U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–506 PDF 2003

H.R. 2556, SCHOOL CHOICE IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA: OPENING DOORS FOR PARENTS

AND STUDENTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2556

TO PROVIDE LOW-INCOME PARENTS RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, PARTICULARLY PARENTS OF STUDENTS WHO ATTEND ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR IMPROVEMENT, CORRECTIVE ACTION, OR RESTRUCTURING UNDER TITLED I

OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965,

WITH EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENROLLING THEIR CHILDREN

IN HIGHER-PERFORMING SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JUNE 24, 2003

Serial No. 108–37

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 24, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 2556 ..................................................................................................... 8

Statement of:

Boehner, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio ............................................................................................................ 47

Paige, Rod, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education ............ 55

Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia ........................................... 69

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Boehner, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 50

Burton, Hon. Dan , a Representative in Congress from the State of

Indiana, prepared statement of ................................................................... 31

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 103

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

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

of Columbia:

Information concerning average per pupil funding ................................ 41

Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 44

Paige, Rod, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 58

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 27

Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia, prepared statement of ... 73

(1)

SCHOOL CHOICE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: OPENING DOORS FOR PARENTS

AND STUDENTS

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Mica, Ose, Davis of Virginia,

Platts, Putnam, Schrock, Miller of Michigan, Murphy, Carter,

Janklow, Blackburn, Waxman, Kucinich, Clay, Watson, Van

Hollen, and Norton.

Staff present: Peter Sirh, staff director; Melissa Wojciak, deputy

staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Scott Kopple, deputy

director of communications; Mason Alinger and Victoria Proctor,

professional staff members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Joshua E.

Gillespie, deputy clerk; Shalley Kim and Jason Chung, legislative

assistants; Brien Beattie, staff assistant; Phil Barnett, minority

chief counsel; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; Anna Laitin, minority communications and policy assistant; Earley Green, minority

chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order.

The condition of District of Columbia Public Schools has concerned me since I first came to the Congress and became chairman

of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1995. While we’ve

made strides since then, the D.C. College Access Act and the establishment of charter schools, for example, the condition, quality, and

improvement of the educational opportunities in the Nation’s Capital should remain a constant concern for all of us.

In 1995, Congress enacted the District of Columbia School Reform Act, which set up the framework for the District to make

major progress in selected areas of education reform. About 8 years

have passed since enactment of this legislation, but the school system has not shown the rate of improvement I think we would have

liked.

We’re not here to disparage the District’s school system. We’re

here to lend a helping hand to students who are stuck in underperforming schools. Too many students are leaving 3rd grade unable to read. These are children who will never have another shot

at 3rd grade.

2

In 1999, Congress passed the D.C. College Access Act, legislation

which I authored that has helped defray tuition expenses for District of Columbia high school graduates who seek higher education.

It has leveled the playing field and brightened the futures of thousands of young adults, but now we need to reach more students,

and reach them earlier. We can’t optimize the impact of the College

Access Act if we’re unable to succeed at the elementary and secondary levels.

The current condition of D.C. public schools can leave a child isolated and discouraged. Before students become disenchanted, before they forget forever the joy of learning, we need to provide

every opportunity to keep them engaged. How can we expect students to dream of higher education if their experience in the lower

grades is fraught with disappointment, with violence, with low expectations? Unfortunately, we can’t.

The ability of D.C. schools to meet its core goals has long been

challenged by financial mismanagement and an array of other

issues. Current efforts to improve academic performance have not

yielded tangible results. Poor academic achievement scores are one

clear indicator. Many students lack basic language and math skills.

Standardized reading and math test scores remain stagnant. The

average D.C. SAT combined score, verbal and math, is 799 while

the national average is 1,020. The dropout rate is about 40 percent.

The physical condition of many schools is unacceptable.

Between the 1997–1998 school year and the 2000–2001 school

year, the number of assaults with deadly weapons in the public

school system jumped from 66 to 127. The number of simple assaults increased from 384 to 475. The number of students bringing

concealed weapons to school increased from 329 to 423. The number of threats against students and staff members increased from

156 to 225. How can we look parents in the eye and say that this

is the best we can do for these children?

These are schools that few of us on this committee would send

our own children to, and that few, if any, members of the D.C.

Council would send their children to. How on Earth can we require

low-income families in the District to do something that we ourselves would not do?

The goal of school choice in the District of Columbia is addition,

not subtraction. With choice, we hope to lift all boats. The scholarships we envision will be a boon to public and charter schools as

well.

There is no one here today who doesn’t want the District’s education system to improve. I’ve come to the conclusion that parents

and students who are stuck in underperforming schools need—no,

they have the right to choose from a wider pool. I have received

calls from parents who are frustrated, angry, even emotionally distraught by the condition of their child’s school. It’s time to do more

than sympathize. This is a moral imperative, and it’s in our hands.

Low-income families concerned about quality and safety in public

schools should be allowed the choice to send their children elsewhere. A parent shouldn’t have to send a child to a school that continually lets them down, day after day, year after year. I’ve met

with a number of D.C. parents over recent weeks who are asking

3

for relief, for hope, for choice. The legislation Chairman Boehner

and I introduced yesterday responds to their pleas.

The school choice debate shouldn’t be about politics. It should be

about an honest appraisal of the state of affairs in our public

schools in the District, and about offering an alternative for students and parents who want a fair share of opportunities. What is

being proposed is not a mandate, it’s a choice. We began down this

road of expanded choice when we approved charter schools in the

District. But while charter schools are good, they are not good

enough, not yet anyway. As the Washington Post reported just last

week, there is not yet any evidence that the District’s charter

schools are doing a better academic job than their DCPS peers.

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill over the fact that

this legislation authorizes funding for school choice, but not enhanced funding for D.C. public schools or charter schools. The reason for this is very simple. This bill deals with authorization for

a new and historic program. Authorization for spending on D.C.

public schools and charter schools and additional aid, that authorization already exists. The debate will be over how high that spending should be, and I think it should be higher, and I think it will

be higher at the end of this journey.

Reforming and improving education in the District of Columbia

will require a multifaceted approach, to be sure. School choice is

not the panacea; it’s just a critical part of the answer and the specific focus of this hearing and this legislation. But let me state for

the record that I am committed to working with the Mayor, the

council, the administration, and Members of Congress to reaffirm

our commitment to public and charter schools in the Nation’s Capital. That’s just not the issue we’re tackling at today’s hearing.

With this legislation, we are not turning our back on the District’s public education system. We are nurturing it, bolstering it,

giving it the encouraging push we all agree it needs. D.C. parents

are asking for our help, and we’d be wrong to not at least discuss

it with them.

We need to pause for a moment to take note of the historic nature of our hearing today. We have two Republican full committee

chairmen in agreement with a Democratic mayor of the District

over the best course of action for District of Columbia. We’ve already come a long, long way.

I want to recognize other Members who have been instrumental

in bringing this important issue to the forefront, including Representative Jeff Flake, who testified at an earlier committee meeting on the school choice, and the Members who have co-sponsored

the current legislation. I appreciate the support of Representatives

Chris Shays, John Carter, Adam Putnam, Dave Weldon, William

Lipinski, Joe Wilson, Vernon Ehlers, Jim DeMint, and Roger Wicker, among others.

I welcome all the witnesses to today’s hearing, and I look forward

to their testimony. And let me say to our guests in the audience,

we’re happy to have you here, but expressions at this point, outward expressions of cheering or booing, we will not tolerate. But we

are happy to have you here to be a part of this historic hearing.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis and the text of

H.R. 2556 follow:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would now recognize the distinguished

ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the core concern motivating today’s hearing is the

need to ensure the best academic opportunities for District of Columbia young people.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your

interest in this issue. I also want to particularly note Congresswoman Norton’s continuing leadership and tireless efforts to support and improve the public education system in the District of Columbia.

In recent years, the District of Columbia has taken important

steps forward in providing D.C. youths with a system of school

choice, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of a voucher

system. There are now 42 public charter schools and 15 transformation schools in the District. Although the effort to develop

this alternative system is ongoing, the charter and transformation

schools have already seen significant success.

Today, we will be discussing a congressional proposal to create

a school voucher program in the District. I believe that Congress

should do everything possible to support the District’s efforts to

promote public education opportunities for the District’s youth. I do

not believe, however, that imposing a voucher system on the District advances this goal.

One problem is that school voucher measures raise serious Constitutional concerns regarding using public funds for religious education.

Another is that voucher plans generally do not provide sufficient

funding for students who want to attend private school without depleting funds from the public school system, where most children

would continue to be educated.

With respect to creating a voucher program specifically for the

District, there is the additional concern that such a proposal

threatens home rule. It is questionable that Congress should impose any educational system on the District of Columbia.

Mayor Williams has indicated that any additional funds for a

voucher program need to be combined with additional funds for the

District’s current public school system. I was encouraged to hear

your comments, Mr. Chairman, that you think more funds will be

made available. Yet, the proposed D.C. voucher measure would establish a $15 million program without provision for additional

funds for the District D.C. public school system. We have to wait

and see if the Appropriations Committee would do better.

I hope that this committee will do everything it can to support

the public education system in the District to help ensure that all

children in the District have an equal opportunity to quality education. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

27

28

29

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would oppose

a parent putting their child in a school that’s going to achieve what

they want to achieve while taking them out of a school where the

child has been underachieving because they haven’t been getting

the kind of education that the parent wants. School choice is a very

important issue, and I think it’s our duty, as Members of Congress

and at home as parents and grandparents, to leave no child behind

as the President has said.

I believe that school choice initiatives can bring the promise of

freedom, opportunity, and hope to thousands of children trapped in

failing schools, not only here, but across the Nation. The idea of

school choice is nothing new. For years, well-off parents have had

the choice to send their children to private or parochial schools. At

the collegiate level, Pell Grants expanded the concept of school

choice to underserved students in 1972, 31 years ago. Eligible military personnel have had the assistance of the Montgomery GI bill

that has allowed them to attend the public or private college of

their choice.

If it’s a good idea to give underprivileged students a choice in

higher education, why not help children from low-income families

attend the grade school of their choice? I think that it is just as

important to help students in their formative years of their education as well as in their later years. We must lay a solid foundation on which these children can build their education.

