"Education Without Limits: Exploring the Benefits of School Choice"
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
After all, these are public schools that are open to all, tuition free. Yet they have become the target of funding cuts, enrollment caps, authorizing obstacles, and harassing regulations. From Gavin Newsom to Bill de Blasio to Joe Biden, a certain faction of the Democrat party has been bent on closing public charter schools and stopping new ones from opening. This proves beyond doubt that opposition to school choice is not about protecting the public school system. That's just a self-serving justification concocted by those who want to preserve a failed education model and cater to the interests that feed off of it while denying choices to parents and dooming students to less promising lives.
Beyond charters, generally, research shows that students in school choice programs do better academically, their parents are more satisfied, and the students are more likely to graduate. We also know that parents overwhelmingly want these options. More than 70% of respondents, to a real clear opinion research survey, support school choice, and that includes 82% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats, and 67% of independents. How many issues can you find that level of agreement on? A January 2025 survey similarly found that 81% of voters agree that the government should empower parents and prioritize individual students' needs by providing greater access and more choices to ensure children receive the best possible education.
And here's the thing. School choice is also key to creating better traditional public schools. Research suggests that traditional public schools perform better when they face competition from school choice. We should all want traditional public schools to be the best they can be. While it's true that many have embraced woke ideologies, there are also many teachers and school leaders who are doing an admirable job to help students learn.
Embracing school choice means that parents should have a range of high-quality education options, and that includes their neighborhood public school. Education is fundamentally a state and local issue, but there's a limited role for the federal government as well. For example, the Educational Choice for Children Act, which I am cosponsoring, would create a federal tax credit so that donors could better fund private scholarships for children across the nation. This bill would help ensure that students, even in states without school choice programs, those that have adopted this failed model, could access the education they need and deserve. In addition, federal charter school grants, which President Biden tried to reduce, are vital for many founders starting new charters or replicating successful schools.
And finally, we can highlight the benefits of school choice and encourage the expansion of successful programs across the country. This can be the year that we begin reversing the decline of American education, and today's hearing is an important first step. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I want to begin by acknowledging the role that public schools play in our communities, our economy, and in democracy. With the overwhelming majority of students in public schools, public education is the foundation on which we build our future. Public schools serve the needs of every child, regardless of background or income. That's why we need to protect public education and, importantly, funding for public education from voucher scams that funnel taxpayer dollars into private institutions.
That being said, I and most Democrats support a wide range of options within the public school system. In many states and districts, families have choices among magnet schools, public charter schools, as the chairman mentioned, and intradistrict and interdistrict open enrollment policies. For example, in the district I represent, we have some of the top magnet programs in the state, including Portland's Benson Polytechnic High School, a CTE magnet school that offers major programs in automotive, building construction, electrical engineering, health occupations, media production, and more. And the Beaverton School District has many choices: an international magnet, arts and communication magnet, and the Beaverton Academy of Science and Engineering. These valuable opportunities are offered to all students, and most importantly, they are offered at free public schools that are required to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
I wanna note that the chairman mentioned woke ideologies, and this is another reminder that the federal government does not, by law, set the curriculum. But let's talk about universal vouchers, which are often pushed with little or no income restrictions, meaning that every student, whether from a single-parent home where the mom is working and making minimum wage or from a billionaire family like Elon Musk's, they could all receive the same amount of taxpayer money, all while the public schools that serve the rest, the majority, are left to do more with less. And in this discussion, we must consider the rural areas. In the district I represent, I have urban areas, but I have a lot of rural school districts where this public school is the heart of the community, and the only option is a public school. So in those rural school districts, I know what kind of reaction I would get if I told them that part of their public school funding was cut.
But here's a voucher so your student can go to another school. There is no other school. And there's very little chance of bridging that funding gap, leaving them to either make cuts, increase class sizes, or both. And that's the main reason why several states, including Nebraska, Kentucky, Colorado, have all rejected voucher schemes. Moreover, what message does it send to teachers and students who are already feeling the strain of a system that's underfunded and overburdened?
Stripping away already strained public schools of more funding to support private schools is not the answer. The solution is clear. We must invest in public education so every child has the chance to thrive in the classroom. It's also worth noting that voucher schemes permit private schools to discriminate against students based on disability, religion, and other factors, and they've also been found to increase segregation. And people across the country remain legitimately concerned about the use of taxpayer dollars for religious schools because it is so intertwined that it violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
And for many reasons, the argument to support universal vouchers based on NAEP scores is really not persuasive. Test scores are one way to evaluate student success. We had a global pandemic that led to social isolation. And according to the American Psychological Association, there's a mental health crisis among youth. There's increasing, and some say excessive, use of electronic devices by kids.
And importantly, the scores of high performers stayed pretty much the same. It was scores for low performers that plummeted. That's not a case for vouchers. It's a case for funding, fully funding Title One, McKinney-Vento, and other programs that support low-income students. We cannot ignore facts.
Voucher programs do not improve student outcomes. Research shows that in states with large voucher programs like Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio, students using vouchers tend to perform worse than their peers in public schools. These programs are a misuse of taxpayer dollars, and they contribute to discrimination, segregation, and a lack of accountability. Speaking of a lack of accountability, a recent study about the Arizona voucher program found that the state imposes no transparency or accountability requirements on private schools that receive taxpayer dollars through the state's voucher program. And, additionally, Arizona parents who are shopping for a school say it's difficult to get any independently verified information about the quality of instruction or the financial stability of these private schools that are getting public dollars.
Public law education is already under attack from this administration. We know that with the looming threat of an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. Let's not make things worse by allowing the use of public funding for private schools. So instead of funding private schools, we need to invest in public education so every child, no matter their ZIP code, deserves access to a high-quality education. I look forward to the conversation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
Pursuant to committee rule eight c, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5PM fourteen days after this hearing, which is 03/25/2025. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I note for the subcommittee that some of my colleagues who are not permanent members of this subcommittee may be waving on for the purpose of today's hearing. I'll now introduce our four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is doctor Michael McShane, who is the director of national research at EdChoice in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Our second witness is Missus Jenny Clark, who is the founder and executive director of Love Your School in Scottsdale, Arizona. Our third witness is Miss Jessica Levin, who is litigation director and director of public funds, public schools at the Education Law Center in New York, New Jersey. And our fourth witness is Mister Walter Banks Junior, who is national spokesperson at the American Federation for Children, which is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. We thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute summary of your written statement.
The clock will count down from 3 minutes as committee members have many questions for you, and we'd like to spend as much time as possible on questions. However, pursuant to committee rule eight d and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the 5 minute mark. I'd also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize Doctor McShane for your testimony.
Speaker 4
Good morning, mister chairman, ranking member, subcommittee members. Seventy years ago, the economist Milton Friedman wrote a short paper titled The Role of Government in Education. In it, he argued that the government had a role in funding and regulating education, but did not need to directly operate it. Independent and autonomous schools could educate children, and parents could choose between different school models based on their needs and desires. This idea, school choice, is the topic of today's hearing.
He closed the piece by predicting what such a system might yield, writing, quote, the result of these measures would be a sizable reduction in the direct activities of government, yet a great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children. They would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available, and in competition amongst them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area, as it has in so many others. We are not yet in Milton Friedman's ideal system, but the growth in educational options in recent years has redirected the American education system towards his vision, and we have some initial findings to see if his predictions have come true. Choice programs have widened the educational opportunities open to our children and the variety of educational institutions available to them.
There are 8,150 charter schools educating 3,700,000 students, 3,105 magnet schools educating 2,700,000 students, more than 415,000 students enrolled in open enrollment programs, and more than 6,750 private schools participating in Choice programs educating 1,200,000 students. Choice programs have nurtured the growth of different school models, from progressive Montessori and Waldorf schools to more traditional classical schools, schools from a variety of faith traditions and secular schools, micro schools, hybrid home schools, co-ops, and probably new models that I don't even know about yet. Choice programs have sparked competition. 29 studies have been conducted on the effects of private school choice on students who remain in public schools. 26 have found positive results, one found no result, and only 2 found negative results.
And third, private initiative has quickened the pace of progress. New and innovative schools are progressing themselves, but looking at the results for students participating in private school choice programs, 17 random-assignment studies have been conducted. 11 found positive results for some or all students, four found no effect, and only 2 found negative effects. Looking at student attainment results, seven studies have been completed, with five finding positive effects and two finding none. But our work is not done.
Many students and families across this country still want more options. We need to learn from the programs that states are implementing to refine and improve them. We need to address other challenges that students and schools face. The task before us today is the very one Doctor Friedman articulated back in 1955, where, quote, the government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today as it explores the benefits of school choice. My name is Jenny Clark, and I'm the founder and CEO of Love Your School, an Arizona-based nonprofit that helps families navigate their school options in Arizona, Alabama, West Virginia, and hopefully, the rest of the country very soon. I'm a wife and a mother of five school-age children, three of which have diagnosed learning disabilities, and I founded Love Your School in 2019. Since then, our team has helped thousands of families access the educational setting that best meets their child's unique needs. I know firsthand with my own children and through our work at Love Your School how transformative education freedom can be for families, especially education savings accounts, or ESAs.
Our family school choice journey began eight years ago as we homeschooled our two eldest sons and noticed they were struggling with reading. I reached out to my local school district and requested an evaluation under IDEA's Child Find process. And initially, the district told us that our boys simply lacked proper instruction. Knowing how much my husband and I worked on their reading instruction, we disagreed with the district. We received an independent educational evaluation, and it revealed that both of them had, among other diagnoses, severe dyslexia and dysgraphia.
Unfortunately, the district had no dyslexia-specific programming. Instead, they offered thirty minutes of sight word support a week, which we knew would not help remediate their dyslexia. During this time, we first learned of Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account program. And after jumping through a variety of hoops for the next several months, my boys finally qualified for Arizona's ESA program, and this changed everything for my boys and for our family. With the $7,500 ESA scholarship, we finally had access to a variety of dyslexia-specific educational resources, audiobooks, and amazing online programs like Synthesis School, things that boosted their confidence as they progressed in their reading and writing.
The ESA scholarship has been truly transformative in shaping the trajectory of my children's future. According to the latest NAEP scores, 10 millions of children across the country cannot read proficiently. It is a national crisis. Like my boys, I know many of these children would benefit tremendously from an ESA. Through our work at Love Your School, we have seen how Arizona's ESA program has been a revolutionary lifeline for thousands of children.
