Statement
Chairman Tom Davis
Committee on Government Reform
"In Search of Educational Excellence In The Nation's Capital: A
Review of
Academic Options for Students and Parents in the District of
Columbia"
May 9, 2003
Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Government Reform will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing on
academic options for students and parents in the District of Columbia.
The condition of the District of Columbia Public Schools
has concerned me since the first day I came to Congress as Chair of the
D.C. Subcommittee. While we've made strides since then - the D.C.
College Access Act, the establishment of charter schools - the quality
of educational opportunities in the Nation's Capital should continue to
worry us all.
The ability of DC schools to meet its core goals has been
long challenged by financial mismanagement and an array of other issues.
Poor academic achievement scores are one clear indicator. Students in
the District should expect access to the same quality education as
students across the Washington region and elsewhere. According to a U.S.
Department of Education report, D.C. spends far more per pupil than
Montgomery County, Maryland or Fairfax, Virginia. Unfortunately, the
District lags behind in school performance in comparison to other
districts. Money, in and of itself, is not the answer.
When a child cannot expect to get her hands on an
errorless study guide to prepare for the Stanford 9 exam, I am
concerned. When the District claims they need more money but are paying
a consultant close to $300,000 for six months of work to figure out the
budget and how many employees they have, I am concerned. When I hear
about deteriorating schools, test scores that have not improved and
staggering high school dropout rates, I am concerned.
The question before us today is whether District schools
are providing what students need to succeed, and if not, what we might
be able to do about it. We all want the District's education system to
improve. I've visited the schools and seen the conditions under which
students are asked to learn. We need to do better.
I've come to the conclusion that parents and students
stuck in failing schools need - no, deserve -- an opportunity to choose
from a wider pool. I have received calls from parents who are
frustrated, angry, even distraught by the condition of their child's
school. It's time to do more than sympathize. This is a moral
imperative.
The school choice debate should not be about politics. It
should be about an honest appraisal of the state of affairs in our
public schools, about offering an alternative for students and parents.
What is being proposed is not a mandate but a choice.
These are challenging fiscal times to be sure, but
education remains our top priority. In the President's FY 2004 proposed
budget, $756 million has been allocated for school choice programs, with
some of that targeted toward a scholarship program in the District. I
think we need to ask the question: Wouldn't more choices, forded by new
federal dollars, provide a needed alternative for low-income children
attending low-performing schools?
Enhancing educational quality in the District is a
critical component of maintaining the positive momentum we've seen in
recent years under the stewardship of Mayor Williams and the Council. It
is our duty to provide resources so that kids can have a bright future.
The D.C. school system must be equipped with strategic tools and
resources to assure the safety and well being of the city's most
vulnerable children.
Congress saw the disparity in opportunity for District
residents to attend college compared to other state residents. In 1999,
Congress passed the D.C College Access Act, legislation I authored. The
act gave District students the right to attend any public college in the
United States at an in-state tuition rate, or receive $2,500 to attend
any private college in the city or region. This has helped defray the tuition
expenses of higher education for District of Columbia high school
graduates. It has leveled the playing field and brightened the futures
of thousands of young adults. Now we need to reach more children, and
reach them earlier.
In order to provide greater educational options and
innovation within the public school system, the District of Columbia
School Reform Act of 1995 established charter schools in the District.
D.C. Charter Schools are publicly funded but operate
independently from the school system. The goal of school choice in the
District of Columbia is not subtraction but addition. Public charter
schools are a key component of a comprehensive reform strategy. But we
need to ask: Are they enough?
Expanded choices would have benefits beyond the primary
goal of educating District children better. They can also be an
incredible economic development tool. Families flock to areas where
schools succeed. They flee areas where schools under-perform. Improving
the education system will not only help the District but the entire
Washington region as well. To have a healthy region we need to have a
healthy city. And nothing is more important to the health and vitality
of an area then education.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us. Our
witnesses are here because of their commitment to the children in the
Nation's Capital. I look forward to hearing testimony from our
witnesses. I want to thank the witnesses for sharing their experience
and suggestions with us. It is my hope that appropriate legislation
involving school choice will be supported by District leaders. I look
forward to strengthening communication between key stakeholders.
Back to top of page
Statement of Congressman Jeff Flake
House Government Reform Committee Hearing
May 9, 2003
H.R. 684, the D.C. School Choice Act
Two score and ten years ago District of Columbia Public
Schools were in trouble - and they still are today! Charter schools have
been implemented (during the 1990's) and out-of-boundary programs exist,
but parents are still crying out for education options and the entire
system is crying out for competition.
I've introduced the D.C. School Choice bill along with
Congressman Lipinski to provide that competition. The bill, the D.C.
School Choice Act, provides $45 million worth of scholarship money for
low-income District of Columbia families to send their children to a
school of their choice. The scholarships may be used for tuition costs
at a public or private school in D.C. and adjacent counties in Maryland
and Virginia. Special Achievement Scholarships are also available for
tutoring assistance to students who attend public schools in the
District. It needs to be noted that the money in this legislation
doesn't come from District of Columbia Public School funds. It doesn't
take one dime away from the District of Columbia Public School funds
because it is NEW money.
In a report by Casey Lartigue of the CATO Institute, we
find that D.C. public schools have been suffering from poor graduation
rates, poor test scores and poor performance on national tests when
compared to national averages. One third of those educated in D.C.
Public Schools are functionally illiterate, the city has a drop out rate
of 40 percent for those students entering the 8U' grade, 12 schools have
been labeled `failing' under the No Child Left Behind Act, the test
scores are atrocious, and this isn't new.
It seems that a D.C. diploma means little. Eighty-five
percent of D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of the
District of Columbia need remedial education before beginning their
course work toward degrees. On average, these students require two years
of remedial education to get up-to-speed, up from one year during the
late 1970s. Of course, not every school in the District is in such bad
shape. In fact, there are schools that parents would choose to send
their children to, but even with out-of-boundary programs, there just
isn't enough room to accommodate everyone.
I believe competition is needed to help improve D.C.
public schools. The current system has deteriorated to the point where
the D.C. Control Board found "the longer students stay in the
District's public schools, the less likely they are to succeed."
The system is not working. One way to encourage reform is to make public
schools directly accountable to parents by giving at least some parents
the power to leave failing schools.
While some believe that the District doesn't want this, I
have heard otherwise. DC Parents for Choice, 3,000 members strong, have
come out in strong support of this effort. If you take a moment to look
around the room, the majority of those guests wearing green are here in support of DC School Choice.
And, if you would please take a look at the visuals here to your (left
or right), you will see the faces of parents and children who believe in
school choice.
Jo Anne Haitiwanger, parent of Crystal (Age 13)
"I placed my daughter's name in a lottery for 3 DCPS
out- of -boundary schools. There were 6,000 applicants. There were 27
slots available out of the 3 schools I chose. My daughter was not
selected. We are still waiting."
Virginia Thomas, parent of Gabrielle (Age 7) & Victor
(Age 10)
"My children have excelled in the school they attend
thanks to the Washington Scholarship Fund. They are accomplishing great
things and are both on the honor roll. Without this scholarship, I do
not know where they would be. We hope that with a voucher program we
will be able to continue to send. our children to schools that best meet
their needs."
Barbara Mickens, parent of Sam (Age 5) & Ashley (Age
14)
"My goal was to send my children to a good public
school due to financial constraints. I was placed on an out-of-bounds
waiting list and I'm still waiting. The most ironic thing to me is the
same problems my mom had with me in a DC public school 30 years later
those same issues are still present and unattended to."
But not only do we have parents asking for scholarships,
we have parents actively pursuing and taking advantage of privately
funded scholarships offered by various organizations. The largest of
these organizations in D.C. is the Washington Scholarship Fund. In the
past, 7,573 needy children applied for scholarships offered by the
Washington Scholarship Fund. To that group, the Washington Scholarship
Fund announced it would award 1,000 scholarships. That means the parents
of 6,500 children who applied for scholarships learned that they
wouldn't get one because there weren't enough to go around.
Parents have made their wishes clear by applying for
scholarships. Many of those parents continue to apply for the
scholarships offered yearly by the; Washington Scholarship Fund. These
are parents we can help by passing the D.C. School Choice bill. This
bill attends to the real needs and desires of the children and parents
in Washington, D.C. It is clear that the parents of Washington D.C. want
their children to have an opportunity to leave failing schools and go to
schools that work.
Some say the District has voted against vouchers in the
past. District voters have never voted on a voucher or a scholarship
referendum. In 1981, voters rejected a referendum that would have
permitted tax credits for educational expenses. My proposal is not a tax
credit. A tax credit would primarily help those who pay taxes and are generally not poor. In contrast, this scholarship
legislation is designed to give assistance to the neediest children,
those from low-income families.
The fact is, the people of the District want choice. More
than 2,000 people have signed a petition in support of this legislation.
More than 100 D.C. ministers have circulated a resolution in support of
this legislation. A recent poll shows that African Americans in the
District support the idea of a scholarship program by a two-to-one
margin. Finally, hundreds of D.C. parents have demonstrated their
support for this concept by applying for a scholarship through the
Washington Scholarship Fund.
D.C. parents want choice. D.C. children deserve a chance.
Every child in America - and every child in Anacostia - deserves a safe,
sound education and fair chance at the American Dream. Opportunity
scholarships will give needy children the ability to attend a safe,
quality school close to home.
Two score and ten years from now the competition provided
by this legislation can have D.C. Schools back on track with an entire
generation of well-educated families to be proud of. Let's give them
this opportunity.
Back to top of page
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
Opening Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton
Full Government Reform Committee Hearing
In Search of Educational Excellence in the Nation's
Capital: A Review of Academic Options for Students and Parents in the
District of Columbia
May 9, 2003
My thanks to Chairman Davis and his staff for working
with us to assure that this hearing reflects a fair balance and is not
focused entirely on the controversial subject of public money for
private school vouchers or the Flake bill, H.R. 684. Anyone in touch
with the residents of our city would be struck by how deep their
continuing opposition to vouchers has been. Beginning with the
referendum in 1981, followed by numerous Council and School Board
resolutions, the District, like every state that has had a voucher
referendum, has turned down vouchers on the merits. A 2002 Council
unanimous resolution said in part: "Education advocates, parents,
teachers, and members of the Council of the District of Columbia
decided, by act of the Council, that the best vehicle for public
education reform in the District of Columbia is to offer charter
schools and to improve the public schools of the District of
Columbia." A similar 2002 School Board Resolution said: "the
Board of Education finds it inappropriate for Congress to utilize
existing federally and locally appropriated resources for a voucher
program or to use any Congressional add-on funds for this purpose and
... any additional monies ... should be added to the District budget
to provide sorely needed resources key to educational reform in the
District ... and any voucher program will undermine the school
system's effort to support a system of high quality neighborhood
schools." These views, which I am confident continue among the
majority of D.C. residents and officials, are as remarkably broad as
they are deep across the city's wards. I have been impressed by just
how universal this view is among our parents, from our more fortunate
middle-income residents to our families who are least well off. School
Board Member William Lockridge, who represents Wards 7 and 8, where
the majority of our low-income parents reside, has visited me to
personally make a strong case that he and his constituents strongly
oppose private school vouchers, and he has given me a list of his Ward
7 and 8 charter and transformation schools and asked me to do all I
can to see that these schools are funded with any available federal
funds.
Mayor Williams, Council member Chavous and School
Board President Cafritz have bowed to the Bush Administration on
vouchers. Perhaps even they, however, would hesitate to support the
Flake Bill, even if the amount offered is raised and even given
their view that vouchers are acceptable in exchange for other funds.
The Flake Bill is a carbon copy of former Majority Leader Dick
Armey's annual D.C. voucher bill. This bill makes every decision not
with District officials and comes complete with a new bureaucracy, a
seven-person corporation to administer the program. With this
corporation, the Flake bill strikes a new low in the long history of
congressional imitations of colonialism. In the almost 30 years of
home rule, I have never seen a bill for the city, with or without
federal funds, that would leave the Mayor with but one appointee
while allowing the President to appoint six. Most of my constituents
would regard such token recognition as closer the insult than to
inclusion.
Quite apart from the merits or the Flake bill,
however, the failure to get agreement from elected officials
disqualifies the bill on basic democratic principles of consent of
the governed. As the Mayor and Council Chair know well, a home rule
decision requires agreement by both branches of the D.C. government.
Both know that in keeping with this principle I will not change any
documented position of the city no matter how minor without
consulting both the Mayor as well as the Council Chair so she can
poll her Members to see if the majority agrees. No individual can
change a home rule position without getting the majority of his
colleagues. I regret that this path has not been followed by the
three officials who now support vouchers. I particularly regret that
the Mayor and I who have worked closely and cordially together did
not have conversations all along. Despite our differences on
vouchers, I am certain that he and I will want to resume our close
collaboration on city issues and more on from here. Our mutual
devotion to the city is too important for any other coarse.
