EQUAL EDUCATIONAL CHOICES FOR PARENTS 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 16, 2002 

Serial No. 107-58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-132 pdf 

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

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

 FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

VACANCY

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON. D.C..................................................................................................................... 1 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. REED, PRESIDENT, MACKINAC CENTER FOR 

PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN ............................................................................... 6 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CHRISTOPHER, GRANDFATHER OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER 

HOLLOWAY, DENVER, COLORADO....................................................................................... 8 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, STUDENT, WATCH CARE 

ACADEMY, DENVER, COLORADO.......................................................................................... 9 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. PARENTS 

FOR SCHOOL CHOICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. ....................................................................... 10 

STATEMENT OF LATHA KRISHNAIYER, CHAIR, LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, 

NATIONAL PTA, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND MEMBER, FLORIDA PTA........................... 12 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT M. MINCBERG, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGAL POLICY 

DIRECTOR, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

...................................................................................................................................................... 14 

STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATION 

LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 16 

APPENDIX A -- OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON. D.C. ........................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX B -- OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER GEORGE 

MILLER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE DALE KILDEE, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 47 

APPENDIX C -- STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. REED, PRESIDENT, MACKINAC 

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN .................................................... 51 

APPENDIX D -- STATEMENT OF GLENN CHRISTOPHER, GRANDFATHER OF JOSHUA 

CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, DENVER, COLORADO......................................................... 59 
iv

APPENDIX E -- STATEMENT OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, STUDENT, 

WATCH CARE ACADEMY, DENVER, COLORADO ............................................................ 65 

APPENDIX F -- STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

D.C. PARENTS FOR SCHOOL CHOICE, WASHINGTON, D.C............................................. 69 

APPENDIX G -- STATEMENT OF LATHA KRISHNAIYER, CHAIR, LEGISLATION 

COMMITTEE, NATIONAL PTA, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND MEMBER, FLORIDA PTA. 75 

APPENDIX H -- STATEMENT OF ELLIOT M. MINCBERG, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

LEGAL POLICY DIRECTOR, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 91 

APPENDIX I -- STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. .............................. 165 

APPENDIX J -- LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC 

EDUCATION, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE LYNN 

WOOLSEY, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.............................................................................................................................................. 175 

APPENDIX K – COLLINS CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF 

THE FLORIDA INCOME TAX CREDIT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM................................ 181 

TABLE OF INDEXES ............................................................................................................... 195
1

HEARING ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL 

CHOICES FOR PARENTS 

__________________________________

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Hon. John Boehner [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Boehner, Hoekstra, Schaffer, Isakson, Osborne, Kildee, Owens, 

Payne, Roemer, Scott, and Woolsey. 

 Staff present: Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Doug Mesecar, Professional Staff 

Member; Maria Miller, Communications Coordinator; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee 

Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; 

Denise Forte, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, 

Minority Staff Assistant/Education; and Suzanne Palmer, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON. D.C. 

Chairman Boehner. The Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

 Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking 

minority member of the committee. Therefore, if other members have opening statements, they 

will be included in the record. 

 And with that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to 

allow members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing today to be 
2

submitted for the official record. Without objection, so ordered. 

 Well, good afternoon to all of you, and I want to thank our witnesses and those of you in the 

audience for being here today. We have invited you here because all of us believe every American 

child should have the chance to learn, and to pursue the American dream. Unfortunately, as things 

currently stand, not every child in America today will get that chance. America is not yet a land of 

equal educational opportunity. Children of parents in poor communities do not have the same 

educational options as their counterparts in wealthier districts. This reality disproportionately 

impacts minority Americans, and it is a direct cause of the academic achievement gap that 

continues to exist between disadvantaged students and their peers. 

 Our first priority is to strengthen all of our schools with new resources, accountability, and 

local control. The bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law by President Bush in 

January, takes this approach. The new law says that when schools are struggling, that we will not 

turn our backs on them, we will focus more attention on them, and push them to excel. 

 And under the No Child Left Behind Act, our nation's poorer schools this year will receive 

an historic increase in federal aid, and schools designated as failing will qualify for extra help. 

 We cannot turn our backs on failing schools, and we won't. But we cannot turn our backs 

on children trapped in endlessly failing schools, either. When schools do not teach, and do not 

change, even after repeated efforts to turn them around, there must be a safety valve for the 

students. And that is what today's hearing is about. 

 For low-income parents, educational choice can mean the difference between keeping a 

child trapped in a failing school that refuses to change and sending the child to a better-achieving 

school that offers hope. Giving parents new options, such as education tax credits, which are 

beginning to show results in some states and are gaining momentum in other states, is a critical 

next step in education reform. 

 Expanding parental choice also helps to energize the public education system, and spur 

struggling schools to succeed. Critics wrongly claim that giving parents more choice will result in 

resources being drained away from public schools. The evidence we've seen in places like Florida, 

where parental choice measures for low-income families have been successfully implemented as a 

means of bolstering school accountability, suggest these fears are unfounded. Parental choice 

doesn't drain resources away from public schools. But the absence of parental choice drains hope 

away from disadvantaged students. And this is the issue that Congress is compelled to address. 

 Last year, at the president's urging, Congress took significant bipartisan action to expand 

choices for low-income parents. And while offering unprecedented support for public schools and 

public school teachers, we created expanded education savings accounts that helped parents pay for 

K through 12 educational expenses in both private and public schools. 

 And we gave parents with children in chronically failing schools the right to choose a 

private tutor, or a better- achieving public school or charter school. And both of these reforms 
3

were part of the president's original No Child Left Behind plan. 

 This year, Republicans and Democrats in Congress must build upon the solid foundation by 

taking further action to expand parental choices in education. Parental choice is an essential 

element of accountability. It makes our schools stronger, not weaker. 

 The president's fiscal year 2003 budget provides for an education tax credit that would build 

on last year's bipartisan education reforms. As Michael Guerra, president of the National Catholic 

Education Association, said recently, and I will quote, ``The president's proposal will unlock a door 

for families whose children are trapped in failing public schools. Their future is on the line, and the 

president recognizes that time is of the essence.'' 

 Our colleague, Bob Schaffer of Colorado, has agreed to take the lead on this project, and I 

expect that he will soon introduce legislation to meet the president's goal of further expanding 

parental choice in education. 

 Our colleague from Michigan, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, also has played a key role in this 

process, and I am grateful for their efforts. 

 The testimony we will hear today will help lay the groundwork for legislative action this 

year on expanded parental choice in education. And if Democrats and Republicans truly hope to 

improve all of America's schools, equal educational opportunity for all students is essential. 

 And with that, I would like to yield to my good friend and my colleague from the state of 

Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON. D.C. – 

SEE APPENDIX A 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like, first of all, to submit a statement from the 

ranking minority member, Mr. Miller, for the record. 

Chairman Boehner. Without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER GEORGE MILLER 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE DALE KILDEE, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DALE KILDEE, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
4

Mr. Kildee. This committee, for a number of years, has looked at options and choices for parents.

In H.R. 1, we looked at and considered private school vouchers in this committee. Those were 

turned down, as were two votes on the floor. 

 But we constantly want to hear from people out there, including students, and I see a 

student here today. We want to get the input from everybody. 

 We have jurisdiction over private school vouchers. We have jurisdiction over charter 

schools, too, and we encourage charter schools. We have addressed those through the years with 

various degrees of approval or disapproval. 

 The tax credit proposals really are not under the jurisdiction of this committee. They would 

be under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. But again, we do talk to one another 

down here, and we do like to get input from everyone on these issues. 

 So, with that, I would like to submit Mr. Miller's statement for the record, and yield back 

the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I think we will now move to the introduction of the 

witnesses, and I would call on Mr. Hoekstra to introduce our first witness. 

Mr. Hoekstra. I thank the chairman. I would like to introduce a good friend of mine from the 

State of Michigan, Mr. Larry Reed. 

Mr. Reed is the president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, or Research and 

Educational Institute. Previously, he taught and chaired the economics department at Midland's 

Northwood University. In addition, he has authored many newspaper articles and columns, written 

five books, and traveled to 58 countries on six continents as a freelance journalist. 

 Larry holds a bachelor's degree in economics, a master's degree in history, and an honorary 

degree of doctor of public administration. 

 We are glad you are here, and really want to applaud you and the Mackinac Center for the 

effort and the work that you do on a national basis, but most importantly, as being the head of the 

leading think tank at the state level in the country, congratulations, and thanks for being here. 

Mr. Reed. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. I will call on Mr. Schaffer to introduce our next two witnesses. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had the pleasure of flying out from Denver this 

morning with our next two witnesses, and I am eager to introduce them. 
5

 Joshua Christopher Holloway is a fifth-grade student at Watch-Care Academy, a small, 

private elementary school in Denver. Joshua recently won the Alliance for Choice in Education 

essay contest, and he will read that essay, which is entitled, ``What a Scholarship Means to Me,'' 

today.

 Joshua and his brother both receive scholarships from the Alliance for Choice in Education, 

or ACE, and Joshua's proud grandfather, Mr. Glenn Christopher, is here, as well, and he will 

explain how tax legislation, the tax credit legislation, will help more children like his own 

grandsons.

Mr. Christopher works for the United States Postal Service, and we are honored that he has 

taken time off of work to be with us to discuss this important issue today. 

 Joshua, and hundreds of other children like him, receives scholarships from foundations 

such as ACE. ACE currently assists just fewer than 700 children in the Denver metro area, and 

most of these children are from low-income families who could not otherwise afford to help their 

children get out of failing public schools and into schools such as Watch-Care. 

 Unfortunately, for every child receiving a scholarship, there is more than one child on 

ACE's waiting list. And I think you will be touched by Joshua's story today; he represents 

thousands of children across the country with similar stories, and they are in need of real help. 

 I am currently drafting a bill that we intend to introduce very soon which will provide more 

children like Joshua with the means to improve their academic opportunity. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. Our next witness is Virginia Walden-Ford. Ms. Ford is the 

executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, whose mission is to organize and inform 

parents concerning appropriate educational decisions for their children. 