Once Arizona's ESA program became universal in 2022, meaning every school-aged child now qualifies, the program has rapidly grown from around 12,000 children to, as of yesterday, a little over 87,000. Arizona's ESA program is the most flexible in the country when it comes to accessing educational expenses, tutors, and therapists, and it's by far the most supportive of students with disabilities. Arizona's ESA scholarship is 90% of the state per-pupil funding, and that includes weighted funding for students with disabilities. Our program saves taxpayers' money and allows parents to direct their children's education regardless of their income or zip code. After all, we know loving families always know what's best for their children's education.
Thank you.
Speaker 6
I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to offer testimony today. My name is Jessica Levin, and I'm the litigation director at the Education Law Center, a nonprofit organization that pursues justice and equity for public school students. I also direct Public Funds Public Schools, a national campaign led by ELC to ensure public funds for education are used to support and strengthen public schools, the cornerstone of our democracy. Let me begin by saying that private school vouchers do not benefit students and families, nor the public. There's an ever-mounting body of evidence that they do not provide a better education for the most vulnerable, high-need students, and in fact, cause great harm to students, families, and communities.
I've submitted lengthy written testimonies supported by extensive citations. So today, I will highlight a few points. The laws that establish and govern voucher programs are notably devoid of meaningful quality or accountability standards, and the data show that academic outcomes for voucher students are dismal. Study after study in places like Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio reveal that vouchers actually have a detrimental academic impact on participating students. Professor Josh Cowan has explained that the negative educational effects of voucher programs are, quote, on par with what the COVID-19 pandemic did to test scores and larger than Hurricane Katrina's impacts on academics in New Orleans.
Policymakers should heed this evidence. Moreover, vouchers are only truly accessible to the few but harm the many. Vouchers frequently don't come close to covering the full cost of private school tuition, let alone other essentials that are provided free in public schools. Thus, vouchers simply shift the cost of many core educational resources to the families. Data from multiple states shows the majority of vouchers are used by more affluent families who are already sending their children to private schools, and not the low-income families they purport to target.
Vouchers harm often under-resourced rural public schools with no benefit to rural students who generally don't have geographic access to private schools. Roughly one in five students attend schools in rural communities, but those districts can't take advantage of the same economies of scale as larger ones, and they have fewer resources to pay for fixed education costs. Moreover, public schools are often the backbone of rural communities, playing a pivotal role in social and economic activities, and are often the largest employer. When rural public schools lose resources or close, the entire community suffers. Vouchers harm students with disabilities who make up about 15 percent of students across the country and who lose most of their legal rights under special education and disability laws when they use vouchers to attend private school.
Voucher students with disabilities have no right to the specific programs and services they need to make educational progress, and they lose IDEA and section 504 protections against unfair discipline and segregation from nondisabled peers. And parents lose rights to receive notification, provide input, and seek judicial remedies regarding their child's special education. Parents are often not made aware of the loss of these rights. A seminal GAO report found that 83 percent of those using vouchers specifically for students with disabilities were in a program that provided either no information or misinformation about changes in IDEA rights. The government should protect students from discrimination, not fund it.
But students who use vouchers to attend private schools are not covered by many essential civil rights laws. Thus, voucher programs funnel taxpayer funds to schools that can and often do discriminate against students with disabilities, English learners, LGBTQ students, students of minority religions, and others. Finally, voucher programs divert funding and resources from public schools, and exploding voucher costs devastate state budgets. Make no mistake. States like Arizona and Florida are prime examples, siphoning billions of dollars to disastrous and unaccountable universal voucher programs, and creating massive budget holes.
Many public schools around the nation face chronic and severe underfunding, and diverting much needed funds to pay for vouchers exacerbates that lack of resources. At the same time, voucher programs concentrate higher need, more expensive to educate students in public schools as many private schools refuse or are unable to serve them. Often students who took a voucher but did not receive the promised benefits return to public schools, but the funds do not return with them. In the meantime, the loss of funding may have led the public school district to make difficult cuts and even to close neighborhood schools, with devastating consequences. It's a myth that public school families lack any educational options.
First, the overwhelming majority of children across the country attend public schools, and the vast majority of parents are satisfied with their children's education. Second, there are numerous public school options in addition to a student's neighborhood school, including magnet schools, interdistrict public school choice programs, and charter schools. We know what needs to be done to help all students succeed, adequately fund evidence-backed programs in public schools that welcome all students. Vouchers are not a solution to the issue of educational choice, nor any other challenge facing our schools and nation. There's already quite a bit of school choice in public education, and the affluent families that take vouchers are already paying for the private education.
In fact, vouchers are a windfall for them and a significant harm to the nation's public schools and students. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, and I welcome your questions.
Speaker 1
Mister chairman and distinguished members of the committee on education and workforce, my name is Walter Blanks Junior, and I am a spokesperson for the American Federation for Children. And I am here today because school choice changed my life. And before I begin, I would like to thank my wife because today is our son's first birthday. Instead of partying like, you know, most families would in Nashville, we are here, doing very important work. And it's an honor to have my son growing up seeing his father do work that is very important to him.
So, I grew up in Columbus, Ohio, where my local public school was failing me. Every day, I walked into a classroom where I felt unseen, unheard, and unchallenged. I struggled academically, and my parents knew that if something didn't change, I would never reach my full potential. But like so many families, we could not afford private school tuition on our own. My parents reached a breaking point when I found myself sitting in the principal's office after being jumped by a group of students.
And instead of addressing the immediate issue, the principal turned to my mother and said, if you give us 5 years, we'll have the middle school turned around and the high school turned around, and Walter will be able to thrive. And without hesitation, my mother, who took off work to come and see her baby bruised up in school, looked at him in the eye and said, in five years, Walter will either be in jail or in a body bag, and we don't have time for either of those things. She took my hand, and we left. And from that moment on, I never stepped foot in that school again. Thankfully, my parents applied for, and I received, a scholarship, a School of Choice Scholarship through the state of Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship program, which gave me the opportunity to attend a private school that completely transformed my life.
For the first time, I was in an environment that nurtured my potential. I went from a student who struggled to a student who was finding great success in his academic journey. The opportunity set me on a path that led me to where I am now, advocating for students who, just like I was, are just like I was. My journey has taken me to places that I could have never imagined, including the White House, where I met President Trump. I'll never forget looking him straight in the eye and telling him that I wanted to have his job someday.
That moment wasn't just about ambition. It was about recognizing that when students are given the right opportunities, there are no limits to what they can achieve. My life is living proof of that. And now I have the honor to add sitting before Congress and sharing my story to that list as well. Unfortunately, too many students across the country are still waiting for their chance.
That's why I also support the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would give students in every state access to scholarships, opening doors to schools that best meet their needs that are currently closed. For some, it's a difference between struggling and succeeding. For others, like myself, it was quite literally a life saver. I appreciate the members of this committee who have supported this important bill, and I urge every representative to support this life-changing opportunity. Every child deserves the same opportunity I had, the chance to succeed, to dream big, and to write their own future.
I've had great success because of my school choice journey, and I firmly believe more students should have that chance. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Happy birthday to your son. Under committee rule nine, we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll first recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mister Wahlberg.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, the panel, for being here. With the most recent NAEP scores that continue to show the downhill slide that's out there, I don't even know why we need this hearing, because choice is what's gonna change it all around, and the choice that comes through vouchers, a full opportunity for parents to make the best decisions for their students to support the teachers that will do the best job for their students, is what we are concerned with here. So thank you for being here this morning. Doctor McShane, one of the most frequent arguments we hear against, and we heard it today, against school choice is that it harms traditional public schools. But unbiased research simply doesn't bear this out.
Can you talk more about what the research actually says, and why school choice doesn't harm traditional public schools?
Speaker 4
Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. Yes. This is one of the most consistent findings we see in the private school choice literature that students who remain in public schools, their scores actually do better in the face of, if you wanna call it, competition or the effects of the program that are there. And I think the way of thinking about it is sometimes we've gotten into a bit of an outmoded way of talking about schools where we're where you say these are the good schools and these are the bad schools.
I think we need to move to a way of thinking about fit, that certain students fit in certain schools better than others. And there may be schools that on average and in aggregate look good on paper, but there are students who are struggling in them. There are students that are doing schools that look like they're doing poorly, but students that are doing well in there. So as students are able to move to a school that best fits them, we tend to think about it in terms of that student. They get to go to a school that's a better fit for them.
But you can also think about the school where that student was left. If they weren't having a great time, they could be taking time, resources, etc. So the students in the school that they have could actually be better off. So it could be a rising tide that raises all boats, and that seems to be what the empirical literature tells us.
Speaker 7
As generally an all above plan works best and gives more opportunity, doesn't it? What fits best for your child. We're doing the same for our grandchildren now with the opportunities that they have with dyslexia and others. And so, miss Clark, thank you for being here. You mentioned that school choice matters for all children.
I certainly agree. But I think it's especially important for children with special needs. Could you talk more about why that is?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question. So it's very interesting because in Arizona, the number of families that are on our ESA program, the percentage, if you will, of students with disabilities is actually higher than in the Arizona public school system. About eighteen percent of students on the Arizona ESA program are students with disabilities whose families believed that they were not being served in their local public school system. And of that eighteen percent, fifty percent of those students with disabilities are students with autism.
We know that one in five students has a learning disability in reading, usually dyslexia. Now the number for autism is around one in 33 boys have a diagnosis of autism. And families are choosing Arizona's ESA program because they feel like they're doing more for their student with disabilities with less money than what the public school was doing.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Good to hear. Mister Banks, I won't say anything about Go Blue, since you're from Columbus. Congratulations on the national championship. But let me ask you this, and I appreciate your life story that you have to give.
Many critics of school choice say that private schools cream skim, which, in other words, says that they only take the most academically gifted and talented students, and that's why some of these schools have high scores. Tell me about the school you attended with a voucher. Do you think your new school only accepted the most talented, accomplished students?
Speaker 1
Well, thank you for that question, and that championship was long overdue. Yeah. So the school that I attended, actually, I failed the entry test twice. And the principal and the superintendent took a liking to me. For what reasons, I'm not sure.
But they saw a lot of potential in me, and they chose.
Speaker 1
Bring me on anyway. And accepting me actually forced them to open up an entire sixth grade wing, so they had to take on more students to justify just bringing me on. And so we often refer to ourselves as the class of rejects because most of us were coming from schools that had failed us and then lower academic outcomes. And so all of us struggled during that time. And so in my experience, the school did everything that they could to bring the students who were struggling the most and coming from tough environments to a school where they could actually thrive.
Speaker 7
They made the cream of the crop. So thank you for being here. My time has expired. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. You know, nearly 1 in 5 K-12 students attend school in a rural community, and rural schools are, in particular, reliant on the federal funding. They typically have a smaller population, which means a smaller tax base. They're also vital employers, and they provide many services to the community. For example, shelters for natural disasters, food pantries, before and aftercare.