As Council and School Board resolutions clearly
indicate, objections to funding for private schools in the District
have always gone well beyond home rule, resolutely rejecting
vouchers. In opposing public money for private schools, the District
fits the pattern of every state in the union that has gone on the
record. Voucher referendums here and everywhere else in the United
States have opposed vouchers because most parents know what D.C.
residents know -- that there is one federal, always inadequate,
education pot and that what would go to private schools would reduce
that public pot.
However, the District's case against vouchers runs
deeper and is more justified. I have always believed that it is
wrong to leave parents without affordable alternatives to
neighborhood schools. I admire the District's longtime policy,
adopted many years before recent federal legislation, of allowing
children to attend school outside their neighborhoods. The city has
not stopped there, however. Today its 42 charter schools go well
beyond the number per capita anywhere in the country. These publicly
accountable schools are so popular that they seriously crowded, are
most often housed in inadequate facilities, have mile long waiting
lists, and are crying for funds. The enthusiasm for our charter
schools is traceable to their responsiveness to their parent and
child consumers, who have been attracted by their often small
classes, their focused curriculums, or their specialized offerings that are often available
nowhere else- from year-round and foreign language centered schools
to technology, art, and even boarding schools and a school for kids
from the juvenile justice system. I was able to get $17 million for
our charters in this year's appropriation, an amount so small
compared to the need that I hesitate to even mention it. For example
Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School located in a Ward 8
church, that I visited last week, needs to move to the abandoned
Congress Heights school down the street, but $10 million to make the
school usable is required.
Equally impressive are the city's transformation
schools, where many of our most disadvantaged children attend school
and where the greatest promise may lie. Transformation schools have
been educationally rebuilt from the ground up not only with new
staff, but with "wrap around services" from city agencies
and special assistance not usually available in other schools, such
as aggressive student remediation, class size reduction and programs
for parents. The early results are extremely gratifying including,
according to D.C. Public Schools, increases of student performance
in all 15 transformation schools.
The good news story of the charter and transformation
schools is the most underreported in the city. However, the parents
of our children have shown that this story, judging by the way they
have bonded with these schools and demanded more of them. D.C.
elected officials know or should know this story too.
The Mayor and City Council have just finished marking
up the 04 budget. They know all too well that they have had to cut
our schools. Particularly in a year when they are cutting schools,
it is unconscionable to direct any available federal money away from
the schools for which they have direct responsibility and that have
been embraced by parents: charter schools that cannot add a grade
and are turning children back to the traditional public schools from
which they came, and transformation schools whose promise to
families, the city has already begun to break, not to mention the
obligation of elected officials to expand the number of
transformation schools because so many low performing schools have
not yet been included to be transformed. It can't be right to agree
to send funds to private alternative schools when the city is
leaving its own successful parents sanctioned alternatives cut and
chronically underfunded. The least efficient way to use federal
dollars is to hand it out to a few individuals when the same amount
put together could move many more children out of crowded charter
facilities and help charter schools expand so they don't send
children back to their neighborhood schools because they lack the
funds to add a grade, and guarantee that transformation schools in
fact transform.
We chastise the Congress for not recognizing that
democratic principles should govern congressional dealings with the
District. Democracy also applies within the District too. Judged by
this same standard the evidence is that D.C. residents, especially
parents, want any and all available money to go to their own schools
that may qualify for federal funding, all of it, not whatever a few
selected officials decide may be divided between private schools and
our own alternative schools.
Back to top of page
Statement of Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (MD
-7th)
Chair, Congressional Black Caucus
before the Government Reform Committee
May 9, 2003
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman,
and all of my colleagues on this Committee. I am Elijah Cummings
from Maryland's Seventh Congressional District and Chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before
you as this Committee examines the entire D.C. Public School system,
including the public charter schools and transformational schools,
available to elementary and secondary students. At the same time,
Mr. Chairman, I must begin by saying that the Caucus regrets that
Congresswoman Norton and her district are so often subjected to
unequal treatment. Using the fact that the District is also the
nation's capital, the House repeatedly tries to press its
ideological agenda on hometown Washington against the will of the
majority of the city's residents and elected officials.
There is no better example of this unequal treatment
than H.R. 5033 introduced by former Majority Leader Dick Armey last
session and reintroduced this year by Congressman Jeff Flake of
Arizona as H.R. 684. This bill would impose private school vouchers
on the District of Columbia. It relates exclusively to Ms. Norton's
district but was drawn without her collaboration or even the
courtesy of a conversation. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the
Caucus appreciates that you have structured this hearing to hear all
the options, including those that the District has consistently
endorsed.
While there is some debate fostered by some officials
in the District concerning vouchers, the record shows that for years
the D.C. Council and the School Board have repeatedly opposed
vouchers. If that position is to be changed, District officials and
residents are full and equal citizens who no more require guidance
from Congress than the rest of us do concerning our local schools
and our children.
The House has made sure that our own districts would
not have mandated vouchers like those that H.R. 684 would impose on
the District. We did so first in the No Child Left Behind bill
passed here in the first session of the 107`h Congress, and we did
it again last week in the IDEA special education bill, where two
voucher amendments were defeated. If the House has refused to impose
vouchers on our own districts, how then can we treat the District
differently and unequally?
Further, on the merits, taking scarce public funds
from, publicly accountable schools is impossible to justify. The
Bush Administration and this Congress have imposed an unfunded mandate on D.C., Baltimore, and every jurisdiction in
the United States with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Even if you support vouchers, it would be especially wrong to take
federal funds from public education today and fund private schools
when Congress is cutting federal funding for public education.
Moreover, the District should be the last district
required to use vouchers. Its network of charter and transformation
school alternatives is the most extensive in the nation. Congress
should be proud of how far the District has gone beyond the rest of
us by offering a broad and interesting array of alternative publicly
accountable schools. Members should be visiting D.C.'s charter and
transformation schools to learn from the District so that we might
do the same in our own districts. Congress should be authorizing
funds to allow the District's charter schools to reduce their long
waiting lists of parents trying to gain admission for their children
and to move the charter schools from crowded and inadequate
facilities. Congress should especially be helping the District to
continue, and indeed, to expand its transformation schools which
serve mostly low-income students.
The House has voted down vouchers for the nation even
though not one Member's district has nearly the number of
alternatives and options per capita the District offers. The city
should be rewarded and encouraged to do more of exactly what it is
doing without controversial vouchers that studies show do not
improve student test outcomes. The city's work provides nothing less
than a model for the nation in publicly accountable alternatives to
its public schools.
The Caucus strongly opposes H.R. 684 and any
congressional bill that interfere with local control of local
schools- in any district, including the District of Columbia. The
Caucus also opposes the use of any federal funds for private
schools, especially now when federal funds for public education are
being severely restricted and cut.
I know that this is a highly charged issue but I
would hope that we would listen to our colleague Eleanor Holmes
Norton and the thousands of people she represents that do not want
private school vouchers imposed upon them.
Again, thank you for convening today's hearing.
Back to top of page
Statement of Eugene W. Hickok
Under Secretary
US Department of Education
On the DC School Choice Initiative
Before the House Committee on Government Reform
May 9, 2003
Chairman Davis and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Bush Administration's proposal to initiate a program to expand
school choice in the District of Columbia in fiscal year 2004. This
proposal has generated quite a lot of media and public attention
since we announced it in February, and I welcome the opportunity to
explain our reasons for putting it forward and describe how the
program would operate.
Mr. Chairman, I know that officials in my Department,
and Members of Congress, have been concerned about the quality of
education in the District of Columbia for many years. DC public
schools are only a short walk from our offices, we see District
students going to and from school each day, and we read about the
challenges of the DC public schools in the newspapers almost daily.
We all want the capital of the greatest nation on earth to have some
of the finest schools on earth. And at one time this city's schools
were considered among the best in the entire nation. But for many
years we have been disappointed by the performance of public schools
in the District, and at the seeming inability of public school
officials to manage schools and programs effectively.
In some respects, the situation in the District may
be no different from that in other urban school districts that
educate concentrations of children in poverty, but in other respects
the District has sometimes seemed uniquely resistant to reform and improvement. I say-that with full respect for
Superintendent Vance and with appreciation for what he is trying to
accomplish and for some of the things he has achieved, but I think
it's the truth.
Let's consider the performance of DC students on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP as it's called,
the assessment that measures the performance of students over time
in reading, writing, math, and other core academic subjects. In the
most recent mathematics assessment, administered in 2000, only 6 percent of DC fourth-graders tested at the proficient
or advanced levels, the levels that show that students have
demonstrated competency over challenging matter. A lower percentage
of students in DC demonstrated proficiency than was the case for any
State. At the other end of the scale, 76 percent of DC
fourth-graders scored at the "below basic" level, which
means that they could not demonstrate even partial mastery of the
math skills and knowledge that are appropriate at the fourth-grade
level. The 2000 8th-grade math results were very similar; only 6
percent of DC students tested at the proficient or advanced levels,
and 77. percent were below basic.
The most recent NAEP reading assessment took place in
1998. The results for DC students were a little better than the 2000
math scores, but still were completely inadequate. Only 10 percent
of DC fourth-graders could read proficiently, while 72 percent were
below basic. At the 8t'-grade level, 12 percent were proficient or
advanced and 56 percent were below basic.
Looking at the quality of a school system requires
more than just reviewing scores on achievement tests. But when we look at other
indicators, they too show that DC public schools are not providing
the education that children in the District need. The most recent edition of Quality Counts, the annual
review of education trends and data produced by the newspaper
Education Week, gave the District only a grade of D+ for having an
acceptable system of academic standards and accountability, a C in
the area of success in recruiting new teachers, and a D+ for school
climate. And the DC public school system has a long history of
management problems in such important areas as facilities
maintenance, personnel and payroll, food service, procurements, and
even in accurately counting enrollments. In addition, the system has
historically failed to comply with the requirements of Federal
programs, such as Title I and Special Education, to a point where
the Department has had to enter into compliance agreements with the
District that call for implementation of major reforms within
specific timelines. We insisted on these performance agreements not
because some paperwork wasn't being filled out correctly, but
because the District was, for instance, failing quite egregiously to
provide its disabled students with the free appropriate public
education required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.
I would like to repeat what I said a few minutes ago:
I support and respect the work that Paul Vance is doing in the
District. I know that he has taken on the major management problems,
and has shown some results, and I know that not all of the education
outcomes are dismal. The Stanford-9 achievement test scores for 2002
showed minor improvements at most grade levels in reading and math.
And the proliferation of charter schools in the District, including
some that have achieved great initial success, has given new choices
and new hopes to students and parents. But I believe the
preponderance of information demonstrates that schools in the
District are not achieving what they should and that more needs to be done if
children in the District are to achieve to the high levels called
for under the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Bush Administration has responded to this problem
by including, in our fiscal year 2004 budget request, a school
choice initiative for DC. You might ask why choice is the answer,
whether it is likely to work, whether giving students wider
educational opportunities is likely to help the DC public school
system improve, and whether we should, instead, request more money
for DC public schools. We believe that we have strong answers to
those questions.
We believe that the President's budget includes more
than adequate support for DC public schools, including charter
schools. Our request for Department of Education elementary and
secondary education formula programs would provide some $92 million
to the District in 2004, an increase of 15 percent over the level
only two years ago (2002). And let's not forget that DC already
spends, per student, more than all but a handful of urban districts
across the country. If money were the solution, than we would have
solved the problems of public schooling in the District a long time
ago. We believe, instead, that tackling this problem will depend in
large measure on giving DC students more educational choices.
In the communities across the country that have
experimented with publicly and privately funded school choice
programs that include private-school options, the results have been
extremely positive, for the students directly served by the programs
and for the school system as a whole. For example, research by
Patrick Wolfe of Georgetown University, along with Paul Peterson and
Martin West of Harvard, on the first two years of the scholarship
program administered by the privately funded Washington Scholarship Fund
(WSF), showed that the math and reading
achievement of African-American students who enrolled in private
schools using support from the Fund was significantly higher than
the achievement of a control group of students who remained in DC
public schools. This research also found that parents who received
support from the Fund gave their children's schools higher ratings
than did parents of children in the control group, and that their
children were doing more homework. Studies by these and equally
eminent scholars in other cities, such as Milwaukee, San Antonio,
Cleveland, and Dayton, offer very similar results.