Academic performance in the District of Columbia has been on

the decline for quite some time, and overall spending for special

education has increased dramatically in recent years. In an effort

to alleviate this problem, the D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act of

2003 has been proposed by our colleague and this committee’s

chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

The main objective of the bill is to provide families with options

for their children’s education. This measure does not require parents to send their children to private schools, but would enable parents of children in underperforming schools within a District to

have the option to select and move their children to schools with

a better record of educational quality. And what is wrong with

that? I cannot figure out what’s wrong with that. Unfortunately,

this legislation and the efforts to improve the crumbling D.C.

school system has come under fire by some challengers of the

school choice.

Many of the opponents of school choice measures would have you

believe that giving vouchers to disadvantaged children to attend

private institutions would undermine the public school system. But

what about undermining a child’s education or hindering their potential to succeed? I believe our top priority should be protecting

the best interests of our school children, not preserving the last

vestiges of a failing school system. That should be what we discuss

today. If your child is in a school that is not performing and the

child is not getting the education, a parent ought to have the right

to put that child in a system that is going to educate that child

properly so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed in later

life.

30

In addition, it has been shown time and time again that many

of the opponents of school choice don’t send their own to public

schools. In D.C., only one—only one of the city council members,

Ms. Carol Schwartz, is known to have sent her children to D.C.

public schools. What kind of a message are the D.C. council members sending to the parents of children who can’t afford to send

their kids to private schools? I will tell you what they are saying,

Mr. Chairman. They care about their own children, but they care

a lot less about the children they represent.

Today, we will hear testimony from the Honorable Mayor of

Washington, DC, Mr. Anthony Williams. He has been very outspoken and courageous in the fight to give disadvantaged parents

the power of choice when it comes to their children’s education. At

the last hearing before our committee on this issue, Mayor Williams stated, ‘‘I believe research has confirmed that school vouchers

increase parental satisfaction, boost academic achievement of inner

city African-American students, and increase the likelihood that

students will attend and complete college. No research, to my estimation, has proven that voucher programs are detrimental to the

students who participate in them.’’

I would like to thank Mr. Williams for agreeing, once again, to

testify before us.

In addition to Mayor Williams, I look forward to hearing from

the distinguished Secretary of Education, the Honorable Roderick

Paige, as well as the chairman of the House Committee on Education, my good friend and colleague, Congressman John Boehner

of Ohio. I really appreciate your taking time out of your busy

schedules to come here and be with us today. You are doing the

Lord’s work to help these kids.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome to our colleague, Representative Boehner, and to

Secretary Paige, and our own Mayor, Mayor Williams.

We have before us a very slim vouchers only bill. It must disappoint D.C. officials considering what they desired and even the

great expectations that have been stated or raised in exchange for

accepting vouchers, a takeover by the Federal Government of all or

most of the $255 million in special education funding, as D.C. council education chair Kevin Chavous told me and his council colleagues, or many millions in assistance which the operations, as

the Mayor indicated that he hoped for at a meeting. Putting aside

these clearly unreachable heights, Mayor Williams deserves credit

for responding to the concerns of a city-wide coalition of parents

and educators who want some new funds for public and charter

schools. We all want to thank him for persisting in this effort.

Our compassionate Cardinal, Theodore McCarrick, while wanting

vouchers for his Catholic schools, yesterday said in a statement, ‘‘as

Archbishop of Washington, I’ve always believed that a stand-alone

voucher bill will not adequately care for the educational needs of

all our city’s children. We will only support legislation that helps

all families in our cities, including those with children at public

schools.’’ The Cardinal, whose schools most of these children would

attend, does not support H.R. 2556; nor should anyone else.

I have been a strong supporter of our Catholic schools in particular, and I am grateful that so many of them still remain open in

this and other big cities. I have also strongly supported the Washington Scholarship Fund, which has put its money where its proverbial mouth is by raising private funds for scholarships to send

our children to private schools. I have visited our children in the

Catholic schools that have accepted Washington Scholarship students and spoken at their graduations. As many Catholic school

parents who pay full tuition and our Catholic elementary and secondary schools will attest, I am fond of telling them that I and

other D.C. residents owe them twice over. They have remained in

D.C. when many have fled to the suburbs for better schools. And,

they pay our considerable taxes plus tuition at private schools.

Cardinal McCarrick knows he and I disagree on vouchers, but he

is a much respected and admired friend. Particularly at a time

when both the District and the Federal Government have cut our

public schools, he knows that it is wrong for the Federal Government to fund private schools without including publicly accountable

schools that qualify under the language of the President’s budget.

Yet, the bill before us has shrunk incredibly even before it was

introduced. It began at $30 million for vouchers only, now cut in

half to $15 million for vouchers only, while those who will actually

decide the amount in the Appropriation Committee have approved

only $10 million. No one on an authorizing committee is in a position to guarantee funding, much less additional funds. The single

focus of this bill on vouchers comes as no surprise from a majority

that has been bent on imposing vouchers on the District for years,

always over the objection of the majority of District officials, whose

40

resolutions have opposed vouchers even using additional Federal

funds.

The most serious problem with the proposed vouchers has yet to

be discussed or to be taken seriously. Our traditional public and

charter schools will be hit hard financially if the predicted 2,000

students exit in the fall. Our public school will lose a combination

of $12,557 per pupil in both D.C. and Federal funds, because every

school system must be funded on a per pupil basis. This would be

a blow to D.C. public school funding they simply cannot afford

today.

The argument may be made that any price should be paid, even

one at the expense of our public schools to allow a few children to

go because D.C. children perform better in private schools than in

D.C. schools. I noted, however, that unlike many voucher advocates, the Cardinal made no such claim in his statement. However,

voucher advocates, including Secretary Paige’s testimony today,

often cite the performance of our children in the D.C. public schools

as the reason they must go to private schools, as if this change

would improve their performance. Even the pro-voucher study the

Secretary cites, at page 5 of his testimony, that shows 2 years of

gains for D.C. children using privately funded vouchers, goes on to

show that those gains disappeared in the third year. More seriously, only 29 percent of the children remained in those schools at

the end of the third year, raising serious issues about what our

children need in those schools.

I do not cite these results to show that our private schools are

a failure, nor does the 10-year GAO study of public and privately

funded voucher programs that found no evidence of test gains for

children in private or over public schools. The hyperbole needs to

stop because it cheapens the serious story of why so many of these

children do poorly and what needs to be done. Claims about the

District, such as found in the Davis press release on this bill that,

‘‘current spending per pupil excludes all but a handful of school districts in the country,’’ are refuted by the numbers, and I ask permission to insert this evidence in the record rather than lay it out.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

41

42

43

Ms. NORTON. Such comparisons don’t even touch the intractable

causes of the problems many of our children face. In this city, the

average kid comes from a poor or modest single-parent home, and

huge numbers bring problems to school that ordinary services in either public or private schools have not overcome. The best hope for

our low-income children are not vouchers. The transformation

schools that surround these children and their parents with city

services, including tutoring for the children and special services for

the parents, are the closest thing to a breakthrough we have

achieved in the District of Columbia. All 15 transformation schools

have improved their Stanford 9 scores. The extra services these

children get are available in none of the other D.C. public schools

or private schools. These are our poorest children, often with the

least motivated parents. The least any bill should do is to encourage and fund the improvements we see for the first time in these

children.

Tonight I am hosting a town meeting for a hearing by the 10-

member Commission on Black Men and Boys I established a few

years ago. It is part of work I began 30 years ago when the Moynihan report made it difficult for too many to talk about the deterioration of African-American family. Although the Black community has long since found its voice on the problems of family life,

the downward spiral of children without fathers and often without

the mothers they deserve, continues. Family dissolution has had

devastating effects on our children, and it is at the root of virtually

every problem of the Black community. While doing much to

strengthen Black family life, our major recourse lies with publicly

accountable schools.

The District is seldom ahead of the rest of the country, but in

the District, no child must attend a failing school. For decades, the

District has had out-of-boundary privileges. Its transformation

schools have achieved an important breakthrough in test scores

and all-important parental involvement. Parents are literally clamoring. Here is today’s Washington Times, ‘‘clamoring to get their

kids in the 42 charter schools.’’ In addition to the almost 12,000 we

have, we’ve got 11 trying to get in new charter schools. Where is

the money for them? And it says, according to the Washington

Times, an additional 6,200 students are trying to get in these

schools. Many of them are going to be put on waiting lists. Who

in the world would not want to give them first preference for any

money that the Federal Government has to offer? For creating a

virtual alternative system to the D.C. public schools, H.R. 2556

should reward the city with desperately needed funds for its publicly accountable schools, not exclude them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

44

45

46

47

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let the Chair state again, this is an authorization hearing. I believe more money will be forthcoming for

both the charter schools and the public schools at the end of this,

and I think I’ve made my position very clear, as has the administration, on that issue. But the purpose of this hearing is to talk

about one segment of that that stands alone, and that is a new authorization for a D.C. choice program.

Members will have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for the record, and I would like to move to our panel of witnesses. We have Congressman John Boehner, the chairman of the

House Education and the Workforce Committee; Secretary of Education, Rod Paige; and Mayor Anthony Williams.

And Secretary Paige, we appreciate you flying in from Europe

last night. You may have a little jet lag. You need to leave at 3:45,

and the Mayor needs to leave at 4 p.m. So if you would rise with

me, I will swear you in and we can start the hearing. And we will

start with Mr. Boehner.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I again want to thank all of you for taking

time to be with us on this very, very important issue and take

questions.

Chairman Boehner, I will start with you. Thank you for your

leadership on this issue.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Davis, Mr. Waxman, members of the Government Reform Committee, thank you for this opportunity today to

talk about one of the most important issues in education. I’m glad

to be here with Secretary Rod Paige, who over the last 21⁄2 years

we’ve worked closely together on the President’s No Child Left Behind bill, and someone who could talk about the historic achievements that this administration has made in terms of having all 50

States in compliance with the new law. He is a great man and

knows a little bit about this subject.

And I am also happy to be here with the Mayor. The Mayor, in

my view, as someone who has lived here for 121⁄2 years, has done

a marvelous job. He has shown real courage to deal with problems

in this city that have long been shoved under the carpet. And his

efforts on behalf of children in the District of Columbia are also

commendable.

In my written testimony, I outlined, as the chairman did, some

of the problems that we see in the D.C. schools. Kids aren’t learning, pure and simple. We are spending a great deal of money,

$9,600, $9,700 per student, more than you will see spent in most

districts in America, frankly, most urban districts in America. But

I think one of the bigger problems that we have with the D.C.

schools is what President Bush described as, low expectations are

nothing more than soft bigotry.

