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

22–473 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–525 

THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES FOR 

LOW–INCOME FAMILIES: REAUTHORIZING THE 

D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 4, 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 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MICHAEL SANTORA, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Carper 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 30 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 43 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 45 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of California .................. 5 

Hon. Tim Scott, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ...................... 6 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Kevin P. Chavous, Chairman, Serving Our Children, Washington, D.C. .. 12 

Mary Elizabeth Blaufuss, President and Chief Executive Officer, Archbishop 

Carroll High School, Washington, D.C. .............................................................. 15 

Gary Jones, Parent, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 17

Linda Cruz Catalan, Student, The Field School, Washington, D.C. ................... 19 

Christopher A. Lubienski, Ph.D., Professor, Education Policy, Organization 

and Leadership, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois ............................ 20 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Blaufuss, Mary Elizabeth: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Chavous, Hon. Kevin P.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Cruz Catalan, Linda: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Holmes Norton, Hon. Eleanor: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Jones, Gary: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Lubienski, Christopher A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Scott, Hon. Tim: 

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

APPENDIX 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

American Association of University Women .................................................. 75 

American Civil Liberties Union ....................................................................... 77 
Page

IV 

Statements submitted for the Record from—Continued 

Baptist Joint Committee .................................................................................. 80 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. .......................................... 81 

Government Accountability Office .................................................................. 82 

National Coalition for Public Education ......................................................... 93 

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America ................................... 97 

Secular Coalition for America ......................................................................... 98 

Dr. Patrick Wolf, Distinguished Professor of Education Policy, University 

of Arkansas .................................................................................................... 101 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from: 

Mr. Chavous ...................................................................................................... 115 

Ms. Blaufuss ..................................................................................................... 121 

Mr. Lubienski ................................................................................................... 123 
(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 43 

THE VALUE OF EDUCATION CHOICES FOR 

LOW-INCOME FAMILIES: REAUTHORIZING 

THE D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP 

PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Sasse, Carper, Heitkamp, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to welcome everybody here. We have a distinguished first 

panel. I certainly want to welcome the students and teachers and 

administrators from Cornerstone Academy, Calvary Christian 

Academy, and Archbishop Carroll High School. All of these schools 

participate in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). 

So, we really do appreciate having a full hearing room, and I am 

really looking forward to the testimony. 

I would ask unanimous consent to have my formal opening statement included in the record1 and I just want to keep my opening 

comments relatively short, but also just off the top of my head. 

I became involved and a strong supporter of school choice many 

years before I ran for the U.S. Senate. I got involved in the local 

school system. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, we sent our kids to 

a Catholic school system in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which struggled. 

It is very difficult for private schools to survive when the parents 

are obviously paying property taxes. We all want to do that to support public schools. But then have to also pay private tuition for 

the schools. 

I come from the private sector. I ran a plastics manufacturing 

business for 31 years. I would have loved to have been a monopoly. 

I did not really like competition. But because of free market competition, my prices were lower, my quality was higher, as was my 

customer service. That is what free market competition does. It 
2 

guarantees the lowest possible price and cost, the best possible 

quality, the best possible level of customer service. 

Gee, would it not be great to have that kind of discipline in our 

school system for our children, for their opportunities? So, I am 

just naturally inclined to support competition and opportunities, 

because this is all about providing our children with the tools they 

need to become productive citizens. It is about opportunity. It is 

about giving people a choice. It is about giving people a chance. 

I want to just quickly run through some numbers. Fortunately, 

in the State of Wisconsin, we were some real trailblazers here. 

With the efforts of people like Polly Williams and other courageous 

people in Wisconsin, we have had a school choice program offering 

for quite a few years. To date, more than 290,000 students in Wisconsin have been able to participate in that type of opportunity. On 

an annual basis, it is about 30,000 out of a total enrollment in Wisconsin of about 863,000, but it is primarily in Milwaukee, where we 

have enrollment of 77,000 students. Twenty-five thousand are taking advantage of the Opportunity Scholarships in Wisconsin. In 

D.C., it is about 85,000 children enrolled in K through 12. Only 

1,400 have that possibility. 

As a business person, as an accountant, one of the things I just 

have to take a look at is I have to take a look at costs. In Milwaukee—in Wisconsin, it costs, on average, about $12,000 per year 

to educate a child. Now, again, as a business person, if I take 

$12,000, let us say times 20 students, that is $240,000. I think if 

you give me 20 students and $240,000, I would do a pretty good 

job of educating those 20 kids. Now, I realize it is more complex 

than that and there are some real challenges. In the District of Columbia, it costs about $28,000 per student. 

That includes building costs. If you pull the building costs out of 

that, it is close to $20,000. Now, do the math on that. Twenty-thousand or $28,000 times 20 is somewhere between $400,000 to 

$569,000 per 20 pupils. A lot of times, we do not really kind of put 

it in those terms, but literally $400,000 to over $500,000 per 20 

students, a classroom. Again, you give me $400,000 to $550,000 to 

educate 20 kids, I would do a pretty good job. 

Now, it is also a fact that these Opportunity Scholarships cost 

dramatically less than that. In the District of Columbia, depending 

on which figure you are looking at, it is somewhere between 44 percent of the full cost or 63 percent of the just spending on students—44 to 63 percent. And you could make a strong case for Opportunity Scholarships just on the basis of saving the school district money. 

So, you put the numbers, you put all those things aside, the bottom line is this is about providing opportunity to our children so 

that they can, again, obtain the tools to lead a successful life. Opportunity should not be determined by winning a lottery. 

Anybody who has seen the movie, ‘‘Waiting for Superman,’’ and 

it is a hard movie to watch, as we see some kids winning the 

lottery, getting a shot at a productive life, and other children losing—it should not be like that, not here in America, not in the District of Columbia. 

So, again, I just really want to commend Senator Feinstein and 

Senator Scott and other people that have really worked hard on 
3 

this issue for many years, to provide that opportunity to our children. 

And with that, I will turn it over to Senator Tom Carper for his 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding the 

hearing today, and to our witnesses, three of my favorite people are 

lined up here before us, Senator Feinstein, Senator Scott, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. It is great to see you, Eleanor. Thank you so much for coming over here to join us. 

Before I came to work here with all of you, I had the privilege 

of being a Governor in my State. For 8 years, we focused on raising 

student achievement, thought it was the most important thing that 

we did. We focused on—it was part of the idea of how do we, one, 

strengthen the basic building block of our society, our families, and 

we thought that was pretty important, education. The other thing 

is we are always focused on how to provide a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation, and if you do not have 

a world class workforce, kids coming out of our high schools who 

can read, who can write, who can think, who can do math, who are 

good with science and technology, then you have a problem in this 

day and age. So, we focused on all of that. 

We measured our progress, or lack of progress, and recently, a 

couple of years ago, I think, Stanford and Harvard actually did a 

study of all 50 States. They looked at academic progress from 1993, 

the year I became Governor, through 2003, and they found that 

some States did pretty well in terms of academic progress. Delaware is No. 3 out of 50 in terms of our progress. So, we had a long 

ways to go to start with. We started in a hole and we made 

progress. 

We still struggle. I will be real honest with you. We still struggle 

to try to make sure that every kid has a chance to learn and does 

learn and goes on to graduate. I am pleased with our graduation 

rates in our State. I think we are up, way up, from where we were 

just a couple of years ago, but there is still more work to be done. 

The important thing for us in Delaware is to find out what 

works, and I think the best predictor of kids doing well in school 

is the expectation and the involvement of their parents. If you have 

a kid who is being raised by someone who does not care about their 

education, not involved with their child’s education, or their grandchild’s education, or the niece or nephew’s education, do not be surprised when great things do not happen. If you do not have teachers, if you do not have great school leadership, do not be surprised 

if wonderful things do not happen in those schools, because those 

are incredibly important, as well. 

This is a program that would not exist but for, I think, John 

Boehner, Speaker Boehner, a good friend of mine, I suspect of all 

of ours. For him, this is real important. This is a big legacy for 

him. We all have legacy issues that we have worked on. Senator 

Feinstein and us and our Committee have worked real hard of late 

on information sharing/cybersecurity legislation, and that is going 

to be part of your legacy and, hopefully, part of ours and help us 

strengthen our economic recovery in this country and do other good 
4 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

things, as well. But, this is important to John Boehner. And, that 

is not why I think we should support the program, but I think it 

means we have an obligation to make sure that it is as good as it 

can be. 

There are critics of this program. I am not going to spend the 

time going through the criticisms of the program. But, it is important that we have good metrics for the program, we find out what 

is working and what is not, and the stuff, the areas where it is not 

working, let us do something about it. There are some schools 

where this program helps to fund that I do not think any of 

us—look, I would say, why would we do that with Federal money? 

So, let us just be open minded about this. 

I will close with this thought. Among the other Committees I 

serve on with Senator Scott is the Finance Committee, and about 

2 years ago, we had a hearing on deficit reduction and had some 

really smart people there to talk to us about deficit reduction to our 

Finance Committee. One of the guys was Alan Blinder. Alan Blinder now teaches economics at Princeton. He used to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan was our Chairman of the Federal Reserve. 

So, Alan Blinder was testifying before us and he said on deficit 

reduction, the 800-pound gorilla in the room on deficit reduction is 

reducing health care costs, getting better costs and reducing health 

care costs at the same time, and he was right. When it came time 

for us to ask questions of our witnesses that day, I asked him, I 

said, Dr. Blinder, you said the 800-pound gorilla in the room on 

deficit reduction is health care costs. If we do not get our arms 

around it, we are doomed. And, he said, ‘‘That is right.’’ I said, just 

tell us, if you were in our shoes, what would you do about it? And 

he sat there, and he sat there, and finally he said, ‘‘Find out what 

works, do more of that.’’ That is all he said. ‘‘Find out what works 

and do more of that.’’ 

In Delaware, we did not go to the kind of system we have in this 

program that we are talking about here, but we did go to charter 

schools, public charter schools. Next October, or next September 

when schools convene in Wilmington, Delaware, half of the kids in 

Wilmington, Delaware, public schools, will be going to a charter 

school. If they do not work, we close them. If they do work, we try 

and replicate them and figure out what we can do. 

We have public school choice in Delaware. You can choose to 

move from school to school within your district. You can even go 

outside your district. The money follows the kid, to foster competition, the kind of competition that our Chairman was talking about. 

So, could competition help us? Sure, it can. But it is important 

that whether it is a charter school or traditional public school or 

a voucher program like this one, we have to be using good metrics 

and always looking for how do we make this better. How do we 

make sure that we are getting our money’s worth for our taxpayers 

and doing what is fair for the kids and their families. 

With that, I will ask my real statement be made part of the 

record and we will move on.1 Thank you all for joining us. 
5 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper did mention the 

cybersecurity bill. This is another example of what can be accomplished when you concentrate on the areas of agreement that unite 

us, that unify us, as opposed to exploit our differences. 

So, again, I want to welcome our distinguished panel. We have 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from the State of 

California; Senator Tim Scott, the junior Senator from the State of 

South Carolina; and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Delegate to 

the U.S. Congress representing the District of Columbia. 

We will start with Senator Feinstein, and we realize you are 

going to have to leave after your testimony, but we really do appreciate you taking time. Senator Feinstein. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A 

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you, Senator Carper, for your comments. Senator Sasse, 

great to have you here. I also want to thank Senator Scott and 

Senator Booker for their support of this program. And it is great 

to see Eleanor Holmes Norton, a woman I greatly admire, and I 

welcome her to the lesser side of the Congress. [Laughter.] 

My history with this program goes back to 2003. As an appropriator, the first appropriation was thought to be a tie vote. I received 

a visit from Mayor Williams, and he made a pitch to me for the 

program and I voted for the program, and it was a tie vote and I 

broke that tie. So, I have taken great interest in the program since 

then and watched it and hope to see it continue to mature. 

I really believe that we have to, as you said, Senator, have competition in the system. I come from a big State. I have watched 

public education for 50 years carefully. I have seen California go 

from one of the best to way down the list. And, so, competition and 

charter schools and parochial and private schools all have a role to 

play. 

The question comes, ‘‘Should somebody that does not have the 

money for a parochial or private school be denied that opportunity?,’’ and that is where this scholarship opportunity program 

comes in, because it clearly says, ‘‘No.’’ We believe in competition. 

We want to open the door to competition and an amount will be 

provided to make this opportunity real. 

So, this program provides low-income students with up to $8,381 

to attend elementary school and middle school, and up to $12,572 

to attend high school. So, it is consequential. It may not do the 

whole job, but for a family that needs help, it gives that family the 

leg up. 

