Commonwealth of Pennsylvania House of Representatives

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EDUCATION COMMMITTEE

STATE CAPITOL ROOM 140, MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING

THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2011 10:15 A.M.

BEFORE:

HONORABLE PAUL CLYMER, MAJORITY CHAIRWOMAN HONORABLE JAMES ROEBUCK, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MICHELE BROOKAYS HONORABLE MARK COHEN HONORABLE SCOTT CONKLIN HONORABLE JOE EMRICK HONORABLE MIKE FLECK HONORABLE TOM KILLION HONORABLE MIKE O’BRIEN HONORABLEBERNIE O’NEILL HONORABLE THOMAS QUIGLEY HONORABLE MIKE REESE HONORABLE BRAD ROAE HONORABLE JUSTIN SIMMONS HONORABLE WILL TALLMAN HONORABLE DAN TRUITT

ALSO PRESENT:

JONATHAN BERGER, RESEARCH ANALYST DUSTIN GINGRICH, REASEARCH ANALYST EILEEN KRICK, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TRACEY McLAUGHLIN, RESEARCH ANALYST KEVIN ROBERTS, REASEARCH ASSISTANT PATRICIA WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

INDEX OF TESTIFIERS

WITNESS PAGE

ANA PUIG, KITCHEN TABLE PATRIOTS………………………………………... 4

ANASASIA PRZYBYLSKI, KITCHEN TABLE PATRIOTS……………………….7

JENNY BRADMON, PA FAMILIES FOR PUBLIC CYBER SCHOOLS………....19

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION……………………………………………………...30

GEORGE FITCH, LINCOLN EDISON………………………………………………41

BETH OLANOFF, PA LEAGUE OF URBAN SCHOOLS…………………………..56

OLIVIA THORNE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS……………………………….76

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED

ANA PUIG & ANASTASIA THE KITCHEN TABLE PATRIOTS

JENNY BRADMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PENNSYLVANIA FAMILIES FOR PUBLIC CYBER SCHOOLS

GEORGE FITCH, PRINCIPAL LINCOLN CHARTER SCHOOL

BETH LOANOFF, EXUCTIVE DIRECTOR PENNSYLVANIA LEAGUE OF URBAN SCHOOLS

OLIVIA THORNE, PRESIDENT LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well, good morning everyone. We thank you for coming to

this House Education Committee. It’s an informational hearing and this is our fourth one out of

six and we’re pleased that we have a number of testifiers today. And this morning we’re going to

start with two members of the Kitchen Table Patriots. They are Ana Puig and Anastasia

Przbylski, so if you ladies take the microphone there and then whoever wants to begin the testifying they can start. We appreciate your attendance here and are anxious to hear what you have to say on these issues. As we’ve said before we’re looking at school choice and charter, cyber charter. We’ve been touching some of the issues involving the city of Philadelphia school

district as well. But our focus is on those first three issues that I mentioned. So welcome and begin your testimony.

ANA PUIG: Thank you. Good morning and thank you for inviting the Kitchen Table

Patriots to testify on a subject that is near and dear to our hearts, school choice. My name is Ana

Puig. I’m the co- chair of the Kitchen Table Patriots a grass roots organization in Bucks County

Pennsylvania. I am a mother of four school age children. I grew up in Latin America where the government has absolute control over people’s lives. I’m Brazilian and the Brazilian state-run schools heavily indoctrinate children with the lives of Marxism and suppress individual achievement and excellence. Parents have virtual no say over any aspect the curriculum in these schools. The scope of control by the schools of my childhood, over the students and the stranglehold of the unions and the bureaucracy over parents ability to achieve a quality education in the public schools here in the United States, have so many parallels that I’m astonished that the individualistic character of Americans have been subjected to a dismal collectivism. What has changed? The reason that we’re here at this point in time and the reason for growth of the conservative grass roots movement in our state and throughout the United States is because

politicians and bureaucrats in Washington; in Harrisburg; in all levels of government throughout

the country have not listened to the voice of average citizens like myself. This is also partly due

to the fact that these average citizens have elected people to office to do their work for them and

have trusted them to do what is in their interest. The events of the past years have shown us and many more like us that trust has been misplaced. We are all to blame and we all need to take the responsibility for making changes at this point in time. So what has happened while we are working, raising our families and trying to enjoy the company of friends and family while we were living the American dream, while spending has ballooned taxes have become capricious, regulations have stifled the economy, deficits has soared, and debt has reached previously unimaginable levels. Our liberty and freedom have shrunk and the return of investment of all of this political activity has been more failure not improved services. The time has come for citizens like you and me to speak loud enough to see proper changes in the near future. It is not a spending problem it’s an ownership problem. As parents of school age children we happen to have an interest in the area of public education. We believe that school choice should be an issue that elected Representatives should push for on behalf of the citizens of Pennsylvania. Since the future of our state and of our Nation lies in the hands of today’s children. Their fate is in your hands. The state has taken this responsibility upon itself. It is time for you to return that to the

rightful owners, the parents of those children. Opponents of school choice claim that a lack of

education funding is the problem. But we are here to tell you that this is simply not true. In Los

Angeles California a five hundred seventy eight million dollar school complex is being built in a district currently running a six hundred forty million deficit, in which it has to lay off three

thousand teachers in the last two years. This district happens to have one of the lowest

graduation rates in the Nation and some of the worst test scores. This is district were spending

per pupil have skyrocketed with no signs of educational improvement. Another example, the

same thing is happening here in Pennsylvania. In 2009 the cost of educating one student in a

Pennsylvania school for one year was an outrageous fourteen thousand two hundred and twenty

dollars. Studies have shown that there is no correlation between increased per pupil expenditures

and student achievement. And parents do not currently have the option to withdraw their children

from failing public schools. Failing schools are simply being allowed to continue to fail. The

only people being penalized here are our children who only get one chance for an education. The

rules, regulation and laws that failing schools operate under are no different than the ones

schools in the county where we live, Bucks County, operate under. Yet the schools in Bucks

County are able to perform at a much higher level with less money to work with. The PSEA and

PSENATE BILLA have asked for more time and more money. They have already gotten both while failing schools have shown no improvement what so ever. Therefore, short of dismantling the entire public monopolistic school system, the very least that can be done is to give the parents of students in these schools an escape hatch. The debate should not be about how to keep the schools running, but rather on how to effectively and efficiently educate the children. Children should come first. In addition, we should take a hard look at what has happened in New Orleans since hurricane Katrina, a district where education was a disaster. Over the past five years New

Orleans has turned tragedy into triumph. It has quickly become the most market based school district in the country. The state of Louisiana took over most of the schools in the district and turned them into successful charter schools. As a result seventy percent of students in New

Orleans will be attending a charter school in the fall, the highest rate of any district in the Nation.

Additionally the district now has an open choice policy that allows students to attend any public

school regardless of their geographical location. In 2008 Louisiana enacted the School

Scholarship for Education Excellence Program that gives low income students a tuition voucher

to attend the schools of their choice. According to Greg Foster, who wrote A Win-Win Solution, the Empirical Evidence on School Vouchers, today there are actually nineteen empirical studies that have examined that affect of school choice programs. And eighteen of those studies show a positive effect from the vouchers programs and only one found no significant impact. Eighteen out of nineteen empirical studies, the gold standard for research, showed positive impact.

Similarly the claim that voucher programs cream the best students away from the public schools has no research data to substantiate that claim. The data of the DC program found that the students who participated in the program are very similar to those who were eligible but declined to participate. The Northwestern University study of the Florida program for low income students found the students participating in the tax credit program were poorer than their peers that remained in the public school and they were in the lowest quartile in academic performance when they left their public school. The poorest and the lowest performing not exactly creaming I dare to say. And there are actually 10 empirical studies conducted to determine academic impact of these programs on students. After all, isn’t that what we’re all suppose to care about the most, impact on the students not the system. Currently ten empirical studies have been published and not a single one showed negative impact on the students. Nine studies found that vouchers actually improve student’s outcome. I’ll turn it over now to my partner Anastasia Przybylski.

ANASTSIA PRZBYLSKI: Hi my name is Anastasia Przbylski and I’m the co-chair of the Kitchen Table Patriots and I live in Bucks County. I have three children; two of my children go to Central Bucks my other one is still at home with me. Like many of my peers I have a great respect for the teachers that taught me and are teaching my children. But since I’ve gotten involved in the tea party movement it has become clear to me that there are far too many children

who are literally trapped in failing schools. And that they are being robbed of the opportunity to

become productive citizens of this Commonwealth. I have met those parents over the last few

months and I want their kids to have the education that will give them a chance to be all they can

be, rather than being resigned to live at minimum wage or worse. Many students, many

Pennsylvania schools have failed to live up to the expectations that they have set for themselves.

Government bureaucracies in Harrisburg should not be deciding what school Pennsylvania

children can go to any more than they should decide where people should shop for groceries or

what food they should stock on their shelves. Many of these children are being trapped in failing institutions that have been operated by and mismanaged by the very people who claim to know what is best for these children. Parents must be considered and cannot be left out of the process.

Pennsylvania parents should have the power and opportunity to choose their children’s school

and reap the benefits of a free market competition, a trade mark of our Nation. Now is the time,

we’ve already lost a generation. We strongly believe that the time has come throughout the

country and specifically here in Pennsylvania for parents to be given a choice as to where their

children go to school. Despite the fierce opposition from teachers unions, nobody can deny the

fact that school choice movement is growing across our nation. And as Pennsylvanians it is our

obligation to see that the movement has a place here in our state. We must ensure that all

Pennsylvania children receive the quality education that they deserve. School choice begins the

process of applying the natural self-interest pressure of the free market on the educational

establishment to provide a quality product at a reasonable price or suffer the consequences.

Schools that perform will have increased enrollment, those that do not will be emptied. Parents

will become the enforcers of the standards that the schools need to meet to keep their children, in

order to keep their doors open, not some panel of bureaucrats who do not know or love these

children. Currently there are a growing number of educational alternatives that can improve competition in the educational system, such as traditional public schools, private or parochial schools, charter schools, educational tax credits, vouchers, private scholarship programs and even home schools. Just as competition has helped produce better every day products at a low, low long distance phone rates for example, this will also produce better schools for everyone.

There are several bold bipartisan school choice initiatives that have emerged in Pennsylvania.

We at the Kitchen Table Patriots believe that these initiatives, more specifically the Opportunity

Scholarship Act, expand educational options for our children by allowing low income children trapped in chronically failing schools, to attend the school of their choice. Of course there are some regulations that go along with this bill. But when students in failing schools would be granted financial aid assistance that is equal to one hundred percent of the state’s annual per pupil funding in addition to fifty percent of the local school districts annual per pupil funding.

Since PA local school districts pay slightly over half of the educational costs, the opportunity scholarship would save local taxpayers money while giving poor children the opportunity to attend a better school. In addition it would free up money and increase funding for the successful

Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program the EITC program. It is a win-win situation for everybody involved. What we need is courage and leadership. The time is now for leadership and courage in the state of Pennsylvania. There are plenty of people in the executive branch and the and the legislature who privately talked a good game when it comes to education reform, but when it comes time to speak out and act, the numbers dramatically decrease. The Governor ran on a platform of school choice but he was invisible on the subject until it was simply too late to have a vote before recess. The Senate Education Committee passed legislation on School Choice and EITC but it was never voted upon by the full Senate. The House revised the Senate bill into

several forms but also never brought it up for a vote. The window of opportunity is closing on this issue and we need people to get off the opinion pages and out onto the floor and pick up the ball and run with it. The tea party movement has been characterized as divided on this issue of school choice, we really are no divided on principle, the division is over the form and scope the

Kitchen Table Patriots, we supported Senate Bill 1 because it was the only legislation available at the beginning of the year, the tea party groups that opposed it did so because it did not go far enough in providing a broad enough school choice program, however, let’s be clear, we are all united behind making fundamental changes in the education economy in Pennsylvania. The

Kitchen Table Patriots are willing to support a more incremental model in hopes of making more changes in the future; other groups wanted as much as they could get here and now. Having said that, no change is going to be interpreted as accepting the status quo where the unions acting only in self interest and not in the students dictate should accept all mediocrity in every school district where failing schools are fully staffed regardless of accomplishments. Let’s bring these bills to a vote the accountable take a stand in spite of it sounding cliché, do it for our children, let’s put the children of Pennsylvania first. On behalf of thousands of members of the Kitchen

Table Patriots state we urge you to support school choice in Pennsylvania as we must ensure that all Pennsylvania children receive the quality education they deserve. The time is now to demand school choice from our PA legislators and urge them to embrace plans such as the Opportunity

Scholarship Act. We need to say no to a one size fits all system that continues to fail to meet the academic standards. We need to prioritize and think of the future of our state, providing a quality education for the students of Pennsylvania is vital in order for them to be able to compete on a

national and global scale. It is time for us to stand up for the children of Pennsylvania by

allowing them to choose the schools that best meet their individual needs, doing nothing is no

10 longer an option. It will take more than elections to change the direction of our state. School choice is a great start. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the ladies for their insight testimony on school choice and at this time recognizes Chairman Roebuck for questions.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you. I would also like to thank you for your testimony and I will yield my time to other members of the committee.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: I see that Member Representative Michael O’Brien has a question or two. So Representative O’Brien for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Thank Mr. Chairman and good morning ladies. Thank you for joining us. Now over the past, the course of the past few days in Philadelphia and here in

Harrisburg we’ve taken testimony from a number of interested parties. Certainly we’ve taken testimony from the Arch Diocese of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference. So in a voucher program you believe that it is acceptable and correct that vouchers to be used in

Catholic Schools as part of the curriculum, religious education, is that correct?

ANA PUIG: I think as long as the money is given to the parent and the parents make a choice of what school their children are going to attend. Yes, we’re okay with it.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Okay, we’ve also had testimony from Keystone

Christian Association. If I remember the exact title of it, who represent mainstream Protestant

Denominations with schools, which the same question occurs. Do you agree with that?

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: Yes, since the money goes to the parent it is constitutional.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: We’ve taken testimony from the Orthodox Jewish

Union who also has a religious component to their curriculum. Do you agree with money, taxpayer dollars going to that?

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: It goes to the parent and then it is the parent chooses how it’s set up.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Okay, just outside of my district I have the Al-Aqsa

Mosque, who has a school with it. Question: has a religious component to their curriculum, do you agree with that?

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: If it goes to the parent and the parent and the parent decides…

ANA PUIG: Or Americans. Americans should be able to make choices as to where their kids go to school. It’s about freedom. While I disagree personally, I would not support a mosque school, I still believe at the end of the day the choice should be made by the parents of those kids.

REPRESNETATIVE O’BRIEN: But you would support a school attached to a synagogue or a church?

ANA PUIG: Personally, I would not. But I’m not here to decide where somebody else’s kids go to school.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Okay, so in essence you’re saying that it’s okay for these tax payers’ dollars to be used for religious education?

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: The way that it is, it’s the parents. It’s about choice. So the money is going to follow the child and the parents are going to decide where their kids go to

school. And if that parent wants to have their kids gets educated on the A, B, C’s and 1, 2, 3’s as

well as some religious component, I’m not opposed to that.

ANA PUIG: Right and the bottom line for us is competition. Let the free markets work.

Let the parents have a choice. Like we said in the testimony; we don’t want the government

telling us what to eat, so we also don’t want the government telling us where our children should

go to school. It should be our choice. It’s our tax dollars at the end of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Arthur Schlesinger, in one of his books on a Formation of the American Nation, made an interesting point about public schools. And what Schlesinger put forth was that you had people from around the world coming to the United States and that we had to create an American people with a shared system of values. And we did this through the formation of public schools; that regardless of where you came from that you would receive an education geared towards making you the American people. In short, taking the four of us to make one. Now in your testimony you talked about schools in Brazil and you said state-run school heavily indoctrinate children. Your words, state-run schools heavily indoctrinate students.

It seems counterintuitive to me that on one hand you would support educational systems with tax dollars that evangelize to a specific indoctrination. Please help me with that.