And importantly, students in rural areas do not have private schools geographically close to them to make a voucher useful. We've seen many conservative state lawmakers from rural districts oppose statewide voucher programs for that reason, including recently when 16 rural Republicans in Georgia voted to defeat a school voucher bill and in Texas where the house voted to block any state funding from being used for vouchers. So I wanna ask you, Miss Levin, how does the implementation of a school voucher program affect rural schools and the funding of rural schools? And are vouchers a viable alternative for the students who go to school there? And how would vouchers affect the greater community in a rural area?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question. Vouchers are devastating to rural communities, and they don't provide any benefits. So, as we've as you and I have mentioned, there are very few private school options for students in rural communities, but the rural public schools that serve them have less elasticity, less room in their budget than many larger urban and suburban districts. So any cuts to their budgets can be devastating for school programs, including for them to cover fixed costs such as a library or the heating or cooling in a school.
Speaker 3
I know. So I know. As a former state legislator, and I know there are other former state legislators here, it's not always easy to find the funding to fill those gaps.
Speaker 6
That's exactly right. And so when voucher programs take money away from state budgets or public education budgets, specifically statewide, that's going to affect rural school budgets. They're getting no benefit, but they're losing those programs and services, as well as devastating the wider community that relies on that.
Speaker 3
And I have another question, too. We know that private schools often deny admission to children with disabilities. You're subject then to inappropriate or unfair discipline, and even expulsion. I'd like to enter into the record a report by NCLD, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, called Private School Vouchers, Education Savings Accounts, and Tax Implications and Considerations for Students with Disabilities. It was originally published in 2017 but updated in 2024, and it provides examples of this type of school conduct.
Enter into the record.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And, Miss Levin, when students with disabilities do attend a private school under a voucher program, they're considered parentally placed in a private school. And thus, they forfeit many rights and protections under the IDEA. And as a result, the schools are considered to be complying with the law even when the students are not receiving the same quality and quantity of services they would in a public school that are mandated with an IEP, Individualized Education Program, such as speech, occupational, or physical therapy. So, Miss Levin, do private school vouchers adequately serve students with disabilities?
Speaker 6
They do not, and they actively hurt their rights. As you said, the students lose many of their rights. Their parents lose the right to participate in and have close contact with their education, and they lose rights under section 504 and the ADA as well.
Speaker 3
So just to clarify, the families of children with disabilities, when they take a private school voucher, they actually lose their rights. That's correct.
Speaker 3
And now, mister Blanks, I have thank you for sharing your story. I just have a yes or no question. Your organization, the American Federation for Children, was organized and funded by the DeVos family. Is that correct? Just for context.
Yes or no? Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm gonna yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Speaker 2
The representative from North Carolina, Mister Harris, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Yes. Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank all of you on the panel. I've had the pleasure of reading your testimonies as well as hearing you this morning, and I'm very appreciative of you being here and your time. Parents in my district have told me time and again that school choice is a priority of theirs, and they really long for anything that we can do at the federal level to make that easier. And, Mister Blanks, today, I appreciate your testimony.
It was inspiring. And yet we've heard lots of claims from the other side of the aisle made in opposition to school choice. Some are gonna argue that school choice resegregates schools. We've heard that school choice deprives children with disabilities of their rights. We've heard that support for school choice is really a smokescreen for trying to destroy public education.
Is it just me, or is the conversation that one side of this debate is having totally disconnected from the conversations that real families are having around their kitchen tables about how best to educate their kids?
Speaker 1
Yes. Yes. I firmly believe that when we're having these discussions about education that the other side will typically leave out the personal experience, stories like my own, or why parents wanna send their child to a different school in the first place. And so I am here to talk about my own experience. And as I've done this work, I've heard a lot about how vouchers or schemes or scams or whatever the case may be, but it was my life saving device for me and for my family.
And we didn't have support. We didn't have any other options. I was stuck in this school, and I would beg my mom every day not to send me to that school. And so I do find some of those comments offensive, but I'm proud to stand behind the very policies that changed my life and put me on the path that I'm on out today.
Speaker 9
Thank you, sir. And god bless your mom for having the courage and the strength and determination to respond the way she did when she was asked to give a five-year reprieve to get things right. Missus Clark, your story represents one of those parents who want options. And another objection we might hear to school choice is that there's no accountability if the school fails to serve children with special needs. But I noticed you went through the IDEA process, and it sounds as if the public school system failed your child.
What would you say to critics who believe that the traditional public schools are the only safe place for children with special needs and learning disabilities?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. Well, I would say that's absolutely false, and we can look at the demand of parents of students with disabilities for school choice programs. You know, there's a sad running joke amongst parents of students with disabilities, and it essentially goes like, if you haven't cried in an IEP meeting with a public school, you don't really have a student with a disability. We all know as parents of students with disabilities how incredibly difficult the process is to actually get the services that our children need in the public school system. So this idea, that IDEA is somehow benefiting all students in the public school system, is absolutely false.
And contrary to what you've heard, we don't lose all of our rights when we choose a school choice scholarship program. IDEA part b, proportionate share funding, that's been around since the beginning of IDEA, says that a proportion of all of the funds that come to the state should be used for students with disabilities who are in private schools and homeschools. I know one of my children on an ESA received IDEA funding from their local public school just last year. So there's a lot of misinformation out there around IDEA.
Speaker 9
Well, you also mentioned in your testimony that even at the state level, in order to qualify for Arizona's empowerment scholarship account program, you had to jump through a variety of hoops for several months. Could you take just a moment and elaborate on some of the reasons why it took so long?
Speaker 5
Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. So prior to Arizona's ESA program being universal, where every student qualified in 2022, families like myself had to go through the public school system process to have our students evaluated. That was an extra expense on the public school system, but the public school system is the one that had to qualify our students as students with a disability.
So there was, you know, an extra process and an extra burden there. Also in Arizona, you used to have to attend public school, either in person or online, for 100 days. That was very difficult for families with students with disabilities or families that were moving into the state.
Speaker 9
Alright. Well, eliminating bureaucracy is one of the most important reforms I believe we can make at the federal level. We could never forget that parental rights will always take precedence over government, and that taxpayer dollars have got to be accountable to the taxpayer themselves. So I will ask you this, Miss Clark. Do you think that eliminating or reducing the role of the Department of Education would give more power to the states and people to influence education?
Speaker 5
Yes. I absolutely do. Ending the Department of Education or greatly disempowering it is something that I hope to see very soon.
Speaker 9
Well, it's clear under our constitution that the federal government was never supposed to have such an outsized role in education. With the number of students failing core subjects growing in our nation, it's clear that the status quo is not working, as we've heard today. What I'm hearing is that parents and states are more than ready to step up and make sure the children get the best education. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
The representative from Connecticut, Miss Hayes, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I wanna first frame my comments with the information that I was a public school teacher before I came to Congress. Sixteen years, I taught as a high school history teacher. And I just want to provide some context for much of what you're hearing. This pro this hearing is about school choice, yet they are trying to position it as vouchers and public charter schools are the same thing.
They are not. Vouchers are very different, and that is not what we're talking about. At the top of the hearing, the chairman talked about 81 private school programs that serve 1,000,000 students. Yet the school that he highlighted as being successful, Success Academy, is in fact a public charter school.
Speaker 10
pub no. I will not. Many public schools offer school choice to parents, and that is not what we are talking about here today. I heard quotes from an economist from the 1950s, seventy years ago. So much has happened in public education.
I would encourage you to engage in that conversation. And yet again, we have witnesses at the table right off the White House guest list. And your testimony where you said, mister Blanks, that you failed an entry test two times before they finally decided to allow you to access this school just reiterates the fact that these schools are not for everybody. It is a system of winners and losers. And to the idea about segregation in schools, the Department of Education actually protects civil rights.
If we're talking about the most important reform congress can make, it is increasing the funding for IDEA from 16% to the 40% that congress promised it would do. Schools are funded locally, so local property taxes decide many of the decisions that we're talking about here today. I do have a few questions, and I wanna move quickly because I have a lot of questions. But, Miss Clark, just yes or no. You said that your child you had to do an independent educational assessment for your children in order to understand their academic needs.
Did your family pay for that out of pocket?
Speaker 10
Thank you. You talked about you homeschooled your three children. Was your family able to do that because you had stable income?
Speaker 10
Okay. $7,500 was given to your family to cover your children's dyslexia educational support. Was that the total cost of those supports?
Speaker 5
It was $7,500 per student, and yes, it was the full cost of those supports, half of the public school funding.
Speaker 10
So $7,500 in total for dyslexia funding, educational funding for the entire year for one student?
Speaker 10
I would disagree with that because, and I can tell you why, public schools offer many of the wrap-around supports and services. So it's not just what happens in the classroom. It is the occupational supports, the technical supports, the social workers, all of those things. I know, and anyone who's ever looked at a public school budget knows that those services are not provided for $7,500. Miss Levin, can you explain, just briefly go into greater detail why private schools are not mandated to follow the same reporting requirements as most public schools?
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you for the question, and I come from a family of educators, so I thank you for that as well. It's because of a deliberate choice in the statutes. Legislators choose not to put accountability measures in these bills, and you have to ask yourself why.
Speaker 10
And when a student is not accepted to these schools, because I've yet to find one charter school, one of these private voucher programs that supports all of the special education needs of these students. And part of IDEA says that students need to be educated alongside their non-disabled peers. When those children don't have success in those schools and go back to the public school system, can you explain a little bit about what happens in that case with their funding?
Speaker 6
So often the student returns to a public school, but the money has already gone to private schools. So the public school now has less money, and it has a higher concentration of higher-needs students to serve with those fewer resources.
Speaker 10
Can the public school refuse to accept those students now that the funding source is gone? They cannot. They cannot. That's what I thought. I mean, everybody knows that.
But, again, I would caution people. Yes. We want parents involved. Education is a partnership between parents, families, their teachers, and everyone. But this idea of private voucher programs is absolutely a sham.
It's moving taxpayer monies to a profit source for the billionaire class. That is not what public education is supposed to do. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And I'll note that I cited Success Academy and KIPP specifically as examples of outstanding public charter schools. Problem is that many in this party, including President Joe Biden, have been attacking public charter schools. With that, the gentleman from Indiana, mister Messmer is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you. My home state of Indiana stands as a national leader in pro-school choice legislation. Back in 2011, our state legislator passed Indiana's Choice Scholarship Program that has since become the largest single voucher program in the United States. This session, the house is looking to pass universal school choice vouchers that would further increase options for Hoosier families to educate their children in the best environment that fits their individual needs. At the federal level, as we members of congress should follow these steps, I'm proud to join my friend rep Adrian Smith and other distinguished colleagues on this committee in cosponsoring the education choice for children act, a bill that would provide k through 12 scholarships to as many as 2,000,000 students across the country to attend the school that best meets their needs.
