the vision was to create 

the best urban Christian school in America. And combined with 

that vision was a philosophy that was, like most good ideas, stolen 

from the KIPP schools, the national charter program, that said we 

are not going to make excuses, there are no excuses for student 

failure. 

And so the congregation, the staff, came together and said what 

do we need to do to make sure that any child who walks through 

our doors is ultimately successful. And what that meant was to extend the school day, it went from 8 until 4:30. We needed to imple-
16 

ment a Saturday school program, a 4-week summer school program. We needed to have evening programs. So for some students, 

we kept them here and we fed them dinner and they took care of 

their homework here at school. And then we implemented a nationwide travel program for our middle school students so they could 

see for themselves the incredible opportunities that this country offers or should offer to every single child. 

The bottom line is the parents loved it. And within 2 years of 

opening the 2003 building, the building was completely full and we 

had a growing waiting list. In response to that waiting list, in 2006 

we started another capital campaign, which resulted in 2011 of the 

opening of the primary grades building, which is behind me, which 

houses 350 students. And then in 2013, this room, the Krier Center, to support the primary grades building. And then just last 

year, you would have thought if we just kept building we would 

eventually get to the bottom of the waiting list. Well, it just did not 

happen. And the reason it did not happen is because if you are, in 

particular, low income and African-American, in this city you are 

in a world of hurt. 

They recently looked to what they call the 80/80 data, which is 

they looked at all of the schools in our city that are 80 percent low 

income and 80 percent African-American. They identified 95 

schools, public, charter and voucher, serving just under 30,000 children with an average reading proficiency of under 8 percent. So 

what we know is that if you are low income and African-American 

in this city, the chances of your child being in a high quality school 

are extremely low. 

So it is no surprise that the parents kept on coming. So as it is 

today, we serve 860 students on two campuses. We opened a new 

campus last year four blocks north of here. That campus has a 

waiting list, and in the fall we hope to build out that campus to 

serve 350 children. We follow to the tee the State’s random selection process, so we look blindly at all of the applicants. Approximately 10 percent of our students have formal individual education 

plan (IEP). It means that they have been identified by the district 

as a student with special needs. And yet, as Ms. Shorter clearly articulated, we receive zero dollars to meet the special needs of those 

students beyond the $7,200 voucher. 

That creates immense challenges for us. It means we have to go 

out of our way to raise the money to provide the services for those 

students. This coming year, we will have two certified special education teachers and a host of other staff who support those students with special needs. 

We do track our students for 8 years after they graduate. We 

know that 93 percent graduate high school through a traditional 

high school model. And according to, admittedly questionable testing data, we are amongst the highest performing schools amongst 

the 80/80 schools in Milwaukee. 

So the bottom line, as we have heard from Brother Bob and others, the bottom line is without schools like St. Marcus and St. Anthony’s and Messmer, and Atonement, Notre Dame, Nativity Jesuit, Garden Homes, the Hope Schools, there would be thousands of 

children who would be trapped in failing schools. And so the vouch-
17 

er program has become a lifeline to thousands of kids, many of 

whom have special needs. 

At the end of that, I am compelled to say because we live in such 

a divided city that as a voucher leader and voucher advocate, I 

want to acknowledge that our public schools run some fantastic 

schools, as do our voucher system, and some of the very worst 

schools in our city are voucher schools. And for those of you, like 

me, who are voucher proponents, just as the district has to deal 

with its struggling schools, so have we. And the critical need is to 

get as many high performing schools for as many kids as quickly 

as possible. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tyson. Again, thank you for 

all your efforts here at St. Marcus for making your facility available to us. 

I have a host of questions. Let me, before I start asking questions, let me just get a sense from the audience, would you raise 

your hand if you would like to take 2 minutes is what we will limit 

a comment to. How many people would be interested in that? Because that will govern my—OK, so a reasonable number. So I think 

that we will be able to accommodate that. 

Let me go informal here, and I would like to use first names, and 

I have already said Brother Bob. I would like to start with you, 

Justice. Obviously with somebody with a disability that I think we 

all are very pleased to see you to a great extent overcome, can you 

just talk to us about the impediments you faced, both in public as 

well as in Messmer School, with your blindness; and was there a 

difference, one way or the other, between what you experienced in 

public versus private school. And speak very close to the microphone so we can hear. 

Ms. SHORTER. Is this better? 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. SHORTER. Yes. OK. I was able to receive, as I said, a ton of 

attention, a ton of time, from the staff members at Messmer Catholic High School; and they were later able to assist me with also securing additional financial assistance which was immensely beneficial. 

However, students with disabilities have to encounter a slew of 

barriers, both formally and informally, both perceived and—a 

whole range of issues that people never take into consideration. It 

takes a community to ensure that these students will be able to 

strive and thrive academically. You have to take into consideration 

the classroom atmosphere, the atmosphere of the entire school, the 

communities that they live in, the parents, their families, all of 

these different entities must come together collectively in order to 

ensure that these students have the capacity to succeed. 

I think we have to understand that students with disabilities are 

assets, not liabilities. And we need to understand the full potential 

of these individuals. Had someone not seen the capacity that I had, 

had people not acknowledged that, had people not supported that, 

I would not have been able to do half of the things that I have been 

able to do in my short lifetime. I am only 25. 

However, I continue to encounter a number of barriers, even in 

graduate school, even as someone who can clearly articulate the 

things that I need at the age of 25 in graduate school. Now, imag-
18 

ine if I was 5 years old or 10 years old or at the time 14 years old 

when my sight initially began to worsen. 

The difficulty in simply acknowledging, for one, what was happening to me at the time and, two, what it was that I needed in 

order to succeed, but having individuals around me who could recognize the problem, but who can also help me find the resources, 

and not only find that information, but to actually access those resources was absolutely imperative. 

Senator JOHNSON. So did you see—I did not realize, you lost your 

site at about the age of 14, you started losing your sight—— 

Ms. SHORTER. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON [continuing]. At the age of 14? 

Ms. SHORTER. It began to worsen at 14, yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. And you were in public school prior to that? 

I mean during that time period or—— 

Ms. SHORTER. No, I was at Urban Day Middle School, which I 

believe at the time was a charter school. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. But you started accessing the voucher system 

when you started going to Messmer, correct? 