ANA PUIG: I’m not here to dismantle the public the public school system. I firmly believe in the American public school system. I moved here when I was fourteen years old and I attended all four years of high school in public schools, both in New York State and in

California. My four children, three of my four children attend public school. Like I said in my testimony, Bucks County, Central Bucks Schools are outstanding. What I’m here to do is get the message across that there are schools that have problems, public schools in our state that have some serious issues. There are 144 failing schools in our state. Let’s face the fact that those

13 children deserve a good education just like my children are getting a good education. It’s the one entitlement that I actually believe in. Everybody is entitled to a good education so why not try to correct the problem and fix the problem before it escalates to the next level? Let’s be honest, we need the people of Pennsylvania to be able to be educated to be able to compete in the market place, to be able to make a difference for our state and our country. Allowing kids to remain trapped in failing schools is not an option. And another thing, as far as some of these based on where you live, if your boundaries are in a bad public school, it might not be that you are necessarily sending your child to that Catholic or Christian school because of the religious aspect, you’re doing it for academics to get your kid out of the school. They have no other choice if you’re trapped based on your zip code you go to that public school no matter what. And your option might only be a Christian school, a Catholic school. Otherwise your kid is going and be endangered.

ANA PUIG: Right, there’s parents working two to three jobs a day in order to be able to move to a better zip code and they can’t do it. So why not help those folks who are trying hard.

Have you watched waiting for superman of the cartel? Those are clear stories. Those are the parents we have met during the past six months that we have worked with. They’re trying hard to give a better education to their children. I don’t see why we can’t use our tax dollars and you know…

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: Bring more competition and make it better for everybody in the state. At the end of the day it’s going to be a win-win situation for all of us. You’re going to have; you’re going to spend less money on corrections facilities. You’re going to have less drug addicts on the street. And you’re going to have more people back to work in Pennsylvania.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: I see that I just got the eye from the Chairman telling

me that it’s time to conclude. So let me conclude by saying that certainly I agree with you that

failing public school need to be addressed. I agree with you that every child in the

Commonwealth deserves and is entitled to a better tomorrow. I agree with you about heavily

indoctrinating children. We part company; we part company on perhaps the best vehicle to do it.

And I as a different kind of Patriot will stand with the basic concept of Pluribus Unum, thank

you ladies.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Chair thanks the Representative for his timely questions and

recognizes Representative Tallman for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you ladies for

being here, and I like how you’ve framed the issue. It should be parents and students, not money

and other sundry issues that are in this debate. Because I believe that you should not be confined

because of your geographic location or your social economic status, to what you’re going to

attend. This question would be for Anastasia, because you did this part of the presentation. I

attended the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference many years, so you know where my politics

are and when we discussed Senate Bill 1, the opposition was pretty widespread and vehement.

That surprised me because I would have thought they would have been very much in favor of

school choice. And I don’t think it is a narrow as you have defined it in this paragraph on page

six. It was way beyond just because it wasn’t broad enough, because if as we heard yesterday we

can take some steps, you know we have to get one hundred two votes in the house and twenty six

votes in the Senate, plus you got to get the Governor’s signature if we can take some steps to advance school choice I just don’t understand. But I see what you’re saying here the opposition was much more vehement than what I would have imagined.

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: We actually have video footage of it. So it was actually a

few.

REPRESENATIVE TALLMAN: We raised hands, we raised hands

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: Right, but if you look, there was seven hundred people

there. And it was actually two tables of people over to the left-hand side of the PLC and they

were all together. And from traveling around the state of Pennsylvania for the last six months

and Senate Bill 1 being, when we, I’m for school choice and you know Senate Bill 1 is the

vehicle that was on the table. There were no other bills so it’s really easy. And I see people do

this all the time, and you guys are elected so you probably experience this, that once there’s

legislation you can poke holes in anything. And if there was only one option and that was Senate

Bill 1 and was going to get the conversation started and get it, I don’t believe in obstruction of politics. Like we need to start somewhere and if there was other options I would have been looking at all of them. But at the time the conversation was Senate Bill 1, so, and traveling around the state to tea party groups across the state of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, we’re going to

Williamsport tonight, they were all advocates of school choice and Senate Bill 1. So the group, it

was a small group of people really

REPRESENTATIVE TALLLMAN: We raised our hands they took an informal poll and

the opposition was much more than two tables.

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: I have it on video.

ANA PUIG: Well let me put it in perspective. Freedom Works gathered some data of

how many tea party groups we have throughout the state of Pennsylvania and there are currently

over three hundred tea party groups in the state of Pennsylvania. I don’t believe there were even

16 fifteen groups represented in that room, I was there. That’s the opposition that we’ve been faced with: fifteen out of three hundred, not that measurable.

REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: It was significant at that meeting. Thank you.

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: fifteen out of three hundred.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman for his questions and recognizes Representative Truitt for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think somebody should call the police because Representative Tallman stole my question.

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: Not the PLC again

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Actually I wasn’t at the PLC this year but I am finding that I am getting mixed messages from the tea party groups and conservative groups on this so I just kind of wanted to clarify. We have a spectrum of four bills in front of us. Do you support all four of them? Some I would consider a loaf and a half, some I would consider half a loaf, some I would consider a quarter a loaf.

ANASTASIA PRZYBYLSKI: What I think, I think what would be able to put all this to rest is if you guys could take the initiative and do an up and down vote on all these different bills and see if you have the votes. So if there’s a group saying they want Curt Schroder’s bill for instance, you know it’s a good bill, but if there’s not the votes in the House then it’s a mute issue. Let’s move on. Like, we can’t allow this conversation to continue where there’s a perception of, I think that would be the responsible thing to do in the Chamber, is to do a straight up and down vote on the different bills, get together, compromise, find out, and come up with the bill that works for everybody.

ANA PUIG: I agree with what Anastasia just said but furthermore I believe that, I

believe in school choice. I believe in universal school choice. I would love to see all the children in Pennsylvania are able to have their parents decide where they go to school. I go to a great

school but I just moved houses and unfortunately my kids are going to have to switch schools

right now, so I don’t have a choice on that matter. Having said that, I think we need to look at

other pilot programs that have been tested throughout the country, like in Florida, Ohio, Indiana,

and Louisiana. Those programs started small. I think we should start small and we should use

instrumentalism. It’s what the left has done. No offence to the Democratic Party but it’s the truth.

You always get things in one bite at a time. Let’s try the same thing with school choice. Let’s do

a two-year test pilot program, see what works, see what doesn’t work, and then improve upon

that. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the ladies for being with us this morning.

There are no other Members seeking to ask questions so we thank you and we’ll certainly look at

your testimony as we continue to investigate these issues. Thank you for making the trip in this

morning. This is just going to be a two minute side bar, just for one moment. One of our testifiers

could not be here this morning with the Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, Doctor Joanne

Barnett, because she was involved in traffic problems down in the City of Philadelphia. And as a

result she could not get here in the morning and that’s when she wanted to provide her testimony.

She could not change her schedule; she could be here this afternoon, so that was the reason for

that moment of conference. But we do have with us to give testimony is Jenny Bradmon, who is

with the Pennsylvania Families for Public Cyber Schools. And we welcome her this morning along with her special guests. So if you will introduce your special guest at this time.

JENNY BRADMON: My special guest to my left is my daughter Rachel Bradmon and to my right Rebecca Bradmon.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Can you speak right into the, pull the microphone. That’s it.

JENNY BRADMON: Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. On behalf of more than thirty thousand families I would like to thank you for giving parents of public cyber school students an opportunity to be heard this morning. My name is Jenny

Bradmon and I am the Executive Director of Pennsylvania Families for Public Cyber Schools.

We are a grass-roots organization of parents who have found hope and possibility for our children’s education through public cyber schools. As a parent of two children who attend one

Pennsylvania’s Public Cyber Schools I can tell you the experience has been tremendous for my children. My oldest daughter, Rachel, was diagnosed with dyslexia in her kindergarten year in public cyber school. Because of her intensive work with the public cyber school we were able to diagnose this problem early. Had she attended traditional public school she would not have been tested for dyslexia until the third grade. Thanks to her early diagnosis Rachel is now going into the seventh grade and is reading at grade level. My youngest Rebecca, who’s going into sixth grade, will be working at a seventh grade level. Rebecca hasn’t had to deal with any learning difficulties like her sister, but she’s excelling in her public cyber school. As I’ve traveled across the state to meet with people regarding cyber schools, I found that most simply do not understand what it is our children do every day. Many have this notion that they are stuck in front of a computer and this is where they sit for four or five hours a day. It’s actually quite the contrary. While a computer is part of their schooling, it’s far from the only part. We have conferences with our teachers; my children meet with other students in the school through organized outings the school provides. In fact you may be surprised to learn that social activities

19 are available almost on a daily basis. Like many children, mine are involved in Girl Scouts, church, dance classes and they had played on the local soccer team. As a parent I believe it’s my obligation to give my children the best education possible. Thankfully cyber schooling is helping me meet the obligation. These wonderful schools are making a difference in the lives of my children and thousands of others. In closing I just want to touch on a few key points as you consider legislation. Please treat cyber students the same as you treat any other students. My children are not second class citizens. If you’re going to look at how cybers are funded, look at all public schools and apply a standard that treats all equally. Don’t allow school districts to blame tax increases on cyber charter schools. Public cyber schools account for far less than one percent of all public education funding in Pennsylvania. Yet school board after school board assigns blame for local tax increases on cyber schools. As educators they should know the math simply doesn’t add up. Stop the comparison of cyber school AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) scores with traditional district schools. Current testing predates cyber schools. As a result, if a cyber misses one target it doesn’t qualify for AYP. Yet districts can have multiple schools fail and still make AYP. If cyber school standards were applied to districts most would fail to reach

AYP. Don’t let school districts attack cyber AYP scores when they know full well that many of the children attending cybers were failed by those very districts. Cybers often few months or even weeks before a student takes the test. A more reasonable measure of cybers is to review a student’s performance after one year of attendance. Finally cyber charters expand the promise of public education. They give every child a choice. There are no caps, no lotteries, and no children who have their hearts broken because they’re stuck on a waiting list, no devastated parents who can’t get their child into a safe school, rich or poor kids, black or white. Latino from rural, urban, suburban communities can all chose the same school with no barriers. These kids can be part of

the same school, collaborate together and work with the most excellent teachers. That makes

public cyber charters the most public of all public schools. Cyber charters are literally a life saver

for many kids who are stuck in a school that is not working for them or even unsafe. Thank you and I will be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. I have just a few

questions. What grades can a child enter into these cyber charter schools? Can they enter in first

grade or must they wait until ninth grade?

JENNY BRADMON: Most cyber charter schools are K thru twelve, so mine have

attended literally since kindergarten.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And does the cyber charterer school give you an outline of the

courses that they, that you can participate in?

JENNY BRADMON: Yes, each day it comes up with an outline of lessons; a lesson plan

just like a teacher would have in their class room. There’s an objective. What the students would

be learning that day. We have teacher guides to go along with their lessons. So that if we need

some additional support, we have it right there. So there’s an outline each day that they have

math, language arts, music, art, history, science and those are the subjects they cover each day

and also a foreign language too.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And how does the cyber charter school, the administrators

know that the student is present? Do you have to hit a key on the computer to say here?

JENNY BRADMON: I can speak specifically for the school my kids attend. How other

cyber charters do it is little more different. But each day my kids have to log onto the computer.

We have a log-in code they can see. They can see every key stroke that we do. But if I’m not

logged-in by 4:00 p.m. there’s a phone call, going, why haven’t you logged in, is there a

21 problem, do you need any help today? So they’re checking to make sure we’re logged in each day and like I said they follow each key stroke. So when my kids are going through the lessons they can see what they’re doing, while they’re doing it.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So it’s a structured plan like you just mentioned, you’ve got an outline and at 10:00 it’s Spanish, at 11:00 it’s mathematics, etc.

JENNY BRADMON: It’s flexible within the twenty four hour period. We can do a little in the morning; we can do a little in the afternoon. If we have appointments in the morning we can push it back to the afternoon. But as long as we’ve logged-in and completed our lessons for the day.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Suppose that the math teacher would like to give a test. How the test is then portrayed on the computer? How does the student then take that test?

JENNY BRADMON: Well, for each lesson, at the end of each lesson there’s a test. And it’s right there on the computer. They have to score eighty percent or better or they don’t move on to the next concept. So it’s a mastery based program. They need to know what they’re doing.

And then the school also provides one extra level to insure that they’re learning. We have what’s called Scantron Testing. They do a weekly test over one concept and they have to score eighty percent or better on that or they’re remediated into a tutoring session. So this way they’re insuring they are meeting all the state standards as well as preparing them for the PSSA’s.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So I think you’ve answered two of my other questions. And that is; by logging in they are accountable for the one hundred eighty days the state requires for education?

JENNY BRADMON: We are under the 900-990 Mandate with our school. We have to have in elementary, they’re under the 900 hours, and once they reach the secondary level it’s the

990.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So Mathematically…

JENNY BRADMON: It works out to be the same

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Yes, okay, one final question. So when the student is or when the cyber charter school says we’re going to do a PSSA test now, because that’s required, the student does the PSSA test, is that correct? The student moves forward to do that test. Is that correct?

JENNY BRADMON: Yes there’s a, I believe, there’s a three or four week window that our schools are allowed to work in, to administer the PSSA test. This happens all across the state.

Our children will go to a facility. My children took the test at Washington and Jefferson College this past year, so they were there for four days of testing and they’ll find off-site locations so these tests are proctored by the teachers in the school.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Good. And then the results are sent to whom, to the Secretary of Education here in Pennsylvania, to the Superintendent?

JENNY BRADMON: Just like any other school district.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So that they follow that routine.

JENNY BRADMON: Yes

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Very good, any other questions. Yes Representative Fleck for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE FLECK: Thank you for your testimony. I certainly agree that cyber charters have a place in the educational component and I congratulate you on your two

daughters doing so well there. The problem that I have is mainly with the funding mechanisms.

Why a school district in Huntingdon County is going to be charged one fee and a school district

in Bucks County is going to be charged three times the amount for the exact same program at the

same school? Now I understand that the formula is in the state and I think that needs to be

addressed, cause that is trickling down. I don’t know if that’s going to help my rural school

districts but it may help Representative O’Neill and some of the other ones for districts. I do

disagree on some of the accountability components and I won’t even get into testing, just as a

school board member for five years, and I know you guys have school boards but they’re not

dually elected. The tax payers can’t get in an uproar, toss them out as we’ve seen time and time

again with some of our school districts, just at the whim of a select group can come up. So those

are things I think that we do need to address. But again, I do believe they are a part of the

educational component. Would you agree that competition is going to make our public schools

better, especially our failing schools?

JENNY BRADMON: I think we’ve already seen that competition is making our schools

better. Cybers have increased competition. We’ve seen a lot of districts opening up their own

version of a cyber charter school so it has created competition already.

REPRESENTATIVE FLECK: Okay, that’s kind of the second part of my comments

here. If the competition has, with cybers and cyber charters and what we’ve introduced in that

last several years, should our numbers be higher if competition is better? With failing public

schools, I mean it’s like they do have a choice with, although cyber education may not be for

everyone. If I had a child that was scared to death to go to school because he was in a rough

urban setting, I think that I would probably figure out a way to do the cyber education because it’s going to be a lot easier than moving under our current situation. So I do think that we do

have choices out there because of cyber and charters and what have you. But that’s all I have

right now. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman for his inquiry. Just to remind the members that Jenny Bradmon is a parent and we’re going to have a member who is a part of the administration of the cyber charter school here this afternoon. So I just wanted to make sure I was clear. Our next person seeking a question is Representative Reese.

REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I truly appreciate it. Quick question; I tend to support the concept of cyber schools although I do have major issues with the funding formula and perhaps this isn’t an appropriate question for you, I’m not sure. Can you tell me the average per pupil cost for a student at your school?

JENNY BRADMON: I am not privy to that information. I am sure it’s available.

REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Okay, I guess my concern is; I’m not sure what it costs to educate a student in Cyber School? These are public dollars. These are tax dollars that every

Pennsylvanian is paying and I guess my concern is that we want to make sure that those dollars are being spent appropriately. And understanding what the-per pupil cost for a cyber student might be; is an important component. Perhaps that’s a question that I should ask the next speaker. But let me ask you this, do you have any idea about any of the audits or anything that takes place with the dollars that goes to this school?