No child in America deserves less than what our children get

today. No child. I happen to have 11 brothers and sisters. My dad

owned a bar. They didn’t have any money. They decided to send

us to parochial schools. My wife and I decided to send our kids to

public schools. But none of us would be in this room today if we

48

didn’t have loving parents, and if we hadn’t gotten a decent education. And when we look at the problems in D.C., and the Mayor

is doing all that he can, we have a responsibility as Members of

Congress to help the Mayor deal with these issues and deal with

them today. These are children.

I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I used to ask myself the

question, how can we watch kids being moved from one grade to

the next whether they have learned anything or not? How can we

give kids a diploma when we’re not really sure that they can read?

And, on the part of public policymakers, I would describe this as

criminal neglect. And the Secretary and I and the President dealt

with it when we dealt with No Child Left Behind to bring real accountability to all of America’s schools. And the fact is that 80 percent of our kids in America are going to go to public schools. We’ve

got to do everything we can to help improve public education. Now,

I believe that the President, the Secretary, and the Congress are

trying to do just that.

But let’s not say that’s the only answer. Some 20 percent of our

kids go to private schools. But this debate today isn’t about the bureaucracy, isn’t about the problems in all of these schools. It’s

about kids. And kids that don’t get an education have no chance.

Ms. Norton has been in some of those schools, I’ve been in some

of those schools. I’m sure Mr. Davis has been in some of those

schools. And you see poor kids who have no choice sitting there rotting in school and knowing they will never have a future. That is

one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen in my entire career.

You know, I’ve done a lot in my life. I’ve been successful. I’ve

been fortunate. I’m here. But at some point in my life, I’m going

to grow up and do something else. Now, I don’t know what that’s

going to be, but I can tell you one thing I’m going to do the rest

of my life, and that is that I’m going to spend part of the rest of

my life doing everything I can to make sure that poor kids have

the same chance in life that we did. If we didn’t have a good education, we wouldn’t have been here. And that’s what this debate

here is about. We have a difficult problem here. We are trying to

help the public schools. And I think that the D.C. School Choice bill

that we have will give 2,000 kids—we’re not taking everybody out

of the D.C. schools—2,000 kids a chance.

Why is school choice good? It provides competition. Competition

makes all of us better. Public education in too many parts of America today is nothing more than a monopoly. We all know what happens to monopolies, they get large, they get bureaucratic, they get

inefficient, and they lose their mission. Competition makes all of us

good. And, second, why not give these kids a chance? Why not give

them a chance to be successful? As I said before, we have choice

because we have had income. But for poor kids from poor neighborhoods, they don’t have that choice. It isn’t the kids’ fault they lost

the lucky lottery of life in terms of who their parents were or what

neighborhood they happened to grow up in or what school they

happened to be assigned to. And so for those kids and those parents who want to take this option, let’s give it to them.

I’ve worked closely here in Washington with the D.C. Parents for

School Choice and the Washington Scholarship Foundation. Today,

49

they are going to have their picnic over in the Senate park. And

you want to really learn something about what D.C. school choice

means? Go over there to the picnic today, and look into the eyes

of these mothers and grandmothers who will be over there hoping,

literally on the edge of tears, hoping that their child’s name will

be drawn from this hat so their child will have a chance to escape

and have a chance to succeed in life. Go over there. Go over to the

Senate Park at 3:30, they’ll be there until 8 p.m. tonight. When you

look into their eyes, it will tell you how bad these schools are and

how badly these parents and these grandparents want a future for

their kids. And, for goodness sakes, what parent or grandparent

wouldn’t want the best for their children?

So I would just say to all of you, what do we have to fear? Do

we fear the competition? Do we fear that some kids are going to

succeed? I don’t think so.

We all know that a good education is the foundation for a success. And a good education is the only chance that we are going to

have for a chance at the American dream. We don’t have anything

to fear. Let’s help these kids.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Chairman

Boehner.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehner follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Secretary Paige, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF ROD PAIGE, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you.

Chairman Davis and members of the committee, thank you for

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposal

before us to improve student achievement in the District of Columbia through expanding school choice. I am pleased to be here with

my dear friend, Congressman Boehner, and our great Mayor,

Mayor Anthony Williams, both men of incredible courage and vision. I know they believe, as the President does and as I do, that

education is a civil right just like the right to be treated equally

or the right to vote. And as President Bush often says, educating

our children is the most important thing we can ever do as a Nation, and we must get it right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and many others on the committee

and in Congress. Thank you, because we are getting it right.

I am happy to join you in this courageous step in education reform. Some 18 months ago, President Bush signed into law the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind says loud and

clear: We as a Nation will teach every child well. Not just some of

them, every one of them, because every child deserves a quality

education. We have raised the bar. Now, nothing less than great

schools worthy of a great Nation will be settled for.

At one time in this city’s history, the schools were considered to

be the best in the Nation. We’d be pretty hard-pressed to make

that point today, but I believe, and I think Mayor Williams agrees

with me, that this can happen again, and the D.C. schools can once

again be a place of high standards and high expectation. I say that

with full respect for Superintendent Vance and with appreciation

of what he is trying to accomplish, but children’s lives are at stake

now. And what this administration is saying is, let’s stop wringing

our hands and start fixing the problem. And here is how we propose to do it. We start by forming a partnership with the city to

ensure that all its children receive a good education, and offer

meaningful options for those most likely to fall behind.

Choice is essential for authentic public school reform. Monopolies

don’t work. We have known this since the Great Wall of China.

And I will tell you why. Our society today is a most choice-saturated society of all times. Look at the world we live in. Instant

messages, 24-hour news, personal Web sites, global markets, overnight express, E-commerce. Every day we can fill our own personal

whims exactly the way we like them to be. We can decide what we

want to see, what we want to hear, what we want to do. And the

world is moving toward more choice, not less, and the great institutions of this Nation and of this world are those who have taken advantage of this phenomenon and provided these choices for their

customers.

Now, that is, unless you are poor. In that case, you look around

you and you see many in society speeding into the future, but not

you. If you are poor, while you are trying to get a handle on the

present you see others going ahead. Education that is a given for

many is a struggle for you if you are poor. And you want a better

56

life for your kids, but you look at their schools and you know that

a snowball has a better chance.

Many of the parents in the District who can afford it send their

children to some of the finest private schools in the Nation that

happen to be right here in this District. But most parents in the

District don’t have that luxury because they don’t have the finances. They get what is dished out to them.

In my mind, this is one of the most awful sins we can commit

as a society, to trap children, to deliberately chain them to schools

that are failing them, to schools that say they don’t count. In President Bush’s book, they do count; every child counts. That is why

his 2004 budget requests more money for National Choice Incentive

Fund, to provide choice scholarships to low-income children to

transfer to high-performance schools. These scholarships will allow

moms and dads to send their children to schools where they can

really learn and really succeed.

I am proud to say that the D.C. leadership is in our corner on

this issue. Mayor Williams, the president of the school board,

Councilman Chavous, all understand that we must improve our

schools. They know what we know and what every parent knows

and what every parent wants: Education is the key to the success

of our children. And the one that they receive in the K–12, sets the

stage for the rest of their lives.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that choice is legal. Places like

Milwaukee have tried choice and have been successful. They have

seen students move forward. I think the words of John Gardner,

the former Milwaukee School Board president, put it best when he

says, ‘‘school choice works.’’ He admits that he was a left-wing organizer for 30 years and experienced in labor unions and workers

cooperatives in poor communities. And he said: I knew working

class and poor people did not want to make the choice between the

public school systems and choice. They want both.

This is not an either/or. Our goal is to improve the quality of the

public school systems. Because even as we speed into the future,

we see multiple delivery systems, cyber schools, home schooling,

private schools, church schools, the public schools. The public

school system is always going to be the heavy lifter here, but we

cannot have them working their best, become bogged down in this

bureaucracy. John Gardner saw what I saw when I worked in

Houston, choice works.

Now, some would say, let’s wait until we get the public schools

right. The problem with that is, that’s going to take a while. Turning around a failing school system is no cake walk, but it can be

done and is being done. But what’s going to happen to the children

while we are waiting for this to get done? I believe choice can save

this one as it has saved others.

Let me close with a thought from Howard Fuller, another former

superintendent who worked the Milwaukee schools. Dr. Fuller and

I headed the Institute for Transformation of Learning in Lockhead

University, and he had this to say, ‘‘In America, it’s virtually impossible for our children to bring their dreams into reality without

an education. Unfortunately, far too many of our children are not

only having their dreams deferred, they are having them destroyed.

They are being destroyed by educational systems that are underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:21 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\88506.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
57

educating them, miseducating them, and pushing them out by the

thousands every day. We must have a sense of urgency in this matter.’’ We must speed this change up.

The goal of this administration is excellence for every child, with

no child left behind. That means all. All means all. And I believe

this proposal will empower low-income parents to make the choices

that they need for their children to have a wonderful opportunity

for an education.

And I appreciate you letting me make those comments, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paige follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mayor Williams, thank you very much for

being with us.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Mayor WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Good morning.

Chairman Davis and members of the committee, certainly our

own Congresswoman Norton. Thank you so much, as well. I greatly

appreciate, in fact, the leadership support and encouragement that

you provided our city, and look forward to our continuing partnership as we work together to accomplish even greater initiatives for

our city.

I think our recent evaluation by the credit markets yesterday in

raising us in investment grade to A-minus is a testament to our

ability to work together with everything from the Control Act to

the Revitalization Act. And I look forward to our continued partnership.

I am also pleased to be here today with Congressman Boehner

and certainly Secretary Paige to discuss school choice, and in so

doing expanding educational options for parents and students in

our city.

Now, I want to start off by acknowledging that many good things

are happening in our schools. The DCPS under the leadership of

Superintendent Paul Vance and Peggy Cooper Cafritz as our president has launched an initiative to transform our lowest schools, infusing them with new leadership, staff, and additional resources.

We now have identified 15 of these transformation schools, and

early indications show us they are making difference. As you know,

the District also has a very robust public charter school movement.

We believe it’s the strongest in the Nation. We currently have 42

charter schools which provide approximately 11,500 students with

many approaches to learning, including individualized instruction,

small academies, and schools within schools.

