Funding Education in the Washington, D.C. Public School System :

1. Funding Education in the Washington, D.C. Public School System: Virtues, Vouchers and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Kevin R. Slaughter George Mason University October 4, 2014

2. Introduction • This presentation discusses the latest piece of federal legislation designed to reform the nation’s public school system – the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001. • It examines the provisions which allow allocation of public funds in the form of vouchers to finance alternative opportunities for education within private, religious, or charter school environments in the Washington, D.C. school system.

3. Introduction Key Areas for Discussion • The Act: What is its primary mission? What demands are placed on the public schools? What is the effect of recent Supreme Court rulings? • The Figures: statistical data on vouchers and funding education. • The Debate: Will implementation of vouchers lead to a new class of separate, but equal public schools?

4. The No Child Left Behind Act • Signed into law on January 8th, 2002. • The NCLBA ‘01 represents the most dramatic reform of education policy in 38 years. Image: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/highlights/02.html

5. The No Child Left Behind Act Parental Choice & Accountability • Parents with a child in a school identified as needing improvement can transfer their child to better performing public school or public charter school. • Parents can use federal education funds for “supplemental educational services (ex: tutoring, after school services, and summer school programs).

6. The No Child Left Behind Act Parental Choice & Accountability • Approximately $200 million in federal funds could beavailable to state and local communities to help establish and fund charter schools. • Each state and U.S. territory must submit an Accountability & Standards Agreement documenting how they will comply with the NCLBA. Washington, D.C.’s plan was submitted and accepted on June 10th, 2003.

7. The No Child Left Behind Act Zelman v. Simmons-Harris • June 27th, 2002 – U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio’s pilot program that provides educational choice options. • Court determined program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, strengthening the legal basis for implementation of voucher programs to fund public, parochial, or charter school education alternatives.

8. The No Child Left Behind Act “… the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by Financial need and residence in a particular school district.” • Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist • June 27th, 2002 Image: http://www.virtualology.com/uschiefjustices/WILLIAMHREHNQUIST.NET

9. The No Child Left Behind Act Criteria for Private Choice Programs • Any government program must have a secular purpose to survive Establishment Clause challenge. • A school choice program must offer only indirect aid to religious schools. • The benefits of a school choice program must be made available to a broad class of beneficiaries.

10. The No Child Left Behind Act Criteria for Private Choice Programs • A program must not be set up in a way that favors religious options over secular options. • States must ensure that parents have adequate nonreligious educational options.

11. The No Child Left Behind Act The D.C. School Choice Initiative • Bush Administration proposal to implement its voucher and public school choice test program in the DCPS system. • The District’s elementary & secondary education funding increases 15% to $92 million in the 2004 fiscal budget. • Voucher program funded from a $75 million national Choice Incentive Fund.

12. The No Child Left Behind Act “Under this program, the Department would make grants to support projects that provide low-income parents […] with the opportunity to transfer their children to higher-performing public and private schools, including charter schools.” • Under Sect. Eugene W. Hickok • May 9th, 2003 Image: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/hickok.html

13. The Figures Nat. Assessment of Ed. Progress (NAEP) 2000 • 6% of D.C. 4th and 8th-graders tested at the proficient or advanced levels in math. • 76% of the District’s 4th-graders and 77% of 8th-graders scored at the “below basic” level on the NAEP’s math assessment. • 10% of 4th-graders and 12% at the 8th-grade level could read proficiently. • 56% of 8th-graders and 72% of 4th-graders were below basic in reading skills.

14. The Figures Nat. Assessment of Ed. Progress (NAEP) 2002 • 31% of fourth-graders, 33% of eighth-graders and 36% of 12th-graders could read at least at the proficient level -- meaning they could handle challenging subject matter. • 36% of fourth-graders and 25% of eighth-graders performed below the basic level, failing to demonstrate even partial mastery of reading.