JENNY BRADMON: As far as auditing, I do know that they have to turn in an annual report each year, which is something that districts don’t have to do. Every two years the PDE comes in and reviews how the school is operating. And then every five years they go under a charter renewal. And that is a much more highly scrutinized version of the two year review. And

25 at that five year review there’s a chance these schools could have their charter revoked. That is something districts never have to face.

REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Thanks to the gentleman. Dr. Joanne Barnett, who could not be with us this morning, is going to be with us next week. And she runs one of the cyber charter schools so those questions, which are very timely, then can be asked of her when she’s here next week. Chair recognizes Representative Roae.

REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. I am an emergency medical technician and for me to keep my certification I have to complete con-ed (continuing education) hours. And it used to be you had to go to different ambulance services and fire departments and take classes. Well a few years ago they added on- line classes and I think that works for some people. I do a lot of mine on-line. I can do it at 10:00 at night. If I don’t understand something I can play it again and watch it again. So I can certainly see where cyber schools do have a place in our education system. There’s also a student in my legislative district that has a medical condition and that student has a disruptive sleep pattern. So sometimes that student wakes up at 7:00 in the morning ready to go to school, on other days that student might be in bed till noon. And it’s almost impossible to attend a regular school with that type of a schedule. So cyber schools do have a place and I’m all for choice and options. I think we should keep those options available; we do need to look at how we fund those because the way it works right now, some people that go to a cyber school might pay ten thousand a year to go to that school and somebody else going to that exact same cyber school might be paying twenty thousand a year. We need to have a fair way to fund those. But my question for you, you had mentioned about how the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), the difference between how

they figure that out for regular public schools and cyber charter schools. And I didn’t quite

follow what you were saying. I was wondering if you could give a better clarification of how that

works.

JENNY BRADMON: Okay the way that cyber charters are graded for AYP, they have to

hit every bench mark. So if they have twenty nine bench marks they have to hit twenty nine to

make AYP. With a local district, if their elementary makes AYP the district makes AYP. So

we’re not graded fairly. If they graded districts over all twenty nine bench marks for all the kids,

a lot of districts who now make it would not make AYP. So it’s kind of comparing apples and

oranges when you want to look at AYP scores. Because if you only want to take elementary

school students in a cyber charter school or the middle school students that made AYP, well then

the cyber would have made AYP. And if we use the same formula for districts, every cyber

charter school over the last 10 years, every cyber school would have made AYP.

REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay, so it’s a different math. So if a cyber charter school

makes twenty eight of the twenty nine bench marks, they do not make adequate yearly progress.

But if a regular brick and mortar public school made twenty eight out of twenty nine bench

marks, they might make adequate yearly progress?

JENNY BRADMON: Well as long as their elementary hits all twenty nine bench marks

they make AYP. Their middle school and their high school can fail to make AYP. But because the elementary made AYP the district made AYP.

REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: So could a district only hit twenty five of the twenty nine and still make AYP at bricks and mortar?

JENNY BRADMON: As long as one of those grade bandwidths meets AYP, hitting all of those bench marks, yes, they can make AYP.

REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Well maybe that’s something we need to look at, to make

sure that all schools are graded the same way. Doesn’t matter to me whether we make them all

how we do the cyber schools or we make it all how we do the brick and mortar schools. But it seems we should have one consistent measurement tool.

JENNY BRADMON: I agree with you it should be consistent throughout the schools.

REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay, alright well thank you for your testimony.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And I think that’s a question too, that we can ask the next testifier when Joanne Barnett comes here we can ask her about that very issue. Chair recognizes

Representative Truitt for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all three of you for coming here to testify today, especially Rachel and Rebecca. You like you’re old enough for this to be intimidating and it’s important, what you’re doing. You have come here today to put a face to a concept that can be somewhat abstract to us. If we can’t make the connection between the things we talk about in our meetings and real people. So I am especially grateful that you came here today to testify and I was wondering if you would be willing to expand a little bit.

What I find particularly interesting is to hear the stories of how families made that decision not to go to a public school, traditional public school, and choose a cyber school or a charter school or some other school. Can you tell us la little more about the decision?

JENNY BRADMON: When we were looking at educating our children, she had reached the point where we’re picking kindergarten class for her. And we sat down and discussed should we choose our local public school, should we choose a private school, should we home school and then we found out about the public cyber charter schools. And it was kind of the best of both worlds, where we could have a public education but still be at home. Where I could work with

them one on one and because of the fact that I was able to work with them one on one and with

their teachers, we could identify her problem in kindergarten, where she wouldn’t have been

identified until third grade. When we moved her to her cyber school she was reading forty-five

words a minute. In eighteen months they had her reading at a hundred twenty-one words a minute. That just doesn’t happen unless it’s an intensive program. She worked one on one with her Title One Teacher three times a week for an hour at a time. That teacher got to know everything about her, where she was succeeding, where she was failing. And she would focus on where she was failing so that she could then go on to read just like any other child.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I sense a lot of emotion in your voice and I see that a lot,

I see a lot of families who’ve made this decision. And they make it at different ages and for different reasons and what would you’ve done if a cyber charter school hadn’t been an option for you? I am curious to know what you would have done and also if you were dissatisfied with them at this point what you would do?

JENNY BRADMON: We would probably look, because of our local district and the bullying issues that surround the district especially with girls their age; we would probably choose to private school them. We would have to make sacrifices and find the funding available to send them to a private school. Their school just isn’t safe and we live in a rural community.

We don’t live in an urban setting so unsafe schools happen in urban and rural communities.

Cyber schooling isn’t for every family and I’ll be the first to admit it. It’s a choice that has to be

made between the parents and the kids because the kids have to be willing to do the work. But

the parents have to step up and make sure that that work is getting done. So it’s not for everyone.

But for a lot of kids like mine it’s the best option.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you for sharing that with us.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Chair thanks the Mrs. Bradmon for being here today, for giving testimony, we appreciate that. It’s been very helpful and for bringing your two daughters in. This is a civics lesson I guess we could say.

JENNY BRADMON: Yes it is definitely a civics lesson.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So they can report back to the administrator at the cyber charter school that they were here in Harrisburg and helped mom through the questions on this very important issue. Maybe you’ll get graded an A; you’ll have to tell us. We thank you for your testimony. Our next testifier to come before us is someone, one of our colleagues,

Representative Tom Killion. And he has legislation dealing with charter reform and this is certainly one of the issues that the committee is researching, taking testimony on. So we welcome our colleague this morning, Representative Killion to give us some updates on what’s happening with the charter school movement.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It’s great to be back in the

Capitol after we finished the budget on June 30th. Good to see all my colleagues here all tan, rested and ready to take it on, I appreciate it. And I want to thank the Chairman for what’s he’s doing this summer. It is very important; we’re all looking at ways to make education better for the children of Pennsylvania, to make it more accessible, higher quality, better outcomes. We have several bills and I think it’s great that you’re going around the state to hear from all the stake holders. And I’ve been reading the testimony that was done in Philadelphia, because I too want to hear it. Because no bill is perfect, I’m going to talk a little bit about seventeen hundred eleven, which is my charter school bill. Next step; update to the original legislation. But I think it’s fantastic that you’re doing that. I am joined here by Kevin Roberts with the Education

Committee. If there are questions that are a little too technical to me could indulge me I just have

a brief introduction. Charter schools were established in Act 22 in 1997. Currently there are one

hundred thirty five charter schools and twelve cyber charter schools operating in Pennsylvania.

This represents an enrollment of approximately ninety thousand students. Charter schools are

self-managed public schools that are approved by local school districts. Currently cyber charter

schools are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. They are created and

controlled by parents, teachers, community leaders and colleges or universities. Charter schools

have the ability to operate free from the large school district bureaucracy. Regulations

concerning non-discrimination, health and safety and accountability must still be adhered to.

Charter schools offer alternatives in education using strategies that may save money and improve student performance. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education data released this year, Philadelphia charter schools serving high school grades an average reported graduation rate of eighty eight percent. The same data indicates that school districts, public school districts in

Philadelphia, public school districts of Philadelphia posted a seventy three percent graduation rate and only seventy three percent if you take out magnet and special admission schools. House

Bill 1711 repeals Article 27, in the Public School Code of 1949 and creates a new article pertaining to charter schools and providing for additional transparency and accountability, standardizes reporting requirements and requires better disclosure of information from charter

schools and the non-profit charter school foundations. It requires annual independent audits of

charter schools and cyber charter schools and full public disclosure. It specifies that the Ethics

Act applies to all charter schools, cyber charter school boards and trusties, and employees and prohibits conflicts of interest and requires annual ethics filings. The same ones we file as

Members of the House. It creates an independent administrative commission separate from the

PA Department of Education, which shall provide oversight of the charter schools and the cyber

31 charter schools. Local school board directors remain eligible to authorize charter schools.

However, the commission shall be the only authorizer of cyber charter schools. The commission can also authorize charter school in the ten percent of the lowest performing school districts. It standardizes and streamlines the charter school and cyber charter school application and renewal process, streamlines the process by which charter schools are paid by. They offer direct payment to them by the PDE. It also allows for conversion of existing schools into transition schools in the ten percent lowest performing school districts. This is a public/private partnership. That’s all

I have. I’ll be glad to take some questions.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman for his testimony. Some of the other questions in your remarks took about fifty percent of my questions, regarding the Ethics

Commission and conflicts of interest. The issue is raised about employee benefits.

Representative Killion can you tell us whether the benefits that are provided members those who are involved with charter schools are equivalent or close to those that are in the other sector of the public school system?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: My conversation with the individuals that own and operate and run charter schools they’re similar, not the same. I can tell you that I don’t think any of them have a defined benefit contribution plan. I mean, they don’t have a defined benefit plan like public school employees. And you know the problems we’re having currently with that, as we’re are being underfunded. I know the charter schools that I have visited have defined contribution plans much like private industry where a certain percentage of salary is put aside for the employee and they can also contribute as they build up their pension. And they also offer group benefits.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Also the public schools can work with other forms of higher

education. They can work with community colleges and universities. That same type of

procedure is available to the charter schools as well, where they want to dovetail into say Drexel

University or Philadelphia Community College. Those are opportunities are available for the

charter school.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLINON: Absolutely, not just for the charter school, the college

or university can actually have a charter school; they can open their own charter school.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well, that was going to my next question. We know that a

number of public high schools now are, opening up their own charter schools. And this bill, this

reform charter school legislation would impact on them equally as well. Or is there a difference

between the two? Between the internal charter schools being developed by the public school

versus the charter school that’s being authorized by the commission. It would be by the commission if this legislation would go through?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: No, it would be the same. The only difference is, obviously they wouldn’t need to go to the convention because they are doing it themselves and they just approve themselves.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Okay I have, you’ve answered my questions and the Chair recognizes Representative Michael O’Brien for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning

Representative. A number of years ago I was involved in a charter school application process.

And from the get-go we knew it was thinking outside the box. It dealt with dropouts. I felt that

the process for the application was fair enough. It was open; it was transparent and even though our application was denied, I walked away from the process feeling good about what we had

done. Now pretty recently we had a situation; Martin Luther King High School in Philadelphia went through an extensive process to change from a public school to a charter school, parental

community involvement, good process, a real good process, the charter was awarded to a

provider. Then it was reported in the press that there was an ex-parte back room conversation

between the Chair of the SRC, Deputy Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia, and

sadly enough a Member of this General Assembly, where the award was pulled from an operator

and awarded to another one. And certainly that shook my faith in the system. Could you take a second and clarify how your legislation would help clean up a mess like that from occurring in the future?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: I’m not familiar with that exact situation. Now as you know in the bills that commission me, there’s commissions form that and since Philadelphia is in the lowest ten percent, the school could go to that commission. That’s a point, it’s a seven member board appointed, three by the Governor and two by the Majority/Minority Leader of the

House and Senate. That’s one part. As far as irregularities, they’re going to occur and it comes down to transparency and accountability. And that’s what this bill is trying to do, provide transparency and accountability. I don’t know if it could prevent something like that. I mean because that’s a back room deal it doesn’t, I don’t know how you stop that, other than in this case it was discovered and it was found out. I mean any time you see something that was awarded pulled back, it always raises red flags. But I don’t think there’s anything specific in the bill, I don’t know how you can legislate to keep people from committing crimes; you just can’t do it.

REPRESENTAIVE O’BRIEN: Simply put, as you move forward in the process with

this, I would ask you to keep an eye out for such thing and give that some thought. Swish it

around in your mouth if you would.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Great and I’ll tell you what, if you have an amendment

that we can put in and do that, I would be glad to take a look at it, Mike.

REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: I appreciate it Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The chair thanks the Representative and recognizes

Representative Quigley for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Killion, I

just wanted to go over again, based on your testimony, just so I’m clear on what the state-wide board would be able to do and then what the school districts would still be able to do as it relates to authorizing charter schools. So the state-wide board that would be created through this legislation, they would be able to hear a request from any school district in the Commonwealth about the establishment of a charter school?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: No, the lowest ten percent, performing under PSSA tests. So I walk you through it. Okay, let’s use Philadelphia as an example: I’m a group of teachers or a group of parents that wants to form a charter school. Since that is in the lowest ten percent of performing schools, they have a choice. They can go to the school district and ask for the charter or they can go to the state level the commission. Previously they just had to go to the school district and if it was denied they could appeal it. They could appeal it to the state department of education, but they couldn’t go direct, so they had the option to go direct but it’s only for the lowest ten percent performance schools. All other school districts operate under the current law where they go to their local school district for approval.

REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: So the change is only for those ten lowest performing.

Okay. The other scenario, this was in a situation discussed and it happened with one of the school districts in my legislative district where the school district administration and the charter school operator entered into discussions about the charter school operator taking over, like K through five in the school district and then the district maintaining the control of six to twelve.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: The transformation schools where you literally take over, they’ve done that at seven in Philadelphia, where they literally take over a whole portion of the education. The school district could say, hey this building over here has grades one through four in it, take it. Instead of someone opening a charter school and the kids come to them, they just wrap it all at once. But again that only applies; you can only do that with the lowest ten percent performing schools. So I don’t know if that school district would be on that list or not. If they weren’t then they would not be able to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Okay, and then the authorization there has to come from the school board itself, not a state wide-board.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Yes. No. What you have there is a private-public partnership. The school board directors are looking for another option; a better way to do it. In many cases they can turn the building over, they can lease the building to the charter school operator, the charter school operator can buy the building, they’re now out from underneath any debt service they had. They could do any repairs that are needed. For many school districts it’s a very viable option.

REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Okay, Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes

Representative Truitt for questions.

REPRESENTAIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Killion, I was wondering if

you could expand a little bit more on some of the reasons for a couple of components on your legislation. Sometimes I think it’s helpful for us to understand why we need these things. There’s the perception out there by some that charter schools operate at an advantage over traditional schools. So I’m curious about if you could explain to everybody why there’s a need for the direct-pay component of the legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Well just from a simple administrative reason, why do

you need another layer? The money follows the student. The school district, the charter school is

eligible for it. There’s a formula that accounts for how much that amount is. Under current law

we send it to the school district and the school district then sends it to the charter school. And

there have been some instances where the school district were slow to pay, slow to get it to them,

causing some severe cash flow situations for these charter schools. So we’re taking a middle man

out. Everyone knows what the number is. It’s calculated; there’s a formula calculated so the

money goes directly to charter schools. It’s a more streamlined process. They get their money on

time and they don’t have to go out and borrow money to make payroll. It’s simply fair.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: And the other big piece that I see is the part about

having other authorizers. Right now it’s typically a school district is authorizing a charter school

that they view as a competitor. When I first heard about your legislation I envisioned the

scenarios where somebody like in my district, West Chester University, could be the authorizer a

charter school and they could actually work with that charter school; maybe share some

facilities. Do you have, is there any other thoughts you’ve had in terms as to where that could

go? What doors that might open up down the road?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: I’d love to talk to you about that. This would not allow that. You would still have to go to the school district or the commission, if you’re under the ten percent. Some schools have widened the wider start of the charter school in the city of Chester so…

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Okay, maybe I’m confusing 1348 with 1711. Doesn’t; does one or both of your bills expand the scope of who can be an authorizer of a charter school?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Those 1348 under 1711. Just to make sure there is no conflict of interest with an authorizer authorizing themselves to start up a charter school. That was removed so it’s only the school district and the commission.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you.

CHARIMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman for his questions and recognizes Representative Tallman for questions.

REPRESENTAIVE TALLMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you

Representative Killion for being here. I’m now confused. I thought I understood your legislation but I know you had the two pieces. I thought 1711 tied in 1348 along with it.

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: There were some changes made. There was some compromise negotiated, talking to some of the stake holders there were some changes made between the two bills.

REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: The essence of 1348 is in 1711?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Yes.

REPRESENTAITVE TALLMAN: Okay. Then I’m going to go right to what

Representative Truitt said. My understanding was because in my district and in Representative

Moul’s district we had a charter school that wanted to form. It approached three different school

districts, was denied PLTD, and was approved. There were other issues there that don’t really direct. So in Adams or York counties where we don’t fall into that ten percent, I thought your bill

was going to offer another avenue to be approved, that’s not true?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: Not currently. I am happy to talk about it but there’s

been some concern, the focus was --- you want to get 102 votes in the House, 26 votes in the

Senate, and then get it signed. We thought, let’s focus; let’s narrow our focus to those most, those underperforming schools where the kids really are desperate or the parents are desperate for other opportunities and then make it easier to form a charter in those areas. I would be open to making it broader. I’m not opposed to that. It’s something we can talk about. It’s one of the reasons we’re having a hearing.

REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Well, as all of us here, including yourself have gotten a hundred or so e-mails on 1711, basically, all in opposition and one of those, that was a canned e-mail from, basically one organization. But anyways, they had in there about the approval being taken away from it’s, the way it’s currently being done. So you’re saying 1711 doesn’t do that?

REPRESENTATIVE KILLION: I’m not sure I follow. The lowest performing ten percent can still go around the school district in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you.

CHARIMAN CLYMER: Seeing no other questions. Before the Chairman thanks the gentleman for attending, I just want to follow up a little bit on what Representative O’Brien had said about the fact that there could be people who are misusing government, who are making deals that benefit themselves. And I know Representative Killion, this is something you cannot control, but I just put it out for a thought and that in these charter schools there are groups, organizations that teach character building. In fact I’ve had several that have contacted me and

wanted to come before us for hearings but we just didn’t have the opportunity. We’re maxed out.

I think that’s something that maybe can be considered. You can’t legislate that but I think maybe

we can encourage that within the scope of these charter schools. That we can encourage teachers

to put forth those traditional family values. I think that would really help students. We can have a

very gifted and bright student body but if they’re confused about what’s right and what’s wrong,

what have we done to really help them to become good citizens? Of course and that’s what we

really need. I just, that was just an observation I made when Representative O’Brien was

questioning a certain situation with a particular charter school in the City of Philadelphia. Well

thank you our friend, for being with us this morning, for giving testimony, for telling us about

your reform bill, and we will certainly consider this important piece of legislation as we move

forward in our hearings. Thank you and now we are adjourned until 12:30. 12:30 we will be back

moving right ahead with our testifiers.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: It is 12:30. We’re going to move our schedule up. We’ll be out

of here earlier than anticipated so 12:30.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well good afternoon everybody. We’re glad everyone could

return for the afternoon session of the House Education Committee informational hearing and we welcome here before us some gentleman who made a special trip to get here early. Because we

were running a little bit ahead of time, we appreciate that. The testifiers before us at this moment

are George Fitch, who is the principle of and CEO Lincoln Edison Charter School. With him is

Lee Bostic, the business manager and Oscar Rossum, the board president. Now which one is Mr.

Bostic? And then we know the other gentleman is Mr. Rossum. But anyway, thank you for

joining us today. I know you have testimony that you have prepared which has been passed out

to the Members. You may begin at any time.

GEORGE FITCH: Good afternoon. Thank for this opportunity to appear before the

House Education Committee and for providing personal perspectives of the positive impact. Two

York area schools specifically have had and are continuing to have on the lives and educational futures of a number of York students. We also welcome the opportunity to share with the committee the outcomes of actions taken here in York to improve the academic performance of a school that experienced a dramatic turnaround due, in significant part, to similar measures currently contained in the new Education Empowerment Legislation which is the focus of today’s hearing. My name is George Fitch and I am the principle of Lincoln Charter Elementary

School in York Pennsylvania. I have over nineteen years of educational experience in urban education and eight years being as an administrator and thirteen years in charter schools. I have a

M.A. in Curriculum Instruction and M.A. in Educational Administration and a comprehensive knowledge of managing a staff. I have the ability to provide positive school culture, safe community of learner’s and response to the diverse needs of the community. To begin I would like to take a few moments to point out why I am please to be part of a high quality charter school and what the benefits are of charter schools. First and foremost, charter schools are tuition free public schools that are free to be more innovative and are held accountable for improved student achievement. There are currently over five thousand public charter schools open in forty states and the District of Columbia, serving more than one point six million students. Children have different ways of learning and public charter schools simply offer families a wider variety of options to serve such differences. And the issue of choice is probably the most often sighted of pluses of charter schools. Charter schools give families an opportunity to pick the school most suitable for their child’s education or well being. Teachers choose to create and work at schools where they directly shape the best working and learning environments for the students

themselves. And likewise charter school sponsors choose to authorize schools that are likely to

best serve the needs of a student in their particular community. With the options that are

provided to charter schools such as flexibility of schedule and length of school day, we have seen that a longer day, longer year, and daily professional development time offered each day is critical to move all students forward academically. Although we implemented many different elements, looping with students, modified year round calendar with uniforms, continuous model program for students in grades one through five, all of these implemented programs only affect a small number of students. We feel that our students benefit from school wide change that effectively helps disperse student achievement, when we talk school wide change, we’re talking about a pro-active and strategic programming that addresses the entire learning experience and how it is delivered, from school organizations and scheduling, to curriculum, professional development and administration. In short, it is a change in culture and the creation of an entirely new and nurturing quality learning environment. Another important aspect of charter schools is that they are required to meet all state and federal education standards, just like every other public school in the Commonwealth. In addition, they are judged on how well they meet student achievement goals established by their charter contracts. A quality public charter school must meet rigorous academic, fiscal and managerial standards. We are judged on how well we meet student achievement goals and we must also show that we can perform according to rigorous fiscal and managerial standards. Lincoln Charter School was the first conversion initiative undertaken in Pennsylvania and it came about because dedicated members of the community joined together out of a mutual responsibility and commitment to do what they could do to provide children of York a quality education. The result of their effort was the creation of

Lincoln Charter School. And they sought the assistance of Edison Learning to join them in

42 partners in the school’s operation. Since opening its doors, Lincoln Charter School has truly met and exceeded not only our expectations but the communities as well. Over the past eight years it has been the fastest improving school in York City and it has progressed from being one of the lowest performing to one of the highest performing schools. In 1999 the first discussion began about Lincoln Elementary School being converted to a charter school and Dr. VanNewkirk and the community members who comprise the school board reached out to the Edison Learning to partner on this school. Those working in the school knew it would be an important and positive change for our students. It was the communities desire to take a new initiative step and increasing the educational outcomes of the students served in the building. Immediately we experienced the major benefits of the longer school day that allow teachers and staff to dedicate more time to core instruction and reading and mathematics, while still providing ample time for students to take special subjects like the arts or world language. The extended day gives teachers two instruction free periods a day, one to meet as a house team and one for personal planning time. Teachers use their house team time to support one another with professional development and collaborate on behalf of their students. But this is only one component that led to improvements at Lincoln. The learning environment does not begin nor end at the doors of the school. The school culture extends to and includes the family and even the community at large.

At Lincoln it is a true team effort and what has been accomplished by and for Lincoln school students is thrilling and rewarding such as, for the past 9 years students a Lincoln Charter

Elementary School have demonstrated a sustained academic achievement. Since 2001 reading proficiency has increased 39.4 percentage points and math proficiency has increased 51.5 percentage points. This achievement growth is the highest among all elementary schools in the

York City district during this time. Despite having the highest percentage of children, for who

English is not their native language, as well as 93% of its students on free and reduced lunch.

Lincoln Charter School has moved from one of the worst performing elementary schools in York

City district to one of the best. As a result of this success to improve the quality and outcome of

education for the students, parents of Lincoln Charter Elementary School students were so

pleased with their children’s progress that they encouraged the charter board to seek the addition

of a middle school. As a group of dedicated local residents committed to providing the children

of our community with a quality education, the charter board sought approval from the charter

elementary school. In all honesty, it was not easy. There were many challenges facing the

approval of the middle school. But again, it was the parents, more than 300 families, who made it

happen in the end. Because they knew their children would benefit from the continuity in both

the educational delivery and maintenance of the excellent school culture and climate. In a few

weeks Helen Thackston Charter School will begin its third year. To date Thackston has met and

exceeded every expectation of everyone associated with it, as it has met all student achievement

goals; which is remarkable for a new school. If there’s anything that truly defines a successful

school, as well as a society, it is the joy and the light that comes from the learning and

understanding of something that you do not know or previously understand. This directly ties to

our belief that children are very eager to learn and can learn. Those children who have not made it have probably been influenced by many factors but foremost convinced that they cannot learn.

After years of academic frustration or low expectations, in York we have now seen how change

and greater accountability can have a positive impact on academic success of our children. I’m

very proud of the role all of us have played in this effort. As a principle, I am most enthusiastic,

excuse me I’m most enthused about the consistent daily professional development; the

opportunity to meet with my house teams each day to discuss achievement and the needs of our

students. I believe that learning in the school should not simply be limited to the students.

Teachers learn a great deal for each other and from the students if the environment is one that promotes collaboration, high standards and academic rigor for the greatest achievement of all students. As a charter school we emphasize the partnership with families. We meet with parents a minimum of three times during the year, during our student learning conferences, in addition to other opportunities for communication and interactions. It is a direct result of our interactions with parents and students and our colleagues that each day we may learn a new approach or new learning techniques. We do this because we like the focus of the legislation being considered by this committee. We can simply cannot stand by and accept the failure of one more student. This directly ties to our schools core mission and belief that all children are eager to learn and can learn. Those children who have not succeeded have been failed by the adults who should have influenced their lives. That is why it’s up to us, every one of us, to open up a sense of wonder on which all knowledge is built and encourage all children to become eager to learn learners. This is why I became an educator and why I’m proud to be the principle and CEO of Lincoln

Elementary Charter School. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any of your questions.

CHAIMRAN CLYMER: I see that Mr. Rossum joined us the Board President. Welcome to our committee hearing. We appreciate your attendance as well. Principle Fitch, it is a very excellent report that you turned into us today. I must ask you this question though because we were very much encouraged by another charter school that came before us in the City of

Philadelphia and I was very elated over the progress that they were making academically only to learn that this one charter school is a subject of an investigation because the students erasing.

Now I said alleged, because I don’t want to say that this is going to turn out to be what the press

has written about. However, we can be assured to the best of your ability that Lincoln Charter

School is not in that same situation.

GEORGE FITCH: No, we can rest assured that has not happened.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Okay good, thank you. One of the questions that I asked the charter schools, and we’ve heard other testimony and we’re very encouraged about what we’ve heard about how the students are learning and who are making wonderful progress academically and socially. What happens, now you have a middle school, so that’s a good, that can transition right into that middle school and that is very good. But then what happens to that student when they go into high school? That’s an important key because now you have trained that student, that student is really ready to go into high school, to really begin to excel, to really blossom, what happens, where is the high school that you send them to?

MR. BOSTIC: That is the question that our parents asked us some time ago and when we were approached with that question. We were not inclined to give them an answer because of the hard weight and path that we were on just to get our elementary school running. We were in

court for seven years. We went all the way to the PA Supreme Court because our district fought

us nail and tooth to prevent us from opening. So we weren’t inclined to entertain that type of

question. But our parents put a lot of pressure on us because we were doing so successful at the

elementary level. So about two years ago, three years ago actually, we began to entertain the

question and we decided to open a middle school. And now that we have the middle school, of

course, our parents are doing it to us again. We’ve already had an approval of a supplement to

add ninth grade with the intention that we will be, the district will entertain our application for

charter for a high school and that will be presented this year.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: That sound encouraging then, you’re moving in a very positive direction. Where do the students come from both for the elementary school and the middle school, because obviously in charter schools, they can come from different geographical areas? I would be curious as, but within a ten mile radius of course, I think that’s the school code when it deals with transportation. Yes, Mr. Bostic

MR. BOSTIC: Yes that’s correct. Ninety five percent of our students come from the

York City school district as we have openings. And actually we have students form ten surrounding school districts in the county of York that attend total. But of the 750 that we have

650 maybe 675 are directly from York City schools.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Do you have waiting lists?

MR. BOSTIC: We actually have a waiting list for both schools. We have over one hundred students on both schools waiting list when we actually started the middle school. When we started that we had high expectations of our first year. We thought we’d have more students in the middle school. We found out we had budgeted three hundred sixty three and we only ended up with one hundred ninety five, but we held those one hundred ninety five for the entire year. Last year we doubled our enrollment. We went from one hundred ninety five to four hundred nine students and we held that all year. We added the ninth grade this year and we will open the door with five hundred students this year and one hundred on the waiting list.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Those are impressive figures. I notice that you’ve been able to involve the parents into the life of the student, which is very good, because we have heard especially; we have heard that that is so critical. So are you getting a 65/75% response from parents who have enrolled their child into any of the schools? What is your parental response; just a ball park figure?

GEORGE FITCH: Parental response is about 85-90%. Parents are coming in the school

all throughout the summer. I walk the streets of York City and I am constantly engaging our

parents. Mr. Rossum who is our Board President, is a parent, and was one of the ones, who

helped start Lincoln Charter School, could tell you more about how many times parents are approaching. But honestly it’s about 85-90%.

MR. BOSTIC: If you look at what Mr. Fitch is talking about, our student learning contracts in elementary school, it’s a requirement and it’s part of the student and parent handbook that they attend those and the student learning contract conferences were probably 95- 97% attendance three times a year. So at least three times a year we’re getting 95 of our parents I the building. MR. ROSSUM: We also have a very active (PAC) Parent Advisory Committee and PTO (Parent Teacher Organization). We have a coordinator and they are doing a wonderful job. For the first time, I think at the state level they allowed a charter school. Annie Clark, is our coordinator and she’s been a representative at the state level. Mr. Fitch had an opportunity to be on the panel just recently, so, for some of the first time we’re getting some recognition at the state level. But that is our parent organization and they work very hard. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And my last question is for the business manager, Mr. Bostic. Just for the record, we’ve gone over this like three or four times but I want to hear from yourself, who is the business manager at Lincoln Elementary Charter School; the money that you receive is state money, correct? MR. BOSTIC: That is correct. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And if York Public Schools are, let’s just use the figure of ten thousand dollars, that’s what it takes to educate that child, we’re not talking about the money coming in from real estate that would push it up; but we’re just saying the state provides you ten thousand dollars. You get the dollars that you receive seventy five percent or seven thousand five hundred would that be a correct assessment? MR. BOSTIC: That’s an exact; that’s exactly what happens.

CHAIRMAN CLYMER: We are hearing from some administrators that they get seventy five percent of everything and I’ve said, no, I don’t believe that’s true. It’s just the state part, so whatever we give, the state, that’s what… MR. BOSTIC: Right and it’s a whole convoluted formula that the district runs through the budget and I’m just starting to get our allocations for this year back from the districts. And it works to about seventy five percent of their per-pupil funding. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: And it deals with just the state money, what we give. I just want to make it clear. If you get fifteen thousand dollars and five thousand of that is real estate tax money and ten thousand is state money, it is only the state money that you are getting? The school district continues to get the real estate money and twenty five percent of the state subsidy? MR. BOSTIC: That is my understanding. Because I can’t figure out how the formula works, we’re at their discretion. Now the state does, Department of Ed does approve their per- pupil funding to the schools. But the formula is very convoluted and as a charter school business manager, we don’t have the ability to figure out what’s going on. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: But basically that’s the broad outline. That is the blue print. We can deal with those other items later on. Representative Tallman for questions. Representative Tallman are they, is Lincoln Elementary in your school district? REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: No, but I have parts of York County so welcome to the state Capitol and thank you Mr. Chairman. I do have a question but first of all I want to complement you on being in the City of York. Being very familiar with the City of York, a former high school football and wrestling official, I have been in William Penn and I would encourage you. Also if there’s parents that would not want to send their children to the William Penn High School, I would encourage to make that available to them. The next thing is I am very appreciative of this information that you supplied because that actually gives us some good information. Demographics to sink our teeth into and I am just going to ask Chairman Clymer to make sure Chairman Roebuck gets a copy of this because he asked those questions just yesterday. And just make sure that we, that he has that information. Also, here’s my question, maybe I misunderstood; did you say that 95% of your parents attend parent teacher conference? GEORGE FITCH: That’s correct. It’s actually a… REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Do you know what the percentage is in public schools?

