SECRETARY PAIGE COMMENTS ON SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CLEVELAND SCHOOL CHOICE CASE
June 27, 2002


SECRETARY PAIGE: Good Morning. Today’s historic Supreme Court decision is one for America’s children and in like manner for America. It’s one that will transform the education landscape in our country. The decision lifts the Constitutional cloud that has been hanging over school choice programs for years and will open the door of opportunities for thousands of children who need and deserve better educational opportunities. Expanding educational options for parents must be an integral part of our efforts to strengthen our schools and to leave no child behind. In communities across America thousands of parents are clamoring for more and better options for their children. This decision will make it easier for them to seek out the best schools for their children. Giving parents greater choices and kids better chances does not hurt public education. In fact it is my view that it will strengthen it because when public education responds with its best it will be the best. Today’s decision will help us in our goal of Leaving No Child Behind. This is a great day. I am joined today by my colleagues, Brian Jones, General Counsel, and Gene Hickok, Under Secretary of Education here and who has leadership in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. We will now respond to any questions you might have.

QUESTION: Do you see an influx of kids out of public schools or states really rushing to enact the voucher law?

GENE HICKOK: I think a couple of things will take place. First of all you will see increased activity in state legislatures because now the Constitutional question at least at the federal level has been resolved in a very strong opinion. At the state level you have Constitutions that have language that will still be a challenge for those encouraging school choice. And so you will see state legislatures attempt to adopt school choice programs and the next layer of challenge will be the state court level. And as far as huge numbers of students leaving public education, I think what you are going to see is not that, I think what you are going to see is the attempt to re-think the nature of public education all about. With the No Child Left Behind Law which talks about options and choices and accountability, and now you have the Supreme Court saying the same thing, Leave No Child Behind; I think you are going to see a new attempt at understanding what public education can look like in the twenty first century. As opposed to think that the current model is the only approach that you have.

SECRETARY PAIGE: I think that the things you are going to see are more clearly is a response from what we now refer to as a public school structure. I think there is going to be a positive response and I think that we are going to see strengthened public school systems.

QUESTION: Mary Lord from US News. Were there any points that particularly stood out as strong or affirming, things that surprised you and then how will this play in with what the No Child Left Behind Act has in terms of voucher programs or voucher experiments?

BRIAN JONES: I think that the single most important point in this case is that the Court recognized that the people that making the choices here are parents. I think that what this bill, and the reason why this bill, our bill is so important, the reason why this case is so important because it really is sort of a clarion call for empowerment of parents. The ability of parents to really be able to look at the situation of their schools and to be able to make the best choice for their kids. And so what the Court said was that it is not the government here that is making the decision to send kids to religious schools. Its not them who is making the decision of where to send tax dollars, it is not the government making the decisions on where to send tax dollars, its parents. And so again, I think that really is a very strong theme in this case and one that was not particularly surprising, the Court has been moving in that direction, its immensely important I would say.

GENE HICKOK: On the relevance on the No Child Left Behind Act a couple of things. First of all as you know, parental options and choices of public school choice, supplemental services that go into place this fall are key ingredients of the No Child Left Behind Act. And so the Court, although it doesn’t address those particular programs, is in essence saying, options to parents are Constitutional. So it adds more momentum to that principle. The other thing that this Court says is that it looks at the essential clause issue. Its says things like the faith based organizations that President Bush talks about all the time, is helping to provide supplemental educational services. It seems to me the Court is saying those organizations should indeed have a chance to provide those services and participate fully under No Child Left Behind.

SECRETARY PAIGE: Just as customer attitude and confidence drive the economy and drive their spending, parents options are the important motivating factor for school reform. In fact I believe there is no more powerful driver of school reform than a parent who is informed and a parent who has options. What happened today expands options for parents and therefore strengthens the system.

QUESTION: Do you have any concerns about issues of accountability or civil rights or discrimination in private schools, and if private schools get public funds and [inaudible].

SECRETARY PAIGE: Well all those issues will have to be taken into consideration, it does, it would expand responsibility or accountability all across the spectrum. Accountability is an important element of school reform. Whether it is in public schools, private schools, charter schools, whatever schools. Those systems will respond appropriately.

BRIAN JONES: Can I add one thing? It is also important to note that in the three private public choice programs that exist in the country today and that is in the city of Cleveland, which is the subject of the case today, the city Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in the state of Florida. Those programs all require participating schools to comply with existing civil rights laws. So those rights are certainly protected in these programs that exist today.

QUESTION: If you could just expand for a minute on why you think that this strengthens the public schools.

SECRETARY PAIGE: I have two bits of personal evidence. First of all a research project authorized by Secretary Riley to determine the impact of charter schools on public school systems, and how charter schools were performing. That research, the research suggested that the public schools got better where there were strong charter schools. I think that that same principle will operate here. Keep in mind, I served almost eight years as superintendent of the nation’s seventh largest school system in Houston, Texas, in the fourth largest city in the United States of America. And we have wide choice, even choice for private schools. But our system had adopted the strategic intent of earning so much respect from the citizens of Houston that we became their first choice for K-12 education. And in responding that way we saw an exchange of students. We began to attract students from private schools as private schools attract students from public schools. And I just have confidence that when public school systems respond appropriately that they needn’t fear competition, in fact they should win. But all that is going to be a function of how the citizens of that community and the educators of those schools in those schools operate and how they respond. Thank you.