What about the charge that voucher programs
"cream" the best students from the public schools and
thereby weaken public school systems? We find no evidence to
buttress that claim. To the contrary, research by Caroline Hoxby of
Harvard and others has found that students who take advantage of
private school choice options are typically at least as
educationally and economically disadvantaged as students who remain
in the public schools. To some extent, this is because existing
choice programs have explicitly targeted children from low-income
families, as our initiative would do. But even without this
targeting, public-private choice programs seem to attract students
who are no more affluent, and have no better an educational profile,
than other students. In addition, there is at least preliminary
evidence that school districts in which public schools have been
exposed to private-school competition, through the initiation of a
choice program, have responded by improving educational services. In
Milwaukee and in the Edgewood district in San Antonio, the presence
of a choice program was associated with gains in achievement in the
public schools.
In fact, that may be one of the most powerful reasons
to support expanded choice: because it pushes the traditional public
school system to improve. My boss, Secretary Rod Paige, understands
this as well as anyone. He ran the nation's seventh largest public
school system in Houston and he didn't shy away from choice. He
embraced choice. He knew that competition would make his system
stronger. And it did. He chartered the first KIPP academy in the
nation in Houston, which takes under-achievers and turns them into
scholars. He also launched a program that allowed students to attend
private schools in their neighborhood instead of getting bused all
over town to and from overcrowded public schools. And he knew that
his public school system could compete with charter schools and
private schools, and win. And it did. He strengthened the system in
Houston and won a national award for closing the achievement gap. So
we know choice can make a difference.
For these reasons, the Administration has put forward
our proposal. The outlines of this proposal are very simple. The
President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes $75 million
for a national Choice Incentive Fund. Under this program, the
Department would make grants to support projects that provide
low-income parents, particularly those who have children attending
low-performing public schools, with the opportunity to transfer
their children to higher-performing public and private schools,
including charter schools. A portion of the money would be reserved
for the District of Columbia.
We would anticipate making a grant either to the DC
public school system or to another, independent entity to operate
the program in the District. The grantee would then develop and
implement procedures for certifying schools to participate in the program, informing DC families about the choices
available to them, selecting students to participate, and then
monitoring and reporting on the program as it goes forward. We have
not yet decided on the maximum amount of assistance an individual
student could receive, but we want it to be sufficient to allow
students a good choice of educational options.
We also see accountability as a major feature of this
initiative, because it will give parents in DC the ability to hold
schools accountable for meeting the educational needs of students.
And we will rigorously evaluate the project in DC (as well as the
other projects funded by the national Choice Incentive Fund) by
examining the academic achievement of students, parental
satisfaction, and other results, so that the lessons can be applied
to future programs and initiatives: We want to obtain solid evidence
on the benefits of expanding educational options and making schools
accountable to parents while respecting the flexibility and freedom
of participating private schools.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the beginning, the
Administration's announcement of this proposal has engendered a
great deal of attention in the media and elsewhere, including some
very vociferous criticisms. Before I end my statement, I would like
to respond to some of the major criticisms, to set the record
straight.
We've heard that the Administration is trying to
impose this initiative on the District against the will of its
citizens and with no input from its elected and appointed
leadership. That is not the case. We have met with Mayor Anthony
Williams, with Councilman Kevin Chavous, who is the Chairman of the
Council's Education Committee, and with School Board President Peggy
Cooper Cafritz to discuss our proposal, and we look forward to
continuing our discussions with these and other local officials. We want to implement a choice program that
reflects the needs of the district and reflects the input of DC's
leadership; we don't pretend to have all the answers. I would like
to commend Mayor Williams and Board President Cafritz for the
courage they have shown in publicly endorsing a DC school choice
initiative and their willingness to work with us on the details.
I acknowledge that a choice initiative that includes
private school options will probably not, in the end, be what some
of the political leaders in the District want. It is, however, what
I believe the parents want. The Washington Scholarship Fund has a
waiting list of approximately 5,000 children. One DC parent,
Virginia Walden-Ford, the leader of DC Parents for School Choice,
testified before Councilman Chavous's committee and said the
following:
We have received hundreds of calls from parents who
have not been lucky enough to get a scholarship through the many
scholarship groups in town, WSF, Black Student Fund, etc., and
parents who are camping out for charter schools that are not keeping
up the pace of parents' need to get out of failing schools. They
contact us looking for better options for their children. Parents
here in the District are daily expressing their frustration in a
school system that is taking too long to fix itself.
We in the Department have also heard that that this
initiative will bleed money from the District's public schools. That
is also not the case. The Choice Incentive Fund proposed by the
President represents new money. It was not obtained by subtracting
funds from the other Federal programs that support DC public
schools. If the initiative does not go forward in the District, my
guess is that the money will be used in other communities to expand
educational choices and improve educational outcomes in those communities.
We've also heard complaints that we are supporting a
voucher program when we could be supporting the District's charter
schools instead. We find this complaint especially interesting since
it has recently been voiced by some who were never strong charter
school supporters before. But that's all right with us because we
strongly support charter schools too. We will continue to fight to
make sure the President's charter school funding priorities are
fulfilled, especially on the facilities front, so that this vibrant
movement can keep flourishing.
And, finally, we've heard that all the Administration
cares about is launching a voucher program in the District, that we
don't care about the children who will remain in the public school
system. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Our Department has
a record of reaching out to the DC Public Schools, to work- with the
system on overcoming its problems, of providing it with information,
technical assistance, and other resources. We've adopted. individual
schools in the District and provided those schools with hands-on
assistance. In our meetings with DC officials, we have said that we
will continue these efforts, and I'm happy to state that in public
today. The choice initiative should be just one element in an effort
to improve education in the District and ensure that all children
can achieve to high standards. We want to contribute to the larger
effort as well.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
I would be happy to respond to any questions that the Committee may
have.
Back to top of page
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Committee on Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
Congressman Thomas M. Davis, III, Chairman
Congressman Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member
"Alternative Schools and Educational Reform in the District of Columbia"
Statement of Anthony A. Williams
Mayor,
District of Columbia
Friday, May 9, 2003
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
11:00 a.m.
Good morning Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman,
Congresswoman Norton, Committee members, and other distinguished
guests. I am Anthony A. Williams, Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Chairman Davis, I greatly appreciate the leadership, support and
encouragement you have provided our great city and look forward to
your chairmanship as a time when we will accomplish even more great
things - starting, I hope, with budget autonomy this year. I am
pleased to come before you and this committee today to discuss
alternative schools and educational reform in the District of
Columbia.
As you know, education is a major priority for my
administration. My vision for the children of the District of
Columbia is that every child, regardless of the school they attend,
will have access to a high quality education in a healthy and safe
environment. I envision a city in which every young person will: 1)
come to school ready to learn, and leave with the necessary skills
to be successful in today's technologically advanced society; 2) be
taught to be responsible citizens and to make valuable contributions
to their local and global communities; and 3) have access to
adequate social services to support their learning. While we have
made major progress, we still have a long way to go before realizing
this vision.
Let me first acknowledge that many good things are
happening in the District's schools. The District of Columbia Public
Schools (DCPS), under the leadership of Superintendent Paul Vance
and the Board of Education, has launched an initiative to transform
our lowest performing 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
a difference. My administration strongly supports DCPS in this
initiative. In addition, last year DCPS underwent a massive central
office transformation to streamline services and ensure that more
resources flow directly to the classroom. Together with the District
Council, we have provided record pay increases to our teachers,
bringing entry level pay closer to parity with our suburban
neighbors.
My administration has been working with the schools
on an interagency collaboration to provide wrap-around support for
our neediest children. We are beginning to provide these services in
five of the Transformation Schools. By providing a host of family
support services from District of Columbia agencies at these schools,
we hope to allow teachers to relinquish their de facto roles as
part-time health and welfare counselors to children and their
families, and allow them to focus completely on their role as
educators. Finally, just last week I forwarded DCPS's State
Accountability Plan to the US Department of Education which
demonstrates great progress in how the District will comply with the
No Child Left Behind legislation.
As you know, the District also has a very strong
public charter school movement; we believe it is the strongest in
the nation. We currently have 42 charter schools, which provide
approximately 11,500 students with a range of educational programs
including math and science, technology, arts, English as and Second
Language (ESL) and dual language immersion, character development,
public policy, and college preparatory study. These schools offer
many approaches to learning, including individualized instruction,
small academies, and schools within schools.
Recognizing that significant progress has been made
since 1995 when Congress passed the District of Columbia School
Reform Act, the District public school system still faces an
abundance of challenges. Many students enter school with
developmental challenges that have not been effectively identified
and addressed. Moreover, the District must do more to improve
student achievement scores in kindergarten through 12th grade. In
school year (SY) 2000 - 2001, some 25 percent of District of
Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) students scored below basic on the
Stanford-9 Reading test and 36 percent scored below basic in math.
The more significant challenges include a large special education
population, increasing demands for adequate facilities for both
traditional and charter schools, and the need to attract and retain
highly qualified teachers. Thus, despite the steady increases in
local funding1, and other efforts to support our public schools, I
have heard firsthand from hundreds of parents who feel there are no
practical and easy alternatives for their children within the
current systems of public schools.
This gets 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 some parents. But there are still countless
students whose schools are not among those on the fast track to transformation and for
whom there are no practical charter school alternatives. Even if we
are successful in increasing the tempo on these brilliant
initiatives, there will be tens of thousands of students still
waiting for more choices. I cannot tell parents that they must
continue to wait while there are other outlets in our midst.
In short, we need to reexamine the way we do
business. It is time that we explore other solutions to ensure that
every child has access to a quality education in the District. I
have confidence that our public school system is getting better, but
that does not mean that I, as the elected Mayor of this city, should
ignore other educational assets currently at our disposal. To that
end, I welcome the federal government's interest in our public
schools and the success of the District's children.. It is high time
that the federal government address the inherent unfairness and
illogical nature of the District's fulfillment of county, city, and
state functions with a tax base severely constrained by the federal
presence. So that we can further uplift our public schools, the
federal government ought to assume our state level costs for special
education so that our local school district is not saddled with
costs that in any other jurisdiction would be borne by its state
capital. The Congress has been generous in support of our charter
schools, most recently by providing $17 million in the FY 2003
budget for facilities support. This support ought to be repeated and
expanded.
I support the President's desire to create a pilot
scholarship program in the District. I believe, if done effectively,
such a program could provide even more choices to low-income
families, who currently do not have the same freedom of choice
enjoyed by more affluent families. 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.
Dozens of studies, including those conducted by
voucher opponents, have confirmed that school vouchers increase
parental satisfaction with their child's school. Milwaukee,
Cleveland, Florida, Maine and Vermont all have some form of voucher
program and, by and large, these programs have been successful in
increasing options for families. In addition, eight rigorous studies
of six cities by research teams including scholars from Harvard,
Princeton, the University of Chicago, Indiana University, the
Brookings Institution and the Manhattan Institute, have all confirmed that school choice boosts the academic
achievement of inner-city African-American students. A recent study
prepared by a team led by William G. Howell and Patrick J. 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
percentile points (NPR) in math and reading achievement after the
first year and an average of 6.3 NPR after two years of being in
private school.2 Finally, it has been proven that school choice
increases educational attainment; 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.3
This data notwithstanding, I believe that any voucher
program for the District must recognize the reality and needs of the
city and must be crafted with full participation of the city's
elected leadership. I cannot support any program that is crafted
without the input of officials and educators in the District. H.R.
684, "The District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship
Act of 2003, " lays out precise criteria and principles for a
scholarship program in the District but was crafted and introduced
without any consultation or input from the city's elected leaders.
Moreover, the bill creates a separate corporation staffed mostly by
federal appointees to administer the program, adding another layer
of complexity to our already diffused education system.
In contrast, I am pleased that Secretary Paige and
officials at the Department of Education have met with us and asked
us to join them in designing a program that would expand the
availability of quality educational options for the District's
poorest families. I believe they are sincere in seeing that the duly
elected leaders of our municipal government and others have a major
role in designing a program that works for us and our children. An
effective voucher program for the District would, at a minimum:
- focus on low-income parents and
develop a means tested foundation;
- target students in the lowest performing schools,
especially those that are not currently slated for transformation;
- emphasize opportunities for
students who are not currently in nonpublic schools;
- seek to have students attend
schools in the District and, where possible, in their neighborhoods;
- require schools to admit all
eligible students and, in cases where grades or schools were
oversubscribed, admit students based on lottery. The goal is not to
"cream" the best and brightest students, but rather to
give the neediest children opportunities they would otherwise not
have;
- encompass a comprehensive
accountability and evaluation component that would allow for solid longitudinal data collection and analysis
so that years from now we can speak rather authoritatively about the impact on student
achievement; and
- acknowledge the need for
additional supports to help families assess information, and transition and adapt to private schools.