Students have to meet only two requirements to apply for a 

scholarship. Their families must be low-income and have lived in 

the District for at least 5 years, and the scholarships can be used 

for tuition, for uniforms, for books, and public transportation. 

I personally have an example in the District of someone who did 

very well in this program. Very early on in her life, she had a troubled public school education. I got to know her as a 3-year-old. I 

had the privilege of helping her go to a Catholic school both in middle school and also in high school. She got into Stanford University 

and this past fall she got her Master’s degree. So, alternative styles 
6 

and venues of education can be helpful, and somehow, we have to 

open our hearts and our pocketbooks to this. 

I believe so strongly that I have sent my staff out to some 36 of 

the 47 schools in the program. My staff made visits, talked with 

parents and administrators about how the program could be improved, and reported on what they saw. There were a number of 

schools, 12 out of the 47, that did not have accreditation, and I believe very strongly they should have accreditation. I think this is 

the next step to really improve education in this venue. 

And, I am very pleased that in both the Senate and the House 

bill, there is a portion that accredits the schools, in other words, 

says they must be accredited within a certain period of time, and 

I think that is an important improvement and benefit. 

But, I guess what I want to say is that I feel very committed to 

this pathway. I have supported the Knowledge is Power Program 

(KIPP) schools, other charter schools. I have seen them make a difference in low-income neighborhoods in California. And, I really believe that where education has to provide this equal opportunity is 

to low-income families. If they want to have a choice, we ought to 

make it possible for them to have that choice. So, I am a locked 

and loaded supporter of alternative education. 

I just wanted to thank this Committee for your efforts and support. I think it is a model, and I think it can be developed, it can 

be improved. I spoke with former Mayor Williams about this at a 

dinner held not long ago, and I gather there is a new leadership 

group that is going to play a major role in school development in 

this particular venue. 

So, thank you. I am very happy to be a strong supporter of the 

program. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, thank you, Senator Feinstein, for 

your support, and you certainly have our commitment to work with 

you, with your leadership on this issue. Senator Scott. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TIM SCOTT, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking 

Member Carper, and to all the other members of the Committee. 

Senator Feinstein, it is certainly good to find an issue that we 

can work together on, and this is a very important issue for our 

Nation. 

And, frankly, when you think about the issue of choice, you think 

about a way for us to combat poverty, to grow our economy, and 

to really unleash the potential of so many kids around this country 

and, frankly, dozens upon dozens of kids right behind us who are 

desperately looking for opportunities to show what they are made 

of, to give us real examples of the power of opportunity is to look 

at their success of the kids behind us, and, frankly, to their parents. To me, the issue of school choice is an issue that brings to 

light an opportunity for them to see their kids reach their full potential, and in my opinion, that is a very important consideration. 

Too often, we hear conversations about Democrats and Republicans, of blue versus red, and the fact of the matter is the issue 

of school choice is not a partisan issue at all. It is not an issue 

about Republicans or Democrats. It is and should remain an issue 
7 

about children. And, we see the success of the school choice program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), all across the 

city of D.C. 

And, I will tell you, as I thought through my comments for this 

important hearing that Proverbs 22:6 came to mind, training up a 

child in the way that he or she should go, so that they can maximize their potential. And, to me, the foundation of education is a 

key component in harnessing that potential. 

So many of these journeys start on rough roads, in little houses, 

trailers, small apartments, journeys that are very much like my 

own journey, living in a single-parent household in real poverty in 

North Charleston, going to four different elementary schools by the 

time I was in the third or fourth grade. The reality of it is that 

school choice is an opportunity to make sure that kids who grow 

up in the wrong zip codes experience the best of life and not simply 

the underperforming schools that may be in their districts. 

I want to say this, and I want to make sure that I am clear about 

it. I appreciate, love, and have great affection for public schools. I 

am a product of public schools. As a matter of fact, if you have a 

good public school, that is a great thing. But, if you do not have 

a good public school, we should make sure that the options are 

available for the students and for their parents. That means every 

child everywhere in this Nation should be afforded the opportunity 

to maximize their potential through school choice. 

And, Chairman Johnson, as you said at the beginning, your commitment to this issue started before you were a United States Senator. Ron, you were making investments in Milwaukee and 

throughout Wisconsin with your own resources because you understand and appreciate the power of education. That is an issue that 

I learned a little later in life, as a kid whose parents divorced when 

I was seven, growing up in a single-parent household. I started 

drifting in the wrong direction. I learned very quickly, Senator 

Sasse, that all drifting seems to head in the wrong direction. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Was there some reason why you directed those 

comments to him? 

Senator SCOTT. It was his profound maiden speech. 

Senator CARPER. He gave a great maiden speech yesterday. 

Senator SCOTT. Indeed. And, since my time is running out, and 

Senators, we cannot tell time, so I had better hurry up here, but 

the truth of the matter is, by the time I was a freshman in high 

school, I was failing out. I failed world geography. I thought I was 

the only Senator to ever fail civics, and then I joined you guys and 

realized that perhaps some of you did not do so well, either. 

[Laughter.] 

You can say that to your own people. So, anyway, I failed Spanish and English, as well. When you fail Spanish and you fail 

English, they do not consider you bilingual. They call you bi-ignorant, because you cannot speak any language, and that is where I 

found my unhappy self. 

But, I had the privilege and the blessing of a strong, powerful 

mother who believed in education. She became so invested in education for the next 3 years, I caught up, went on to Charleston 
8 

1The prepared statement of Delegate Norton appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Southern University—‘‘Go Bucks’’—and graduated with a degree in 

political science. 

I will tell you this, that when I think about where these kids are, 

here is what I think. I think that we are looking at those kids that 

attend the OSP program have a graduation rate of over 90 percent. 

Those kids in the district that do not go to OSP schools have a 

graduation rate just above 50 percent. We are spending a little 

more than $20,000 per student to make sure that we have a 55, 

56 percent graduation rate, but we spend about 40 cents on the 

dollar and we see a 90-plus graduation rate with parental satisfaction over 90 percent. And last year alone, 98 percent of OSP students went on to earn a two-or 4-year degree. 

Senators, without much of a question, the divide in our Nation 

between the haves and have-nots can be easily defined by family 

formation—which I am not sure how we control that—and education. We do have the opportunity to control that. 

I know my time is running short, so let me just close by saying 

that when you think about why these statistics and why these 

numbers are so important, let me just translate it. Half of AfricanAmerican males do not finish high school in 4 years. Too many do 

not finish at all. And for students who do not finish high school, 

their income, on average, is $19,000. For those students who finish 

high school, their income is 50 percent higher. For those who go on 

and finish college, it is almost three times higher. 

We do this, by the way, scholarship programs, public dollars 

going to private schools, we do this every single day of the year in 

America. We call those Pell Grants. I took my Pell Grant to a small 

Christian school, Charleston Southern, and I will tell you that the 

unfortunate reality is simply this, that if you do not graduate from 

high school, you do not use a Pell Grant. And in my opinion, this 

is not about the numbers, though the numbers are very important. 

The cost of school is very important. This is about human potential. 

Let us not be confused about what we are talking about. We are 

not talking about 20,000 versus 8,500. We are talking about making sure that the kids behind me have the same opportunities that 

each and every one of us who serve in this amazing body has. It 

is our opportunity, our responsibility to stand up and be counted 

for these kids that will lead us 1 day. And Lord knows, as we look 

at the entitlement State of America, we are going to need them to 

be taxpayers. God bless you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Scott. Delegate Holmes 

Norton. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,1 A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, I 

very much appreciate the opportunity to testify here this morning 

as the Member of Congress who is privileged to represent the residents of the District of Columbia. I regret we have no representation in this body, but I certainly appreciate your attention to our 

issues. 
9 

Chairman Johnson, I want to begin by thanking you for your bill 

to make improvements in the District of Columbia criminal justice 

agencies. Your support of that bill here in the Senate is an important reason why it is on its way to passage in the House. 

Now, I recognize that the bill before you providing vouchers for 

some of our students—and I am very pleased to see that among 

those who have come this morning are some of our students who 

will see how the Congress operates—I recognize that this bill may 

pass, so from the beginning, I have wanted to work with my colleagues as the bill moves forward, if it does, in support of this program that is $182 million to ensure that the youngsters who receive the vouchers indeed get a high-quality education. That was 

the point of the vouchers in the first place. 

I think I should first explain my own position. I have long supported allowing the current students in the program to remain 

until they graduate from high school. That is also the position that 

the President has taken. I regarded that as a reasonable compromise, even in a Congress which does not compromise on almost 

anything any more. But, I thought this was a reasonable compromise, considering that the District of Columbia is one of the few 

jurisdictions in the United States that has built significant alternatives for its traditional public school system. 

I oppose this program because it has failed to improve academic 

achievements, including the students who it was most designed to 

benefit, those from the lowest-performing public schools. Now, during the more than 10 years this program has been in effect, the 

same tests show the District of Columbia public school’s children 

have improved. The same tests show that District of Columbia 

charter school test scores have improved. But these voucher tests 

do not show similar improvement, though that was the reason that 

the Congress said that the District must accept this program. 

This program violates the District’s right to self-government. The 

District was not even consulted about this program, so might have 

had a better idea. This program deprives students of their Federal 

civil rights protections. And, most of all, it is unnecessary in our 

city, which, unlike most jurisdictions, has seen a growth of public 

charter schools. You will not find in most jurisdictions, as you do 

in the District of Columbia, 44 percent of our children going to public accountable charter schools. You will not find in most of these 

districts that 75 percent of the students go to out-of-boundary 

schools, schools of their choice. 

I am proud of our public charter schools. When former Speaker 

Newt Gingrich approached me and said he wanted private school 

vouchers in the District of Columbia, and I was in the minority, as 

I have for most of my time in the Congress, I asked him, since the 

District had a fledgling charter school system, only one or two 

charter schools, but at least it had shown a home rule self-government interest in an alternative to its public schools, I asked him 

to work with me on charter schools, and that is how we got our 

charter school board, and that is why 44 percent of our children attend charter schools, and that is why our charter schools have long 

waiting lists, even though the voucher schools do not have similar 

waiting list. 
10 

Do you want to know what made our schools better? I believe in 

competition, Senator Johnson. It was the competition from these 

very good charter schools, often very near our public schools. And 

that is what, that is the competition that has made them into better schools today. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that this 

program in the bill before you lacks quality controls and transparency. I very much appreciate that the bill attempts to improve 

the program by requiring students, at the very least, to go to accredited schools. But I have to ask you, how could this Congress 

have allowed these students to go to unaccredited schools for now 

more than 10 years, simply because a voucher schools sprang up 

in their neighborhood? Of course, accreditation is a relatively low 

bar. 

Now, there are a number of high-quality schools in this program, 

but Congress should not be funding schools that could not exist except for this program’s virtually unconditional Federal funds. What 

I am referring to, we have called ‘‘voucher mills,’’ fly by-night 

schools that sprang up in some low-income neighborhoods only 

after Congress created this program. 

For example, the GAO found that voucher students comprised 

more than 80 percent of the school enrollment in six schools. The 

Washington Post did its own investigation entitled, ‘‘Quality Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal Vouchers.’’ Reporters spoke to officials of some of these schools. An example from one 

of them was, and I am quoting, ‘‘If this program were to end, this 

school would end.’’ 

The Senator spoke of competition. If a school has to rely primarily on Federal funds to exist, that is reason enough, it seems 

to me, that shows that market demand has not allowed that school 

to attract students, and if it cannot attract students on its own, 

then it should not attract Federal funds on its own. 

To accomplish the purpose of eliminating schools that should not 

be funded by Federal funds, because they do not have the quality, 

because they could not exist except for Federal funds, I have offered an amendment in the House to limit voucher students to 50 

percent of a school’s total enrollment, and that is a fairly liberal 

requirement. Although my amendment was not accepted, I appreciated that the majority indicated that they did support eliminating 

voucher mills. I do not know, perhaps there is a better way to do 

it than my 50 percent suggestion. I would be open, and I am certain you would, Senator, to any way to make sure that the quality 

that the vouchers were after is there in the schools that are available. 

I do believe that there is a burden on this Congress to ensure 

that the high-quality schools funded by this program, such as our 

accredited Catholic schools, do not have to compete for funds with 

voucher mill schools that would not exist except for these Federal 

funds. 

It is disappointing to me that although prior authorizations of 

this bill included evaluation to be done—and here I am quoting the 

congressional language—‘‘conducted using the strongest possible 

research design.’’ Thus far, the program has been evaluated using 

that design. That is how we evaluate the children of public schools 
11 

and the public charter schools, and that is how we know whether 

they are, in fact, improving or not improving. 