Thus, despite the steady increases in local funding and other efforts to support our public schools, I have heard first-hand from

hundreds of parents who feel that, one, there are alternatives and

they like these alternatives, but also feel there are no practical or

easy alternatives for their children within the current system of

public schools. And this gets us to the crux of the matter. Our dynamic Transformation Schools Initiative, our Liberal Out-of-Boundary Enrollment programs, and our robust charter schools are providing real choices for parents, but there are still countless students whose schools are not among those on the first track to

transformation and for whom there are no practical charter school

alternatives. Even if we are successful in increasing the tempo of

these initiatives—and we are going to do everything we can to do

so—there will be tens of thousands of students still waiting for

more choices. And I, as Mayor of this city, cannot tell parents that

they must continue to wait while there are outlets within our

grasp.

In short, we need to reexamine the way we do business. Councilman Chavous has noted this. It is time that we explore other solutions to ensure that every child has access to a quality education

in our city. And I, as Mayor of this city, can’t ignore other alterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:21 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\88506.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
70

natives that are at our disposal and within our grasp. Along with

Council Chair Chavous of the Education Committee, and I mentioned Peggy Cooper Cafritz, I support a three-tier approach that

would focus new Federal resources toward increasing the availability of quality education options for District students and families.

This strategy would require a significant and ongoing investment

toward the following: One, the development of a federally funded

scholarship program for students to attend nonpublic schools. Two,

permanent and predictable support for the DCPS targeted at leadership, instructional excellence, and student achievement. And, finally, a fiscally sound and comprehensive approach to the acquisition and renovation of our charter schools because the demand far

outstrips the supply in terms of charter school facilities.

I don’t believe that there is such a thing as too many good educational options for our children. In other words, we should strive

for a situation where all the city’s educational assets complement

each other and offer parents positive choices beyond a one-size-fitsall paradigm. I hope that Congress will adopt and fund initiatives

to make this city a national model of public and private school

choices and urban education. We have the opportunity, not later,

not in the past, but we have an opportunity right now to embrace

a new vision for the education of African-American, Latino, and

lower-income children from all backgrounds in all areas of our city.

Now, understandably, the issue of public support for private and

parochial school tuitions raises fierce emotions on both sides, but

there is a large body of research that speaks to its merits, at least

it speaks to me.

Dozens of studies, including those conducted by voucher opponents, have confirmed that school vouchers increase parental satisfaction with their child’s school and boosts the academic achievement of inner-city African-American students. A recent study prepared by a team led by William Howell and Patrick Wolf surveyed

more than 1,000 African-American students in the District who attend nonpublic schools through support from the Washington

Scholarship Fund. These students gained almost 10 national percentage points [NPR], in math and reading achievement after the

first year, and an average of 6.3 NPR after 2 years of being in private school.

Finally, it’s been proven that, with school choice, inner-city minority students are more likely to obtain a college degree if they

attend private or parochial school when compared with their public

high school counterparts.

I believe that any scholarship program for our city must recognize the reality and needs of the city and must be crafted with the

full participation of our leadership. And I am grateful to Secretary

Paige and to you, Chairman Davis, for your willingness to work

with us on this.

I have consulted with several key educational leaders and have

engaged in focus groups and discussions to develop a consensus on

what an effective scholarship program would look like. It would

have a number of elements. First, focus on low-income parents. We

propose a ceiling of 185 percent of the Federal poverty level or perhaps more.

71

Two, emphasize opportunities for new students, those not currently in nonpublic schools, so that Federal funds do not merely

supplant existing Federal aid offered by other institutions. And we

are pleased that the bill before us gives preference to students currently attending low-performing public schools.

Next, limit participation to schools in the District. We are

pleased to see that this tenet is included in the bill. We may get

down the road where we may want to open the program further.

But I think right now, in terms of testing accountability in the

three branches of the system, I think we should limit participation

within the District.

Next, require schools to admit all eligible students. And in cases

where grades or schools are oversubscribed, admit students based

on a lottery.

The goal here is not to cream the best and the brightest students, but rather to give the neediest children opportunities they

otherwise would not have. And I am pleased that the draft bill does

establish a random selection process. Moreover, Congressman

Davis has assured me that the final version of this bill will clearly

reflect that participating schools are prohibited from discriminating

against students on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,

or religion.

Encompass a comprehensive accountability and evaluation component. In all the raging debate about this study said this and I

think this study said that, one thing I get from this is the need to

at least experiment with this program here in our city and establish a comprehensive accountability evaluation component, and see

once and for all whether the program actually works. How about

that?

And, finally, a competitive bidding process to select a private or

public entity to administer the program. If a nonpublic entity is selected, the city would like to have assurance that the leadership of

the organization include District elected officials and educational

leaders or otherwise ensure that the city has input in how the program is administered.

Now, finally, I understand that there is a need for a distinct legislative strategy that would authorize this new scholarship program and that the other two sectors would be better addressed to

other legislative vehicles recognizing that authorization already exists for other funding in those areas. And I am grateful to President Bush and the administration and key leadership here for their

commitment to the three-tier educational reform effort. I look forward to working with them to support our DCPS.

You know, the District of Columbia, with its limited tax base and

limited taxing authority, can never achieve the fiscal parity that

would support the delivery of comparable State-level services. However, the Department of Education holds it accountable, and measures the District for effectiveness by the same yardstick as other

States. In a comparative review of the amount of Federal, State,

and local revenue committed to elementary and secondary education in five States with similar demographics, as well as overall

expenditures in the area of education, it is important to note that

the District bears an excessive fiscal burden in supporting these

mandates. While the State contribution ranged among this group

72

from approximately 30 percent in Vermont to 64 percent in Delaware, all of the other States contribute significantly to the availability of local dollars.

Let me say a bit about charter school facilities. The 12,000 students in the public charter schools of Washington learn in a variety

of facilities of varying and often inadequate size and quality, and

I’m being kind. Unfortunately, there are many challenges for charter schools in securing facilities that inhibit high-quality teaching

and learning. We hope that the Federal Government, again, the administration and this Congress, can help with funding for restructuring existing facilities and provide equity for nonprofit organizations to purchase and renovate the facilities on behalf of the charter schools. And I look forward to working with all of you on that.

In conclusion, again, emotions run high on the issue of Federal

funding for private school scholarships anywhere, and certainly

here in our Nation’s Capital. Leaders from both major political parties have weighed in. Advocates and scholars from around the

country have opined on what is best or is not best for children. I

understand that even media markets in China and India have

picked up on this story. But for me, the issue is more much direct.

It is much more localized. I am not accountable to anyone in any

of these other areas. I am not accountable to anyone with an ideological agenda. I am accountable to the students and parents in

this city who all yearn for and deserve the same thing, the same

thing that these parents and students are yearning for, the same

things the parents and students at the picnic that Congressman

Boehner is talking about are seeking, our confidence in their ability

to make the right educational choices if given the opportunity. I believe that this bill takes us down that road, and I strongly support

it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you all very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will start the questioning in 5-minute

intervals. I will start the questioning.

Mayor Williams, let me just ask. The transformation schools,

there are several that have been very successful in the city, others

that have yet to achieve some success. Obviously, if they were all

working, I think, on six cylinders, we wouldn’t be here today. Is it

your judgment though that it will take several years to implement

this on a city-wide basis and get the public school system up to give

the choices and the value that you would like to offer?

Mayor WILLIAMS. You are right, Congressman Davis. Transformation schools are achieving a number of concrete steps, and we

have this in material that we have submitted to the committee.

But it’s my view that even with additional funding, and again it’s

part of a three-tier approach I’m seeking. That even with additional

funding, just logistically, organizationally, managerially, it is just

going to take time to get all the schools we would like on this

transformation track. This bill, the scholarship bill—I’m just going

to call it the scholarship bill, I don’t know its official title—gives

us the opportunity to give children and their parents a choice right

now.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Secretary Paige, you went through this in Houston to some extent. The program is a little different there. What’s your observation of how this affected the Houston school system?

Secretary PAIGE. I think choice is a necessary condition for reform of a system the size of Houston or the size of the D.C. school

system. It diminishes the number of problems you have to deal

with. Parents feel more involved when they can have the options

of making the kinds of decisions. And also, when we competed for

the students, it released the kind of innovation and creativity that’s

been bottled up in the minds of our teachers and our principals

who responded. In fact, we adopted an intent called the strategic

intent which went like this: Went in to become the K–12 educational delivery system of choice for the city of Houston. We intend to earn that respect. We intend to earn so much respect that

we become the K–12 delivery system of choice.

And so when teachers and principals were hustling to become the

K–12 delivery system of choice, it released the kind of innovation

in the school system that you wouldn’t imagine. It didn’t just exist

in Houston. There are a lot of suburban school districts 50,000

60,000 school districts that you don’t see a lot in the press that are

providing wide latitude for their students and for their parents giving them more options, and they’re getting the exact same results.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So I’m going to understand you. This isn’t

really about measuring how the kids are doing in private schools

alone; it’s also in measuring how—this really makes the public

school system get better, of course.

Secretary PAIGE. Our intent was to strengthen the public schools.

The entire strategy was aimed at making the public school system

in Houston, TX a stronger school system. It was not aimed at just

the limited goal of the particular students who participated in the

choice program who went out, it was about strengthening the public school system because we know that monopolies don’t work, and

we know that behavior is linked to the consequences thereof. And

84

when schools are protected from consequences of failure, when failure makes no difference, then you are going to have a stagnant

school system. You are going to have the bureaucracy that you see

all across our Nation in the big cities.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you consider the Houston experiment to be a successful one?

Secretary PAIGE. I think it was progressing toward that. I don’t

think we are ready to fly our flag of victory completely. But I think,

measured against other big school systems like that, we would be

very proud of the progress that has been made.

Mr. DAVIS. Chairman Boehner, you have been active on this

issue for some time nationally and also working with the locals in

trying to craft something that works. How do you think the debate

over vouchers has changed over the last couple of years?

Mr. BOEHNER. Well, if you look at the issue here in Congress,

I’ve been involved in all of the scholarship/school choice debates,

we’ve lost every time. But the good news is, is that every single

vote that we have had over the 121⁄2 years that I’ve been here, we

have gotten more votes. And I’m going to tell you right now, when

this issue gets to the floor, we are going to have even more votes

than we ever had.

I do think that more Americans realize that having more choices

is something that they appreciate. Who would ever imagine if we

required every American to buy their milk or their bread at the

grocery store nearest their house regardless of whether it was any

good or not, whether it was fresh or stale. We would all think this

was an abomination. We’d laugh about it. But that is exactly what

we do to our kids. It’s exactly what we do to them. It’s the most

unfair thing in the world. And we wonder why the conditions in

some neighborhoods never improve. Because we never give the

kids, the future of that neighborhood, a chance to succeed.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. You and I differ on vouchers, to be sure. But I have

to tell you, even before this hearing, you have made my day when

I read in the newspaper that the District now has an A-minus investment grade in investment rating. And I want to congratulate

you on that. That is something that we have struggled for many

years now from the time you were CFO. You don’t get enough credit for it, but certainly your work in both capacities, CFO and

Mayor, mean that you certainly should get a lot of the credit for

it.