GEORGE FITCH: It’s very low. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: It is way. I am impressed. GEORGE FITCH: Through our renewal hearings and stuff, that was the one point that York City always complimented us on. How do you manage to get the parents in the school? That was one of the compliments they always did. But it is part of our program and it’s in the parent teacher handbook that the parents and the students sign-off on. That’s part of being involved in our school. You need to be involved; you need to help your student. MR. BOSTIC: And while ninety five percent is good, we strive for one hundred percent. I want to make that clear because we have two days, a half a day and then a full day where we encourage our parents to come and attend. And within that time we get ninety five percent. But we try to reach out and we meet at different times with our parents to at the end of the year to at least receive one hundred percent of at least one or two contacts with our parents. GEORGE FITCH: And our teachers will take it to, they’ll leave school after school and go to the parents work, if they’re working. And they’ll make time at their work so that they can talk with them about their students. REPRESTNATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Chair recognizes one of our caucus Members who has joined us, not on the Committee but she’s very much interested in education, Michelle Brooks. Michelle, good to see you, thanks for joining us this afternoon. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt for questions. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Because you guys were a conversion school I was thinking I might hear a different story related to how you would describe the relationship between your school and the school district. With charters I typically hear it’s an adversarial relationship. Would you describe it as similar or worse as a conversion school and what impact do you think that has on your ability to be successful? MR. ROSSUM: We’ll take the, or worse. At the time when we first opened and first introduced our program it was actually introduced by the District Superintendant, Dr. Van NewKirk. Because Lincoln Elementary at the time, was a failing school and the poorest demographics of the City and, but yet they had a very motivated principle, Mike Fogel, and a very motivated staff. And so it was able to communicate with a person. He was introduced from Edison Learning, Dr. Blanch Frasier, and, so he introduced it and because he introduced it at that

time when the board came on and his retirement shortly came after. But it was a hostile, toxic environment. They were, they fought us, and they ridiculed us. I was personally harassed, threatened and in the papers, always mentioned in the negative fashion. But the amazing thing is, we were barely able to open our doors, as a matter of fact we were not issued our charter, there was a Monday that school started. We were still in court the week before, with not the ability to open our doors. And I think it was that Thursday, we ended up back in court, like a hail Mary, I guess that’s what they do in football, like a last gasp thing. And we were able through a, we’re talking a fifty thousand dollars for a shot, do you call that? MR. BOSTIC: We had to put so much money in escrow to start; there was a lease issue with the building, because we physically took Lincoln Elementary School over and the school district, we could not come to a terms with the lease and they would, wouldn’t give us the building. So when we went back to court Edison Learning said we’ll put fifty thousand in escrow and we’ll put so much every month in escrow until we settle this. Well we didn’t settle the lease agreement until six and a half years. That’s how long. MR. ROSSUM: In the meanwhile, while we were barely opened that Friday, we were able to open we had over seven hundred students to prepare for over the weekend, but we were able to open school that Monday. Which I still can’t believe we did that, but the fighting, as Mr. Bostic continued, we were able to make AYP numerous times in the seven years after it was finally settled. We the board became a little more experienced and we’re a bunch of parents, like myself. But we had to become a little more political savvy and we began to work with our district after the number of years and from then to now, as of today we actually have a very close partnership with our district. I meet with the school board president on a regular basis, have regular meetings with the Mayor, monthly meetings with our Mayor, we have our representatives; State Representatives are very active and responsive, and we are able sometimes, because of our success, our relationship and the way that we’ve handled ourselves, we’ve earned the respect from the district. But in mentioning this, I wanted to offer statement that because of the way that the laws are set up that we have to go, apply to a district that basically the analogy was given that we were basically going into their home and telling them that we could raise their children better than you can. So I can’t blame them for a sense of ownership and resentment, but the law states that we have to, the way that the process is, we have to apply through the district, and we think that if the state could, I think that Senator Piccola has a bill that’s on the table right

51 now about developing a committee at the state level that would entertain charter applications versus a district. Because if that were the case, in our experience, we would have had saved ourselves seven years of the hostility, the legal costs, the extensive, the surmountable mountain legal costs. And we could have been, today we have a better relationship but we should not have to be submitted to such a, to be approved by a group that by all emotional human reasons they would resist our application, our proposal. So that I think that the state should really look at that bill that Piccola has written and we think that it would be better if we could go to a non-bias organization that doesn’t have that emotional tie. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: And another component to the legislation that has been proposed is there are a couple different bills out there. Tom Killion’s got two different versions. But one of the key components that’s in there is getting your payments directly from the state. Can you comment on the timeliness of the payments that you’re getting from your school district? MR. BOSTIC: Well I can tell you this has been the hardest year for us to receive our payments. They had a new; York City had a new business manager come in this year and he put some processes in place that actually dragged our payments on and we are now paid to date but through the year they were 60 to 90 days paying us. And I am strongly committed to that bill that Senator Piccola has that charter schools should be paid directly. We’re educating the same kids, doing a better job for 75% of the money. So they’re getting 25% of the money and they’re holding our money hostage; we’re a hostage to them. So sometimes without Edison Learning as our business partner, backer, we would have struggled to make payroll because we would have had to wait for money from the district. And to me it’s just not a fair. It’s not a fair and I think every district and every charter school agrees there needs to be a different payment system. We just have to come up with the right one. GEORGE FITCH: And just to add on to that; that Mr. Bostic, through that strong fiscal responsibility, we’ve grown and we were able to save money. And through his management skills even thought they were able to hold up our payments through what he has put in place, through that strong fiscal responsibility that he put in place along with Edison Learning we were able to withstand what has happened this year and we are hopeful that this will not happen again. Due to all the cuts that have happened we’ve been in a strong fiscal position and like he said, with 75% of the state money that is given to us.

MR. BOSTIC: Like I said, the billing process, we submit all the documentation. I do a billing spreadsheet to the district every month. And it contains 755 lines. There’s a line for every student and the number of days and some of their contention is they need 100% correct or they are not going to pay the bill, they’ll send it back to us. Well anybody in this room that’s been in business, we’re human beings we can’t be 100%. My billings this year were at about 98% correctness and there were times that they sent them back for one or two mistakes; for an address that might have been typed into the spreadsheet incorrectly. And it’s just to me, it was a way for them to hold the money longer and prolong paying us. Which if they have the money in the bank they are drawing interest on it. But to the charter school it’s an unfair situation. GEORGE FITCH: May I make one more comment on that? It think that that attitude and that prodigious doesn’t exist throughout the entire district because when I mentioned to the board president that he tries to act immediately. But we’re still subject to different lower position management to do what they want. We’re still subject to them until there is a resolution. So they develop the policies. We have to adhere by it. So it’s not an overall attitude but we’re still subjective to many of the ways and cause a major problem. Because they are a much larger organization, we’re a smaller organization, so those types of decisions will affect us a lot greater than they would even know. MR BOSTIC: And I would just like to compliment the, are other surrounding districts, I get paid by them less than 30 days. And I never get a rejection from them, if there is an error on a bill they call me and say, this is an error, we’re just going to mark it on here and we’ll fix it on the next billing in business, that’s what should happen, and it doesn’t happen with the district. But the other 9 districts they’re right on point and they pay right away. REPRESENTAITVE TRUITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: I have just a few more questions. I notice that and it’s an impressive sheet that you have passed out Principle Fitch about the diversity that you have both in the Elementary and the Secondary School. My question is the middle school; with that diversity do you have discipline problems? GEORGE FITCH: Just like any other school you definitely have some concerns. But what we do is we set up an environment where we work with our students. We held a Conduct Intensive, which is almost like educational boot camp. We go over clearly what our expectations are and we don’t waiver from them. And just like I said in the beginning, I believe all children

want to learn, you have to give them the structure to learn, you have to give them that environment. They might fight you on rules but they really need to know what their rules are. And I think once you put that in place you see that they respond to it and they live up to the high expectation that you put in place. So while we are an urban school, our discipline might be high at the beginning but it dramatically drops off once everyone understands what we have in place. As far as I’m concerned it’s, as compared to some other schools I’ve been in Lincoln Carter School, we have the best students because we have the best school, with the best staff. We say that every day and they rise to that occasion and they really work hard to meet that standard. MR. BOSTIC: There middle school kids. They’re adolescents. But overall, I work at both the schools and the discipline is always going to be more of an issue in the middle school but it’s not, it’s not the same issues they have in the other district schools. Honestly some of our best comments to get students to come to our school are from the middle school kids. They’ll tell their friends, you need to come to this school, you can learn here. That’s their testimony. They tell their friends that, so to us that is as high a regard as we can be held at. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well for sure, if parents believe that their students, their child rather is getting a very good education and in a safe environment. They are going to tell others about it, so good news travels fast. My other question is, you do have a dress code, not that you have ask, not that you have students dress the same, but you have a dress code where they have to wear certain types of garments? MR. BOSTIC: They wear uniforms. We have required uniforms. George can speak more with the Elementary School. With the Middle school we have, they can be khaki pants, and we have a different colored polo shirt for every grade level, so it’s easy to distinguish the grade levels in the middle school. GEORGE FITCH: We definitely a school uniform and to meet the needs of our students, due to high free and reduced population we actually have, we actually buy clothes. So even a child might be out of uniform, but the parent many times said look, I couldn’t go to the washing machine last week or this is all I had that they could wear. Our Nurse provides either a gently used or a brand new pair of khakis. We just applied for a scholarship for our homeless students and we were able to buy clothing so that that’s not a hindrance. We want you in uniform. If you’re not in uniform, we will provide you with something you can wear and take home. And then bring it back the next day. And honestly our students take it and they bring it back the next

day. Even if it’s not washed we have a washing machine and a dryer at school, where we make sure it cleaned, it’s pressed. But we want you to understand that this is what you wear to come to school to learn and more importantly you are here to learn. And so just like, I liken it to when you have your equipment when you go to work. A construction worker always has to have his hard hat; a mechanic has to have his tools. These are your tools when you come to school. They’re getting that connection and it’s been very positive. CHAIRMAN CHYLMER: My final question is, then do you have a dropout rate? I’m sure you have some students those dropouts who don’t want to participate in the rules and regulations, not so much the student but maybe the parents are just saying this is not for me. So I’m curious if you have a dropout rate at any of the middle or the elementary school? MR ROSSUM: I will let Mr. Bostic give you the numbers. I wanted to mention that because it connects to your first or your previous question. What we developed when we first started about 12 years ago, the culture was ciaos. The parents were out of control, let alone our students and as a board we struggled with a solution to get some respect from our parents and some kind of dignity and control. I will never forget the third year when I had to speak at the commencement that I wanted the biggest speakers possible because the first time we did it parents were all over the place, running to the stage to see their children be promoted and it was just out of control. But the third year when it was my turn I wanted the biggest loudest sound system I could, to take control. I was so geared up to be a disciplinarian, my expectations were really negative in a sense those parents in the three years, somehow at some point, those students were so controlled that when they left the chairs were still in place. I love to talk but I was almost speechless because I was so ready to tell someone to please sit down. But they were so controlled. We tried every method to do one thing and that is to develop the culture. And the dress code is also part of a lot of different things that we put in place to develop the culture. In terms of retaining we have a lot of students, in York City and the area that do not want to come to our school, because they do not want to wear uniforms. Now with that said Mr. Bostic can give you the numbers about our retainment? MR. BOSTIC: Honestly, we have a very transient population in the City of York. Most of the time parents are moving, a lot of our parents. We have seven other elementary schools especially in the district. They can live five or six miles away and for the elementary school. There’s no busing in York City. It’s their parents’ responsibility to get their kids there and they

get them there because they want their child in that school. For the middle school, like I said last year we started the year at 195 and we ended the year at 195. Now we do partner with Rabbit Transit. Any student in the Middle school that lives more than five blocks from the school gets, we supply, passes for them to ride to school on public transportation, so have that budgeted in. We feel it’s important to get our students back to the school. We’re the only district in the state, I think, that pays for student public transportation. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Again I thank you for your testimony and I do appreciate Mr. Rossum and Principle Fitch and Mr. Bostic. I know you’re fighting a culture and that’s been a problem. We as Members of this Committee recognize what is happening in the culture and its strong influence on young minds and you’re a counter-culture. So for you to achieve what you have achieved and we’ll have to visit you sometime, right Representative Tallman? That it amazing, it certainly is amazing. It is incredible work you’re doing to get these students to focus on the academics, on the social life right within their school. I think that bodes very well. So there are no further questions by the committee. Again, thank you gentlemen for being here and for sharing the schools, about the Charter Schools, you are involved with. MR. BOSTIC: Thank you for the opportunity CHAIRMAN CLYMER: What we’re going to do is, the Members will see, we are ahead of our schedule, which is a good thing. The League of Women Voters, Olivia Thorne, will be here, somewhat later, but we’re going to continue on our agenda. The Chair welcomes Beth Olanoff, who is with the Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools (PLUS). Welcome Beth. Your testimony has been distributed and we look forward to hearing from you today on these important educational issues. BETH OLANOFF: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I’m so glad to see that several Members of the Committee are still here at the end of two days of testimony. I was afraid that I was coming up here to talk to myself but and I already know what I am going to say. I’m actually a neighbor of yours Mr. Chairman, in Bucks County. I’m glad I could be here today. Let me start by telling you about the Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools. We’re a non-profit organization of Superintendents from the urban, many of the urban schools in Pennsylvania, to support, promote and improve the educational opportunities for students in Pennsylvania’s urban districts. I bring greetings to you from our President Pedro Rivera, recently elected, in May, who is the Superintendent of the Lancaster school district. And