In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be conducted 

using what it calls an acceptable quasi-experimental research design and expressly prohibits using random controlled trials. This, 

even though the researchers involved with this evaluation said, 

and I am quoting them now, that ‘‘random controlled trials are especially important in the context of school schools, because families 

wanting to apply for choice programs may have educational goals 

and aspirations that differ from the average family.’’ In other 

words, we should be comparing apples to apples and not to whatever oranges or other fruits happen to spring up in our study. 

I very much appreciate that there is an interest in the Congress 

in our children. Certainly with the help of Speaker Gingrich, we 

got what is now a flourishing charter school movement and charter 

schools that have been evaluated as the best charter schools in the 

country. We ask only to be treated as your constituents are treated, 

to be consulted on matters affecting us, and that is why I had decided that it was my obligation to come here this morning and to 

testify before you. And I very much appreciate the opportunity that 

you have given me. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We appreciate your testimony, and, I think, 

rest assured, we may have differences in terms of how the opportunity is provided, but it is a goal we all share. We want every 

American, every child, to have the opportunity to get a good education so they can build a good life for themselves, their families. 

So, again, we certainly appreciate your passion on this and we appreciate your testimony. 

And with that, we will—— 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, if I just may extend my thanks, 

as well, not only for her presence here, but the Congresswoman’s 

office has been working with mine assiduously on improving this 

legislation. So, she is not just against it and not engaging. She is 

actually leaning in and trying to help correct what she sees as 

flaws in the current legislation. So, she has been tireless and she 

is working on behalf of a District, again, and I hate to editorialize, 

but it is, in my opinion, outrageous that they do not have more representation in this body. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. And, again, we appreciate the search for 

those areas of agreement to improve. I come from a manufacturing 

background. I am into continuous improvements. So, again, we appreciate your testimony and your efforts. 

We will seat the next panel now. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, I want to welcome the witnesses. We 

were really privileged to have an overflow crowd here, so we invited some of the students and their teachers and administrators 

to come join us in the back of the panel here, which is a little unusual, but I kind of like it. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses so if 

you all would stand up and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before 

this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 
12 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Chavous appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. I do. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. I do. 

Mr. JONES. I do. 

Ms. CATALAN. I do. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Kevin Chavous. He is a former member of 

the Council of the District of Columbia and Chair of the Council’s 

Education Committee. Mr. Chavous is a founding board member 

and Executive Council for the American Federation for Children, 

the Chairman of Serving Our Children, Board Chair for Democrats 

for Education Reform, and former Board Chair for the Black Alliance for Educational Options. Mr. Chavous. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN P. CHAVOUS,1

CHAIRMAN, SERVING OUR CHILDREN, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and 

Senator Carper and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to testify on a subject that is near and dear to my heart, 

namely school choice generally and specifically here in the District 

of Columbia, the D.C. OSP. 

As you indicated, I served on the D.C. Council for 12 years and 

over half that time I was Chairman of the Education Committee, 

and from that perspective, I developed a keen awareness of the 

plight of many low-income students here in the Nation’s capital. 

During my tenure on the Council, it became increasingly evident 

to me that many of the public schools serving our children in the 

most underserved communities were failing our students. These 

students needed options other than just the neighborhood public 

schools that may or may not be working. 

Here in the District, despite, as you have heard, having some of 

the highest per pupil expenditures compared to other States, our 

students are dropping out or performing abysmally on national assessment tests, and I first sought to promote school choice by advocating for charter schools. This is a movement that has thrived in 

the District, demonstrating a high demand for school choice among 

its residents. 

I do want to take this opportunity right now to point out that 

contrary to some of the claims of the critics and even my good 

friend, Delegate Norton, this program had high support in the District. Parenthetically, I just might add that I remember hearing 

from my father, he said, you always need to read because revisionist history is a dangerous thing. This program was not forced 

upon the city. Indeed, when Secretary Paige and President Bush 

approached Mayor Williams and I in 2003. They talked about a 

scholarship program. 

The city’s involvement was clear and evident when it became a 

three-sector strategy. It was Mayor Williams’ and I view that if we 

are going to have a Federal program and a Federal partnership, let 

us make it a true Federal partnership and let us lift all boats. And 

that is how we ended up having an equal amount of money at the 
13 

time going to D.C. Public Schools, D.C. Public Charter Schools, and 

the scholarship program. 

And, frankly, over the last 10 years since the program has been 

in existence, all of the money that has come from the Federal Government to help this three-sector strategy take hold, $239 million 

have gone to D.C. Public Schools, the vast majority, compared to 

the other two programs. A hundred-and-ninety-five million have 

gone to the charter schools, and $188 million have gone to the 

scholarship. So, even with the advent of this program, not only has 

D.C. Public Schools been held harmless in terms of not having an 

impact on their budget, they have gotten far more money than the 

other two sectors, and that, again, shows that this was a true partnership. 

I might add that in addition to Mayor Williams and I, School 

Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz, the President of the School 

Board at the time, was also supportive. 

I support public schools, and during my tenure as Chair of the 

Education Committee, we fought hard to make sure D.C. Public 

Schools got its fair share. But as a country, we need to make sure 

that our public schools live up to their promise. One of the reasons 

why we supported this program in the beginning was Congresswoman Norton referred to the charter schools that we had. Mayor 

Williams and I realized back in 2003 that we had thousands of 

children on the waiting lists for charter schools, and still many parents came to us wanting to have other options. 

I support the reforms that have taken place under Kaya Henderson’s leadership and before that her predecessor, Michelle Rhee. 

Their commitment to public school reform and the public school reform movement is important and is noteworthy. 

But equal education should be a civil right for all students in 

America. A quality education is the on ramp to economic independence. It is the gateway to keeping at risk students away from drugs 

and out of prison. Regrettably, as Senator Scott said, equal education opportunity is not the norm today. Affluent families get access to the best education options, but too often, low-income students have very limited and often inadequate choices. 

Given these facts and statistics, it is puzzling to me how anyone 

can be against this program. Here is a program that has over a 91 

percent graduation rate, over a 90 percent college going rate, it has 

produced thousands of opportunities for kids who otherwise would 

not have them at a time when D.C. Public Schools is still in the 

midst of its reform but still has not produced the same graduation 

rates and results as these schools have. What is there not to like? 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, let me 

just briefly, before I close, address a couple of concerns raised by 

the GAO report that was referred to earlier. 

As you indicated, I am the Chairman of Serving Our Children. 

We have board members that include a former parent of the program, Donald Hense runs the Friendship Schools, and also Mayor 

Williams. We are one month in as the new administrator of the 

program and it is our desire to make sure that we live up to the 

expectations placed on us to ensure that this program is administered effectively. 
14 

There are several things that we will be doing. One is we received a significant private grant, much of which will go toward implementing major technology upgrades, and we are currently talking to companies and receiving those proposals. We intend to develop policies and procedures to ensure the financial viability and 

sustainability of the participating schools. There was some mention 

about transparency. We will make sure that we are transparent. 

We intend to enforce the policy of ensuring that any unaccredited 

schools become fully accredited within 5 years. We have been working closely with Senator Feinstein’s office on that. We want to increase program participation and awareness. We intend to develop 

internal procedures to ensure that our administrative expenses are 

accurately tracked. All of these things were alluded to in the GAO 

report and we are working diligently and will continue to work diligently to improve them. 

In sum, a quality education is the foundation for achieving the 

American dream. Promoting equal education opportunity not only 

benefits disadvantaged children, but, frankly, it benefits all American. Equal education opportunity is the key to tackling the rampant socioeconomic problems that plague our inner cities. And to the 

extent that we can provide opportunities for at-risk youth, our entire Nation benefits from reduced crime, a far more productive 

workforce, and a more prosperous economy. 

In the past, in many speeches I have given around the country 

on this topic, I refer to Dr. Martin Luther King’s message during 

the civil rights movement regarding the fierce urgency of now. People should not have to wait for their civil rights, he said at the 

time, and a quality education today should be a civil right, especially in a wealthy country like ours. A child should not have to 

wait three to 5 years for a school district reform plan to kick in. 

We could lose a child, or many children, and the dropout statistics 

suggest we are while we wait for the system to improve itself. 

For these reasons, we at Serving Our Children are dedicated to 

the concept that all children can achieve and excel if given the opportunity and the right environment. We hope that our efforts to 

ensure that all kids, regardless of geography, zip code, socioeconomic status, have an opportunity for quality education and a 

chance to thrive and achieve and reach their full potential. It is 

something that this Committee continues to share, and we appreciate your support in the past. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chavous. 

Our next witness is Beth Blaufuss. Ms. Blaufuss is the President 

of Archbishop Carroll High School in Washington, DC, where she 

previously served as the Vice Principal for Academic Affairs. Prior 

to her time at Archbishop Carroll, Ms. Blaufuss taught English at 

Bishop McNamara High School in Prince George’s County as well 

as at Maplewood High School in Nashville, Tennessee, and the 

Sydney Grammar School in Sydney, Australia. Ms. Blaufuss received her Bachelor’s degree from Yale College and her Master’s in 

education from Vanderbilt University. 

And I just have to note that Ms. Blaufuss hosted Senator Carper 

and myself for a tour of your school and what we witnessed was 

a safe and nurturing environment for learning, and I really did appreciate the time that you and your students and your other ad-
15 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Blaufuss appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

ministrators and teachers carved out for us to show us what I 

thought was a very wonderful school. Ms. Blaufuss. 

TESTIMONY OF MARY ELIZABETH BLAUFUSS,1 PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARCHBISHOP CARROLL 

HIGH SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. Thank you, Senator Johnson. It was a joy to have 

you. 

On behalf of the schools privileged to educate Opportunity Scholars, thank you. I have seen the impact of the Opportunity Scholarship firsthand. The most compelling reason to reauthorize it is that 

it works where it really counts. 

In the 2010 study, Opportunity Scholars were 21 percent more 

likely to graduate from high school than those in the control group 

who qualified for the scholarship but did not win the lottery for it. 

The same researchers called the program, quote, ‘‘one of the most 

effective urban dropout prevention programs yet witnessed,’’ end 

quote. 

Since the OSP began, Archbishop Carroll has graduated 221 Opportunity Scholars. Data from the D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust indicates that 88 percent of OSP graduates go on to college, compared to 49 percent of low-income students nationally. 

While we often tout the loudest those who go on to colleges with 

national reputations, like Dartmouth or Columbia, many of our 

OSP graduates of whom I am the most proud are those who come 

to us reading behind grade level but who still complete a rigorous 

college prep curriculum, or those like Mark, a student who admitted to me that he was not really even thinking about college as an 

option before he came to our school, or graduates who have endured periods of homelessness while they are in high school. 

The numbers and numerous anecdotes I could share tell the 

same story. The Opportunity Scholarship improves outcomes. 

When the program’s researchers controlled for different sizes in 

the treatment and control groups and for clustering in specific 

schools, they did find statistically significant reading gains, equivalent to about 1 month of additional learning per year. The researchers also State that scoring high on tests is less important to 

a student’s graduation prospects than academic habits and dispositions, such as self discipline, commitment, grit, and determination. 

OSP schools like Carroll foster those crucial dispositions. 

In 2013 and 2014, our school’s SAT scores improved at a rate 

double that of the average for all D.C. public and private schools. 

Our graduates now persist in college at a rate 20 percent higher 

than the national average. We are just one of many private schools 

in the District innovating every day to do better by all of our students. 

As a District of Columbia taxpayer and as a school leader who 

received applications from students attending a very small handful 

of sub-par schools, I embrace measures that preserve our schools 

independent approaches without tolerating fiscal or academic irresponsibility. The D.C. charter schools faced challenges similar to 

those of so-called storefront OSP schools. In 2007, oversight of 
16 

charter schools was streamlined and schools improved. Similarly, 

the OSP has a new administrator as of this fall. I urge you to allow 

that administrator to prove its effectiveness. 

I am proud of my city’s educational progress. The most important 

reason to seek private school choice is not that public schools are 

bad. It is that choice is good. Wealthy and middle-income families 

have the means to explore private schools along with public and 

charter options. It seems fundamentally unfair for low-income families to have fewer choices than wealthy ones, as Senator Feinstein 

indicated. 

As OSP graduation data reveal, the mere presence of a full range 

of choices can improve outcomes for a low-income student. A growing body of research suggests that socioeconomically diverse schools 

improve achievement and social skills for all students. When the 

gap between high and low-income Washingtonians is at its highest 

since 1979, we risk real dangers to all of us if we allow children 

to grow up with unchallenged economic segregation. I would ask 

this Committee to consider the social as well as the academic benefits of OSP. 

