59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–292 

SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT 

OCTOBER 16, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 10] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 10) to reauthorize the Scholarships for 

Opportunity and Results Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and 

recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 3 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 8 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 10 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 11 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 11 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 13 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 13 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 13 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 13 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 13 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 13 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 13 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 13 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 14 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 14 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 15 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 29 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) are as follows: 

Page 10, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 11, line 

6 and insert the following: 

‘‘(iii) In the case of a school that, as of the 

date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is not a participating school, the 

school meets the requirements of clause (i) or, 

if it does not meet the requirements of clause 

(i)— 

‘‘(I) at the time the school notifies an eligible entity that it seeks to be a participating school, the school is actively pursuing full accreditation by an accrediting 

body described in clause (i); 

‘‘(II) not later than 5 years after the 

school notifies an eligible entity that it 

seeks to be a participating school, the 

school meets the requirements of clause 

(i), except that an eligible entity may extend this deadline for a single 1-year period if the school provides the eligible entity with evidence from such an accrediting body that the school’s application for 

accreditation is in process and that the 

school will be awarded accreditation before the end of such period; and 

‘‘(III) the school meets all of the other 

requirements for participating schools 

under this Act.’’. 

Page 14, strike lines 3 through 13 and insert the following: 

‘‘(d) PERMITTING USE OF FUNDS REMAINING UNOBLIGATED FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS.—To the extent that 

any funds appropriated for the opportunity scholarship 

program under this Act for any fiscal year (including a fiscal year occurring prior to the enactment of this subsection) remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, 

the Secretary shall make such funds available during the 

next fiscal year and (if still unobligated as of the end of 

that fiscal year) any subsequent fiscal year for scholarships for eligible students, except that an eligible entity 

may use not more than 5 percent of the funds for administrative expenses, parental assistance, and tutoring, in addition to the amounts appropriated for such purposes 

under section 3007(b) and (c).’’. 

Page 17, line 17, strike ‘‘their satisfaction with their child’s 

school’’ and insert ‘‘the satisfaction of such parents and students 

with their choice’’. 

Page 17, line 23, strike ‘‘college admission’’ and insert ‘‘college 

enrollment’’. 

Page 18, beginning on line 3, strike ‘‘college admission’’ and insert ‘‘college enrollment’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1The three-sector approach was part of the DC School Choice Incentive Act in P.L. 108–99 

and was later formalized through the enactment of the Scholarship for Opportunity and Results 

Act of 2011 in P.L. 112–10. 2 Nat’l Center for Educ. Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 222.60, at 1 (2013) 

(hereinafter ‘‘Table 222.60’’); Nat’l Center for Educ. Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 222.50, at 1 (2013) (hereinafter ‘‘Table 222.50’’); Nat’l Center for Educ. Statistics, Digest 

of Education Statistics, Table 221.60, at 1 (2013) (hereinafter ‘‘Table 221.60’’); Nat’l Center for 

Educ. Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 221.40, at 1 (2013) (hereinafter ‘‘Table 

221.40’’). 3 Id. Each table demonstrates consistent improvement in DC test scores over the ten-year period. 4 Id. 

5Table 222.50, supra note 1; Table 221.40, supra note 1. 6Table 222.50, supra note 1. 7Table 221.40, supra note 1. 8Table 222.60, supra note 1; Table 221.60, supra note 1. 

Page 19, line 15, strike ‘‘such student,’’ and insert the following: 

‘‘such student or the group of individuals providing information for 

carrying out the evaluation of such student,’’. 

Page 20, line 4, strike the period and insert the following: ‘‘, and 

as a component of the new evaluations, the Secretary shall continue to monitor and evaluate the students who were evaluated in 

the most recent evaluation under such section prior to the enactment of this Act, along with their corresponding test scores and 

other information.’’. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Reauthorization Act gives District of Columbia (DC) students choice in their 

education. The bill continues the three-sector approach to education in the District of Columbia by authorizing $60 million in annual funding, equally distributed to District of Columbia Public 

Schools, District of Columbia public charter schools, and the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). The 

OSP gives children of low-income District families access to a quality education through scholarships to attend private schools. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 10 continues the three-sector approach to education in the 

District of Columbia.1 Since 2004, District students have had greater access to a quality education, and the SOAR Reauthorization Act 

would allow this trend to continue. 

In 2003, when the OSP was first designed, DC Public School students had the lowest test scores in the nation.2 Over the past decade, DC Public Schools have shown improvement,3 yet DC Public 

School students continue to test well below national averages, with 

scores that remain at or near the bottom of the United States.4

In 2013, DC fourth graders had the lowest average math and 

reading scores of any state.5 In math, 34 percent of students scored 

below a basic level, compared to the national average of 18 percent.6 In reading, 50 percent of students scored below a basic level, 

compared to the national average of 33 percent.7 In 2013, DC 

eighth graders had the lowest average math and reading scores in 

the country.8 Among DC eighth graders, 46 percent of students 

tested below a basic level in math, compared to the national averVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:23 Oct 17, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR292.XXX HR292

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

9Table 222.60, supra note 1. 10Table 221.60, supra note 1. 11Patrick Wolf et al., Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After 

Three Years, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Inst. of Educ. Sciences, Nat’l Center for Educ. Evaluation & 

Regional Assistance, at 36–41 (Mar. 2009) (NCEE 2009–4050). 12Patrick Wolf et al., Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report, 

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Inst. of Educ. Sciences, Nat’l Center for Educ. Evaluation & Regional Assistance, at 35–37, Table 3–2 and Figure 3–1 (June 2010) (NCEE 2010–4018) (hereinafter ‘‘Wolf et 

al., 2010’’). 13 H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform, Hearing on D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

Making the American Dream Possible, 114th Cong. (May 14, 2015) (statement of Dr. Patrick 

Wolf, Professor and 21st Century Chair in School Choice at the College of Educ. & Health Professions at the University of Arkansas); Wolf et al., 2010, supra note 12, at 37, footnote 39. 14D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 2013–2014 Program Summary, available at http://www.dcscholarships.org/elements/file/ 

OSP/Program%20Data/2014l06l03%20DC%20OSP%20Program%20Summary.pdf; Office of the 

State Superintendent of Educ., District of Columbia; DC 2014 Adjusted Cohort 4-Year Graduation Rate, available at http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/ 

2014lACGRlsummarylwnongrad.pdf (last visited Oct. 14, 2015). 15 Nat’l Center for Educ. Statistics, Common Core of Data, Public high school 4-year adjusted 

cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for the United States, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia: 

School Years 2010–2011 to 2012–2013. This is the latest data available by NCES. 16Wolf et al., 2010, supra note 12, at 41. 17D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 2014–2015 Program Summary, available at http://www.dcscholarships.org/elements/file/ 

