Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am glad I am here to speak in reference to the Ensign amendment. Senator Ensign mentioned my name several times during the course of that debate, which he is entitled to do on the floor of the Senate. I would like to respond.

Five years ago, we started a program in the District of Columbia. It was never tried before by the Federal Government. Here is the program. We said we would give to the parents of up to 2,000 students Federal money to pay for the tuition costs of sending their kids to private schools. It was called the DC Voucher Program. At the time--it was proposed 5 years ago--it was proposed as a pilot program. It basically said we are going to do this on an experimental basis to see whether it works, whether at the end of the day these kids going into private schools will turn out to be better and more successful students, and then at the end of the authorizing period Congress will make a decision whether to proceed forward with this program.

Sometime last year, I ended up with the responsibility of funding this program just as it was about to expire. It was going to expire this June, at the end of this school year. I said: I don't think that is fair. We have not done the evaluation we were supposed to do. We have not considered reauthorizing the program as we planned to do. And we do not want to leave 1,700 students and their families in suspense about their future. So, unlike the statement made by the Senator from Nevada, I did not end the program in the bill. I think he knows I did not. Instead, we extended it an additional year beyond the authorization period. We said that we will cover the kids in this program for not only the school year we are in right now but the next school year, 2009 to 2010. I did not think it was fair for these kids to be uncertain about where they would be in the next school year while Congress did its work.

What has happened to this DC Voucher Program? Let me tell my colleagues what happened initially to the DC Voucher Program. I offered three amendments in the Senate Appropriations Committee to this program. Here is what they were, I say to Senator Ensign:

No. 1, I said that any DC voucher school teacher had to have a college degree. Is that a radical idea? Do you have any public schools in Nevada where the teachers do not have a college degree? We don't in Illinois. We put this up for a vote, and the people who were supporting the DC Voucher Program voted it down. They said: We can't require teachers in these private schools to have a college degree. Imagine that.

The second amendment I offered said the buildings that we will call DC voucher schools have to pass the Life Safety Code. They have to be safe buildings so that if there is a fire in the building, the kids will survive. I don't know of a single school in Nevada or Illinois that is not in a safe building, an inspected building. Do you know what happened to the amendment in the committee? They voted it down. They told me: Don't get in the way of creativity. We have these voucher schools that are very creative. The teachers may not have college degrees and the building may not be judged safe, but these are creative ideas. This could work, Senator, step aside.

The third thing I said was that it is only fair, since we are all critical of the current DC public schools and what is happening there, in most instances, that we have the same achievement test offered in the voucher school as in the DC public school so that at the end of a year or 2 years or 3 years, we can compare the results. Are the kids really doing better? It was voted down.

DURBIN, you are standing in the way of creativity. These are voucher schools. They don't need teachers with college degrees. They don't need to be in buildings that are inspected and safe. We don't need to have comparable tests. You are missing the point.

I guess I did miss the point. Do you know what happened when the General Accountability Office took a look at these schools? They found that many of them were world-class schools. And I bet you the students the Senator from Nevada was pointing to were the products of those schools. Do you know what they also found, I say to Senator Ensign. They also found schools where somebody's mom or somebody's wife declared themselves principals and teachers and went in to teach without college degrees and received Federal subsidies to do it.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I finish.

They also found schools that did not pass the Life Safety Code inspection. They found schools where they had misrepresented what the building was being used for. And, of course, there were no comparative tests they could use.

In my mind, if this were to be an experimental program, a pilot program, and we wanted to make sure that the kids were protected and that at the end of the day we could measure the results honestly and accurately, you would have included these provisions. Unfortunately, they were not included.

So now the question is, Should the Federal taxpayers continue to subsidize the education of the students in the DC voucher schools? It is a legitimate question, and it is one that a serious committee should look at. In fact, I think it should be a committee the Senator serves on, and that is what we suggested. He is a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Lieberman. He came to the floor when the Senator asked 2 weeks ago and stated publicly: Yes, I will have a hearing on the reauthorization of the DC Voucher Program, and, in fact, has indicated to many of us that he supports the program. He is no enemy of the program.

So when our bill says we ought to take a look at the total results of the millions of dollars we put into DC voucher schools, let's judge how the students are doing--incidentally, in the first year or two, it turned out that the test scores, when they tried to compare them, they said there doesn't seem to be much difference between students in voucher schools and those in public schools. Maybe that has changed. It is certainly worth asking the question.

In this bill, I also require now that the teachers in the DC voucher schools in this next year have a college degree. Is that what you call ending the program? I think it makes the program more responsible. I think it makes the program more likely to produce students with a good education.

Let me tell you what else happened. When the Department of Education took a look at this program, they raised questions about whether the people administering the program were spending the money wisely, whether they were watching how the resources were gathered and spent. There is a lot of talk about oversight here and a lot of criticism that taxpayers' money and Government funds are being wasted. That is a fair criticism of everything we do on the floor. Why should this program be any exception? Why should we create a standard for this program that is different from any other program in Government or any agency of Government? I think it ought to withstand the oversight and review that every single program does.

I want to also tell you that this provision which created these schools--the law is a DC City Council ordinance. It was codified. It was made a law in the DC City Council, where it said specifically:

The Secretary may make grants under this section for a period of not more than 5 years.

