Remarks in a discussion on parental options and school choice - Week Ending Friday, February 13, 2004

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Feb 16, 2004

Then I think you've got to measure. See, I don't know how you know whether or not you're achieving excellence if you're not willing to measure. I hear people say around the country, "I don't like tests." Well, I didn't like them either--[laughter]--you know? But that's just the way it is. If you're going to try to figure out whether a child can learn to read and write and add and subtract early in life, you better measure. You better find out early, before it's too late.

A society that doesn't want to leave any child behind is a society which says, "Show me whether or not the curriculum is working. Show me whether or not the school is doing what it's supposed to be doing." I suspect Archbishop High is good because it not only sets the bar, but you're willing to measure. And when you find a child that needs help, you provide that child help.

That ought to be the-that ought to be the paradigm, to use a fancy word, for every school district in America. We need to raise the bar. And so what we said here in Washington, DC, is we're willing to spend more money, particularly on Title I students. But for the first time, the Federal Government is asking the question, "Can you show us whether or not we're achieving objectives?"

You see, we're tired of children being just shuffled through. It's time now to determine whether or not we're meeting the goal of, for example, every child reading at grade level by the third grade. That's not too much to ask, is it, for a society, to be able to read at grade level by third grade?

So we set the goal. Now it's up to the school district to show us whether or not we're meeting the goal, and if not, there's extra money available to make sure that no child is left behind. But at some point in time, in order to challenge mediocrity where we find mediocrity, parents have to be given other options.

And so the No Child Left Behind Act has got an interesting way of providing that for parents. We say, "We measure. We post the scores. We look at results, and if the results don't measure up, a parent has got the ability to take extra money for tutorial work at a private institution or a public institution, or a parent can send a child to another public school." It's the beginnings of what's called school choice.

But I didn't feel like, and Congress didn't feel like, and I know a lot of parents here in Washington didn't feel like that was enough. So we worked on a new initiative. It's an initiative that says, "Here in Washington we want all aspects of schools to work, so there's money available for the public school system." And I want to thank the Mayor, by the way, for his involvement in this project. And he said, "As you're talking about school choice, make sure you don't forget the other schools as well, see." And so we've got money available to make sure public education can do the best it can possibly do. There's money available for the charter school movement, which provides parents interesting options.

But there's also a new approach here in Washington that I want to talk about today. It's an approach that says there are school systems that are capable of meeting expectations, and when a parent has a child trapped in a school that won't teach and won't change, we've got to liberate that family, got to give them options. So the Congress wisely--and I might say with administration nudging or insistence--said, "Why don't we provide a $7,500 scholarship for parents whose children go to--low-income parents whose children go to schools that aren't working, so that that scholarship can follow the child to a place like Archbishop Carroll High School." And there's $14 million, some of it for administrative purposes, but 90 percent of it is going to go to the families.