Ms. SHORTER. I believe so, yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Again, were there—I guess the question 

is really kind of a moot point then, you were sighted in charter 

school and you started losing your sight in—— 

Ms. SHORTER. When I went to high school, yes. So when I was 

in middle school, I was able to effectively maneuver and operate. 

My vision was not good whatsoever. However, I was not in need of 

many of the resources that were absolutely essential once I went 

to high school because my sight began to worsen even more and I 

could no longer hide it or pretend as if it did not exist. It was imperative to my learning. 

Senator JOHNSON. So can you just tell us a little bit about your 

aspirations. And, again, you have overcome an awful lot and you 

have continued to gain education. Can you just tell us really what 

you plan on doing now with the rest of your life, what you aspire 

to be. 

Ms. SHORTER. No pressure there. No. I graduate in August, and 

everyone has been asking me that question. But I am excited to 

continue applying for positions both domestically, nationally across 

the country, as well as internationally. 

I would love to continue working on issues related to international policy. During my time in D.C., I have interned for World 

Learning, which is an international non-governmental organization 

(NGO); the Hunger Project, another international NGO; as well as 

Women Enabled International, which focuses on protecting the 

human rights of women and girls with disabilities worldwide. 

At present, I am doing an internship for the Department of 

State, their international visitor leadership program, and I am developing the disability inclusion guides for host families and organizations to use so that when visitors come, they can truly access 

all of the amazing things that America has to offer. 

So I will continue to be an advocate for disability issues, but that 

is not the only issue that I will work on. I intend to work on a 

plethora of different issues, whether it relates to disability or gen-
19 

der or racial minority issues, LGBC issues, and a whole host of 

issues. So I am hoping to secure employment after graduation. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, as you realize your aspirations, you are 

going to continue to inspire people. So, again, thank you. We wish 

you all the best. 

Diana, you mentioned uniforms. I thought that was interesting. 

Can you just kind of talk a little bit about what wearing a uniform 

did. I mean, just the effect it had. And, again, if you would speak 

very close to the mic so we can hear you. 

Ms. LOPEZ. OK. So going to a public school, I could wear whatever I want. So in the morning when trying to get to school on 

time, it would be what should I wear. And when my parents started to lose their jobs, we had to go to the—those centers to get 

clothes. And finding clothes that everyone else wore was very difficult. And so I often went to school embarrassed and often went 

home crying and telling my mom why can’t you buy me new 

clothes? 

But when I went to St. Anthony’s and saw the uniforms, I 

thought that it was going to prepare me for the future. Because I 

had seen how presidents and ministers and everyone wears uniforms; and if I wore a uniform, I would have the same type of 

thinking as them. And in that way I would be better prepared to 

do what I wanted to do. 

Senator JOHNSON. Did you find that was kind of a common attitude among your classmates? Did people enjoy wearing uniforms? 

Did they feel it was onerous or—what was the general attitude? 

Ms. LOPEZ. Most of them hated it, but . . . 

Senator JOHNSON. But they fell into line. 

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes. After graduating and talking to their friends 

from public schools, they had kind of an appreciation that they did 

not have to wake up and figure out what they were going to wear 

in the morning. Instead they could, figure out how their homework 

was and where to, spend their money instead, instead of buying 

clothes. I think it was the general attitude of appreciation that we 

knew what we were going to wear and we did not have to worry 

about impressing everyone else. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Great. You also mentioned in your testimony the word ‘‘safety.’’ Can you talk about that, again, just— 

again, I am always looking for comparison, to compare, contrast, 

public versus your experience at St. Anthony’s. Can you just talk 

a little bit about that aspect of the choice program. 

Ms. LOPEZ. While at St. Anthony’s, I have friends who on their 

phones they would show videos of neighboring high schools and the 

fights that they would have there, and how they would be really 

intense and really violent. And all of us just went around the person who had the phone and we all could not believe that something 

like that was happening not that far away from us. And we all 

kind of had this attitude that thank God this does not happen here. 

Senator JOHNSON. Great. 

Brother Bob, I mean, certainly what I saw within the campus 

school system was a pretty nurturing environment. Again, and let 

me say within the Oshkosh school system, which my kids also went 

to, I saw—and being the co-chair of the Department of Education 

Council, I saw dedicated teachers across the board, people who 
20 

were skilled and knew how to educate the kids in their community. 

But I did notice a difference, a more nurturing environment, certainly the ability to teach morals and values. 

Can you just talk about the environment within your school, the 

extent of parental involvement, and again, any kind of comparison 

of experience that you know about between that and the public situation. 

Brother SMITH. Sure. I have always, Senator Johnson, been a 

proponent of the Paul Bear Bryant school of education. He was the 

football coach at Alabama. And he began each season by telling his 

players be good or be gone. My belief of every educator, every adult 

in a school building, is you will treat every child as if he or she 

was your own. And if you can’t or won’t do that, then you gotta go. 

Because parents and guardians entrust the most precious thing 

they have, their children, to us. And a frown, a harsh word, ignoring a kid that’s trying to answer a question or to get a need met, 

that’s a start. 

And, what Justice was saying in answering your question about 

some of the challenges, simple things like winter weather, which 

is unpredictable in Wisconsin. I used to watch her out of my window when there was a black ice. And I made our buildings and 

grounds people as well as our former principal, Mr. Monday, made 

sure that that back area was clear and dry so that she and other 

students would not slip. If there was an early day of school, we had 

to make sure that she was able to get her ride. 

Schools live by rules. We have an elevator in Messmer. Students 

are not allowed on the elevator. She was allowed on the elevator 

because there are three floors. For testing, the tests are done in a 

certain way. She needed someone to read directions or if there were 

colored pictures, things like that. So as an administrator, it is the 

job of an administrator to make sure that everybody else does what 

they are supposed to do beginning with the adults and then with 

the students. And the parents and guardians—and, what Henry 

said earlier is absolutely true. Parents and guardians that I have 

known in this city and across this country want the best for their 

children. They hate nothing more than going to jails and prisons 

and funerals and hospitals, and they expect the educators and the 

other students in schools to treat their child as they treat their 

child. And that’s what our jobs are, and they start the minute the 

kids get there to the minute they get home. 

Senator JOHNSON. I want to talk a little bit about parental involvement. I am going to transition from you to Dr. Witte during 

this question. But, again, it is my general sense, again, having attended as well as sending my kids to both systems, that certainly 

the private school system really encourages parental involvement. 