OSP/Program%20Data/DC%20OSP%20Program%20Summary%20-%20SY%202014-15.pdf (last 

visited Oct. 14, 2015). The designation of ‘‘school in need of improvement’’ is no longer used in 

the District of Columbia. 18D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program 2012–2013 Parental Satisfaction and Program Summary, available at http:// 

www.dcscholarships.org/elements/file/OSP/ 

201311l06%20DC%20OSP%20Parental%20Satisfaction%20ana%20Program%20Summary.pdf 

(last visited Oct. 14, 2015); D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, D.C. Opporage of 27 percent.9 Forty three percent of students tested below a 

basic level in reading, compared to the national average of 23 percent.10

Conversely, there is convincing evidence to demonstrate that 

OSP students are seeing improved achievement against non-OSP 

students in reading. The 2009 U.S. Department of Education evaluation found that after three years, OSP students scored significantly higher in reading achievement, a difference equivalent to 

three or four months of additional learning.11 The final evaluation 

spanning 2004–2009 could not conclusively report on increased 

reading achievement, because the achievement over four years was 

only statistically significant at the 94 percent confidence level, and 

not the 95 percent confidence level included in the report.12 Dr. 

Patrick Wolf, the leading researcher on the study, indicated that 

this was the result of the sample having changed; as students graduated, the researches had a smaller, different group of students for 

the fourth-year study.13

Additionally, the OSP has resulted in a meaningful impact on 

graduation rates. During the 2013–2014 school year, OSP students 

had a graduation rate of 89 percent, while DC Public School students had a graduation rate of 58 percent.14 OSP students graduated well above the national average of 81 percent.15 Students 

from low-achieving schools in particular appear to be benefiting 

from the OSP, as students in low-achieving schools when they applied to the program increased their graduation rate from 66 percent to 79 percent as a result of the OSP.16 Of the 2014–2015 OSP 

population, 98 percent would have otherwise attended a school formerly designated as in need of improvement without the program.17 Further, in 2013, the OSP saw 90 percent of its graduating 

students enroll in a two or four year college, with a 98 percent enrollment rate in 2014.18


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

tunity Scholarship Program 2013–2014 Program Summary, available at http:// 

www.dcscholarships.org/elements/file/OSP/Program%20Data/2014l06l03%20DC%20OS 

P%20Program%20Summary.pdf (last visited Oct. 14, 2015). 19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections 2014, available at http:// 

www.bls.gov/emp/eplchartl001.htm (last visited Oct. 14, 2015). 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23Wolf et al., 2010, supra note 12, at 43–46. 24 Id. 25Lester & Associates, The District of Columbia Citywide Survey, Feb. 2011, Question 25. 

The OSP is positioning students in the District of Columbia for 

academic success that will continue to benefit them for the rest of 

their lives. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014, 

high school graduates had a median weekly income that was $180 

higher than those without a diploma.19 This number is even higher 

for those with some college experience, and for those with a college 

degree, their median weekly earnings were more than twice that 

of those without a high school diploma.20 Additionally, in 2014, the 

unemployment rate was 33 percent lower for those with a high 

school diploma than for those without.21 For those with a bachelor’s degree, the unemployment rate was 61 percent lower than for 

those without a high school diploma.22 In addition to increased 

graduation rates, OSP parents report that the schools they are 

choosing for their children are safer than the alternative public 

schools.23 Parents also exhibited greater satisfaction with their 

child’s school as a result of the OSP.24 In fact, the community demonstrates strong support for the OSP, with 74 percent of DC residents supporting the continuation of the program.25

As a result of the demonstrated success of the OSP, H.R. 10 revises the structure for evaluating the program. Beginning in 2004, 

the DC School Choice Incentive Act and the subsequent SOAR Act 

required the OSP be evaluated using the strongest possible research design. To fulfill this requirement, the U.S. Secretary of 

Education utilized a randomized control evaluation, creating a lottery system where some student applicants received scholarships, 

while other student applicants were placed in a ‘‘control group’’ and 

did not receive a scholarship. The current method of evaluation 

limits participation in the program, and excludes students from receiving a scholarship to complete the evaluation. Given the documented effectiveness of the OSP, H.R. 10 allows each student applicant the same opportunity to participate through the use of an alternate evaluation method. 

In order to ensure that the new evaluation method is rigorous, 

the bill requires the use of a quasi-experimental research design 

evaluation. This evaluation compares the academic achievement of 

OSP students to the academic achievement of a comparison group 

of students with similar backgrounds in District of Columbia Public 

Schools. The study is to continue evaluating students who received 

a scholarship and were previously studied under the former evaluation. The evaluation is not merely a descriptive analysis nor does 

it compare OSP students to their own performance over time, but 

rather is an evaluation of OSP student achievement compared to 

DC Public School student achievement, comparing students from 

similar backgrounds. The study should be designed to meet the 

U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse standards for a ‘‘qualified quasi-experimental design’’ and therefore perVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:23 Oct 17, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR292.XXX HR292

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

26What Works Clearinghouse, Designing Quasi-Experiments: Meeting What Works Clearinghouse Standards Without Random Assignment, Webinar Transcript, Mar. 3, 2015, available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/multimedia/qedwebinar/wwclwebinarlqedl030315.pdf. 27Gov’t Accountability Office, District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program: Additional Policies and Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program Operations, at 20 

(Nov. 2007) (GAO–08–9) (hereinafter ‘‘GAO–08–9’’); Gov’t Accountability Office, District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program: Actions Needed to Address Weaknesses in Administration and Oversight, at 19 (Sept. 2013) (GAO–13–805) (hereinafter ‘‘GAO–13–805’’). 28 Id. 29Patrick J. Wolf and Michael McShane, Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze? A Benefit/Cost Analysis of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, Education Finance and Policy 

(Winter 2013), 8(1), at 74–99. 30Wolf et al., 2010, supra note 12, at 67. 

mit evaluators to draw causal conclusions about the program with 

the reservations typical of such non-experimental analyses.26

The legislation addresses prior concerns with administration of 

the OSP. Two previously published Government Accountability Office reports cited concerns with the OSP administrator’s internal 

controls, including policies and procedures for financial management.27 These reports also noted that the OSP administrator did 

not maintain complete information about OSP schools’ accreditation, which serves as a means of accountability and oversight.28

H.R. 10 responds to these recommendations by requiring the OSP 

Administrator to utilize internal fiscal and quality controls, and 

also requires participating OSP schools to become accredited within 

five years of this bill’s passage. 

Simply put, OSP is a cost effective program. A study conducted 

by Dr. Wolf and Dr. Michael McShane found that for every dollar 

spent on the program, the OSP produces $2.62, or a 162 percent 

return on investment.29

H.R. 10 reauthorizes the SOAR Act for an additional five years, 

providing $300 million in additional funding to support education 

in the District of Columbia. The $300 million authorized by H.R. 

