Commonwealth of Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EDUCATION COMMITTEE HEARING MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING ROOM 140 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011 10:09 A.M. HEARING ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES BEFORE: HONORABLE PAUL CLYMER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE JAMES ROEBUCK, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MARK GILLEN HONORABLE MARK LONGIETTI HONORABLE MIKE O’BRIEN HONORABLE BERNIE O’NEILL HONORABLE THOMAS QUIGLEY HONORABLE BRAD ROAE HONORABLE KEN SMITH HONORABLE WILL TALLMAN HONORABLE DAN TRUITT HONORABLE JAKE WHEATLEY ALSO PRESENT: PATRICIA WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (R) DUSTIN GINGRICH, RESEARCH ANALYST (R) KEVIN ROBERTS, RESEARCH ANALYST (R) NORMA AVILES, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY (R) CHRISTOPHER WAKELEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (D) ERIN DIXON, RESEARCH ANALYST (D) TRACEY McLAUGHLIN, RESEARCH ANALYST (D) MARLENA MILLER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT (D) INDEX TESTIFIERS WITNESS PAGE REPRESENTATIVE CLYMER 4 CHAIRMAN REPRESENTATIVE ROEBUCK 4 CHAIRMAN BARBARA SUPINKA 6 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (AFT) MICHAEL CROSSEY 9 PA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (PSEA) DR. JOANNE BARNETT 53 PA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL JEANNE ALLEN 82 CENTER FOR EDUCATION REFORM REPRESENTATIVE ROEBUCK 104 PRIME SPONSOR, HB 1657 OTTO BANKS 122 REACH ALLIANCE CERTIFICATE 138 CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Well, good morning everybody, we’re glad that you could be with us this morning. this is a beautiful day here in Harrisburg, we had a wet weekend but I’m sure Pennsylvania farmers were very happy to get the rain. Driving in yesterday, as I drive up on I-78, everything looked so green and it looked like the farmers will be able to reap a full harvest – I’m not being a farmer but it looked very encouraging. So as I said, welcome to this, this is our fifth committee hearing on educational issues; issues important in providing a quality education to all Pennsylvania students. The three issues under consideration at today’s hearings and the hearings scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday are school choice – vouchers, charter cybers, charter schools and cyber charter schools and I suppose some testimony will also touch upon school violence and the adequate funding of public education. As I mentioned at past hearings, whatever choice of schooling for the student parents must be involved; they must take an active interest in their child’s education. Secondly, primary consideration must be given to reading, writing and arithmetic if a student is to succeed in the education process, learning these basics are essential. I know there are mandates that must be lifted to allow school administrators to have more flexibility within the teaching process and we’re working very hard to remove some of these onerous mandates. So, we have our agenda, let us begin today’s hearing to learn how the State can improve the process of providing each child with an education that will provide for them a broader future. At this time, the chair recognizes Chairman Roebuck for comments. CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am pleased to again be a part of the process in discussing educational options, educational programs for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I look forward to continuing dialogue on the issues that Chairman Clymer has articulated, and I think that what I’ve seen over the series of hearing that I’ve been a part of is a very real honest effort to try and put on the table possible solutions that will improve the quality of education in this State and that is critical. We need to have that open debate, we need to have that discussion, we need to give and take and try to understand different viewpoints and out of that, come up with those policies that work. So, I look forward to today and tomorrow and then to the hard work of trying to negotiate, to compromise, to shape meaningful educational reform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: Before we being, I’m going to ask the members to introduce themselves. We’ll start over to my left let's see, all the way over with Bernie O’Neil, Bernie. REPRESENTATIVE O’NEIL: You just introduced me, thank you. REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: State Representative Mark Gillen from Southern Berks County. REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I’m Dan Truitt from the West Chester area in Chester County. REPRESENTATIVE LONGIETTI: Good morning, Mark Longietti from Mercer County. REPRESENTATIVE O’BRIEN: Good morning, Mark O’Brien, Philadelphia. DUSTIN GINGRICH: Dustin Gingrich, Education Committee staff. PATRICIA WHITE: Patti White, Executive Director. JONATHAN BERGER: Jonathan Berger, Education Committee staff. KEVIN ROBERTS: Kevin Roberts, Education Committee staff. REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Ken Smith, Lackawanna County 112th district. REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Brad Roae, Crawford County. REPRESENTATIVE QUIGLEY: Tom Quigley from