15. The Figures Nat. Assessment of Ed. Progress (NAEP) 2002 • Reading scores were uniformly disappointing among the nation's high school seniors, with 26% scoring below basic in 2002, a decline of 2 percentage points from 1998. • 36% of 12th-graders scored at or above the proficient level, down from 40% in 1998.

16. The Figures Vouchers Before the NCLBA • 1999 – 63% of Americans said they knew very little or nothing at all about school vouchers and how they work. • 2000 – 44% of participants in a Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard survey said they did not know what the term “school vouchers” meant. • 2002 – 49% of respondents in a NAACP Poll opposed school vouchers. • 2002 – 76% of D.C. voters said they opposed private school vouchers.

17. The Figures Image: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kimages/kpoll83.pdf

18. The Figures Vouchers After the NCLBA • The 34th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll finds “51% of respondents support giving vouchers to parents to use at a school of their choice […].” • Figures from the Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies determines “57% of African Americans, compared with 49% of the adult population generally, said they supported school vouchers; 74% of blacks with children and 75% of blacks under age of 35 supported the policy.”

19. The Figures Image: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kimages/k0209pol.pdf

20. The Debate D.C. Politics Before the Bush Proposal • Mayor Anthony A. Williams “does not support public funds for vouchers in private schools,” according to his spokesman, Tony Bullock. • Peggy Cooper Cafritz, D.C.’s School Board President says, “This board is solidly against vouchers.” • Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton – “If the Bush Administration ‘is seriously interested in alternative education in the District they will allow us to put our share [of the voucher money] into our charter schools.”

21. The Debate “The real question is why are upscale suburban school districts not opening their doors to the families of poor black and Latino children who have vouchers.” • NAACP Pres. Kweisi Mfume • June 27th, 2002 Image: http://www.naacp.org/leadership/presimessage.shtml

22. The Debate “We consider vouchers bad public policy […] Many voucher schools will pass muster, but the public needs to know about the ones that are failing.[…] Voucher schools that refuse to be held accountable to the public must not get public dollars.” • AFT Pres. Sandra Feldman • July 2nd, 2002 Image: http://www.aft.org/stand/previous/2002/0702.html

23. The Debate “We fail when we do not hold our elected officials accountable. […]. This has allowed voucher advocates to get a foothold in the education debate by dividing our communities with offers of so-called ‘choice.’” • NEA Pres. Reginald Weaver • October 6th, 2002 Image: http://www.nea.org/columns/rw021006.html

24. The Debate D.C. Politics After the Bush Proposal • March 29th, 2003 – Cafritz reverses her position on vouchers saying, “D.C. officials should ‘accept the federally sponsored voucher or scholarship program.’” • May 1st, 2003 – Mayor Williams announces endorsement of the voucher program after discussions with Bush Administration.” • May 2nd, 2003 – Councilman Kevin Chavous gives tentative support to vouchers “contingent upon public schools also receiving significant funds from the federal government.”

25. The Debate “We’re willing to try an experiment […]. We need to be putting together more good schools and shutting down bad schools, and to the extent we’re doing this – and I think this helps – it’s a good thing.” • Mayor Anthony A. Williams • May 1st, 2003 Image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/?nav=hptop

26. The Debate “There is a reason why pro-voucher forces have been obsessed with making the largely black, highly visible school system in the nation’s capital the poster child for vouchers. They believe that imposing vouchers here is the best way to break through continuing national opposition.” • Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton • May 1st, 2003 Image: http://www.yourcongress.com/profile.asp?member_id=365

27. The Debate “Mayor Williams and School Board President Cafritz have gone out on a limb by publicly reversing themselves. To their credit, and to the benefit of the children and families of D.C., the children of the nation’s capital have a chance at real choice – real freedom – in getting a better education.” • Casey J. Lartigue, Jr., Cato Institute • May 30th, 2003 Image: http://www.cato.org/people/lartigue.html

28. Conclusion There is a clear shift in the District of Columbia’s education public policy. Two significant events – passage of the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 with its proposed voucher program for the District and the continuing lack of positive performance in the public school system – have forced D.C.’s elected officials and school administrators to rethink their positions on education funding policy and public school choice.