And for D.C. residents, it means that interest rates should go

down, and therefore, there should be some relief for all of us from

this very important development, long-awaited development.

Here is a question for both of you. How many D.C. residents

should be on any entity that disburses scholarships to other D.C.

residents? Should it be entirely formed of D.C. residents? Either

one of you can speak.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I would certainly like to see a majority of the

folks on there from the District——

Ms. NORTON. Why shouldn’t all of them be from D.C.?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Why shouldn’t all of them? Because there are

also factors—let me put it this way. I would like to see the funds

85

here complement what we are doing elsewhere in our education

strategy. I talked about the three-sector approach. Part of the

three-sector approach is private scholarship help, and certainly we

would want to have some of them involved in some way shape or

form or manner since, as you put it, they put their money where

their mouth is. But I would like to see the majority of the folks

from D.C.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PAIGE. I agree with the Mayor. I think D.C. should clearly

have strong representation there, but I think it would probably be

a disadvantage for the whole idea to shut out other people simply

because they have a different address. There may be those who

have an address outside the District who have strong interests in

the District and who have a lot of capability of providing resources

and relationships and context that would be of an advantage. I

think that decision should be made based on how well they can

contribute to the overall goal.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Secretary, just let me say that if anybody

knows our children, it is likely to be somebody who lives with our

children. So the whole notion that someone would have something

to contribute, I do not understand. But it leads me to another question. I spoke admirably because I do admire the Washington Scholarship Fund and the private funds that they have raised. We are

not talking about private funds here. We are talking about public

money, and therefore, I don’t understand what folks outside of the

District have to do with public money for children who live in the

District of Columbia.

Now, I want to ask you, suppose they are the recipient, these are

folks who have—these are folks that I can understand having been

other than D.C. residents, because they have raised private funds.

Suppose they get—suppose they are the recipient of these funds to

disburse. Should the private funding that they have raised be now

displaced with public funding from this fund? Something that Congress usually abhors? Or should they be required to match any

public funds or to continue raising private funds, as they have so

successfully in the past? Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PAIGE. We certainly hope that the good things that they are

doing will continue. I see no reason to anticipate that this particular initiative would shut that down. I think they are doing what

they are doing now because they want to make a contribution.

They love kids and they want to give kids opportunities, and I see

nothing that would change that.

Ms. NORTON. So I take that to be a yes, they should have to raise

matching funds?

Mr. PAIGE. No, you cannot take it for that. You have to take it

what I just said.

Ms. NORTON. But that is my question, therefore, I am seeking an

answer to that question.

Mr. PAIGE. My answer is what I just finished saying.

Ms. NORTON. In other words, no answer.

Mr. BOEHNER. Ms. Norton, under the legislation, the children

have to have 185 percent of poverty or below, free and reduced

lunch, and they have to be in a high priority school. That by its

86

definition means the children who are already in a private school,

who are getting the scholarship would not qualify.

And we have to remember, the money that we are talking about

here is for about 2,000 children. The Washington scholarship fund

and others help a lot of kids and these 2,000 will benefit as well,

but I would suggest to you that we are nowhere near meeting the

dollars necessary for the demand that is here in the city.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The gentlewoman’s time has expired we

will come back. Let me just make a statement and ask a question.

I cannot for the life of me understand why, if you have a school

system where children are not achieving their potential, I just can’t

understand why anybody would oppose allowing the parents of

those children to choose to take their child out of that school and

put them in a school that is going to help them do better and

achieve the kind of educational excellence that they want. I just

can’t understand it.

So my one question to you, and then I will pass to my colleagues,

my one question is why, Mr. Boehner, has legislation that would

help allow this failed in the Congress of the United States? I just

do not understand. Who is opposing it? What is the big problem?

Mr. BOEHNER. Well, the nature of a monopoly is they want to

keep their monopoly. Most of them spend most of their time maintaining their monopoly.

Mr. BURTON. That is the teacher’s unions?

Mr. BOEHNER. It would be a whole host of groups in what I

would describe as the education establishment or as some of my

staff would describe, the blob.

Mr. BURTON. The blob?

Mr. BOEHNER. They are interested in maintaining their franchise, maintaining their monopoly.

Mr. BURTON. Even though the schools are not achieving the kind

of excellence that they should?

Mr. BOEHNER. As I mentioned in my opening testimony, most

monopolies tend to get large, bureaucratic, inefficient, and lose

focus on their mission. And I think there are a lot of people in public education who are just working their tail off every day. They are

trying to do the right thing, but there are far too many who have

given up, who have given up on the poorest of our kids who need

the most help. And so when it comes to losing the vision of where

they are going, I think they have lost it.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just ask you to followup, Mr. Secretary and

Mr. Mayor. What do you intend to do to try to get the blob that

Mr. Boehner is talking about, get the blob to change their mind or

to defeat them to make sure that we can get this kind of legislation

passed to help these kids? I know it is a tough question.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, you know I am proud that during my

time as Mayor I have fought against a lot of people who said that

when you were CFO, you were Mr. Mean. Now, you are tax-andspend, and you are throwing money to the schools. This and that.

Money for the schools has increased 42 percent since I have become

Mayor. I fought for money for the schools. Raises for teachers, 25

percent overall. I am all in support of paying our teachers well, giving our schools the money they need.

87

But what I am saying here is one, money is not exclusively the

answer to everything. And two, you know, to paraphrase Mae

West: You can’t have too much of a good thing. If you have an option, if you have an alternative to do something good in addition

to the charter schools and in addition to the transformation

schools, why shouldn’t we do it? And I—actually, to paraphrase

you, Congressman Burton, it will motivate our schools to accelerate

their transformation. I think that is what you found in Milwaukee.

Everybody said if we do the school choice program there, it is going

to doom their schools. They have 8 or 10 percent more students in

the schools than before. Schools performing better than they did

before.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PAIGE. Monopolies and bureaucracies are very good at protecting themselves and that is their main goal. And what we have

to do is mobilize strong citizen and community initiatives toward

undoing them. I think this is a step in the right direction. I think

many other steps have been taken in the right direction.

I also want to say on behalf of public school teachers and principals and people who operate in our system, since I have many

years of working with them. I find them to be good, caring people.

But then they are embedded in a system that is corrupt. And I

think it is those of us who have some capability of changing the

environment in which they work and tearing away some of the barnacles and constraints to the system. We create the system, they

work in the system. And so that is why I think this initiative is

a good thing, because it is an effort to support them and what you

are going to see is they’ll respond to this with new innovation and

energy and commitment and what we will get is new opportunities

for young people and consequently a better America.

Mr. BURTON. I think this is a giant step in the right direction,

this legislation, and I am going to be asking the chairman to let

me be a cosponsor of it as well. One thing that I hope happens

down the road, in addition to this, is that we provide incentives for

teachers to go that extra mile. When a guy sells used cars, if he

sells more used cars, he gets a bonus. If teachers go a little extra

mile and help their students achieve educational excellence, they

ought to get a bonus as well. I hope we think about that down the

road. Who is next? Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all

of you for your testimony. And my colleague, Ms. Norton, has some

followup questions and she has run out of her time, so I will yield

most of my time to her. There have been a lot of comments on all

sides on this issue and some strong feelings. I do want to say that,

Mr. Secretary, that if we really want to make the investment in

our kids that we promised just 18 months ago, which as you noted

was a bipartisan effort, and Chairman Boehner, my chairman on

the Committee on Education and the Workforce, was a leader in

this too, if we really want to keep that commitment and promise,

we need to provide full funding for No Child Left Behind and in

the President’s budget that was submitted and in the budget resolution that passed this House, we are more than $9 billion short.

We are talking about $10 million in this effort, maybe $15, maybe

88

$20 million at the most. But if we funded fully No Child Left Behind, the District of Columbia would get $100 million more.

So it is important to look at different options. It is important to

discuss the range of opportunities. The Mayor has testified that, in

addition, the initial investment in the transformation school programs and charter school programs has improved the educational

system in this District of Columbia. And as a neighbor of the District of Columbia in Maryland, we have a direct interest in the

strength of this school system, and I commend him for the progress

that has been made but resources do matter. I know how many resources go into the District of Columbia school system and how

much is spent on special education funding, another area where

the Federal Government is only paying 18 percent of what we committed, 40 percent.

This amount of resources that we are talking about is important.

I don’t know whether it is better spent in one area or another. But

what I do know is if we made our full commitment to the kids, not

just in the District of Columbia, but in Maryland and everywhere

else and fully funded No Child Left Behind, we would be better off

as a country.

I yield the rest of my time to the gentlewoman.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Paige, my colleague has raised a question that every Member

of Congress should be raising every time they see you, because I

can tell you that the members of my city council are terrified about

the ultimate consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act because

it is this huge, unfunded mandate, especially with local school districts having to cut schools because of the state of the national

economy.

We are very worried. The reason we are worried is because the

testing regimen accompanies this bill and is linked to the funds.

And, of course, everybody is gearing up to do it. And the worry is

that we, up the line, are going to have massive dropout rates. We

already have huge dropout rates. I would think you would have

some concern. I would like to give you some chance to respond because we have been seeing on television in this region reports that

the very substantial increases in the pass rate that you, in Houston, reportedly received was the result of a huge dropout rate.

It is said that the dropout rate of ninth graders was nearly—people who did not get to graduate was nearly 50 percent, and that

Houston would be 28th out of the 35 largest systems, and therefore, would be considered a low-performing district under the State

accountability system and certainly under No Child Left Behind.

We already are. So I have to ask you whether or not you can

guarantee that we can get our No Child Left Behind funds in time

to keep an already horrific dropout rate of the kind we are told you

have in Houston from getting even worse here?

Mr. PAIGE. Ms. Norton, I would like to sometime have some discussions with you on these subjects, but this is about the D.C.

Choice Initiative. And I want to spend most of my time talking

about that. But I want to correct you some there on your comments.

First of all, let me tell you about the No Child Left Behind Act.

For the first time in the history of this Nation, every child in a

89

public school in the United States of America is covered by an accountability system. That is because of the No Child Left Behind

Act. Every child now counts. Every single child has a place where

that name is on the registrar, and they are attached to some meaning in the schools of the United States. That has never, ever happened before. That is because of the bill. And that has nothing to

do with the dollars. That has to do with the States, the school

chiefs, the District leadership, the State leaderships committing

themselves to an initiative.