I guess it’s just my anecdotal belief that parental involvement 

made a big difference. I mean, can you just talk about, how, to 

what extent Messmer encouraged parental involvement, kind of 

what your belief was; and then I am going to turn it over to Professor Witte, is there any study that kind of backs up whatever our 

beliefs might be. But, Brother Bob. 

Brother SMITH. Yes. The key, Senator, is we tell students that 

from day one that the adults run this building; and that means the 

faculty, staff and parents. So just as the students at St. Marcus 
21 

were out there greeting every person that walked in that door, we 

teach the students you will treat every person with dignity, respect 

and love, or you gotta go. And it’s really that simple. Parents and 

guardians do the same thing. And we expect that they will treat 

the teachers and other staff the exact same way, as adults. 

It is irrelevant whether I have a Master’s Degree or a high school 

diploma, we are still adults and the education of every single student is the responsibility of every single adult. Private schools and, 

in particular, religious schools have a lot less money than public 

schools. We do not have a tax base to operate on. Which means 

there has to be a lot of volunteer work, it means tutoring, making 

sure your students do their homework. And it does not matter if 

you understand trigonometry or Spanish, it means that you have 

a responsibility, whether you go to the Khan Academies on the 

Internet or whether you call up another parent and say can you 

check my child’s homework, the homework gets checked. So that 

when that student comes to school the next morning, that they 

come prepared. 

It also means that if you have a problem in your family, that 

there is an illness or a death and you need money, that you talk 

to us. We do not have a lot of stuff, but we can do a little. Recently 

that 11-year-old boy who opened the door, he’s a student from 

Burma, and these guys went in and shot the father. He was a student at St. Rose/St. Leo. The entire Messmer community gathered 

around as well as Marquette High school to help support funeral 

costs and other costs of that family because they are dirt poor. You 

do it not because you have to do, but because you choose to. 

Senator JOHNSON. You used a word that put a smile on my face, 

‘‘volunteer.’’ We had one of the moms—that was her license plate. 

And she was one heck of a volunteer. 

Dr. Witte, can you just kind of describe any kind of study results 

in terms of parental involvement in education. 

Dr. WITTE. Yes. We extensively ask about parental involvement, 

both the beginning in the first wave, first study, with what they 

had in the public schools, and then also to compare it to the private 

schools. And we also asked public school parents. And we asked 

three types of parental involvement basically. In organizations in 

school like parent teacher associations (PTAs), in activities in 

schools such as communicating and connecting to teachers and 

other things, and then parental involvement at home. And there 

are different dimensions of all of those, too, so they are very good 

measures. 

And in the first wave of studies, parental involvement was higher statistically and considerably higher in the private schools than 

in the public schools; and also higher when the people moved from 

public schools to private schools. The second wave of studies, it was 

higher in the parental activities of the school and in belonging to 

organizations that communicated with schools. But the parental involvement was slightly higher in the public schools at home. So 

there was an improvement there. And there was quite a change 

from the earlier period than the latter period. 

The other thing I will say about the public schools is WETA 

asked parents to grade their schools, and it’s a very common question around the country. A through F, right? Just like we grade 
22 

kids and like you will get graded at Yale and like you get graded 

in high schools. So on a four-point scale. And it turns out the first 

time around, the public schools had about a 2.8 average grade, a 

little between a B and a C, and 2.7 for the private schools. That’s 

because a dimension came here about the schools closing. In the 

first 2 years, it was rocky around here in the voucher program because the courts had not yet approved it. So people thought it was 

going to get closed. And we had this very bad school, the Juanita 

Virgil Academy, which I can identify because we never got to do 

a case study of it, and it was very—well, that closed in the middle 

of the school. It was a terrible school. We had pictures of kids 

throwing wet toilet paper out of the windows at each other. That’s 

the kind of order they had in Juanita Virgil Academy. So it had 

a bad reputation. Then it really picked up that last few years. 

This last time around, the public schools graded out at 3.0, an 

easy B, higher, and the private schools at 3.4. One other thing 

that’s important about the two waves, it turns out that the first 

wave, which there was about 1,500 students in 1995, almost all the 

students were black. OK. 92 percent. OK. It was an African-American program. There were no Asian students, not a single Asian 

family that we could identify in the program. It’s much more diversified now, with many more students obviously, 20,000 students 

here rather than 1,500 at the end. And it’s 57 percent AfricanAmerican, 24 percent Hispanic, and then the rest is split. And 

there’s 15 percent white. And then there’s smaller numbers of both 

Asians and Native Americans. So it’s a much more diverse program 

now than it was. 

The parents of the private school kids are still poor, lower income, than MPS parents. They were both times. But they have 

slightly higher education levels. Not too much the second time 

around, actually. They were very close of parent higher education. 

The first time around, the MPC parents, the public choice parents, 

were considerably lower educated. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now, having read your testimony, I understood most of it, that’s the point, I mean, it’s very complex. I mean, 

trying to study these, trying to come up with some kind of evaluation is necessarily very difficult. But it did sound in your testimony 

that student attainment, graduation rates, that you found some 

real significance there that’s been somewhat indisputable. 

Dr. WITTE. Nobody’s disputed it. If anybody quibbles and says, 

well, it’s only 4 percent or 5 or 6 or 7 percent, we think it’s closer 

to 7, 7 percent jump in graduation is big time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me ask you what you mean by that, 

though. Is it you are going from 70 to 77 percent or is it a point 

increase or is it a percentage increase? 

Dr. WITTE. It’s a percentage increase, and it’s going to about 75 

percent for the kids that are now graduating compared to 69 percent. That’s the range. Which we didn’t make too much of because 

the problem is—if the kids stayed for 4 years in the private schools, 

in other words, they were in the private schools in 2006 and they 

were still in them in 2010, 93 percent graduation rate. 93 percent. 

Now, a lot of people think, trick, there’s a problem with this, and 

Brother Bob knows this. The first year in high school for these 

kids—we discovered this time around, it did not apply to the first 
23 

group—was very difficult for many kids. Because they took them 

under lottery conditions, and these kids were sometimes way behind. The private high schools tend not to give grades out free. OK? 

I do not know how else to say that. They have to earn those grades. 

So what happens after the first year, and often the kids left the 

private schools because maybe they only got two credits and they 

needed six because the private schools have high graduation rates. 

Right? High graduation levels. You gotta have six credits, 24 credits to graduate in most of these schools. So they only got one or two 

credits after the first year. Then what happens is they look around 

and they say, gee, how am I going to graduate on time and they 

may go back to public schools. 