Amid talk of data, it is easy to forget that the core of education 

is relationships among students and teachers. Education is not 

some intellectual car wash where we just perform a series of operations on kids and they come out bright and sparkly. It is a series 

of leaps that individual students’ minds and hearts must make. 

The greater the leaps we ask students to make, the stronger must 

be their relationships with the people who are asking them to take 

those risks. Relationships are stronger when we choose them, as 

families do in the OSP. 

Dajanae is a bright, determined Carroll senior who, like some 

Members of Congress, was always convinced that she was right 

and resisted most attempts at constructive criticism, often landing 

her in the dean’s office when she first arrived at our school. Now, 

she has become a student leader at Carroll. She told me, ‘‘I never 

would have grown as much if I had not come here with the forgiveness and patience of the teachers.’’ She is but one example of the 

students for whom choice of a school community has made all the 

difference. 

The OSP allows low-income students to foster relationships crucial to graduation in the same range of schools upper-income families have and I urge you to preserve the program on their behalf. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Blaufuss. 

Our next witness is Gary Jones. Mr. Jones is a father of five children with his wife of 21 years, Stacy, and resides in Ward 8 of the 

District of Columbia. Three of Mr. Jones’ children have enrolled in 

private schools through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

For the past 2 years, Mr. Jones has spoken at rallies, attended 

hearings, and met with D.C. officials as a parent advocate of the 

program. Mr. Jones. 
17 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY JONES,1 PARENT, D.C. OPPORTUNITY 

SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. JONES. Good morning, Senator Johnson. I would like to 

thank you for inviting me here. I would also like to thank the Committee members and Ranking Member Carper for also inviting me. 

My story is this. My children have had the opportunity to attend 

D.C. schools in all three sectors, public, charter, and private 

schools, throughout the years with varying degrees of success. By 

far, we saw the greatest level of achievement for our children when 

we had them in private schools. Charters did not work for my children, while DCPS was mediocre, at best. 

From what I heard earlier from the earlier panel, I have to say 

this about charters. Charter schools, from my research and my 

family’s experience, have not met their AYP, the annual year 

progress. When my children were in charter schools, my wife and 

I noticed that several students were being retained in the same 

class, like ninth and tenth grade, like, repeatedly. 

Public schools, like I said, I do not have any animosity toward 

them because my mother was a public school teacher, but, again, 

they were mediocre, at best. 

My three older children were OSP recipients under the old Washington Scholarship Fund, an administrator that gave siblings a 

preference for entry. This allowed my son, Joshua, and my daughters, Aaliyah and Yasmine, to attend the same schools. Joshua received a full scholarship and the sisters partial scholarships. This 

was a huge benefit to my older children and to our family, for 

which my wife and I are truly grateful. 

However, due to this Department of Education’s misinterpretation of the law, my daughter, Sabirah, is in the OSP program 

through high school, yet my youngest daughter, Tiffany because 

she is already enrolled in a private school, is considered ineligible. 

I have to tell you, the financial burden is wearing on our family. 

I am currently making ends meet by working two jobs in order to 

keep my daughters together in the same school. They are in an 

educational community that I trust to keep them safe, educate 

them at a level that more than prepares them for college, and will 

give them a better future for their parents. Is that not the American dream? Having parental choice in education is what will give 

my children the best chance at the American dream. 

I am stunned and I am angry at the attitude of my representative, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and her opposition to this 

incredible program. Delegate Norton, like President Obama, only 

supports allowing the current children to finish the program while 

opposing the admitting of new students. What makes the children 

in the program now more deserving than the children who desperately want the same opportunities? 

Parents in parts of D.C. need good choices now and we cannot 

wait for schools to improve or waiting lists to drop. D.C. has a 58 

percent dropout rate in the District of Columbia Public Schools. My 

three older children, who, after they left the Washington Scholarship Program, they went to Ballou Senior High School, where they 
18 

did graduate, but that was a one-percent graduation rate for the 

seniors each year. 

Ms. Norton talked about accountability. As has been stated, more 

than 98 percent of OSP kids graduate and go on to college. That 

is accountability. Some of the best private schools in D.C. participate in the OSP program, including Sidwell Friends, where the 

Obama girls go, Archbishop John Carroll, Georgetown Day, Gonzaga, and my children’s school, St. Thomas More Catholic Academy. Those individuals who are more fortunate can afford to send 

their children to schools on this list. 

The public schools in this city have failed tens of thousands 

of children over the years, and while there has been improvement—I must be fair, there has been gradual improvement—they 

are nowhere near where they need to be. As a parent, what should 

we do, continue to wait? I do not think that is fair. 

Sadly, eight members of the D.C. City Council signed a letter 

saying they oppose the program, one of whom his son attends Gonzaga High School, which I found hypocritical. I do not remember 

any of these Council members, including my own, who guaranteed 

me that she was for this program, ask me or any of the 1,600 families that take advantage of this fantastic program our opinion. Do 

any of these City Council members have any idea how much this 

initiative generates in additional funds for all of the District’s children, whether they are in the D.C. Public Schools, charter schools, 

or the OSP schools? Do these Council members really want to turn 

their backs on millions of dollars? Where is the logic in that line 

of thinking? 

The D.C. OSP program is an amazing program, and for those of 

us fortunate enough to have a child in this program, we are very 

grateful and we say we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. 

It makes a difference. We, the families, have seen this program 

make a difference in our children’s lives and want this program to 

be reauthorized. We, the families, want the law to be followed so 

siblings get preference. We, the families, want to make sure that 

other families desperate for a better educational environment for 

their children get this opportunity. We, the families, are desperate 

for an ongoing choice. We will continue to fight for those who have 

not had this life-changing opportunity. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of this 

reauthorization for this program. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Our next witness, we are very pleased to have Linda Cruz 

Catalan. Ms. Catalan is a high school senior at the Field School, 

where she has attended for the past 4 years. Outside of her study, 

Ms. Catalan participates in cross country and in a traditional Mexican dance ensemble, volunteers at the National Museum of Natural 

History, and tutors with the Latino Student Fund and Girls Who 

Code. Ms. Catalan is considering several universities, where she intends to pursue a career in computer science. Ms. Catalan. 
19 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Cruz appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA CRUZ CATALAN,1 STUDENT, THE FIELD 

SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. CATALAN. Thank you. My name is Linda Cruz Catalan and 

I am currently enrolled in the Field School in Washington, D.C., so 

I am going to talk a little bit more about myself. 

At Field, I have had the opportunity to learn, create, and build 

connections that will last me years and years to come. I am extremely lucky to be going to the Field School itself. I have always 

come from a low-income family. My parents work extremely hard 

to pay for clothes, food, and the townhouse we live in. They are the 

two hardest working people I have known today and they are extremely resilient. In my mind, they have always been the pure 

image of what it means to make something out of nothing. 

Before Field, I went to a school called Oyster Adams Bilingual 

School. This school was a very good stepping stone in my life and 

I was exposed to a lot of cultures and backgrounds. Besides seeing 

kids from middle-class families who could afford a high school education for their children, I also saw kids who were from lower-income families, like mine. These kids usually went on to local high 

schools, which was next in line for them if they did not either pay 

for a private school education or take advantage of programs and 

scholarships to get them there. I saw that a lot of these kids had 

multiple problems, meaning that a large public high school would 

not be beneficial for them. 

At the time I was associated with a program, and still am, with 

a program that gives underprivileged kids these opportunities 

called D.C. Opportunity. They helped me and gave me these opportunities, the biggest one being the opportunity to go to the Field 

School. This program awarded me with a $12,000 scholarship to attend the school of my choice. Since 2004, there have been 16,000 

children that applied for this opportunity in the Washington, DC. 

area, and I was one of the lucky finalists to receive this opportunity 

to go to the Field School. 

So far, through my lifetime, I have seen many underprivileged 

kids that come from lower-class families and do not have the opportunity that other scholarships like these are giving them, and most 

of these kids are extremely smart and deserve a big future where 

they can get educated in any institution they choose. I recommend 

that kids enroll in all these programs similar to D.C. Opportunity. 

I currently am interested in math programming, engineering, 

and dance, and I wish to explore these things far into my future 

without anybody telling me I cannot do it just because of my background and socioeconomic class. If it was not for these many opportunities, I would not have been able to explore all these in the 

Field School and have the amazing privilege to explore them 

throughout the college of my choosing. Eventually, I wish to have 

a fruitful career in one of these fields and I am confident that I can 

do so. 

And to add in, I am very thankful for everyone who is giving us, 

a student like me, these opportunities to study in college. And, 

again, I am not saying I had a great education from the Montessori 

I went to from pre-K to kinder and then Oyster Adams, but after 
20 

1The prepared statement of Dr. Lubienski appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

college, my family struggled to find the right education. It was either my neighborhood school that I would have gone to, but in that 

time, I was enrolled in a program that found the school right for 

me. And especially as a kid who struggled with being in a middle 

school class of 35 kids in one classroom, now, I am able to talk to 

my teacher one-on-one after school and during class, when my 

smallest class now, which is currently computer science, where we 

are only six students in that classroom. 

And, I am extremely grateful for these opportunities that teachers, everyone, staff members, everyone in the school are offering. 

And, that is my story. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you. I think we all are really 

glad that you got those opportunities, and I think we also think 

you are going to go far, so we really appreciate your testimony. 

Our final witness is Dr. Christopher Lubienski. Dr. Lubienski is 

a Professor of Education Policy and the Director of the Forum on 

the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois. Dr. 

Lubienski is a Fellow with the National Education Policy Center 

and Co-Chair of the K through 12 Working Group with the Scholar 

Strategy Network at Harvard University. Dr. Lubienski has published over 80 academic papers, with his most recent publication 

being ‘‘The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools.’’ Dr. Lubienski. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER A. LUBIENSKI, PH.D.,1 PROFESSOR, EDUCATION POLICY, ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 

Dr. LUBIENSKI. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to speak 

with you about our shared goal of providing quality education for 

all children. 

My name is Chris Lubienski. I am a professor at the University 

of Illinois and my research over the past two decades has centered 

on the impacts of school choice policies, things like charter schools 

and vouchers, in the U.S. and in other countries, as well. 

Research on school choice and vouchers, in particular, is typically 

focused on the question of academic achievements, and for good 

reason. As you know, the official evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program concluded there was no conclusive evidence the program affected student achievement. After 3 years, 

there were impacts for some groups of students in reading, but not 

in math, and not for other groups, and not overall. Positive impacts 

were also reported on graduation rates for a somewhat different set 

of students. 

These results generally reflect the findings of other voucher studies, where any impacts appear infrequently and inconsistently 

across groups and sub-groups of students, across cities, grade levels, and subject areas. Working with my collaborator at Illinois, 

Jameson Brewer, I examined the findings of studies frequently held 

out as the highest quality research in support of vouchers, which 

covered programs in five cities, including Washington. 

While the analyses typically found no overall impacts from 

vouchers, in the cases where impacts were evident for some sub- 
21 

groups, any effects were erratic, showing up for some students in 

one subject, but not for the same students in a different subject, 

or year, or in a different city. 

For instance, in a previous evaluation of an earlier program in 

Washington, researchers found a positive impact for African-American students in year two, but negative and insignificant effects for 

those same students in years one and three, with no impacts on 

any other ethnic groups. This raises questions as to why. Why are 

we seeing such variability? 

This is somewhat surprising, given the strong theory behind 

vouchers. We have had voucher programs in the U.S. for a quartercentury, and the reasons why we thought they would work to improve outcomes have not really played out. As Princeton economist 

Cecilia Rouse has observed, the best research to date finds relatively small achievement gains for students offered vouchers, most 

of which are not statistically different from zero. 

Although the benefits have been somewhat elusive, it is quite 

reasonable to ask, should we still support such programs so long 

as no one is shown to be harmed? I am less persuaded by the argument that there is no evidence of harm, simply because most studies have not been designed to identify measures of negative impacts, and I say that for two reasons. 

First, it is reasonable to think that some students, in fact, have 

not had a positive experience with these programs, while others, 

including many of the people in this room, have no doubt benefited 

substantially from voucher programs. Since the overall academic 

impacts are typically not statistically different from zero, that 

would suggest that for every student benefiting, there is approximately one other who has had a negative experience. 

And, second, most evaluations have not really studied the effects 

of vouchers on non-voucher schools. Specifically, what happens to 

the children left behind in struggling schools when classmates with 

concerned and motivated parents leave? 