Such a program would allow us to make true
comparisons over the next four years about the success and failures
of each of our educational approaches. This endeavor may also
provide an opportunity for us to strengthen our state-level
oversight role with respect to the issue of private school
accountability.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, since our city began to debate
the issue of expanded school choice there has been speculation that
the resolution will have impacts far beyond the District. Some say
that what we do in the District will affect national education
policy; the likelihood of pilots in other cities; the political
standing of pro- and anti-voucher constituencies; and even the
platforms of major political parties. For me, however, the issue of
vouchers in the District has little to do with any of those factors.
I was elected by the people of my beloved city and
took a solemn oath to act in what I think are their best interests,
even in the face of conventional political wisdom. I have listened
to children and parents and conclude that I have an obligation to do
what I think is best for my city. I do not know whether vouchers are
the right thing for other cities or states, or even if they will have the same impact here 10 years from now. Today,
however, I believe I have an obligation to represent all of the
children of the District. I cannot say to thousands of our young
people and their parents that they should not have more choices and
opportunities to receive an education of which all of us can be
proud. I humbly assert that this is called leadership and is in the
finest traditions of democracy and Home Rule.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the committee on this very important issue. This concludes my
statement. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Back to top of page
TESTIMONY OF LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
ON
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY 9, 2003
GOOD MORNING. CHAIRMAN DAVIS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, I AM LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. I AM PLEASED TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU, WITH MY
COLLEAGUE COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN CHAVOUS, TO TESTIFY ON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I AM PREPARED TO MAKE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS WITH MR.
CHAVOUS, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, LIBRARIES,
AND RECREATION, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.
LET ME FIRST STATE THAT WE APPRECIATE THE INTEREST THE
PRESIDENT, HIS ADMINISTRATION, AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE TAKEN WITH
RESPECT TO THE DISTRICT'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO
IMPROVE OUR SCHOOLS, AND WE WELCOME COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO HELP US
REACH OUR GOAL OF PROVIDING AN EXEMPLARY EDUCATION TO DISTRICT STUDENTS.
WE, IN THE DISTRICT, RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO OVERHAUL OUR
SCHOOLS, AND BELIEVE SCHOOL CHOICE IS ESSENTIAL TO PUBLIC EDUCATION
REFORM. BUT, EACH COMMUNITY MUST BE PERMITTED THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE THE
BEST VEHICLES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION REFORM. EDUCATION ADVOCATES, PARENTS,
TEACHERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE
ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE BEST VEHICLE FOR REFORM IS TO OFFER CHARTER
SCHOOLS AND IMPROVE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THAT DECISION WAS CODIFIED WITH
THE ENACTMENT OF D.C. LAW 11-135, THE "PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT
OF 1996," PASSED BY THE COUNCIL ON MARCH 5, 1996.
OUR CHARTER SCHOOL LAW ENDEAVORS TO:
- INCREASE LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL STUDENTS;
- ENCOURAGE DIVERSE APPROACHES IN LEARNING AND EDUCATION, INCLUDING APPROPRIATE AND INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY;
- PROVIDE PARENTS AND STUDENTS WITH EXPANDED CHOICES IN
THE TYPES OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE IN THE
DISTRICT;
- HOLD CHARTER SCHOOLS AND THEIR TEACHERS ACCOUNTABLE
FOR ACHIEVING STUDENT PERFORMANCE LEVELS SPECIFIED BY THEIR SCHOOL
CHARTER;
- PROVIDE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH A
METHOD TO CHANGE FROM TRADITIONAL RULE-BASED TO PERFORMANCE-BASED
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS; AND
- OFFER THE COMMUNITY THE OPTION OF
INDEPENDENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT ARE FREE OF MOST STATUTES, RULES, AND
REGULATIONS.
IT APPEARS TO BE WORKING. THIS YEAR, APPROXIMATELY 18%
OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN, OR SOME 11,450 STUDENTS, ATTEND CHARTER
SCHOOLS. THIS IS AMONG THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE IN THE NATION, AND IT IS
PROJECTED TO INCREASE. IN ADDITION,
THE DISTRICT HAS MORE CHARTER SCHOOLS THAN ANY COMPARABLE JURISDICTION
IN THE COUNTRY, 35 IN NUMBER. CHOICE ALREADY EXISTS IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
THE COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT RESIDENTS MUST BE ALLOWED TO
MAKE THEIR OWN EDUCATIONAL CHOICES, THAT THE WILL OF RESIDENTS AND
LOCAL OFFICIALS IS TO PURSUE EDUCATIONAL REFORM AND TO PROVIDE
ALTERNATIVES FOR CHILDREN, AND THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RESOLVE EDUCATIONAL ISSUES LOCALLY AS DO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS.
THANK YOU.
Back to top of page
TESTIMONY OF
COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN P. CHAVOUS
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
FRIDAY, MAY 9, 2003
11:00 A.M.
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
ROOM 2154
Good morning, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton
and members of the Committee on Government Reform. It is with great
pleasure that I appear before you today to discuss education reform
and the availability of school choice in the District of Columbia.
These two issues are of great importance to me, not only as Chair of
the Council of the District of Columbia's Committee on Education,
Libraries and Recreation, but as the Councilmember for Ward 7,
located east of the Anacostia River, which has the largest
population of school age children in the District of Columbia.
Public education has long been viewed as the vehicle
for social mobility and economic success in the United States. Many
have used public education to move themselves and their families
from poverty to prosperity. And as such, its value and purpose
cannot be underestimated. But, I think few would disagree that this
vehicle has stalled. We know that across the country most urban
school districts are falling apart, and parents are frustrated and
concerned about their children's academic performance and future. And the sad fact is
that the District of Columbia is no different than any other urban
school district.
At present, there are over 77,000 school age children
living in the District. Of these children, over 66,000 attend the
District of Columbia Public Schools and close to 12,000 attend
public charter schools. In an effort to educate these children, the
government of the District of Columbia has spent more than two
billion dollars over the last four years. And despite all of our
best financial efforts, many of our children do not perform at or
above grade level and nearly half who enter high school will not
graduate.
In addition, since 1994 we have experienced a 63
increase in Special Education. That amounts to nearly 17% of our
children has having been identified as having special needs, which
is larger than most other urban school districts. Fortunately, under
Dr. Paul Vance's leadership reform efforts are underway. DCPS has a
renewed commitment to early childhood education and local school principal and
teacher development. And working with the Mayor,. through the
Council created Special Education Task Force, we have realized $20
million in savings.
Candidly, however, the main impetus for reform has
been the emergence of charter schools in the District of Columbia.
The competition created by the existence of charter schools has
worked in providing parents with a viable alternative to traditional
public schools. Charter schools have opened the arena of choice, the
centerpiece of true education reform.
After years of overseeing education reform efforts in
this city, I am absolutely convinced that no traditional school
system can reform itself internally. Reform can only occur through
pressure. And the best pressure comes by way of school choice. One
size does not fit all. Different teaching methods, as well as
different learning environments, affect student performance. Some
students excel in a group setting while others succeed as a result
of one on one instruction. This is why I believe that we must explore every option
available for helping our children succeed in the classroom.
For those reasons Mr. Chairman, I strongly support a
three-sector approach to education reform that would provide new
federal dollars to DCPS to support their state level special
education costs along with new federal dollars to public charter
schools and new federal dollars for a proposed scholarship program.
Bear in mind that this three-sector strategy is not found in H.R.
684, which unfortunately also would allow vouchers to be used for
schools in Maryland and Virginia. Therefore, I am opposed to H.R.
684.
As it relates to the notion of vouchers as an
education reform tool, I am more receptive and open to the notion
largely based on the success of our charter schools. Expanded school
choice leads to expanded educational opportunities for parents-which
more than anything serves to strengthen our traditional public
schools.
I close with an anecdotal reference to a parent who
testified at a public hearing held by my committee on school choice
in the District. The parent testified that when her first son
entered the 7th grade at a DCPS middle school there were promises
and claims of reform. She believed those promises and kept her son
in DCPS. As a result, her son graduated from an academically
under-performing high school. She now has a second son in a DCPS
junior high school. She emphatically testified that her second son
could not afford to wait three to six years for reform. Because of
her testimony and conversations with numerous parents who are
frustrated, I have become convinced that something must be done in
the interim to help their children succeed.
This is the greatest city in the world, but our true
greatness remains hidden behind the closed doors of inequitable
educational opportunities for our children. As a public official, as
a citizen, I must be and am willing to stand up and recommend what
may at first glance appear to be an unorthodox solution, but these are unorthodox times.
Finally, I believe that a three-sector approach that would make
additional federal dollar$ available to the public schools and
public charter schools, coupled with the parental option of applying
for scholarships, would best serve the residents of the District of
Columbia and the nation.
Once again, I thank you for inviting me here to
testify and I am available to respond to any questions.
Back to top of page
Peggy Cooper Cafritz
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOARD OF
EDUCATION
PRESIDENT
825 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.
PHONE: (202) 442-4289 FAX: (202) 442-5198
STATEMENT OF PEGGY COOPER CAFRITZ
PRESIDENT OF THE D.C. BOARD OF EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL
REFORM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN DAVIS AND MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE, I AM
PEGGY COOPER CAFRITZ, PRESIDENT OF THE D.C. BOARD OF EDUCATION.
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TO DISCUSS H.R. 684 AND
EDUCATIONAL REFORM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE VIEWS CONTAINED IN THIS TESTIMONY ARE MY OWN AND
DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE D.C. BOARD OF EDUCATION. ON JULY
17, 2002, THE BOARD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE CONGRESSIONAL
IMPOSITION OF VOUCHERS ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO OPPOSE A FEDERALLY IMPOSED VOUCHER PROGRAM
AND ARE WAITING FIRST TO BE CONVINCED THAT CONGRESS WILL INCREASE
ITS COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WILL
REVISIT THIS ISSUE AT OUR MAY 2003 BOARD MEETING. WE ALL WANT HOME
RULE BUT THE EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN CANNOT WAIT FOR THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT.
THERE IS AGREEMENT AND UNANIMITY ON THE GOAL OF
EQUITABLY EDUCATING EVERY CHILD IN OUR CITY. ANOTHER BELIEF THAT WE
SHARE IS THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEED GREATER
RESOURCES TO OVERCOME THE LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT. FOR ALL THE SAME
REASONS THAT IT COSTS COMPARATIVELY MORE TO RUN THE D.C. GOVERNMENT
THAN THE SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS, IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IT
WOULD COST MORE TO RUN THE D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS. EVEN BEFORE YOU
DEDUCT FOR THE STATE COSTS WE MUST BEAR, WE SPEND CONSIDERABLY LESS
THAN CONTIGUOUS JURISDICTIONS.
LEGACY OF LACK OF INVESTMENT
EVER SINCE MY COLLEAGUES AND I ASSUMED OFFICE, WE
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN REFORMING A BROKEN SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT HAS NEVER
RECEIVED SUFFICIENT RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR SUSTAINING REFORM. WE
FOUND AN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WITH DETERIORATING SCHOOL BUILDINGS,
UNDERACHIEVING SCHOOLS WITH TOO MANY STUDENTS WHO LACKED THE
ACADEMIC SKILLS TO PREPARE THEM FOR THE FUTURE, AND POOR PERSONNEL
AND BUDGETARY SYSTEMS. WE FOUND A SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN BUILT ON A
LEGACY OF TOO MANY BROKEN PROMISES, TOO MANY FAILED EXPERIMENTS, AND
TOO FEW RESOURCES TO OVERCOME THE MANY YEARS OF NEGLECT. SIMPLY PUT,
CONGRESSMEN, WE HAVE TO KEEP THE TRAINS RUNNING IN THIS BROKEN
SYSTEM EVERY DAY WHILE WE WORK HARD AND FAST AT BUILDING A REAL
SCHOOL SYSTEM - THE KIND THAT HAS NOT EXISTED IN D.C. FOR DECADES.
WITH THE HELP OF MANY COMMITTED TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS,
PARENTS, AND LEADERS IN THE COMMUNITY, WE ARE BEGINNING TO ADDRESS
THIS LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT. WE ARE BEGINNING TO EXPERIENCE A
MODICUM OF SUCCESS THAT WILL LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE
REFORM. WE HAVE EMBRACED REFORM AND ALL THAT IT ENCOMPASSES. WE HAVE
EMBRACED COMPETITION WITH THE HOPE THAT EVERY CHILD REALIZES HIS
FULL POTENTIAL. THE BOARD OVERSEES A SUCCESSFUL CHARTER SCHOOL
PROGRAM THAT SERVES 16 CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH 2,880 STUDENTS. WE ARE
TACKLING THE BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA THAT CAN IMPEDE REFORM. WE HAVE
DEVELOPED, WITH COUNSEL FROM MCKINSEY COMPANY, AND ARE IMPLEMENTING
A BUSINESS PLAN FOR STRATEGIC REFORM THAT SERVES AS OUR ROADMAP FOR
EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT CHANGE. BECAUSE OF THESE EFFORTS, MANY OF
THE DEFICIENCIES CITED IN THE LEGISLATIVE NARRATIVE USED TO JUSTIFY
H.R. 684 ARE NOW UNTRUE.