The public schools have a lot of ways of getting through that are 

not quite as rigorous, let me put it that way, as what the private 

high schools are. Now, what the private high schools will do, after 

they have figured this out, of course, is they have all kinds of remedial type programs, they have summer school in advance for kids 

coming out of the eighth grade, kids got into schools, low test 

scores, for example, or low grades in the middle school, they will 

require them to go to summer school to try to catch them up. They 

put them in smaller classes, they put them in—remember, there’s 

a whole series of things that we outline in our reports that the 

schools do to try to solve this problem, but they can’t solve it all 

because often the kids come in so far behind. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. Just one last quick question. You 

mentioned competition studies. Can you elaborate a little bit on 

that. Anything definitive there in terms, does choice—even at this 

very minimal level. I need to point that out. There’s only 3 percent 

of Wisconsin students K through 12 that are actually part of the 

School Choice Program. Now, that is some competition in the public system, but it’s pretty minimal competition. 

So anyway, what results have you found in terms of competition 

studies? 

Dr. WITTE. OK. The competition now is more, Senator, because 

the voucher programs are one thing, but remember we’re looking 

at competition with charters. 

Senator JOHNSON. Correct. That’s about 81⁄2 percent, I think, 

total. 

Dr. WITTE. Yes. You have a lot more in charters. Not in all these 

places, because a lot of places like in Oshkosh you may not have 

that many—you have a lot of charters, actually, in Oshkosh. 

Senator JOHNSON. Right. 

Dr. WITTE. But in some places you don’t, like, I don’t know, Fort 

Atkinson where I was raised, we don’t have charters. 

Senator JOHNSON. But surely, even there, it’s about 81⁄2 percent 

of the population. Again, it’s competition, but it’s still under 10 percent. 

Dr. WITTE. But wherever it occurs, and it occurs mostly in the 

large cities, it’s been positive. And this is really across the country. 

This is not just Milwaukee. This is not just Wisconsin. Florida has 

found four major studies of vouchers there, and they have all found 

competition effects. 

And they do them in different ways. What we did here with the 

last study done by a man named Jay Green, who was working with 
24 

me, they did it very cleverly. They looked at the density of charter 

schools—I mean of voucher schools, in other words, how many 

charter schools are close. The more charter schools are close to a 

public school, the higher the achievement gains of the public 

school. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, again, I guess you are basically confirming 

what my basic principle would be is competition actually works, it 

drives quality, even at a pretty minimal level, because we are talking a pretty minimal level of competition. This isn’t like it’s full 

competition, this is still pretty minimal. 

Dr. WITTE. Yes. That’s correct. I think that’s absolutely correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Komer, I know opponents obviously will talk about public payments or public support for religious schools and the separation of church and state. One thing I 

have always thought about is within our university system, we 

have Pell Grants, we have student subsidized loans. Is there any 

legal difference between that type of public support for 

potential—for example, Notre Dame or, other religious universities, 

religious high schools or K through 12 or K, lower level? And, 

again, speak right into your microphone. 

Mr. KOMER. At this point, since we won a case called Zelman 

versus Simmons-Harris involving the Cleveland scholarship program, which was, once again, modeled on Milwaukee, there is no 

legal difference between higher education programs and lower education programs. For many years, in trying to explain what is 

school choice, we would always point to these other programs at 

higher education, like Pell Grant programs. And almost every State 

has a Pell Grant-like program of State scholarships that have very 

similar eligibility requirements as the Federal Pell Grant program. 

We use vouchers in housing programs. Section 8 housing is a 

voucher program. We have pre-K voucher programs. We have 

childcare voucher programs. It was K–12 education that was 

unique in not having voucher programs and not allowing private 

religious schools to participate on an equal basis. 

The difference, of course, was K–12 education is the only place 

where we provide free public education. And because it was free 

and a monopoly, there were no competitive effects; and like any 

public monopoly or private monopoly, monopolists don’t like competition, they don’t want competition because it allows them to be 

inefficient. It allows them to get away with failure. Don’t get me 

started on how public education—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. We won’t. 

Mr. KOMER [continuing]. Requires failure to get more funding 

every year. But it is a system that rewards failure and is, just like 

other systems, based on the ignorance of the American public. 

Because if you knew what was being spent on children in the 

public schools per capita, you would be aghast in most States. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let me give you some figures on that. In 

Milwaukee, it’s about $12,000 per pupil. In Washington, DC, it’s 

$29,000. That’s the most recent figure. Now, just real quick, I 

mean, think of if you had 20 students and you got $29,000 per student, that’s almost $600,000. I mean, in the hands of an experienced educator, I think you could do a pretty good job educating 

20 kids for $600,000. 
25 

But let me ask you, because in your testimony, your written testimony, you talked about—I think you raised this issue, that with 

the Department of Justice investigation of with the way DPI is administering this program in terms of disability discrimination, that 

would really be more the jurisdiction and function of Department 

of Education, not Department of Justice. 

Can you just talk about that, the appropriateness or the legal jurisdiction of the Department of Justice to even be pressing this investigation. 

Mr. KOMER. Sure. The Americans With Disabilities Act covers 

pretty much everything. But it assigns to eight different areas of 

enforcement, to different Federal agencies. Not surprisingly, education is generally assigned to the U.S. Department of Education 

where it’s vested in the Office For Civil Rights which is when I was 

at the Office For Civil Rights we were answering the Milwaukee 

question way back in 1990 under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), which was a Department of Education program, and under Section 504. 

Now, the IDEA says that for education, you are supposed to enforce it the way you do the IDEA in Section 504, which are Department of Education responsibilities in education, and generally everything education related is supposed to be done at the U.S. Department of Education. But in this particular case, there was no referral of the complaints that triggered this investigation to the U.S. 

Department of Education which has considerable experience with 

the sort of handicap discrimination issues. Instead it was held by 

the Department of Justice with no explanation why. 

And I have no idea why they kept it. It’s not really a violation 

of law not to send it to the U.S. Department of Education. But it 

left it in the hands of some people who, quite frankly, don’t know 

what the hell they are doing, compared to sending it to people who 

actually generally know what they are doing. 

Senator JOHNSON. We are going to try and get to the bottom of 

that. By the way, we did invite a representative from the Department of Justice to testify here and they declined. 