 Prior to this position, Ms. Ford served as a community outreach director and media 

specialist for Friends of Choice in Urban Schools. She has also worked with the National Center 

for Neighborhood Enterprise as a parent outreach coordinator, a volunteer for the Center for 

Education Reform, and taught kindergarten at public school. On top of that, she's a good friend of 

mine. 

 Our next witness, Ms. Latha Krishnaiyer, who serves as the chair for the legislation 

committee of the National PTA, has been a member for 22 years. She is the past president of the 

Florida PTA and Broward County council PTA. 

 And then we will have Mr. Elliot Mincberg. He is the vice president and education policy 

director of People for the American Way Foundation. Previously, he was a partner in the D.C. law 

firm of Hogan and Hartson, where he specialized in education litigation. 
6

 And lastly, Ms. Lisa Graham Keegan is the founding member and chief executive officer of 

the Educational Leaders Council. Prior to this position she was Arizona's superintendent of public 

instruction and served two terms in the Arizona House of Representatives, from 1991 to 1994, 

where she chaired the education committee. 

 In 1999, Ms. Keegan was presented with the Milton and Rose D. Freeman Foundation 

Award for her leadership in educational choice and was honored by the Republican Women's 

Leaders Forum as educator of the year. 

 Well, welcome, all of our witnesses today. And under the committee rules, you will each 

have five minutes to testify. Your green light will come on, be on for four minutes, it will be 

amber for a minute, and when it turns red, you are supposed to stop. Now, we won't take your head 

off if you don't, but if you talk too long, we might. 

 So, with that, Mr. Reed, would you like to begin? 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. REED, PRESIDENT, MACKINAC 

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 

Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Few issues are more important 

to the future of this country than the education of our children. 

 My remarks today spring from a critical premise, a premise that we need reforms that will 

foster a new burst of individual and institutional involvement in the learning process, reforms that 

will create a truly vibrant, competitive, and accountable marketplace which attracts widespread, 

popular participation and voluntary investment. 

 Not all education reforms are created equal. Indeed, at the Mackinac Center for Public 

Policy, we believe that all reforms intended to improve the quality of public education fall into just 

three categories: those dealing with rules, those involving resources, and those concerned with 

incentives.

 Rules-based reforms include such things as extending school days and the school year, 

changing teacher certification and school accreditation requirements, imposing national and state 

testing, enacting stricter dress codes, and the like. 

 Research has shown that these reforms, while prompting marginal improvements, have 

failed to turn around a large-scale decline in education. More drastic city or state takeovers of 

failing schools in districts and other regulatory regimes have been and still are being tried with the 

same disappointing results. 

 Most of these efforts have driven critical elements of the management of our schools 

beyond the reach of parents and local governing bodies, and concentrated large portions of remote 

bureaucracies.
7

 Another attempt at strategy to improve public education is through resource-based reforms. 

They include such measures as increased funding, new textbooks, wiring schools for Internet 

access, and other measures that require greater financial expenditures. They all derive from a 

decidedly unpopular source: raising somebody's taxes. 

 The central finding of over 30 years of research is clear; more money does not necessarily 

equal better education. There are schools, states, and countries that spend a great deal of money per 

pupil with poor results, while others spend much less and get much better results. 

 We have all but exhausted the rules and resources approaches to education reform, with 

little to show for our time and money in many cases. The one promising category left is incentives. 

I am referring to incentives that will encourage more people to get involved as parents and donors 

and friends of education: tax credits, in particular. 

 Properly designed education tax credit programs help drive the funding of education away 

from distant bureaucracies and put it in the hands of all citizens interested in improving education 

for everybody. It's a great way for every segment of society to get personally involved in 

education, especially when it's aimed at helping needy children. 

 Tax credit programs that involve contributions for all schools, public or private, can bring 

the diverse and sometimes disputatious education community together, because they create winners 

without producing losers. 

 They can make our school officials fundraisers, instead of tax raisers, and ultimately allow 

for better utilization of resources for schools. Ultimately, they can expand opportunities for 

children immensely and bake a bigger pie for education all the way around. 

 Education tax credits are meant to empower parents in the local community to participate in 

the education of children at any school. 

 Tax credits don't represent a claim by anyone on someone else's wallet. You don't get the 

credit if you don't pay tuition or if you don't pay taxes, or if you don't contribute to a scholarship 

fund. A credit on your taxes represents a return on your own money, period. 

 And credits can be extended, not only to parents paying tuition and other educational 

expenses, but also to other citizens, or even companies, that contribute to scholarship funds, that 

assist children in getting access to the school of their choice, public or private. 

 Key to the universal tax credit concept pioneered at the state level by my organization is the 

notion that it allows any taxpayer, individual or corporate, parent or grandparent, neighbor or 

friend, to contribute to the education of any elementary or secondary child, and then qualify for a 

credit against certain taxes owed. 

 Scholarship funds will be established by schools, companies, churches, and myriad private 

groups spurred on by individuals and companies who want to help children get the best schooling 
8

in environments that are safe and conducive to learning. 

 Tax credit plans are now in place at the state level in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, 

Iowa, and Pennsylvania, each program with its own unique features, but all of them generating tens 

of millions of dollars to help kids. Federal legislation has been proposed that would permit an 

education tax credit against federal income taxes owed of up to $500, $1,000 for joint filers for 

contributions to qualified scholarship funds or to local public schools for construction or 

technology. Corporations could receive a 75 percent credit up to $100,000. 

 That proposal is a modest start that won't break the budget. It's a great way for the federal 

government to improve education without spending more, taxing more, or creating any more 

bureaucracies. It will send a strong signal that the federal government trusts parents. It will spur 

more charitable giving in a bigger education funding pie at the state and local level. 

 And by not discriminating against private schools over public or public schools over 

private, it introduces a new measure of fairness that just isn't in the system today. 

 Indeed, education is still, overwhelmingly, a state and local matter. And that's where 

groups and citizens should work to craft universal tax credit plans on to their existing tax and 

education infrastructure. But the broad outlines are clear for every state: help parents, concerned 

citizens, and businesses help kids by giving them encouragement when they contribute to the costs 

of providing education. 

 It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will galvanize and strengthen civil 

society by giving individuals and firms new incentive to assist the educational dreams of their 

fellow citizens. It will bolster the incentives of existing public schools to improve. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. REED, PRESIDENT, MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC 

POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. Mr. Christopher? 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CHRISTOPHER, GRANDFATHER OF JOSHUA 

CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. Christopher. Greetings. I am Glenn Christopher, and I am the grandfather of two amazing 

grandsons, Joshua Christopher Holloway and Jeremiah Christopher Holloway. 

 I am here to testify in support of the educational tax credits. Educational tax credits would 

expand educational opportunities for low-income families who prefer the option of private or 

parochial schools for their children. It would cover private school tuition for children who are 

labeled ``unteachable.'' 
9

 Educational tax credits would offer a credit against state tax, income tax for private 

contributors that provide educational assistance. It would give more organizations an incentive to 

give donations to educational organizations and foundations that provide scholarships for the lowincome students and minorities. 

 Educational tax credits would not only benefit low-income children in private schools, it 

also will benefit public schools as well. Educational tax credits will give competition more scope 

and improve the quality of schooling available to all students. It will also heighten the quality of 

education within our local, regional, and state educational institutions. 

 Personally, I am a benefactor of the ACE scholarship program for my two grandsons, which 

I greatly appreciate. It allows my two grandsons, and a host of other children, to obtain a better 

education at Watch-Care Academy. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CHRISTOPHER, GRANDFATHER OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER 

HOLLOWAY, DENVER, COLORADO -- SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Boehner. Joshua? 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, STUDENT, 

WATCH CARE ACADEMY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Joshua Holloway. Hello, my name is Joshua Holloway. I was born in Denver. My favorite 

subject is football. I am 10 years old. My mother passed away last year. I have a brother who is 

six and his name is Jeremiah. We go to church every Sunday. Before I go to school, I read the 

Bible.

 I live with my grandfather. Sometimes, my cousins come over and we play outside and 

play video games. Before my mom passed away, she told my grandfather to bring us to WatchCare. We were at Watch-Care before we moved to New York. My grandpa couldn't afford it for 

my brother and I. Mrs. Perry told him about the ACE scholarships. My grandpa applied, and we 

were awarded ACE scholarships. 

 Jeremiah and I say, ``Thank you, ACE. It is with your help that my grandpa is able to bring 

us to this fantastic school. I know my mom is happy and thank you, also.'' 

 When I grow up, I want to be a lawyer, then a football player. Thank you for helping all the 

children who are getting such a good education through your program. I want to win. This will 

help my grandpa with money for Jeremiah and I. 

 Excuse me; I would like to make a correction. I meant to say my favorite hobby is football. 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER HOLLOWAY, STUDENT, WATCH CARE 

ACADEMY, DENVER, COLORADO – SEE APPENDIX E 
10

Chairman Boehner. Well, thank you. Good job. 

Joshua Holloway. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Ford? 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

D.C. PARENTS FOR SCHOOL CHOICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Ford. Mr. Chairman, as always, it is good to see you and members of the committee, thanks 

for this opportunity to speak on behalf of so many desperate parents in D.C. 

 Several years ago, I was a single mother with a son in ninth grade. When my son started 

having problems in and out of school, I definitely did not want him to stay in D.C. public schools, 

it just was not serving his needs, and we were very blessed to get a private school scholarship from 

a neighbor, and my son was able to attend a private school in the District of Columbia. 

 He graduated and is now in the Marine Corps. I have now have responsibility for two 

stepchildren who are in charter schools. 

 You have no idea what it's like to be trapped in poor performing schools like the ones in our 

neighborhoods in the District. For years, D.C. parents have been told to wait and a reform would 

come. But is it right to sacrifice the educational futures of our children by waiting four more, or six 

more years, and seeing no changes, or changes that come so slowly that they're impossible to see? 