Research going back to the 1960s, including my recent federally 

funded research with Sarah Lubienski, strongly suggests that a 

student’s peers have a major influence on that student’s learning, 

with this so-called peer effect having a much more consistent impact than voucher programs have been shown to exert. In fact, it 

is quite likely that exposure to a higher level of what Chingos and 

Peterson call ‘‘peer quality’’ in private schools explains much of the 

academic outcomes in voucher studies, particularly in reading, for 

reasons which I could explain, and in graduation rates. Unfortunately, this issue is not typically examined in studies of voucher 

programs, yet in all likelihood contributes to a diminishing educational experience for those students left behind in struggling 

schools. 

In conclusion, there are reasons for caution in hearing claims 

about the benefits of vouchers. Overall, in looking at the potential 

and measured outcomes of these programs, I would say that there 

are better arguments for vouchers than their academic impacts. 

Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to share my assessment with you and for your interest in this really important 

issue. Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Lubienski. 
22 

Ms. Catalan, I just want to quickly ask you, you said you were 

lucky to obtain that voucher. How long did you wait to find out 

whether you were one of the lucky lottery winners and what was 

that like waiting? 

Ms. CATALAN. Well, I was very nervous of waiting. I think, definitely, I am going to go straight to the point that if it were not for 

my parents, I would not have been at the Field School, because especially as a middle schooler just focused on academics, trying to 

be a straight-A student, trying to get the best grades I can, I really 

did not think of high school. I did not think of the high school I 

was going to, and my parents are the ones, really, who decided, 

Linda, I think this will be the best opportunity for you, where you 

do not have to stay at that one A grade, where you will be able 

to struggle in classes, where you are going to have the opportunity 

to step up. 

It was—personally, after I found out that I received the scholarship, of course, I was very happy, along with the other students. 

I was nervous, as well, because I was going to a complete different 

school. I was going to miss my experience at Oyster that I had for 

the 8 years and—and the wait, I definitely cannot talk much about 

that, because that was most of the part of my parents. 

But, again, going back to that, I believe that is important, that 

the parents do know, as well, that there are opportunities out there 

for their kids, because I know students now who wish, wow, I wish 

my parents did this for me, and I think that is important. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, it was hard working, caring motivated 

parents. 

Ms. CATALAN. Yes, and I am thankful. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I had the same benefit, by the way. People 

say I was a hard worker. That is because my Mom and Dad made 

me. So, glad you have great parents. 

Mr. Chavous, you made a comment that said, it is puzzling how 

anyone can be opposed. I mean, I agree. It is. And, I think, Ms. 

Blaufuss, you said choice is good. Is that not just obvious, giving 

people choice, letting people have the freedom to choose opportunity for their children? 

So, that begs the question, why do people oppose? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Well, I think that this has become such a polarizing issue politically largely because of the political arm of the 

Teachers’ Union, I think, and it has been couched in terms of an 

either/or proposition. The education of our children should not be 

cast in partisan terms, nor should it be cast in terms of either/or. 

The beauty of choice, as we move down this road toward personalized learning—and that is where it is all headed. 

Anyone who looks at the trends, just like we all have individual 

smartphones, we are headed toward this brave new world of personalized learning where choice is going to matter, and you will 

have kids in high school who will take classes at a community college for credits and they will take a virtual blended program and 

go into a traditional setting and they will end up with a diverse 

experience on their way toward personalized learning. 

And, the beauty of choice is that it gives parents a stake in the 

game early in the process. When people talk about studies and why 

they are against it, they should look at Paul Peterson’s work or 
23 

Patrick Wolf’s work, who did the study on this program. Beth’s 

comment about it being one of the best dropout prevention programs around, I think that the politics, the partisanship, and, unfortunately, the tendency not to put kids first and their interests 

first is one of the main reasons why this has become so polarizing. 

But, the reality is, and Beth knows this, being hands on, is that 

she made a really good point about beyond the studies, if you look 

at the change, the life trajectory at these programs and the kids 

who get these programs benefit from, and the change in their academic habits, the way they view the world, their ability to excite 

what is possible where otherwise it was not there, that has had a 

huge benefit. And I would commit that you should look at Paul Peterson’s study of those African-American kids in New York who received private school scholarships and that bears that out. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, just quickly, you quoted a 91 percent 

graduation rate of those schools with Opportunity Scholarships 

compared to—do you have just the percentage? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. I think it is—D.C. Public Schools is 60 percent. It 

is around 60 percent. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That is a significant difference right there. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. It is a significant—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. And I know Ms. Blaufuss mentioned a 21 

percent higher graduation rate. 

So, just to quickly summarize, you are saying the opposition 

comes from the Teachers’ Unions for whatever reason. That is the 

primary opposition to this. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes, and the reality is, the only people who really 

are against school choice are the ones who have it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Often, I think, back in the State of Wisconsin, the argument is made, well, you are robbing—you are taking money away from the public system and allocating it there, so 

you are going to disadvantage kids in public school. In case of the 

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, that is actually—because of 

this program, there is another $622 million per year flowing into 

the District’s schools, right? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul 

in this case. There is actually a net increase in funding for the 

D.C.—so that certainly cannot be used as an argument. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. They have more than any other sector over the 

last 10 years. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, so, tell me in your words, why is 

the Teachers’ Union opposed to this in the D.C. school system? It 

makes no sense. You said it is puzzling. I am puzzled, as well. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Well, I do not know why. I do think that, as I said, 

the politics of the day is the biggest challenge. But, I also think 

that people are used to the fight in education, and if we really are 

looking at what is best for kids, then there is no way to be against 

this program. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I agree. 

Ms. Blaufuss, how do you measure what you instill in students 

in your school? And again, Senator Carper and I were there. We 

saw a safe and nurturing environment. I was in one classroom, 
24 

kind of a quasi-religious—by the way, the number of Catholics or 

percentage of Catholics is slightly more than 20 percent, right—— 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. It is 24 percent. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. So you are a very ecumenical 

school. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. One classroom, and the discussion was the 

students’ definition of ‘‘love’’ versus Webster’s definition, and I will 

tell you, what the students as a class came up with was a far more 

meaningful definition of ‘‘love’’ than the very dry definition. So, just 

sitting in that safe and nurturing environment and hearing that 

very high level discussion was really inspiring. How do you measure that? 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. I think that is a great question, because metrics 

are incredibly important in education and we look at a host of different testing data in order to determine whether we are doing 

right by our students. We just happen to like the tests we have 

chosen. So, we are an International Baccalaureate Diploma program school, internationally recognized rigorous college preparatory program. So, we use the information that those tests tell 

us not only to figure out how we are doing, but to pinpoint solutions to help us do better. 

But, as you point out, there is a whole set of characteristics that 

are going to help someone be successful in college, as a parent, as 

a coworker in a workplace, that we as a Nation, I do not think, yet 

have metrics for. And, I think we cannot, as educators, only commit 

ourselves to those things that we are going to measure. And I think 

that is one of the great advantages we have as an institution, is 

to spend time working on how our kids get along, helping cultivate 

their virtue, hearing from them the strategies that help them be 

more virtuous. 

We are still looking for ways to measure virtue. I think if anyone 

comes up with a metric, I would be grateful for it. But, nevertheless, we do not let the lack of metrics dictate the importance of 

those characteristics as part of—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. One measure is just having schools that are 

allowed to teach it, and values, and morals, and the parental involvement. The reason I thought the Catholic school system in Oshkosh was such a special place was because of that parental involvement, because they were able to teach morals and values and virtue. That is extremely powerful, and I am not sure that is going 

to show up in any test scores or anything else, but it sure shows 

up in character and sure shows up in achievement and success in 

life. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

It is great to see all of you. I am sorry I was not here when you 

started your testimony. I was testifying myself before the Senate 

Budget Committee on a proposal for a 2-year budget process for the 

Federal Government. So, I missed most of your testimonies. 

Linda, I caught the tail end of yours and you are one of the best 

witnesses I have seen lately. Actually, this was a good panel, how 

old are you now, 27? 

Ms. CATALAN. Seventeen years old. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Pretty impressive. [Laughter.] 
25 

I listened to all of you, and especially you, Linda, testifying, reminded me—and the Chairman has already just said this and I am 

going to reiterate it—I am a recovering Governor. I served as Governor of the State of Delaware, a great privilege, from 1993 to 

2001, and we focused every day on raising student achievement, 

every single day. We adopted charter schools, public school choice. 

If you happen to be a kid in a school district—we have 19 school 

districts. If you happen to be a kid and, let us say, you are 6 years 

old and you are a first grader and there are five elementary schools 

in your district, public school choice, if they have room, you can go 

to any one of those other four schools and the money follows the 

student. 

I love competition, and it has been engendered by public school 

choice and charter schools. This next September when school reconvenes, about 10 months from now, half the kids in the city of Wilmington will be going to public charter schools. 

We have great traditional public schools in Delaware and one of 

them is Mount Pleasant, a high school which is about two miles 

from my home. And, Beth, I go for long runs on Sunday mornings 

before church and I run on their track. But inside that school during Monday through Friday, it is an IB school and they have done 

great things, traditional public school, by trying something different, experimenting. 

But, I am reminded here today as I was every day I was Governor, the greatest predictor of kids doing well in school is the expectation of their parents. If you have somebody at home, at least 

one somebody at home in your life that has a high expectation of 

you, not just to say, oh, I expect you to do well, but actually help, 

set an example, personal example, work with kids early on, we 

read with our boys who are now 25 and 27 almost from the day 

they were born. They came home from the hospital, started reading, continued to read. Even right up through the eighth grade, I 

read to Ben the Harry Potter novels. I think I enjoyed that as 

much as he did, probably more. Then he started reading to me, 

which was even better. Can I go to bed, Ben? ‘‘No,’’ he said. ‘‘No, 

Dad. You have to stay up until I finish this book.’’ 

But, a great predictor of kids doing well, expectation of their parents. Another great predictor of kids doing well, early childhood, 

and reading is part of it, but the earlier that we start, the better. 

You have a bunch of kids coming into kindergarten at the age of 

five. They do not know their letters. They do not know their numbers. They cannot read. They cannot do math. They cannot write. 

And they are sitting next to kids who can, and the kids who can 

just go faster and faster and faster, and the kids who cannot go 

slower and slower and slower. And we end up with a situation 

where we have a lot of disruptions, kids acting out, and we see that 

every day in our schools. 

I think the other key is clearly spelling out what we expect kids 

to know and be able to do in math and science and English and 

social studies, have an ability to measure student progress there, 

and having great teachers, great teachers in the classrooms who 

love kids, who know their stuff, who make learning fun, make 

learning relevant to what is going on in the lives of kids after on. 
26 

And then we have different ways to try to create competition. We 

have different ways to create competition, and I have mentioned a 

couple that seem to work in our State. We have a variety of ways 

to engender competition here in the District of Columbia. 

What I would like to do is in this conversation is just have a 

chance to figure out why, for kids for whom this program seems to 

work, why is it working well and what are some ways we can make 

it better. Everything I do, I know I can do better. Everything we 

have done in education in Delaware, I know we can do better and 

hopefully continue to do better. 

But, let us just look at this program in the District of Columbia. 

Dr. Lubienski, let me just start with you. I think this program is 

going to be reauthorized. I think it is important that when it is, 

is that we do it in a way so that it is going to be better, that it 

is going to be better. Give us an idea or two how we can make it 

better, please. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. Excellent question. I know that there is some discussion about—in the reauthorization of the program about how to 

evaluate that and whether or not you should use randomized control trials. I think Representative Norton weighed in on that. Can 

I suggest that randomized control trials are seen as being very 

strong, rigorous experiments that answer a very narrow question, 

and so there was talk about moving toward more quasi-experimental approaches. 

Personally, I think that there is value to different types of approaches for understanding an intervention like this. What I really 

would like to see in terms of the evaluation is for the evaluators 

also to consider the impacts of the family background factors and 

how those are clustered into different schools. I think research has 

shown pretty convincingly that it is not necessarily a voucher or a 

piece of paper that teaches kids. It is these other factors, as well, 

and we are not really considering those in the evaluations of these 

programs. So, I would point in that direction. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Linda, just give me one idea, one idea from the experience you 

have had in school, one change we could make that would make 

this program even more effective for a broader range of kids. 

Ms. CATALAN. I am going to have to agree. From experience from 

students who had complained, actually, about scholarship programs and programs like these where there was more background 

research needed in order to, like, be accepted into this program, I 

recently personally, even—I have been through this. I recently applied for a scholarship program for college and was denied the 

scholarship because I go to a private school, so assuming I have the 

money to afford for this $41,000 tuition it is just for tuition for 

Field School. They assumed immediately after I contacted them 

that I am able to pay for this, and I think a lot of background research needs to be—— 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Jones, give me one really good idea how to make this program better, more effective. 