Professor Witte, before—I forgot to ask you a little bit about in 

terms of just macro evaluations. And, from my standpoint, for example, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, there’s 16,157 

thousand [sic] students that have applied. There’s 6,252 vouchers 

that are granted. So people are applying at 2.5, 2.6 times the rate. 

So demand is 2.6 higher than supply. 

And then, again, how—it’s incredibly complex trying to evaluate 

this. I got this little chart from School Choice Wisconsin. Obviously 

an advocate. But I thought this was a pretty strong evaluator. As 

a business person, if I am looking at a sales chart that looks like 

this, and let me just—I know it’s hard to see. But let me just read 

off the results here. In the year 2000, 8,000 students took advantage of school choice; in 2005, it was almost 16,000. By 2010, it was 

21,000. Last year it was almost 30,000. No matter what your studies say, no matter, the controversy over does it do a better job, have 

better educational outcomes, I mean, this is a pretty strong indication that the parents and the kids, the customers, obviously see 

value in their voting with their feet by accessing and taking advantage of the voucher program. 
26 

Would you kind of agree with that statement? 

Dr. WITTE. Yes. I think that 29,000 might be applications. Does 

that—— 

Senator JOHNSON. No. I believe this is total, this is Milwaukee, 

plus Racine, this is the statewide program. 

Dr. WITTE. Oh, yes, sure. Yes, let me put it this way. 25 years 

ago I started to study choice. And at that time, basically there 

wasn’t any choice. I mean, you went where you were assigned, and 

that assignment came because if your address was on one side of 

the street you went to that school, if it was on the other side of 

the street you went to another one. And that’s still the case in a 

lot of cases. 

So what’s happened in the United States is just extraordinary. 

I mean, now most of the people in Milwaukee actually choose a 

school that’s not their neighborhood school. Either through a charter school or the Chapter 220 program that’s still going. That’s still 

going out there. That sends kids to the suburbs from the city, or 

from the voucher program. So it’s an extraordinary situation that 

Milwaukee has done. And the change over time is just amazing. 

It’s actually hard to figure out who is in MPS anymore. Because 

charter schools are in some cases they are on the books if they go 

to the Chapter 220 program, they are still on the book at MPS. So 

it’s really kind of difficult to even get the numbers of kids. So you 

have an unbelievably changed environment. And, in fact, a lot of 

the times when kids go back to MPS from the private schools, it’s 

because there’s no slots, they run out of slots at the high school 

level or even sometimes at the middle school level. So there aren’t 

enough positions. 

Henry was saying how they are expanding so fast, it’s amazing 

what’s happening with these schools. And they can’t keep up, they 

can’t keep up. The good schools can’t keep up. They can’t expand 

fast enough. And you literally, unless you want to go to a virtual 

world, still bricks and mortar matter. And you don’t want to have, 

50 kids in a classroom to do it. Maybe we should go back to that, 

years ago, the Catholic schools had 40 kids in the classroom and 

they did pretty darn well. But, no, it’s greatly expanded and that 

certainly is an indication. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, Mr. Tyson, if you would quick grab the mic 

there. As long as we are talking about waiting lists, just real quickly, how—out of a student body of about 800 you said? 

Mr. TYSON. 860. 

Senator JOHNSON. What’s your waiting list? 

Mr. TYSON. It’s somewhere around 300, 330. 

Senator JOHNSON. Almost 35, 40 percent are waiting to get into 

the system. What I am going to do is I am going to ask—— 

Dr. WITTE. What’s Messmer’s? 

Brother SMITH. It’s a good question. I retired in 2012. 

Dr. WITTE. So did I. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know what it was then? 

Brother SMITH. I’m sorry? 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you remember what it was then? 

Brother SMITH. The high school, probably 150, 200. The elementary schools—boy. 

Senator JOHNSON. Higher? More than that? 
27 

Brother SMITH. Yes, it was more than that. I can tell you the 

K–4, K–5 and first grade were extremely high, almost two to one 

for every student that was accepted. And there were two classes of 

every grade. 

Senator JOHNSON. So the demand definitely outstrips the supply 

which, again, if I were judging the success of a program, I would 

say the demand outstripping the supply by that much is certainly 

evaluated. 

What I am going to do because, again, I want to be respectful to 

St. Marcus’s time here, is I do want to give those audience members a chance to make comments. If you want to start lining up, 

where are we going to set up the microphone? And while you are 

doing that—so if you want to ask questions, start lining up over 

here. And then I am going to ask a couple of questions of Mr. 

Tyson and Brother Bob here as well. 

You talked about the individual education plan. Can you describe, in the public school system when a child gets an individual 

education plan, then they get the funding to provide those services, 

correct? Can you just give us some sort of range of how much additional funds go into a public school versus people on vouchers, you 

get the 7,200 voucher and that’s it. 

Mr. TYSON. Yes. If I may just dismiss the students, the St. 

Marcus students. You guys are good to go. Some of your parents 

may be waiting. So you can just—nice job, by the way. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes, thank you very much. 

[Applause.] 

I love the uniforms. 

Mr. TYSON. Senator, I do not have a real definitive answer to 

that question simply because, as you have stated, in our experience 

when we have those children with special needs, there are no dollars. So for us it’s a moot point. 

Now, from what I understand, in the public sector, the amount 

of money that is available to educate the child depends upon the 

severity of the need. So if you go to Gaenslen Elementary School, 

MPS, just up the street, absolutely phenomenal school with their 

special needs population. They have some kids that have two 

adults on one child, and it’s tens of thousands of dollars. 

Senator JOHNSON. So bottom line, we already have a system in 

the State of Wisconsin to accommodate those disabilities, provide 

the funding to provide the services within the public system. That 

would be I would think pretty transferable, again, it’s a State 

issue. Professor Witte. 

Dr. WITTE. Yes. We did a report on this. When DPI came out a 

few years ago saying that there were 2 percent or less than 2 percent of the kids identified in the voucher program whereas Milwaukee had 20 percent identified, this means formally have an 

IEA, they have an IEA, right, they have an education plan, an IEP. 

OK. We felt that was wrong and we had some data that applied 

to it. Because we had these kids that were in the public school and 

then switch to the private school. 