OUR STUDENTS ARE IMPROVING ACADEMICALLY. WE HAVE
RAISED TEST SCORES IN APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OF DCPS SCHOOLS AND
INCREASED READING PERFORMANCE AT NEARLY EVERY GRADE LEVEL. WE ARE
TRANSFORMING 15 HISTORICALLY LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS. WE HAVE
WITNESSED ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE GAINS IN ALMOST ALL OF OUR ORIGINAL
TRANSFORMATION SCHOOLS, INCLUDING DRAMATIC GAINS OF 15 TO 20 PERCENT
IN TEST SCORES AT A NUMBER OF THEM. WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS WITHIN OUR SCHOOLS. WE HAVE RECRUITED
AN OUTSTANDING TEAM OF MANAGERS AND EDUCATORS. WE ARE IMPLEMENTING
NEW ACCOUNTING, PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT WILL ASSIST
US IN BETTER MANAGING AND CONTROLLING RESOURCES. WE HAVE PREPARED A
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGET THAT WILL LINK EXPENDITURES TO PROGRAMS AND
ASSIST DECISION-MAKERS AND OUR PARENTS IN ASSESSING OUR ACADEMIC AND MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE.
LACK OF RESOURCES IS THE GREATEST CHALLENGE
BUT WE ARE IN DANGER OF REGRESSING AND HALTING OUR
REFORM EFFORTS. WE DO NOT FEAR CHOICE, BUT WE DO FEAR THE LACK OF
FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR EFFORTS TO REFORM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. IF
ONE GOAL OF CHOICE IS COMPETITION, IT IS DISHONEST TO NOT GIVE DCPS
THE TOOLS IT NEEDS TO COMPETE. OUR BUDGET IS BEING CUT CONTINUALLY
AND WE ARE NOW FORCED TO CUT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES IN OUR
CLASSROOMS. THIS FISCAL YEAR WE BEGAN WITH A BUDGET OF $743.7
MILLION AND IT- HAS BEEN REDUCED TO $713.5 MILLION. RATHER THAN
SPENDING MOST OUR TIME IN IMPROVING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, MY
COLLEAGUES AND I SPEND A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF TIME WIELDING
THE BUDGETARY AXE. ONE WAY CONGRESS CAN HELP IS BY PROHIBITING THE
CUTTING OF THE SCHOOLS' BUDGET AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL
YEAR. THIS WILL REQUIRE YOUR DIRECT FINANCIAL SUPPORT. THE
MANAGEMENT OF A CHILD CENTERED AGENCY DIFFERS FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF
OTHER AGENCIES.
THE BOARD PROPOSED A FISCAL YEAR 2004 LOCAL OPERATING
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $847.8 MILLION, WHICH FUNDED OUR BASE LEVEL
BUDGET OF $740.5 MILLION, $64.6 MILLION OF MANDATED COSTS, AND $44.6
IN EDUCATIONAL REFORM INVESTMENTS. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE
RECOMMENDING AN OPERATING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $742.6 MILLION, AN
INCREASE OF ONLY $29.1 MILLION ABOVE OUR REVISED FY 2003 BUDGET OF
$713.5 MILLION.
THE BOARD REQUESTED A SIX-YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET OF $2.0
BILLION TO IMPLEMENT OUR MODERNIZATION PROGRAM. THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL HAVE RECOMMENDED ONLY $511 MILLION OVER 4 YEARS, INCLUDING
FISCAL YEAR 2004. AS A CONSEQUENCE, WE WILL BE FORCED TO SEVERELY
REDUCE OUR MODERNIZATION EFFORTS. THE LEGISLATIVE NARRATIVE OF H.R
684 FOUND THAT "MANY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S 146 SCHOOLS
ARE IN A STATE OF TERRIBLE DISREPAIR, INCLUDING LEAKING ROOFS,
BITTERLY COLD CLASSROOMS, AND NUMEROUS FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS."
OUR SITUATION IS SO BAD THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM I
CAN FIND THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE BUDGET. THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILT ALMOST ALL OF THESE SCHOOLS, WHICH AVERAGE
63 YEARS OF AGE. THE DISTRICT MANAGED THESE BUILDINGS UNTIL 1991
WHEN IT RETURNED THEM TO DCPS IN A HEINOUS STATE OF DISREPAIR. THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DID AN ASSESSMENT IN 1996 CONCLUDING
THAT 90 PERCENT OF THEM NEEDED TO BE REPLACED OR GUTTED AND REBUILT!
THE BOARD HAS MADE SOME PROGRESS IN MODERNIZING ITS FACILITIES, BUT
IN MANY RESPECTS WE HAVE JUST BEGUN. FOUR NEW SCHOOLS HAVE OPENED.
SIX MORE ARE IN CONSTRUCTION FOR 2003 AND 2004 OPENINGS. TEN SCHOOLS
ARE IN DESIGN, SLATED FOR GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONIES THIS YEAR.
CONGRESS CAN GREATLY HELP BY FUNDING OUR CAPITAL COSTS OR PAYING THE
FINANCING EXPENSE OF ACQUIRING BONDS TO PAY FOR OUR MODERNIZATION
EFFORTS AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS
DO NOT MEET OUR NEEDS. THOSE BUDGETS WILL NOT FUND ASBESTOS
ABATEMENT, STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS, START-UP FUNDS FOR
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT TO BRING OUR ART, MUSIC, AND PHYSICAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS UP TO MINIMUM NATIONAL STANDARDS, OR A TEN-WEEK
SUMMER PROGRAM FOR MATH AND READING TO BETTER ASSIST OUR ACADEMICALLY
LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS. A SYSTEM-WIDE TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM TO
RETAIN NEW TEACHERS CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
THE LEVEL OF POVERTY OF OUR STUDENTS IS OVER 50
PERCENT. THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT UNLESS THEY ARE PHYSICALLY AND
EMOTIONALLY READY, THEY WILL NOT LEARN. THEREFORE, WE NEED A SUPPORT
SERVICE NETWORK AVAILABLE IN EACH SCHOOL. WE HAVE STATED A PROGRAM
WITH THE MAYOR THAT WORKS VERY WELL. EACH CHARTER SCHOOL AND 16
PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH WORKER BUT THE NEED IS FAR
GREATER. CONGRESS CAN HELP BY FUNDING THESE SUPPORT SERVICES.
WITHOUT THESE INVESTMENTS, THE JOB OF REFORMING
PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL WILL BE RENDERED UNDOABLE.
VOUCHER PROGRAM CAN BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO LOW
PERFORMING SCHOOLS
I BELIEVE THAT THE VOUCHER PROGRAM ENVISIONED UNDER
H.R. 684 IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS. I
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS MUCH ROOM UNDER THE TENT FOR ANY IDEAS OR
APPROACHES THAT HELP OUR STUDENTS. UNDER H.R. 684 A PRIVATE, A
NONPROFIT CORPORATION, KNOWN AS THE `DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION', WILL ADMINISTER A VOUCHER PROGRAM AND WILL
DETERMINE STUDENT AND SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROGRAM. THE CORPORATION WILL HAVE A BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMPRISED
OF SEVEN MEMBERS, SIX APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND ONE APPOINTED
BY THE MAYOR. THE LEGISLATION AUTHORIZES FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $7
MILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004; $8 MILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005, $10 MILLION FOR EACH OF
FISCAL YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2008.
THE VOUCHER PROGRAM CAN BE GREATLY ENHANCED BY HAVING
THE PARTICIPATION OF THE WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION AND THE
BLACK STUDENT FUND. SEVERAL YEARS OLD AND ESTABLISHED BY
PHILANTHROPISTS, THE WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION PROVIDES
SMALL SCHOLARSHIPS TO DISTRICT STUDENTS TO ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
THE BLACK STUDENT FUND, LAUNCHED BY SOME OF THE DISTRICT'S MOST
AUGUST CITIZENS OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, HAS SENT HUNDREDS OF
LOW-INCOME D.C. STUDENTS TO THE FINEST PRIVATE SCHOOLS. FORTUNATELY,
WE DO NOT HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH. WE HAVE ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS
COMMUNITY THAT HAVE A SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORD ADMINISTERING
VOUCHER-TYPE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS. THEY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE NEW ENTITY. I DO NOT SUPPORT GIVING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS PROGRAM OVER TO A CURRENT PRIVATE PROGRAM
BECAUSE WE STILL NEED THE PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC ACTIVITY GENERATED
BY SUCH PROGRAMS.
CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HAVING GREATER
PARTICIPATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT ELECTED AND
APPOINTED EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE
SELECTION OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION. BECAUSE WE
CONSIDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A WORTHY NEIGHBOR, THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD HAVE TWO APPOINTEES AND EACH HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ONE APPOINTEE.
THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD APPOINT ONE MEMBER. THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT, IN ITS ROLE AS
THE STATE EDUCATION AGENCY, SHOULD APPOINT THREE MEMBERS. OF THESE
THREE, ONE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTEES TO THE D.C. BOARD
OF EDUCATION.
BOTH THE BLACK STUDENT FUND AND THE WASHINGTON
SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION SHOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD.
THE LEGISLATION DOES INCLUDE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR STUDENTS AND PRIVATE SCHOOL PARTICIPANTS. I BELIEVE THAT H.R.
684 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS
THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM SHOULD BE OPEN AND
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL STUDENTS - STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES, ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS, AND HOMELESS STUDENTS. I AGREE WITH THE INCOME
LIMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN H.R. 684 BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOSELY
TIED TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FREE LUNCH PROGRAM.
IN ALL PROBABILITY, THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FUNDS TO SATISFY
DEMAND FOR THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VOUCHERS. THESE LIMITED RESOURCES
SHOULD THEREFORE, BY WEIGHTED LOTTERY, BE DIRECTED TO THOSE WITH THE
GREATEST NEED.
I FURTHER BELIEVE THAT IF THE PROGRAM IS TO BE
SUCCESSFUL, THEN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM MUST PROVIDE SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO HELP PARENTS NEGOTIATE THE ADMISSIONS
PROCESS OF THE PAROCHIAL AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS. THE ADMISSIONS AND
SELECTION PROCESS CAN BE A DAUNTING EXPERIENCE FOR WELL TO DO
PARENTS. THOSE BARRIERS SHOULD BE REMOVED FOR ALL PARENTS WHO WANT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM.
THE LEGISLATION DOES REQUIRE THAT THE CORPORATION
SHOULD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN CONSULTATION WITH THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA BOARD OF EDUCATION OR ENTITY EXERCISING ADMINISTRATIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND OTHER
SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CONSULTATION SHOULD INCLUDE THE REQUIRED PARTICIPATION OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM
COMPLEMENTS THE EFFORTS OF PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS TO IMPROVE
EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF ALL STUDENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN
EXISTENCE FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM RATHER THAN THE THREE YEARS
RECOMMENDED IN H.R 684. IF THE PROGRAM IS TO WORK, THEN THE PRIVATE
SCHOOLS MUST HAVE A RECORD OF SUCCESS. OVER HALF OF OUR CHARTER
SCHOOLS ARE FAILING ACCORDING TO NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND STANDARDS
BECAUSE ANYBODY WAS ALLOWED TO APPLY, WHICH PRODUCED A LOT OF FLY BY
NIGHT FAILURES. WE MUST PROTECT THIS NEW PROGRAM FROM SUCH MISTAKES.
WHAT GOOD IS THE VOUCHER PROGRAM IF STUDENTS LEAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FOR LOW PERFORMING PRIVATE SCHOOLS? TO ASSIST PARENTS IN SELECTING
AND EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF PARTICIPATING PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND
FACILITATING CHOICE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANNUALLY SHOULD PUBLISH
PROFILES INCLUDING TEST SCORES FOR PUBLIC, CHARTER, AND PRIVATE
SCHOOLS AND ASSIGNING VALUES TO THOSE SCORES TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR
PARENTS TO COMPARE THEIR RELATIVE PERFORMANCE. THE FEDERAL
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOULD ASSUME THE EXPENSE FOR MAILING A COPY
OF THIS MANUAL TO EACH HOUSEHOLD IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS.