Mr. JONES. Well, again, to piggyback, it is looking into the family 

background, the family history, of the socioeconomic condition of 

the family. I also think that more money should be put into the 
27 

program for immersion programs, like language immersion programs, especially in a primary age, a middle school age, art immersion programs, things like that. Those things help benefit the students and make them more rounded and cultured going forward 

into high school and into college. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. By the way, it was great being in your school. 

Thanks for the warm welcome. It was much appreciated. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. Thank you. I am going to push my luck and propose two improvements. One is really continuation of the existing 

legislation, and that is to continue funding for academic support as 

a piece of the bill, and I know the new administrator is going to 

work harder to make sure that money is actually used. It was not 

used in the last 5 years, even though it was part of the bill, and 

I think it is crucial to the bill’s success. 

The second suggestion I would have is to make being currently 

enrolled in a private school not be a disqualifier. To disqualify kids 

because they are currently enrolled in private school seems to 

imply that a family’s economic status will be the same from kindergarten through high school. So, it assumes that no one is ever 

going to lose their job, no one’s dad is ever going to die, no one’s 

parent is ever going to suffer from mental illness. So, to say that 

kids who are currently enrolled in private school who otherwise in 

every way qualify for the program are disqualified from it, it seems 

to me fundamentally against the spirit of what the bill is trying to 

accomplish. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Mr. Chavous. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. In addition to us as the new administrator really 

drilling down and dealing with the transparency issue and some of 

the nuts and bolts day-to-day things that they mentioned, which 

we think is important, I also think that there are some carryover 

funds that could be used to maximize some scholarships. 

We plan on having an aggressive outreach program with parents. 

The parent engagement piece is always something that is put at 

the end of the priority list. We want to elevate that so parents can 

be educated consumers and understand the responsibility of how to 

pick the right school for their child and how to be an advocate for 

their child, and I think that is going to make a huge difference, so 

that parents like Mr. Jones can make educated choices about any 

of the options that are available. But, if we have access to those 

carryover funds, we can give more scholarships to this new breed 

of educated parents that we hope can take advantage of choice here 

in the District. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this, and I appreciate the work that you are doing in a bipartisan way to try to advance what I think is important legislation. 

I want to thank all the members of the panel for all of their extraordinary and enlightening testimony. 

Linda, honestly, I have seen many people testify. Many of them 

would love just a fraction of the poise and confidence you showed 
28 

when you spoke. It is extraordinary. When I was 17, my biggest 

fear was speaking in front of people. I would have been shaking 

and you looked like a pro, better than many Senators, so thank you 

very much. 

And, I just want to say that Kevin Chavous, he and I have been 

friends for decades now, when we both had very large Afros—— 

[Laughter.] 

And I just want to thank you, man. You have been a partner and 

ally of mine, somebody that has been helping me back in the days 

when these issues were not popular at all. So, I am grateful that 

you are here. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off with something, because 

there is too much vilification, in my opinion, in this movement, especially around Teachers’ Unions. There are States in America 

right now that are Right to Work States that do not have strong 

Teachers’ Unions but still have failing schools. And, to me, we are 

too focused in on creating an enemy and not nearly focused enough 

on what needs to get done, which in this country that professes to 

believe in equal opportunity, that has children across the country 

pledging allegiance every single day to this ideal of liberty and justice for all, well, that is a lie to many kids because they do not get 

the justice of a great education. 

And, Federal policy over the years has allowed certain neighborhoods to be drained of their wealth through the Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) policy that has created ghettos through consciously bigoted Federal actions, that has allowed certain people to 

opt out of the public schools. 

I listened to Dr. Lubienski talking about—and I had to scratch 

my head—about the peer impact on when some kids opt out and 

some do not. Well, that is America right now, because rich and 

middle-class kids are getting to opt out of the system. And, so, the 

current landscape reflects our tolerance of allowing the wealthy to 

opt-out of the system, but shrieks of do not let poor people do it, 

dear God and when discussion of extending that privilege to lowincome families occurs. 

And, so, my point right now is that we must have a focus on educating all children. I am sick and tired of seeing the pipeline 

school-to-person play out ending with sending our children to prison. In fact, it is eight times more likely for a kid who does not 

graduate from high school to be arrested. We are fueling the biggest bureaucratic growth in government. It is the prison system, 

which has gone up 800 percent on the Federal level because of the 

failure to educate our kids, to cultivate their genius. That is unacceptable to me. 

And, so, these debates often become about everything but poor 

kids getting a shot. And, by the way, these kids are our children. 

They are the greatest natural resource this country has. There are 

poets and artists and scientists and Senators in our schools who 

are not getting a shot because of these choked systems. 

And, so, I am dedicated to the idea that the American 

public—public education is a bedrock, fundamental aspect of this 

country. It is what makes us a great democracy. And the fact that 

we believe that public education should be diverse and allow poor 
29 

kids to have choice, to me, that is something I have been fighting 

for my entire career. 

I am happy to see Eleanor Holmes Norton recognize that choice 

in education encompasses both District schools and charter schools. 

You know that, Kevin. That sentiment would not have been heard 

5 or 10 years ago. My city, which was recently recognized by the 

Brookings Institution—Newark, where I live—as one of the top cities in America for choice, what has happened over the 8 years of 

our choice movement in Newark? Black children in my city that are 

attending schools that beat the State average have increased 300 

percent. The data, and the data from Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), which, about this one city, is extraordinary pertaining to the quality education we are providing when 

we allow parents like Gary the greatest power you could have, to 

choose the destiny of your child. 

And, so, this hearing is something rare I have ever seen during 

my time in Washington, where we have a program where politicians are basically saying, we are not going to cut something here, 

one program for poverty, in order to put something there. We are 

going to actually increase funding to District schools. We are going 

to increase funding to charter schools. And we are going to increase 

funding to scholarships. I wish this Congress was as committed to 

increasing funding for poor kids as it is in this little area called 

this three-prong approach, Kevin, that you were one of the main 

architects of back in the day. 

And, so, what my interest is, is making sure that those choices 

for children, which I deeply believe should extend to poor kids in 

the same manner in which they are entended to rich kids, that 

those choices are quality choices, and this is what I want in America, that there is accountability in our schools. I do not believe in 

charter scholarship District schools. I have a simple way I look at 

schools, good schools or bad schools, and the problem with a lot of 

charter schools is they do not close. They fail to teach kids at high 

levels and then they keep going in perpetuity. 

And, so, what we need to have, in my opinion, is a robust program—if we are going to do this in Washington and deny Washington residents the right to control their own schools—look, I 

had to deal with that in Newark, having the State take over a district—but if we are going to deny the right for Washingtonians to 

choose their own destiny and design a program, let us do everything within this program to give poor kids choice of quality options. That is the urgency that I have right now. 

Now, this bill, and I am going to get to Christopher, if I have the 

time, to say there are flaws in it. There are flaws. I do not understand how you can design a scholarship program, Kevin, that says 

some of your kids get about $28,000 per child and then another 

system gets only $12,000 per child. That is shortchanging, in my 

opinion, a whole bunch of kids. 

And, so, if you want to understand why a lot of the 

schools—Sidwell Friends, I could name the private schools in this 

that, if I had children—may God bless me 1 day and get my mother 

off my back—— [Laughter.] 

But if I had kids, if I had kids, I would do whatever—I would 

be in Gary’s camp. I am going to do whatever it takes to fight to 
30 

get my children in the best schools possible. This scholarship program does not allow that because the scholarship amount is too 

low. 

And, so, I have some questions, Chairman, but I just used my 7 

minutes to talk a little bit, and—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. You used them very effectively. I appreciate 

it. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, and I will wait for another round if I should be so lucky. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I do need to see a picture of you in that 

Afro, though. [Laughter.] 

I think, quite honestly now, all America wants to see that Afro. 

Senator BOOKER. If Tim Scott shows his pictures, I will show 

mine. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I do have more questions, so if you stick 

around, you will probably get a chance to ask some. Senator 

Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This obviously is not an issue that affects my constituencies 

much. The underserved constituents in my State do not have access to a robust private school system, and so, obviously, it is not 

an issue that we have confronted. But, I do have a great deal of 

sympathy as we look at Native Americans, who have experienced 

historically low rates. You all have talked about dropout rates. The 

lowest dropout rates in the country are among Native American 

students, especially those in Indian Country. And, so, I share a lot 

of this passion and I share a lot of the concern that we have about 

making sure all of our schools function, that all of our schools are 

utilizing their resources to do the right thing for the children of 

America. 

We continue to be very challenged in public education, but one 

of the concerns that I have is we have just gone through a rewrite 

of No Child Left Behind in the U.S. Senate, and in that rewrite, 

we were reminded consistently by Senator Lamar Alexander that 

we are not the national school board. We are not the national 

school board. This is something that should be left to local choice. 

This is something that local entities should make up their mind. 

And, I am always troubled in an overarching system with interference of Congress in local options and local decisions. Now, recognizing we cannot segregate or separate that relationship very easily, but I think we can be mindful and respectful. 

I think, Mr. Chavous, you talked a lot about the D.C. Council not 

supporting this program any more, and why do you think that they 

have taken this position, as a former Councilman yourself, and 

what would they do if we just said, it is up to you guys to decide? 

What would happen? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Well, first of all, let me just say, Senator, that yes, 

most education funding and policy is locally based, as you indicated. But it is clear, and Senator Booker alluded to this, that the 

District and the Federal Government has a special, unique relationship. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 
31 

Mr. CHAVOUS. We do not have voting representation, and you all 

do sign off on our budget, which is wholly self-generated. And, so, 

there are different nuances to it. When Mayor Williams and I were 

approached 10 years, 12 years ago about this, it was to acknowledge the special relationships where there are some burdens and 

benefits to being citizens of the District and the Nation’s capital at 

the same time, and the feeling was, let us figure out a way to make 

sure that the Federal Government has a stake in the Nation’s capital. So, that was the genesis for the partnership—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes, but I think my point is that where I 

have heard just wonderful testimony and great stories and certainly been absolutely charmed by the young woman here, I also 

want to make sure that we are respectful of whatever local governance you do have. And, so, as we kind of look forward, how do we 

get everybody—when you were there, this was, yes, let us do this 

program. Let us walk together. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And now it seems like we have gotten this 

division. How do we bring people back together at the District level 

to support one unified program without having that debate refereed 

by this Committee? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Well, one is information is power. I think that 

even in talking to some of the folks who signed the letter, they did 

not realize, for instance, it was a three-sector strategy. So, if you 

get rid of the scholarship amount, you will get rid of the money 

that goes to D.C. Public Schools and D.C. Public Charter Schools. 

I think that you have newer members who do not understand the 

history, and we are told by some activists who are against the program that this is a voucher program exclusively. They did not understand all of that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. And, if you also pay close attention, you will notice 

that the Mayor and Chairman of the Council did not sign the letter. The Mayor has in the past signed letters in support of this program and the Chairman of the Council refused to sign this letter. 

So, I think that once we spend more time talking with the newer 

members, because there are several new members in the last couple years, about what this—the full impact of this partnership really is, they do not want to lose that money and they also want to 

make sure that we do lift all boats. I mean, I feel confident that 

we can bring most people together. Now, there are going to be 

some, and our Congresswoman is one of them, who just do not like 

the program for whatever reason. She did not like it ten or 12 

years ago. She did not like it when a majority of the Council signed 

a letter a couple years ago. So, now with the new members we just 

have our work to do to educate people. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And I think that is a critical piece, because 

I was encouraged when Senator Booker talked about how the Delegate was actually working with his office to improve it. I think we 

all believe that there should be higher levels of accountability. We 

believe that there should be review of the GAO report. But, ultimately, what I am looking for is some kind of broader consensus 

within the D.C. community, whether it is the school board or the 

Council, asking us for what they need rather than us telling them 
32 

what to do, because we should not be your school board. Your community should be your school board and your school district should 

be your school board. 

I am not philosophically opposed to anything that moves children 

ahead. and, so, for me, this is not about philosophy nearly as much 

as it is about parental and local control and making sure that we 

hear those voices kind of broadly. And when political leadership 

that is supposed to represent the local folks send us mixed messages, it is a tough lift here, because we do not want to be your 

school board. I do not want to be your school board. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. No, I appreciate that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want you guys to be the school board. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. No, I appreciate that, and then that is why many 

of us support statehood, which I expect many of you would support 

it for the same reasons. [Laughter.] 