And we were able to estimate that in fact the private schools 

were taking care of kids with disabilities at a rate of about between 

8 and 14 percent depending on how we did it. And we also felt that 

the MPS school with 20 percent were probably over-identifying. 
28 

They were under-identifying in the private schools because of two 

reasons; no money, OK, in some cases very severe disabilities that 

they could not deal with, which is true also of the public. And then 

also there were some parents that did not want their children to 

be identified. They were identified in the public system, but they 

did not want to because they lose legal rights when you get identified. And so they came to the private schools in some cases because 

they wanted to get help from under. Now, that says a lie. So we 

felt the numbers were really wrong. And we have them in a report, 

a pretty sophisticated report. 

Senator JOHNSON. So we will close out with two more questions, 

two questions for both Brother Bob as well as Mr. Tyson. I want 

you first to address your accommodation of students with disabilities. Brother Bob, you were pretty clear in your statement on that 

earlier. In one of your testimonies, one of you reported that the 

public school system sometimes refers students with disabilities. 

So if you can speak to that. And then second—and do it at the 

same time, just the financial challenges of running a private school 

system. I am certainly well aware of that having worked to try and 

keep the Bleward (phonetic) system financially solvent. And it’s a 

struggle. It’s always going to be a struggle. 

But if you can address both those issues. Then I will close out 

the hearing and turn it over to 2 minutes of comments to those 

who want to make them. Mr. Tyson, we will start with you. 

Mr. TYSON. Sure. Well, to answer the first question, last school 

year, we had students with autism, cognitive disabilities, emotional 

behavior disabilities, specific learning disabilities, other health impairments, significant developmental delays, and speech and language impairments. So about 8 of the 12 possible diagnoses, we 

had them here. 

Some of the more severe students, such as students with moderate autism to severe autism, require one-on-one or small group 

instruction throughout most of the day. So we have two certified 

special education teachers who meet that need. We have another 

non-certified special education teacher who works with other students. 

We receive about $300,000 in Federal title money, so this is Federal money for low income students who are at least one grade 

level behind. And some of that staffing is used to meet the needs 

of the special education students. 

Senator JOHNSON. But it’s not specifically for that purpose, you 

are just able to utilize it for that purpose. 

Mr. TYSON. Correct. You asked about the challenges. I mean, I 

think everybody in the room knows this, urban education in any 

context is phenomenally challenging. The single greatest challenge 

that we face is the fact that we have in aggregate a lower income 

population than the district and we are being asked to educate 

those children with about 70 percent of the dollars. When you do 

the math and you figure out, even if you add $2,000 more per child, 

the number of additional teachers that we would get is absolutely 

stunning. 

And so the challenge is how do you meet all of the needs because 

we want to meet the needs of every single child excellently, how 

do you do that on such a relative low dollar amount. 
29 

Senator JOHNSON. And, again, the cost to educate a child in your 

system is slightly under $9,000, you get a $7,200 voucher? 

Mr. TYSON. Yes. The voucher is $7,200 and then we raise about 

$1,700 per child or about $1.5 million a year. 

Senator JOHNSON. That compares to a cost per pupil in Wisconsin in general of about $11,000, Milwaukee is about $12,000, 

correct? 

Mr. TYSON. Correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Brother Bob, can you answer those two questions? 

Brother SMITH. Yes, Senator Johnson. One of the things, and Dr. 

Witte said it earlier, that it’s really important for people to know 

in education and in particular in urban schools, probably the top 

goal for many parents is safety and security of their children. 

There are parents who will bring a child to a private school and 

who will say my child has no special need when in fact the child 

is attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder (ADHD), dyslexic. It may be because I don’t want the child 

on Ritalin or any other medication. It may be because I think the 

child is going to get labeled later on. It may be because I think you 

are going to try to kick my child out of school. What is important 

and what Messmer and other schools have done for years is we try 

to counsel parents and guardians. No. 1, we do a disservice to you 

and your child if your child cannot do college prep work if it’s at 

the high school level or other things. 

That does not mean there are not ways, as Dr. Witte mentioned, 

if a child comes in deficient in credits, there’s Saturday school, 

there’s taking an eighth period, there are all types of things. But 

the child has to do it, the parent and guardian has to help provide 

transportation, et cetera. It can happen, but it’s not cheap. 

What also is important is MPS has always referred in Milwaukee 

students to private schools. And I will be very frank. Sometimes it’s 

done in a very collegial way, other times some of the State superintendents who have said that if religious schools were in the program, we would have Wiccan schools or David Koresh schools. 

Those same State superintendents called me when a student in 

MPS was expelled, for reasons I will not give, to say, Bob, can 

Messmer take this kid. What the superintendent did not say was, 

Bob, we will pay you for doing it. It means that the kid’s low income, you take this kid and you pay for the kid. We took the kid 

because education is our business. 

I think at the end of the day, what is important to remember, 

too, is there are some students that even MPS or other public systems cannot educate. That’s why we have a St. Francis School next 

to Cardinal Stritch, St. Amelia’s, the former St. John’s School. 

There are a number of places that students are educated that are 

paid for, but it’s very expensive. And whether you are talking about 

Milwaukee, D.C., the North Mariana Islands. It’s anywhere from 

$15,000 to $50,000. It’s expensive. But the students need to be educated. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, again, I just want to thank all of 

our witnesses for taking the time and your thoughtful written and 

oral testimony and answering my questions. I could keep going on, 
30 

but I want to be very respectful. We told St. Marcus we would close 

this out by 7, and I want to give members of the audience a chance. 

What I will do is formally close out the hearing here by saying 

that this hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until August 

4 at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. The Committee has already received a written statement 

for the record from Wisconsin Institute For Law and Liberty. We 

appreciate that. And I welcome statements for the record from anyone else who would like their voice heard as the committee considers these issues moving forward. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Formal hearing adjourned at 6:47 p.m.] 

Senator JOHNSON. Thanks. Now, what I would like to do, again, 

I want to be respectful of St. Marcus and to other people so everybody has a chance. So I would—and I’ll time it. But if you could 

make your comment—first of all, tell us your name, and if you 

could spend 2 minutes. And, please, keep it within that timeframe 

and I will use that when you are getting past. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTOPHERSON SCHMIDT. You are asking the impossible 

from a teacher. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, I would really ask you to speak very 

closely to the microphone so we all can hear you. So state your 

name and then speak closely to the microphone. 

Ms. CHRISTOPHERSON SCHMIDT. Joan Christopherson Schmidt. 

But for the last 60 years as a teacher here in Milwaukee and 

abroad, I have been known as Ms. Chris. And I didn’t really mean 

to be the first speaker, but maybe I should be because I have probably taught longer than any of you. 