10 is divided equally among DC Public Schools, DC public charter 

schools, and the OSP. The OSP does not take any money away 

from public schools or public charter schools within the District. 

Rather, DC Public Schools and DC public charter schools benefit 

from additional funding that would otherwise not be available to 

support education within the District of Columbia. 

Reauthorizing the three-sector approach means improved educational outcomes for District of Columbia students. The District of 

Columbia benefits from a strong network of public charter schools 

that provide meaningful alternatives to families that would otherwise be assigned to low-performing public schools. H.R. 10 ensures 

that DC public charter schools receive funding for continued improvement, strengthening educational options for District children. 

Educational choice is aimed at bringing about improvements 

across all schools. In fact, evidence suggests that the OSP prompted public school principals within the District to implement 

changes to retain students who might pursue the OSP or private 

school education. According to Dr. Wolf’s study of the OSP, 28 percent of public school principals indicated that they made changes 

to their operations in an effort to keep students from leaving public 

school for the OSP or a private school.30 H.R. 10 means a continued 

emphasis on educational quality across District of Columbia 

schools, and brings opportunity to those most in need. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The OSP was first created as part of H.R. 2556, the DC Parental 

Choice Incentive Act, reported by the Committee on Government 

Reform by a 22 to 21 vote on July 10, 2003. The legislation was 

subsequently incorporated into H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108–199) as the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 and became law on January 23, 2004. Appropriations for the program were authorized through Fiscal Year 2008. 

The Omnibus Appropriation Act, 2009 (P.L. 111–8) specified that 

the use of any funds in any act for Opportunity Scholarships after 

the 2009–2010 school year be available only upon reauthorization 

of the program and the adoption of legislation by the District of Columbia approving such reauthorization. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111–117) eliminated this restriction on 

funding, allocating $13.2 million for Opportunity Scholarships to 

students who received scholarships in the 2009–2010 school year. 

During the 112th Congress, Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) introduced H.R. 471, the ‘‘Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 

Act,’’ or ‘‘SOAR Act,’’ on January 26, 2011 to reauthorize the OSP. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The companion bill, S. 206, was introduced on January 26, 2011 by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D–CT). The bill was referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Committee, which held a hearing on February 16, 2011. 

The Subcommittee on Health Care, D.C., Census, and National 

Archives of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

held a hearing on the OSP and H.R. 471 on March 1, 2011. The 

Committee then reported the legislation favorably by a 21–14 vote 

on March 10, 2011. H.R. 471 passed the House on March 30, 2011, 

by a recorded vote, 225–195. The legislation was subsequently incorporated into H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112–10). Appropriations for the program were authorized through Fiscal Year 

2016. 

Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) introduced H.R. 3237, the 

SOAR Technical Corrections Act on October 18, 2011. The bill was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

and the Committee then reported the legislation favorably by voice 

vote on November 3, 2011. H.R. 3237 was signed into law on February 1, 2012 (P.L. 112–92). 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a 

field hearing on May 14, 2015 at Archbishop Carroll High School, 

a participating OSP school, to examine the reauthorization of the 

OSP. 

Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) introduced H.R. 10, the ‘‘Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act’’ or ‘‘SOAR 

Reauthorization Act’’ on October 5, 2015. Representatives Jason 

Chaffetz (R–UT), John Kline (R–MN), Daniel Lipinski (D–IL), Todd 

Rokita (R–IN), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R–NJ), and Luke Messer 

(R–IN) are original co-sponsors. 

On October 9, 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 10 favorably reported, as amended, by 

a recorded vote of 16–14. Representative Rod Blum (R–IA), a cosponsor of H.R. 10, was detained voting in another Committee. Had 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Representative Blum been present for the vote, he would have 

voted in favor of reporting the bill, as amended. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title; references in act 

Designates the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act’’ or ‘‘SOAR Reauthorization Act’’. 

Any amendment or repeal cited within the Act is in reference to 

the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (division C of 

Public Law 112–10; sec. 38–1853.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code). 

Section 2. Findings; purpose 

Congress finds the following: 

Parents are best equipped to make educational decisions for their 

children. The OSP was part of a three-sector approach to education 

under the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 that included 

funding for DC Public Schools DC public charter schools, and the 

OSP. 

Congress passed the SOAR Act in 2011, formally enacting the 

three-sector approach. The National Center for Education Statistics 

has shown that DC performed near the bottom of the country in 

math and reading when Congress passed the DC School Incentive 

Act of 2003. Despite huge improvements in math and reading, DC 

is still testing at or near the bottom of the country. 

DC parents and residents support the OSP, with 74 percent of 

DC residents supporting its continuation, according to a 2011 poll. 

Students who have been awarded and used their opportunity 

scholarships have significantly higher graduation rates than those 

students attending DC Public Schools. 

The OSP offers educational alternatives to low-income families 

while public schools improve. 

The purpose of this bill is to continue to provide educational opportunities for the children of low-income parents within the District of Columbia. 

Section 3. Prohibiting imposition of limits on types of eligible students participating in the program 

The Secretary of the Department of Education may not limit an 

otherwise eligible student from participating in OSP based on the 

type of school the student previously attended, whether or not the 

student previously received a scholarship, or whether the student 

was a member of the evaluation ‘‘control group’’ that previously 

prohibited them from participating in OSP. 

If more students enter the OSP than the program can support, 

the program administrator must conduct a random selection process that gives weight to students who attend a school identified for 

improvement under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965, students awarded a scholarship in the preceding year, and 

students whose household includes a sibling or other child already 

participating in the OSP. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Section 4. Requiring eligible entities to utilize internal fiscal and 

quality controls 

The entity administering the OSP must have proper fiscal and 

quality controls in place as a condition to managing the scholarship 

program, in response to recommendations by the Government Accountability Office. 

Section 5. Clarification of priorities for awarding scholarships to 

determining eligible students 

Removes the restriction on students who have previously attended a private school. Instead of referencing section 1116 (schools 

in need of improvement) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Act gives priority to those students who have previously attended a low-performing DC Public School. 

Section 6. Modification of requirements for participating schools 

and eligible entities 

School employees with direct, unsupervised interaction with students must complete a criminal background check. 

OSP participating schools must be accredited, or in the process 

of seeking accreditation. Schools that seek to participate in the 

OSP are required to actively pursue accreditation, and must become accredited within five years of the date of enactment. Authorizes $2 million in appropriated funds to carry out administrative functions and provide parental education and assistance, including through streamlining the application. 

Previously unobligated funds shall be used to award new scholarships to students, of which not more than 5 percent of unobligated 

funds may be used for administrative costs, parental assistance, 

and tutoring. These unobligated funds may be available during the 

next fiscal year after the bill’s enactment, or if additional unobligated funds remain, in subsequent fiscal years. 