 I lead D.C. Parents for School Choice, and counsel many low-income parents, and I know 

that being low-income does not mean caring any less about a child's future. We hear from parents 

who have bright children, but those children are behind in math and reading based on documented 

performance of many schools in the poorest communities in D.C. 

 Other children in those same schools, especially African-American males, have been 

inappropriately labeled emotionally handicapped, or learning disabled, and sentenced to a special 

education system that is one of the worst in the nation. 

 Children in some of the worst high schools in the city have begun to acclimate themselves 

to the dropout culture that pervades their schools. They will begin to expect to drop out the way 

many of their friends have. Tragically, parents are beginning to see the same attitudes, even in our 

city's middle school students. 

 Parents have begun fearing for their children's lives. In our neighborhoods, here in D.C., 

and in many urban centers, when young males drop out, they often end up in prison, or worse. 

 We have a system, which leaves hundreds of thousands of low-income, and predominantly 

minority, children in terrible schools with low academic achievement and high rates of crime. 
11

 D.C. Parents for School Choice has received hundreds of calls from parents who have not 

been fortunate enough to get a scholarship through the many scholarship groups in town such as the 

Washington Scholarship, the Black Student Fund, et cetera, and also from parents who are camping 

out for charter schools that are not keeping in pace with parents' needs to get out of failing schools. 

 They contact us, looking for better options for children, and we get a lot of calls from 

parents. Presently, we have 3,000 parents on our mailing list who have called at some time or 

another, looking for other kinds of opportunities for their children. And we believe that's just a 

fraction of parents that probably don't even know we exist, so don't know to call us. 

 Parents here in D.C. are daily expressing their frustrations to a school system that is taking 

just too long to fix itself. Many of them have come to the point where they feel hopeless and 

helpless, which is often interpreted as not caring about their children. 

 However, we have seen that when children are placed in nurturing environments, 

educational environments, they succeed, and their parents become active and involved. We really 

support any kind of effort that would make these kinds of opportunities available to parents in D.C. 

 We have run out of solutions for parents. The charter schools are overcrowded; the 

Washington Scholarship Fund can only serve, you know, a portion of the students that need help.

And so, we are looking for all kinds of options for our parents, and really applaud you for again 

looking at this kind of situation and we believe that it's something that would probably be good for 

our students. 

 I have been working on this a long time, too long, absolutely too long, and the more we get 

involved, the more I get involved in helping the parents in D.C. as they look for options for their 

children, the more I realize that many parents are really desperate, I mean really desperate. 

 I am really tired of going home and not being able to sleep, thinking about a parent that 

called us and we couldn't find a charter school, we couldn't tell them to call WSF for a scholarship. 

We just have no solutions for them. 

 And we really believe, as we go out and talk to parents in the community and parents in this 

city and even talk to parents all over the country, because you form alliances when you do this kind 

of work with parents everywhere, we believe it's just getting much worse, and we have to do 

something to fix it. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA WALDEN FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. PARENTS 

FOR SCHOOL CHOICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Krishnaiyer? 
12

STATEMENT OF LATHA KRISHNAIYER, CHAIR, LEGISLATION 

COMMITTEE, NATIONAL PTA, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND MEMBER, 

FLORIDA PTA 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Latha Krishnaiyer. I come here today 

as a mother, but also as a representative of the 381,000 members of the Florida PTA, and the 6.5 

million members of the National PTA. 

 I chair National PTA's legislation committee, which implements our legislative program, 

based on positions that are adopted by our membership. 

 I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address its members on the need 

to provide options to parents whose children attend schools in need of improvement. The options 

we want do not involve mechanisms to escape our neighborhood schools. We want to improve 

them. The best educational option for parents would be a high-quality public school in every 

neighborhood in America. 

 I agree that families with children in schools needing improvement deserve solutions. As a 

child advocate and a member of the PTA, however, my goal is to ensure that a high-quality public 

education is available to all children. 

 Therefore, we support reforms that are publicly accountable, and that are designed to help 

all children, such as class size reduction, professional development, school modernization, parent 

involvement, and school-based before and after-school programs. 

 Rather than explore options for abandoning our public schools, I urge this committee to 

focus on measures such as these, which cost no more, and take no more time to implement than 

vouchers and tax credits, but will improve all schools and help all children without undermining the 

accountability that this committee works so hard to implement in the recently enacted Leave No 

Child Left Behind Act. 

 The term ``choice'' sounds appealing. But, in fact, vouchers and tuition tax credits are a 

cruel hoax on many parents whose children will not be able to attend the schools they choose. 

Private schools may deny admission based on any number of criteria. Private school administrators 

thus enjoy the only real choice, as they get to pick which applicants they will accept. 

 Enrollment in private school is promoted as a magic bullet for improving student 

achievement. The data do not support this presumption. There is no solid scientifically based 

evidence that attendance at voucher schools improves student achievement. 

 Nor do vouchers improve public schools. A study by the Manhattan Institute claims that 

Florida's A+ program, which includes the threat of vouchers, spurred remarkable improvement at 

schools that had been graded as failing. The study, however, did not take into account extra 

teachers and other resources provided to those schools. Teachers report that these inputs, not the 

threat of vouchers, made the difference. 
13

 In addition to failing to improve student achievement or expand parental options, vouchers 

suffer a third strike by diverting public funds to private schools, where taxpayers exercise no 

oversight. They completely undermine accountability. 

 Voucher proponents claim that parents provide all the accountability that is needed. Parents 

can vote with their feet and take their voucher money elsewhere. In Florida, we have not found this 

threat to be any more effective in preventing fraud and mismanagement than it has been in 

Milwaukee and Cleveland. 

 The St. Petersburg Times reports that some voucher schools have been charged with 

physically abusing students, have failed to provide students with textbooks, and cannot maintain 

staff, perhaps because they pay teachers as little as $10.50 per hour and terminate teachers and 

administrators who report these abuses. 

 In addition to vouchers, this committee is considering tuition tax credits. These schemes 

suffer from the same liabilities as vouchers, in that they fail to improve public schools, while 

providing no accountability to the public. 

 Last year, Florida enacted a tax credit for corporations that contribute to private voucher 

foundations, which will cost the state $50 million, annually. Though a recent report found the 

program to be revenue-neutral, that conclusion was based on the incorrect assumption that 

education costs will decline as students transfer from public to private school. 

 School districts, however, face fixed capital expenses that cannot be reduced merely 

because a few students transferred to a different system. Indeed, as a result of revenue shortfalls, 

school districts in Florida have been forced to reduce and eliminate many programs. 

 Vouchers and tuition tax subsidies divert public funds from public schools, where 90 

percent of our children are enrolled, to private schools that are not accountable to the public, and 

are designed, at best, to help only at least a few students. 

 Any option that, by design, sacrifices the majority of children for the benefit of a few is 

economically shortsighted. We cannot renege on our commitment to leave no child behind by 

adopting such options. 

 The challenges confronting some public schools are varied and complex, commanding an 

even greater commitment on the part of parents, community leaders, and elected officials. It is our 

civic obligation to promote options that will help all children and leave none behind. 

 The option most parents want is not the opportunity to research every school in their school 

district, find the one that offers all the best for their child, apply, and hope, in the case of private 

schools to be accepted, and then arrange transportation to and from that school, which may be 

across the country from their own home. 

 The option parents’ want is to find that school in their own neighborhood. The solution this 

committee can offer is the support to improve all schools so parents won't need to find other 
14

options that involve abandoning their neighborhood public schools. 

 If schools need repairs, then renovate them. If classrooms are overcrowded, build new 

schools and hire more teachers. If the schools lack computers and books, supply them. If teachers 

need additional training, or families need support services, then schools should provide them. 

 Use the public schools where there are measurable successes as models for education 

reform initiatives in poor performing public schools. These are the immediate research-tested 

proven options that we and millions of other Americans support. 

 Thank you for your commitment to our children, and for giving me the opportunity to 

address you. 

STATEMENT OF LATHA KRISHNAIYER, CHAIR, LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, 

NATIONAL PTA, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND MEMBER, FLORIDA PTA – SEE APPENDIX G 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. Mr. Mincberg? 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT M. MINCBERG, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGAL 

POLICY DIRECTOR, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Mincberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here 

on behalf of People for the American Way Foundation, which continues to work to study and to 

implement ways to provide equal and effective educational opportunities for all of our children. 

 As part of that, we have supported methods that truly provide effective public school 

educational options and opportunities, particularly for low-income students, such as magnet 

schools, properly run charter schools, and the ESA provision that you mentioned, that provides for 

transfer to better-performing, I underline that, public schools, in the case of chronically failing 

schools.

 These methods, if properly funded, can help provide quality public education to all kids, 

with accountability for educational performance and choice by parents and students. 

 But in contrast, tuition tax credits and their first cousin, vouchers, do not help achieve these 

objectives. Instead, these schemes do, in fact, drain crucial resources from public school kids. 

They provide choice primarily to private schools, not parents and students, and create serious 

problems of accountability. 

 When voters have been asked to choose, they have overwhelmingly rejected these schemes 

in favor of strengthening public schools, the same choice made last year by this Congress, and that 

should be made again this year. 
15

 My written testimony talks both about the Cleveland voucher plan, which I will leave to my 

written testimony for now, and the Arizona tax credit plan, which I will discuss for a few moments 

now.

 When Arizona passed their tuition tax credit law, it was hailed as a model for improving 

public education and providing choice for low-income parents to transfer out of failing public 

schools.

 In fact, a study that we did, and studies by Arizona State University demonstrate that that's 

not the case, that instead, it's a model for seriously undermining public education, particularly for 

poor children. 

 A couple of the key findings; first, over a three-year period, the Arizona schemes cost more 

than $74 million, and that money went largely to subsidize education for middle and upper-income 

families, not to low-income kids in public schools. 