Doctor Machane, Indiana is a leader in school choice reform, creating the largest voucher program in the country, and it's seen a 32% growth this past year. Now the state is looking to move universal vouchers, allowing parents to choose specialized programs that fit their children's needs or schools that align with their religious and moral values regardless of their income level. How would a federal universal program like this fit into Milton Friedman's idea of a government's role in education?
Speaker 4
I think would be relatively well aligned with that. As I mentioned, Milton Friedman's idea, which is oftentimes caricatured to be a sort of free for all of schools, he thought that schools could be independently operated. Parents could freely choose between them, but the state would play a role in financially supporting them, which sounds like what would be happening in that bill.
Speaker 11
K. Thank you. And just to clarify, in Indiana to accept vouchers, a school must submit to the same accountability standards as any of the public school. As a follow-up to that, mister McShane, do you think it is possible that giving parents choice of what is best for their option, including vouchers, charters, and unrestricted public to public transfers, could be, be lead to better outcomes for all students by creating competition?
Speaker 4
Yes. I mean, as I mentioned earlier, there's a very strong empirical literature on the competitive effects of private school vouchers. It's a consistent finding. Meta-analyses, studies of studies that put these together, have found that result. I have no reason to believe that it would not continue into the future.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
Mister Blanks, one of the important aspects of the Education Choice for Children Act is that it creates a lifeline for students trapped in local schools, school districts, states that will likely never pass school choice policies for themselves. It's vital that these students have access to educational options. You live in a state that established a voucher program, but not every student is fortunate. Why do you think it is important for students nationwide rather than just select states to have choice?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Well, thank you for that question. And it's absolutely vital because, like you alluded to, there are some states that have been slow to pass school choice legislation at the state level. And so the ECCA would allow some of those families who have currently been locked out of options, to tap into some of those dollars. And now I live in Tennessee where the governor was monumental in passing the educational safeties account for the state.
And so for a state like ours, when my wife and I are talking about, you know, where we're gonna send our son, what is his educational bring up gonna look like with the ECCA on top of a state level, you know, program. That means more resources, more access, more opportunities, really, for me as a father to be in the driver's seat of my child's education.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Missus Clark, there are many families in my district in Indiana who are affected by learning disorders like your children and need the benefit of choosing a program that will fit the needs of their child and learning disabilities. Indiana implemented a similar program called the Indiana Education Scholarship Account that provides access to students with disabilities and their families, access to an education environment that best meets their needs. As a parent, how do you think these types of programs can improve to further assist those that our public school system tends to leave behind?
Speaker 5
Well, one of the best parts of the ESA programs and school choice programs for students with disabilities is all of the innovation that happens because parents now have the funding. And we can go online and find, you know, an incredible math AI tutor. We can download those, you know, automated flashcards. We can do all these new and exciting things. This whole new arena of education entrepreneurship has come out of giving parents control of their education dollars.
So a lot of the new things that our family has tried that have really helped our kids have been because we have an ESA, and because, you know, the public schools, as big as they are, they tend to not be able to move very quickly when it comes to addressing individual student needs.
Speaker 2
The representative from New York, mister Manion, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Chairman Kyle. Thank you to ranking member Bonomichi, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today. I was a former public school teacher for almost 30 years teaching AP biology, chemistry, and 15 to 1 living environment. I'm also the husband of a fellow educator. I care deeply about ensuring that all students have access to a safe and supportive learning environment.
Throughout my career in the classroom and then also in the state senate, I worked to strengthen public education and advocate for policies that ensure that every child can succeed. My father was on public assistance. I came from a working-class, blue-collar background, and my parents chose to send me to a private Catholic school. My parents paid school tax dollars, property tax dollars, but they made the decision because they emphasized Catholic education for me and others, my wife same, to send me to a Catholic school. When my wife and I had our first child, our plan was to send our children to Catholic schools.
Till my son, at three and a half, was diagnosed with autism. He had speech levels of a 9 month old. At that point, we made the very difficult decision to send him through the public school, CSEA or, excuse me, CPSE process. We attempted to send him to a private pre-K school, and he was not accepted. We knew that the only way that our son would receive the necessary intensive early intervention for him to be successful was to send him to a public school.
Then my two children younger than him also attended public schools. They're all thriving, including my oldest who is a college graduate, lives independently, and drives his own vehicle which he purchased. Voucher and voucher-like proposals divert funds away from public schools, they will not address the needs of our educational system or improve student outcomes. Public schools are exceptional. Public schools in Central New York and across the country simply cannot afford an additional financial strain by sending tax dollars other places, and the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing private education. I'm particularly concerned about the negative impacts that these proposals have on students with IEPs who rely on the protections and services guaranteed to them in public schools.
On that subject, I will ask my first question to Miss Levin: when the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act was enacted in 1975, it authorized federal funding to cover 40% on average per pupil spending nationwide to provide public education services. Fifty years later, IDA is funded at only 13 or 14. Given that Congress has yet to fulfill its original commitment to fully fund IDEA, what do you make of proposals to allocate federal funds to private school voucher programs instead of prioritizing support for students with disabilities in public schools?
Speaker 6
Thank you. It's a very misguided and dangerous policy. The federal funding for IDEA has never reached more than 16 or 17% versus the 40% promised, which may not even be enough. So, we are funding a second system of schools with these proposals would fund a second system that doesn't even serve most students with disabilities.
Speaker 12
In my district, we have a very significant numeric and refugee population. What impact would voucher proposals have on English language learners, most of whom depend on public schools for specialized instruction and supports that are not always provided in private schools? So how might a private school voucher program affect English language learners and their access to educational resources?
Speaker 6
The vast majority of those students would still depend on public schools because very few private education options have the resources or the programs to serve their needs. And now the public schools would have just a higher concentration of higher needs students. And as a special education attorney and an attorney for many English learners, I've seen firsthand the importance of the protections in the federal civil rights statutes that give them their rights in school.
Speaker 2
The representative from Utah, Mister Owens, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you. First of all, mister chair, this is a very, very important conversation. I've noticed I have a couple things in common with some of our witnesses. Mister Blanks, my dad went to Ohio State. I was born in Columbus, Ohio.
He's getting his PhD there during that time. And, miss Living, I think you came from out Oakland. Am I correct? Okay. Well played, Oakland.
Yes. I played with the Oakland Raiders. So, we have some things in common there. I have just a couple things. Mister Banks, you mentioned earlier, what do you say to those who believe that failing schools and time will be given if given time, we'll be able to turn things around and be able to address the issues that you mentioned you had coming going on?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Well, in my experience, more often than not, the needs of the students were not met. And so that instance with my mother happened almost 20 years ago. And to pull the current educational outcomes of that school, 13% of the students are proficient in math, and 34% are proficient in reading. In both of those categories, for the state of Ohio, the school is considered well below expectations almost twenty years ago.
And so for my mom who said, we don't have that kind of time, but think over the last two decades how many students have shuffled through this school. And some of them have done well. I know one in particular that was in the same class I was in is now playing for the Buffalo Bills. Doing very well. So the public education system was great for him, but it was simply was not for me.
And so I needed another option. And so to tell my mom to wait five years was not an acceptable answer.
Speaker 13
Good for your mom. That's called wisdom. And, by the way, I've been hearing this for 40, 50 years. So just give us time. Meanwhile, we're losing kids by the drove.
So I have a miss Levine, I'm, of course, very impressed with your background. Magna cum laude from Cornell University, University of Oxford, and JD cumulative from Harvard Law School. I'm gonna guess that's because you had a remarkable foundation. You have parents to truly focus on your education during the process. Am I correct?
Speaker 13
Okay. Would you have had the same experience you think? If you lived in the Baltimore area with 28 schools, you have 2,000 seniors with zero proficiency in math. Or in California, study back in 2017, 75 percent of the blackboards cannot read past reading and writing tests. Could you still have succeeded in those kinds of situations?
Public school systems, you think?
Speaker 6
I think that we need to fully fund our public schools to make sure that all students have the opportunity, and the Education Law Center advocates for that across the country. Private school choice.
Speaker 13
Okay. You went to Head Royce School. Why I spent time in Oakland. You had a choice in Oakland to go to the public schools also. Why didn't your parents do that for you?
Speaker 6
Well, I would remind you that children generally don't choose the school that they
Speaker 13
Go to school. Like your parents had a choice. Your parents paid fifth 30 to $50,000 a year for your choice. What gets me is how people like yourself, when I say I would say this across the board, parents who have an option, they can put their kids in the best schools. They know that's an investment for their kids' future.
And yet you come here and say how well it doesn't work. I want, I just wanna repeat. I wanna read this real quick. In reality, students who use voluntary experience worse educational outcomes than their public school peers. Obviously, your parents didn't think that way, because they put you in a private school.
In private schools, they are subject to few, if any, quality and accountability standards. I guess my question is this. If we had a system in which we were focused on the student versus the institution, if parents had a choice like your parents did have a choice, and it did not come out of the state funds, we have some called education choices that. Does not come one risk. It comes out of the district, out of the local.
Would you be okay with the choice if that was the case? If parents had a choice but it did not come out of public schools, which obviously have a very, you know, very focused on, would you be okay with that kind of choice?
Speaker 6
No. Oppose any type of private school choice program. I would note that I, as an independent person, have looked at the evidence and looked at policy and made my own independent judgment.
Speaker 13
Would you put your children in the school system here in Baltimore? That if you're stuck there, I mean, if you didn't have a choice of what we're talking about everybody else, would you be okay to leave your child in a school that's failing a 100 10 proficiency in math?
Speaker 6
I will absolutely put any children I have, including the one I'm expecting, into public schools. As I said, I cannot.
Speaker 13
Believe that public and these Baltimore public schools? We're not talking about good public schools. We're not talking about schools that are failing our kids. Would you be willing to put your child in a school that everybody else, all these parents, are trying to get their kids out of?
Speaker 6
I don't believe that our public schools are failing. I believe that that's a narrative created at.
Speaker 13
The hospital. There's a word called Huspah. There's a lot of Hushpah. When I sit down and you talk to people on your table here, they'll be dealing with this every single day, and their kids are failing. We've had too much of this.
I'm anyway, that being said, I'm excited about the fact that we're gonna have a choice process, kids gonna be able to get out and be successful in the future. So I look forward to that. You're back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mister Owens, for that very revealing line of questioning. Miss Adams, from North Carolina, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and for being here. I know that we all want what's best for students. But let's be clear. This isn't about choice. It's about privatization.