Section 7. Program evaluation 

Terminates the evaluation conducted under the current SOAR 

Act. OSP students who were part of the previous evaluation of the 

OSP will be transitioned into the new evaluation. 

Directs the Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia to have the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. 

Department of Education annually evaluate the OSP, in addition 

to the monitoring and evaluation of how DC Public Schools and 

public charter schools’ use of the three-sector funds authorized by 

this bill are contributing to student achievement. The evaluation 

must include student achievement; reasons for participating in the 

program; a comparison of retention, graduation, college enrollment, 

college persistence, and college graduation rates; school safety; parent and student satisfaction; and other issues. As part of the evaluation, the Secretary of Education will ensure that the annual OSP 

evaluation uses a quasi-experimental research design that does not 

require a control group that would prohibit eligible students from 

entering the OSP. The Institute of Education Sciences will assess 

participating students in grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high 

school. 

Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia and Secretary of 

Education to monitor funds authorized and appropriated for DC 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Public Schools and DC public charter schools. Provides protections 

for the personally identifiable information of students. 

Individuals carrying out the evaluation, or those individuals that 

have necessary information for the evaluation, can disclose information necessary to carry out the evaluation. 

Section 8. Funding for District of Columbia public schools and public charter schools 

The Secretary of Education may withhold funds from the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia if the Mayor fails to comply with any 

of the requirements, and reasonable notice was given as well as the 

opportunity for a hearing. 

The Secretary may direct funds to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia (OSSE), and 

OSSE may transfer funds to subgrantees that are DC public charter schools, public charter school networks, nonprofits that support 

DC public charters, or networks of schools. 

Section 9. Revision of current memorandum of understanding 

The Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the District of Columbia will revise their Memorandum of Understanding to reflect 

the amendments within the bill, the need to ensure that participating schools meet fire code standards and maintain certificates 

of occupancy, and to ensure that DC public and public charter 

schools meet the requirements to provide information necessary to 

carry out evaluations. 

Section 10. Extension of authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes the OSP and the three-sector funding approach for 

five additional years, through September 30, 2021. 

Section 11. Effective date 

The amendments in the Act take effect during the 2016–2017 

school year and each succeeding school year. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R–UT) offered a Manager’s Amendment. The amendment strengthens the accreditation standards in 

Section 6 by requiring schools that seek to participate in the OSP 

to actively pursue accreditation, and become accredited within five 

years of the bill’s enactment. The amendment also clarifies how 

rollover funds are to be used for the OSP as described in Section 

6. The amendment clarifies that any funds appropriated for the 

OSP, including funds appropriated in previous fiscal years under 

the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 or the SOAR Act, that 

remain unobligated at the end of a fiscal year may be available to 

award scholarships for eligible students. These unobligated funds 

may be available during the next fiscal year, or if additional unobligated funds remain, in subsequent fiscal years. The amendment 

states that these unobligated funds are available to award scholarships for eligible students, except that an eligible entity may also 

use not more than 5 percent of the funds for administrative expenses, parental assistance, and tutoring. Additionally, the amendment ensures that the Department of Education continues to evaluate student satisfaction in its evaluation as described in Section 7. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

The amendment also makes technical corrections to clarify the terminology in Section 7 regarding college enrollment. Finally, the 

amendment ensures that the evaluators have access to necessary 

data on students not attending public schools to conduct a review 

while also protecting personally identifiable information. The 

amendment specifies that individuals carrying out the evaluation, 

or those individuals that have necessary information for the evaluation such as data providers, can disclose information to carry out 

the evaluation. The Manager’s Amendment was adopted by a voice 

vote. 

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D–DC) offered an amendment 

to Section 6 to limit schools that accept OSP scholarship students 

to 50 percent of total school enrollment, without affecting current 

voucher students or siblings. The amendment also changes the 

evaluation in Section 7 to maintain the strongest possible research 

design when evaluating the OSP. The amendment offered by Rep. 

Norton was defeated by a voice vote. 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R–NC) offered an amendment to clarify 

and strengthen the required evaluation of the OSP in Section 7. 

This amendment clarifies that OSP students who were part of the 

previous evaluation of the OSP, including OSP students who were 

awarded scholarships, will be transitioned into the new evaluation. 

The amendment offered by Rep. Meadows was adopted by a voice 

vote. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 9, 2015 the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 10, as amended, by roll call 

vote of 16 to 14, a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There was one recorded vote during consideration of H.R. 10: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS ̃Insert graphic folio 14 HR292.001
13 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill reauthorizes the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. As such this bill does not 

relate to employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goal or objective of this bill is to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether 

the provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 10—Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization 

Act 

Summary: H.R. 10 would amend and reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act and would authorize the appropriation of $60 million for each of fiscal years 2017 through 

2021. CEO estimates that enacting H.R. 10 would cost $240 million 

over the 2017–2020 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

Enacting H.R. 10 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 10 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

H.R. 10 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Any costs incurred by the District of Columbia would be incurred 

voluntarily and would result from complying with conditions of assistance. 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 10 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, training, employment, and social services). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2016- 

2020 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ........................................................... 0 60 60 60 60 240 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 60 60 60 60 240 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 10 would authorize the appropriation of 

$60 million for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The program is currently authorized through fiscal year 2016 at $60 milVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:23 Oct 17, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR292.XXX HR292

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

lion annually. In fiscal year 2015, the Congress appropriated $45 

million for this program. 

The bill would direct the funds to be divided equally for the following three purposes: 

• To provide scholarships for private-school tuition to parents of students who reside in the District of Columbia and 

meet certain criteria under the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 

Program; 

• To improve public education in the District of Columbia; 

and 

• To improve and expand quality public charter schools in 

the District of Columbia. 

Based on historical spending patterns for this program and assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO projects 

that enacting the bill would cost $240 million over the 2017–2020 

period. 

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None. 

Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 10 would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 

beginning in 2026. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 10 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The provisions in H.R. 10 apply to grant conditions in the 

District of Columbia; therefore, they would be voluntary and not 

mandates as defined by UMRA. An educational entity of the District of Columbia may voluntarily choose to apply to the Department of Education to distribute the grants, but any requirements 

would be conditions of receiving a federal grant. If low-income students choose to attend private schools, the District of Columbia 

school system could lose federal funding based on the number of 

low-income students in the system. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Leah Koestner; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Paige Piper-Bach. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS ACT 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

DIVISION C—SCHOLARSHIPS FOR 

OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3004. GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

(a) OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—From funds appropriated under section 

3014(a)(1), the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive 

basis to eligible entities with approved applications under section 3005 to carry out a program to provide eligible students 

with expanded school choice opportunities. The Secretary may 

award a single grant or multiple grants, depending on the 

quality of applications submitted and the priorities of this division. 

