Letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: July 8, 2009

The Honorable Richard Durbin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Capitol, S-131
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Susan Collins
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Capitol, S-146A
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Oppose continued funding of the expired D.C. voucher Pilot Program

Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Collins:

The National School Boards Association (NSBA), representing 95,000 local school board members across the nation through our state school boards associations, urges you to oppose continued funding of the expired Washington, D.C., private school voucher program during the markup of the FY 2010 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill on Wednesday, July 8, which includes funding for the District of Columbia.

NSBA opposes the continuation of the voucher program, which has repeatedly failed to show effectiveness in improving student achievement based on federally mandated studies. This $14 million a year program currently provides vouchers worth up to $7,500 each for approximately 1,700 students. Created as a five-year pilot program, it expired in 2008. The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill provided an additional year of funding (for the 2009-2010 school year) to allow for a smooth transition for students currently in the program. The legislation stipulated that no additional funding would be available until Congress reauthorizes it and the D.C. City Council approves it. Given the program’s ineffectiveness and the disproportionate funding allocated to relatively few students despite the unmet needs of the D.C. public schools, NSBA believes continuing the voucher program is not warranted and that such funding should be redirected to public schools.

NSBA recognizes that the Obama Administration has included $12 million in the proposed FY 2010 budget to allow current participating students to maintain their vouchers. In taking that position, the President has rejected the idea of extending this failed program to new students, including siblings of current students. However, even if the program were limited to current students only; and even if last year’s requirement for voucher schools to obtain certificates of occupancy and hire teachers with bachelor’s degrees were reinstated, it would only contain the educational and financial waste of the program—rather than ending it.

When Congress created the voucher program in 2003, the goal was to raise student achievement with a priority for students who attend “schools in need of improvement” (SINI) under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). However, all three of the congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded that the voucher program has had no significant effect on the overall academic achievement of these students. In fact, a 2007 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that students from SINI were underrepresented in voucher schools.
In all three years (2007, 2008 and 2009), the studies found no significant impact on math achievement of students who were in voucher schools compared to their peers in public schools. In years one and two, no significant impact was found on reading achievement. In year three, the study showed the reading achievement of some students improved, but it is noteworthy that students coming from SINI and those who entered the voucher program in the lower third of the test-score distribution showed no improvement in reading – the very group the program intended to help. The two groups of students who showed the most improvement in reading were students for which federal government intervention is the least justifiable: students who did not come from SINI and students who were already high performing when they entered the program.

In addition, all three studies found that participating in the voucher program had no impact on student safety, satisfaction, motivation or engagement. Students attending voucher schools also have less access to key services such as English-as-a-second-language programs, special needs services, school nurses, counselors, cafeteria, after school programs and tutors.

Not only does the experimental program lack academic evidence to support its continuation, the 2007 GAO report documented numerous accountability shortcomings, including federal taxpayer dollars paying tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, schools that lacked a city occupancy permit, and schools employing teachers without bachelor’s degrees. It also noted that children with physical or learning disabilities are underrepresented compared to public schools.

A continuation of the D.C. voucher experiment would usurp the much needed funding from public schools. Now is not the time to divert funding from public schools, which are increasingly held accountable for student achievement under the escalating requirements of NCLB. On the other hand, private schools are not held to the standards and accountability under NCLB. More support for public schools is needed as educators and policymakers look to raise academic standards, teacher quality and graduation rates to ensure our students are competitive in the 21st century global economy. They also must respond to increasing demands for services for students with special needs and limited English proficiency who generally do not meet the admissions standards of private school. Whether it’s in D.C. or elsewhere, vouchers drain funds from public schools to pay for private school tuition for a few.

NSBA believes the objective evidence does not support the continued funding of the only federally funded school voucher program. We urge you to oppose any funding of the Washington, D.C. voucher program.

Thank you for considering our views and please contact Katherine Shek, legislative analyst, at (703) 535-1627 or by email at kshek@nsba.org if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Resnick
Associate Executive Director

Cc:     Members, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government