I BELIEVE THAT THE VOUCHER PROGRAM SHOULD BE LIMITED
TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ALLOWING STUDENTS TO
ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA DIMINISHES OUR CIVIC
CULTURE AND DENUDES OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. WE SHOULD BE DOING ALL WE CAN
TO STRENGTHEN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROMOTING COMMUNITY SPIRIT.
PROMOTING PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOT LOCATED HERE IS DETRIMENTAL TO OUR GOAL OF
REINVESTING HUMAN AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY LIFE
AND THAT INCLUDES GOING TO SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
LEARNING ABOUT THEIR ROLE AS CITIZENS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS CAN ENSURE THAT THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, CONGRESS ENACTED A PER PUPIL STUDENT FUNDING
FORMULA THAT FUNDS STUDENTS EQUITABLY. THE BUDGET FOR DCPS AND THE
CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE NUMBER OF THE STUDENTS THAT
ATTEND THEIR SCHOOLS. WHEN A STUDENT OBTAINS A VOUCHER AND LEAVES
THE PUBLIC OR CHARTER SCHOOL, THEN THE MONEY WILL VANISH. CONGRESS
CAN HELP BY INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE ALLOWING DCPS TO COUNT
THE CHILDREN WHO ARE IN DCPS NOW AS PERMANENT BASELINE.
IN ADDITION, EACH CHILD SHOULD RECEIVE A SCHOOL I.D.
NUMBER AND THE MONEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHILD. IF A CHILD LEAVES A
CHARTER OR PRIVATE SCHOOL TO RETURN TO DCPS, THEN THE MONEY MUST
ACCOMPANY THE CHILD. IN THE FUTURE,
VOUCHERS SHOULD BE FEDERALLY FUNDED BY THE ESTABLISHED PER PUPIL
FUNDING FORMULA. IF THEY ARE DOING THE JOB OF FULLY EDUCATING THE
CHILD, IT DOES NOT COST THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ANY LESS. WE ARE BEYOND
THE ERA OF NUNS ON POVERTY VOWS STAFFING THOSE SCHOOLS.
IMPLEMENTING THESE SUGGESTIONS WILL FACILITATE
PARTICIPATION IN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM AND ELIMINATE FINANCIAL HARM TO
THE PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.
CONCLUSION
WE ARE ALL FRUSTRATED BY THE SLOW PACE OF PROGRESS IN
IMPROVING PUBLICLY FUNDED EDUCATION. BUT THAT PROGRESS IS IN DANGER
IN BEING THWARTED BY THE REDUCTION IN BUDGETS AND THE CONTINUED LACK
OF ADEQUATE INVESTMENT. IF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES ARE NOT PROVIDED, WE
ARE AGAIN MAKING EMPTY PROMISES TO OUR CHILDREN. VOUCHERS SHOULD NOT
REPLACE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS. THE
REALITY IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF CHILDREN WILL CONTINUE TO RELY UPON
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WE MUST BE CLEAN THAT NOT ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS
ARE PANACEAS. OVER 50 PERCENT OF OUR CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOW
FAILING. WHILE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS HAVE MADE DRAMATIC GAINS WITH THE
CHANGES THAT CARDINAL MCCARRACK HAS MADE THROUGH THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL
CONSORTIUM, THEIR STRUGGLE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF MANY SCHOOLS 1N
DCPS. IF YOU DO NOT GIVE DCPS THE TOOLS TO COMPETE WITH CHARTER
SCHOOLS AND VOUCHERS, THE CRIMINAL NEGLECT WILL CONTINUE TO BE
VISITED ON A MAJORITY OF OUR STUDENTS.
WE OWE TO EVERY CHILD THE COMMITMENT AND EFFORT TO
TRY ANY PROGRAM THAT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO IMPROVE THE ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE OF OUR CHILDREN. I AM COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH YOU TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
Back to top of page
Testimony of Josephine Baker
Executive Director
DC Public Charter School Board
Before the Congressional Committee on Government
Reform
May 9, 2003
Chairman Davis and Members of the Committee:
I am Josephine Baker, Executive Director of the DC
Public Charter School Board (PCSB). I thank you for this opportunity
to share the Board's perspective on charter schools and the
important contributions they are making to public education in the
District of Columbia. My involvement in and support of public
education in D.C. has been life-long. I am a product of the DC
Public School System, as are my three children. Having contributed
twenty-five years of service as a DCPS elementary school teacher, I
feel I have first-hand knowledge of the importance and value of
public education, particularly in this city.
The District of Columbia Public Schools are now
presenting evidence that long-sought solutions are working. The
reconstituted and transformation schools are showing great promise.
Student achievement is improving, faculty morale is at a new high,
and parents and community members are encouraged to see the
tremendous resources and energy that have been infused into schools
that were in the greatest need of transformation. While there is
still much work to be done, the evidence suggests that continued
support will move the transformation schools, and the public school
system, upward to a new heights.
Over the past six years, charter schools have been a
significant catalyst for change in our city. They are
independently-operated public schools that are open to all District
residents, regardless of their neighborhood, ability, socioeconomic
status, or academic achievement. There is no exclusivity - no
discriminatory admissions tests or other requirements. There are no
tuition fees. Parents and students choose to. attend a particular
charter school because its unique focus, curriculum, structure,
size, and other features meet the needs of those families. Charter
schools are often created through a collaboration of innovative
teachers, parents, and community non-profits. They attract
energetic, creative teachers and administrators, who are passionate
about education and who want to offer an alternative to the
traditional school formats. As we move into a new kind of economy,
charter schools represent a progressive approach to education that
is preparing the next generation to succeed in an information-based
society.
In exchange for the greater degree of autonomy
charter schools must accept greater accountability. Each school must
establish a Board-approved accountability plan as a part of its
charter, which is then used to monitor and measure progress. The DC
Charter Law gives charter schools 5 years to demonstrate progress
toward their accountability plan targets, or risk charter
revocation. The PCSB will continue this approach, incorporating NCLB
guidelines.
There are 42 charter schools serving more than
12,000. students in the city. That amounts to one in every 7
students in D.C. public schools. The majority of the student
populations in the charter schools are from low-income families.
Despite the obstacles of inadequate facilities and funding,
community demand continues to grow, because of the innovative
offerings and the remarkable progress we have seen in student and
school achievement. I'll share with you a few of the many examples
of success stories:
- Cesar Chavez Public Charter High
School for Public Policy, graduated its first class in 2002. 100% of its graduates were accepted to
college, receiving over $1 million dollars in college scholarships, as well as
numerous academic honors and awards.
- Maya Angelou Public Charter High School targets
adjudicated and drop-out youth, and places great emphasis on
building their skills to succeed in college. While they haven't
shown particularly impressive SAT-9 scores, students have made
significant improvement in SAT scores. This has resulted in a very
high of their students graduating, and attending college on
scholarship. So far 70% of those students have remained in college.
A small number of students who have extreme need are provided
residential accommodations on a space available basis. The school's
unique success has' earned it a Gates Foundation grant to replicate
the concept at other sites in the city.
- The Arts and Technology Academy
is an elementary public charter school that inspires their students
to excel in academic subjects using the Arts and Technology.
Attendance is consistently very high and SAT-9 Math and Reading
scores _have improved each year - most significantly in its third
year (in 2002). 98% of the students are low-income.
- SEED, the only public charter
boarding school, provides a nurturing environment for students in
grades 7 through 12, and prepares them for college and future
careers. SEED seeks out students whose home and neighborhood
environments have proven to be barriers to their academic
achievement.
- Several of our charter schools
offer Saturday, after-school and summer programs that include
academic enrichment, community service, music and sports activities
and parent training.
- Seven of the nine schools that
are now in their fifth year of operation have consistently met their
accountability targets since opening. The remaining two schools have
submitted improvement plans.
- Nineteen of the twenty-one
schools have had an average attendance of approximately 90% or
higher.
- Students have earned awards and
honors from organizations such as the National Academy of Math and
Science, the Washington Post Educational Foundation, Model UN, DC
Scholastic Chess Championships, DC Public Defenders, and many
others.
- On SAT-9 tests, there was a
positive gain in both reading and math across all grades. The
elementary schools showed the most impressive gains from the
previous year. We have deduced that the earlier and longer children
have been in charter schools, the greater their gains have been on
the SAT-9. High school students had the least gains in scores, which can be
attributed to the fact they have come to the schools with many more
years of academic deficits.
There are many other individual stories about
students and schools succeeding against tremendous odds that I
haven't shared with you today. Charter school leaders and parents
are pushing through and working around tremendous barriers, such as
sharing buildings and classrooms with other schools; using church
basements, and/or facilities without playgrounds, gymnasiums,
kitchens or labs. They are finding creative solutions. In order to
meet increasing community demand, many have been forced to spend a
large proportion of their funding on expensive building leases in an
extremely competitive real estate market. Others are unable to add
grades if they cannot find affordable additional space. Often money
to fully invest in creative programming, to offer competitive
salaries and benefits to teachers, and to provide other needed
services is compromised to pay the expensive rental rates. Some
schools have been successful in finding private donations, but even
that has waned in the recent economic downturns. Despite the many
obstacles, many of the charter schools have long waiting lists.
It is exciting to imagine the impact that charter
schools would make if not constrained by limited funding. Schools
could purchase appropriate facilities and add or update technology
and science labs, kitchens, playgrounds, gymnasiums and libraries.
Their innovative curricula could be fully implemented with
continuous staff and faculty development. Additional services needed
by students and their families could be provided. More new schools
might be opened. Thousands more students could be enrolled.
It is our contention that any additional federal
funding that is available to provide alternatives to public school
students would be well spent on charter and transformation schools.
Local leaders have invested in and supported these alternatives in
recent years, and we are beginning to see positive returns. Now is
the time to leverage that investment to benefit a large number of
additional students, rather than divert desperately needed funding
towards unproven experiments. Federal legislation is not needed to
address the educational concerns of this city. What is needed is
Federal support of local, publicly accountable alternatives that are
already working. We appreciate the opportunity to share our
perspective and invite your questions.
Back to top of page
Helen F. Ladd
Testimony on Alternative Schools and Educational Reform
in the District of Columbia
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
May 9, 2003
Helen F. Ladd
Professor of Public Policy Studies
Sanford Institute of Public Policy
Duke University,
Durham N.C, 27708
Hladd@pps.duke.edu
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I am a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke
University. I have done extensive research on public school choice
in the urban areas of New Zealand and have closely followed the
literature on school choice in general, and on vouchers in
particular, in the U.S. and in other countries, including Chile and
Sweden. I am the author of a recent article entitled "School
Vouchers: a Critical View "(Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Fall, 2002) which I have submitted for the record, and also of a
monograph, Market Based Reforms in Urban Education (Economic Policy
Institute, 2002).
Like public school systems in many other large U.S.
cities, the Washington, D.C. school system faces serious challenges,
many of which are related to its high concentrations of economically
disadvantaged students. Because one size school does not fit all and
because students from low-income families tend to have far fewer
schooling options than do students from higher income families, I
support efforts to give lowincome families more choice. The argument
for greater choice is far more compelling, however, when it is
cautiously applied to schools within the public sector than when it
is extended to private schools, as would be the case under HR 684.
This conclusion follows because policy makers are in a better
position to assure fair access to public than to private schools and
to hold schools that are publicly operated or publicly chartered and
funded accountable to the public.
The counter argument would be that by expanding
choice to private schools poor children will gain access to a set of
schools that are superior to the public schools and as a result will
achieve at higher levels. My first and most important message this
afternoon is that expanding choice to private schools through a
publicly funded scholarship program is not likely to lead to higher
student achievement.
No achievement gains for students who use vouchers
The best evidence on achievement gains emerges from a
series of extremely high quality studies by Professor Paul Peterson
and his colleagues of privately funded voucher programs in New York
City, Washington, D.C. and Dayton, Ohio. (See reference 1.) I refer
to the studies in these glowing terms because they are all based on
experimental research designs of the type that are common in medical
research, namely experiments in which families who apply for
vouchers are randomly assigned to receive a voucher for a private
school or not. Gains in achievement can then be inferred by
comparing the achievement of those who use the voucher to move to a
private school with those who remained in the public school (with
appropriate attention to some statistical issues along the way).
Based on three years of data from New York and
Washington, D.C., and two years from Dayton, the authors find no
evidence of an overall achievement difference between the public and
the private schools either in the aggregate or for any of the
individual cities. This finding that the private schools are no
better at raising the performance of low-income students than are
the public schools flies in the face of well-known claims made by
pro-voucher researchers such as John Chubb and Terry Moe that the
autonomy of private schools will make them more productive than the
more bureaucratic private schools.