 You will hear from Mrs. Keegan other study results that she likes better, but I will ask you, 

if you have any question, to look at what a spokeswoman for the Arizona governor said not too 

long ago, ``It is mostly middle income families whose kids already are in private schools are taking 

advantage of the program,'' she said, ``not the poor kids supporters claim that it would help.'' 

 Second, both the studies demonstrate why the tax credit law doesn't provide actual choice 

for low-income kids. The average tuition grant covers only between one-quarter and one-fifth the 

cost of tuition at private schools, and do nothing to overcome barriers such as transportation costs, 

additional fees, admission exams, and other requirements. In large measure, in Arizona, it's the 

private schools that are doing the choosing, not the kids and parents. 

 Third, there is no accountability for how publicly subsidized dollars are spent in the 

Arizona tax credit system. As we mentioned, in public schools with low-income kids, if they're not 

performing adequately, a transfer may occur in three years, but only to a better-performing public 

school.

 There is no requirement that these tax credit schools be better performing. Indeed, there are 

no requirements even to administer state exams, release financial statements, or even report 

academic achievement information to parents and the public. 

 In addition, private schools don't have to follow a number of civil rights laws that prohibit 

discrimination, for example, based on religion or gender. 

 Now, to avoid claims that the law helps only private schools, Arizona allows for a tax credit 

for extra-curricular activities at public schools. But in practice, this also has helped middle income 

and wealthy parents in schools, not poor schools, to the tune of five times as much resources going 

to the former. 

 School officials report that wealthy Arizona parents have used the tax credit to recover cost 

of field trips to New York for cheerleading camp. A news report stated that Mrs. Keegan had used 
16

$200 to subsidize a $300 trip that her son took to Catalina Island. 

 Now, she had every right to do that, under the tax credit law, but that's not the way to 

improve education for low-income kids. 

 But finally, Arizona's public schools, particularly those serving poor children, are 

desperately short of resources. Arizona was rated dead last in a key measure of school funding 

adequacy. That $74 million could go a long way towards solving some of those problems. Money 

alone is not the solution. But without it, public schools cannot operate adequately. 

 It's important to keep in mind the public verdict on tax credit and voucher schemes. Since 

1972, there have been 12 attempts to pass such legislation. Every single one, including in 

Colorado, just a few years ago, in Michigan just before that, were resoundingly defeated by the 

American electorate, more than 60 percent of votes. 

 Take, for example, in Michigan and California in 2000, where minority voters against 

whom, to whom these proposals were directed, defeated vouchers by percentages of 77 to 23, or in 

Detroit, 82 percent rejected this idea. Voters understand what makes sense in this regard. 

 Both these kinds of proposals divert precious funds needed to strengthen public education.

This congress did, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, pass landmark education legislation that can 

truly make a difference for all our students, if it's adequately funded. 

 We have already heard reports that it's not being adequately funded. There are significant 

cuts in the education budget. In fact, the options in the current law haven't even had a chance to 

work yet, because they wouldn't be triggered for two or three years yet. 

 Before we start throwing money away on more tax credit schemes, let's fund the proposals 

that Congress adopted. Let's make sure there is a chance to make sure those options work 

effectively, and let's reject, as the voters have done, tax credit and voucher schemes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT M. MINCBERG, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGAL POLICY 

DIRECTOR, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. – 

SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Boehner. Well, Ms. Keegan, it's your turn. 

STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Keegan. Good, that's good. Thanks, Elliot, that was charming. 

Mr. Mincberg. Just wanted to give you an introduction. 
17

Ms. Keegan. Yes, very nice. Mr. Chairman and members, I appreciate being here. My name is 

Lisa Keegan; I'm the CEO of the Education Leaders Council. 

 The Education Leaders Council is an organization of state level education policy-makers, 

either state school, people in governors' offices, state board members, who believe that children 

learn because they are taught well, period, and that our job, as education policy makers needs to be 

that we provide places for children to learn well, period, and that we not concern ourselves so much 

with who owns the school, but rather whether the education that a child receives is exceptional. 

That should be our only job. 

 Choice for parents is not something that the government can give; it is something that they 

have. It is simply discriminated against when a person cannot afford to pay for it. Choice is a part 

of our system. Competition is not a risky scheme. 

 I believe Adam Smith wrote about it some 200-and-some-odd years ago, and it's been 

working for us quite nicely ever since. We will not be through with reforms in education until 

parents have realized the choice that already belongs to them in every sector of this country. 

 I feel great compassion for Virginia to go to work every day and talk to families who can't 

have their children in schools that they don't want. There are lovely neighborhood schools all over 

the place. Some of them are private. And I am happy to have children in those schools, as well. 

 The Leaders Council believes it is absolutely imperative that we find ways for children 

today to get into schools that work for them. 

 In Arizona, I had the opportunity to work on school choice in a number of ways, one of 

which is a tuition tax credit, primarily to scholarship tuition organizations. 

 I would recommend the Arizona study to you as a good editorial piece; it is not a good 

study of what actually happens in Arizona. It assumes that families who send their children to 

private schools, it is assumptive in that it puts them in middle and high-income categories. 

 Those of you who know studies about private education know most families who attend 

private schools, at least in Arizona and the southwest, are in parochial and low-cost schools, so 

that's a false assumption. What it has done, for sure, in Arizona, is to give more opportunities to 

families who did not have that choice before. 

 As for my sending my child to Catalina Island, that's a lovely sort of class distinction there, 

Mr. Mincberg, the fact of the matter is, just be blunt about it, I could send him to Catalina Island 

this afternoon, if I felt like it, that's just my life. Lots of people in this room maybe could not. 

 He goes to a public school. The public schools, the portion of the tax credit bill Arizona 

passed, felt very strongly that we not allow that money to go into their regular classroom budgets, 

because it would skew how much money they could get. So they insisted that it could be applied 

only to extra-curricular activities. Therefore, that's how we apply it. 
18

 So, I have very little choice, as a parent. The extra-curricular activity happened to be going 

to the marine center in Catalina Island, which is a wonderful thing to do. I am happy I've been able 

to send my child there. 

 The fact is, most parents don't have that level of choice, and we need to deal with it. If 

that's objectionable, then I would suggest that the president's bill is better than what's going on in 

Arizona, it's a direct benefit to families; it's reimbursable. 

 Congressman Schaffer is also working on a very good piece of legislation. Arizona started 

with a tuition tax credit; other states will improve on it. This idea will get better and better. 

 The fact of the matter is our presumption at the Leaders Council is whatever causes money 

to follow children into schools that work for them is a great idea. The courts upheld tuition tax 

credits in Arizona because there is no connection between the state and the parent. 

 I happen to believe that the court would ultimately uphold any sort of voucher, because it is 

a parent who makes the decision where their children will go to school. Mr. Christopher is deciding 

where Joshua and his lovely brother will go to school, the state does not determine where those 

children will go to school, nor could the, nor should they. 

 Nor should the state be the one that says that the amount of money that we allocate for the 

education of your child may only be used in schools that we specify. I believe that's wrong. The 

Education Leaders Council believes that it's wrong. Tuition tax credits are a small way to continue. 

 We are happy to work on No Child Left Behind, and congratulate your work on that. But 

we are not done until choice is a part of this system. Accountability in testing, et cetera is a good 

accountability, and it is a forced accountability. Natural accountability comes from a parent's 

ability to choose the school that works for their child. 

 And natural choice also brings innovations for teachers. There is no choice right now in 

this system for a teacher to bring their skills to the marketplace. 

 All that will make that happen is to open up a whole new market in another sector, in 

addition to the public schools that we have right now, so that teachers can bring their skills to the 

marketplace, and parents can avail themselves of those opportunities. 

 We hope you will give it close consideration; it is working well in many states. We endorse 

the idea wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATION 

LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX I 

Chairman Boehner. Well, we have the classic debate under way between saving the school and 

saving the child or, as we would all like to say, or like to believe, we would like to do both. 
19

 But while we're doing both, and especially trying to improve public schools and save public 

schools, make sure all public schools are doing a good job, Mr. Mincberg, what do we say to those 

families today, who are stuck in a school that does not impart knowledge to them, who have no 

income, they can't move with their feet, they can't go anywhere? What do we say to those parents 

and to those children whose lives are being ruined because they have no safety valve? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say a couple of things. First of all, I would never 

dispute the ability of a parent to do what they can individually on behalf of their child. If Joshua 

and his grandfather want to apply for an ACE scholarship and get one, they have every right to do 

that. And as a private organization, it has every right to provide it. 

 But with respect to what government ought to do with public schools, it's critical that, as the 

bill says, that no child be left behind. And that's why what we need to do is to put things into 

operation which can work, and provide results not four years from now, not five years from now, 

but right now in our public schools. 

 Under the law that you passed, public schools that are not performing well have only three 

years to get their act together before some of these other options kick In and I have no problem 

with that, I think it makes sense. And we've seen the districts around the country, that there are 

things that can be done right now to get results. 

 For example, in Milwaukee, where the voucher program is often credited for public school 

improvement, in fact, what's improved the public schools there is something called the SAGE 

program, which reduces class sizes in the elementary grades to 15 to 1 or below. 

Well, let me just finish one thing, Mr. Chairman. And doesn't work in four years or five 

years, but literally within one year have been proven to dramatically improve educational 

performance. 

Chairman Boehner. That's all very nice and good, but what do you say to Ms. Ford's parents that 

call her, whose child is locked up in a rotten school? 

Mr. Mincberg. Again, I say the two things that I have said. Number one, if they want to pursue 

options they can get for private scholarship organizations, I would never tell them not to, that is 

their individual choice. 

 But number two; I don't want the public to be using its precious tax dollars in a way that 

supposedly might benefit those kids. In fact, it's likely not to, because it will be the private schools 

that do the choosing, not the kids, to the sacrifice of making that public school work for all the kids 

that are there. 

 And that can be done not in three years, not in five years, but quickly, if we would make 

public schools accountable. 