Sixty years is a long time, from kindergarten, early childhood, all 

the way up through the grades, through high school, college, university, television and radio, and even out in the country wherever 

kids needed to have some art and activities. 

I am a little confused at this hearing. Because I was brought up 

going to a public school that whatever we did in public office at 

Badger Girls State, it was for public good. Public good, which 

means all. And if I were still teaching, I would love to teach at your 

school, Dr. Tyson. Those children are very fortunate. The same for 

yours. But public school can’t say it’s either you be good or you are 

out. They would be sued. 

I thought, Senator, that your job was to defend public schools; 

and I do not see anyone here from the public school which is—we 

have to have by law, it’s a civic right. And it has to take every 

child. And it’s the base of our democracy. And if we take that away, 

even if we don’t mean to, we are going to destroy our democracy 

and we are going to have the beginning of school and power from 

the top down. 

The Dean of Education at Edgewood College said it very well. He 

said the system that we are going into privatizing is here’s the test; 

public schools, teach it; but we are not giving you the same tools. 

Let me tell you, the children in Milwaukee, the poor kids, many 

of them children raised by children, if they were given the same 

opportunities, the art, the music, the phy. ed., access to good books, 

and maybe breakfast and be sure that there’s a home for them at 

night, they would rise like every child in any school. I have taught 
31 

in both. I know. It just takes a connection between a teacher and 

one child. But when teachers in the public school have 30, 40, 50 

kids in a class, they can’t possibly go out, like I used to, into the 

core, into the homes, to see a parent and a child if they were not 

there. 

I know you want me to cutoff. 

Senator JOHNSON. No. I want to make sure everybody else has 

a chance to speak. So, when you see this—I really don’t want to 

be banging the gavel on anybody. So, please, if you would let the 

next person come and speak. 

Really, we are giving 2 minutes per person so everybody has a 

chance. OK? 

Ms. CHRISTOPHERSON SCHMIDT. But please support public school. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. And, again, I would encourage you to 

submit a comment to the record. We would appreciate that. If you 

would like to submit a written comment for the record, you are 

happy—— 

Ms. CHRISTOPHERSON SCHMIDT. I can’t hear worth a hoot. 

Senator JOHNSON. I said we encourage you to submit a written 

statement for the record. OK? 

Sir. Go ahead. 

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Thank you, Senator Johnson. My name is Don 

Pridemore. 

Anyway, I am a recently retired State legislator for 10 years; and 

I have served on every education committee that the legislature 

has offered, including education reform. I have been to many MPS 

schools, choice schools, charter schools, Montessori schools. And my 

comment is that if you really want to judge how a student does in 

our system, all you have to do is talk to them, talk to their parents, 

see how excited they are to learn, what their plans are once they 

leave school. And that’s the one fallacy that I see in our education 

system is that we don’t track these kids once they leave school, 

what happens to them, how successful are they. 

To me that’s much more important than a 1-day test to see what 

they may have learned or maybe they didn’t sleep well the night 

before. That to me is the highest priority in terms of really judging 

how well our schools are doing regardless of where they are educated. 

But I support the Choice Program, I always have in the legislature. And what I see in students in a choice school is a level of 

character, a level of discipline, and just an excitement to have the 

opportunity to be in a school where teachers really care about 

them. 

And my question is of Dr. Witte, is your report available online 

or published at this point? 

Dr. WITTE. The testimony here in a long form will be part of this 

record or I can send you the copy as well. 

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Don. And, again, I really don’t 

want to bang the gavel on anybody. When you see me pick it up, 

it’s already been 2 minutes, so if you can wrap it up, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. REBHOLZ. Hi, my name is Cheryle Rebholz. 
32 

This is a school setting. I am listening. Just recently, back home 

in my Mequon-Thiensville community, we had in our local newspaper, News Graphic, a lot of back-and-forth and op. ed. pieces 

about charter, choice, voucher, public. And I submitted something 

that I want to read. ‘‘Education is the key that opens doors for 

young people and allows them to achieve their dreams. The latest 

U.S. ranking show teens are 25th in math, 17th in science and 

14th in comparison to 30 more industrialized nations. Education 

Secretary Arnie Dunkin called the performance of American students a wake-up call. 

‘‘Wisconsin is one of the only States confronting and introducing 

reforms that can improve schools so they work better for students. 

Overhauling harmful policies and bringing commonsense changes 

to our public education increases the chance at the American 

dream. Clinging to outdated laws and policies protect the status 

quo. 

‘‘I support and endorse charter schools and vouchers for those 

families wanting to withdraw from failing public schools with the 

conditions that they are held to the same standards outlined by 

DPI, especially if they are to receive taxpayer funded money. Parents should not have to enroll their children in failing and unsafe 

public schools solely because of their geographical address. Local 

schools should offer an excellent diverse education in their community to eliminate the need for parents to outsource their children 

to other districts. Because this is not the case, charter schools are 

a solution. 

‘‘Charter schools on average receive $8,000 per pupil compared to my district of $10,796 in the Mequon-Thiensville School District 

and cannot levy taxes for the difference, unlike the public school 

system. 

‘‘It is not a lack of the money that equates to better education. 

Wisconsin is one of the top four States spending the most money 

on public education, yet Wisconsin is not in the top four when it 

comes to most proficient and successful academic outcomes. The return on our investment is lagging. Adapt, live—′′ 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, I would ask you to submit that for the 

record. You have it written, so I appreciate that. Thank you for 

your comment. Again, when I lift this up, I really don’t want to 

bang the gavel. Hello. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. Hi, I am Erin Miller and I am autistic. I have 

been in both public and private schools. I have friends who send 

their children to both public and private schools. Including my 

former teacher who went to private school in the audience, as you 

can see here. 

My vent is not that private schools are bad. My question is in 

regards to our recent budget, with shoving things into the budget 

like specialty vouchers in the middle of the night. Again, my objective it’s not public and private schools are bad. My objective is 

what is happening with our educational system and with our nation? And I am sorry to ramble. I may have to cutoff short. Thank 

you, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. Next. 

Ms. MILLNER. My name is Lynn Millner. I think this panel is so 

stacked, it’s all about vouchers and private schools. The two young 
33 

women that you have here are, like—they excel in academics. 

Wouldn’t it have been better if you took someone who was failing 

in MPS and then went to a voucher school and is now succeeding? 