56 of course we appreciate the opportunity to present testimony to the committee on these important issues of vouchers and charter schools. I’m not going to follow my written testimony very carefully. I’m going to leave that to you to read and just give you a very brief statement and then be open to your questions. First of all we have 19 school district Members. And those 19 school districts educate over 381,000 students, which is 22% of Pennsylvania’s school children. But it’s important to note that we educate 38% of Pennsylvania’s poor children. And that illustrates the point that our urban districts have concentrations, not just a large number of poor kids but concentrations of poor kids. And research shows that not only is it more expensive and requires more strategies and initiatives in supports to educate individual poor children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, but when poor children are concentrated, that actually, according to the research, actually adds risk factors. And it’s harder to move the needle on the achievement of those children even though the urban districts in Pennsylvania, as all of the other districts in Pennsylvania have made substantial progress over the last 10 years, especially with the influx of additional state aide. I will leave those bullet points for you to read, both about state-wide achievement and achievement in urban districts. And the bullet points in the middle of page two are just a sampling. I’m happy to make some more information about that; about our other districts available to you. I do want to call attention to our strong; our very strong position that we know what to do to educate poor children. We know what it takes. But we as a society, as a community, have not made the decision to make that investment. Another thing to keep in mind is that school districts, the school system, has, is being asked to something that is different from what it has done traditionally. Approximately 25 to 30 years ago that shift began, we now know that. This is in my testimony that in the next ten years more than 60% of the jobs not just the new jobs but existing jobs as well, will require college or some level of post-secondary training. So that means to prepare kids for the market place of the future they have to graduate high school with college-ready skills. We never had to do that before. That’s not what high schools were doing 25 years ago. When I graduated 30 years ago we had to graduate about 20% of our graduating class college-ready, the other 80% could get family supporting jobs without a twelfth grade reading level, a twelfth grade math level. They could and they did. So we didn’t call upon our educational system to do what we’re calling on our system to do today. Now we have increased the resources that we provide to our districts but we haven’t increased them enough and we haven’t increased the equitably. Pennsylvania is a high spending state but when you, but

that’s an average of all of the states. Wealthy districts bring that average up. And not wealthy districts are spending below that average. The state is the mechanism to even that out. But Pennsylvania is fourth from the bottom in terms of the state’s share of total education expenses. So that means kids in the district that my organization represents has significant adequacy gaps in their classrooms. The primary objection that my superintendents have to vouchers is that vouchers would take more money out of those classrooms; more money out of classrooms that are already underfunded in order to do the job we’re asking them to do, which is graduate 80% of their kids, college and career ready. I’m going to stop there and open the floor to questions. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well thank you very much. It’s an interesting subject and the fact that you are involved, Beth, with the Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools. One of the school districts that have been receiving front page notoriety over the last four to five weeks is the Philadelphia School District --- an urban school district. There are many good teachers and many outstanding principles and other administrators in the school system and yet it struggles. In fact the reason we’re looking at choice is because of the number of failing schools not just this one school district, but the failing schools in the City of Philadelphia. So here’s my point, my question? What strategy has your organization come up with to provide a meaningful education for those students, who are in those failing schools? They have received a lion’s share of the states subsidies. They get a higher share of the state’s subsidies than any other school district percentage wise, and yet they still have their problems even though as I just mentioned, many dedicated principles and school teachers and support personnel as well. And we’re looking at ways to help them. Is school choice the way to go then? Are vouchers, then, the way to go? Are charter schools the alternative? I thought maybe you would have another strategy, blue print to help those students in those failing schools. BETH OLANOFF: First of all Philadelphia is one of the districts that is a member of my organization. I was at your hearings last week when you heard from Dr. Nunnery and Dr. Lori Shore. I call your attention, I hate to keep talking about money but I call your attention to page 4 which shows the adequacy gap per student and per classroom of several of my districts including Philadelphia, my district, the plus districts, and first I call your attention to the fact that Philadelphia has 62% poverty. So it has a concentration in many of its schools, not all of its schools but in many of its schools of concentrated poverty. And as I mentioned earlier, research tells us that concentrated poverty is worse than just poor kids in a non-concentrated poverty

environment. So if, with vouchers for example, you pulled a handful of kids out of concentrated poverty and plopped them down in a middle class environment like Senator Williams talked about his experience, he got pulled out of Philadelphia schools. I don’t know whether his Philadelphia school was concentrated poverty but he got pulled out and through good fortune and circumstance found himself at a very good prep school. That’s exactly the way to help a child who comes from a disadvantaged background, I don’t think that was the case with the Senator, but comes from a disadvantage background to succeed. But vouchers simply cannot do that at scale. That’s the first thing; they simply cannot do that at scale. And the voucher proposals that are being considered, that were proposed last Spring certainly don’t do that at scale, certainly aren’t limited to poor kids in failing schools, aren’t even limited on their face to failing kids, in failing schools. So you could be plucking the successful kids out of schools who have issues on their success rates. And those proposals go even farther to kids who are already in private schools. So that’s not a solution/situation directed at the problem that we’ve identified. Secondly, I’d like to make reference to the prime directive so to speak of the medical profession which is first do no harm. And if we all agree that the majority of kids in Pennsylvania will continue to be educated in our traditional public schools, then we shouldn’t be doing harm to our traditional public schools with an alternative strategy that we hope is going to help a few kids around the edges. And that’s exactly what vouchers do. Vouchers take money out of the school districts and as I contend they’re already underfunded and in Philadelphia they’re underfunded to the tune of 137,000 dollars per classroom. 137,000 dollars per classroom and these voucher proposals would take more money out of those classrooms to advantage a few kids and we could even discuss whether vouchers actually are successful for kids or whether these proposals are successful for kids. Before you jump in Mr. Chairman; if you as a general assembly or we as a community would like to take tax payer dollars and allow parents to use them to send their kids to private school, that’s certainly a legitimate policy objective. But I ask you not to take it away from the public schools, take it from somewhere else. Expand the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). Come up with a different program, if you want, if you think it’s the right public policy, if we all agree that it’s the right public policy to take tax payer dollars and let families use them in private schools, that’s fine. My organization doesn’t really object to that. Just don’t take it out of classrooms that are already struggling to do this new job; educate 80% of kids for college versus

20% of kids, poor kids, kids with no books in their home, English language learners, kids who struggle to get to school with adequate food, etc. etc. Sorry I get a little passionate. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: That’s fine. We enjoy passion here at our hearings, but we’ve heard throughout our testimony, this is our 4th day and we’ve heard that. One of the reoccurring themes is that the in some public schools, not all of course, but in some public schools they are not being able to make that transformation from a student who is not doing well academically and it happens year after year after year and there has to be change of some sort. I think the state has more than done its fair share in providing funding for school districts, I won’t get into the different reasons that I made that suggestion but I know the Philadelphia school district has been treated very beneficially by this general assembly over the many years. What it has done with the money, what it has done with the money, I think that’s what the Jack Wagner’s audits will try to reveal because obviously there are ways this money has been ill used. It has not been used for the betterment of the school children. But that’s a side issue. But again it reflects on what we are attempting to do here. So the charter school people have come before us especially at the elementary and middle schools and said, here’s what we’ve been able to do, here’s what our efforts have been able to achieve, it’s not, not in all cases, there are some failures, understand, but in many cases the charter schools have succeeded where the public schools, well they are public schools, but where the traditional public school has not succeeded. So we as a committee, we are given the responsibility to make certain that those children, those children who are not getting an education that is adequate to put them into the market place. And I agree with you that things have changed over the years, we want them to succeed. But so far we haven’t seen any success. There have been spots of success within certain urban area school districts. There have been some sunshine has come up with some individual elementary schools and middle schools but not, not where it’s making a major imprint on the 144 schools. That can change; I understand you can have 140 this year 147 next year as things change with the demographics of those schools. But we need to do, we are tasked to make a difference in the year 2011 and that’s what we want to do. If we can create a better environment, academic environment, social environment for those public schools that now are hemorrhaging, then tell us how to do it. There is no one on this committee that would say no. But we haven’t been given any meaningful solutions. Money has been the issue. But again, money by itself is not going to resolve the issue. I do believe in adequate funding and as I said, in my perspective, the Philadelphia school district has been more

than fairly treated then some of the other districts that we have in the Commonwealth. So my question is do you really think that the money is so important that it is going to make a difference in those failing schools? BETH OLANOFF: First of all, I was talking about vouchers, not charters. Taking money out of the classrooms to send, out of the system completely to private schools under the voucher plans, charters are a different matter. And I heard the last bit of the testimony of the Lincoln Edison group before me, I’m sorry I didn’t hear that. Charters, many charters in Philadelphia, York and in other places have been very successful and we should continue to spend public money on those; they’re a variation of a public school. And there is a charter bill pending from the spring and we need to spend a lot more time discussing that. I’m not unfortunately prepared to do that today about what are the good things and the bad things about that. But when you look at money, I think I might agree with you that Philadelphia and the urban districts have been fairly treated by the general assembly, if you start from the proposition of how much are we going to spend, not how much do we need to spend. Those are 2 very different numbers. How much are we going to spend; how much do we have to spend, has to do with what the economic situation is how the tax revenues are going. How much do we need to spend is an independent judgment that has to do with, what does it take to teach an English language learner how to speak English well enough to perform well in a public school. How do you teach kids who don’t elect to go to charter schools? And I would contend that charter schools don’t have an easy job of it, but they have a significant advantage in that the kids who go to those schools, their parents have chosen to make the effort to send them there. So right there you have kids whose parents are sophisticated enough to make a choice on where to send their kids. Not all kids in poverty have parents who can do that or are willing to do that. And the traditional public schools have to educate everybody. You asked a question of the earlier group about discipline; if a child doesn’t want to be there the child doesn’t stay there. In the public schools if the child doesn’t want to be there, that’s where the child goes. That child stays in the public school’s numbers whether he shows up at class or not. In the charter school if the child doesn’t show up, the child gets suspended or expelled from charter school or asked to leave. He has to sign a contract there. They are public schools but the populations that they serve are slightly different. So I want to make a distinction between charter schools and vouchers. And again I want to say that I agree with you in that Pennsylvania, the General Assembly have been more than fair to the urban

districts if you’re talking about how much money we have to spend on education. But that doesn’t answer the question of how much do we need to spend? If we’re not giving them enough; if you don’t have enough money when you walk into a car dealership and you say I want to buy a college ready Cadillac but I only have 15,000 dollars, the salesman will laugh at you and tell you can’t have a Cadillac; you can have that used Chevy over there. So we have spent what we’ve had to spend. But it isn’t what we need to spend. And I bet if you ask those charter schools that are doing so well whether they get extra money from elsewhere, from foundations, from Edison, from wherever they get it to pay for the washing machine, to pay for the uniforms that they provide for their poor kids, to pay for their home visits; I bet you they raise extra money and that’s to their credit. But the point exists that the traditional public schools have to teach everybody and some of those kids are more expensive than others. Now you asked me what our suggestions are. At the bottom of page two there’s a quote and the very last section of that sentence of that quote talks about what we know helps poor kids, all kids, but poor kids achieve high quality preschool for everyone. We don’t pay for that in Pennsylvania, full day kindergarten, an effective teacher in every classroom; you know what, I will be the first to admit, we’re not even sure how to measure that yet. We know how to measure highly qualified. But that’s an input not an output. We can measure if a teacher has taken the right courses and got good grades in Ed school, but we don’t know whether she’s moving the needle of the kids that are in front of her, that conversation is just started. And Secretary Tomalis is leading a pilot program starting in September, to, with money from the Gates Foundation to figure out how to measure whether a teacher is effective using student test scores. That’s a great thing. But it’s going to be a little while before, but you know what it cost money to do that. Someone on the committee asked Dr. Nunnery the other day, what will the cuts in the budget this year do to the Promise Academies? Promise Academies are using the charter models to turn around low performing schools. I heard on the radio this morning that that’s going from 11 turn-arounds to 3, because of the cuts in the budget. So I would submit to you that again, in this paragraph it tells you we know what to do. But we’re not spending the money to do it. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Chair appreciates the, those response. Chair recognizes Representative Tallman for questions. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. When you were talking about funding I went and grabbed spreadsheets, I love

62 spreadsheets. My first year and I’m relatively new, started 2009, that school funding year 2009- 10, Philadelphia got a 300 million dollar increase in basic ed funding, and they’re spending over 6,000 dollars per pupil. I mean they get that from the basic ed funding formula. One of my school districts gets 1,402 dollars. Is that fair and equitable? BETH OLANOFF: To whom to tax payers of to the children? REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Either or both. BETH OLANOFF: I live in a district that gets about that much also. And there’s something very, very wrong with our funding system that allocates state funds versus local funds. I bet that district that gets so little money from the state spends more per student, than the districts that get more money from the state, is that true? REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Well the average is 10,000 some odd per pupil and per pupil expenditure. In Philadelphia it gets 12,000, spends approximately 12,000 some odd dollars. BETH OLANOFF: I would submit to you that many, many of the districts that get very little money from the state are wealthy enough in their communities so that they actually spend more per child total, than the poorer districts. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Well the people in the Hanover school district, which I’m speaking they are contributing 22 mil, equalized mils, because we’re going across the whole county, York County. That’s the highest tax equalized mils in York County. BETH OLANOFF: That’s very unfair. I live in the lowest paying, the lowest taxed district in Bucks County. It’s very small, very wealthy district. I’m not wealthy but many of my neighbors are. We have a lot of people that own property but don’t send kids to the public schools so we benefit from that as well. We have commuters from New York who own property so my district is an example of an under taxed district because we have more people paying for the education of fewer kids. I think that argues in favor of a vastly different system; where the wealth of a local school district is not the major determinant of how much money is available for kids in that district. The basket so to speak should be bigger. It should be county-based. It should even be state-based and then if everybody, if wealthy districts want to spend more they are welcome to do that but that’s not the system; I think the system is screwed up frankly. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: I would agree with you on that 100% by the way. I would like to fix school funding. But…

BETH OLANOFF: But you know what, excuse me Representative, a lot of people from wealthy districts don’t want to do that. They like keeping their wealth close. They say, I worked hard to move into this district; I don’t want to share my dollars with the poor kids down the road. So it is a question, that’s not a popular solution, frankly, I think it’s the right solution for both tax payers and students. But wealthy communities will see more of their tax dollars flowing to other parts of the state then the current system where wealthy tax payers get to keep their money close. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Well the costing-out study done, finished in 2008, which resulted in legislation, went across the block to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, where the concept of fair and equitable funding for the school districts across the state was high jacked with particular emphasis on Philadelphia. That’s how come in my first years here Philadelphia got a 300 million dollar increase in their basic ed funding. BETH OLANOFF: I would disagree with that opinion that is was high-jacked, REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: It says fair and equitable. That’s what the costing out study said. It’s not equitable to see… BETH OLANOFF: Equitable doesn’t mean equal. Equitable doesn’t mean equal. Equitable means, a little socialistic here, recognizing that some children cost more money to educate to high standards than others and Philadelphia gets more of those than anybody else. So that’s why Philadelphia gets more under the costing out study because they have a higher percentage of poor kids, of English language learners. Special education is not in the formula so we’ll put that aside for the moment. But if you accept the notion that it costs more money to educate poor children and English language learners than it does children from advantaged backgrounds, then poor communities like Philadelphia and York and Lancaster and Reading are going to get more under a funding formula that recognizes those factors. I don’t know if you agree that those multipliers are appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: They’re already in the funding formula. BETH OLANOFF: Correct. Yes. And that’s why the funding formula kicks more to Philadelphia. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: It was high-jacked from what was proposed. Let’s just let it go at that. Second part is starting in 1990; the Pennsylvania Economy League and we have at least a dozen and I can supply them to you, at least the citations for them, but starting

with the Pennsylvania Economy League in 1990 going forward, dollars-in does not equal an education-out. Do you agree with those studies? BETH OLANOFF: I can’t comment specifically on those studies. I’m sure I read them. Dollars-in certainly does not automatically mean success-out but no dollars-in is automatically going to mean no success-out. I think that again we’re talking about kids. It costs more to education certain kids than other kids, in my district and please Representative Clymer don’t tell them I said this, I think would could knock 3 or 4 thousand per kid and my kids just went through the system, off our spending per student and we’d have the same results. We have a great school district, but we also have upper middle class well educated parents which have an enormous influence over the success of children. When you don’t have that and if you want to end up at the same place, graduating from high school, college and career ready, whose, is it going to cost the same for my kids at New Hope Solebury, than it is for the kids at Edison Lincoln was just talking about? I think not. So dollars-in matters. Again we can look at this list on the bottom of page two and see what dollars-in pays for. Now that doesn’t mean that school districts when you give them more money don’t waste it somehow or spend it on things that don’t have a positive impact on achievement and there’s lots of things that you can spend money on, legitimate things in a budget that don’t have a positive impact on student achievement. Teacher’s salaries for example/ paying teachers more money when they get a masters degree does not have a correlated effect to achievement in the classroom. Well maybe we need to look at that. There are other things than increasing teachers’ salaries; I hope my friends from PSEA are not here right now. Increasing teachers’ salaries in of itself does not necessarily raise student achievement unless you are using it to attract the most effective teachers and then, putting them by the way in the hardest classrooms. Okay. Again, if you New Hope, Solebury can attract the best teachers that’s great. But you know what, my kids… I’ll stop there. Money is essential but so is spending it properly. Now all middle class families that I know of send their kids to preschool. You know nursery school teaches them socialization and all that, and we use, Senator Piccola talks about this, for vouchers, we can acknowledge that to some extent pre-K counts as a little mini voucher program because pre-K counts makes money available and some of it goes to private providers and parents do police that and there’s the star system and all of that. Middle class families send their kids to pre-K and poor families don’t, unless it’s subsidized by the state. So money spent, our kids do better because of that; money spent wisely has a positive effect;