Chairman Boehner. Well, Ms. Ford, what do you think about what Mr. Mincberg has to say? 
20

Ms. Ford. Well, one of the things, our parents in D.C. have been told many, many times that the 

schools are going to be improved. We've gone through several superintendents in several years that 

always come in with their own plans. 

 We're talking about right now, what can we say to parents? The scholarship programs are 

not able, because of their funding situations, to take on scores of kids. The charter schools are 

doing the best they can, but we have to make everything available to these children. 

 And what I'd like to say is we have 15,000 children in charter schools that have left 

traditional public schools. That says a lot for what traditional public education is doing here in 

Washington. It is not working for the children. And in the worst areas, the most depressed areas of 

Washington, D.C., those parents are getting nothing. 

 And it would take a lot to turn those schools around. I mean a lot. So, we have to do what 

we can now to make sure while those schools are being turned around, which I believe will take a 

lot of years, to offer everything we can to those parents, tax credits, vouchers, whatever we can, to 

get them out of those schools. 

 They are very, very desperate. And you know, one of the things that I think about every 

once in a while, and I think, Mr. Chairman, you and I talked about it one time, nobody sees the 

faces of these parents. We do. I was one, you know. 

 And I've felt like, as a single parent raising children in D.C., I didn't have any options. I 

was working two jobs, and I couldn't afford to send my child to private school. I couldn't work 

three jobs; there weren't enough hours in the day. I would have if I could have. 

 And getting a scholarship for us, for our family, was an incredible thing, you know. And 

when I look at William, my child, and I've talked about William for a long time, when I look at him 

even now, and he's an adult in the military and out of school now, but when I look at him, I have 

flashbacks of what could have become of him if we had not had the scholarship. 

 And that's what parents in D.C. are dealing with right now. What is going to become of my 

child while D.C. is lollygagging around trying to fix the schools? What are our children going to 

do right now? That's the problem. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mincberg, the No Child Left Behind Act, written by 

this committee and signed into law by President Bush, calls for new public accountability measures 

for public schools. 

 Is there public accountability for public schools in a voucher program? 

Mr. Mincberg. Very little, Mr. Kildee. It depends, of course, on the specific program, but there is 

extremely little. 
21

 And in fact, tax credits are even worse because what typically happens in a tax credit 

situation is, pretty much anything goes. The schools can exercise their own discretion in tax credit 

programs as to whether they want to take kids or not, which means the kids who most need the kind 

of help that Ms. Ford is talking about are not going to be admitted by a lot of private schools, and 

there is absolutely no way to measure the accountability for what are, in essence, the public dollars 

that are going to support those private schools in most of those programs. 

Mr. Kildee. Is there a significant difference in the lack of accountability in Milwaukee and, say, 

Cleveland? 

Mr. Mincberg. You mean between those two programs? 

Mr. Kildee. Yes. Yes, right. 

Mr. Mincberg. There are a few differences, sort of at the margins. But mostly, they are similar in 

not having much accountability. In fact, there is a proposal right now in the Wisconsin legislature 

that has been approved by the senate to try to impose on Milwaukee voucher schools the same 

accountability requirements that exist for other publicly funded schools. And you would not be 

surprised to learn that voucher supporters are resisting that tooth and nail. 

Mr. Kildee. What's the current state of affairs in the court concerning vouchers? 

Mr. Mincberg. There is right now, pending in the United States Supreme Court, a case on the 

constitutionality of the Cleveland program, which is expected to be decided, probably, by this June. 

 That will perhaps, and we don't know for sure, no one likes to predict the Supreme Court, 

resolve some of the federal constitutional issues. It will leave unresolved state constitutional 

issues.

 For example, in Florida, the lawsuit that we're involved in there focuses on the church/state 

provisions of the Florida constitution, which would continue, regardless of how the Supreme Court 

rules in the Cleveland case. 

Mr. Kildee. What is the similarity, or dissimilarity, between vouchers and tax credits? Would the 

court accept a distinction between the two? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, the court, in an earlier case, has said that tax credit and deduction programs, 

if they provide for benefits to both public and private schools, can be constructed in a way that's 

constitutional. That was a case out of Minnesota. 

 The issue with respect to vouchers is are they more like tax credits, or are they more like 

money that is funded and funneled primarily to religious schools. 

 There are hazards, though. It's quite possible to put together a tax credit program that 

directs its funding almost exclusively to private and religious schools and in that case, I would 
22

think that there would be serious constitutional, as well as policy, problems. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. Mr. Reed, what is a ``public dollar?” Mr. Mincberg keeps 

talking about ``public dollars.'' If I haul out my wallet, how much of that is, by definition, ``public 

dollars?'' Is it defined somewhere? 

Mr. Reed. Public dollars is a phrase that's used differently to mean different things by different 

people. And by some, it's thought to be dollars that belong to the government. 

 But to most of the rest of us, these are dollars that originated in the pockets of people who 

earned them and have some entitlement to how they're disposed of when they send it to 

government. 

Chairman Boehner. In the state of Michigan, what are we appropriating per year for public 

education on a per student basis? 

Mr. Reed. On a per-student basis, right now, the state foundation grant allowance? 

Chairman Boehner. Yes, the foundation. 

Mr. Reed. Appropriation spending is about $6,700. 

Chairman Boehner. And so, if we did a federal tax credit, the federal tax credit would enhance the 

educational pie, correct, as you talked about? 

Mr. Reed. Sure. That's right. It would enhance the educational pie, especially if it is allowed for 

contributions to scholarship funds in private schools and for contributions to public schools, yes. 

 As we've talked with a lot of our public school folks, it is rather attractive. It actually 

provides them the opportunity to recoup some money into their public schools that would not have 

strings attached, that typically are attached if they get money from Lansing or Washington. 

 There are very few discretionary funds coming into a school, a public school in Michigan. 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Krishnaiyer? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Yes. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. What is your objection to the opportunity of a public school 

being able to take advantage of a tax credit proposal that the public school could use for not only 

extra-curricular activities, but for educational enrichment, and allow the public school and the local 

school district to say, you know, ``We really want to upgrade our technological capabilities, our 

computer labs.'' 
23

 In a state like Michigan, there no longer is the opportunity for a state, or a local school 

district, to increase its operating mileage. Would you be opposed to allowing a public school to 

benefit from a tax credit that could be used for operational expenses? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. No, not if it's a public school, because, you know, we believe that public schools 

are where 90 percent of our children are educated, and that's where the tax dollars belong. And 

public schools, we don't object to public schools or transfer to public schools. 

Chairman Boehner. But you would object to if the same tax credit type of proposal, where 90 

percent of the public constituency would have the opportunity, because that's where their kids go, 

to invest in public schools, you would be opposed to Ms. Ford or Mr. Christopher having that same 

opportunity to provide $500 to help someone like Joshua attend school? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. We want every parent to have the opportunity to send his or her child to the best 

educational setting. Parents send their children to school expecting the best. 

Chairman Boehner. But you would support an education tax credit that would allow you to make 

a donation to your local public school, and for Ms. Ford to have the opportunity to contribute some 

money to a local public school, or to contribute to a scholarship fund? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Could you repeat that? 

Chairman Boehner. You talked about the right of a parent, every parent, to send their child to a 

choice of, you know, where they choose. 

 So if you had an opportunity to invest a $500 tax credit to your local public school, that 

they could enhance their computers, they could enhance their curriculum, or some other teaching 

materials, and at the same time allow Ms. Ford or Mr. Christopher, or Mr. Reed, or maybe even 

Mr. Mincberg to make a different decision. 

Mr. Mincberg. Probably not. 

Chairman Boehner. I didn't ask you, Mr. Mincberg, but thank you for the editorial comment. 

 But you know, would you allow them to make the same decision? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. The same decision to go to a private school? 

Chairman Boehner. No, to send it to a scholarship fund, or to send it to another school. 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. No. 

Chairman Boehner. Would you be in favor of, if we increase the educational pie, the investment 

in education, to say the new, additional investment in education can go to any educational 

opportunity out there, would you restrict it? 
24

Ms. Krishnaiyer. No. If there is an investment in education, we believe very strongly that it 

should go into the public school system. 

Chairman Boehner. It should only go into public schools. 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. It should go into the public schools. 

Chairman Boehner. Only to public schools? All right, good. 

Ms. Keegan, in Arizona, you increased the educational investment, is that correct, with the 

tax credit plan? 

Ms. Keegan. That's correct. These were dollars that didn't exist in public education before. 

Chairman Boehner. And didn't exist in education. They were being invested in other places, and 

hearings that we've had in Arizona indicated that when people had the option to invest money into 

their local public schools, rather than running it through your capital and coming back into your 

local public school with certain strings attached to it. 

Ms. Keegan. Right. 

Chairman Boehner. Or, that they could invest in a student scholarship fund, they increase their 

investment in education. Is that correct? 

Ms. Keegan. That's correct. And so did the state. 

Chairman Boehner. I mean, that is really what this is about, is it's about whether we are willing to 

increase the educational investment in America today, and whether we are going to run it through 

bureaucracies, or whether we are going to allow this, what is really, in many cases, a small 

additional investment in education. 

 And heaven forbid that we might allow parents to direct some of the new spending in 

education for their own kids, or their kids in the community. That is a scary thought. I'm really 

kind of amazed, Mr. Reed and Ms. Ford, especially you, here in Washington, D.C., that you would 

support parents and the community actually directing some of their own money, rather than 

running it through us here, or your school board. 

Ms. Ford. I know, scary. 

Chairman Boehner. I am nervous now. We had better go on to Mr. Scott. It's good to see you. 

Mr. Scott. It's good to see you, Mr. Chairman. You know, there are actually some things that we 

can do as a nation. Virginia calls itself a commonwealth, and public education is one of those that 

you don't do it with everybody contributing to what they want, to where they want. We have a 

public education system, and that's where our focus of public money ought to go. 
25

Ms. Keegan, you mentioned parochial and other low-cost schools. Are those low-cost 

tuition because they're subsidized by churches, or endowments, or foundations? 