29. Conclusion There are no definitive studies to indicate voucher programs vastly improve students’ education or learning environments, or that racial, gender, or religious diversity in student populations will be negatively impacted due to the “creaming” of prize students from the ranks of public schools into private or parochial schools.

30. Conclusion This presentation is not suggesting that all public schools are bad or that students attending the nation’s public schools are receiving inferior educations. In fact: • National Center for Education Statistics “nearly 85 percent of the wealthiest families in America choose to send their children to public schools.” • Money Magazine - “about 10 percent of all public schools – about 2,000 nationwide – are as outstanding academically as the nation’s most prestigious and selective private schools”

31. Conclusion The District’sBestHigh Schools 2003 • Benjamin Banneker High School (52) • Washington Math, Science & Technology Charter School (391) • Woodrow Wilson High School (702) • School Without Walls Charter School (761) Image: http://www.msnbc.com/news/917011.asp?0cb=-115157201

32. Conclusion What this research suggests is the need for a fundamental change in the overall strategy for educating children, particularly in the nation’s capital… If the District’s residents, political officials, and public school educators are willing to give this new proposal serious consideration, it may well be a good thing.

33. Conclusion “The really big problem with public education has been its unwillingness to look at itself and change. No school bureaucracy will reform itself internally. It only comes through pressure. And the most effective form of pressure is choice.” • D.C. Councilman Kevin P. Chavous May 2nd, 2003

34. Thank You!

35. Works Cited • Blum, Justin. “Mayor Complains of ‘Bad Schools.’” WasingtonPost.com. B05: 10 May 2003.28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37265- 2003May9?language=printer>. • ---. “Williams Explains Voucher Decision: Federal Program Could Aid Pupils in ‘Bad Schools.’” WasingtonPost.com. B05: 10 May 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37265- 2003May9?language=printer>. • Feldman, Sandra. “Vouchers and Accountability.” AFT: Where We Stand. American Federation of Teachers. AFT.org. July 2002. 6 June 2003 <http://www.aft.org/stand/previous/2002/0702.html>. • Fletcher, Michael A. “Reading Scores a Mixed Bag for Students: National Test Shows Lower Grades Improving, High School Seniors in Slump.” WashingtonPost.com. A12: 20 June 2003. 21 June 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14498- 2003Jun19?language=printer

36. Works Cited • Greene, Jay P. A Survey of Results from Voucher Experiments: Where We Are and What We Know. Manhattan Institute. Center for Civic Innovation. 9-13: July 13 June 2003 <http://www.manhattan- institute.org/cr_11.pdf>. • Gryphon, Marie. “True Private Choice: A Practical Guide to School Choice after Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.” Executive Summary. Cato Institute. 4 Feb. 2003. 27 May 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi- bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/pubs/pas/pa-466es.html>. • Hickok, Eugene W. Dan Langan ed. Testimony by Under Secretary Hickok on the D.C. School Choice Initiative. United States. Department of Education. 9 May 2003.28 May 2003 <http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05- 2003/05092003.html>.

37. Works Cited • Howell, William G. and Paul E. Peterson, et al. The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 1:19-27. 2002. 13 June 2003 <http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/press/books/chapt er_1/education_gap.pdf>. • Lartigue, Casey J. “Education by Polls.” Cato Institute. 21 March 2002. 27 May 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi- bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/current/school- choice/pubs/lartigue-020321.html>. • ---. “Helping Kids Succeed in School is not ‘Creaming.’” Cato Institute. 19 Feb. 2002. 27 May 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/ dailys/02-19-02.html>.