Now I went to the public schools. My children went to public schools, my grandchildren as well. I taught 40 years as a college professor and prepared students to become teachers, so I know a little bit about this. But 84% of American kids are in public schools. Instead of strengthening them, this agenda pulls funding away.
Sending taxpayer dollars to private schools with little oversight and no accountability. Now I've always been about fairness, mister chairman, and so I'm gonna request that we hold a hearing on investing in public schools, because public schools aren't failing. They're being failed. And if we care about our kids, we should be investing in public education, not undermining it. So, Miss Levine, my question to you: we know that diverse schools benefit students in real, measurable ways, higher academic achievement, better college and career outcomes, even higher lifetime earnings.
Yet despite our country being more diverse than ever, our public schools remain deeply segregated, and the numbers are getting worse. A 2022 GAO report found that more than one in three public K through 12 students attends a racially segregated school. And so my question is, what impact do school choice and voucher programs have on segregation? Do they increase diversity and access, or do they just reinforce existing inequalities?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question, and I also thank you for focusing on the research and facts rather than on ad hominem attacks. Private school choice programs have been shown, and research continues to come out showing that they increase segregative effects in public school systems and private schools. Also, I think it's very important to note that these programs were popularized in the modern era, not just by Milton Friedman, but by segregationists who are trying to avoid the integration mandate in Brown v. Board of Education. And I think that we need a very strong justification for continuing a policy that has those ugly origins, and we don't have it because those policies continue to have segregative effects today.
Speaker 8
Thank you. So when public schools mismanage funds, there's oversight, there's accountability, and there are consequences. But with private voucher schools, we're seeing cases where taxpayer dollars are flowing to schools that barely exist or in some cases don't exist at all. I represent North Carolina's 12th District. We had a school taking public money, but the state couldn't even confirm where it was physically located.
And so the state bureau of investigation had to step in. So tell me what's stopping this kind of thing from happening more often, and what safeguards should be in place to ensure the taxpayer dollars aren't being misused in private voucher programs?
Speaker 6
There's almost nothing stopping it. And I can tell you from having read hundreds of voucher bills over the years that they are having less and less accountability and transparency measures. You, this is a deliberate choice by legislators because they do know about the fraud, abuse, waste that happens in many states, including North Carolina. There is no type of amendment or reform that can make a private school voucher program a good public policy, not to mention constitutional under state law. But if we are going to give money to private schools, we have to ask why are we not subjecting them to any of the accountability requirements that apply to public.
Speaker 8
Thank you. So President Trump says that he had nothing to do with project 2025. But let's be clear. The plan is right there in black and white, a 10 year road map to completely dismantle the federal role in k 12 education. And so I'm here to stand up for our students, but it alarmingly seems that President Trump has a different vision, one that puts low-income students and students with disabilities at severe risk.
And so Secretary McMahon, she's already laying the groundwork to make that happen. In federal K-12 funding, if it disappears, funding that keeps the light on in classrooms and supports special education and ensures low-income kids get the resources they need, what does that actually look like for the schools and communities that rely on this support, Miss Levine?
Speaker 6
Cutting federal education funding would be devastating, especially to districts that rely heavily on Title One funding for low-income students, IDEA funding for students with disabilities, McKinney Vento funding, and many others. It would mean that those districts would not have the resources. They're already under-resourced. They would lose even further on essential services.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. Mister chairman, I asked a question earlier in the beginning. I certainly hope you would take it into consideration that we have a hearing that would address the public education and the importance of that. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. I'll now recognize myself for five minutes. So just to understand your position, Miss Levin, do you think that private schools should be abolished?
Speaker 2
Okay. Because you referred to my colleague's line of questioning as an ad hominem attack, but I think that totally misses the point. You think that your parents are well within their rights to send you to a private school that costs tens of thousands of dollars in tuition?
Speaker 2
And you, support the right of Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden to send their child to private school?
Speaker 6
I'm an attorney, and the law supports their right, and I support it as well.
Speaker 2
Okay. So you support the right of families to access private schools if they can afford it. Is that right?
Speaker 6
That's correct. I do believe that public education, though, is the cornerstone of our democracy, and I, as an individual, firmly support it.
Speaker 2
Okay. But do you see how that might rub some people the wrong way when you support school choice for wealthy families, but oppose efforts to extend that same opportunity to lower-income families?
Speaker 6
Because I believe that our public schools should be as well funded and as wonderful as our private schools, I think that is something that the American people widely agree on. But policymakers need to find the political will to finally fully fund our public schools and the evidence-backed programs that help all students in places that welcome all students.
Speaker 2
So you're talking about rural schools. Let's say that you are in one of these rural communities that only has one public school, and, unfortunately, it is not very good. What would you tell the parents in that community?
Speaker 6
I would advocate alongside them as we do for better public funding of their public schools.
Speaker 2
Okay. And maybe that'll solve the problem. Maybe it won't. Meanwhile, their child isn't being taught to read. You just tell them, tough luck?
Speaker 6
No. I, as an attorney, would advocate for their rights under the law, which I would note largely does not apply to private school students.
Speaker 2
Okay. And you think that that's gonna somehow instantly transform this school so that they're taught to read?
Speaker 6
I think that there's no chance of people's rights being enforced when they don't have them.
Speaker 2
Let's think about Arizona, Miss Clark, if you're a parent in that same situation. So this is their sort of example that's coming from again. What about in a rural community? If you are in this situation where there's really only one public school and you have access to an ESA, what are your options then?
Speaker 5
Well, we have thousands of families in Arizona and rural communities who are utilizing our state's ESA program, and they're utilizing it because it works. They're not trapped by maybe one public school that isn't serving them well, maybe isn't teaching their child to read. They can launch a micro school. They can create a co-op. They could hire a teacher and pool their ESA funds with other families, which many of them have done.
They can do online school. There are thousands of incredible online schools. They would have access to all of those things with an ESA.
Speaker 2
What do you think, Miss Levin? Might that get you better results in the near term than writing a letter to your state legislator?
Speaker 6
The research says that it would not. The overwhelming research shows that online schools do not perform as well as brick and mortar schools, particularly.
Speaker 2
Well, I don't know about that. I mean, doctor McShane gave us a lot of research that says, quite the contrary. But, I mean, you're from California, and you've told us again that the solution is just full funding. California is pretty well funded. How's California doing with education?
Speaker 6
The solution, to be clear, is not just full funding. Full funding is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for an adequate education.
Speaker 6
We need policy, we need to fund policies that are evidence-backed and that work.
Speaker 6
Like teacher preparation, like preschool, like sufficient services for students with disabilities. And I'd be happy to provide the committee with much more research-backed evidence.
Speaker 2
So in California, we're not doing well. You didn't answer the question, but that's the truth. So I guess even though we have all that funding, we just don't have the right policies in the other areas. Is that what it is?
Speaker 6
Well, California has improved its public school funding. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has sufficient funding to serve the needs of every student well.
Speaker 2
Uh-huh. Are you aware that California had the longest school shutdown in the country during COVID?
Speaker 6
I believe that during a catastrophic early years of a pandemic, schools sometimes needed to stay close to protect both students, especially students with disabilities.
Speaker 2
California's decision to stay, having schools closed longer than any other state in the country.
Speaker 6
I support the decision of each state and locality in making the choice that was right for them.
Speaker 2
Okay. Interesting. But you don't support that when it comes to issues like school choice.
Speaker 6
When it comes to issues like school choice, I support the policies that are going to benefit students, not harm them, and the evidence is overwhelming.
Speaker 2
Evidence is overwhelming that school closures harm students. That's not even really up for debate at this point. You are a supporter of charter schools, is that right?
Speaker 6
Yes. Though they have to be, like, all public policy implemented well, designed well, and with safeguards to protect students' rights.
Speaker 2
Okay. So when President Biden tried to cut federal charter school grants, did you speak out against that?
Speaker 6
Well, one President Biden was a little more targeted than I think you're characterizing. For example, do not support an education law center, does not support for-profit charter schools. They should not be funded with federal money.
Speaker 2
And, just for the record, do federal civil rights laws apply to private schools? Yes or no?
Speaker 2
Federal civil rights laws, you're saying, do not apply to private schools?
Speaker 6
Largely not. Some provisions do, but many do not, of IDEA, Title VI, the EEOA, Title IX. Some of them only apply, many of them only apply to schools that receive federal funding, which is an increasingly low number of private schools, especially high schools.
Speaker 2
That's largely untrue. There's a federal law for any employer, there are federal civil rights protections that don't depend on whether you're a public or private employer. But in any case, I will now recognize the, who's the next Democrat witness? Ms Lee from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 14
Public education is important to me. Right? I am a product of public education from pre k to college, including programs like Hit Start. When I listen to our colleagues on the other side, I'm always baffled by the conversation because I feel like sometimes it maybe intentionally misses the points. We have talked and we will continue to talk about good public schools or passing public schools versus failing public schools. Instead of talking about failing public policy, failing funding schemes, failing bureaucracy, we know that.
Speaker 14
of inequitably funded schools in this country, where the quality of your education can largely be determined by your ZIP code or your family's wealth. In my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, our funding scheme was so inequitable that the court said we needed to go back to the drawing board. Republicans would love to believe that the solution is dismantling the Department of Education to give us local choice. But what they're actually giving us is the responsibility of subsidizing education to localities where people will pay higher property taxes to fund the education of children. The burden of the federal government divesting from public education will be shouldered by first-time homebuyers, for instance.
And in Pittsburgh, where homeownership is already becoming unsustainable for seniors and my, you know, school homeschool district of Woolton Hills, those neighborhoods who are already strained and facing the loss of their Social Security benefits. These additional tax dollars will help charter or private schools, hand select students that will improve schools' outcomes while maximizing schools' bottom line. Our tax dollars won't help the children who will never be able to avail themselves of discriminatory school choices. Our public education system serves the child who is unhoused or transient. The child in the foster care system who doesn't have too well connected parents to push for scholarships or the family facing the digital divide.
Who will miss application deadlines reasonably? The child who didn't have access to his startup preschool like me, because we didn't invest in those. And it's behind that child is behind in reading. We need to invest in public education because it's the only option for children that the so-called parents' rights movement has decided are not worth investing in. It's also no coincidence that the school choice movement is financed by billionaires like Jeffrey Yass from my Commonwealth, who's trying to turn my state's education system into his own personal business.
But a business' priority is to its stakeholders, and children have no stake in the economic model of school choice. Miss Levin, I wanna ask you about charter schools run by for-profit management companies, as you ended in the last question line. If a company is maximizing profit, it's not spending all the public dollars on students, especially students who require more resources, which is why charter schools educate fewer students with disabilities than traditional public schools. And in your opinion, Miss Levin, are these for-profit charter management companies maximizing profit at the cost of students and families?