Only when the authors looked separately at the
results for specific racial or ethnic groups did they find any
positive differences between students who switched to private
schools and those who remained in public schools. In particular,
they report positive effects for African Americans, but even these
effects are suspect because they are consistent neither across
cities nor across grades. Consider, for example, the findings for
Washington, D.C. Highly touted gains of over 9 percentile points in
test scores for African Americans in the second year of the D.C.
program completely disappeared by the third year of the program, by
which time declines in test scores emerged for voucher users in some
grades. Moreover, a reanalysis of the New York City data by
Professor Alan Krueger and Pei Zhu of Princeton has subjected to
question even the apparently stronger and more consistent findings
for New York City. Krueger and Pei found that when the definition of
a black student was broadened to be more consistent with OMB
guidelines on racial identity and when the sample was expanded to
include students who started in kindergarten the statistically
significant findings for African Americans reported by Professor
Peterson and his colleagues disappeared. (See reference 2.)
These findings are not surprising. Undoubtedly,
private schools come in many different forms, with some of them
being very good and others being quite poor at raising achievement.
The findings simply suggest that on average -the sorts of private
schools that are available to low-income students bearing vouchers
are no better than the public schools. Importantly, however, it is
worth worrying about the quality of any new schools that would
emerge in response to an expanded scholarship program. Evidence from
Chile's 20-year experience with a voucher program, for example,
shows that student achievement in the long-established, and
generously resourced, Roman Catholic schools exceeded that in the traditional public schools, but
student achievement fell short in the new secular for-profit schools
that emerged in response to the voucher program. (See reference 3)
No compelling evidence of positive effects through
competition
In the absence of achievement gains for the users of
vouchers, it is reasonable to ask whether the introduction of a
large scale voucher program would improve the education system by
inducing public schools to compete for students with private
schools. The evidence suggests that the jury is still out on this
issue.
First, studies of the U.S. experience with private
schools indicates at most a small positive impact of private
schools' competition on academic achievement in the public schools.
A comprehensive review of 94 estimates in 14 studies shows that most
were statistically insignificant and that any positive effects were
either substantively small or subject to question based on
subsequent studies. (See reference 4).
Second, the small size of most of the existing
publicly and privately funded U.S. voucher programs means that
competitive effects are likely to be small. Though some researchers
have claimed large competitive effects from the 1998 expansion of
the Milwaukee voucher program and from the Florida voucher program,
the conclusions are suspect since it is not possible to separate the
effects of the vouchers from those of other policy changes. For
example, achievement gains in schools subject to a threat of a
voucher in Florida are more likely to be attributable to the state's
accountability program than to the voucher program. (See reference
5.)
Third, potentially more reliable evidence emerges
from Chile. Careful statistical analysis of the effects of vouchers
on the traditional public schools in that country provided no
evidence of they exerted a clear positive effect on the country's
traditional public schools. (See reference 6.)
Even if the evidence were to indicate that
competition were a positive force for change, it is not clear why
such competition would have to come from private schools rather than
from within the public school system. Competition can be generated
by permitting students to choose among traditional public schools or
to switch to charter schools. Indeed one of the main arguments for
charter schools is that their presence will improve the traditional
public schools.
Defining the federal role with respect to voucher
programs
Whether the federal government should be promoting a
school voucher program in Washington D.C. raises a number of complex
issues that are specific to that city and that are beyond the scope
of my testimony. However, I would like to end my remarks with a
final observation about the federal role in education policy
innovations of this type.
If federal policy makers believe that a school
voucher program similar to the one described in HR 684 has the
potential to generate positive educational outcomes, and on that
basis, decide to implement it in one or more cities throughout the
country, it is incumbent on the federal government to make sure the
program is fully evaluated. Careful evaluation would require
designing the program from the beginning with evaluation in mind.
Following the lead of Professor Peterson and his colleagues, such an
evaluation would require that baseline data be collected on all
applicants, that applicants be randomly assigned to receive a
voucher or to be in the control group, and that all participants be
followed over time. The current version of HR 684 falls far short of
this standard for evaluation.
Since the benefits of experimentation and evaluation
extend beyond any one district or state, a strong case can be made
that the federal government is the most logical entity to engage in
policy experiments and evaluations of this form. Personally I would
prefer to have the federal government promote policy experiments
that are more likely than vouchers to be promising for improving the
achievement of disadvantaged students in urban areas. Such programs
might include, for example, efforts to give high quality teachers
stronger incentives to teach in urban schools serving large
concentrations of disadvantaged students. Nonetheless if the chosen
policy intervention is a school voucher program, taxpayer dollars
will be well spent only if the program is subject to a formal
evaluation so that it can generate useful information for other
urban areas about the outcomes, both intended and unintended, of
such programs.
References
1. William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson, The
Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Brookings Institution
Press, 2002).
2. Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu, "Another Look at
the New York City School Voucher Experiment." Processed,
Princeton University, December, 2002.
3. Patrick J. McEwan and Martin Carnoy, "The
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Private Schools in Chile's Voucher
System." Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol 22, no.
3. 2000.
4. Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin, "The
Effects of Competition on Educational Outcomes: A Review of the U.S.
Evidence." Teachers' College, Columbia University, National
Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Occasional Paper
no. 35, 2001.
5. Helen F. Ladd, "School Vouchers: A Critical
View," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16, no 4, Fall
2002.
6. Patrick J. McEwan, "The Potential Impact of
Large Scale Voucher Programs." Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 70, no. 2. Summer 2000.
Back to top of page
STATEMENT
of
Casey Lartigue, Policy Analyst
Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom
Cato Institute,
Washington, D.C.
for the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform
Full committee hearing on "In Search of
Educational Excellence in the Nation's Capital: A Review of Academic Options for Students and Parents in the District
of Columbia."
May 9, 2003
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Casey Lartigue. I'm an education policy
analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. It is unfortunate
that we must have this hearing on increasing educational choice for
D.C. parents. The discussion should not be over whether there should
be another educational choice, but rather, on how to bring as many
educational choices as possible to parents.
Most of us are familiar with recent stories about
textbooks being delivered late to D.C. public school students; about
non-employees being on the school payroll; about numerous errors in
study guides; about low test scores; even about the expectations of
public school leadership to receive praise for starting the school
year on time. But I ask -- is this failure new?
Next year will mark the 200th anniversary of the
founding of public education in the nation's capital. I would
suggest that we not hold a party. A comprehensive report released in
1805 read: "In these schools poor children shall be taught
reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the
mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are
intended to follow."
Has the District been successful in fulfilling its
mission to educate local residents? With 37 percent of district
residents reading at the 3rd grade level or below, with SAT scores
more than 200 points below the national average, with D.C. public
school students performing well below the national .average on just
out every known academic - achievement measure, I would say: the
answer is no.
During previous congressional hearings,. a U.S.
Senator concluded: "A crisis has been reached in the school
system of Washington. The education of more than 60,000 children is
involved." Although that would: accurately.. describe the
situation in the nation's; capital,. . today, those words were
spoken by Sen. Pat Harrison (D-Miss.) in a select committee report.
In 1920.
Seventy-six years later, the Financial Control Board
concluded that the leadership of D.C.'s public school system was
"dysfunctional" and famously pointed out that "for
each additional year that students stay in DCPS, the less likely
they are to succeed, not because they are unable to succeed, but
because the system does not prepare them to succeed."
We've had warnings along the way that the system has
been a well-funded failure.
In 1947, the superintendent of schools declared that
D.C. had "one of the sorriest school systems in the country."
The 980-page Strayer report, published in 1949, found that
D.C. students were achieving below the national average in all
academic areas. An analysis of standardized test scores in the 1950s
reveals that when one-third of the students in the District were
white, public school students in the District were trailing the
national average on all subjects tested. In 1967, a comprehensive
15-month study of public schools in D.C. found a "low level of
scholastic achievement as measured by performance on standardized
tests." A few months earlier in an editorial, with the headline "The Silent Disaster," the
Washington Post said, "The collapse of public education in
Washington is now evident." That was in 1967.
The main point of this is to point out that the
failure of DCPS is not new. We wouldn't be rocking a smoothly
sailing boat by trying something different.
The opponents of choice have expressed numerous
concerns. I'd like to briefly address three of them:
1) "D.C. already has choice."
This is said to be an objection to vouchers, but I
welcome it as good news. That means that the argument over choice
has been fought-and won. We are no longer debating whether choice is
good. I would like to remind the committee that charters were not
popular when the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995
passed. They were "untried." The first charter school law
passed only four years earlier, in Minnesota. Only 12 states had
them by the time D.C. decided to try them, over the objections of
many local constituents and leaders.
Charters were opposed by the D.C. Board of Education
and also opposed by the local teachers union. One council member
said: "We don't need nobody to come in and run our
schools." The president of the board of education said that
charters "are taking away from the basic premise of education
to allow public funds to go to private schools." We now see
that charter schools have been a positive addition to the D.C.
education system. These points are now made today about vouchers.
2) "Not enough available space. "
The same was said of charters in 1995. Eight years
later, we know that the critics were wrong. Now there are more than
40 charter schools, educating more than 14,000 students. A decade
from now, there could be more diversity with charter schools, public
schools, private schools accepting vouchers, homeschools, and
virtual schools all competing for students.
3) "D. C. residents have already voted against
vouchers"/"D. C. residents are opposed to vouchers"
D.C. residents voted against tuition tax credits in
1981. A lot has changed since then, even in D.C. with the
introduction of charters. The students in the schools today were not
even alive then. I believe that parents would embrace vouchers as
much as they embrace charter schools today, if given a chance. The
historical record suggests that the public school system cannot
reform itself. It is time to put power in the hands of parents by
greatly increasing the range of educational choices.
Back to top of page
Testimony of Jackie Pinckney-Hackett
Committee on Government Reform
May 9, 2003
Good afternoon Chairman Davis and Members of the
Committee on Government Reform.
My name is Jackie Pinckney-Hackett and I am the PTA
President at Jefferson JHS in Washington, DC. I am also a parent of
two sons who attend DC Public Schools--Jefferson JHS and School
Without Walls SHS. Thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony on school choice. I would like to begin by sharing a very
brief article I wrote on the liberal Out-of-Boundary process in the
District.
Read Article--A Day to Remember
There are over 6,000 parents in the District who want
and need a school choice program. The condition of D.C. Public
Schools is not secret. Our children should not be left to suffer
while we attempt to improve academic performance in DC Public
Schools.
This School Choice Program must be a true and equal
choice opportunity not to mention fully funded. Each choice should
offer the student an excellent academic opportunity. Therefore, it
may be necessary to enhance all school choices to the same
performance level. It may also mean providing scholarships in the
amount of $10, 000 per student. To just give money for scholarships
is not enough. Keep in mind there are not a sufficient number of
slots in private schools to accommodate 6,000 plus students. Money
is also needed to improve public and public charter schools.
In closing, I encourage federal legislation to
address educational issues in the District with a School Choice
Program that the nation can be proud of.
Thank you.
A Day to Remember
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 will be a day to remember
for all Americans. It is the day we began war to disarm
Iraq--"Operation Iraqi Freedom". And for many District
parents it was the day the lottery was held by DCPS for
out-of-boundary placements-"Operation School Choice". Both
operations contained a "shock and awe" component. For Iraq
the "shock and awe" was delayed a day or two, however, for
the District parents it had an immediate impact. You see, the DCPS
school system reported receiving more than 6,000 applications for
out-of-boundary placements and having about 5,254 slots available
across the city. That's phase one of the "shock and awe"
campaign, which leads parents to believe they have a school choice.
The military refers to this as psychological warfare. Phase two:
lottery results--they drop the bomb and your school choice is
decapitated. Shocked??? Awe!!! Take a look at the Middle/Junior High
School chart below. The schools with the available seats such as Kramer,
Sousa, Eliot and Shaw are not necessarily the schools of choice.
Together those schools have 445 available seats, received 81
applications and accepted 80 applications. And the schools that are
believed to be the premier/cream of the crop schools such as Hardy,
Stuart-Hobson, Deal, Hine, Francis and Jefferson had a total of 270
available seats, received a total of 2,224 applications and only
accepted 239 applications.