Ms. NORTON. No, you get funding for extra services——

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. The gentlewoman’s time has

expired.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. For the children who are left behind,

and you know it, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you like him to answer this?

Mr. PAIGE. I will shorten this down some too because the gentlewoman’s basic assumption is in error and many others who promote the idea that dollars equal success. Since 1965, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we have spent $300-plus

billion, and we got where we got now. Money is very important.

Money is a necessary condition, but it is an insufficient condition.

Other issues have to be considered, and that is what we are trying

to do now, it is not in place of money but in addition to money provide the underpinning and foundation, the framework for the system to work. It is not all about money.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. BOEHNER. I thought this was a rather unfair attack. I would

like to have a moment to respond.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you are not the one who has the information,

and there has been no response to what happened in Houston.

Mr. BOEHNER. I happen to be the author of the bill.

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about the question that I asked, sir.

And this is about the members of the committee asking questions

to witnesses, and you are not in a position to answer this question.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the attack——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The chairman of the Education Committee, as a courtesy, will be recognized.

Mr. BOEHNER. The attack came from Mr. Van Hollen, who quickly left, about the issue of underfunding of No Child Left Behind.

You need to understand that the first 2 years of the current administration, we had more increases in Title I, than we had under 7

years of the previous administration.

Let me also say that we virtually have doubled funding for elementary and secondary education over the last 5 years. Let me also

say to Mrs. Norton on the issue of paying for the testing, that the

Congress appropriated $390 million last year, and I think the number that is being discussed this year is $400 million, goes to all the

States, whether they have developed tests or they have not developed tests, to help with the implementation of the tests. Some of

your colleagues on your side of the aisle asked the General Accounting Office whether this was a sufficient amount of money to

develop the test.

90

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Boehner, it is the services to help the children

pass the test, not developing the test.

Mr. BOEHNER. And the GAO responded that it was sufficient

money for the States to develop and implement the testing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia,

Mr. Schrock—oh, Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I

would just like to say a couple of things.

One, I represent a district in Virginia, and we have the standards of learning which all the parents and teachers and administration really bucked the testing of the kids. And it has been 5 or

6 years ago, and I was in one of the poorest counties of my district

this past weekend and was elated to hear all the schools are accredited and it is because they were held accountable and the

teachers, the community, the families, the parents all got together

and did the job. So kids can be taught. It is just a matter of putting

your mind to it and doing it.

And to respond to my colleague from Indiana, and Chairman

Boehner, the blob is not the only reason that vouchers do not always pass. There are some on the other side, like myself, that are

concerned about vouchers for the very reason of strings becoming

attached to private schools. Private schools are just that because

they do not want to be tied to the Federal Government.

My question to you is do all the private schools have to participate? If a parent chooses because—this is school choice—picks a

school and wants to send their kid to that school, does that school

have to take them?

Mr. BOEHNER. As I understand, the school does not have to participate. But if the school does participate, they have to accept all

the children that apply, unless there are more applicants than they

have spaces for, in which case there would be a lottery for the open

places.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So if it is, in fact, a religious school and

the parent chooses to send that kid to the religious school and the

parents are not religious—we have the case in California where the

nine Supreme Court Justices say ‘‘under God’’ comes out of the

pledge simply because the father was an atheist, even though the

mother and the child were not. Would we have that potential problem down the road if this child went to the school and one of the

parents decided I do not like chapel or praising worship, I don’t

like my child being taught Bible scripture, what happens?

Mr. BOEHNER. If I can respond, I will turn it to the Secretary.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Cleveland case that these scholarships were, in fact, Constitutional. And I think it is important to

understand that the way this bill is set up is that the scholarship

goes to the student. It does not go to the school; it goes to the student. The student can take it where they want. And I do think that

protects schools, all private schools, from the intrusion of the Federal Government. I yield to the Secretary.

Mr. PAIGE. I think the idea is to broaden the opportunities for

parents, not to constrict them. If we would say, if a parent would

choose a school and the school does not fit the parents’s particular

needs, that because the child is at school, they can cause the school

to change in order to fit their particular needs, we are talking

91

about just the opposite of that. We are talking about if the school

does not meet the parents’s particular need, this parent has an opportunity to go to a different school. That is what we are trying to

provide for in what we now call the public school structure. If it

does not meet their needs, we want them to have the opportunity

to decide if they want to stay.

The problem we have otherwise would be the imposition of two

powerful forces in opportunities that the government has. They

have the ability to say you must go to school, compulsory attendance, and they also have the ability to say you must go to this particular school. What we are trying to do is broaden that opportunity.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And I would like to have that broadened

opportunity. What I do not want to do is harm our private religious

schools at the moment.

Another couple questions: If the private school is accepting the

Federal dollars by way of the scholarship, the private schools now

do not have to abide by No Child Left Behind. Will they have to

abide by that?

Mr. BOEHNER. No.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I had one other question. Children with

disabilities. Nothing in this act may be construed to alter or modify

the provisions of the IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education

Act. If the parents decide to send the child to the private school,

I don’t know if the private schools have to abide by the Individuals

With Disabilities Act currently. Will they be forced to do that?

Mr. BOEHNER. They do not have to comply with IDEA, but in

most districts around the country, the public school district is required to provide services for special needs children, regardless of

the school that they are in. But there is no requirement on the private school to comply with IDEA.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I want to support the bill because I

want to support the children. You see where I am coming from. I

am just very concerned about I do not want anything—and if I can

get your assurances, I know you are not Supreme Court Justices,

but I will tell you, I will be the first one if a lawsuit comes in on

one of these—something happens to one of the private schools, I

will be one of the first ones here trying to pull this back. I want

to see the kids educated, but I don’t want to hurt the kids that are

getting educated now.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. A brief question and a question for the entire panel. I have been an advocate for parental choice in the past.

As a Missouri legislator, we instituted a law that I authored to

allow charter schools in Kansas City and St. Louis. But I am willing to admit when I make a mistake. The studies have come in

from Missouri that show no measurable academic achievement for

those students in those charter schools. And I don’t know, it just

seems like an experiment. It seems like a shift in cash from the

public schools to charter schools or other private entities.

Now, let me ask the question, and we can start with Secretary

Paige. Should we have benchmarks for charter schools, for voucher

schools, for schools of opportunity? Benchmarks that tell us that

92

reading levels have risen? That math scores have risen? Test scores

have risen?

I mean, I looked at the legislation, and I do not see the requirement for benchmarks in there. And so perhaps we can start with

the Secretary and then the other two panelists give me their opinion about whether we should have benchmarks or do we want to

shift the responsibility of educating our young people to private entities and not have the necessary requirements to ensure that they

get a quality education?

Mr. PAIGE. Thank you. I will make three points. The first one is

I have noticed that the quality of the charter schools across the

United States is influenced heavily by the quality of their legislation that they have in the various places. Some States have different approaches to charter schools. Some States even had such

debates and the legislation was built in such a way that the charter schools don’t have much of a chance of succeeding.

So it is difficult to measure charter school performance in the aggregate. It is probably better to deal with specific to the environment that they set up.

About benchmarks, if you mean by that should there be a specific

target that they should meet or if you mean that they should show

growth on the part of the student, if you mean the latter, the answer is yes. Exactly. I agree with that. That is why I think that

this draft legislation has powerful evaluation components in it. One

of the strongest ones I have seen anywhere.

Mr. CLAY. It could be strengthened.

Mr. PAIGE. We are here to hear suggestions.

Mr. CLAY. The Mayor just cited a recent study that I hadn’t

heard, but up to now, I have not heard much good about charters.

Can you help me and cite something that may give me some encouragement about charter schools?

Mr. PAIGE. Yes, I will just make one point. The big difference

here is that charter schools are required by their charter to improve the circumstances for students. If they do not, they will be

in violation and the charter can be withdrawn. That is different

from the public school system where we have allowed those systems to continue, although they might be even doing damage to

students, let alone not helping them grow.

So that is a big difference between those two, and a powerful reason why we should at least support charter schools. I am a strong

supporter of charter schools. We created charter schools in our district in Houston. The Kip Academy is here now because we started

it in Houston.

Mr. CLAY. It is about what choices we give these parents and

children and what benefit they get out of charter schools or public

schools or vouchers.

Let me go on to the Mayor, please.

Mr. PAIGE. I agree with you.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Mayor, can you tell me about what is the grade

you would give the charter schools in the District of Columbia?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, Congressman, I think if you look at what

is the sweep of studies around, I think you can find solid evidence

that charter schools have been successful. I have cited a study here

where the private scholarship fund was successful the first 2 years.

93

The problem was that a lot of kids dropped out because they

couldn’t afford the education they were getting, which to me is a

strong statement of support for what we are trying to do here. And

even if the studies show that the charter schools were not making

a material difference, I would concur in what Secretary Paige is

doing. The basic charter of the charter schools is that they have do

improve those outcomes. And if they do not, they go out of existence.

And, two, in terms of general outcomes in these experiments, I

would argue that we have been doing this one approach for over

150 years——

Mr. CLAY. Wait a minute, Mr. Mayor. Excuse me, what

about——

Mayor WILLIAMS. We have been doing one approach for 150

years. We ought to at least find another approach.

Mr. CLAY. What about sharing——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Your time has expired. We will let you finish this question then we have to go to vote. There are 7 minutes

left, and Mr. Boehner and I, we will resume the meeting when Mr.

Schrock bets back. If you want to ask just a quick question, Mr.

Clay?

Mr. CLAY. No.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will recess for a couple minutes, and

we will resume questions with Mr. Schrock upon his return. The

meeting will be recessed. Be right back.

[Recess.]

Mr. SCHROCK. If everybody will please take their seats, we will

continue. We want to reconvene because the Secretary has to leave

at 3:45. So if everybody will take their seats, please.

I have been chomping at the bit to speak all day, and I am glad

I did my vote quick and got back here.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Secretary, and of course Mr. Secretary in

absentia, I am glad you are all here today. I want to make one

thing real clear and make everybody understand why we are here.

We are not here to talk about Houston schools. We are here to talk

about the schools of the District of Columbia. This is the issue we

have today, and we need to stick to that and when we start veering

off to talk about other things, we are covering up the real problem.

And I think people understand that.