Senator HEITKAMP. I am sure the Chairman would be glad to answer that question. [Laughter.] 

But, I guess, to the extent that as we proceed with this bill you 

can, through your past experience, work to try and develop a better 

consensus at the—— 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Absolutely. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. At the city level, at the school 

district level, with school leaders, so that you can come and say 

this is what—we are not going to make everybody happen, but this 

is what works for us and please be respectful of the decisions—— 

Mr. CHAVOUS. We are aggressively educating and engaging the 

City Council. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, and thank you all for your love 

of your children, obviously reflected in your advocacy here, your 

amazing testimony, Beth. I was moved by all the work that you are 

doing. Obviously, we think that you might be President some day. 

And, it is important that we still have kind of an academic lookback, because anyone can come up with a feel good story, but we 

need to have a broader perspective, and so I look forward to working with the D.C. School District. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. Remember, we are trying to concentrate on those areas of agreement. [Laughter.] 

There is a fair amount of agreement on this issue. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I did not raise statehood. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. You just did. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chavous, just real quick, in terms of numbers, I do not have 

the total amount that the District spends on its schools, but you 

do some calculations and it is looking like what the Federal Government is providing in this program is about a quarter. Is that 

close, or what is the breakdown—— 

Mr. CHAVOUS. I am not sure. I know that there is—over the last 

10 years, you all have contributed in this program alone $239 million. I do not know the total number in terms of other contributions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, the total amount by your testimony is $239 million for the public schools, $195 million for charters, $188 

million for the scholarship program—— 
33 

Mr. CHAVOUS. That is right. That is right. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. So that is $622 million in total. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And if you just take $28,000 times the 85,000 students, that is close to about $2.4 billion. But, it is a pretty significant chunk that the Federal Government is contributing. 

I want to go to the demand side of this and how much demand 

is it and what kind of waiting lists, because I was surprised by 

Representative Norton’s assertion that there just really is not that 

much demand for this. 

Looking at Milwaukee, we have 77,000 students enrolled in K 

through 12, and because it is a very robust choice program, 33 percent of those—25,000 students enrolled in the program represents 

33 percent of student enrollment. Of those eligible, it is 42 percent. 

That is a high level of demand. 

Here in the District, you have 85,000 students and you have 

1,400 enrolled. I cannot believe there is that big of difference in 

terms of the demand for those opportunities. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you just kind of speak to that, what is 

limiting it? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we know there is demand, but 

people do not know what they do not know. So, part of it is we 

have to do a better job of letting people know these opportunities 

exist. For the average parent out there, and Gary Jones knows 

this, they do not even make the distinction between public, private, 

and charter. It is just, as Cory Booker said, it is about good schools. 

We know when the program first started, where there was more 

aggressive marketing by the administrator, more information in 

public housing and community centers, the demand grew. But over 

the past several years when there have been challenges, as the 

GAO report alluded to, with the previous administrator, when 

there were challenges in terms of relationships with the Department of Education and how many scholarships can be let out, the 

enrollment period, making sure that the sign-up period was consistent with the sign-up period for charter schools, oftentimes, 

there was a truncated schedule in terms of—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. We make it very difficult. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. It made it very difficult. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. But, we are confident that with our aggressive 

outreach to let people know that the demand is there and the proof 

is in the pudding, there is a demand of over 8,000 on the charter 

school list, and so we know that parents want more. We just have 

to make sure that they know that there is more out there that is 

available for them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. In the State of Wisconsin, when I was involved in the education system, I know we had an open enrollment 

period, where if you were going to public school, you can choose 

whichever public school you want to go to. You had an open enrollment period, but it was in the middle of February, and trust me, 

nobody knew about it. It was only a couple of weeks long, if I recall. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes. 
34 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Jones, can you speak to that. 

Mr. JONES. Well, I can say that our city leaders, they promote 

the charters more than they would the OSP private schools and parochial schools, and that is why a lot of parents do not know about 

it. Now, from my experience, because people have seen me at some 

of these rallies and have seen me speak, I have had people in my 

neighborhoods and communities walk up to me and they are asking 

me how to enroll their children in the OSP programs. When I reenroll—every year, you have to re-enroll your children in the program—there are lines going literally around the block and down 

the street because people want better choices for their children. 

So, I do not understand why Ms. Norton is saying that there is 

not a high demand for it. I know that people in Southeast Washington, DC. are wanting to get their children into better schools. 

And, like I said, it seems like our city leaders are more focused on 

charters as opposed to the private school sector. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I was pretty moved by your discussion of 

how you have one child, one daughter, that has the voucher, the 

other one that was already in private school so she does not qualify. So, then—we sent our kids to the same school and it was enormously beneficial that you had siblings in the school helping each 

other out. I mean, I do not want to break out those families. What 

is the rationale if you qualify—if one of your children qualified for 

the Opportunity Scholarship but the other one does not? I mean, 

what is the rationale for that? I know Ms. Blaufuss talked about 

that disqualification. Can you speak to that? Any rationale for 

that? 

Mr. JONES. What was explained to me 2 years ago when I first 

signed my daughters up for it was that the older one would probably get the scholarship, but because the program was a 5-year 

program, they had to do the assessments, the younger one would 

have to wait until that 5-year period before she could become eligible to receive a scholarship, which to me it just did not make any 

sense. So, that is the only reason that was given to us, is that you 

have to wait until this program is done and it is up for reauthorization and we have to do the assessments and then she can qualify 

for it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, right now, you are working two jobs to 

make sure that your children are together in the same school—— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. To have that benefit of that sibling support system. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. What it was, I had the choice to make. Last 

year, my youngest daughter, Tiffany, she could have stayed in 

DCPS while Sabirah was, like, a quarter of a mile away at St. 

Thomas More. But, I mean, logistically, trying to get both kids to 

school at the same—on time, it was just wearing on me and my 

wife. So, I just made the decision. I was, like forget it. I will just 

have to pay out of pocket and do what I have to do. 

It is not like I did not like their public school when they were 

there, but because of what is going on with the school system, they 

kept closing schools, they were consolidating schools. Our school 

did not get closed, but it got consolidated and the principal was 

promised by the chancellor all these resources to help accommodate 
35 

this influx of students. Well, it did not happen. So, I was a parent 

advocate for DCPS and I am fighting for resources and books and 

things that was promised to us by the chancellor and that left me, 

like with an option. Do I keep my child in this organized chaos, 

what I call it, or do I move her and pay out of pocket for it? 

I felt bad, because my children have always been honor roll students, but in Tiffany’s fourth grade year, they got new teachers, 

young teachers who were not used to teaching kids in the inner 

city. You have 39 students in one class with one teacher and no 

teacher’s aide, and she started to struggle. And I just could not afford to let my baby stay in that situation. So, when fifth grade 

came around, I said, I am going to put you in St. Thomas More. 

I took a second job to pay the $6,000-plus tuition. 

And I am glad I did, because in the fifth grade, it was even 

worse. There was still an influx of students because of the consolidation, and instead of having two fifth grade teachers, one quit the 

second day. So, the school was scrambling around trying to find another educator for this class. 

And, Tiffany has continued to progress in St. Thomas More. One 

of the things I love about it is because they get that—how do I say 

that—their spiritual aspect to it, they give the academic access to 

it, they also, like, when they do struggle, it is not that they come 

in and they are flying high in every class. They give them tutoring 

after school. The class size is somewhere between 12 to 15. They 

get one-on-one instruction when they need it. So, I just had to do 

what I had to do to make sure that they have the best opportunity 

to go far, through college and in life. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. Well, first of all, thank you for being 

a great parent. 

Real quick, Dr. Lubienski. We started this journey, this Committee, with a field hearing in Milwaukee at St. Marcus Lutheran 

School on July 20, and we had an expert kind of like yourself in 

terms of trying to study the outcomes, which is very difficult. I 

mean, it is just very difficult to measure all these things. 

But, I look at, as Ms. Blaufuss talked about, just choice is good. 

Kind of keep it simple. The fact that graduation rates elevate from 

67 percent to 91 percent. And then how do you measure what Mr. 

Jones was just talking about, that nurturing, that safety, the moral 

teaching, the values teaching? How do you measure that? 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. That is an excellent question, and parents are 

measuring that by making choices for the types of schools that 

match their preferences for those types of things. 

I would want to caution about the comparison of the graduation 

rates from the voucher program and the D.C. Public Schools in 

general, or Milwaukee Public Schools in general. You are looking 

at two different populations, and so social scientists can say there 

is a likelihood that many of those students would have graduated 

no matter which type of school they went to. 

But, if I could respond to the issue about choice and choice 

for disadvantaged students, I mean, that is an excellent question. 

I really appreciate what Linda had to say. If not for her parents— 

and that is something to consider. Not everybody has parents like 

that, certainly. Choice can be a good thing. As I said, I think there 

is a strong moral argument for that. But is it leading to better out-
36 

comes or access to better schools? And, the research is much more 

equivocal about that. 

Last year, there was a study out from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development using Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data. Countries that have 

higher levels of competition in their schools, more choices, are 

doing no better in terms of academic achievement, and schools in 

those countries that are more competitive and are based on choice 

are doing no better than other schools in those countries. However, 

they did find out that there are greater levels of segregation associated with choice. So, I think that we have to be concerned about 

some of those unintended outcomes, as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Doctor. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

I am a veteran, Vietnam veteran, came back from Southeast 

Asia, third tour, moved from California to Delaware, enrolled in an 

M.B.A. program and got $250 a month to go to school, grateful for 

every dollar of it. Today, veterans coming back from Afghanistan, 

if they served 3 years in our military, they can go to school—they 

can go to Rutgers free, tuition paid for, everything is paid. University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin, tuition paid for, books, 

fees, all that stuff, a $1,500 a month housing allowance, as well. 

You have a bunch of for-profit, and some of the for-profit colleges 

and universities in this country are very good, are very good. Some 

of them are not. They are diploma mills. They are preparing students for jobs that do not exist. They spend more money in recruiting students, a lot of them G.I.s, than they actually spend in training and preparing them for work. 

We have a rule under the Federal law. It is called the 90/10 rule. 

Basically, it says that no more than 90 percent of a—if you are a 

for-profit college and university’s revenues can come from the Federal Government. There is a loophole that allows some of them to 

get up to 100 percent. And if you look at the number of schools that 

are not doing a good job—some are even shut down now around the 

country because they were not doing a very good job preparing 

folks for gainful employment. A lot of that can be traced right back 

to that situation. 

Here is my question. I am told we have some schools in this program whose revenues come from, I think 100 percent from vouchers from the Federal Government, 100 percent. The reason why we 

have the 90/10 rule is it says there have to be some market forces. 

These schools have to be good enough, these colleges and universities have to be good enough that somebody is going to spend their 

own money or work or whatever rather than just having the Federal taxpayer pay for it. 

Do you think that it is appropriate for the Federal Government 

really to fund 100 percent of the cost of these schools through Federal tuition? Go ahead, please. Beth. 

Ms. BLAUFUSS. I think that in looking at how one measures how 

the Federal dollars are used and the kinds of institutions that are 

taking them, I would ask us to keep our eye on the ball, which is 

student achievement and student educational attainment, rather 

than looking at the nature of the institutions where that is hap-
37 

pening. I think the measure of a school should be the outcomes of 

the kids in it. 

So, I think my understanding is that some of the numbers that 

get thrown around, and Kevin may be able to share some of those 

numbers about the particular institutions, I am particularly wary 

of programs like, or amendments like the one that Delegate Norton 

proposed with putting what seems to me like an arbitrary cap on 

the number of OSP students at a school. It seems like the measure 

of a school is the students, not the nature of the institution. 

Having said that, all of the schools should be financially responsible and should have good financial oversight, which I think the 

regulator will make sure happens. So, I would just caution that the 

ultimate measure should be the kids. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chavous. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Delegate Norton talked about the voucher mills 

and a lot of these schools popped up right after this bill passed. 

That is not the case. It is my understanding there are only two 

schools that emerged, new schools, after this bill passed. I think 

the vast majority of the schools in the program, and we are working on the numbers now, would clearly fall within the 90/10 rule 

and probably even less. I think most of the schools—I do not know 

of any of the schools that are 100 percent, but I will have to check 

on that. I just am not sure. But, I think that that is an overstated 

impression. We can get you the exact numbers of the percentage 

of the schools—the number of schools and the percentage of kids 

who are on scholarship and how that looks in terms of their overall 

population. 