65 more money spent poorly does not. I think that’s self evident but I think to say that money-in doesn’t necessarily mean success-out it is too simplistic a statement. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: I didn’t do the studies but just, the state does supply a lot of money for early childhood education, Keystone Stars, pre-K counts, head start… BETH OLANOFF: Representative Tallman only 11% of the kids eligible for pre-K counts get any state subsidy, 11%, now that’s a great start. That’s last year number by the way, so I apologize. So I agree that we’re spending money wisely but I persist in saying we’re not spending enough to get the results we want. CHAIRMAN CLYER: I appreciate the gentleman but we have to move on, if I may, to the next testifier. But I do want to say that the Philadelphia school system has had full day kindergarten for 20 years. BETH OLANOFF: And they have had increased achievement, dramatically increased achievement over the past 10 years. REPRESENTATIVE CLYMER: That’s debatable but we’ll continue because I want to get some of the people to give their thoughts on it. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt for questions. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. You said money is essential and so is spending it properly. I’m going to come back to that; you’re making a lot of valid points. You and I had an off the record conversation last week and you commented about the fact that it costs more to educate students that come from lower incomes and I’ve been noodling that over for the past week. It raises questions of how much further should the Department of Education or the school system delve into the private lives of families. To come to an answer to that question is the kind of thing is going to take a long time to resolve. Not to belabor Representative Tallman’s point, I come from a school district that gets about 600 dollars per student from the state. The Philadelphia school district gets close to 6,000; I’m rounding the numbers a little bit but when you’re talking about a difference of 10 times as much funding. You have to understand that constituents in my district are getting a little tired of dumping money into this rat hole in Philadelphia. It just doesn’t seem fair after a while. They get so much more funding from the state and we’re just not seeing the results and it’s partially because of the way they are spending the money. It’s partially because of the societal issues and so forth. Now you mentioned, I see vouchers and charters as an opportunity; we could address the societal issues

and it’s going to take a long time to resolve these funding formulas. What’s at the core of these families that makes it difficult to educate these children? That’s a long term thing that we have to address. In the short term though we can get kids out of some of these failing schools instantly by via charters and vouchers. And I wondered if you realized, I mentioned this last week, you seem like you like charters but you’re opposed to vouchers and I’m reluctant to put this on the record because I’m a particular proponent of charter schools. But I don’t know if a lot of people realize that a voucher actually takes less money out of the school district that a kid leaves than a charter school does. My school district is an extreme example; if a kid leaves and goes to a charter school he takes 10,000 dollars with him; if he leaves with a voucher he’s only taking about 600 dollars with him. The same wouldn’t be quite as extreme of an example but in Philadelphia schools it would be similar; the kid who leaves and goes to a charter school is going to take more money with him than one who leaves with a voucher. My question, I’m sorry for the long preamble there but I just kind of wanted to get back to the fact that my district and how we perceive it out in Chester County that we’re pouring money into this rat-hole in Philadelphia and not getting any results. How do I convince my constituents that if we send more money to Philadelphia, now this time we’re going to get results? What’s going to be different? BETH OLANOFF: First of all, we have been getting different results. It is not fair. Philadelphia is a rat hole; it’s not fair to say that there aren’t successes in Philadelphia; that the kids aren’t succeeding in Philadelphia. A lot of kids are succeeding in Philadelphia and that’s in great part to the state money that goes there because Philadelphia. Is not able, for a lot of different reasons, to raise the money that it needs locally, the way your district is and Representative Tallman’s district is and my district is. And we could have a whole hearing on Philadelphia and its’ ability versus it’s’ inability to raise its’ own tax money. One of the reasons for example, is all of the hospitals and universities there in Philadelphia that doesn’t pay any real estate taxes and yet I certainly take advantage of both the hospitals and the universities in Philadelphia. So that offers the fact that those exist there; not to mention all the jobs it provides. It is a benefit to all of Southeastern Pennsylvania and therefore we should not be so quick to say that money we send to Philadelphia in whatever form is wasted. Secondly, again I go back to the educational system is not 100% failure in Philadelphia. More kids are achieving; lots of kids are achieving, so we have to think about that. To speak directly to your tax payers in your district, I would say a couple of things; one: the children of Philadelphia are Pennsylvania’s children, and

the obligation to give them a high quality education is a Pennsylvania obligation. We have designed a system so that it has devolved down to the school district, 500 of them, 500 of these little baskets, so people in this school district think that it’s not their responsibility to care about people in that district. I disagree with that, they are all of Pennsylvania’s children so people in your district and my district and Representative Tallman’s district all have an obligation to care about the education of the children of Philadelphia. That’s sort of a moral, ethical argument, the practical argument is that the more education, the more we educate our children to high standards, the more of them that are going to be taxpaying citizens versus tax using citizens. Now none of us are very good at thinking long term and I have to say it, especially politicians, or regular old tax payers. But if we invest in the children of Philadelphia more of them are going to end up with good jobs paying taxes then not good jobs using up Medicaid and other health subsidies and housing subsidies and God forbid the criminal justice system. That is just common sense and there’s an enormous amount of research with a lot of detail about who gets the jobs and who suffers in a recession. The people without a good education or under educated don’t get the jobs and aren’t paying taxes but are using our taxes. There was a, I don’t remember the statistics exactly, but 20 years ago there were X number of workers supporting everybody who was retired. Right? And coming up it’s a much smaller number of workers going to be supporting those of us who hope to be retired. Well you know that I want my workers to have gone to college, I don’t know about your workers? Maybe your workers can come from Philadelphia and not have an education but that’s just silly. So that’s a long term and short term analyses of why the people in your district and my district should actually care about the education of those poor kids down the road. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I agree with a lot of what you just said, just an aside one of my staffers in my district office did grow up in Philadelphia and I just asked him last night out of curiosity, in refection of what’s been going on here, I said, where did you go to high school? Because he turned out pretty well for somebody who grew up in Philadelphia and went through the public school systems. And I found out he went to Catholic school the whole time. Where I’m going with this though, is again, you’ve got this argument we need, if we spend more money we get better results but we’ve got charter schools and public and private schools that are proving that you don’t need more money to educate the kids. So it’s very difficult to go back and convince people in my district that when there’s a charter school in Chester that can teach 55%

of the kids down there on 75 cents on the dollar and get better results, that the answer is to spend more money. It’s getting harder and harder. I don’t know if you realize what an uphill battle it is and the attitude that we’re starting to hear from the public is they’re getting tired of the explanation. The public just doesn’t believe anymore in my view that spending more money is going to help because we have examples of places where not spending more money has yielded better results. BETH OLANOFF: First of all, I forgot what first of all was. The money that your tax payers send to Chester and send to Philadelphia pays for those charter schools. So first of all there’s that. Secondly again, I would wonder whether that charter school in Chester uses only that 75 or raises some money in addition. I think many charter school raise money in addition through fund raising. They’re able to do that and more power to them, so they only get 75% of the public dollars but the raise additional dollars. So that’s not to say they’re cheaper to the tax, they are not cheaper to the tax payer. They are but they are using more money to accomplish their goal. And third, as I said before, the charter and I would argue that in most cases charter school students are slightly easier to educate because of the parents support and their choice of going there, then the students that are left behind in the traditional public schools and again, you know what? It’s very tempting to say, you know if those poor families don’t want their children to have a good education so the parents can go take part in their Childs’ education then the heck with them and we’re not going to worry about those kids. It’s very tempting to say that but let’s go back to that cost benefit analysis about being a tax user or a tax payer. Our moral opinions about whether we should pay for the education of chronically poor children. Aside whether, are they going to grow up into taxpayers or tax users? CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Thank you for those questions. The chair now recognizes Representative Roae for questions. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. Yesterday when the Secretary of Education was here he was saying that back in 1995 Pennsylvania spent 13 billion dollars on education. If that would have been adjusted for inflation every year for 15 years in a row it would have gone to 17 ½ billion. Last year Pennsylvania spent 26 billion on education so we’ve literally doubled education spending in the last 15 years. I don’t think very many people buy the argument that we need to throw more money at it. When you look at SAT scores, even though we’ve doubled the amount of money that we spend on

education, we’re 42 in the country when it comes to SAT scores. So it hasn’t been that impressive considering the amount of money that we’re spending. Now when you look at Philadelphia in the budget we just passed, Philadelphia, the numbers I got from appropriations, their going to get 968 million dollars from the state. That’s almost a billion dollars. Philadelphia has about 10% of the state’s population and they’re getting almost 20% of state funding for education. I don’t think it’s accurate to say they’re not getting enough money or they’re being underfunded. I was looking at the Pennsylvania Department of website information; I think it said 57% of Philadelphia students graduate on time. I know they recently changed how they calculate the graduation statistics but my question to you is when you look at the proposal by Representative Schroder, his proposal would ignore, I don’t want to say ignore, but it would basically ignore the 2,736 top 95% schools in Pennsylvania. It would focus on the bottom 5%; the worst 144 school in the state. Based on some of the dismal results, would you and your organization support letting those kids that are trapped at the worst 5% of the schools in Pennsylvania take their state tax money and go to a better school where they have an opportunity? Would your organization support that? BETH OLANOFF: Well we certainly wouldn’t support Representative Schroder’s bill because it has a lot of problems with it. My organization would support giving more money, to allow Philadelphia to continue with its’ plans to charterize those schools as they were planning to do and because of the budget cuts they now have to reduce their plan from 11, I think it’s 11 schools to 3 schools. I don’t agree with a bunch the numbers that you said. I don’t know whether Philadelphia has 10% of the population but the Philadelphia school district educates, no I’m not sure if that’s right. Never mind about your SAT numbers. You can’t look at that number by itself. You have to look at how many kids take the SAT. If we, as we have tried to do, increase the number of children who take the SAT, it is likely that our scores are going to go down. If other states have not done that or and not done it so successfully and only have more advanced students taking the SAT, there average score is going to be higher. So we have to look at that carefully before we agree that Pennsylvania is not doing very well. I would submit to you that I certainly agree that we’ve doubled education spending over the past, since 1995. But as I’ve said we’ve changed what we want from our public school system. It’s going to cost a lot more to get 80% of our kids ready for college then to only get 20% of our kids ready for college. So I think it’s a little unfair to just throw around those numbers. Again we’re talking about what we have to

70 spend and what we have spent not what we need to spend to get to where we want to go. Now do I think that kids, and there’s always going to be a bottom 5% by the way, unless you judge it somehow, there’s always going to be a bottom 5%. Am I arguing that those schools aren’t having troubles? Not at all. And what do we do to help the kids at those schools? Well first of all, we target interventions not at anybody who goes to the school but anybody who’s failing at the school; Representative Schroder’s bill doesn’t do that. He targets it at anybody who goes to the school and then it widens to anybody who lives in the schools catchment area. And then some of the bills, I don’t know if it’s Representative Schroder’s or the others, widens it even further, so we’re no longer talking about helping individual kids who are failing. And again, until everybody has enough don’t take the money out of the classrooms. Find the money somewhere else if you want to give private schools tax payer money. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: So if there’s a high school, one of your members schools, if they have a high school in their school district and only 10% of the students are at grade level in math and reading and less than 50% of the kids at that school graduate on time you’re opposed to those students taking the state share of that school districts education money and going to a… BETH OLANOFF: Yes. That’s not the way to solve the problem for the bulk of the children in the district. It only makes a half-hearted attempt at solving the problem of a few kids. Where are they going to go with a voucher? Where are they going to go with an even a 6,000 dollar voucher. They are not going to go to the prep school that Senator Williams went to unless the prep school ponies up the rest of the money. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: They could pretty much go just about anywhere and find a school where more than 10% of the kids are proficient at grade level. These kids… BETH OLANOFF: A school that will accept them with only 6,000 dollars in their hand? I don’t think so. A catholic school that would be the only option. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay. Well then would you be opposed to that? BETH OLANOFF: Absolutely. That’s on different grounds. Let’s not even get into the constitutionality of that. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: If there is a low income minority kid that lives in a single parent household and only 10% of the kids at his school are at grade level in Math and Reading and less than half the kids at his school graduate from his high school on time, you’re opposed to his parents getting his portion of state funding and walking 2 or 3 blocks down the street and

going to a different school such as a catholic school where he can get a decent education? Your organization is opposed to that? BETH OLANOFF: Under the current proposals that would… REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: It was a yes no answer. BETH OLANOFF: The answer to that is no, for the reasons I’ve already explained. Absolutely not because it leaves the other kids worse off. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: How could you be worse off when 10% of the students are at grade level, at some of these schools that we’re talking about? BETH OLANOFF: What I really think is that the state should have come in and taken over that district a long time ago. No school district should be allowed to continue with only 10% of its kids graduating or whatever the facts were that you supposed. So we do not have a system that does that very well. In fact we’re talking so despairingly about Philadelphia, the rat hole, you know what? You’ve already taken over that district. The school reform commission is three guys appointed by the Governor and two guys appointed by the Mayor, I think, the other way around, all appointed by the Governor. So whose problem is it? Why haven’t you solved the problem in Philadelphia? REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: We’re trying to solve the problem. We have 57% of the students graduating on time in Philadelphia. A lot of those schools have 10%-12% of the students at grade level. We’re trying to solve the problem keeping of all the kids at the exact same schools, isn’t working. I mean what is said that the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing and expecting different results. We’re going to have the exact same situation a year from now if we have the exact same schools, the same students, the same teachers, the same everything, you’re going to have the same results. I can’t believe that your organization is against letting these kids take the state portion of the funding to go to where they have an opportunity. I would think that people who are involved in education should be passionate about kids being able to have a future and receiving a good education. To keep kids trapped in these schools, there to provide jobs for teachers and administrators and support staff and employees of the Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools. Schools are there to educate children and if they’re not getting the job done, they should want those kids to take that state money and go to a decent school and…

BETH OLANOFF: If your proposal was for all of the kids to get money to go somewhere else we might feel different. But your proposal is for just a few of the kids to get the money to go who knows where, because there isn’t capacity. My organization would be in favor of shutting down that school; my organization would be in favor of under a turnaround plan, bringing in a charter operator like they’re trying to do in Philadelphia, but just had to back off of because they don’t have enough money. My organization is not in favor of allowing a few kids from here and there, not even necessarily failing kids, get a little bit of money that would enable them to go to a catholic school. It’s not enough money to go to a private school. It’s not enough money to go to another public school and even then the school gets to decide whether the kid goes or not, not the family. So these voucher proposals are pie in the sky; they’re a bill of goods; they’re a wholesale transfer of tax money to private school operators and my organization does not support them. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay, then I will mark my notes that your organization is opposed to that. I think with all due respect that your organization, rather than making excuses, you should be looking for solutions. And if your schools can’t get the job done, you ought to freely let those kids go to a different school where they are going to have an opportunity. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Okay, the Chair thanks the gentleman for his comments. Just an observation and then I’m going to call on Representative Quigley for questions. But in testimony we heard from the Catholic Conference. They have 13,000 just in the city of Philadelphia, 13,000 seats available for students, and they would welcome students from anywhere to occupy those seats. Just a thought. Alright at this time the Chair recognizes Representative Quigley for questions. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. Just a question from a broad perspective or a big picture. I think that some of the scenarios that Representative Roae was putting forward and I think with some of the big picture idea for proposals of the school voucher, is let’s save the kids who can be saved or want to be saved with parental involvement. And then as he said, at least get the ones who can get out get out and then we can still continue to work and find other solutions for some of those who don’t have the family background, don’t have the support that they need which, so what, from big picture perspective can you at least see the approach to that approach of saving those who can be saved?