Ms. Keegan. All three, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Scott, that's correct. In Arizona, the three biggest 

recipients would be the Catholic Diocese, the Arizona School Choice Trust, which is nondenominational, and then the Jewish Committee. 

Mr. Scott. Well, the point I'm making is when you talk about low tuition; we're not talking about 

low cost. So, if we have another 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 students trying to get into a private school, 

they've got to go find some foundation or religious organization to underwrite a substantial portion 

of that education in order to get this low-cost education. 

 If we're talking about all these people trying to get a private education, we ought to talk 

about the cost of education. Some can get it with scholarships and foundations, and everything 

else.

 One thing that we have suggested, people actually have the choice. Ms. Krishnaiyer, you 

indicated that this was some kind of an illusion. How many public school students in bad schools 

could actually stroke a check for the cost of their education, even with a 50 percent tax credit? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. I can't give you statistics, but I believe you are asking me if I know how many. 

Mr. Scott. Well, I mean, you're representing parents and students of people in public schools. 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Right. 

Mr. Scott. Even if you get a 50 percent tax credit, how many of them could afford $20,000 tuition 

to go to the school of their choice? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. No, definitely not. 

Mr. Scott. How many of them can find a foundation to bankroll the rest of their education? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Well, it wouldn't be their choice. As we have always maintained, it would be the 

choice of the school. 

 But secondly, every parent that I talk to wants to see his or her public school improved. 

And if they are given a choice, their choice is the public school in their neighborhood, and they 

want that public school to be the best it can be, and that would be their choice. 

Mr. Scott. Mr. Mincberg, you've done research on these. Anybody at a bad school, given a real 

choice, would leave the school. They ought to have not 5 or 10 percent leaving; they ought to have 

100 percent leaving the schools. 
26

 When these programs are put into effect, how many people actually can leave and have 

somewhere to go that's better than where they find themselves? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, if, as you suggest, Mr. Scott, the criterion was everybody ought to want to 

leave who is in one of these bad schools, there must be something wrong, because only a very 

small percentage, even in places like Milwaukee and Cleveland, have left, which is one of the 

reasons why those programs wind up subsidizing people that already are in private schools, in large 

measure, rather than the alleged benefit of transferring people from public schools to private 

schools.

Mr. Scott. Well, when we spend all this money, there is, as you mentioned the Arizona study a 

concept called ``target efficiency.'' Are you familiar with that term?

Mr. Mincberg. I am. And it's a concept that talks about the question of what percentage are likely 

to be moving from one school to the next, as opposed to, again, having their education at their 

existing private school already subsidized. 

Mr. Scott. That would be those at a private school already, and get a tuition subsidy, that would 

not be affected. If you were spending this money in order to get people from the public to the 

private schools, you count the people that actually moved. 

 What kind of numbers are we talking about? How many people would actually switch from 

a public school to a private school, as a result of the Arizona program? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, again, it's very difficult to come up with those exact numbers. 

Mr. Scott. Did the study show something like 5 to 15 percent? 

Mr. Mincberg. In Arizona, it was estimated that the number would be somewhere between 5 and 

15 percent. 

Mr. Scott. So that at least 85 to 95 percent of the people that get these credits would have been in 

private school, anyway, and everybody else that's left behind will still be left behind. 

Mr. Mincberg. That's exactly right, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thanks. Joshua, are you having a good time? Would you rather be playing 

catch with a football? Yes? 

 You know, it's all about you. You know that? All these people are talking about you. You 

know that? About whether, you have, and your friends will have, an opportunity to go to the kinds 

of schools that you would like to, and whether you will be able to keep going. Do you like where 

you go to school today? 
27

Joshua Holloway. Yes. 

Chairman Boehner. Yes. This is about whether, you know, it will be possible for you to keep 

going to schools like that. So, it's important. And I can tell you that, you know, Mr. Scott and 

myself, we're not always that exciting. But if you listen to this next guy, he is fun. All right? With 

that, I yield to Mr. Schaffer. 

Mr. Schaffer. The pressure is on now. I do appreciate you focusing on Joshua there for a minute, 

because you're exactly right. 

 And just in terms of the one of the debate, I think, you know, these lines of distinction are 

probably unnecessary with respect to this debate, and I think we really get into the details of how 

tax credits have worked around the country. 

 You know, Arizona, I happen to believe, is a good model, and I think that's borne out by a 

number of studies on the state. But it's not the only example; there are others, as well, 

Pennsylvania, Florida, and a handful of others that have moved forward. 

 And I think when you look at the history of this legislation in several states, you find out 

this is not a partisan distinction that separates Republicans and Democrats. 

 In fact, if you look at my state right now, where this debate is taking place in the House of 

Representatives, the tax credit proposal that Mr. Christopher is here to discuss is sponsored by a 

Republican in the House and a pretty liberal Democratic over on the Senate side, because they have 

managed to keep the focus on guys just like Joshua, rather than who wins or loses, politically, or 

which institution happens to be able to hire more teachers or buy more equipment, versus the other. 

I think we've resolved in our state but of course, the outcome of that vote still needs to take place in 

the legislature. We really have to move beyond this debate about the relationship between 

institutions, and start focusing on the relationship between our children, and that tends to draw 

people together. 

 And I really think we have that opportunity to do that here, on both sides of the aisle.

Because, quite frankly, the states have shown us, even those states that haven't passed tax credit 

legislation, but still introduced and debated it, have really shown us that we can create a tax credit 

bill that is valuable for the parents represented here, and grandparents, and also for those who 

propose to improve government-owned schools, as well. And I think we can accomplish both of 

those.

 Having said that, the reason I am interested in tax credit legislation is because it is very, 

very different than a voucher. And I would take issue, and certain exception, with the suggestion 

that, and I'll just speak to my state because I represent it, that Colorado, the voters have somehow 

rejected tax credits. We have not even had tax credits on our state ballot. And to confuse them 

with vouchers is really a statement of misunderstanding. I think we ought to be clear on that. This 

is not an effort of government handing out cash with strings attached, as a voucher would be. 
28

 This is something very different, which entails parents making choices, and corporations in 

many cases, on where to invest their dollars with the affirmation by government that massive cash 

investments in education is a good idea, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. 

 So, my interest is to try to find some way to inspire, as states have done, a massive cash 

infusion in education, period, without placing so much emphasis, as Mr. Mincberg and Mr. 

Krishnaiyer are discriminating, between Ms. Ford's preferences and your preferences. I think we 

could find a way to do this across the board, where all parents can be the victors in the end, and 

their children can succeed. That's my goal. I really believe we can accomplish that. 

 Having said that, we do have a long history in America of recognizing certain private 

investments at the federal level, through our tax code, and either encouraging them or discouraging 

them. And so let me ask Mr. Mincberg this question. 

 If I donate money to St. Joseph's Elementary School in Fort Collins, and my children don't 

go to school there, I receive a tax deduction. Are you opposed to that, or do you favor that? 

Mr. Mincberg. In terms of charitable tax deductions that apply to all charities, that's existed in the 

code for a long time. 

Mr. Schaffer. Do you support the deduction that I would give to the Catholic school? 

Mr. Mincberg. We certainly would not oppose it. That's very different, for example, than the tax 

credit proposal. 

Mr. Schaffer. I know, I'm just asking. 

Mr. Mincberg. That was defeated by voters. 

Mr. Schaffer. Do you support or oppose the deduction that I get for contributing to Catholic 

schools? 

Mr. Mincberg. We do not oppose tax deductions that are equally available for all charitable 

groups.

Mr. Schaffer. Okay. Both of you also indicated, made the suggestion, that a tax credit somehow 

denies funds from public schools. Let me ask Ms. Keegan, how much did the budget for public 

education in Arizona drop when Arizona introduced its tax credit plan? 

Ms. Keegan. Not only did the budget not drop, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Schaffer, it's been 

continuously increased, and the public's confidence in education is up, and they have passed 

additional taxes to support education. 

Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask Ms. Krishnaiyer, how much did the funding, the state funding for 

Florida's schools, drop as a result of the example in Florida that you disparaged here today? 
29

Ms. Krishnaiyer. Just like every other state, there have been cutbacks as of December. The 

legislature went back into session and cut education back. Out of that, there were $50 million that 

were given as tax credits to private corporations. Those $50 million could have been applied to 

those cuts, minimizing the cuts to public education. 

 So we view those as a $50 million cut for public education. 

Mr. Schaffer. I see the red light is on; corporations in Florida also receive tax credits for 

investments in research and development. Not schools, not other education, but other tax credits 

for just running their companies, makes certain capital investments, research. Do you oppose 

those, as well, or only the tax credits they get for investments in education? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. As a PTA, we don't involve ourselves with tax credits that deal with anything 

other than educational issues. 

Mr. Schaffer. Okay, well, that's fair, because what it suggests is that your focus is not on the 

reduction of funds to the state, your focus is, instead, on the additional funds that are injected in the 

education system for non-government schools. 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. If I could finish, I believe business has a real stake in public schools, or any 

school, producing students that they need for their workplace. 

 As such, I would encourage businesses to donate these funds without looking for tax 

credits. I think it behooves business to make an investment in education by contributing these 

funds. And that's the way we view it. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank the panel. 

 I have a letter that I don't think has been entered into the record, and I would like 

unanimous consent to enter the National Coalition of Public Education letter into our record. 

Chairman Boehner. Without objection, so ordered. 

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION, SUBMITTED 

FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE LYNN WOOLSEY, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX J 

Ms. Woolsey. That lists 35 organizations, teachers groups, parent groups, school boards, the 

National School Board Association, National PTA, but the school board association elected by the 

people in their districts, church groups, and they seem to understand what is really obvious, and 

that is that the backbone of this nation is our education system. And the backbone of our education 
30

system is our public school system. 

 Joshua, you are the future of our country, you are, your brother is, your friends, young boys 

and girls that you are going to school with and that live in your neighborhood. There is no reason 

on earth that every single school in this country should not be as good as the schools that people are 

choosing to go to because of religious or other reasons. 