(2) DURATION OF GRANTS.—The Secretary may make grants 

under this subsection for a period of not more than 5 years. 

(3) PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF LIMITS ON ELIGIBLE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program under this 

division, the Secretary may not limit the number of eligible 

students receiving scholarships under section 3007(a), and 

may not prevent otherwise eligible students from participating in the program under this Act, on any of the following grounds: 

(i) The type of school the student previously attended. 

(ii) Whether or not the student previously received a 

scholarship or participated in the program. 

(iii) Whether or not the student was a member of the 

control group used by the Institute of Education 

Sciences to carry out previous evaluations of the program under section 3009. 

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subparagraph 

(A) may be construed to waive the requirement under section 3005(b)(1)(B) that the entity carrying out the program 

under this Act must carry out a random selection process 

which gives weight to the priorities described in section 

3006 if more eligible students seek admission in the program than the program can accommodate. 

(b) DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.—From funds 

appropriated under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 3014(a), the 

Secretary shall provide funds to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, if the Mayor agrees to the requirements described in section 3011(a), for— 

(1) the District of Columbia public schools to improve public 

education in the District of Columbia; and 

(2) the District of Columbia public charter schools to improve 

and expand quality public charter schools in the District of Columbia. 

SEC. 3005. APPLICATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to receive a grant under section 

3004(a), an eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

(b) CONTENTS.—The Secretary may not approve the request of an 

eligible entity for a grant under section 3004(a) unless the entity’s 

application includes— 

(1) a detailed description of— 

(A) how the entity will address the priorities described 

in section 3006; 

(B) how the entity will ensure that if more eligible students seek admission in the program of the entity than the 

program can accommodate, eligible students are selected 

for admission through a random selection process which 

gives weight to the priorities described in section 3006; 

(C) how the entity will ensure that if more participating 

eligible students seek admission to a participating school 

than the school can accommodate, participating eligible 

students are selected for admission through a random selection process; 

(D) how the entity will notify parents of eligible students 

of the expanded choice opportunities in order to allow the 

parents to make informed decisions; 

(E) the activities that the entity will carry out to provide 

parents of eligible students with expanded choice opportunities through the awarding of scholarships under section 

3007(a); 

(F) how the entity will determine the amount that will 

be provided to parents under section 3007(a)(2) for the 

payment of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses, if 

any; 

(G) how the entity will seek out private elementary 

schools and secondary schools in the District of Columbia 

to participate in the program; 

(H) how the entity will ensure that each participating 

school will meet the reporting and other program requirements under this division; 

(I) how the entity will ensure that participating schools 

submit to site visits by the entity as determined to be necessary by the entity, except that a participating school 

may not be required to submit to more than 1 site visit per 

school year; 

(J) how the entity will ensure that participating schools 

are financially responsible and will use the funds received 

under section 3007 effectively; 

(K) how the entity will address the renewal of scholarships to participating eligible students, including continued eligibility; øand¿ 

(L) how the entity will ensure that a majority of its voting board members or governing organization are residents 

of the District of Columbia; and 

(M) how the entity will ensure that it utilizes internal fiscal and quality controls; and 

(2) an assurance that the entity will comply with all requests 

regarding any evaluation carried out under section 3009(a). 

SEC. 3006. PRIORITIES. 

In awarding grants under section 3004(a), the Secretary shall 

give priority to applications from eligible entities that will most effectively— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(1) in awarding scholarships under section 3007(a), give priority to— 

(A) eligible students who, in the school year preceding 

the school year for which the eligible students are seeking 

a scholarship, attended an elementary school or secondary 

school øidentified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)¿ identified 

as a low-achieving school according to the Office of the 

State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia; 

(B) students who have been awarded a scholarship in a 

preceding year under this division or the DC School Choice 

Incentive Act of 2003 (sec. 38-1851.01 et seq., D.C. Official 

Code), as such Act was in effect on the day before the date 

of the enactment of this division, but who have not used 

the scholarship, including eligible students who were provided notification of selection for a scholarship for school 

year 2009-2010, which was later rescinded in accordance 

with direction from the Secretary of Education; and 

(C) students whose household includes a sibling or other 

child who is already participating in the program of the eligible entity under this division, regardless of whether 

such students have, in the past, been assigned as members 

of a control study group for the purposes of an evaluation 

under section 3009(a)ø;¿, or whether such students have, in 

the past, attended a private school; 

(2) target resources to students and families that lack the financial resources to take advantage of available educational 

options; and 

(3) provide students and families with the widest range of 

educational options. 

SEC. 3007. USE OF FUNDS. 

(a) OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to øparagraphs (2) and (3)¿ paragraphs (2), (3), and (5), an eligible entity receiving a grant 

under section 3004(a) shall use the grant funds to provide eligible students with scholarships to pay the tuition, fees, and 

transportation expenses, if any, to enable the eligible students 

to attend the District of Columbia private elementary school or 

secondary school of their choice beginning in school year 2011- 

2012. Each such eligible entity shall ensure that the amount 

of any tuition or fees charged by a school participating in such 

entity’s program under this division to an eligible student participating in the program does not exceed the amount of tuition 

or fees that the school charges to students who do not participate in the program. 

(2) PAYMENTS TO PARENTS.—An eligible entity receiving a 

grant under section 3004(a) shall make scholarship payments 

under the entity’s program under this division to the parent of 

the eligible student participating in the program, in a manner 

which ensures that such payments will be used for the payment of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses (if any), in 

accordance with this division. 

(3) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

(A) VARYING AMOUNTS PERMITTED.—Subject to the other 

requirements of this section, an eligible entity receiving a 

grant under section 3004(a) may award scholarships in 

larger amounts to those eligible students with the greatest 

need. 

(B) ANNUAL LIMIT ON AMOUNT.— (i) LIMIT FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012.—The amount of 

assistance provided to any eligible student by an eligible entity under the entity’s program under this division for school year 2011-2012 may not exceed— (I) $8,000 for attendance in kindergarten 

through grade 8; and (II) $12,000 for attendance in grades 9 through 

12. 

(ii) CUMULATIVE INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Beginning with school year 2012-2013, the Secretary shall 

adjust the maximum amounts of assistance described 

in clause (i) for inflation, as measured by the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in 

the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, 

published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. 