Speaker 14
Related to moving education into the private sector, one of the rationales for school choice is the free market idea that school choice will force public schools to compete for funding, thereby, public schools will improve because of that. Does evidence support this? What does the research show?
Speaker 6
It does not, and neither does common sense. There's a lot of school choice right now in the public school system. So if competition is good, we're already creating and getting those benefits. But providing high quality education shouldn't be accomplished through cutthroat competition. It should be accomplished by giving every school the resources it needs.
Speaker 14
Thank you. According to the 2022 GAO report, over 30% of Pennsylvania charters that receive federal Charter Schools Program grant funding between 2006 and 2020 closed or never opened. I request unanimous consent for the 2022 GAO report on federally funded charter school closures to be entered into the record.
Speaker 14
Thank you. I've heard countless stories about charter schools closing because of fraud and mismanagement, and voucher programs taking advantage of the fact that they have no fiscal accountability. How concerned should we be about mismanagement, fraud, and corruption if we expand federal support and funding for charters and vouchers.
Speaker 6
We should be very concerned. You're right that there are numerous reports throughout the country of both charter and voucher schools engaging in fraud, waste, abuse of public dollars. It's unconscionable to send billions more in a federal voucher program to schools that have almost no accountability or transparency requirements.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Miss Leban. It's clear that school choice, the school choice fallacy we're talking about today, just exacerbates the inequalities, the inequities we already have. Wealthy white families will continue to have their choices subsidized by depriving largely black and brown, and other marginalized children of educational opportunities. If school choice is gonna work, children and families do need real choices. A for-profit charter school that closes a month after opening because of fraud mismanagement is not a real choice.
A private school where tuition is twice as much as a child's scholarship amount, where a child is not entitled to an IEP, and where a child can be expelled, for instance, for having two moms, is not a real choice. An underfunded neighborhood school with larger class sizes, fewer books, substandard wages for teachers, and deteriorating infrastructure because everyone's increasing tax dollars are being used to subsidize charters and private schools. It's also not a real choice. Families and children are owed fully funded, high quality, well resourced public schools, and we can accomplish that. But not by giving away more handouts to billionaires that will discriminate against the most marginalized students to turn a profit.
I thank you all for your time, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. The representative from Guam, Mister Moylan, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, mister chairman, madam ranking member, and thank you for hosting this important hearing on expanding educational choice. School choice allows parents and families the freedom to choose the schools that work best for them. In my district of Guam, people often work outside their villages, sometimes on the opposite side of the island. Situations like these sometimes make it difficult for parents who want to ensure that they are home for their young children when they are out of school. So expanding school choice across the board, both private and public, empowers families to choose what works, giving needed flexibility in districts like my own.
My question is for Missus Clark. You mentioned that your family had to jump through a variety of hoops. And before qualifying for an educational savings account, we all want to make sure that the government funds are spent responsibly. What ways, if any, can state lawmakers slash red tape or redundant reporting requirements so that families can navigate the system more easily?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. Well, the whole idea behind school choice and ESAs is parents' rights. We want to give control back into the hands of parents so that they can direct the dollars and put them in the education environment that best meets their child's needs. So I advocate for really flexible ESA programs that are open immediately, or what we call universal to all families. It took us over 12 years to get that in Arizona.
And, of course, once we had universal ESA, the number of students on it just skyrocketed because we removed those barriers. I also think requiring prior public school attendance is not good for the public school system, and it's very difficult for families, especially students with disabilities who often, you know, would have to go enroll their child in a public school and then pull them out just to qualify. And, also, what I mentioned earlier, we don't want to burden public schools. And so allowing families like Arizona has to use a private diagnosis of your student with a disability instead of having to go through the public school system, you can if you want to, but you're no longer required to go through the public school system to prove your student has a disability. Those are three reforms and removal of red tape that I think other states should consider.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I appreciate that. My last question will be for Mr. Blanks. You mentioned that school choice nurtured your intellectual and academic potential. Can you elaborate further on how school choice programs can help create pipelines to meaningful, well-paying jobs in rural, remote districts like mine?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Well, thank you for that question. And to go off of some of that, I was supposed to be a statistic. I was supposed to be in prison or not even here today. And if it weren't for school choice, there's no telling where I would be.
And so thinking about not just the academic portion that school choice helps a child, I always say that you may not be in the classroom, but you're always a student. And being able to take advantage of those opportunities to progress even after graduating high school or college or whatever the case may be, has been monumental in my own life. I mean, never in a million years would I imagine sitting before you all today. And it was all because of my educational journey. And we can stop a lot of the criminal justice aspect of middle aged people and people my age if they have a great education.
And so I believe that when we're talking about school choice, and we didn't hear a lot about why, once again, as I said earlier, why families wanna send their children to a different school in the first place or why they are not a part of the conversation when we're talking about education. I've seen up until this point a lot of protection for the bureaucracy, and I'm here to fight for the students. I'm here to fight for parents and be that voice for them because even just looking in the room, there are not too many of them here. And so, my perspective is we give every single family school choice and allow parents to drive where they send their child to school because that's the most important thing that a parent can do for their child.
Speaker 15
Continue the fight, and we're here to support you. Thank you very much to the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I have about a minute here. Doctor McShane, we've heard various claims regarding the data when it comes to school choice programs. Could you just take a moment to address what we've heard from the minority witness?
Speaker 4
We have certainly heard a lot. School choices, particularly private school choice, has been studied an incredible amount over a long period of time. I have in my written testimony a summary of, I think, over 188 different studies across a variety of different indicators. The overwhelming weight of those is positive. That's not to say that there aren't some studies in some places that have shown negative results.
But whether you're talking about student achievement, those students that participate in the program and their test scores, talking about student attainment, which is later life outcomes like high school graduation or college matriculation, whether you're looking at actually, there's been some discussion of segregation. My understanding is that, I think, of the eight empirical studies that have been done, seven of them showed positive results and only one showed negative results. Civic values, a host of other accounts, by and large, the weight of the evidence is positive.
Speaker 2
So it sounds like they're cherry-picking either poorly designed programs or outlier examples to try to create a narrative.
Speaker 2
And by the way, we hear that there might be some charter or private schools where there's waste, fraud, and abuse. Nothing like that ever happens in the traditional public school system.
Speaker 4
I'm from Kansas City. So, we were home to one of the most famous and long-running school desegregation lawsuits, that spent billions and billions of dollars. And did the federal judge, when he dismissed at the end, basically put his hands up and said, you know, we spent so much money, and so much of it was just wasted.
Speaker 2
Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. We'll plan to reconvene promptly in 5 minutes at 11:50. Thank you. The committee now stands in recess. The committee has reconvened.
The representative from Pennsylvania, Mister McKinsey, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Well, thank you, mister chairman, and I appreciate the topic of this hearing today. A great conversation to be had about how we can improve the lives and the education of students all across this country. And what I'd like to talk about, I'd like to give just a little background. My experience in Pennsylvania is that we have a system where charter schools coexist with traditional public schools. And because they are all public schools in Pennsylvania, that's how they are characterized in our state law, and that's how they should be viewed, as all being equal public schools.
And so what I see is that all too often in America today, the wealthy have an unlimited set of choices. They can go to a private school. They can go to a parochial school. They can do whatever they want because they have access to resources. As you move down that socioeconomic ladder, often the number of choices narrows.
And, oddly, though, maybe the middle class face the worst or least set of choices because there are scholarships for lower income individuals, and that's wonderful. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But, ultimately, those middle class families who don't have the wealth and opportunity to go to the school of their choice, and they don't qualify for resources and scholarships that are available for low income students, they're left in a situation where they have the least number of choices possibly. And so, this is more just a broad conversation that I wanna have about how we can expand choice for everybody across the spectrum, but at the same time reduce the hostility that I see for choice. Because we see that in Pennsylvania, these schools coexist.
They are both public schools. That's what they are. But for some reason, there are folks that want to demonize the choice of a family that is going outside the traditional public school system. And so what we see all too often is that it is pitted one against another, which is this really odd thing, I think, to do when you are talking about the education of children. Demonizing the alternative educational system is not helping a child, that is not helping them to get a better education.
And so, but all too often, we see it as a one-zero, you win, we lose scenario. So I would just like to hear from our panelists about what we can do to bring down the negative rhetoric that is demonizing the alternative, the hatred that is out there, that is existing in the hearts of so many people who want to restrain choice and restrain options. How can we have these systems coexist, and what can we do to encourage choice and opportunity for everybody, as opposed to demonizing the alternatives?
Speaker 5
I'll start, and I've got good news for you. So I run a Facebook group of over 11,000 Arizona ESA families, and they span the political spectrum, socioeconomic spectrum. Their life and their lifestyles look very different. And there's one thing they all have in common. They're on Arizona's ESA program.
And so a lot of the rhetoric that we hear is perpetuated by large special interest groups that are more focused on propping up failing systems than they are focused on students and parents and their rights. So the good news is that at the very ground, grassroots, most basic level, families love school choice programs, and they are doing everything they can to make sure that their voices are heard, and that their voices surpass the special interest rhetoric that we hear from the other side.
Speaker 1
And I would jump right behind what Missus Clark said. Keeping the conversation student centric will be far more beneficial, not just from checking the temperature on it, but also actually creating meaningful policy. Because at the end of the day, that's the purpose of education, not just of public education. Education as a whole is to ensure that our future is secured through educating our children. And so when that's the focus and those are the conversations, it doesn't really matter if it's a private school or charter school or homeschooling or whatever the case may be.
The end goal is to ensure that children are actually being educated. And similar to what missus Clark said, there are a lot of political interests that have power and are navigating things across the board. But when it comes down to how the children are doing, it's pretty simple. And this conversation is a great example of that. We've heard that vouchers don't work or that vouchers don't help the lower income minority community.
That's me. I am that student that was low-income minority and didn't have any other options. And so when the conversation is framed that way, it's really hard to jack up the temperature. And some people would try, and I've had a lot of experience in that. But at the end of the day, if we're children, that should be our main goal and our main priority.
Speaker 16
Well, I want to thank you for that. I think we do need to elevate and raise up these voices of individuals that have succeeded through school choice, because we know, all across the country, there are good and bad scenarios in both traditional and charter or other alternative school systems. We want to elevate those wonderful outcomes and experiences that are being had across the spectrum, regardless of where they are. And, ultimately, leave that choice to the families and the parents, because they are the ones that are going to best determine the situation and the setting that is going to benefit their child and their educational outcome. So I just wanna thank all of you for being here to raise up these voices, and we want to continue this conversation.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
The ranking member of the full committee, Mister Scott, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I've always been intrigued by the strategy of dealing with totally dysfunctional schools by helping a handful of people with a voucher get away and leaving the vast majority still stuck behind in the failing school system. Did nothing for the vast majority of students, except give them fewer resources than they had to begin with. Miss Levin, do the private schools charge more than the voucher amount?