 And that's what these groups, this list of 35 organizations is saying to us. They are saying, 

``make our public school system the best in the world.'' And the only way we can do that is invest 

in it. 

 So, we talk about funding. Somebody said, ``you just can't'', everybody keeps saying this 

``you can't pour money into the system, it's not going to make it any better.'' You can take money 

out of the system that will destroy it. And yes, you can put more money into the system. 

 We passed the Leave No Child Behind Act, and the president's budget is not funding it. So 

what good is it to pass an act that will leave no child behind and not fund it? That's just all words. 

And so, what I would like to know, I would like to ask a couple of questions. 

Mr. Mincberg, what would you do if we truly funded education? Where would we go first, 

and how would you, what would we do that would truly leave no child behind? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, I would, Representative Woolsey, first fund the priorities that were 

identified, and were supposed to have been funded, according to last year's budget, which focus 

primarily on low-income, low-achieving schools. 

 I would focus particularly on those kinds of schools, on the kind of significant class size 

and school size reduction programs that are proving to be so successful in Tennessee, Wisconsin, 

and a number of other states that make those schools even better, frankly, than some of the private 

schools to which you refer. Many of those schools, of course, are not as effective as they're 

trumped up to be. 

 I would invest in teacher training, which, again, was something that was in the budget last 

year, but it's being cut by President Bush's proposed budget this year. And I would invest in 

facilities, which need to be improved in many of our public schools, but are not. 

 When we, instead, provide for tax credits, that's essentially what economists call tax 

expenditure. That is money that otherwise could have been spent on those kinds of priorities. 

Ms. Woolsey. So, I would like to ask Ms. Krishnaiyer, what would you do with that money? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. I agree. One of the things that we found in Florida is, as I stated, that it was 

resources that were put into the schools that were identified as not meeting the standards that 

improved the performance of those schools. That is where the resources should be directed. 
31

 Parents need all the support that they can get. If we invest in these schools, that's what 

parents want to see. They want the investment in their schools that will turn that school around.

And these schools can be, they need to take three or four years to turn around. You address the 

problems they have, identify the problems that they have, and the parents are asking, ``Just take 

action, and we will help you take action along with it.'' 

 Parents want to be involved in these schools to make those changes happen, and those 

changes can happen relatively quickly. And I believe that's where those resources should be 

directed.

 And again, teacher training is a large piece of that. And in coming from Florida, and 

coming from south Florida, Broward County, which is the fastest growing county in the state, we 

have schools that are so vastly overcrowded with no room to put any more, or to build, that that 

would be another thing that resources need to be directed towards, maintenance and renovation of 

schools, as well as to build new schools. 

Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. Mr. Isakson? 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joshua, Joshua. Up here, way over here, in the end zone, 

down here. Okay. I have a real honor, Joshua; I have a question for you. And it was going to be 

asked by Congressman Tom Osborne, who was the national championship coach of the Nebraska 

Cornhuskers. So I'm a poor substitute for him, but he had to go. Why did you write your essay? 

Joshua Holloway. I wrote it so I could get some money so I could have a good education. There is 

money for my education so I can go to college and high school. 

Mr. Isakson. Very good. Thank you very much. And I will relay that to the coach, okay? 

Joshua Holloway. Yes. 

Mr. Isakson. Ms. Krishnaiyer, I respect the position that you represent, and the organization you 

represent. In fact, I'm a life member of the PTA. I went to public school, and sent all my children 

to public school. 

 I don't know where I am on the political spectrum, but I'm probably at the 50-yard line 

between Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Scott, but I do have to ask you a question. 

 On the, and just to use a Joshua analogy, if I could use the tax credit program that would 

generate investment in either public or private school, in my mind, is totally consistent, 

constitutionally. It creates additional investment in either/or, it does give choices; it gives 

opportunities, in some cases, in certain cases, for children that really need an alternative. 

 I wonder if the PTA, and I am saying this as a dues-paying member, so I'm not picking on 

you, sometimes we go too far in our reaction to ideas to enrich education for children that we lose 
32

our perspective. 

 Do you think that just there is absolutely no program whatsoever which offers a choice is 

exactly the right way to go, or don't you think there should be some room? 

Ms. Krishnaiyer. We respect the opinions of our members. We are in our schools every day. I 

personally am in the schools every day, talking to the parents at those schools. And those are the 

positions that we reflect. 

 And what our parents say to us is they want to see their schools improved. And that is the 

choice that they want. They personally would, and you know, to reply to Mr. Scott, in Florida, our 

two voucher schools, the two that were identified as voucher schools, very few students left them. 

There were a handful of students that left to go to private school at that time. 

 And any tax credit proposal, our position, and particularly in Florida, and I can speak for 

Florida at this time, is that all of the Florida tax structure needs definite reform. There are way too 

many loopholes in the Florida tax structure that is not bringing an investment back into Florida, or 

in to the citizens of Florida. 

 So, to answer your question, at this time, we don't see any proposals before us that we can 

support which gives us this option. We prefer, you know, all of the investment going into public 

schools. We have not seen one that we like, as yet. 

Mr. Isakson. Ms. Keegan, as I understand it, with the Arizona program, the tax credit is for 

investment in public or private, is that correct? 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Isakson, that's correct. There are two different credits that you 

can take, up to $625 for scholarship tuition organizations, but those may not benefit your own 

child, they have to go to a neutral organization, and then up to $275 for extra-curricular additional 

activities in the public schools, because, of course, tuition is already paid there. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, just for the record, I spent so much time in the PTA raising money, getting 

Coca Cola to put up scoreboards and paying us money in return, and all this kind of stuff, and 

public education is consistently doing that, a good tax credit policy can be good public policy that 

attracts money into the education of kids, just like we do it otherwise today. 

 And I'm running out of time, and I've have to get to the gentleman from People for the 

American Way, Mr. Mincberg. Is it fair to say that the budget is cutting the funding for education? 

You made a reference in your remark. You tell me where it's cutting, where the president is cutting 

funding for education. 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, what's happened is that_ 

Mr. Isakson. No, no, no, no. I want you to tell me where the President is cutting funding for 

education.
33

Mr. Mincberg. Well, I can give you a specific analysis that's been done that shows that certain 

programs that were at level X are now at level X minus something, a number of ESEA programs, 

with respect to teacher quality improvement and after-school programs, and a number of others, 

have, in fact, been cut. 

 My concern with respect to a tax credit is that when you give a tax credit, you're essentially 

foregoing money from the treasury that otherwise could have been used to fund some of those 

programs. 

Mr. Isakson. But that's a very broad; can I have a couple of seconds, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman Boehner. Absolutely. 

Mr. Isakson. I really appreciate, and in fairness to you and me on this whole issue, we had a 

terrible situation with school lunches a number of years ago where cuts something was getting cut 

when, in fact, the program was getting enhanced, it's just the rate was not going up as much. 

 And so, for my benefit, sir, and I'd love to talk to you about that, because I think what you'll 

find is by combining allowable uses of a number of programs, the opportunity for schools to have 

more flexibility might result in less being spent on one program and more being spent on another. 

 But that does not mean that the President of the United States has reduced money for 

education. The fact of the matter is, we made a significant increase in the fiscal year 2002 budget.

The rate of increase this year is significantly less, as a matter of fact, than the rate of increase last 

year. But the rate of increase last year was 25 percent, the largest increase in the history of public 

education.

 So when we're making those arguments, and the voucher argument is a different argument, 

to me, from the tax credit argument, I might add, but let's make sure that we're comparing apples to 

apples, and not castigating what has, in fact, been a significant effort to enhance and enrich public 

education by the administration. 

Mr. Mincberg. And that's a fair point, congressman. Again, what I am referring to are cuts versus 

what had been agreed to in the funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, and cuts of particular 

programs. But I understand your position on that. 

Mr. Isakson. That's a much fairer statement. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. Just for the record, in 1996, the Department of Education spending was $23 

billion. In 1997, it was $26.6 billion. In 1998, it was $29.9 billion. In 1999, it was $33.5 billion. 

In 2000, it was $35.6 billion. In 2001, it was only marginally increased to $42.1 billion. You know, 

this goes off of what you said, Mr. Reed. 

Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, will you yield, just for a comment? 
34

Chairman Boehner. Yes, yes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Since I actually brought this up, we passed the Leave No Child Behind Act and we 

said that one of the main thrusts is to ensure that schools that are not performing, once we've 

decided these are non-performing schools, we are going to help them. 

 We have not added the amount of funds that it will take to take those non-performing 

schools, once we've gone through the studies, and bring them up to par. We haven't even come 

close to it. And that was part of what we voted on, as authorizers. 

Chairman Boehner. And that's authorizing. 

Ms. Woolsey. It's not in the budget; it's not in the president's budget. 

Chairman Boehner. Reclaiming my time, we're going to go through the appropriations process.

And having been here, and I think you and I came at the same time, having gone through the 

appropriations process, I have never known us to come in at numbers lower than what the president 

has asked for when we're done with the appropriations process, whether it was President Clinton or 

whether it was President Bush.

 But the record is fairly clear. I'm assuming that somewhere along the line President Clinton 

may have asked for a whole lot more than we gave him, but the record is fairly clear, here in 

Washington. We have not come anywhere close to reducing or cutting spending on K through 12. 

 Now, there is a budget out there, but we're going to go through the appropriations process.

And to sit here and say that we are cutting spending on education for K through 12 is a 

misstatement, totally inaccurate. When you take a look at the record, 1996 we were spending $23 

billion, 2001 we were spending $42.1 billion. 

 Ms. Ford, I hear your two colleagues on your left saying, ``these changes can be done just 

like that; there is no reason for these things to take more than a year. They can be put in place.” Is 

that what you've seen in Washington, D.C.? That it is kind of like, we've identified the process, 

and you know, we've significantly increased money in Washington, we've significantly increased 

money at the state level, almost around the country, and are these reforms taking place just like 

that, and you're seeing instant improvement in the schools? 