I don’t understand what you are showing. These women would succeed anywhere they went. Anyplace they would succeed. Because 

they are that kind of people. 

I also want to say so to my understanding, people get—kids who 

excel go to these schools, right? And if they don’t fit in, if they don’t 

do well enough, they don’t get to stay there. And so what I understand is that in New Orleans, they don’t have a public school system and they have thousands of kids who have been thrown out 

and have nowhere to go back to. 

Also, I am a retired MPS teacher. My daughter went to a parochial school for 4 years and she went to the Shorewood Public 

Schools. I am so insulted, I have heard over and over again that 

public school teachers don’t care about their kids. 

I have worked with parochial school teachers, I have worked 

with—as a parent, I have worked with public school teachers. I 

think I am more caring than any of them. And I have been with 

public schools, Milwaukee Public School teachers. I don’t understand that there is this big agreement that public schools are inferior. I don’t know how you can say that. 

Senator JOHNSON. I don’t believe anybody said that here. 

Ms. MILLNER. Yes, they did. 

Senator JOHNSON. And nobody denigrated teachers. But your 

time is—— 

Ms. MILLNER. Oh, yes. I heard it several times. 

Senator JOHNSON [continuing]. Up. Again, so I would recommend 

you submit a statement for the record. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLNER. I will. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ma’am. 

Ms. STEVENSON. My name is Degusta Stevenson, and my daughter attends St. Marcus. First of all, I want to say thank you to St. 

Marcus, it’s a really good school. 

My only concern is that in the time that I have been here, and 

it hurts my heart to know that I had to fight with MPS because 

I am one of the parents that wanted her child to be recognized as 

a special education student. She was diagnosed with dyslexia, and 

she had a special education as far as with her math. But for whatever reason, when she came over to St. Marcus, there was no special education funding or program in place. They had to use other 

resources. And just like the gentleman, it hurt to know that I had 

to fight with MPS, Jennifer Powell, Dennis Duff who is DPI, Christina Flood who is also over the section of special education; and 

even went to the school board. And Sandy O’Brien here can attest 

because I called her so much. And when I got over here, we had 

to put other resources in place. 

That’s not fair. My daughter deserves an equal education coming 

from MPS over to a choice school. I made that decision because if 

I had to go out of my pocket to pay for things that I wanted to 

make sure she was getting the best that she can, and she’s entitled 

to that. 

Someone had mentioned up here about the American Disability 

Act. One of the lines state in the parent resource as far as that you 
34 

have to ensure that everyone is entitled to the freedom and equality of education. Why didn’t you or have them address the questions and not addressing it as to how you plan on addressing the 

lack of funding for the choice schools to ensure that every student, 

regardless of their disability, is being serviced at the proper level 

to excel as other students. That’s my question. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. That was a purpose of the hearing 

was to kind of lay out those realities. So thank you very much. I 

appreciate it. Sir. 

Mr. STROEBEL. Good evening. I am Duey Stroebel. I am the State 

senator for the 20th Senate District. And as an elected official, I 

don’t specifically advocate for public schools, I don’t specifically advocate for private schools. I specifically advocate for the kids in the 

system that we want to get a good education. And I think we need 

to understand that it’s not one size fits all. And we need to know 

what’s best for each individual child here. 

Now, we have great public schools. We also have great voucher 

schools. We have great charter schools. We have options out there. 

And I think options are what we want. And I think the studies 

have shown that when you have options, you raise all boats and 

they are all better options. 

And so that’s what I think we have to continue to advocate for, 

that competition which makes everyone better, as the studies have 

shown. 

And I think what I would like to see in the future is a little 

more—I don’t think the vouchers are necessarily looking for, cheerleaders in the private sector. But let’s have a little less pushing 

back on them so they have a chance to thrive just the same. 

When I see what goes on here in Milwaukee versus some of our 

charter and our choice schools, I mean, they are fighting a battle 

every day to succeed. I think if everybody could just step back, understand that there is a route for both private and public schools 

and that together when they both succeed, they will both succeed 

to a greater degree. I think we both understand that we both sit 

back and we don’t fight on that basis, but move ahead together, I 

think we are going to do great things for Wisconsin and great 

things for the city. That’s the way I see it. 

So, again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. And let’s 

all, again, work together and make this whole system better on 

both ends of the spectrum. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. Anybody else? OK. 

Please. I didn’t know whether you were just standing back there. 

FEMALE SPEAKER. Good evening, I just appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I had not planned on speaking, so I felt 

compelled to come up here. 

I am an alumna of Milwaukee Public Schools. I went to UWMadison. And I have three children who attend Milwaukee Public 

Schools right now. I am not a proponent for public money being 

funneled out, it’s been over a billion dollars since the start of this 

that comes out of public schools. We are essentially funding two, 

three, now maybe with virtual schools having no cap, maybe four 

new school systems. 

At some point the public schools will not be financially solvent. 

We need a certain amount of students involved in that to keep it 
35 

going. Charter schools, private schools, they can pick their students. They get counseled out. And that money doesn’t follow the 

student. The money stays at the school. So that’s an extra disadvantage. It’s a funding flaw that I gave testimony to already in 

the last budget at the Capitol. 

Public dollars support public schools as a civil right. And my children, they have done without librarians, without art, without 

music, because of cuts and because of money being funneled out of 

the public system. 

And I echo the sentiments of the other women that were up here. 

These women who are up on the panel, they would have succeeded. 

I mean, my children are going to succeed from MPS. There are children who aren’t—and there are also shining star schools in MPS, 

as there are—maybe St. Marcus School is doing better than some 

of the other voucher schools. My children’s K–8 school, they have 

almost 400 children there, they have a wait list of over 100 kids 

to get in. So you can pick those same kinds of things out in public 

schools. 

I don’t like to see that money coming out of the public school system to fund another—I think we should—all that money should go 

to resources to support all the children, the children of Milwaukee. 

Kids who come to St. Marcus have parents who are concerned 

about their education. A lot of kids in MPS, their parents are 

not—they are nonexistent. That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you 

for your time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you for your comments. 

Again, I want to thank everybody for taking the time here to attend. I hope you found it informative. Again, I encourage you, if 

you have any written comments you want to submit to the record, 

it will be open until August 4th at 5 p.m. 

Again, thank you to all of our panel here, and have a very good 

evening. Take care. 

[Whereupon, at 7:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

Æ