But, I also think that as we have seen in—what I do not want, 

I do not want us to be precipitous about putting limits on the ability to recruit great schools to service the distinct populations that 

we need to have served. In Indiana, for instance, where they have 

a voucher program that is the fastest growing in the country, have 

30,000 students and it is growing, it is now outpacing charter 

school growth, they are very aggressive in finding schools that can 

serve underprivileged children, that serve children with certain 

acute needs, so that they can bring them in and offer those services 

up. 

And, so, as Beth has said, they are not as focused on the percentages, but making sure that they are accredited, they are solid programs, and that they will help fill in the gap where there is a 

shortfall in that particular jurisdiction. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Same question, very briefly, please. Mr. 

Jones, do you want to just very briefly—— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. From my perspective as a parent, these pop-up 

schools that Ms. Norton is saying, again, I believe they are overstated. I know there had been a lot of pop-up charters, and again, 

this is from my own experience. There have been charters that are 

notorious for bringing in unaccredited teachers. They come in for 

one or 2 years. There is a lot of attrition going on with the teachers. And some of these schools have just been used as a prop to 

gain money for the individuals behind the schools, and that is a 

problem. 

I think that because they have so much autonomy, there is really 

not real genuine oversight to see what their academic achievement 
38 

really is, whereas with schools that are in the OSP program, again, 

schools that I named earlier in my testimony, they have a long history of accountability and being accredited and being successful. It 

is the charter schools, really, that have been hurting, in my opinion, the D.C. Public Schools as well as the OSP program. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Linda, do you care to comment on this? 

Ms. CATALAN. I am very biased about this, because speaking 

from the Field School, the Field School is a very wealthy school and 

the reason why my family, along with the scholarship that D.C. 

Opportunity gives me, I do not pay any of the tuition for Field, and 

I just personally have always wanted this to spread out throughout 

other public schools and charter schools, like it was mentioned before, of having—because I know that, definitely, there are schools 

that I visited, even, looking at the kids, looking at the parents, because, well, of course, the parents are the ones with the money and 

it is not evenly spread throughout the schools, and I think that is 

one of the most basic, important things that every school should 

need. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Lubienski, same question. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. Thank you. I do not have a position on where the 

cap should be or if there should be a cap. I can tell you that the 

figures that are often cited, for example, 82 percent of the parents 

are satisfied with their children’s schools, are not very trustworthy 

because they are surveying parents who are currently in the 

schools and not the dissatisfied ones who have left. So, you have 

to take that into account. 

That said, recent research from Milwaukee, for example, shows 

that parent satisfaction levels are lower when there is a higher proportion of voucher students at a given school, and you can make 

of that what you want. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thanks so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, and again, I just want to say I am 

thrilled that we are potentially making impactful investment as a 

Congress within this program. Again, if you want to talk about student achievement, dealing with some of the issues of poverty, it 

would be nice that we could fund programs like prenatal care 

which as I see the Doctor shaking his head in affirmation, would 

ensure all the kids in D.C., in New Jersey, and cities across the 

country got access to prenatal care. Models such as nurse-family 

partnerships, which entail nurse’s visiting homes in the last trimester and first 2 years of infancy, demonstrates incredible data 

in improving student achievement. 

I wish we could be funding many other effective programs. The 

unfortunate thing, however, is that our failure to support things 

that work means that our teachers in public schools, District 

schools, charter schools, all have to deal with challenges that they 

should not have to deal with, and that is unfortunate that we are 

straining the capacity of our schools and our police officers because 

we are failing as a society to support things that actually work. 

But in terms of this program, there are a number of changes that 

we have sought to include in a reauthorization. Within one year of 
39 

the enactment of the law, schools must pursue accreditation. That 

seems to me fair. Kevin, is that fair? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Absolutely. And we have been working with Senator Feinstein on that. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. No, I appreciate that, and that, to me, is 

something that is really important. 

Schools shall have annual reporting, report to parents of D.C. 

OSP students and college acceptance, vocational—again, just requiring more reporting. In other words, I have seen what some of 

the District schools have to deal with in terms of accountability 

and reporting and accreditation. That should apply, to some degree, 

to the schools that are participating in the program, correct? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Kevin, thank you. 

And then the issue I brought up earlier, Kevin, if you can just 

comment on that for me, about the amount of the scholarship, because that seems to me something that is very frustrating to me, 

because we call this a choice program, but it does not seem like the 

kids with only $12,000, $12,500, get all that much choice. And 

there are a lot of schools that might be participating in the program if that was closer to what the per pupil expenditure was of 

about $28,400. And, one of the reasons, I think, one of the collateral consequences of a low rate means that those schools that bend 

over backward to allow those kids to come in end up with the very 

high percentages, where maybe you would not have such a high 

percentage concentrated in certain schools if more kids had more 

robust choices higher scholarship amounts would produce. Could 

you address that for me, Kevin? 

Mr. CHAVOUS. Sure, and thank you so much for your support 

over the years and your friendship. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. So, I will say that, look, we would like to see bigger and larger amounts. There was an increase when it was reauthorized several years ago which was very helpful. And if we had 

a larger appropriation, yes, we could bring more schools in the program. 

And I do want to, frankly, give a shout out and a thank you to 

those schools that have higher tuition rates, they still take kids 

and they scholarship the rest. I mean, I think those schools have 

shown a real commitment. 

So, we would like to see larger scholarship amounts. It would 

help us attract more of the high-end schools, and a number of those 

high-end schools, when they do bring in our students, they also 

bring a full investment of tutorial services, mentoring. It is like 

they really welcome those students into the family, and she has 

done an amazing job of that, so that there is no stigma attached 

to them coming in, as we have seen. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. 

Mr. CHAVOUS. So, I think that would be—— 

Senator BOOKER. No, I appreciate it, and I appreciate, Ms. 

Blaufuss, what you were saying, because it resonates with me, this 

idea that government funding large percentages of these schools, 

well, with regard to charters and District schools whose government fund the whole thing, and without that funding, those schools 
40 

would not exist. So, the focus should be on our children, on parents, 

and on the performance, ultimately, of those schools, as I think Dr. 

Lubienski gets to, and that is really, for me, what I care about. The 

quality of the education received should predominate our discussion first and foremost empowering those schools to achieve. 

Again, we disempower public education every day in America by 

sending kids to school who are nutritionally unfit to learn, who do 

not have mental health issues addressed, and then you have teachers in public schools, District schools, and private schools who have 

to deal with all kind of things before they even get to reading, writing, and arithmetic. I just want to keep emphasizing that. 

But, I just want to, real quick, there has been criticism, and I 

think you have had some, for the evaluation of this program, and 

I think we should figure out a way to evaluate the program, to create as best as you can a control group. It is hard to do that, you 

would admit, in a program in which you would have to deny scholarships to some people in order to create that control group, correct? 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. Yes. It is similar to medical trials, where there 

is a group of people that are in the experiment and a group that 

is not and they do not necessarily know which group there are in. 

Here, in this case, they do know if they are accepted to the voucher 

program or not. 

I would say that these effects, these types of programs in medical 

trials, when there is evidence that they are having a substantial 

impact, it is considered unethical to deny treatment to the control 

group. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. That is not the case here. We have not reached 

anywhere near that level of evidence. Most of the evidence suggests 

that there is not an impact. 

Senator BOOKER. But, would you agree with me that if the scholarship amount was more and kids could go to higher performing 

schools—schools with long track records of success that are not accepting our scholarship kids right now, that it is most likely that 

those kids would do better, right? 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. The best predictor, or one of the best—as was 

said earlier, family—parents—— 

Senator BOOKER. The parental—— 

Mr. LUBIENSKI [continuing]. Interest is very important, but so is 

the, again, the peer group or the social characteristics of the school 

that the child is learning in. That is an excellent predictor of it, regardless of whether it is a public, charter, or private school. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. So, yes. I think taking kids and giving them access to these types of schools would be beneficial. But, again, I 

would caution you to think about that is removing—I mean, you 

are clustering higher achieving, motivated peers in some places 

and that you are taking them from elsewhere. So, that is going to 

have, also, negative impacts. 

Senator BOOKER. But, that is not persuasive to me because we 

have created a society that allows segregation—New Jersey, for African-Americans, the fifth most segregated State in the Nation, and 

a lot of that is a family led battle. My parents were looking for 
41 

quality public schools, so we had to get the Fair Housing Council, 

go through court proceedings just to battle into a neighborhood so 

I could go to the schools that I went to. And, so, that is not persuasive to me. In other words, we are going to punish those children 

who might have the wherewithal or parents when we do not do 

that for others. I am sorry. You can respond to that, if you want. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. I did not mean to say that we are punishing 

those children. I am saying we are, in fact, punishing children who 

are left behind whose parents do not care enough to make the 

choice. When they are concentrated in schools where all the affluent and more motivated peers have left, those are called sink 

schools oftentimes, and I have—those children are penalized. 

Senator BOOKER. Right, but that does not mean that policy within those schools—I have seen so-called sink schools in my own city 

that, because of changes within those public schools, do extraordinarily well. There are turnaround schools that make incredible 

gains. So, that is not an excuse to just give up on those children. 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. I would not at all advocate we should give up on 

them. But, I would suggest that most of the turnaround cases we 

have seen, there tends to be a socioeconomic explanation for that. 

For example, people have pointed to some high-poverty schools that 

have actually succeeded and beat the odds. Closer inspection turns 

out that they are near a campus where many of the parents are 

graduate students. They are low-income at that point, but the parents are really focused on education. So, those are things that—— 

Senator BOOKER. So, if Kevin’s work was able to address the accreditation issues, which he is addressing, so we have more transparency into what is going on in those schools, if Kevin’s work, 

thanks to increased scholarship amounts, helps kids get more diversity of schools where they could actually be in better schools, if 

Kevin’s work on the accountability measures within those schools 

also helps to improve—really, it sounds to me that your biggest 

concern about this program, correct me if I am wrong, is just the 

fact that when you, like a charter school might and like a so-called 

voucher school might, taking one of those kids out hurts—your argument is it is hurting the District school, not because it is taking 

money away, because in this case it is not, it is new money, but 

you are saying it is hurting the school because of the peer effect. 

That would be your biggest argument against the program? 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. I am not arguing against the program. I am saying that is something that policymakers need to consider, that 

there are often costs involved, and this is, again, from the 

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) 

report. They talk about benefits and costs being unevenly distributed. As more affluent parents leave these schools, that does have 

a negative implication for the peer effects for the schools and for 

the students who are left behind. 

Senator BOOKER. Right, and have you taken time to study what 

is happening in Newark at all? 

Mr. LUBIENSKI. I am aware of Newark and I am aware of the 

CREDO studies, as well, and there are certainly success stories like 

Newark around there. There is a new book out about Newark 

which I have not had the chance to read yet. But, I have gone 

around the country. I talk with different policymakers, and they 
42 

1The prepared statement of Dr. Patrick Wolf appears in the Appendix on page 101. 

2The prepared statement from the Government Accountability Office appears in the Appendix 

on page 82. 

are quite happy to talk about, I am from this city and we are doing 

well in terms of charter schools. 

But, overall, the CREDO studies from earlier suggested about, I 

think it was 17 percent of the charter schools were performing 

above statistically—or demographically comparable public schools, 

and there are reasons to think that that number is actually inflated. Twice as many were actually performing at a level beneath 

demographically comparable public schools, and the rest were a 

wash. So, for every Newark, there is an Ohio or a Michigan where 

charter schools are pretty bad. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. And I guess my point, the last point I 

will make, because my time has expired, is that there are enough 

examples of what is working, and the goal here is to learn from 

that and constantly work to make things better for our public 

schools. And to me, that is what is happening in Washington, DC. 

They have made mistakes in the program in the past and they are 

working to try to continue to make it better. 

And, so, I am grateful for both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, 

working to again deal with some of the mistakes that were made, 

control for some of the bad things, in my opinion, that might have 

happened in the past, really, and chart a course forward that 

works not just for the kids fortunate enough to get a scholarship, 

but really to focus on all three sectors within Washington, DC. and 

to see them improve. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. We have just 

got a couple minutes left on the vote. 

I do ask unanimous consent that a written statement from Dr. 

Patrick Wolf, distinguished Professor of Education Policy at the 

University of Arkansas,1 and a written statement from the Government Accountability Office, be included in the record.2 Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We really do want to thank all of our witnesses. We obviously wish you all the best, but Linda, you are an 

extraordinary young woman. We wish you all the best. You are 

going to take advantage of this opportunity and we wish you well. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for the next 15 

days, until November 19, 5 p.m., for the submission of statements 

and questions for the record. 

Again, thank you all for your time, for your thoughtful testimony, 

and your thoughtful answers to our questions. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(43) 

A P P E N D I X 
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 

Æ