BETH OLANOFF: I’m not sure what the question is exactly. But I would hope that we could pursue non-traditional public school actions through the charter model. The Catholic school option is troubling to me because of the separation of church and state. All of the voucher proposals but not the charter proposals have accountability issues as far as I’m concerned, both academic accountability and fiscal accountability. So my answer to your question, if I’ve gotten the question right, is that in the first place public school that are truly failing need to be closed. It’s hard to do that. We don’t necessarily have the law right now to do that, the race to the top proposal would have helped along that way, but we couldn’t go there, so I think that there may be somewhere for the general assembly to go in terms of empowerment to close down failing schools, to make it easier for districts to do that. I think that when a school is really failing you need to shut it down and if it’s not really failing but some kids just aren’t succeeding there, then an alternative to traditional public schools, the way to proceed at this point in time is the charter school option. Parents can come up with charter schools, operators can come in, and school districts themselves can seek out charter operators to turn over a failing school. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Would you agree that there’s always going to be a certain amount of people, no matter how much money we spend or how we change things that there’s always going to be a certain amount of people who don’t make it? BETH OLANOFF: Don’t make it to college ready? RERESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Correct or I should say, right. There’s always going to be a certain percentage of people that because of their family situation, or lack thereof that the money, that we’re just not going to reach a certain amount of people. So in effect we can’t save everybody. BETH OLANOFF: Okay, Yes. So I would go back to my comment at the beginning of my testimony that if you want to make public money available for kids to go to private schools, don’t take it out of the public school classrooms, take it from somewhere else. EITC is a good example. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: So you would be opposed to the one proposal where we would increase the amount for the EITC? BETH OLANOFF: I would not be opposed to that. I would hope that EITC has some of the same transparency and accountability issues that I think we, all of us as tax payers, you know, how is my money being spent? Need to be concerned with, but I would rather see if again,

if the General Assembly and the community want tax payer money to send kids to private schools, knock yourself out. But please don’t take it out of the classrooms that are already underfunded. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Representative Fleck for questions. REPRESENTATIVE FLECK: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief in the interest of time and sounds like I’m in het minority here but I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I think the issues that we have in poorer neighborhoods; I think that the parents that are concerned about education will do what it takes to get their children a good education. A voucher may help that situation but it’s only going to exacerbate the situation with our failing schools, and then what are we left? I don’t see how we fix societies problems just by throwing more money at it. I agree how much is enough? What’s it going to take there? But if education in this state is broken, it’s broken because of the legislature, the government, and the educational community, we’re all to blame. So I’m not sitting around pointing fingers at any rat holes or any place like that because we have them all over the state and here, there and everywhere. Perhaps that’s a bad term but you know we can’t spend our way out of a mind set. But I think that we do need to look, thinking outside of the box. I don’t know that this is going to solve that. I don’t know that some of the other educational things that we’ve done, I was on the school board for 5 years and it was like Act 72, Act this, Act that and then we’re surprised, I wasn’t there at the time, when we’re back here in two years. Gee that didn’t fix it; the big bad school board still went out and did this. And I think this is going to be another example of that. We’re going to back here in a few years, saying wow we still have failing kids. So that’s my concern. I’m not opposed to giving people choices but it’s like how are we going to fix this in the overall? So Philadelphia is a problem; Philadelphia is a big major city. It’s going to be different issues than what we have in the rest of the state as well as our other urban areas. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The gentleman Representative Truitt would just like to make a comment. The Chair recognizes him. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Discussion with the Chairman, we just wanted to clarify for those, for our friends from Philadelphia. We used the term rat hole. We don’t mean it to be derogatory to the City. It’s a term a lot of financial people

use to say. Basically pouring money down the drain, pouring money down a rat hole etc. And we just wanted to clarify that because some people may have taken that the wrong way but again thank you for your testimony. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well that concludes the number of Representatives who want to ask questions. The Chair thanks Beth Olanoff, for being here today. It was a very excellent discussion as we talked about issues that are very important and it is a passionate issue and I thank you for taking time to be here this afternoon to engage in the process, thank you. And now our last testifier this afternoon is Olivia Thorne, who is President of the League of Women Voters. Her testimony has been handed out and we’re anxious to hear what she has to bring before us this afternoon. So welcome. I know the League has been active in a number of issues and we’re pleased you are involved with these education issues as well. So you may begin at your convenience. OLIVIA THORNE: Thank you and I would like to comment. What I’m going to say is slightly different than what you have there because I was sort of commenting on the longer because I didn’t know how much time I’d have. And so I think it will all flow in together and we can pick up the pieces along the way. My name is Olivia Thorne and I am President of the League of Pennsylvania. which is all the Leagues from across the state. I think like many of us who came into the League many years ago, we came in on education issues. So this has been an issue that has evolved over the years and the League has spoken many times talking about how to fix education or try to make it better. I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. The League of Women Voters has a long history of interest in public education. Our positions are based on careful study of all issues and represent consensus by our state-wide membership. As a good government organization we agree with Thomas Jefferson, who believed that a society founded upon the rule of law and liberty was dependent upon public education and the diffusion of knowledge. We have studied the various voucher bills that were introduced in this past legislative session including Senate Bill 1, House Bill 1708 and House Bill 1330. We have several concerns that we have presented in our written testimony. Now I’d like to just mention briefly some of them. Choice: these bills were meant to provide a parent, parents a choice in what school their children would attend, but in reality it’s the schools that would have the choice. There’s nothing in the bills that prevent private schools from choosing which children they admit and which ones they would deny or reject. Expensive private schools would still be beyond the

76 reach of many parents because even with a voucher, the tuition bill would be much more than could be afforded, even if their child was selected. In many parts of the state there are no private schools for parents to choose. So the promise of a voucher is also an empty promise. Already charter schools, magnet schools, home schooling and public schools provide choice for parents. Talking about accountability, fiscal accountability is and should be a major issue today. Look at the scandals in other states as reported by the media where public dollars have gone to non- existent schools. It’s easy to see that public dollars should be given only when there’s transparency and accountability, we can see how the money is spent. Private and non-public schools are not required to show how funds are spent. So there is no accountability to the tax payer. Educational accountability is also a major issue. How will we know whether children in these public schools are actually getting a good education? Provisions for standardized testing that is aligned with Pennsylvania standards must be included in proposed legislation. Standardized testing results based on different standards are not compatible with PSSA’s from our public schools’ students. This is sort of comparing apples and oranges, as for cost we are at a time of fiscal austerity, budget cutting and lots of talk about living within our means. We’ve just cut a billion dollars out of this K-12 budget this year. Why would we want to start a program that according to the Senate’s own numbers would cost us over a billion dollars in 4 years? Do we really need another layer of bureaucracy to the system? The cost of providing vouchers would fall primarily on school districts in low income areas, the very same schools that were hardest hit in the budget cuts this year. Is it reasonable to take money away from these schools that are struggling to meet standards that are already in many cases economically disadvantaged? Won’t schools that have children that take advantage of vouchers actually save money? After all only the state subsidy goes to children with vouchers leaving funds provided by local revenue and the school district. This argument doesn’t work. It’s like those of us who have children that leave home to go to college or to work; we still have to heat the house, provide maintenance, pay utilities and even do the laundry they send home. And in schools cases, unless you have a critical mass, such a classroom full of children at the same grade level who accept vouchers, you’re still going to be paying a teachers’ salary. Losing 1 or 2 children from a class does not save significant amounts of money. For effectiveness, if we could be certain that children who receive vouchers would get a better education, we might still consider this idea as worthy. However in states and cities where vouchers have been in existence for years, research from the National

Education Policy Center, shows that children who are in public schools score as well or better than children who receive vouchers for private and non-public schools. So not only would this proposal take away resources from the public schools it would likely not benefit the children who receive vouchers. We appreciate the time that the House Education Committee has taken to explore the issues surrounding vouchers and we urge this committee to turn it’s time and attention to developing plans that would improve educational opportunities for all children across the state. Currently more affluent districts spend twice as much per student as low income districts. This inequity in educational opportunity is unconscionable. It is folly to believe that a believe that a child educated in a district that send 20,000 dollars per year, per student, receives the same quality of education as a child educated in a district that spends 10,000 per student, per year. It’s been said that money can’t guarantee a good education and I’d agree. However, it’s like saying money can’t buy happiness. But it’s hard to be happy if you don’t have any. Money can’t guarantee a good education but it’s hard to achieve it if you don’t have the resources that such money make accessible. We have a moral as well as a self-interested responsibility for providing a good quality education for all students in Pennsylvania. Our very future depends on making sure that all our children are well prepared for the 21st century. As Franklin Roosevelt said Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy therefore is education. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentle lady for her testimony here this afternoon and are there any questions from Members? The Chair recognizes Representative Tallman. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Just real quick. The school district that my children graduated from spends 10,493 dollars per pupil and they get an excellent education. OLIVIA THORNE: I think in some ways this is sort of what Beth was talking about a little while ago. I think it depends on how much you have special ed children, how much you have children that have other needs that are and… REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Bermudian Springs School District has a high ELL population. OLIVIA THORNE: That’s interesting then, yes? REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Okay let me go onto my question here because on page 2 and 3 of your testimony you say that, you question whether voucher programs are going

to achieve higher academic accomplishments. So I want to go there. I’m going to research that data on the National Education Policy Center. But let me go with the question here. Cause I actually have looked at doing school choice legislation myself. I have spent a lot of time looking at the Milwaukee County Model and the way they do it. And I’m actually surprised that the League of Urban Schools would be opposed to choice. But let’s just go into some things here. 41% of the African American families in Milwaukee County do school choice. They graduate 94%. Guess what? That’s way above the school districts in Pennsylvania. That’s academic achievement. How can you say I can’t speak to Cleveland or DC and Cleveland by the way was found to be constitutional under the US Supreme Court Ruling? OLIVIA THORNE: I am very sorry that my education specialist on the board could not be here today and had another commitment. Sharon Clutzian has been involved in education her whole life and for the last 20 years has been advising us and helping us understand the issues better and helping with these studies. But what she said if asked this question today is the first step. Though I would be happy to have her be in contact with you to have her talk about it more, was to talk about the National Educational Policy Center, she said the results that she had seen were very compelling and made her think that there was more, that you need. They analyze cities with vouchers and I think that measuring that against Philadelphia maybe is better than taking rural or suburban districts. But I would also say that I hear what you’re saying and I think that it’s a temptation to use vouchers because it seems like this might fix it now. And I go back again to what you said Representative; about we may be back here in 2 years again trying to figure out what the next thing is. In some ways I think the social problems that schools are facing today are not the same problems that they had to face in the past. They seem right this moment. And I live near Chester so I can talk probably more about Chester than I can Philadelphia and Chester’s problems are immense and they seem to be related as much to children who have had drug abuse in their families, children who were born with learning disabilities that we didn’t see in schools the same way as before. So I think that this is a very complex subject and it’s one that when it comes to your question, I would really like Sharon to be the one, because she will give you totally accurate information and I don’t want to mislead you. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: Let’s just continue on. Like I said, it was found to be constitutional by Wisconsin Supreme Court on 2 different challenges on separation issues. But they have a different constitution than we do.

OLIVIA THORNE: They do and that I think is the issue we have. We were basing it on the Pennsylvania Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE TALLMAN: The other thing is and this is the political side of the issue and the League of Women Voters is involved in the political side of the spectrum too. Four to six years ago the Wisconsin General Assembly were going to just do away with the one county they allowed to have school choice. In urban areas, typically the Members to the General Assembly are Members of the Democrat Party and 5 Members of the democrat party that supported the bill to do away with choice in Milwaukee were defeated in the primary by 5 Democrats who said school choice works. So the political ramifications are there and you can just look at DC and Cleveland and see that also. School choice works. The data is here, the dollar amounts don’t equate to a good education. Thank you very much. OLIVIA THORNE: Okay and I will have Sharon get in touch with you on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman. recognizes Representative Roae for questions. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. It’s kind of confusing because there are several different bills that we’ve reviewed in the last couple days. Legislation dealing with school choice and vouchers and charter schools and so on. But the one proposal that I think probably might have the broadest support, something similar to what Representative Schroder was suggesting. Under his bill, just the bottom 5% of all schools would be impacted. So basically the worst 5% of all schools, if you count elementary schools, middle schools and high schools and under Representative Schroder’s bill it wouldn’t really cost any extra money. If I understand the bill correctly it would only move the state money that was getting spent anyways. Other school choice legislation would involve more money being spent. But under Representative Schroder’s bill if I understand it, the state portion of the funding that goes to the school, that’s one of the worst 144 schools in the state, if a kid leaves that school to go to a different school, he would only take the state funding with him. It would have no impact on the other schools in Pennsylvania. It would have no impact on the total amount of school spending. It would just give kids that are in one of the worst schools in the state an opportunity to go to a better school. The locally raised property tax, locally raised earned income tax, the federal funding for that school would stay with the original school even though

80 that kid isn’t there anymore. So my question is would the League of Women Voters support a bill such as the Schroder bill where those kids that are trapped at that bottom 5% of all schools, since it’s not costing any extra money? Would the League support that legislation? To allow those kids to go to a school that’s a better school than where they are currently attending? OLIVIA THORNE: I think the problem still comes down to taking the money from our perspective taking the money out of schools that need the money there. And that you’re not taking enough students out that you still have to support the rest and they have less money. And I’m saying it in more simplistic terms than Sharon, would say it I’m sure, who could give you may more statistical arguments for it. And again, I will pass that question on to her and get back to you on it. Because I think that our concern is mostly is that you have a finite number of dollars and you’ve got to try and spend them as wisely as possible. And you have to try to make sure that you don’t disadvantage children that stay behind. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Would the League be in support of and I don’t think I’ve seen this one in writing yet, maybe I’ll put it in; if there’s a school that less than 10% of the kids are at grade level and less than half of them graduate on time, close the whole school down and send all the kids to better schools? Would that be something the League would support, so those kids have opportunities? OLIVIA THORNE: To be honest with you on the last page you’re going to see and I’m terribly apologetic, I picked it up from the office and found it’s in fine print that even I’m having trouble reading, but this is our position. I don’t think we discussed it this way when the study was done. How the League differs a little bit from within how we reach studies and reach consensus. Afterwards we have to interrupt from that, I haven’t heard anybody say that to me so I’d really rather get back to you and ask the people who wrote this and make sure that I understand totally where they stand on that, because that particular nuance, I have not had told to me in the last, since these bills came up. So I’d really like to ask that but my gut reaction off the top is, no. But rather than say no, I’d really rather get back to you on that and we’ll make sure that all of you, the whole Committee gets the information; not just one person. Would that be okay with you? REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Yea that would be fine, and I think that the League, take a look at Representative Schroder’s bill. It would basically not impact 2,736 schools, it would impact 144 schools. Those 144 are the worst 5% in the whole state

OLIVIA THORNE: I do know that we’re concerned about the fact that it sort of slides up. So I’m thinking that a lower number might be better. But again it goes back to what our consensus was and so I have to go back. And one of the problems with our consensus frankly, it was done in 2003. The discussion has changed a fair amount since then and I can see that we really need to go update the study again which we do from time to time. You are making some compelling arguments for why we need to go back and look at it again. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Alright, thank you. REPRESENTAITVE CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Representative Quigley for questions. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Very briefly. I read your, I read the testimony and I did read in that fine print, before I left for a couple minutes there. I just wanted to ask a question, with the one proposal that you had listed here in the front. The League has studied various voucher bills, Senate Bill 1, House Bill 1708 and House Bill 1330, and lists the concerns there. And then on the fine print it says that the League opposes tuition vouchers and tuition tax credits for students in non-public schools. Now House Bill 1330 was the expansion of the existing Education Improvement Tax Credit Program which does have about 25% of that money is for public schools. So as you look at the analysis of the House Bill 1330, which of the ones you listed that’s the only one that actually did pass one of the Chambers. 1330 did pass. So would the League be; is their position that EITC is okay if all of it went to public schools or are they only happy with the 25% that’s going to public schools and not the 75% that could go to non-public schools? OLIVIA THORNE: I know that when I was told, when I was talking to Sharon yesterday she was saying that EITC was different and my feeling is that again, I would like her to say it from her analysis, having read through reams of consensus materials and I’m reading the summary and I want to make absolutely sure that I’m saying what our members would want me to say to you. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Okay, and again, that’s something that I think of, of all the proposals out there the only one that actually passed one of the Chambers and again with both Democrat and Republican support and… OLIVIA THORNE: So you’re really asking me to get back to you as far as where we would feel about EITC as based on the 1330 bill? Correct?

REPRESENTAIVE QUIGLEY: That’s correct. Not just because it’s my bill either, just as a disclaimer. OLIVIA THORNE: I understand. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: The Chair thanks the gentleman for his testimony and that concludes our testimony for today. The Chair thanks Olivia Thorne and the League of Women Voters for being here today. And thanks to all the testifiers who have taken time from their busy schedules to come and to interact with the Committee on these issues of education that are so critical as we move forward in the near future to look at as to how we can provide quality education for all the school children of Pennsylvania. This meeting is now adjourned; we will reassemble back here on Wednesday, August 17th, and Thursday, August 18th, to continue our hearings on this very important issue. You are now dismissed.

The above is a full and accurate transcript of proceedings produced by the Chief Clerk’s Office of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

______

Nedra A. Applegate, Chief Clerk’s Office