38. Works Cited • Lartigue, Casey J. “Mayor Williams Wants School Vouchers for D.C.” Cato Institute. 30 May 2003. 7 June 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/ dailys/05-30-03.html>. • ---. “When the Mission is Mediocrity: If The D.C. Public Schools Want to Improve, They’ll Need to Aim Higher.” Cato Institute. 24 Nov. 2002. 27 May 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/ printtech.cgi/research/articles/jr.-021124.html>. • Matthews, Jay. “The 100 Best High Schools in America.” Newsweek.com. 2 June 2003. 21 June 2003 <http://www.msnbc.com/news/917011.asp#BODY>. • Meyer, Eugene L. “Cafritz Is Criticized for Voucher Support.” Washingtonpost.com. B02: 31 March 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp- dyn/A54872-2003Mar30?language=printer>.

39. Works Cited • “Minorities and Vouchers: Facts, Statistics and Comments.” Internet Education Exchange. IEDX.org. 27 May 2003 <http://www.iedx.org/printer_friendly_1.asp? SectionGroupID=NEWS&ContentID=EN254>. • “NAACP Poll.” National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP.org. Office of Communications. 28 June 2002. 1 June 2003 <http://www.naacp.org/polls/results.php>. • Rehnquist, William H. United States. Supreme Court. 536 U.S. 639 (2002). Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, et al. Nos. 00-1751, No. 00-1777, and 00-1779 Opinion of the Court. 1-21: 27 June 2002. 16 June 2003 <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 27jun20021045/www.supremecourtus.gov/ opinions/01pdf/00-1751.pdf>.

40. Works Cited • Rose, Lowell C. and Alec M. Gallup. The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Vol. 83. No. 1. 41-58: Sept. 2001. 13 June 2003 <http://www.pdkmtl.org/kappan/kimages/ kpoll83.pdf>. • ---. The 34th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Vol. 84. No. 1. 41-56: Sept. 2002. 13 June 2003 <http://www.pdkintl.org/ kappan/kimages/k0209pol.pdf>. • Strauss, Valerie. “President to Push Vouchers for D.C.: Bush Moving Ahead Despite City Opposition.” Washingtonpost.com. B01: 8 Feb. 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42459- 2003Feb7?language=printer>.

41. Works Cited • Sun, Lena H. and Valerie Strauss. “Bush Budget Includes D.C. School Vouchers.” Washingtonpost.com. A05: 3 Feb. 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16542- 2003Feb2?language=printer>. • “Supreme Court Decision on School Vouchers Harmful to Future of Public School Education.” National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP.org. Office of Communications. 27 June 2002. 1 June 2003 <http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/eduvouchers0627 02.shtml>. • Timberg, Craig and Justin Blum. “Mayor Endorses Vouchers in D.C.” Washingtonpost.com. A01: 2 May 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp- dyn/A2864-2003May1?language=printer>.

42. Works Cited • Timberg, Craig. “Williams Sheds Light on Vouchers Stance.” Washingtonpost.com. B01: 3 May 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7654- 2003May2?language=printer>. • United States. Cong. House. “Norton, Elected Officials and Parents Announce New Coalition to Oppose Imposition of Vouchers on D.C.” 1 May 2003. 28 May 2003 <http://www.norton.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=5832>. • ---. Dept. of Education. “Introduction: No Child Left Behind.” 28 May 2003 <http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/ index.html>.

43. Works Cited • United States. Dept. of State. “Introduction to the Court Opinion on the Brown v. Board of Education Case.” 6 June 2003 <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/ democrac/36.htm>. • Vassallo, Philip. “Empowering Parents Through School Choice.” Cato Institute. 20 Oct. 2000. 27 May 2003 <http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/ 10-20-00.html>. • Weaver, Reginald. “The Best ‘Choice.’” National Education Association. NEA.org. 6 Oct. 2002. 4 June 2003 <http://home.nea.org/www/htmlmail.cfm?type=printer>.