Speaker 6
Yes. And they often do. They also have been shown to raise their prices when vouchers come to the state.
Speaker 17
And who pays the difference between the voucher amount and the tuition?
Speaker 6
That's on the backs of families, as well as other non-tuition expenses, making them only accessible to the wealthy.
Speaker 17
When these voucher programs start off, is there any explosion in private school seats?
Speaker 6
Yes. There's often fly-by-night private schools in strip malls and other places that aren't suitable that rise up to take advantage of the funds.
Speaker 6
Yes. They're often low quality, and they often close. I believe research shows that about 20% of schools close within a few years in Florida. It's 30%.
Speaker 17
So that, when they actually get there, they don't have any better opportunity than they had to begin with.
Speaker 17
Well, and, well, we'll get to the rights in just a second. Then do the schools have their own admission standards?
Speaker 6
They do, and voucher laws are written to explicitly allow them to keep those standards, even if they're discriminatory.
Speaker 17
Now Mister Banks indicated that he's an example of that. He said he was denied twice by the school he applied to. What oversight is there on admissions policies?
Speaker 17
Is there any guarantee that those who get a voucher can get into a private school?
Speaker 6
There is not, and I've spoken with many families that may have started with high hopes, especially for students with disabilities, and then found that there was no school that would accept their child.
Speaker 6
Then they remain in public schools, which now have fewer resources to serve them.
Speaker 6
They do. And in most places, private schools are not subject to anti-bullying laws like public schools are.
Speaker 6
They can for things like their sexual orientation, their disability, their academic achievement, their English language ability, and many other things that would not be allowed in public schools.
Speaker 6
Those students depend on public schools, which, again, now have fewer resources.
Speaker 17
And tell me about the civil rights protections. You said even if discriminatory?
Speaker 6
That's right. Civil rights protections are substantially lower for private school students than public school students. I know employment law was mentioned, which is different from the rights for students.
Speaker 17
Now you mentioned Title Six. Disparate impact cases can only be brought by the Department of Education. Are Title VI cases brought against private schools?
Speaker 6
Title six only applies to schools that receive federal financial assistance, and that is an increasingly low number of private schools.
Speaker 17
Is acceptance of a voucher fund federal funding? Isn't that a question about whether or not they're even subject to any of the civil rights laws like Title Six?
Speaker 6
Correct. Private school students do not enjoy the protections of many federal civil rights statutes, including Title Six, unless there's federal funding.
Speaker 17
You mentioned segregation. I recall the, as you've suggested, the battle cry of segregationists was give a state's rights. How do states' rights help enforce civil rights?
Speaker 6
States can enact civil rights laws that go beyond federal law. Again, they largely, such as special education laws, wouldn't apply to students who take a voucher.
Speaker 17
What oversight is there for private to be able to term for us to determine whether or not there are good schools or bad schools? I imagine there's a great deal of variability.
Speaker 6
Very little, and again, decreasing with each passing year. That's a deliberate choice, and we know why. It's because the results are not good.
Speaker 6
Most private school voucher programs have very little or no testing requirements.
Speaker 2
Mister Allen, or Miss Miller, the representative from Illinois, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you, chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses. This is such an important hearing. Our children are the future of our country. So first of all, ranking member Scott just said how concerned he was that students are leaving the public schools, and that it would leave a vast majority of students behind in a failing school system. Exactly.
This is the point. And whether they're leaving or escaping, I'm not sure. They're also concerned that there's mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in, you know, alternative schools or in how the money would be used. But I wanna remind everybody that the Chicago public schools are spending $29,000 a year per student. It's a 97% increase since 2012.
They're reading under 30% at the grade level, probably substantially below that. Math, their proficiency is under 20%. These results are dismal, and the focus should be what's best for the students and empowering the parents. So Mrs. Clark, thank you so much for your testimony. It seems like Arizona's education savings account program has been truly transformational for your family.
I'm hopeful that other state legislators will hear your stories and stories like yours, and consider establishing or expanding ESA programs. What would you say to state legislators who are on the fence about whether the program is worthwhile?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. Well, I'm a public school graduate, preschool all the way through college. So let me say that upfront. And never did I imagine that my local public school would not meet my own children's needs. I was given the ESA as the only option for my students with a disability.
And so the message I have for other state legislators is look at states like Arizona, like Florida, and the 13 plus other states that have passed programs. The demand is there because the public school system does not work for every child. We spoke earlier that families have different needs and goals and interests for their children, and passing school choice programs allows those families who are stuck in failing public schools an option out.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mrs. Clark. Doctor McShane, my colleagues on the other side keep saying that school choice doesn't work. What do you think is the disconnect between what the research shows and the perceptions of school choice among its opponents?
Speaker 4
Look. I think that research, in its best form, is supposed to be a flashlight and not a sledgehammer. Mhmm. It's supposed to help us better understand the world, better understand our policies, figure out ways to make them better, see where they're not working, and learn from them. It's not supposed to be something that you use to sort of bludgeon the people who think differently and then you into submission.
I think we saw a fair amount of that during the COVID pandemic, for example. Someone waving around, well, this study shows. Mhmm. And then suddenly we're all supposed to sort of change our behavior as a result of that. We need to draw from multiple wells when it comes to figuring out what the best course of action is. Research is one of those wells, but our values are one of those wells.
The experiences of the people who participate in programs, our religious traditions, ethics, morality, we're supposed to draw from all those. And one of the beautiful things about being American is that different people draw from those wells differently. And one of the beautiful things about school choice is it allows a system where they can have institutions that reflect those different values.
Speaker 18
Absolutely. And decades ago, I took my children out of public school to home-educate them so that I could give them a Christian education and use Christian curriculum. And I'm so thankful for the freedom to do that. And, you know, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. The most I've been saying for a long time, the most racist thing going on in our country is forcing children in inner city schools, black and brown children, to be forced to stay in failing schools.
And this has got to end. Thank you so much for our witnesses, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Miss Levin, just out of curiosity, who are the major funders of your organization?
Speaker 6
We receive relatively small grants from a number of charitable and other organizations.
Speaker 2
Okay. Like, the American Federation Teachers' Unions, any funding from there?
Speaker 2
And such organizations, they generally lose money, the more students enroll in private schools and charter schools. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
No? When you have more students educated in charter schools and private schools, you don't think that causes the teachers union to lose money?
Speaker 6
I think the teachers union is not concerned so much with its bottom line as with its mission of.
Speaker 2
Education and children. I think that is something worth disclosing the next time that you testify before the committee. Let's see. We have, I believe, one more. Miss Wilson from Florida on the Democratic side.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chair. Public schools, sure. Have to educate everyone. The gifted, the disabled, the wheelchair-bound, the mentally challenged, the sick, the orphaned, the ungovernable, everyone. Charter and private schools cherry-pick and refuse entry to any child they do not want.
They can do that, but public schools cannot, and that's wrong. With less funding, they have to handle everyone. It is unfair, and it's an insane ploy to destroy public education and leave it in shambles. And I implore you to stop supporting charter schools and support our wonderful public schools. I am from Florida, and I have seen what happens when we do this.
Miss Levin, in your statement, you state that many schools around the nation face chronic and severe underfunding. Diverting much-needed funding from public education to pay for private school vouchers exacerbates the lack of resources. I harken back to a 02/2009 Miami-Dade School District report that questioned whether some public schools were attempting to select high-performing students for enrollment. The report found that advanced students were nearly twice as likely to transfer to select private schools as to continue in their home schools. However, this selective enrollment is not unique to Miami.
Across the country, this is creating a new segregated public school system. If the private schools are cherry picking the best students, diverting funds, and not subject to the same oversight, of course they would have an advantage. How do we ensure that this does not happen?
Speaker 6
We ensure this doesn't happen by not funding voucher programs that have all the flaws that you've just articulated, and, furthermore, by fully funding public schools where, of course, there are huge challenges, but where there are mechanisms and laws, and also the will of most of the people in this country to make things better. I do wanna go back for one moment to the idea of demonizing families and individuals because that is what you do when you don't have reasoned and evidence backed arguments. Education Law Center and the scores of public education supporters around the country engage in respectful opposition to policies that, in our considered judgment, would hurt far more students than help them. And we also oppose policymakers who support those policies, who should know better. And just to be clear, I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with educators across the country who are fighting for the same things.
Speaker 2
The representative from Georgia, Mister Allen, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 14 beautiful grandchildren, and boy, they're different. You know, God created every child with unique characteristics. And guess what? They deserve the best, the best school for every child.
And it might not be the best school for another. Now let's be clear, we don't want to lose one child in this country. All of us are sick of that, and it's creating real problems. But at the same time, how do we change the direction? We know we're going in the wrong direction.
I mean, 70% of the country said this country is going in the wrong direction. A lot of it starts right there in education. I have I bring you good news to fill the need for young students who are struggling in public schools. We established Heritage Academy, and we give low-income single moms a choice for their child's education. These children are receiving a faith-based education, and every child has thrived.
These children, these moms, send these children to Heritage Academy because, basically, they're told they are losers in the public school system. They are growing both academically and spiritually, and most, I think all of them, are awarded a full scholarship to any private school they wanna go to in my district. That's the good news. So, again, in my state, school choice is an 80% issue. Miss Clark, one common argument we hear about school choice and ESEs, ESAs in particular, is that they defund traditional public schools or otherwise degrade the quality of public education.
Have you seen that in Arizona?
Speaker 5
Absolutely not. In fact, not a single public school has closed in Arizona in the over 12 plus years that we've had the ESA program in our state.
Speaker 20
Okay. Well, I gotta speak up for my daughters. I have one daughter that's sending her children to a faith-based private school where she attended. We sent our children because we wanted them to get a faith based education. But I have another daughter who is sending hers to public school, and she has gotten in there and gotten involved in the public school.
And, you know, the parents have, and it's beginning to thrive. Now it took a lot to do that, and I applaud. My wife did the same thing when our children went to high school. Doc Machane, I have reviewed the data you presented in your testimony. I'm impressed by how overwhelming the research base favoring school choice, which, again, we, you know, enjoys us an 80% positive issue.
What would help make the public more aware of the results you've offered us here today?
Speaker 4
Research is boring. I noticed when I was I saw in the lineup that I was gonna have to open for Jenny and Walter. I felt like a, you know, a band that has to open for two significantly better bands, and you're just gonna kind of get the doors blown off you there. But it does highlight an important point that, ultimately, the research that I do, the research that others do, the data points that we collect are real human beings who are trying to do right by their children or our children themselves. And so I think doing as much as we can to tell the stories underneath those data.