Middle/Junior High School
|
School
|
Available Seats
|
# of Applicants Recd
|
# of Applicants Accepted
|
|
Hardy MS
|
25
|
367
|
25
|
|
Kramer MS
|
120
|
4
|
3
|
|
Sousa MS
|
60
|
15
|
15
|
|
Stuart-Hobson MS
|
10
|
283
|
10
|
|
Deal JHS
|
10
|
532
|
10
|
|
Eliot JHS
|
120
|
45
|
45
|
|
Francis JHS
|
90
|
170
|
74
|
|
Hine JHS
|
60
|
330
|
55
|
|
Jefferson JHS
|
75
|
542
|
75
|
|
Shaw JHS
|
145
|
17
|
17
|
And it gets worse at the Senior High School level. In
fact, the premier schools -- Banneker, School Without Walls,
Ellington, and M.M. Washington are exempt from the Out-of-Boundary
process. Those schools have an entrance exam and only accept the
best. And most of the schools with the available seats -- Anacostia,
Ballou, Coolidge, Eastern and Woodson just happen to
be identified as "low performing" schools under the No
Child Left Behind Act. Spingarn had 24 seats available and accepted
all 9 of the applications submitted. Dunbar had 140 available seats,
received 191 applications and accepted 96 applications. I guess you
are wondering why they did not accept 140 applications. Well, there
were a limited number of seats for certain grade levels.
Senior High Schools
|
School
|
Available Seats
|
# of Applicants Recd
|
# of Applicants Accepted
|
|
Anacostia SHS
|
80
|
7
|
7
|
|
Ballou SHS
|
220
|
3
|
3
|
|
Cardoza
|
0
|
16
|
0
|
|
Dunbar SHS
|
140
|
191
|
96
|
|
Eastern SHS
|
275
|
152
|
148
|
|
Roosevelt SHS
|
35
|
29
|
23
|
|
Spingarn SHS
|
24
|
9
|
9
|
|
Wilson SHS
|
0
|
520
|
0
|
|
Woodson SHS
|
125
|
59
|
57
|
Well, I guess parents can apply for public charter
schools. Or at least add their names to the waiting list. Wouldn't
it be nice to offer parents another option? Perhaps a voucher, a
certificate or scholarship to allow parents to place their children
in a school that provides a quality education. I support public
schools, public charter schools and private schools. Most
importantly I support children receiving a quality education.
Parents should not have to gamble with their
children's education. Either you have school choice or you don't.
District parents do not have a choice. A lottery is not a choice!
It's a fat chance. It appears that "Operation School
Choice" was not a success and decapitated thousands of
educations. Mission failed! I hope and pray that "Operation
Iraqi Freedom" has better luck and fewer causalities. We know
they have better funding.
Back to top of page
Statement of Iris J. Toyer
Before the Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform
Friday, May 9, 2003
Good morning, Chairman Davis and members of the
Committee. My name is Iris J. Toyer. I am a District of Columbia
resident and D.C. Public School parent. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of tens of thousands of
parents in the District of Columbia who strongly believe in public
education and want a system of public schools that is capable of
delivering a quality education for their children.
My association with the D.C. Public schools (DCPS)
goes back to 1956 when I first entered kindergarten at Stanton
Elementary School. I am a DCPS graduate and the mother of four,
three of whom are DC Public School graduates. My eleven-year-old son
is a fifth grader at Stanton Elementary School in S.E. Washington. I
am the PTA president at my child's school.
At the citywide level working on public school
funding and reform issues, I am the co-chair of Parents United for
the D.C. Public Schools. We are a volunteer citywide parent
organization established in 1980 to support quality public education
in the District of Columbia. We issue reports on a range of school
finance and school reform issues. The mission of Parents United is
to empower parents and the community with information and advocacy
skills to transform D.C. Public Schools to ensure educational
success for all our children. I say these things so that you know I
come to this discussion as an informed parent and not solely on the
basis of my own children's experience with the city's public
schools. That said, I am here today as the parent of a child in a No
Child Left Behind School that is also a Transformation School.
The current debate over vouchers in the District of
Columbia has caused me to wonder how a voucher program would impact
my school and its students. Stanton is a Title I school with over
630 students. Over 90% of our students are eligible for free and
reduced lunch and presumably would be eligible for a voucher under
H.R. 684.
The proposal has superficial appeal: What could
possibly be wrong with giving at least a few children an opportunity
to escape a public school system that often fails to educate its students adequately? While perhaps well meaning, I
think the proposal is misguided for a number of reasons.
First, there are better options that will serve an
entire school community. I mentioned that Stanton is a
Transformation School. This means that after careful review by a
team sent in to assess our school, the Superintendent designated
Stanton for transformation-or reconstitution. We are one of fifteen
such schools in the system.
In short, our school was shut down and reopened with
a new administrative team. Our new principal was able to select a
new staff - the only limitation being that no more than 50% of the
former teaching staff could return. During our first year of
transformation additional resources programmatic and human, facility
enhancements, staff training and development and more have been put
in place. The best part is that no Stanton student had to leave the
community to receive better educational opportunities and so we call
ourselves the New Stanton School. Immediately after Stanton being
named a Transformation School we were also placed on the list as a
No Child Left Behind school. I can tell you that last school year
our population was approximately 640. Currently we have 636 students
most of whom live in-boundary and walk to school. None of our
parents exercised the option to leave for greener pastures at a
"higher performing" school.
Our school system gets the rap for a lot of
missteps-and many of them deservedly so --Transformation Schools has
not been one of them. Turning schools around is a costly proposition
and it takes patience and planning. There are many other public
schools that are ripe for transformation. My greatest concern is
that because of the city's failure to fully fund public education,
this initiative will be stalled and/or terminated. I believe that
the Transformation Schools initiative is a far better investment for
federal dollars and parallels the tenets of No Child Left Behind
than handing out individual tuition vouchers where there is not
opportunity to track student performance. Transformation as well as
other public schools must report yearly progress or lack thereof and
there are accountability mechanisms in place to help parents and the
public make decisions.
Many of the parents with whom I speak fear that
public education in DC is fast becoming a nuisance to some of our
elected officials. We feel like our schools are being abandoned and relegated to the category of just another human
service. Recent statements of voucher support encouraging residents
to pull their children out of the city's public schools to place
them in private or parochial schools in and outside of the District
of Columbia sends the signal that they have just given up. The
suggestion has even been made that vouchers will engender
competition and make the public schools better. Well, if our public
schools were as well funded as some of the city's private schools I
might agree. However, the very folk who tell us this have never
fully funded a budget for the D.C. public schools. Just like doctors
take an oath, I believe it is also the duty of elected
leadership-local and national-"to first do no harm."
D.C. Public Schools like all urban school systems
across this country is struggling to meet the demands of its
students. As a parent I have been disappointed that the pace has not
been faster in making, significant in educational outcomes for
children. However, I do know that there are several promising
initiatives underway that should and have yield positive results.
For example, the Teaching Fellows program that brings in career
changers as new teachers; Teach For America that provides recent
college graduates who were not education majors but have an interest
in teaching-we have several at our school; New Leaders for New
Schools, an exciting and rigorous new program that will train and
provide hands on experience over a 15 month period to a group of
individuals to prepare them to become school principals; and the
implementation of the Masters Facility Plan that will rebuild or
renovate every school in the city. It of course needs to be funded
so that it does not wither and die. There are numerous other
initiatives underway that the School Board President and
administration should be able to speak to.
In my estimation legislation to address education
issues in the District already exists-the No Child Left Behind Act.
Whether one fully agrees with the Act or not, it has been a
mechanism to help school systems organize around a set of principals
in terms of educating children. It unfortunately did not come with
the necessary funding to make its implementation fully possible.
At the local school level the mandates have wreaked
havoc on school plans. One of the requirements to offer students the
opportunity to move from school to school if the performance of the
current school is under-performing, at some point gets to be
ridiculous. At some point it is merely a shell game that does
nothing to improve the student's chance to succeed. We want every school to be a high performing one; I think
that approaching the problem as this school system has done with its
Transformation Schools achieves the goal of NCLB without destroying
the fabric of the community.
Finally, I would suggest that vouchers do not
address, much less meet, and the most urgent needs borne by District
public school students. The school system is facing a financial
crisis that will stall its current reform efforts, its initiatives
to transform low performing schools, its plans for improving teacher
quality and operating efficiency. One of the greatest needs is for
renovation of the city's crumbling school facilities. Today, about
2/3 of the District's public schools are in need of emergency
repairs for, among other things, leaking roofs, archaic plumbing and
electrical systems, asbestos abatement, broken doors, rotted
windows, broken toilets and sinks, and dysfunctional heating and
cooling systems. These broken facilities impair our children's
education and, at times, threaten their health and safety.
This dire situation arises after many years of
neglect during 'which the District has deferred school maintenance
in order to pay for what were then considered to be more immediate
classroom needs. Critical maintenance is still being delayed; the
District's 2004 budget proposal calls for slashing about 40% of the
funds DCPS requested for maintenance. Helping a few families pay
private school tuition bills is no answer to the DCPS high school
students' petitions pleading for help with unsanitary bathrooms.
Under these circumstances, the first priority of any party seeking
to improve educational opportunities in the District is to fix the
buildings attended by the vast majority of our children.
Second, not only will vouchers not fix DC's broken
public schools, they will, at best, provide additional educational
opportunity for a handful of students only by abandoning and
neglecting the children remaining in the public schools. Public
schools are the means by which we fulfill our responsibility to
educate our children and thereby prepare them to be responsible
citizens and enable them to compete for jobs and other economic
opportunities as adults. DC Public Schools (and Charter Schools)
must admit all children; while vouchers use public tax dollars to
permit private schools to choose whatever students they want. One
can be certain that private schools will tend not to choose students
with special education requirements, limited or no English proficiency, behavior problems or with low
levels of academic achievement. Those students will be left to the
public schools whose funding, in the meantime, has been diminished
by the loss of students whose needs are not so costly.
Furthermore, in 2004 the funding allocated to
vouchers might be able to afford between 1400 and 1867 scholarships
in awards ranging from $3750-$5000, if not a penny is used to
administer the program. However, a survey by the 21st Century School
Fund, a local advocacy organization, reveals that only 32 private
and parochial schools in DC charge tuition below $5,000, and those
serve only 4181 students in grades K-12. If 10% of the current slots
in those schools were to be devoted to vouchers, only 418 students
would be able to use the vouchers in the District without having to
afford the balance of tuition costs and other mandatory fees at a
higher priced school.
How could a family living at the poverty level afford
the balance of tuition at other private schools? The voucher becomes
nothing more than a tease for such families. And what about those
families who don't find a slot in a private school in DC? With so
few spaces, other voucher recipients may find themselves bussing
their children all the way to Fairfax or Falls Church city to find
an available slot at that price. In those circumstances, vouchers
will succeed in disrupting fragile family lives, leaving children in
the region's notorious traffic jams for hours, and reviving the
forced bussing programs that our nation has finally managed to end.
Third, the schools that receive public tax dollars
for private purposes will not have to comply with the same standards
of accountability and reporting that our public schools do. It is
quite surprising that Congress, after so proudly accomplishing the
No Child Left Behind legislation, would allow, or especially
encourage, public money to be used without the same level of
accountability that it now mandates to the nation's public schools.
A voucher school can be eligible to participate in the program if it
serves 25 students for three years. Such a school could not begin to
compare its educational offerings to those of public schools. Such
low standards of eligibility are an affront to the U.S. taxpayer who
envisions much more comprehensive programs being delivered with his
or her education dollars.
I believe that any experiment with children's
education must be researched based and have some possibility of
improving a situation before it is implemented wholesale on a school
community. Time and again we read that the voucher programs in New
York, Cleveland and Milwaukee have not provided the type of success
its proponents promised.
Finally, as a lifelong residents of the District of
Columbia the Congressional imposition of a voucher experiment in the
District is a direct attack on Home Rule. It is not even remotely
conceivable that Congress would impose a voucher program in Houston
or Miami if the Texas or Florida congressional delegations opposed
the program. While the District, of course, lacks voting
representation in Congress, our only delegate, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, has spoken out forcefully against the voucher proposal.
Moreover, Ms. Norton's view mirrors that of her constituents - a
recent poll by the National School Board Association found that 76
percent of District voters do not support the establishment of
vouchers in the District.
In short, I am grateful that the President and
members of Congress are interested in improving education in the
District. Simply put, however, if they want to help, the first
priority should be to keep public dollars in publicly accountable
schools where they can be used to serve all children, not a small,
select minority.
Back to top of page
1. The Mayor and the Council have increased funding to
public education by approximately 40% since 1997.
2. Howell et al, "School Vouchers and Academic
Performance..." op. cit.; see also William G. Howell and Paul
E. Peterson, with Patrick J. Wolf and David E. Campbell, The
Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Washington: Brookings,
2002), pp. 150-52.
3. Derek Neal, "The Effects of Catholic Secondary
Schooling on Educational Achievement," Journal of Labor
Economics 15:1, 1997.
|