(4) PARTICIPATING SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS.—None of the 

funds provided under this division for opportunity scholarships 

may be used by an eligible student to enroll in a participating 

private school unless the participating school— 

(A) has and maintains a valid certificate of occupancy 

issued by the District of Columbia; 

(B) makes readily available to all prospective students 

information on its school accreditation; 

(C) in the case of a school that has been operating for 

5 years or less, submits to the eligible entity administering 

the program proof of adequate financial resources reflecting the financial sustainability of the school and the 

school’s ability to be in operation through the school year; 

(D) agrees to submit to site visits as determined to be 

necessary by the eligible entity pursuant to section 

3005(b)(1)(I); 

(E) has financial systems, controls, policies, and procedures to ensure that funds are used according to this division; øand¿ 

(F) ensures that, with respect to core academic subjects 

(as such term is defined in section 9101(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

7801(11)), participating students are taught by a teacher 

who has a baccalaureate degree or equivalent degree, 

whether such degree was awarded in or outside of the 

United Statesø.¿; 

(G) conducts criminal background checks on school employees who have direct and unsupervised interaction with 

students; and 

(H) complies with all requests for data and information 

regarding the reporting requirements described in section 

3010. 

(5) ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(A) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds provided under this 

division for opportunity scholarships may be used by an eligible student to enroll in a participating private school unless one of the following applies: 

(i) In the case of a school that, as of the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is a participating school, the school is provisionally or fully accredited by an accrediting body described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 2202(16) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (sec. 38– 

1802.02(16)(A–G), D.C. Official Code), or by any other 

accrediting body determined appropriate by the District 

of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent for 

Schools for the purposes of accrediting an elementary 

or secondary school. 

(ii) In the case of a school that, as of the day before 

the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization 

Act, is a participating school but does not meet the requirements of clause (i)— 

(I) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of such Act, the school is pursuing full accreditation by an accrediting body described in 

clause (i); and 

(II) not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of such Act, the school meets the requirements of clause (i), except that an eligible entity 

may extend this deadline for a single 1-year period 

if the school provides the eligible entity with evidence from such an accrediting body that the 

school’s application for accreditation is in process 

and that the school will be awarded accreditation 

before the end of such period. 

(iii) In the case of a school that, as of the date of enactment of the SOAR Reauthorization Act, is not a participating school, the school meets the requirements of 

clause (i) or, if it does not meet the requirements of 

clause (i)— 

(I) at the time the school notifies an eligible entity that it seeks to be a participating school, the 

school is actively pursuing full accreditation by an 

accrediting body described in clause (i); 

(II) not later than 5 years after the school notifies an eligible entity that it seeks to be a participating school, the school meets the requirements of 

clause (i), except that an eligible entity may extend 

this deadline for a single 1-year period if the 

school provides the eligible entity with evidence 

from such an accrediting body that the school’s application for accreditation is in process and that 

the school will be awarded accreditation before the 

end of such period; and 

(III) the school meets all of the other requirements for participating schools under this Act. 

(B) REPORTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—Not later than 5 

years after the date of enactment of the SOAR ReauthorizaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:23 Oct 17, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR292.XXX HR292

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

tion Act, each participating school shall submit to the eligible entity a certification that the school has been fully or 

provisionally accredited in accordance with subparagraph 

(A), or has been granted an extension by the eligible entity 

in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii)(II). 

(C) ASSISTING STUDENTS IN ENROLLING IN OTHER

SCHOOLS.—If a participating school fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall assist the parents of the eligible students who attend the 

school in identifying, applying to, and enrolling in another 

participating school under this Act. 

ø(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—An eligible entity receiving a 

grant under section 3004(a) may use not more than 3 percent of 

the amount provided under the grant each year for the administrative expenses of carrying out its program under this division during 

the year, including— 

ø(1) determining the eligibility of students to participate; 

ø(2) selecting eligible students to receive scholarships; 

ø(3) determining the amount of scholarships and issuing the 

scholarships to eligible students; 

ø(4) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic 

records; and 

ø(5) conducting site visits as described in section 

3005(b)(1)(I). 

ø(c) PARENTAL ASSISTANCE.—An eligible entity receiving a grant 

under section 3004(a) may use not more than 2 percent of the 

amount provided under the grant each year for the expenses of 

educating parents about the entity’s program under this division, 

and assisting parents through the application process, under this 

division, including— 

ø(1) providing information about the program and the participating schools to parents of eligible students; 

ø(2) providing funds to assist parents of students in meeting 

expenses that might otherwise preclude the participation of eligible students in the program; and 

ø(3) streamlining the application process for parents.¿ 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PARENTAL ASSISTANCE.—The 

Secretary shall make $2,000,000 of the amount provided under the 

grant each year available to an eligible entity receiving a grant 

under section 3004(a) to cover the following expenses: 

(1) The administrative expenses of carrying out its program 

under this Act during the year, including— 

(A) determining the eligibility of students to participate; 

(B) selecting the eligible students to receive scholarships; 

(C) determining the amount of the scholarships and 

issuing the scholarships to eligible students; 

(D) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic records; and 

(E) conducting site visits as described in section 

3005(b)(1)(l). 

(2) The expenses of educating parents about the entity’s program under this Act, and assisting parents through the application process under this Act, including— 

(A) providing information about the program and the 

participating schools to parents of eligible students; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

(B) providing funds to assist parents of students in meeting expenses that might otherwise preclude the participation of eligible students in the program; and 

(C) streamlining the application process for parents. 

ø(d)¿ (c) STUDENT ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE.—An eligible entity receiving a grant under section 3004(a) may use not more than 1 percent of the amount provided under the grant each year for expenses to provide tutoring services to participating eligible students that need additional academic assistance. If there are insufficient funds to provide tutoring services to all such students in a 

year, the eligible entity shall give priority in such year to students 

who previously attended an elementary school or secondary school 

that was øidentified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316)¿ identified as a low-achieving 

school according to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia. 

(d) PERMITTING USE OF FUNDS REMAINING UNOBLIGATED FROM

PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS.—To the extent that any funds appropriated for the opportunity scholarship program under this Act for 

any fiscal year (including a fiscal year occurring prior to the enactment of this subsection) remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall make such funds available during the next 

fiscal year and (if still unobligated as of the end of that fiscal year) 

any subsequent fiscal year for scholarships for eligible students, except that an eligible entity may use not more than 5 percent of the 

funds for administrative expenses, parental assistance, and tutoring, in addition to the amounts appropriated for such purposes 

under section 3007(b) and (c). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3009. EVALUATIONS. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.— 

ø(1) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY AND THE MAYOR.—The Secretary and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall— 

ø(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute 

of Education Sciences of the Department of Education to 

evaluate annually the performance of students who received scholarships under the 5-year program under this 

division; 

ø(B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and 

evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for 

the District of Columbia public schools and the District of 

Columbia public charter schools under this division; and 

ø(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c). 

ø(2) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.—The Secretary, through a 

grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall— 

ø(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph 

(1)(A)— 

ø(i) is conducted using the strongest possible research design for determining the effectiveness of the 

opportunity scholarship program under this division; 

and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

ø(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); 

and 

ø(B) disseminate information on the impact of the program— 

ø(i) in increasing the academic growth and achievement of participating eligible students; and 

ø(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia. 