We have gone beyond 5 years. I have not only allowed it, I said we should. It is only fair it go beyond at least an additional year. Now the Senator from Nevada objects to the DC government itself deciding whether to continue this program. For a lot of people who come to this floor and talk about home rule, local control of schools, they are basically saying to DC: You don't have any voice in this matter. You are our laboratory. We will decide what happens to your school right here in Congress.

The Senate and the House of Representatives are filled with many gifted politicians, people who have served in many offices throughout their careers and bring that service as an experience to help them serve in the Senate. But it turns out that many of them, more than anything else, always wanted to be mayors, and in particular Mayor of the District of Columbia. Time and again, this Congress--and an attempt is being made right now--tries to preempt the District of Columbia from making its own choices for its own citizens. I would no more think of imposing on Las Vegas, NV, an education program that its school district did not want, would not accept, without saying to them: You ought to have a voice in this as well.

So at the end of the day, we say the program needs to be reauthorized to make sure it is working, that the money is not being wasted, and the program needs to be approved by the DC City Council.

I have met some of these students to whom Senator Ensign has referred. They are truly impressive. They tell a wonderful story about lives that were turned around and new opportunities. And that is exactly what I wanted to create for my children and what everyone else wants to create. But believe me, we are not going to create new opportunities when we have DC voucher schools stuck in the basement of a home where the principal has no academic credentials and the teachers do not have college degrees. We are not going to create excellence in buildings which are dangerous for kids to be in. We are not going to create excellence until we have accurate measurement between the progress students are making in the DC voucher schools and in the public schools as well.

While we are engaged in this conversation, many on the other side--I am not pointing at the Senator from Nevada when I say this--many on the other side have completely given up on the DC public schools. They are wrong.
Michelle Rhee is the new chancellor of education in the District of Columbia. She is an extraordinarily talented young woman who has come from the Teach For America Program, one of the most successful new programs and largest employer of college grads in America. She was successful in Baltimore in bringing back a classroom that had fallen behind. She went up to New York to recruit nontraditional teachers. And she is now here with the same dedication and commitment. I am not about to give up on DC public schools. I honestly believe the vast majority of kids are going to be in those public schools, and they deserve a decent education. As much as we can help them, we should. To despair and say there is no hope for these public schools is not fair to Michelle Rhee, to the new Mayor, Mayor Fenty, or to those who want to see this new day in education in the District of Columbia.

I think an honest evaluation of the DC voucher schools, as well as the DC charter schools, and a commitment to reform in the DC public schools is the answer. For those who want to stop and say no evaluation, no reauthorization, no investigation, spend the money on the program, no questions asked, I am going to say no. I am going to fight this amendment because I think it is a move in the wrong direction. It is a move away from accountability. It is a move away from a local voice in the future of the education of kids in the District of Columbia. And it is a movement away from quality and back to the DC voucher original model that did not include the most basic standards we require of virtually every public school in America.

I can tell you that many who are participating in the DC Voucher Program agree with the reforms I have suggested. I have talked with them about it. There are those who will resist it. We cannot let them win the day by adopting the Ensign amendment.

Now I will yield for a question.

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank Senator Durbin for yielding.

Madam President, is the Senator aware that in all of the private schools these kids are attending the core subject teachers have 4-year degrees and that it was only in subjects such as art and wood shop that they did not necessarily have 4-year degrees? Madam President, I ask the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, whether he is aware of that.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that the complement of teachers in the DC voucher schools has changed and improved over the years, there is no question about that. But it is also true to say that the standards imposed on the DC public school teachers are not being followed by the teachers in the DC voucher schools. We have created a double standard.

As far as I am concerned, if you are arguing that we shouldn't require all teachers to have the appropriate academic credentials based on the course they teach, I ask in response, through the Chair, is that the standard you are suggesting for your home State of Nevada?

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I actually send my kids to schools where not all of the teachers in core subjects have 4-year degrees. But if a teacher is teaching art, if a teacher is teaching woodshop, or some other kind of program, I would ask: Does the Senator from Illinois really believe imposing that on private schools is necessary?

You send your kids to private schools just as I am sending my kids to private schools. We sent them where we thought they would get a good education. Does the Senator think these parents who are taking advantage of these programs don't care enough about their kids to send them to the best schools? That is why they are choosing to get them out of public schools. Wouldn't the Senator from Illinois agree those are wise parents signing up voluntarily for this program because they care about their kids?

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to respond to the Senator--I know our time is about to end--by saying that when the GAO did their study, incidentally, they found what you stated on the floor was not exactly the case. It turned out there were teachers in so-called ``core academic subjects'' without college degrees. Those subjects include English, reading, and language arts, math, science, foreign language, civics and government, economics, art, history, and geography. That is the definition of core academic subjects. And the teachers in many voucher schools did not meet those requirements.

I might also say to the Senator from Nevada that my wife and I made a personal decision to send our children to Catholic schools, knowing we would be paying public property taxes in my hometown of Springfield, IL, to support public education, and we had an additional financial burden on our family to pay for tuition, as you have. We accepted that burden, and I believe it is part of the bargain. We support public education, but we made a family decision to pay for our kids to go to Catholic schools.

I have supported public school referenda throughout my time in my hometown. I believe public education is the core when it comes to the development of the community. In my hometown of East St. Louis, when the public schools went to Haiti, the Catholic schools followed quickly behind. They are all in this together.

Madam President, I know we have run out of time.

Source