Montgomery County. CHAIRMAN CLYMER: So at this time we’ll have our first presenters, the chair is pleased to welcome The Pennsylvania State Education Association. President is Michael Crossey and also with Mr. Crossey will be the American Federation of Teachers – AFT – Barbara Supinka so Barbara Supinka. So, we’re pleased to have you and whoever wants to begin their testimony first, please feel free to begin. BARBARA SUPINKA: Good morning, I am Barbara Supinka and I am here on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers, Pennsylvania. I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the committee. I’m here today to speak in opposition to vouchers and in support of your continued focus on improving Pennsylvania’s public schools. Earlier this year, our president Ted Kirsch stated the reasons for our opposition to SB 1 in testimony to the Senate. He raised our four major issues with vouchers, I would like to repeat those today. First, vouchers do not have a track record of raising student achievement; second, vouchers are lacking in accountability to taxpayers, and while vouchers are marketed as parental choice, it’s the private schools that end up really doing the choosing. Third, vouchers have already led to hundreds of millions of dollars being diverted from Pennsylvania public schools, a new voucher program could take another billion dollars out of schools that are already under financial pressure. Finally, Pennsylvania schools have been making progress and we need to invest in proven strategies for raising achievement in low performing schools rather than turning our back on them. Since that testimony of President Kirsch, several things have happened that only serve to underline these points. Rather than repeat all of the evidence in our Senate testimony, I will refer you to it and I will focus on presenting the newest information on these issues. First, on the voucher track record on student achievement; I want to turn your attention to the latest review of research on school vouchers conducted by the Independent Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C., the report published last month is entitled “Keep Informed About School Vouchers: A Review of Major Developments and Research.” Its first finding is that students receiving vouchers do not have better test results. We cannot say this enough, whenever advocates change gears and make different claims about vouchers to this committee, it is because they cannot argue that vouchers lead to better academic performance. The center’s report also examined instances when advocates have claimed that the research shows that voucher schools have higher graduation rates. I suspect that some of you have already heard that talking point here, the CEP report takes pains to note that in the Milwaukee study that found this, once the authors controlled for student background characteristics the impact of vouchers on graduation rates disappeared. In other words, differences in graduation rates are caused by differences in pre-existing student characteristics, not by attendance in a voucher school. Again, student for student there is no voucher advantage here. Second – accountability; the Keystone Research Center recently published a review of our current voucher program, the Educational Investment Tax Credit, the title of the report was “No Accountability: Pennsylvania’s Track Record Using Tax Credits to Pay for Private and Religious School Tuition.” Among the findings is that we have no real way of knowing if the voucher organizations are properly using public funding and that at least some organizations have excessive administrative cost. The key conclusion, and I quote, “As a result of the complete absence of any data, Pennsylvania knows nothing about the outcomes of the program that has it its 10-year life span received roughly a third of a billion dollars to educate school children at religious and other private schools.” In our testimony in February, we noted that 13 out of 74 Philadelphia charter schools were under federal investigation for financial mismanagement. That number apparently has now risen to 17 according to press reports. That 17 is 20 percent of the charter schools in the district. Voters and taxpayers have good reason to question our State’s track record on financial accountability for school choice programs and simply put, no one should have confidence that expansion of vouchers is a wise use of taxpayer dollars. Third, funding; we now need to look at the billion dollars that will come out of a public school’s budget under a major expansion of vouchers as being in addition to the cuts in State support that our public schools have been hit with as part of the new budget. For urban schools in particular, a voucher program similar to SB 1 would be a case of adding insult to injury when you add in the budget’s elimination of charter reimbursement funding. The Keystone Research Institute estimates that 40 percent of the funding in the program would go to pay for the tuition of children who are already enrolled in private schools. Finally, on supporting public schools; when President Kirsch testified he cited the different report from the Center on Education Policy that showed that Pennsylvania was a leader in closing the achievement gap.