Ms. Ford. Absolutely not. 

Chairman Boehner. Are your schools any better here in Washington, D.C., than they were five 

years ago? 

Ms. Ford. No, they are not. 

Chairman Boehner. When did you start this process? 
35

Ms. Ford. Well, I got involved here five years ago. 

Chairman Boehner. Five years ago. 

Ms. Ford. And I have not seen any changes. Actually, in some cases, they have gotten worse, not 

better. 

Chairman Boehner. I mean, I agree with you. You have to take a look at these_ 

Ms. Ford. The faces. 

Chairman Boehner. The faces of these parents, of their kids. I still remember when we did the 

hearings in New York City, where a father came up and said, ``You know, when my kid entered 

school, the New York public schools had a five-year school improvement. All the great ideas were 

identified.” He said, ``after five years, the schools were no better. But they had a plan; they had a 

new five-year plan. And they're now in the middle of this five-year plan, and the schools are no 

better. I just lost my child.'' 

Ms. Ford. Well, you know? 

Chairman Boehner. Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. Ford. That's what continues to happen here. We keep getting these five-year plans, and we 

don't see any changes in schools. I spent some time with the superintendent and the board 

president this morning, which, again, started talking about, ``we intend on.'' 

 You know, I get really tired, and I spend a lot of time with parents. And what parents are 

saying is, ``we need something to happen now. We are tired of sacrificing our children, waiting for 

the public school system to fix itself.'' 

 And in a lot of cases, somebody was bringing up the numbers of children leaving the school 

system, or how many would leave the school system. You know, when the charter schools came 

into existence, there were 18 schools that opened. And thousands of parents left the school system. 

 If those schools had had more room, more of those parents would have left the school 

system, because the school system has consistently disappointed them, you know, and we don't see 

any change in it right now. Again, we're at the beginning of a five-year plan. 

Chairman Boehner. Yes. And Mr. Reed, you talked about this, and that's what we've been 

dabbling in for the last 10, 15 years in education reform, more money, more, what did you call 

them? What were the second elements? 

Mr. Reed. More rules and mandates versus more incentives. 

 I think the numbers that we've heard today and that are publicly available really speak 

volumes about what more money, through the traditional mechanism, has done for public 
36

education. Painfully little. 

 And when I hear so much of the public policy debate over these questions today, and when 

I hear Mr. Mincberg and Ms. Krishnaiyer, it makes me think that it doesn't matter how many times 

you cite these numbers, because some people believe that the system is more important than the 

kids.

 But I think there are five of us on this panel who believe that the kids are more important 

than the system. And I think all of us would do well to spend more time with the kinds of parents 

and kids that Ms. Ford deals with every day of the week, because so much of the debate is 

dominated by distant policy wonks who pontificate from their ivory towers and never interact with 

the kids like Joshua, and the kids that Ms. Ford interacts with every day. 

 Kids are what this is all about, and broadening the opportunities for them. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Mincberg, is the authorized levels in No Child Left Behind enough 

money? 

Mr. Mincberg. I think that would do a good job of funding those particular reforms. 

Chairman Boehner. Would you support tax credits, if we fully funded H.R. 1? 

Mr. Mincberg. Well, I suspect that there would, I would believe that, in areas other than 

education, there would be better things that could be done with that opportunity cost, including 

looking into the faces of the many children. 

 We worked before with thousands of parents and kids across the country that wants 

improvements, not only in education, but in other areas, too, and I would rather see the money 

spent in those areas. 

Chairman Boehner. So, I mean, heaven forbid that we allow a public school or somebody to make 

a decision to help Joshua; heaven forbid, right? 

Mr. Mincberg. No, not at all. 

Chairman Boehner. I mean, even if we fully fund H.R. 1, even if we fully fund what the congress 

and the president agreed to for education, you will still be opposed to a tax credit which would 

allow Joshua or Joshua's equivalent at a public school to get any kind of an additional benefit. 

Mr. Mincberg. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, as I think one of your colleagues pointed out; 

there already are tax benefits that exist. 

Chairman Boehner. I'm asking about a tax credit. Would you be opposed to a tax credit if we fully 

funded H.R. 1? 
37

Mr. Mincberg. I think that I would be opposed to a tax credit, at the very least, until I felt that the 

other kinds of benefits, not only in education, but in other areas that the federal government has 

responsibility for, were, in fact, being all undertaken. 

Chairman Boehner. You're opposed. 

Ms. Woolsey. I'm gone. 

Chairman Boehner. You're gone? All right. Mr. Schaffer. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. I would like to just ask Mr. Christopher to tell the same story he told me 

in my office a little earlier today when we just arrived in town. You were just talking about how 

much time you spend with your grandsons' education, and that you mentioned you had considered 

how you might pay for the tuition if it were not for the scholarship that was available, and so on. 

Mr. Christopher. Well, first of all, I look at it this way. Education is one of the most important 

things for our children, so that they can grow and become congressmen and senators, just like you, 

who are here. 

 I say that if I didn't get this scholarship for my two grandsons, I am a single parenting 

grandfather; I would have to get a second job. And in doing this, I would lose time with my 

children. I wouldn't be able to nurture them along, as I am doing now, and spending the time for 

education of doing homework with them at night, of preparing them for school the next day, and all 

my time would be in working to support them in the school system. 

 That's what we were talking about earlier, and that's the way I feel about it. And, thanks to 

the ACE program, I'm able to work one job, come home, and pick my boys up from the school, and 

start their homework, and to make sure that they're being nurtured. That's what I'm talking about. 

Chairman Boehner. Will the gentleman yield, for just a minute? 

Mr. Schaffer. Sure. 

Chairman Boehner. I think Joshua, Mr. Isakson wants to say hello to you, and meet you, and he 

has to go to another meeting. 

Mr. Isakson. Good job, Joshua. Keep up the good work, okay? Thank you very much. 

Chairman Boehner. Thanks, Mr. Isakson. Mr. Schaffer? 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. I want to ask you a question, but I want to make sure I characterize it 

right, because I am just 100 percent convinced that a legitimate discussion about tax credits should 

not become a public versus private school discussion. 
38

 I think it should be a discussion about how do we increase the propensity of the American 

people to invest in education, period, regardless of the provider. 

 But it does come down to choices that parents make, and presumably have a clear insight to 

the best interests of children, that parents or grandparents have, than any of us here, or certainly 

those who would administer the government funds that we take from you, like we did yesterday, 

and filter them through this process. 

 So, you could answer all those questions you just raised, the eliminating the necessity for 

second jobs, spending time with your grandkids, if you just sent them to the neighborhood 

government-owned school? Why didn't you do that? Can you just tell us, why did you make the 

decision you made? 

 And you know, I'm not asking you to defend it, necessarily, but I just want you to take the 

opportunity to explain, you know, why you made the choices you did for your kids? 

Mr. Christopher. Well, in the beginning, when my daughter passed away, one of her main 

requests were to go to this particular school, because they were learning so well, and they were 

getting a good, quality education. 

 And the way my two boys are excelling, and the way the public school system that my 

neighborhood was offering, it was like night and day. And I really believe I have two boys who 

will be going on to further their education and doing real well. 

 And because of this private school, and because of the scholarship that they get, I am really 

pleased with their learning and what they have already learned at the ages that they are. They're 

advanced. I really feel they're totally advanced by going to a private school, and having a choice. 

This is the way I see it. 

 At this moment, as I told you, these fellows are doing just fine in the school system. I am 

saying that without the scholarship, I don't think we could go there unless I did work the second 

job. And at my age, I think it is a little bit too much right now. 

Mr. Schaffer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joshua, I just want to say you did a great job 

testifying today, and sitting through all these very exciting speeches. 

Joshua Holloway. Thank you. 

Mr. Schaffer. And your mother would be quite proud of you, I'm sure of that. 

Chairman Boehner. I'd like to thank the panelists for being here today. This is going to be a 

wonderful debate. It is about opening up a significant new avenue of funding for schools, actually, 

for all our children. 

 That's what happened in Arizona, that's what's happened in Minnesota, and interestingly 

enough, in many of those places, it's come together in very much a bipartisan basis, bringing 
39

together Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals, bringing together rural and suburban 

communities with, you know, people who are living in the large inner cities. 

 They've done it at the state level. And what they've said at the state level is, ``we want to 

increase the educational pie. We want to go beyond just those dollars that are collected through 

taxes, and we want to provide all of our parents and our corporations an additional way to invest in 

public education, to invest in private education. 

 But we want to increase the educational spending pie, rather than having debates at the state 

capital, or having debates in Washington here, about how we re-distribute the existing dollars 

coming into our coffers, the public dollars that we have today. 

 But I think it will be a very interesting debate to see those who will argue against increasing 

the pie; increasing educational investment for our kids, if people at the local level want to make 

those decisions and arguing why increased investment for kids like Joshua and others is a bad 

thing.

 So we hope that we have the same kind of bipartisan coalition that can develop here in 

Washington that has developed at the state levels, and has really led to, I think, some exciting 

opportunities at the state levels, and some real creativity and progress. 

 And with that, again, I thank the panelists for coming. Joshua, maybe one of these days you 

will be sitting up here. How would you like that? Then you can do all the talking. Sound like a 

pretty good deal? 

Joshua Holloway. Yes. 

Chairman Boehner. All right. With that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195

TABLE OF INDEXES 

Chairman Boehner, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 

36, 37, 38, 39 

Master Holloway, 9, 10, 27, 31, 38, 39 

Mr. Christopher, 5, 8, 37, 38 

Mr. Hoekstra, 4 

Mr. Isakson, 31, 32, 33, 37 

Mr. Kildee, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22 

Mr. Mincberg, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37 

Mr. Reed, 4, 6, 22, 35 

Mr. Schaffer, 4, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 

Mr. Scott, 24, 25, 26 

Ms. Ford, 10, 20, 24, 34, 35 

Ms. Keegan, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, 32 

Ms. Krishnaiyer, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32 

Ms. Woolsey, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37