I come at this education issue from a totally different perspective. I have been privileged to be married to a teacher for 35 years,

and believe me, I have heard it every day and every night, and I

know how my wife has tried to fix some of these things, and I

would love to get her up here to fix this system, frankly. I believe

she would do a good job.

I have been making notes throughout the whole hearing and they

talk about depleting funds from the District of Columbia school system. It wouldn’t make any difference anyhow. It is not a ‘‘failing’’

system; it is a ‘‘failed’’ system. So if we are going to salvage this

system, we need to provide as much money to at least get 2,000

kids out of this to get them into schools where they can achieve

things.

I have been sitting here looking at mothers. I know who they are.

And I have been looking at this cute little guy on the third row who

94

has been on again off again sleeping. I understand that. And what

we are going to do here today will impact this little guy’s life for

a long time to come. We can step up to the plate and do what is

right or just do the political correctness thing and not do anything

and shame on us.

No child should have to go to a failing school. The program in

Virginia is working, even in some of the worst areas. The worst

school in Norfolk, VA—that I represent—suddenly is achieving

things. There is accountability, responsibility. We have made the

kids perform and we have gotten the parents involved and it can

be done. I don’t care what school system you are talking about. And

this is my Capital City. Mayor Williams may be the Mayor, Ms.

Norton may be the Representative, but this is my Capital City. The

Capital city of the United States. It is every one of yours Capital

City. And for us to have kids being taught in a school system

where they are failing is a crime, and we ought to be ashamed of

ourselves for letting that happen. I bet there are not many capitals

in the world where they can say that, and we need to do something

and we need to do it mighty quick.

Throwing money at the problem is not always the answer. They have thrown a lot of money, you heard them say $9,600 per year,

but the test scores keep going down and the kids keep failing.

Money is not the only answer. Yes, it is part of the answer, but

there is a lot more of that equation than just money.

And we can study this thing to death. Whenever anybody does

not know how to solve a problem they say, well, we will study it

and see what happens. The time for studies has stopped, the time

for action is here and we need to take action on this bill right

away.

When somebody mentioned the teachers unions—don’t get me

started on that. I have seen that firsthand. The teachers unions do

not want this because it is an admission that they have failed. And

I think the sooner people realize that, the better.

And accountability, Mrs. Davis is absolutely right when she said

accountability. Because accountability is what has changed some of

the school systems in Virginia, the failing schools to passing

schools. Let me read a couple of statistics, and I want to ask the

Mayor a question and the Secretary a question. It says: D.C.

spends 45 percent more per child than the average for the United

States with consistently poor returns. Anacostia High School—I

happen to know where it is because I pass it once in a while—92

percent of the students score below average in basic mathematics.

The average student in D.C. scores 71 percent below average in

math.

Mr. Mayor, please explain to me how you can spend—and I know

you are on our side on this, please understand where I am coming

from—but how can you explain the fact that D.C. spends 11⁄2 times

the national average and they consistently see test scores that are

well below the average?

Mayor WILLIAMS. You say explain. Describe? Or justify or what?

Mr. SCHROCK. Why is this happening? Everybody says if you

throw money at a problem it is going to get fixed. No, it is not.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I think Congressman, first of all, I think when

we talk about the money allocated to D.C. schools, I think we really

95

should acknowledge the fact that there are State costs that are incorporated in that. So if you compare for example the dollars that

the District is spending with another city, understand where the

State costs are and where they aren’t. That would tend to inflate

the dollar figure for the District. But we do spend a lot of money

for our schools. Many of our schools are low-performing and many

of them are ‘‘failing,’’ and I believe that this bill gives us the opportunity to seek another alternative to give these children a future;

2,000 of them potentially.

Mr. SCHROCK. I agree. Do you find that the parents are content

with what is currently available to them in regard to their children’s education?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I have set a goal in self-interest as Mayor of

improving the tax base of the city. And I see improving—a lot of

critics say I have no understanding or vision for what I am doing.

Any Mayor has a vision. They want to improve their tax base. And

you can do it two different ways. It is not rocket science. You move

people who have some dollars to pay taxes into your city, and you

lift up people, who are already in your city, into the mainstream

so they can also enjoy the benefits of American society. And one of

those benefits is paying taxes.

I will give you an example. Oyster School. I was surprised 1 day

I drove by the Oyster School there was a line around the block of

parents to get into the Oyster School. That speaks to the overwhelming demand of parents in the district for quality choices for

their kids. And what we are doing here is providing those choices,

improving education, the foundation of the future of the city.

Mr. SCHROCK. I want to get back to you, but the Secretary has

to leave and I want to ask one question. Some argue that school

choice programs threaten students’s civil rights. Frankly, I think

we are threatening their civil rights when we do not give them the

choice. But what is your response to that argument?

Mr. PAIGE. Congressman, I would make the opposite argument.

I believe that taking away choices from parents and children violates their civil rights.

Mr. SCHROCK. I agree.

Mr. PAIGE. I think education is a civil right, and I think we have

an obligation to live up to that. And when we do not provide a

quality education for a child, we are denying them that civil right

that not only affects them but also affects us as a Nation.

So choice expands their civil rights and expands their opportunities, and it also expands the opportunities for the system that they

are a part of. It makes it work much better.

This would be my view. And I would apologize now for having

to leave, but I am required to be in another location right away.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHROCK. We understand. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Mayor, let me ask a couple more questions. This is borderline political, so I will be careful how I ask it, but is it true that because

of the illiteracy rate in D.C., in your write-in campaign in 2002,

your supporters handed out preprinted stamps because voters

couldn’t write your name?

96

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, it turned out there wasn’t really a demand for the use of the stamps. I mean, clearly in any jurisdiction

and ours we wanted to make it easier for people. But regardless

of what happened with the write-in campaign, Congressman, the

fact is that 37 percent of our citizens have a challenge when it

comes to reading. I think reading at a third-grade level, and we

need to change that in terms of the future of our city.

Mr. SCHROCK. That is my point.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mayor Williams, I have gotten phone calls and concerns from charter school personnel and parents about the fact that

charter schools—what they regard, the institutions regard, a terrible precedent has been set. Others are simply worried about not

being treated equally with the public schools. And that is that, apparently for the first time, there is in the D.C. budget a line that

says we do not have the money to fund you equally on a per pupil

basis. Go to Congress and get $6 million. Now, the concern is horrific that the Congress, which has no record of generosity to the

D.C. public schools, may indeed leave charter schools out there

treated unequally to other public schools even though they are public schools.

So I need to know—also interestingly, they have said Congress must not fund—must not give this $6 million. Normally people say

just the opposite. They say if you do, you will create a precedent

whereby the District will always hand off some of what is due the

charter schools to the Congress, and they say they lose that way

because you can’t depend on the Congress. And you know you can’t

depend on the Congress. So what would be your response to that

and can you guarantee that the District of Columbia, rather than

the Congress, will fund the charter schools with the $6 million that

has been now requested of the Congress for funding the charter

schools?

Mayor WILLIAMS. One thing I have found as Mayor is that there

is no one who feels fully funded. Everyone feels there are additional funds needed.

Ms. NORTON. This is on a per pupil basis, where they are

entitled——

Mayor WILLIAMS. And one of the things that we have done over

the last 5 years is fully fund the charter schools for the first time,

front load their funding, work on their facilities. Although, one of

the things I would like to see is more money for modernization and

with the 2004 budget, address this $6 million issue so they have

that $6 million. That will be in our 2004 budget.

Ms. NORTON. That is very important. And I appreciate and I

know the parents will appreciate your statement on that. You know

that in grades three through eight under the No Child Left Behind

bill, the children must take tests annually. Now, how will we assure ourselves that the children in three through eight are taking

the same or similar tests, especially given your testimony that we

need to evaluate or compare how the students do in the parochial

or private schools with how they do in the D.C. public schools? How

will this accountability, on the basis that the public schools are

held to even by the Federal Government, be enlisted for children

in grades three through eight in private schools?

97

Mayor WILLIAMS. Congresswoman, discussions are under way on

how that will work in terms of trying to standardize the tests so

that they provide data that is useful across the different systems

but that is still a work in progress.

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry; say that again.

Mayor WILLIAMS. In other words, creating a mechanism to correlate the tests. The students may be taking different tests, but

there are ways in which you can make them comparable for outcome evaluation purposes and that is certainly the goal.

Ms. NORTON. That would be very important for the accountability that we all seek and the No Child Left Behind bill seeks. In

Milwaukee, they began the way you say you want to begin, with

a lottery, the way our charter schools do it, the way public schools

do it. Now, charter schools, you just have to take any child that

comes to the door. After awhile the parochial schools complained

about the lottery. The lottery was withdrawn and in Milwaukee,

they now do not accept any students that are more than one grade

behind.

How can you assure us that, given the limited staffs, lack of support services, that our parochial schools have in particular—I am

just grateful that they are able to keep the doors open—that we

won’t be quickly going to that situation? Especially since many of

our students—I hate to think how many—are more than one grade

behind. And most of those will be precisely the students who qualify for these vouchers because they will be the students under that

income level that is set in the voucher bill.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I think one of the great things about this program that is becoming to me is that there is an evaluation system,

so that we can, as we start this program with a lottery, we can

evaluate the program as it goes and make the necessary changes.

I don’t think that one size fits all. I think we have to be open to

being flexible, open to changes based on the results as they come

in.

Ms. NORTON. I just warn you, Mr. Mayor, most of our students

are more than one grade behind, and I am certain that most of the

low-income children are more than one grade behind. And I begin

to wonder how a voucher program would work in D.C., given that

kind of concern. And I think the parochial schools were right to

raise them. One of the reasons that I do not object to their not taking every child is that they run on much smaller budgets, do not

have the public money we have for support services. So one wonders how you are going to really deal with the lowest-income students, and why this won’t just be pushed up so that anybody who

can get in can qualify.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Who has not had a question

yet? Mr. Platts. And then Mr. Carter.

Mr. Williams, I understand you have 10 more minutes and then

you have to leave.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Mayor, I apologize. Some of my questions maybe were more appropriate for the

Secretary, but you are the only one left. I appreciate your efforts

and your leadership for the District of Columbia. And I would say

up front that, philosophically, I haven’t been in my 11 years of public office a supporter of vouchers because I think it sends the wrong

98

message that we help a few, perhaps, get a better education, and

in essence, give up on the rest who are left behind. Instead of saying if we have schools that are unsafe or falling down or we have

schools that can’t recruit good teachers, that we try to fix those

problems for every child in that school, not just those who can perhaps get a better education. I say that up front as a disclaimer.