ø(3) DUTIES OF THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES.—The 

Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of Education 

shall— 

ø(A) use a grade appropriate, nationally norm-referenced 

standardized test each school year to assess participating 

eligible students in a manner consistent with section 

3008(h); 

ø(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating eligible students; and 

ø(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the 

parents of each student who applies for a scholarship 

under this division (regardless of whether the student receives the scholarship) and the parents of each student 

participating in the scholarship program under this division, agree that the student will participate, if requested 

by the Institute of Education Sciences, in the measurements given annually by the Institute of Educational 

Sciences for the period for which the student applied for or 

received the scholarship, respectively, except that nothing 

in this subparagraph shall affect a student’s priority for an 

opportunity scholarship as provided under section 3006. 

ø(4) ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED.—The issues to be evaluated 

under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following: 

ø(A) A comparison of the academic growth and achievement of participating eligible students in the measurements described in paragraph (3) to the academic growth 

and achievement of the eligible students in the same 

grades who sought to participate in the scholarship program under this division but were not selected. 

ø(B) The success of the program in expanding choice options for parents of participating eligible students, improving parental and student satisfaction of such parents and 

students, respectively, and increasing parental involvement of such parents in the education of their children. 

ø(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible students choose for their children to participate in the program, including important characteristics for selecting 

schools. 

ø(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school 

graduation rates, and college admission rates of participating eligible students with the retention rates, high 

school graduation rates, and college admission rates of students of similar backgrounds who do not participate in 

such program. 

ø(E) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended 

by participating eligible students and the schools in the 

District of Columbia attended by students who do not parVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:23 Oct 17, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR292.XXX HR292

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

ticipate in the program, based on the perceptions of the 

students and parents. 

ø(F) Such other issues with respect to participating eligible students as the Secretary considers appropriate for inclusion in the evaluation, such as the impact of the program on public elementary schools and secondary schools 

in the District of Columbia. 

ø(G) An analysis of the issues described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) by applying such subparagraphs by 

substituting ‘‘the subgroup of participating eligible students who have used each opportunity scholarship awarded to such students under this division to attend a participating school’’ for ‘‘participating eligible students’’ each 

place such term appears. 

ø(5) PROHIBITION.—Personally identifiable information regarding the results of the measurements used for the evaluations may not be disclosed, except to the parents of the student 

to whom the information relates.¿ 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY AND THE MAYOR.—The Secretary and the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall— 

(A) jointly enter into an agreement with the Institute of 

Education Sciences of the Department of Education to 

evaluate annually the opportunity scholarship program 

under this Act; 

(B) jointly enter into an agreement to monitor and evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the 

District of Columbia Public Schools and the District of Columbia public charter schools under this Act; and 

(C) make the evaluations described in subparagraphs (A) 

and (B) public in accordance with subsection (c). 

(2) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.—The Secretary, through a 

grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, shall— 

(A) ensure that the evaluation under paragraph (1)(A)— 

(i) is conducted using an acceptable quasi-experimental research design for determining the effectiveness of the opportunity scholarship program under this 

Act which does not use a control study group consisting 

of students who applied for but who did not receive opportunity scholarships; and 

(ii) addresses the issues described in paragraph (4); 

and 

(B) disseminate information on the impact of the program— 

(i) in increasing academic achievement and educational attainment of participating eligible students; 

and 

(ii) on students and schools in the District of Columbia. 

(3) DUTIES OF THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES.—The 

Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of Education 

shall— 

(A) assess participating eligible students in each of the 

grades 3 through 8, as well as one of the grades in the high 

school level, by supervising the administration of the same 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

reading and math assessment used by the District of Columbia Public Schools to comply with section 1111(b) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6311(b)); 

(B) measure the academic achievement of all participating students in the grades described in subparagraph 

(A); and 

(C) work with the eligible entities to ensure that the parents of each student who receives a scholarship under this 

Act agree to permit the student to participate in the evaluations and assessments carried out by the Institute under 

this subsection. 

(4) ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED.—The issues to be evaluated 

under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following: 

(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of participating eligible students in the measurements described in 

paragraph (3) to the academic achievement of a comparison 

group of students with similar backgrounds in the District 

of Columbia Public Schools. 

(B) The success of the program under this Act in expanding choice options for parents of participating eligible students and increasing the satisfaction of such parents and 

students with their choice. 

(C) The reasons parents of participating eligible students 

choose for their children to participate in the program, including important characteristics for selecting schools. 

(D) A comparison of the retention rates, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college persistence 

rates, and college graduation rates of participating eligible 

students with the rates of students in the comparison group 

described in subparagraph (A). 

(E) A comparison of the college enrollment rates, college 

persistence rates, and college graduation rates of students 

who participated in the program in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 

2013, 2014, and 2015 as the result of winning the Opportunity Scholarship Program lottery with the rates of students who entered but did not win such lottery in those 

years and who, as a result, served as the control group for 

previous evaluations of the program under this Act. 

(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by 

participating eligible students and the schools in the District of Columbia attended by students in the comparison 

group described in subparagraph (A), based on the perceptions of the students and parents. 

(G) Such other issues with respect to participating eligible students as the Secretary considers appropriate for inclusion in the evaluation, such as the impact of the program on public elementary schools and secondary schools 

in the District of Columbia. 

(5) PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Any disclosure of personally identifiable information shall be in compliance with section 444 of 

the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as 

the ‘‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974’’) 

(20 U.S.C. 1232g). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

(B) STUDENTS NOT ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS.—With 

respect to any student who is not attending a public elementary school or secondary school, personally identifiable 

information may not be disclosed outside of the group of individuals carrying out the evaluation for such student or 

the group of individuals providing information for carrying 

out the evaluation of such student, other than to the parents of such student. 

(b) REPORTS.—The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 

Appropriations, Education and the Workforce, and Oversight and 

Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate— 

(1) annual interim reports, not later than April 1 of the year 

following the year of the date of enactment of this division, and 

each subsequent year through the year in which the final report is submitted under paragraph (2), on the progress and 

preliminary results of the evaluation of the opportunity scholarship program funded under this division; and 

(2) a final report, not later than 1 year after the final year 

for which a grant is made under section 3004(a), on the results 

of the evaluation of the program. 

(c) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—All reports and underlying data gathered pursuant to this section shall be made available to the public 

upon request, in a timely manner following submission of the applicable report under subsection (b), except that personally identifiable information shall not be disclosed or made available to the 

public. 

(d) LIMIT ON AMOUNT EXPENDED.—The amount expended by the 

Secretary to carry out this section for any fiscal year may not exceed 5 percent of the total amount appropriated under section 

3014(a)(1) for the fiscal year. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3011. DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS. 