Because research ultimately looks. We do averages. Right? We take all the voucher kids on this side, and all the nonvoucher kids on this side. We look at what they are at the average.
But we know under averages are big bell curves. Right? There are some people that are doing better. There are some that are doing worse. So trying to tell those actual stories and learning from them is important.
Speaker 20
Right. I understand. Mister Banks, thank you for coming and testifying today. Your story is, I mean, Ben Carson is a good friend of mine. He had a similar story.
And we, like I said, you know, we want every child to have the same opportunity you had. Thanks for being here, and thank you for speaking out for every young person in America, because it's important.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. And I just wanna be very clear that I'm not the only one. There are thousands of students across the country who have benefited from similar programs, are thriving, and doing great work. There is an army coming up behind me. I could introduce you to hundreds of families.
And to quote Coach Prime, I ain't too hard to find. I'm gonna continue this work because I believe in it, and I've benefited from it, and I've seen the results. And I believe that every child should have the same experience that I did.
Speaker 20
Well, that's what has made America the great country it is today. Thank you. Thanks to all of you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, and thank you to all of our witnesses for your time and testimony today. I now recognize the ranking member for closing remarks.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to my closing, I wanna clarify that public opinion does not support private school vouchers when people were asked as part of a recent poll whether they prefer increasing federal funding to support public schools or providing funding to support private school vouchers. The majority of voters on both sides of the aisle chose public schools, regardless of their age, gender, race, political views, education level, or the state that they live in. In fact, 68% of voters chose public schools, while only 24% chose vote vouchers, and that number was even higher for parents of school-aged kids. This includes two thirds of all voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, all states that have private voucher programs.
And I might add that overwhelmingly supported President Trump. Voucher proposals failed on all three state ballots where they appeared in November: Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky. In fact, voters across the country have rejected every ballot measure proposing a voucher scheme since 1967, a total of 17 times. So I'd like to enter into the record a document entitled The Public Wants Public Schools, Not Vouchers by All for Ed.
Speaker 3
And then I would also like to enter into the record the following documents. A letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State opposing school vouchers, a letter from the consortium for constituents with disabilities, education task force opposing the educational choice for children act, a letter from the center for learner equity opposing the educational choice for children act, a letter from the national coalition for public education opposing the educational choice for children act, and two articles from ProPublica about Arizona's voucher program. The first is school vouchers were supposed to save taxpayer money. Instead, they blew a massive hole in Arizona's budget. And the second, in a state with school vouchers for all low income, vouchers aren't low income, voters are not choosing to use them primarily because they can't afford the additional costs like tuition balance and cost of transportation.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not an educator like my colleagues' representatives Wilson, Hayes, and Manion, but I'm a parent. And I spent years and hundreds of hours, if not thousands of hours, as a volunteer in public schools. And I was fortunate to be able to do that, but I always thought about all the kids. At one point, my son said, Mom, do you have to be at school all the time?
I thought about all of the students who did not have involved parents. And as ranking member Scott was saying, what about all the rest of the children who don't have maybe an involved parent like mister Blanks? Who's speaking for them? That is our responsibility to think about all of the students in the public schools. And I also wanna follow up on Representative Mackenzie's comment because he seemed to be only focused on public charter schools.
And we, as I said in my opening, as Democrats, we are pro choice in the public school system. So I just he said, how do we turn down the level of the debate and make the discussion calmer? It's pretty simple. We support choice within the public school system. Because we know public education in this country has been chronically underfunded for decades.
Students are suffering because of it, and we know that the majority of funding comes from state and local sources. But that federal funding piece, it's critical, and it's especially critical for low-income students and students with disabilities. But instead of fully funding public education to improve outcomes, to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and to close those opportunity gaps, the Trump admin... Administration is threatening to dismantle the Department of Education. What a terrible message to send to families, to students, to educators, to business leaders that need an educated workforce, and to our global allies and competitors who are making education a priority.
And now Republicans are touting voucher schemes as a solution. But vouchers take funding away from public schools and give it to families, often wealthy families, to subsidize sending their kids to private schools. The evidence does not show that school vouchers improve academic outcomes. In fact, the research on voucher programs in Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio found negative effects on student achievement after leaving the public school system. Vouchers also empower private schools to discriminate against disadvantaged students, increasing segregation, and they lack transparency and accountability, and they are a misuse of American tax dollars.
Of course, we have work to do to improve the public education system so it fully meets the needs of all students and inspires them to be successful, creative, critical thinkers, with a love of learning. But it will always be the foundation on which we build our country's future. So we need to make those long-term federal investments to get students back up to speed, to make schools safe by addressing gun violence, by fixing crumbling school infrastructure so every child, regardless of their background or income, can have a bright future. The answer is to strengthen, not privatize, public education. Before I close, mister chairman, I must say that I continue to be surprised by the topics of the committee's hearings, given the ongoing attack on public education and the Department of Education and even education research.
Last week, secretary McMahon set out a memo detailing the Department of Education's final mission, and president Trump walked back a planned executive order to dismantle the department after widespread public outcry. So, mister chair, I sincerely appreciate our conversation about priorities for the subcommittee this session, and I know you care about students and the future of education. So can we engage in a very brief colloquy, mister chairman?
Speaker 2
Well, I'm not sure as to the rules on colloquies. But, if you'd like to pose a question, I'd be happy to address it in my closest way.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman. Are you do you share concerns about the department of government efficiency and Elon Musk's ongoing efforts to disrupt IDEA, to eliminate funding for rural and low-income schools, and access students and family sensitive personal data? And, also, if you could also answer, I expect that the majority will call Secretary McMahon to the committee soon. But across the country, people are asking what Doge is doing. Can we work together so our subcommittee has both oversight and input into the reshaping of our country's public school system by bringing in, as well.
Speaker 3
Secretary McMahon, Elon Musk, who's the leader of DOGE, either before the full committee or the subcommittee.
Speaker 2
Well, I have not heard anything about many of the items that you mentioned, but use the word disrupt. And I do agree that our public education system is in need of disruption. We have seen our results fail, our kids for too long, and they've gotten worse year after year even though we're spending more and more money. But the good news is that we see examples throughout the country where this sort of positive disruption is occurring in a way that lifts up all students and has gotten amazing results for students. We've seen some good examples in DC.
We saw it in New Orleans after Katrina, where they became an all charter network. Florida was mentioned by one of the representatives from Florida as somehow a bad example. Florida leads the nation in education outcomes. It usually ranks first or close to it. On the other hand, my state, California, which has done everything possible to restrict school choice, ranks among the worst in the country, even though it spends a lot and has added tens of billions of dollars to the education budget.
In fact, in 2019, California was second worst in the entire country for education outcomes for kids on free or reduced lunch. And then, of course, during COVID, as I mentioned before, California had the longest school shutdown of any state in the entire country, although not everyone was kept out of school. For example, Gavin Newsom, the governor who ordered the school shutdown, he sent his kids to in-person private school during that time. And I think that just underlines a theme that comes out of today's hearing, which is that we already have a universal school of choice in this country, for people of means, those who can afford it. I'm glad that the Democrat witness got a great opportunity growing up to go to an outstanding, private school.
I'm glad that Gavin Newsom's kids get to go to a great school and that Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's kids. But what I don't like is when those very politicians or advocates, who make one choice for their own families then seek to deny that choice, use their power to deny that choice to those who are less fortunate. I think that tension is what we're trying to resolve here, and we're trying to expand that sort of opportunity. So, you know, we've heard a lot of railing against any form of voucher or scholarship or education savings account today. But the reality is that those who are making these arguments, by and large, don't just oppose vouchers or particular voucher programs.
They oppose school choice in general. In fact, we saw that pivot even happen in the midst of this hearing, where they start off by saying we support public charter schools, and then suddenly we hear spurious arguments about for-profit charters. 90% of charters are nonprofit. Or we hear things like charters can turn students away. Absolutely untrue.
Charters are open to all and are tuition-free. So that is the troubling theme that comes out of this, is that the opposition is really to anything that disrupts the business model of keeping kids trapped in failing schools. And it's that business model that has led to this education decline in our country. So what I think we need, and what we're seeing emerge, is a new model where the money follows the student. This is what extends opportunities to families who have other options, and it's what catalyzes system-wide change.
And I will say in fairness, and I think that the ranking member is sincere on this, that the Democrat party has been divided on the issue of charters. We see some who are clearly anti-charter school, but there are some that have been supportive, like when President Biden tried to cut charter school grants. Several Democrats, including Governor Polis in Colorado, came out against that. And we have seen bipartisan support for great charters like Success Academy and KIPP. I mean, Success Academy is the number one performing school in the entire state of New York.
But nevertheless, and I've seen this firsthand in my own state, there has been a war against all forms of school choice, despite the manifold benefits that we've seen for students. So what I'm hoping is that those who are actually interested in getting positive education outcomes for kids will move past the talking point that we just need to put more money in there since that's obviously a theory that's been falsified. Of course, we need to adequately fund education, but the notion that more money will produce better results without actual reform has been proven false time and again. But if we can find those who are genuinely interested, and I'm willing to partner with the ranking member and anyone else on this side of the aisle to support those forms of school choice that you can get behind. So despite the vast differences of opinion we've seen today, I'm hopeful that we'll find some common ground going forward.
And I really think we do have an opportunity to catalyze reforms that will benefit millions of kids, millions of families across this country, and set our country on a much more promising path going forward.
Speaker 3
I haven't yielded back, but I appreciate the remarks. Just a couple of comments.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Yes. But I didn't yield back. A couple of things, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned the addressing the need of students trapped in a failing school.
I don't wanna just address the students who feel like they need to escape a school. I need to address all of the students. Meaning, when somebody says a school, well, first of all, a school is a building. What is happening to the students in that school? Do they need smaller class sizes?
Do they need art education? Do they need, is there lead in the water? Do they need behavioral health care? There are many reasons why we shouldn't ignore everybody who's in what you're calling a failing school. And, also, with regard to success, if you're using the NAEP scores to measure success, we understand that, as I mentioned, mister chairman, the score is one way to assess a student.
But when you adjust by income, it is truly the low income students who are really struggling. I also note, mister chairman, that you did not address whether we could expect to hear from secretary McMahon or Elon Musk or someone from Doge. So I hope you'll do that in your closing, and I look forward to continuing the conversation. And now I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, that was my closing. I don't think we usually yield back and forth on closing statements, but I do appreciate the conversation. Look forward to continuing it. I'd like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. Without objection, there being no further business.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.