Philosophically, I think vouchers hurt public and private schools in

the end.

But some specific questions about the bill. Our focus and everyone’s comments here today in favor of it has been about giving

choice to parents, to students. That is where the decision should be.

Unfortunately, as I have read through the bill and the specifics, the

way I understand the bill is that it starts with the Secretary first

deciding what program will be selected, what scholarship program

will be selected. And the Secretary first decides who will administer the program. That program will then select what students will

be selected for participation in the program.

So you could be a student in a failing school at 150 percent of

the poverty level, but you may not be selected because the program

will select whether you are a participating student or not. I am not

aware of anything in the bill that says every child eligible will be

selected. I guess I would start there.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Platts, I authored the bill. We have

a finite amount of money. It is not a straight entitlement. And if

we have more people eligible—remember, the only ones eligible are

those who are poor and from nonperforming schools. And if we do

not have enough slots for the people who apply, we go to a lottery.

I don’t know how else you do this. That is why it is stated the way

it is.

Mr. PLATTS. Well, I would have to disagree. The bill says you

have to be poor. It does not say you have to be in a failing school.

That is a parameter that will be looked at, but the bill does not

require you to be in a failing school the way it is drafted.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It is a nonperforming school. Even people

currently in the program are not eligible, but if you are from a performing school—unless—it sets a priority. If you don’t have enough

people from nonperforming schools apply, then we could get into

the performing schools. But the priority is set on those with nonperforming schools, and it looks like we now have a waiting list

that far exceeds the capacity to pay for it out of this.

I hope that answers the question. It is not a straight prohibition,

but there is a priority set.

Mr. PLATTS. I agree the bill says the Secretary, in selecting programs, will give weight to how the program will select students

from nonperforming schools. It does not prohibit other students——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But only if it is not oversubscribed, and

we know it will be the first year.

Mr. PLATTS. Let me go forward with some of the other issues

that jumped out. The bill as drafted, Mr. Mayor, is also that the

program will decide how much a student gets. Seventy-five is the

maximum, but the program decides whether it is $500 or $7,000,

is that your understanding as well?

Mayor WILLIAMS. That is my understanding, but my preference

is around that $7,500 number, because I think that allows you to

99

maximize the number of low-income students that attend these

schools. And I might say, I know of folks who are involved in the

scholarship program, and I have no reason to believe, absolutely no

reason to believe, that they would use this money to supplant what

they are already doing. This money would augment what they are

doing.

Mr. PLATTS. But again, we give the choice and the decision to a separate entity, not to the parent. Whether they get $500 or $7,500

is not——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would the gentleman yield? The reason again for that is if you get them into a school for $4,000, why

would you give them $7,500?

Mr. PLATTS. I agree that you shouldn’t give more than the cost

of the school. But the school could cost $10,000, and the way the

bill is written the scholarship program could choose to serve more

students, and say we are only going to give you 1,000 and then the

choice is not with the parents and the child, it is with the program.

It may be specific to my biggest concern, I have a whole list that

jump out, but the schools, again, for the schools in the District of

Columbia, if a parent wants to accept a scholarship and go to

School A, it sounds like that is their choice. But it is actually up

to the school whether they will participate in the program or not.

The school is not required to participate. Is that your understanding?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right, the schools are not required to participate. But I mean, if past experience is any indication, and certainly

statements of educational leaders here in the city who would participate are any indication, there will be huge participation.

Mr. PLATTS. Let me point out one of my biggest concerns, and

maybe I can come back in a second round here, but the focus, everything was about giving choice to parents and students. And the

way I read the bill, first the Secretary has a choice of what programs are selected, the program has the choice of what schools to

have participating and what students will be selected. But what

troubles me the most is that the way I read the bill is a faith-based

school could choose not to take any students except for scholarship

students who share their faith. That they could discriminate based

on their faith in their admission policy.

Mayor WILLIAMS. No, I understand the way this is structured as

the Secretary and Congressman Boehner was saying the dollars follow the student, not with the school. So once a school agrees to participate in this program, now, that is the school’s choice, but once

they agree to participate in this program, they cannot discriminate.

Mr. PLATTS. In Section 8, Nondiscrimination, under religiously

affiliated school, it says: ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of

law, the school participating in any program under this act which

is operated by, supervised, controlled by, or connected to a religious

organization may employ, admit, or give preference to persons of

the same religion to the extent determined by that school to promote the religious purpose for which the school is established.’’

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I can address that. The admissions process will be taken out in the manager’s amendment. That is a drafting error and it will be taken out.

Mr. PLATTS. That was one of the things that jumped out.

100

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The Mayor pointed that out to us yesterday as it was going through. We did not retrieve it, but that will

be part of the——

Mr. PLATTS. I stand corrected, and it will be corrected I guess.

I will come back if we have a second round.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think we only have 5 more minutes, Ms.

Norton has had a second round. So I will end with Mr. Carter. Do

you want to ask any questions? Judge Carter.

Mr. CARTER. I will accept it and yield my time to Mr. Platts.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Take it out of my 5 minutes. You are recognized.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The points I raise said

are I think everyone wants to do right by children, and my concern

is if you are going to have a choice program, that the choice actually resides with parents and students, not with others. And that

is of concern to me whether this actually does that. I appreciate

your time, Mr. Mayor. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I don’t know how else you draft legislation

to give choice to parents except we set criteria. And in one sense

the program chooses the parents, and they have to have kids who

come from school districts that are nonoperforming and that are

poor. And unfortunately, we probably have more of those children

in this school system that want to take advantage of these scholarships than we have spaces available. So that would go to a lottery.

Isn’t that correct, Mr. Mayor?

Mayor WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I wish we could get a larger authorization for this than $15 million. I also want to state again that this is

part of a package that I think will, upon completion of the appropriation process, will find increases of a like amount for the public

school system and the for the charter school system. This is added

value for the school system. This is not subtracting. And that

makes it different from some of the other lottery proposals that

have been on the ballots in other States and the like. We have

tried to meet some very legitimate concerns raised by members. It

is impossible to meet all of them. There are ideological views that

we shouldn’t be doing this at all. And to those people, we will never

satisfy their concerns.

I think the key is, as the Mayor pointed out, the kid who is in

third grade next year will never get another shot at third grade.

And if the public school cannot perform and meet those expectations, what are we to do but to give them the choices that the members of the city council and Members of Congress and wealthier

members of the District of Columbia exercise.

Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield for a minute? It is not an

adversarial point at all.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Happy to yield.

Ms. NORTON. I just want to say for the record that we have been

able to get extra money for charter schools in the past, and I

worked my little behind off last year to get $17 million extra

money. First it was $20 and then there was across-the-board cuts

for everything. Because the charter school folks were absolutely out

of their skulls with the facilities.

101

And so I have my doubts about the House, because we were able

to get extra money because the Senate has been so impressed with

what has happened to charter schools. And I certainly will make

every attempt to repeat that. But I do want to say if that is repeated, that is the kind of thing we have been able to do often. I

mean if that is your three-sector approach—going to the Appropriation Committee and seeing if you can get them to come up with

some extra dollars every time—I do not think you have a three-sector approach.

And I also want to say this for the record, that this money should

not come out of the shallow amount that has been set aside in each

appropriation already for your priorities, Mr. Mayor, including

storm water runoff and the like. And my greatest fear is that, you

know, a little bit of change will be thrown in for the charter

schools, but it will come right out of your own pocket, so it will rob

Peter to pay Paul and we have to struggle to make sure that does

not happen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Before I give the Mayor an opportunity to

respond, I want to make it clear from my perspective when the

package is completed, when it has gone through the House and the

Senate and the conference and everything else, I think we will see

additional money for the public school system that would not be

there, additional money for charter schools over and above the $17

million that you got last year and money for this. A three-pronged

approach. This is something that I think the Mayor has said he

would like to see all of it together. The problem is this is an authorization bill for one sector. The other two segments are authorized. Those are appropriation issues and whatever issues we may

have in the House, we have a Senate and an administration that

I think stands behind that. And I think this is a win-win for the

D.C. students.

Let’s remember at the end of the day what this is about. It is

not about a school system. It is not an ideology. It is about 60,000

some kids in the D.C. public school system today who are not getting the opportunities to learn that the rest of us do around the

world, across the river in Fairfax County or over in Montgomery

County, and changing that school system, the public school system.

And strengthening that system takes time. We have made some

progress, as the Mayor noted in his remarks, but I think this helps

strengthen the public school system, and in the meantime, a stopgap for giving those kids opportunities next year that they wouldn’t

have otherwise. That is what we are trying to do. It is about kids.

And I don’t know how any Mayor, and I will ask you this Tony,

how would you look people in the eye turning your back on an additional $15 million for the city that they couldn’t have otherwise

and the opportunities, when there is a waiting list of thousands of

kids to do this?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Again, I think Congressman, if you are trying

to lift people up or you are trying to attract people to your city, you

need to provide more choices. That is what I hear over and over

again. And it would be very difficult for me to go to people and say

I am going to turn down this extra money for some, you know, ideological reason or some reason like that.

102

I have heard over and over again, this notion that we are taking

money that could otherwise be used to help all of the students for

just a few students. First of all, this is extra money, and also if I

was sitting in an emergency room and 10 people came into my

emergency room and I could treat these 10 people and save them,

I would do that. I wouldn’t say to these 10 people that with the

money I am going to use to treat you, I could use to go and find

a cure for this disease. Yes, you have to find a cure for this disease

but you have to help these 10 people. Yes, we want to and we are

improving our schools, but we have an opportunity to help thousands of kids right now and we ought to do it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mrs. Davis you had one last question?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is actually, I

would like a point of clarification. I asked the question earlier

about IDEA and Chairman Boehner answered it that the private

schools would not have to comply. But as I read the draft bill on

page 9, it says that nothing in this act may be construed to alter

or modify the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That tells me if private schools, if they accept these students, they would have to comply.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. No, I think the answer is they are not getting Federal aid, they are getting money directly from the kids.

This is not money from the Federal Government to the schools.

This is money from the Federal Government to the children who

then choose the schools and the courts have issued that differentiation.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Congresswoman, that is a major difference.

The dollars are with the students, not to the school.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And I hope that is the way it ends up

being, because right now the private schools do not have the money

to do it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is the only way you get the true

choice. Tony, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the Secretary. I know you have to go. It has been a very successful hearing. We will continue on this and probably move at a committee

level to address this bill after the July 4th recess. The meeting is

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and additional

information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Æ