(a) CONDITION OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS.—As a condition of receiving funds under this division on behalf of the District of Columbia 

public schools and the District of Columbia public charter schools, 

the Mayor shall agree to carry out the following: 

ø(1) INFORMATION REQUESTS.—Ensure that all the District of 

Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia public 

charter schools comply with all reasonable requests for information for purposes of the evaluation under section 3009(a).¿ 

(1) INFORMATION NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT EVALUATIONS.— 

Ensure that all District of Columbia public schools and District 

of Columbia public charter schools make available to the Institute of Education Sciences of the Department of Education all 

of the information the Institute requires to carry out the assessments and perform the evaluations required under section 

3009(a). 

(2) AGREEMENT WITH THE SECRETARY.—Enter into the agreement described in section 3009(a)(1)(B) to monitor and evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the District of Columbia public schools and the District of Columbia 

public charter schools under this division. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

(3) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after 

the first appropriation of funds under section 3014, and each 

succeeding year thereafter, submit to the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information on— 

(A) how the funds authorized and appropriated under 

this division for the District of Columbia public schools 

and the District of Columbia public charter schools were 

used in the preceding school year; and 

(B) how such funds are contributing to student achievement. 

ø(b) ENFORCEMENT.—If, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing for the Mayor, the Secretary determines that 

the Mayor has not been in compliance with 1 or more of the requirements described in subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold 

from the Mayor, in whole or in part, further funds under this division for the District of Columbia public schools and the District of 

Columbia public charter schools.¿ 

(b) ENFORCEMENT.—If, after reasonable notice and an opportunity 

for a hearing, the Secretary determines that the Mayor has failed 

to comply with any of the requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary may withhold from the Mayor, in whole or in part— 

(1) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated under 

section 3014(a)(2), if the failure to comply relates to the District 

of Columbia public schools; 

(2) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated under 

section 3014(a)(3), if the failure to comply relates to the District 

of Columbia public charter schools; or 

(3) the funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated under 

both section 3014(a)(2) and section 3014(a)(3), if the failure relates to both the District of Columbia public schools and the 

District of Columbia public charter schools. 

(c) SPECIFIC RULES REGARDING FUNDS PROVIDED FOR SUPPORT

OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.—The following rules shall apply 

with respect to the funds provided under this Act for the support of 

District of Columbia public charter schools: 

(1) The Secretary may direct the funds provided for any fiscal 

year, or any portion thereof, to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia (OSSE). 

(2) The OSSE may transfer the funds to subgrantees who are 

specific District of Columbia public charter schools or networks 

of such schools or who are District of Columbia-based non-profit organizations with experience in successfully providing support or assistance to District of Columbia public charter schools 

or networks of schools. 

(3) The funds shall be available to any District of Columbia 

public charter school in good standing with the District of Columbia Charter School Board (Board), and the OSSE and 

Board may not restrict the availability of the funds to certain 

types of schools on the basis of the school’s location, governing 

body, or any other characteristic. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

ø(c)¿ (d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall 

be construed to reduce, or otherwise affect, funding provided under 

this division for the opportunity scholarship program under this division. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3014. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and for øeach of the 4 succeeding 

fiscal years¿ each of the 9 succeeding fiscal years, of which— 

(1) one-third shall be made available to carry out the opportunity scholarship program under this division for each fiscal 

year; 

(2) one-third shall be made available to carry out section 

3004(b)(1) for each fiscal year; and 

(3) one-third shall be made available to carry out section 

3004(b)(2) for each fiscal year. 

(b) APPORTIONMENT.—If the total amount of funds appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year does not equal $60,000,000, 

the funds shall be apportioned in the manner described in subsection (a) for such fiscal year. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(29) 

1 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108–199. 

2Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 112–10. 

3The Majority did not invite any District government officials to testify at the Committee’s 

hearing this year on the program. 4Letter from Eight D.C. Council Members to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Oct. 8, 2015). 5Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity 

Scholarship Program: Final Report (June 2010). 6 Id. 

MINORITY VIEWS 

We strongly oppose H.R. 10 because the District of Columbia private school voucher program has failed to improve academic 

achievement; is unnecessary given the city’s own robust public 

school choice programs; provides federal funds to schools that are 

unaccountable to the public and not subject to all federal civil 

rights laws; and violates the District’s right to self-government. 

The bill reauthorizes a program that Congress imposed on the 

District of Columbia in 2004 1 and reauthorized in 2011,2 in neither 

case at the District’s request or with its consent.3 A majority of the 

D.C. Council submitted a letter to the Committee in opposition to 

the bill.4 Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, the city has authority 

to establish its own education system, including a private school 

voucher program. The city has never created its own voucher program. 

The prior authorizations mandated an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness. The program has failed to improve academic 

achievement, as measured by math and reading scores.5 Moreover, 

while the program prioritizes the admission of students from the 

lowest performing public schools, it has had ‘‘no significant impacts’’ on the academic achievement of these students.6 The program is required to be ‘‘conducted using the strongest possible research design for determining the effectiveness of the program,’’ 

and it has been evaluated with the gold standard of scientific research, a randomized controlled trial. That is, the study compared 

the outcomes of eligible applicants randomly assigned to receive or 

not receive a voucher. 

We are disappointed that the bill abandons Congress’ commitment to a rigorous evaluation of the program and that the Committee rejected Congresswoman Norton’s amendment to restore the 

current evaluation requirement. The bill requires the evaluation to 

be conducted ‘‘using an acceptable quasi-experimental research design,’’ and it expressly prohibits the use of a randomized controlled 

trial. However, according to the researchers conducting the current 

evaluation, a randomized controlled trial ‘‘is especially important in 

the context of school choice because families wanting to apply for 

a choice program may have educational goals and aspirations that 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

7Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity 

Scholarship Program: An Early Look at Applicants and Participating Schools Under the SOAR 

Act (Oct. 2014). 8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis (Oct. 2014). 

differ from the average family.’’ 7 While the program has improved 

high school graduation rates, the evaluation did not examine either 

the rigor of the schools’ curriculum or graduation requirements. 

The program improved parents’, but not students’, ratings of satisfaction and safety. 

The District has robust public school choice programs that include publically accountable charter schools, and the District permits students in traditional public schools to attend out-of-boundary schools. Currently, approximately 44% of D.C. public school 

students attend charter schools, and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranked the District as the ‘‘healthiest charter 

school movement’’ in the country.8 In addition, 75% of students in 

public schools attend out-of-boundary schools. 

In July, both the House and Senate considered several national 

voucher amendments during debate on the reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and yet none passed. 

That outcome mirrors those in the states. Since 1970, every state 

referendum to establish a voucher program or tuition tax credit has 

failed. The timing of the bill is also striking. At the same time 

House Republicans are supporting funding for the program, they 

are proposing to cut $2 billion from K–12 public school programs 

nationally. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, 

Ranking Member. 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Government Operations. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS