GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California

MAKING
THE
PIECES
FIT
GI JUNIOR SCHOLARSHIPS:
Expanding Education Options for Children from Military Families in California
A Policy Brief byVicki E.Murray,Ph.D.,and Evelyn B.Stacey
part 2

GI JUNIOR SCHOLARSHIPS:
Expanding Education Options for Children
from Military Families in California
A Policy Brief by
Vicki E.Murray,Ph.D.,
and Evelyn B.Stacey

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................7
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................9
Introduction.................................................................................................................................11
The Need for Quality Education Options for Children from Military Families..........................13
Congress Failed to Expand K-12 Options for Students from Military Families in 2009.............15
Senate Considers Scholarships for Military Dependents with Special Needs in 2010.................17
Students from Military Families Need Scholarships in Spite of Recent Reforms........................19
The Need for a GI Junior Scholarship Program in California......................................................23
Table 1. Performance Summary of School Districts Surrounding Military Bases........................25
Table 2. School District Performance, Statewide and Surrounding Military Bases Compared....26
Private School Options Benefit All Students...............................................................................27
Availability of Private Schools in California.................................................................................29
Table 3. Summary of Private Schools near California Military Bases..........................................29
Savings for Districts: The Fiscal Impact of a GI Junior Scholarship Program..............................31
Table 4. Summary of Estimated Savings to the State and Local School Districts
Surrounding Military Bases............................................................................................32
GI Junior Scholarships Would Help Make Quality Education More Affordable........................33
Table 5. Summary of Private School Tuition near California Military Bases...............................34
Conclusion: Quality Education for Military Children, and a Leadership Role for California.....37
Endnotes......................................................................................................................................39
About the Authors.......................................................................................................................49
Statement of Research Quality.....................................................................................................50
About PRI....................................................................................................................................51

7
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Lance Izumi, Senior Director of Education Studies with the Pacific
Research Institute, and the anonymous scholars who reviewed this policy brief for their general input and
suggestions. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. As the authors of this study
have worked independently, their views and conclusions do not necessarily represent those of the board,
supporters, or staff of PRI.

9
Executive Summary
This June marked the 66th anniversary of the Servicemembers’ Readjustment Act of 1944, today known as
the Montgomery GI Bill. By putting a college education within the financial reach of veterans, the GI Bill
is credited with growing the American middle class and ushering in one of the longest economic expansions
in history. Government analyses also indicate that for every $1 spent on the GI Bill, the country receives
between $5 and $12 in new economic activity and tax revenue. Legislation enacted in 2008 now allows
service members enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program to transfer their unused education benefits to
their spouses or children.Those benefits, unfortunately, do not include elementary and secondary education,
and Congress has blocked ongoing efforts to expand education options for school-age military children.
The congressional obstruction comes in spite of growing concern among military parents about the lack of
quality education options for their children.
More than half the country’s public schools enrolling significant numbers of military children are not
meeting state academic standards, and frequent moves further undermine military children’s chances of
success in school.Top military officials also report that parents with school-age children are reluctant to
accept assignments to areas with poorly performing school districts.
With more than 200,000 Active Duty and Selected Reserve members, California leads the nation with
the largest military population. And, with more than 70,000 military families expected to be returning to
the United States in the next few years, many more school-age military children could soon call California
home.The estimated 93,000 school-age military children in California cannot afford to wait for Congress to
act. Overall, only about half of students in public schools surrounding California’s 26 military bases score at
the “proficient” level in English language arts and math on the California Standards Test. Barely 14 percent
of high school students in those schools on average score college-ready in English on the Early Assessment
Program; while just 9 percent score college-ready in math.
A GI Junior Scholarship Program for children of military parents stationed in California would help
improve their educational opportunities, allay parents’ concerns over providing a quality education for their
children regardless of where they live, and help ensure a strong national defense by improving recruitment
and retention efforts. Letting military children use GI Junior Scholarships (averaging around half of the
funding public school districts receive) to attend private schools could save the state and local school
districts an estimated $547 million annually. Savings on that scale is significant since the state faces a $19.1
billion deficit, in addition to $69 billion in outstanding debt, at a time when most federal Recovery Act
(stimulus) funds are scheduled to expire by July 2011, and tax receipts are unlikely to make up the shortfall
as hoped.

10
Military families are not looking for special privileges. Government-run K-12 schools already allow parental
choice to prevail in cases of special-needs and foster-care students. GI Junior Scholarships could help boost
achievement, save money, and help lift California to a position of national leadership in educational choice.

11
Introduction
June 2010 marked the 66th anniversary of the Servicemembers’ Readjustment Act of 1944, today known
as the Montgomery GI Bill.1
The GI Bill is a higher education and training voucher program that pays
monthly sums up to $1,368 to eligible Active Duty members of the military and up to $333 to Selected
Reserve members for tuition, fees, books, and living expenses.2
This program was expanded in 2008 when
the Post 9/11 GI Bill was enacted.3
GI Bill vouchers may be used at any public or private institution, and
their values are capped at amounts that vary by state.4
Members of the military attending more expensive
higher education institutions may receive additional assistance if those institutions participate in the Yellow
Ribbon Program.5
During the 2009-10 academic year, 270,666 students nationwide used the
new GI Bill benefits.6
By putting a college education within the financial
reach of veterans, the GI Bill is credited with growing the American middle
class and ushering in one of the longest economic expansions in history.7
Government analyses also indicate that for every $1 spent on the GI Bill,
the country receives between $5 and $12 in new economic activity and tax
revenue.8
The Department of Veterans Affairs reports that private, for-profit
colleges and community colleges are the most popular choices among GI Bill
participants because of those institutions’ cost, convenience, geography, and
support systems.9
President Obama has made expanding postsecondary educational opportunity a top priority, vowing, “We
will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will
once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”10
That goal is optimistic, based on
recent research findings.
A study from McKinsey & Co., for example, found that “lagging achievement in the United States is not
merely an issue for poor children attending schools in poor neighborhoods; instead, it affects most children
in most schools.” Moreover, the McKinsey report calls chronic K-12 achievement gaps between American
students and their international peers, along with achievement gaps among low-income, Hispanic, and
African-American students, “the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession.”The study
estimates that the cost to the nation’s gross domestic product of not closing those gaps ranges from $310
billion up to $2.3 trillion, or about $7,500 per American.11
Policy makers should
embrace K-12
reforms similar to
the ones that helped
make American
higher education the
envy of the world,
including the GI Bill.

12
To make American students more competitive with their international peers, policy makers should embrace
K-12 reforms similar to the ones that helped make American higher education the envy of the world,
including the GI Bill.12
“There’s a pretty large-scale effort nationwide in building the capacity to serve
veterans,” said James Selbe, assistant vice president for lifelong learning at the American Council
on Education.13
Members of Congress are also working to expand education opportunities under the GI Bill. Under
legislation proposed in May 2010 by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), an Army veteran, all members of the
National Guard and Reserve programs would be eligible for new expanded GI Bill benefits, including
vocational and on-the-job training, in addition to making it easier for them to qualify for housing and
textbook allowances.14
Yet efforts to expand education opportunities to children from military families have
been stymied in recent years.
“As President George Washington once said,‘The willingness with which our young people are likely to
serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early
wars were treated and appreciated by our nation’,” said Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
(R-CA), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. “We—as a nation—made a promise
to our country’s veterans that they would receive consummate education benefit for their service, and we
should stop at nothing to keep that promise.”15
This promise shouldn’t be limited to veterans, but should
be extended to their children who are also sacrificing on behalf of the country. A GI Junior Scholarship
program could help fulfill that promise.

13
The Need for Quality Education Options for Children
from Military Families
Thousands of students will be relocating in the coming years as part of base realignment and closure, global
rebasing, and other force-structure changes. Of the more than one million military-dependent children, only
8.5 percent (85,000 students) are educated in Department of Defense schools.16
The remaining 91.5 percent
attend public, charter, and private schools, or are home-schooled. “Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
deserve the best educational opportunities for their families,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon
England in 2008. “We ask so much of them—dedication, selfless service, frequent transfers and deployments
away from the ones they love—all in the name of protecting our nation and its interests. As we look to the
future, we need to ensure the promise of quality education is kept; this agreement moves us further in that
direction.”17
In 2008, the U.S. House and Senate adopted resolutions declaring 2009 “The Year of the Military Family.”18
Nearly two million Active Duty and Selected Reserve members are located in the continental United States,
and an additional 70,000 military families will be returning from around the world in the next few years.19
A growing challenge for them is ensuring they can provide the best education for their children, who will
attend an average of six to nine different school systems throughout their elementary and high school years,
including more than two transfers during high school.20
Such movement often causes conflict in transferring
credits, maintaining the right number of school-year hours, missing exams, and other obstacles.21
Frequent school changes negatively affect school performance, particularly among at-risk student
populations. School-age military children must cope with the stress of their parents being deployed in
addition to the anxiety of switching schools and making new friends.22
Research on students in foster care,
who must also cope with frequent school changes, indicates students may need four to six months to recover
academically after changing schools.23
One study of Chicago students who changed schools four or more
times found they lost about one year of educational growth by sixth grade. Another study of California
high school students discovered that changing schools only once meant
students were less than half as likely to graduate as students who did not
change schools, even after controlling for other related variables.24
The majority of military personnel are supporting families, and
reassignments to areas with poor quality schools factor heavily into
parents’ decisions about their continued service.25
“Quality education
of military children affects enlistment, retention, and morale, and is
part of the military’s operational readiness,” according to the Department of Defense (DOD).That is why
the DOD urges local, state, and federal officials to ease military students’ transitions by adopting policies to
“promote quality school choice . . . that meets the needs of these expanding communities.”26
Our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines
deserve the best
educational opportunities
for their families.

14
Expanding education options for military families received considerable attention in 2009 as the U.S. House
and Senate Armed Services Committees crafted the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010,
which President Obama signed on October 2009.27
“This bill reflects our efforts to recognize 2009 as the Year
of the Military Family,” explained Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee.28
Patricia Davis, retired from the Air Force, is the wife of Sgt. James Davis, Air Force Chief Master
of the 316th Wing. During the June 3, 2009, Senate subcommittee hearing on the bill, Patricia Davis spoke of
the hardships military parents are facing because of poor education options when they are transferred:
As a mother, I am deeply concerned about the quality of education my children receive. Military moves
are especially stressful times for the family, and moving to new schools can be very difficult for our
children.This past school year, my children attended third and fifth grade.This is the third school they
have attended since the beginning their academic careers. Increasingly, I see military families paying to
send their children to private schools due to lack of quality education in the area they are assigned to,
or they are deciding to home-school instead. To have our children in one area with quality blue ribbon
schools and then be reassigned to a location where the schools are rated below average is distressing to
families.Our kids’ education should not have to suffer because of military obligations.The creation of a
school voucher program should be considered.29
Other military spouses concurred, including Sheila Casey, the wife of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey
Jr. She told the subcommittee about the numerous spouses who have shared their frustration with her when
they cannot find schools that meet their expectations once they are transferred.30
Patricia Davis recommended student vouchers so parents in the military could use scholarships to send their
children to private schools, since high-quality public schools are not always available.31
Commenting on
the hearing, the Military Officers Association of America concluded, “Given the interest expressed by the
subcommittee, we expect to hear more about the idea of school vouchers for military children.”32
They were
correct.
In its most recently published review of military compensation in 2008, the Department of Defense questioned
whether quality-of-life programs, including those related to education of military children, “developed
decades ago to support families of a conscript military are as relevant and valuable to the all-volunteer force
of the 21st century.”33
Ensuring the availability and affordability of high-quality education options is critical
to military recruitment and retention efforts. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Denny Eakle, who oversaw the
DOD compensation report, explained, “We have several school districts [nationwide] that are not viewed
very positively by military members–poor-performing school districts . . . It makes it very difficult for us to
encourage people with . . . school-age children to accept assignments to those places.”34
This is an especially
important concern in California, which ranks 40th nationally in recruits relative to population.35
To give families more flexibility, the DOD recommended implementing a pilot voucher program that redirects
federal Impact Aid funds, which currently go to local public school districts, to parents in the form of vouchers
to use at the schools of their choice, whether government-run public schools or independent, private schools.
“The voucher option would be offered at a limited number of locations considered to have less desirable
designated public schools. By providing service members with educational options other than designated
public schools, this proposal would potentially make assignment to these locations more palatable to military
personnel with school-aged children, and ultimately improve retention and readiness.”36
The matter was
revisited the following year during the reauthorization of the national defense spending bill.

15
Congress Failed to Expand K-12 Options for Students
from Military Families in 2009
In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), then ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, joined with Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) to introduce an
amendment in 2009 to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Bill creating the Pilot Program for
Military Dependents.37
Beginning in 2011, Congress would appropriate at least $20 million annually for five
years so that children of military parents in the National Capital Region could attend independent private
schools using scholarships worth up to $7,500. At that funding level, approximately 2,700 students would be
able to participate in the pilot program.
The Pilot Program for Military Dependents was modeled after the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,
which provides scholarships worth up to $7,500 so low-income public school students can attend local
independent schools where tuition averages $6,600.38
The official program evaluation released in 2009 by
the U.S. Department of Education concluded that D.C. Opportunity Scholarship students are significantly
outperforming their peers in government-run schools.39
The U.S. Department of Education found that
“students who were offered vouchers to attend private schools scored higher on reading tests compared to
students who were not offered vouchers. These gains were equal to three months of additional learning.” If
extrapolated over the course of a child’s academic career, that amounts to about two full years in additional
learning. Further, of the 11 studies conducted by the department, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program was “one of only three programs to show positive results, and showed by far the biggest
achievement gains.”40
Students who participated in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program are also more likely to graduate from high school, according
to the U.S. Department of Education’s final official evaluation released
in June 2010. “These results are important . . . because high school
graduation is strongly associated with a large number of important
life outcomes such as lifetime earnings, longevity, avoiding prison and
out-of-wedlock births, and marital stability,” explained University of
Arkansas researcher Patrick Wolf, who led the U.S. Department of
Education evaluation team.41
Researchers also found high levels of parental satisfaction with the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Compared to their experiences with previous assigned public schools, parents of students using scholarships
reported greater involvement in their children’s education, improved safety, stricter discipline, smaller
The Pilot Program for
Military Dependents
was modeled after
the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.

16
classes, more rigorous curriculum, effective support services (including tutoring and mentoring), and the
convenience of having high-quality schooling options close to home. Parents also reported high levels of
satisfaction with their children’s academic progress, achievement, and motivation and enthusiasm toward
school.42
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program also has tremendous parental and community support
with more than 70 percent of registered D.C.-area voters in favor of the program.43
Neither the Senate nor the House acted on the Pilot Program for Military Dependents amendment. Last
year’s National Defense Authorization Bill was ultimately signed by the president in October 2009 with no
mention of private-school options for K-12 students whose parents serve in the Armed Forces.44
Instead
the bill required a study be conducted by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of
Education on options for educational opportunities for dependent children of members of the Armed
Forces when public schools attended by such children are determined to need improvement.45
The results of the study were supposed to be submitted on March 31, 2010, to two Senate committees
(Armed Services, plus Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) and two House committees (Armed
Services, plus Education and Labor).The study has since been delayed and is not expected to be completed
until the end of 2010–well after the current National Defense Authorization Bill is expected to be signed
into law.46

17
Senate Considers Scholarships for Military
Dependents with Special Needs in 2010
Thirteen percent of military students are special needs students, compared to 11.5 percent of the general
student population nationwide.47
In February 2010 a briefing on the barriers faced by military parents of
children with disabilities was hosted by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who serves
on the House committees on both Armed Services and Education. She is also co-chair of the Congressional
Down Syndrome Caucus and vice chair of the Republican Conference. Congresswoman Susan Davis
(D-CA), chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, joined Rodgers to underscore the importance of
disability issues among military families.
“Quality of life is a readiness issue,” said Annette Conway, who is
married to Marine Corps Commandant James Conway and works as a
special education teacher. She explained during the February briefing
that military parents of children with special needs must navigate a
new maze each time they move. For instance, at Camp Pendleton two
school districts offer different special education services.The Marine
Corps hired 24 school liaison officers and 25 case managers just to
help families figure out new schools, special education programs, and
medical providers.48
Moving across state lines is difficult for parents,
especially if their children have special needs.
Jeremy Hilton is a former Navy submariner and a stay-at-home father to his daughter, Kate, who is 7 and
has hydrocephalus. Jeremy’s wife, Renae, is in the Air Force. Military families move every two years on
average. “From 2004 through 2008, due to two deployments and three changes of station,” explained Mr.
Hilton, “our family moved five times, across four states and four different school districts.”When the Hilton
family moved from Texas to Alabama, Kate’s new school district cut her preschool Individualized Education
Program (IEP) and services in half. “Military families have little to no control over where they will be
stationed,” according to Mr. Hilton, who described his family’s ordeal:
Some school districts make decisions not to provide appropriate services because they understand
the procedural safeguards are stacked against the parents, even more so when they understand that
a military family most likely will be moving shortly and unable to effectively hold them accountable
for the services they don’t provide. Our understanding of the system in Alabama was that the school
superintendent had made a conscious decision . . . not to work with parents until such time as they
were able to show that they could hire a lawyer and expert witnesses to take their case through due
Thirteen percent of
military students are
special needs students,
compared to 11.5 percent
of the general student
population nationwide.

18
process . . . We (and the school district) knew we would only be there for ten months and went
without an appropriate education for our daughter for that period.49
On June 4, 2010, the Senate introduced its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (S. 3554), which authorizes the DOD to create a pilot program of scholarships for military
dependent children who have special education needs.50
Beginning in the 2011-12 school year, children
of military parents who have special needs would be eligible for scholarships worth $7,500 to attend any
district or charter public school as well as any private school of their parents’ choice.
Two weeks later the National Coalition for Public Education began publicly
opposing the pilot program, claiming such scholarships are unnecessary, costly,
and they do not help children.51
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah currently have special-needs scholarship
programs enrolling nearly 25,000 students.This year Louisiana and Oklahoma
approved new special needs scholarship programs with bipartisan support that
will be operational in the 2010-11 school year. Combined, existing special-needs
scholarship programs receive $168 million in state and local funding, which
works out to an approximate average scholarship amount of $6,847.52
Florida enacted the country’s first special-needs scholarship program, the McKay Scholarship Program for
Students with Disabilities, as a one-county pilot program in 1999 and expanded it statewide the following
year. Under the program, McKay vouchers are worth the same amount the government system would have
spent on each participating child, and they may not exceed the cost of independent school tuition and fees.
The value of students’ vouchers varies depending on the severity of their disabilities, but averaged $6,519
in 2009.53
Today, nearly 21,000 special-needs students are using McKay vouchers to attend more than 900
participating private schools.54
On April 30, 2010, the Florida Legislature advanced bipartisan legislation
expanding eligibility for students in the McKay Scholarship Program to disabled preschoolers entering
kindergarten and students who have been enrolled in a public school in any of the past five years instead of
just the prior year under current law.55
Parents of participating McKay Scholarship students are more satisfied with their children’s chosen schools
compared to their previous assigned schools, 93 percent compared to 33 percent. Fully 86 percent of McKay
parents report their special-needs children receive all the services required under federal law from their
children’s chosen schools compared to just 30 percent of special-needs parents with children in assigned
public schools. McKay parents also report their special-needs children are victimized dramatically less, have
smaller classes, and demonstrate far fewer behavioral problems.56
As of this writing, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 has been put on the Senate Legislative Calendar.57
Military families
have little to
no control over
where they will
be stationed.

19
Students from Military Families Need Scholarships in
Spite of Recent Reforms
To streamline the transitions military students make when changing schools across state lines, the Council
of State Governments (CSG) and the Department of Defense assembled a national advisory group in
August 2006 to create an interstate compact.The CSG launched the Interstate Compact in December
2007.58
The compact provides a uniform process for transferring records, sequencing courses, tracking
graduation requirements, and ensuring eligibility for extracurricular activities that are usually missed
between schools from one state to another.59
It was included in last year’s national defense spending bill and
has since been adopted by 27 states, covering more than 80 percent of military children.60
Another reform enacted on June 28, 2008, allows service members enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill
program to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children for use at a higher education
institution.The new GI Bill is considered “the most comprehensive educational benefit package since the
original bill, officially known as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, was signed into law.” 61
Despite these efforts, there is growing consensus that children of military
families need—and deserve—better elementary and secondary education
options. For example, the Interstate Compact fails to address the issue
of curriculum continuity and graduation requirements across states.The
Post-9/11 GI Bill program also only applies to postsecondary education.
It does not address the need for better quality elementary and secondary
education options. Vouchers for elementary- and secondary-school
students from military families, however, would address the need for
better education options, which helps explain their continued and growing
popularity among the military community.
Vouchers were a consistent theme among participants at the November 2009 National Leadership Summit
on Military Families in Maryland. School quality is inconsistent and families often choose private schools,
“but many military families, particularly those with just one wage earner, cannot afford private school
tuition,” as one mother explained. Another mother of a child with special needs noted that when her family
moved out of California she realized her child’s previous government-run school had not conducted the
promised testing. Consequently, her child’s new school did not know about his special needs. She also
agreed that many families cannot afford private schools.62
There is growing
consensus that children
of military families
need—and deserve—
better elementary
and secondary
education options.

20
The U.S. House just completed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 (H.R. 5136),
but no mention was made of the required study from the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, nor of
private-school options. Instead, public schools that enroll significant numbers of military dependents will
receive $50 million, and another $15 million is available to public schools facing enrollment changes due to
base closures or relocations.63
There is a significant body of research showing that under the current public-
schooling system, which is heavily bureaucratic and virtually devoid of incentives to be cost-effective, simply
increasing spending will do little to improve student achievement.64
During hearings before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee in March 2010,
representatives of the National Military Family Association identified shortcomings of the Interstate
Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, noting that “military families define the
quality of . . . education differently than most states or districts that look only at issues within their borders,”
adding:
For military families, it is not enough for children to be doing well in their current schools; they
must also be prepared for the next location.The same is true for children in underperforming school
systems. Families are concerned that they will lag behind students in the next location . . .
The National Military Family Association believes that our military children deserve to have a
good quality education wherever they may live. However, our Association recognizes that how that
quality education is provided may differ in each location.65
In separate remarks before the subcommittee, Clifford L. Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel
and Readiness, testified:
A key quality of life issue is the education of military children. Service members often make
decisions about assignments based on the availability of quality educational opportunities for
their children. . . . Of the 300 LEAs [Local Education Agencies] with 5 percent military child
enrollment, 153 of the LEAs are not meeting the state academic standards in reading/language arts
and/or math using annual tests aligned to academic indicators.66
The following month, Rep. Rodgers and Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-GA), co-chairs of the Military
Family Caucus, hosted the inaugural Congressional Military Spouse Summit on April 23, 2010, on Capitol
Hill.Tuition vouchers for military families were among the Caucus’s top recommendations.67
The idea is
also increasingly popular with state lawmakers.
In 2010, for example, Georgia lawmakers proposed the Early HOPE Scholarship program to provide
children in military families, foster children, and more children with disabilities access to the public or
private schools that best fit their educational needs.68
The plan would build on Georgia’s successful existing
school choice programs.These include a publicly funded voucher scholarship program for students with
special needs enacted in 2007, which enabled almost 1,600 children with disabilities to transfer to the
private schools of their choice using vouchers averaging $6,331 during the 2008-09 school year.69

21
Georgia also has a privately funded tax-credit scholarship program, enacted in 2008, that allows businesses,
married couples, and individuals to take tax credits worth up to a combined $50 million annually on their
state income taxes for donations to nonprofit organizations that distribute private school scholarships.70
Under the proposed Early Hope Scholarship Program, children of military families and foster children
would receive vouchers worth $5,000 to $9,000 to attend the government or independent school of their
choice. An estimated 15,000 children in foster care and 110,000 Active Duty military dependents would
be eligible for vouchers.71
Supporters of the plan note that frequent
moves and parents serving abroad contribute to children falling behind
in school.There is strong support for the plan since the state has 14
military installations.72
“In the 21st century we have got to personalize
public education,” said state Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah), likening
the existing public school system to “an eight-track player in an iPod
world.” State Rep. Jim Cole (R-Forsyth) concurred, adding that “the
success of education is going to depend upon the variety of options”
parents have at their disposal.73
In recent years, Florida, California, and Arizona have joined Georgia as
states that have considered voucher programs for military children.74
There is a significant
body of research showing that
under the current public-
schooling system, simply
increasing spending
will do little to improve
student achievement.

23
The Need for a GI Junior Scholarship Program in
California
With more than 200,000 Active Duty and Selected Reserve members, California leads the nation with the
highest military population.75
According to DOD data, 36 percent of Active Duty and Selected Reserve
members have children, almost 76,000 in California.Those personnel average two children each, about
152,000 children.76
Of those children, nearly 62 percent, or roughly 93,000, are of school age (6 to 18).77
Congress is currently waiting for a mandated study on available education opportunities for military
children in response to the growing concern from their parents about the lack of quality options.The Senate
is also considering a special pilot scholarship program for military dependents with special needs. State
policy makers, however, do not need to wait for Congress to act because California has a variety of measures
to assess the academic quality of current education options of military children. While this analysis focuses
on the general student population, policy options and academic outcomes for students with special needs are
treated extensively in the first installment of Making the Pieces Fit.78
California’s Academic Performance Index (API) is one measure of
public school quality. It measures schools’ academic performance and
growth based on annual state testing results. API scores range from
200 to 1000.79
The state has set an API performance target of 800
for all schools; however, this target is not synonymous with student
grade-level proficiency, an API score of 875.80
An API of 800 indicates
approximately 55 percent of students have achieved grade-level
proficiency. As of the 2009-10 school year, the statewide base API was
754, suggesting less than half of California students have achieved
grade-level proficiency.81
Results from the California Standards Test (CST) also indicate significant numbers of California students
are not performing at grade level. On average, 53 percent of students statewide have achieved grade-level
proficiency in English language arts; while 55 percent of students have achieved grade-level proficiency
in math.82
College-readiness measured by the Early Assessment Program (EAP) is another important
measure of academic quality.
The EAP is a voluntary exam that11th graders may elect to take along with the11th-grade CST. The EAP
is designed to inform students whether they are ready for college-level work in English and mathematics.
Students who are not ready for college-level work have their senior year to raise their performance to meet
With more than 200,000
Active Duty and Selected
Reserve members,
California leads the
nation with the highest
military population.

24
the demands and expectations of higher education.The EAP is also designed to curb college freshman
remediation rates. According to the California State University system (CSU):
More than 60 percent of the nearly 40,000 first-time freshmen admitted
to the CSU require remedial education in English, mathematics or both.
These 25,000 freshmen all have taken the required college preparatory
curriculum and earned at least a B grade-point average in high school.The
cost in time and money to these students and to the state is substantial.
Moreover, these students are confused by seemingly having done the right
things in high school only to find out after admission to the CSU that they
need further preparation.83
Statewide, of the11th-graders who opted to take the EAP in 2009, only 16 percent tested college-ready in
English and only 13 percent tested college-ready in math.84
With military installation data from the DOD,
it is possible to take a more localized look at the likely public school options currently available to military
children in California.
Table 1 summarizes the average academic performance of public school districts within 10 miles of the
California military installations identified by the DOD. In the case of Fort Irwin, however, the public
school search was extended to 50 miles, with the nearest school located 31 miles away.Table 2 compares
the statewide school district average academic performance to the average academic performance of public
school districts surrounding military bases. Overall, school districts surrounding military bases throughout
California have a slightly lower API and slightly higher English
language arts and math proficiency rates on the CST than the statewide
average. In terms of college readiness, however, government-run school
districts surrounding military bases have distinctly lower rates in
English and math, about two and four percentage points, respectively,
compared to the statewide average.
To be sure, with only slightly more than half of California students
performing at grade-level proficiency on average, and less than one in
five 11th graders testing college-ready in English and math, California
public school performance is weak overall.This weakness, however, appears to be more pronounced in school
districts surrounding military bases since noticeably fewer students at those districts test college-ready in the
basics.
Of course, not all school districts surrounding military bases throughout California perform below the state
average. Many perform well above the state average; however, high-performing school districts may have
limited capacity to accommodate additional students. Moreover, some high-performing districts located
in more expensive neighborhoods may be beyond the financial reach of many military families. Allowing
military children to attend the public schools that best meet their needs–regardless of their families’
addresses–would help alleviate parents’ concerns about academic quality and continuity. Parents’ options,
however, should not be limited to public district-run schools.
In terms of college
readiness, however,
government-run school
districts surrounding
military bases have
distinctly lower rates in
English and math.

25
Table 1. Performance Summary of School Districts Surrounding Military Bases
Base
Nearest
Metro City
#
School
Districts
#
Schools
Elem. /
Middle
Grades
(K-8)
High
School
Grades
(9-12)
Grades
K-12
Base
API
%
Prof:
ELA
%
Prof:
Math
%
College
Ready:
English
%
College
Ready:
Math
El Centro NAF El Centro 8 33 29 3 1 730 44.7% 49.9% 7.5% 6.7%
Lemoore NAS Fresno 5 23 22 1 0 728 45.2% 50.7% 8.1% 4.8%
Seal Beach
NAVWEAPSTA
Long Beach 21 318 284 33 1 777 56.1% 61.0% 17.8% 17.6%
China Lake
NAVWEAPCEN
Los Angeles 1 9 8 1 0 770 55.6% 57.2% 19.2% 15.2%
Edwards AFB Los Angeles 1 4 3 1 0 794 59.7% 58.1% 7.1% 4.8%
Los Angeles AFB Los Angeles 16 304 267 35 2 720 48.3% 51.8% 12.2% 8.0%
Port Hueneme
NCBC
Los Angeles 6 70 59 11 0 723 44.9% 49.2% 20.3% 11.9%
Naval Postgraduate
School
Monterey 5 34 27 7 0 783 58.9% 58.4% 19.2% 9.3%
Presidio of
Monterey
Monterey 5 34 27 7 0 783 58.9% 58.4% 19.2% 9.3%
Pt Mugu NAS Oxnard 8 74 63 11 0 744 49.4% 52.1% 25.3% 19.4%
29 Palm MC Air/
Ground Combat
Center
Palm
Springs
1 14 12 2 0 741 51.6% 51.1% 9.2% 11.0%
Beale AFB Sacramento 2 5 4 1 0 777 59.3% 58.8% 13.0% 5.9%
USMC Mountain
Warfare Training
Sacramento 1 2 1 1 0 751 55.6% 52.9% 13.8% 0.0%
Fort Irwin
San
Bernardino
3 20 17 2 1 692 45.5% 44.0% 2.6% 0.8%
Camp Pendleton San Diego 6 61 55 6 0 765 54.3% 58.5% 14.8% 8.5%
Coronado NAV
AMPHIB Base
San Diego 7 181 157 24 0 758 55.3% 58.3% 14.7% 9.4%
Fleet ASW Training
Center Pacific
San Diego 3 149 124 25 0 753 55.7% 57.9% 14.9% 9.6%
MCAS Miramar San Diego 7 156 133 22 1 787 62.6% 63.6% 16.8% 11.1%
Naval Medical
Center
San Diego 9 221 189 31 1 759 55.7% 57.9% 14.8% 9.4%
North Island NAS San Diego 7 188 158 29 1 755 55.2% 57.9% 14.8% 9.5%
San Diego MC
Recruit Depot
San Diego 5 175 146 28 1 752 55.2% 57.2% 14.8% 9.5%
San Diego
NAVSTA
San Diego 11 240 204 36 0 759 54.8% 58.4% 14.6% 9.2%
San Diego
NAVSUBBASE
San Diego 4 137 112 24 1 753 55.7% 58.0% 14.9% 9.6%
San Diego NSC San Diego 10 240 204 36 0 759 54.8% 58.4% 14.6% 9.2%
Travis AFB
San
Francisco
3 48 41 7 0 746 54.6% 53.4% 15.7% 8.1%
Vandenberg AFB
Santa
Barbara
1 15 13 2 0 727 47.9% 44.1% 14.9% 9.3%
Averages 6 106 91 15 0 753 53.7% 55.3% 14.4% 9.1%
Sources: Authors’ table based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Education, the California Department of
Education, and the California State University.
Notes:
1.The nearest metro city has a population greater than 50,000.
2.The number of school districts and schools is based on a U.S. Department of Education ZIP-code search extending 10 miles, except in the case of
Fort Irwin, in which the ZIP-code search had to be extended to 50 miles, with the closest public school being 31 miles away.
3. California schools offer a variety of grade configurations. Schools offering middle and high school grades are counted as high school grades.
4. “% Prof.: ELA: and “% Prof.: Math” summarize district-wide averages of students who tested proficient in 2009 on the California Standards Test
in English language arts and math.
5. “% College Ready: English” and “% College Ready: Math” summarize district-wide averages of students who tested college-ready in 2009 on the
Early Assessment Program in English and math (combined).

26
Table 2. School District Performance, Statewide and
Surrounding Military Bases Compared
Base API
% Prof:
ELA
% Prof:
Math
% College
Ready:
English
% College
Ready: Math
California Statewide District Averages 754 52.4% 55.0% 16.0% 13.0%
District Average Surrounding Bases 753 53.7% 55.3% 14.4% 9.1%
Sources: Authors’ table based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Education, the California Department of
Education, and the California State University.
Notes:
2. See note 2 in Table 1 regarding how public school districts surrounding the military bases listed were identified.
3. California schools offer a variety of grade configurations. Schools offering middle and high school grades are counted as high school grades.
4. “% Prof.: ELA: and “% Prof.: Math” summarize district-wide averages of students who tested proficient in 2009 on the California Standards Test
in English language arts and math.
5. “% College Ready: English” and “% College Ready: Math” summarize district-wide averages of students who tested college-ready in 2009 on the
Early Assessment Program in English and math (combined).

27
Private School Options Benefit All Students
It is well documented that students participating in scholarship programs–especially those who used
to attend low-performing schools–improve academically. Students using scholarships to attend private
schools raise reading and math scores an average of four percentile points annually.85
Inner-city high
school students using scholarships at neighborhood private schools have graduation rates up to 78
percent higher than even selective public schools.86
Low-income students who attend private schools
are up to four times as likely to earn a college degree by their mid-20s as their public school peers.87
A wide body of economic literature also finds that when traditional
district public schools—even poorly performing ones–compete for
students and their education dollars as they must in states with
parental-choice programs, their productivity improves in terms of
higher student achievement and better use of education resources.88
In fact, more than 200 scientific analyses show beneficial effects of
competition on public schools “across all outcomes,” according to
researchers from Columbia University Teachers College, including
higher student achievement, graduation rates, efficiency, teacher
salaries, and smaller class sizes.89
Allowing students to attend private schools using public funds is common practice in California at
both the K-12 and postsecondary levels. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) guarantees that all students with special needs shall receive the services they require. When
traditional public schools cannot provide those services, they use public funds to send students to
private schools. Approximately 42,000 California schoolchildren with special needs are being educated
in private or home settings at public expense under IDEA.90
More than 168,000 California undergraduates are using Pell Grants to attend private postsecondary
institutions.91
Nearly 8,400 undergraduates are using Cal Grants worth up to $9,700 a year to attend
private colleges and universities.92
California also offers a number of programs for foster-care students
that allow them to use public funds for private education if they choose.93
The California Chafee Grant
for Foster Youth awards up to $5,000 annually for training or college courses at public, private, or
independent schools in or out of state.94
Under this program current and former foster-care youth can
Expanding private
education options for
students from military
families would help
ensure they have access
to high-quality schools
regardless of where their
parents are stationed.

28
also use their vouchers to help pay for child care, transportation, and
rent while they are in school.95
Expanding private education options for
students from military families would help ensure they have access to
high-quality schools regardless of where their parents are stationed.
Allowing students to attend
private schools using public
funds is common practice in
California at both the K-12
and postsecondary levels.

29
Availability of Private Schools in California
There are more than 3,000 private schools, independent of government, throughout California.96
There are
also 365 nonsectarian nonpublic schools (NPS), specialized private schools providing services to public
school students with disabilities.97
Table 3 summarizes the availability of private schools within 10 miles of
the California military installations identified by the DOD. In some cases, the search had to be extended
beyond 10 miles to identify the closest private schools.The private school closest to Edwards Air Force
base was 14.6 miles, and the nearest to Beale Air Force Base was 10.8 miles. For the U.S. Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare Training Center and Fort Irwin the search had to be extended to 50 miles, and the
closest private schools were 44.1 miles and 31.7 miles away, respectively.
Table 3. Summary of Private Schools near California Military Bases
Base
Nearest
Metro City
#
Schools
#
Relig.
#
Nonsect.
#
Elem.
#
Second.
#
Combined
#
Ungraded
El Centro NAF El Centro 7 7 0 5 1 1 0
Lemoore NAS Fresno 4 4 0 1 0 3 0
Seal Beach NAVWEAPSTA Long Beach 156 96 60 118 8 26 4
China Lake NAVWEAPCEN Los Angeles 5 4 1 3 0 2 0
Edwards AFB Los Angeles 6 5 1 2 0 4 0
Los Angeles AFB Los Angeles 240 130 110 190 22 26 2
Port Hueneme NCBC Los Angeles 21 15 6 19 1 1 0
Naval Postgraduate School Monterey 10 8 2 7 1 2 0
Presidio of Monterey Monterey 10 8 2 7 1 2 0
Pt Mugu NAS Oxnard 18 12 6 13 1 2 1
29 Palm MC Air/
Ground Combat Center
Palm Springs 3 3 0 2 0 1 0
Beale AFB Sacramento 8 7 1 5 1 2 0
USMC Mountain
Warfare Training
Sacramento 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Fort Irwin
San
Bernardino
4 4 0 1 1 2 0
Camp Pendleton San Diego 27 16 11 21 3 0 3
Coronado NAV AMPHIB Base San Diego 77 55 22 53 6 17 1
Fleet ASW Training Center
Pacific
San Diego 69 47 22 47 7 15 0
MCAS Miramar San Diego 84 43 41 67 4 12 1
Naval Medical Center San Diego 93 62 31 65 7 20 1
North Island NAS San Diego 75 53 22 51 4 19 1
San Diego MC Recruit Depot San Diego 80 53 27 59 5 15 1
San Diego NAVSTA San Diego 97 69 28 67 4 25 1
San Diego NAVSUBBASE San Diego 67 44 23 46 5 16 0
San Diego NSC San Diego 97 69 28 67 4 25 1
Travis AFB San Francisco 15 11 4 8 0 7 0
Vandenberg AFB Santa Barbara 3 2 1 2 0 1 0
Sources: Authors’ table based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Education.

30
Notes for Table 2:
2.The number of private schools is based on a U.S. Department of Education ZIP-code search extending 10 miles.The private school closest to
Edwards Air Force base was 14.6 miles while the nearest private school to Beale Air Force Base was 10.8 miles.The private school search for U.S.
Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center and Fort Irwin had to be extended to 50 miles, and the closest private schools were 44.1 miles
and 31.7 miles away, respectively.
3. “Relig.” Stands for schools with a religious affiliation; “Nonsect.” stands for schools that are nonsectarian, or do not have any religious affiliation.
4. California private schools offer a variety of grade configurations. “Elem.” stands for elementary grades, pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.
“Second.” stands for high school grades nine through 12. “Combined” stands for schools offering kindergarten through twelfth grade. “Ungraded”
means schools do not have traditional grade levels. Schools offering middle and high school grades are counted in the combined column.
The average number of private schools surrounding California military bases is 49, ranging from one to 240,
depending upon a base’s location. Military families living near most bases could choose from a variety of
private schools, religious or nonsectarian, with various curricula and grade configurations. Based on financial
data from the U.S. and state education departments, a GI Junior Scholarship Program could help put a
private education within reach of most military families in California, while yielding significant savings to
the state and local school districts.

31
Savings for Districts:
The Fiscal Impact of a GI Junior Scholarship Program
The estimated 93,000 military children represent less than 2 percent (1.66 percent) of California’s public
elementary and secondary school population.98
This means any scholarship program would have a negligible
impact on state and school district budgets.The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently reviewed a school-
choice proposal for California’s 73,000 foster-care youth population that would make them eligible for
scholarships worth approximately $6,000 to $7,000.The LAO concluded, “The proposal would have
virtually no impact on total education costs at the state level.” At the district level, public schools would lose
the funds associated with each scholarship student. “The school district, however, would also be relieved of
the costs associated with educating the student,” according to the LAO. Similar to students from military
families, foster-care students are more likely to have special needs, which make them more expensive to
enroll. If those students were offered scholarships and went to private schools, the LAO concluded. “School
districts, on average, likely would achieve some savings.”99
The average California public school district received close to $11,800 in total per-student revenue during
the 2008-09 school year from five state, local, and federal sources.100
The cost of educating the more than
93,000 school-age military children in California public schools would cost more than $1.1 billion annually.
Allowing those same students to use GI Junior Scholarships worth just a portion of their state and local
education funding would expand their education options and yield significant annual savings.
The average California public school district received about $5,900 per
student in state and local funding during the 2008-09 school year plus
an additional $5,700 in other state, other local, and federal funding per
student. Assuming every military child used a GI Junior Scholarship
worth his or her state and local public-school funding, the state and
local school districts would realize an estimated annual savings of
more than $547 million. Such savings hold considerable significance
for California, which faces a $19.1 billion deficit, in addition to $69
billion in outstanding debt, at a time when most federal Recovery Act
(stimulus) funds are scheduled to expire by July 2011, and tax receipts
are unlikely to make up the shortfall as hoped.101
Of course, California school districts’ per-pupil revenue varies considerably.To illustrate a more detailed
savings estimate,Table 4 presents average per-student revenue school districts surrounding California
military bases receive, along with the estimated per-student savings under a GI Junior Scholarship program.
Allowing those same
students to use GI Junior
Scholarships worth just a
portion of their state and
local education funding
would expand their
education options and yield
significant annual savings.

32
Table 4. Summary of Estimated Savings to the State and Local School Districts
Surrounding Military Bases
Public-School Revenue GI Junior Scholarship Savings
Base
Nearest Metro
City
Average Total
PPR
GI Jr. Scholarship
Value
Savings
Statewide District Average $11,793 $5,928 $5,865
El Centro NAF El Centro $9,869 $5,693 $4,176
Lemoore NAS Fresno $10,443 $5,551 $4,892
Seal Beach NAVWEAPSTA Long Beach $10,874 $5,671 $5,203
China Lake NAVWEAPCEN Los Angeles $10,661 $5,917 $4,744
Edwards AFB Los Angeles $10,277 $5,911 $4,366
Los Angeles AFB Los Angeles $13,830 $5,793 $8,036
Port Hueneme NCBC Los Angeles $10,292 $5,713 $4,579
Naval Postgraduate School Monterey $14,016 $8,386 $5,630
Presidio of Monterey Monterey $14,016 $8,386 $5,630
Pt Mugu NAS Oxnard $10,214 $5,693 $4,521
29 Palm MC Air/Ground Combat Center Palm Springs $9,901 $5,754 $4,147
Beale AFB Sacramento $11,892 $6,018 $5,874
Fort Irwin San Bernardino $11,448 $6,355 $5,093
Camp Pendleton San Diego $10,396 $5,770 $4,627
Coronado NAV AMPHIB Base San Diego $12,080 $5,777 $6,303
Fleet ASW Training Center Pacific San Diego $12,565 $5,765 $6,800
MCAS Miramar San Diego $12,722 $6,051 $6,671
Naval Medical Center San Diego $12,010 $5,750 $6,261
North Island NAS San Diego $12,263 $5,760 $6,502
San Diego MC Recruit Depot San Diego $12,489 $5,759 $6,730
San Diego NAVSTA San Diego $11,714 $5,779 $5,936
San Diego NAVSUBBASE San Diego $12,546 $5,765 $6,781
San Diego NSC San Diego $11,714 $5,779 $5,936
Travis AFB San Francisco $9,322 $5,742 $3,580
Vandenberg AFB Santa Barbara $9,652 $5,947 $3,704
Averages $11,488 $6,019 $5,469
Sources: Authors’ table based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense and the California Department of Education.
Notes:
2. Figures are 2008-09 unadjusted dollar amounts and represent the average of all school districts located within 10 miles of the listed military bases
except in the case of Fort Irwin, in which the ZIP-code search had to be extended to 50 miles, with the closest public school being 31 miles away.
3.The USMC Mountain Warfare Training Center is excluded because the single surrounding district received more than two-and-a-half times
the average revenue per-student since it is a Basic Aid district that also includes Necessary Small Schools and would therefore distort savings
estimates. A Basic Aid district is located in a property-wealthy area and raises all of its basic funding from local property taxes.The excluded district
also includes schools with less than 101 students, so they receive additional Necessary Small Schools funding to offset associated fixed costs. Five
other Basic Aid districts and two other districts with schools eligible for additional Necessary Small Schools funding are included in the averages
presented for four other bases identified in the table.The inclusion of those districts, however, did not distort funding averages. Neither did the
inclusion of the other Basic Aid districts, which are located in areas with higher property wealth.
4. “PPR” stands for per-pupil revenue.
5.The GI Junior Scholarship value is worth the average per-student state and local revenue received by school districts surrounding the listed
military bases.
6.The savings represents the remaining other state, other local, and federal revenue.
Thus, each student from a military family living near one of the listed bases saves the state and the local
school district an average of nearly $5,500.The average savings under a GI Junior Scholarship Program
ranges from nearly $3,600 per-student based on school districts surrounding Travis Air Force Base to more
than $8,000 per student based on school districts surrounding the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

33
GI Junior ScholarshipsWould Help Make Quality
Education More Affordable
An important consideration to keep in mind is whether GI Junior Scholarships would make a quality
education, independent of the government K-12 system, affordable for military parents. It is commonly
assumed that tuition at private-independent schools is beyond the financial reach of most parents–
particularly compared to what they pay for “free” government-run schools. What most people may not
realize is just how much such schools actually cost taxpayers.Typically, only select state public school
funding figures are publicized, so many taxpayers are surprised to learn that total per-student funding figures
are about double the publicized amounts, once other state, local, and federal funding amounts are included.
The U.S. Department of Education regularly conducts a national survey of private schools and publishes
average tuition amounts by type of private school, Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian, as well as by
the grade levels served, elementary, secondary, and combined elementary and secondary. In general, private
schools enrolling students in more advanced grades tend to charge higher tuition than those enrolling
students in the earlier grades, similar to public schools. Nonsectarian
private schools also tend to charge tuition averaging about two to three
times more than tuition charged by Catholic and other religious private
schools, depending on the grades served.102
Average tuition charged by private-independent schools nationwide
ranges from $4,944 at Catholic elementary private schools to $27,302
at nonsectarian secondary schools. Usually lower-tuition private schools
represent the largest share of private schools participating in school-
choice scholarship programs; however, it is common for more expensive
participating private schools to offer additional aid such as institutional
scholarships to help cover the portion of tuition not covered by school-
choice scholarships. It is also important to note that most existing
school-choice scholarship programs avoid introducing perverse incentives for participating private schools to
increase their tuition by capping scholarship amounts to a percentage of tuition charged, such as 90 percent.
Most existing scholarship programs also emphasize that parents should contribute something toward the
education of their children. Most military families would likely agree.
The parents who speak out in favor of voucher programs do not want a handout. Instead they want just a
portion of the assistance their children would receive anyway if they attended government schools so they
can pay for the independent education they believe is best—especially since their children are more likely to
be geographically constrained to areas with underperforming public schools.
. The average savings under
a GI Junior Scholarship
Program ranges from
nearly $3,600 per-student
based on school districts
surrounding Travis Air Force
Base to more than $8,000
per student based on school
districts surrounding the Los
Angeles Air Force Base.

34
Table 5. Summary of Private School Tuition near California Military Bases
Base
Nearest
Metro City
Average
Total PPR
Average
Tuition
GI Jr.
Scholarship
Value
% Tuition
Covered by
Scholarship
El Centro NAF El Centro $9,869 $6,941 $5,693 82.0%
Lemoore NAS Fresno $10,443 $6,009 $5,551 92.4%
Seal Beach NAVWEAPSTA Long Beach $10,874 $9,190 $5,671 61.7%
China Lake NAVWEAPCEN Los Angeles $10,661 $7,792 $5,917 75.9%
Edwards AFB Los Angeles $10,277 $9,167 $5,911 64.5%
Los Angeles AFB Los Angeles $13,830 $13,818 $5,793 41.9%
Port Hueneme NCBC Los Angeles $10,292 $10,895 $5,713 52.4%
Naval Postgraduate School Monterey $14,016 $10,199 $8,386 82.2%
Presidio of Monterey Monterey $14,016 $10,199 $8,386 82.2%
Pt Mugu NAS Oxnard $10,214 $12,309 $5,693 46.3%
29 Palm MC Air/Ground Combat Center Palm Springs $9,901 $6,825 $5,754 84.3%
Beale AFB Sacramento $11,892 $8,563 $6,018 70.3%
Fort Irwin San Bernardino $11,448 $8,048 $6,355 79.0%
Camp Pendleton San Diego $10,396 $17,959 $5,770 32.1%
Coronado NAV AMPHIB Base San Diego $12,080 $12,018 $5,777 48.1%
Fleet ASW Training Center Pacific San Diego $12,565 $10,282 $5,765 56.1%
MCAS Miramar San Diego $12,722 $13,441 $6,051 45.0%
Naval Medical Center San Diego $12,010 $12,074 $5,750 47.6%
North Island NAS San Diego $12,263 $11,244 $5,760 51.2%
San Diego MC Recruit Depot San Diego $12,489 $11,211 $5,759 51.4%
San Diego NAVSTA San Diego $11,714 $12,122 $5,779 47.7%
San Diego NAVSUBBASE San Diego $12,546 $9,668 $5,765 59.6%
San Diego NSC San Diego $11,714 $12,122 $5,779 47.7%
Travis AFB San Francisco $9,322 $9,688 $5,742 59.3%
Vandenberg AFB Santa Barbara $9,652 $8,759 $5,947 67.9%
Averages $11,488 $10,422 $6,019 61.2%
Sources: Authors’ table based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Education, and the California Department of
Education.
Notes:
2. “PPR” stands for per-pupil revenue. Figures are 2008-09 unadjusted dollar amounts and represent the average of all school districts surrounding
listed military bases. See note 2 in Table 1 regarding how public school districts surrounding the military bases listed were identified.
3.The USMC Mountain Warfare Training Center is excluded because the single surrounding district received more than two-and-a-half times the
average revenue per-student since it is a Basic Aid district that also includes Necessary Small Schools and would therefore distort estimates. See note
3 in Table 4.
4.The GI Junior Scholarship value is worth the average per-student state and local revenue received by school districts surrounding the listed military
bases.
5. Private-school tuition figures are based on national averages for Catholic, other religious and nonsectarian private schools, which vary by the
grades offered.The figures represent unadjusted 2007-08 dollar amounts. See note 2 in Table 3 regarding how private schools surrounding the
military bases listed in the table were identified.

35
Depending on the types of private-independent schools surrounding California military bases, GI Junior
Scholarships worth neighboring school districts’ state and local funding would cover an average of 61
percent of private school tuition, ranging from one-third of average tuition charged by private schools
surrounding Camp Pendleton to more than 92 percent of average tuition charged by private schools
surrounding Lemoore Naval Air Station. Of course, the private-school tuition figures presented in Table 5
are based on national averages, which may overstate the actual tuition charged by California private schools
surrounding the military bases listed, and those most likely to participate in scholarship programs.
Yet, even if the national average tuition figures are representative of
California private schools, a GI Junior Scholarship Program would
put a significant number of surrounding independent private schools
within the financial reach of military families stationed in California.
It is also interesting to note that even if the highest national average
tuition amounts are an accurate reflection of the tuition charged by
California private schools surrounding military installments, they still
average about $1,000 less than the total per-student revenue received
by surrounding public school districts.
Other private school tuition data from the U.S. Department of Education, however, indicates that basing GI
Junior Scholarship values on the amounts of state and local funding military students’ school districts would
receive, about $6,000 on average, would cover a greater share of private school tuition than Table 5 suggests.
The figures it presents include estimates based on the highest published national average tuition amounts
disaggregated by the U.S. Department of Education according to religious orientation and grades offered.
The department also reports that private school tuition averages $8,549 nationwide regardless of grades
offered or religious orientation, meaning a GI Junior Scholarship averaging $6,000 would cover 70 percent
of the bill. Meanwhile, elementary private school tuition averages $6,733 nationwide regardless of religious
orientation, so a $6,000 scholarship would cover 89 percent. Since the average tuition charged by secondary
private schools regardless of religious orientation is $10,549 and $10,045 at combined elementary and
secondary private schools, a $6,000 GI Junior Scholarship would cover almost 60 percent of the tuition
charge.
A GI Junior Scholarship
Program would put a
significant number of
surrounding independent
private schools within
the financial reach
of military families
stationed in California.

37
Conclusion: Quality Education for Military Children,
and a Leadership Role for California
Military personnel are in the “service” of their country more so than any federal bureaucrat or state regulator.
It is entirely reasonable that military parents, who are not allowed to choose the conflicts in which they
participate, should command more choice over the education of their
children, who did not choose the military life.This does not constitute
a plea for special privilege.The government-run K-12 system already
allows parental choice to prevail in cases of special-needs and foster-care
students. Extending choice to the children of military families also has
another foundation, in place for more than half a century, and with a
record of success.
This June marked the 66th anniversary of the Servicemembers’ Readjustment Act of 1944, today known as
the Montgomery GI Bill of Rights. By putting a college education within the financial reach of veterans,
the GI Bill is credited with growing the American middle class and ushering in one of the longest economic
expansions in history. Legislation enacted in 2008 now allows service members enrolled in the Post-9/11
GI Bill program to transfer their unused higher education benefits to their spouses or children.Those
benefits, however, do not include elementary and secondary education. Unfortunately, Congress has thus far
blocked recent efforts to expand education options for school-age military children.
With more than 200,000 Active Duty and Selected Reserve members, California leads the nation with
the largest military population.Their children cannot afford to wait for Congress to act. Only about half of
students in public schools surrounding California’s 26 military bases score proficient in English language
arts and math on the California Standards Test. Barely 14 percent of students in those schools score college-
ready in English on the Early Assessment Program, while just 9 percent score college-ready in math.
California’s estimated 93,000 military children deserve better.
A GI Junior Scholarship Program would help improve their education opportunities, allay parents’ concerns
over providing a quality education for their children regardless of where they live, and help ensure a strong
national defense by improving recruitment and retention efforts—an especially important concern in
California, which ranks 40th nationally in recruits relative to population.
Letting military children use GI Junior Scholarships averaging around half of the funding public school
districts receive to attend independent schools could provide state and local school districts with an
California’s estimated
93,000 military children
deserve better.

38
estimated annual savings of more than $547 million. Such savings are significant since the state faces a
$19.1 billion deficit, in addition to $69 billion in outstanding debt at a time when most federal Recovery
Act (stimulus) funds are scheduled to expire by July 2011, and tax receipts are unlikely to make up the
shortfall as hoped.
Military children, who must live with their parents’ sacrifices, should not face barriers to a better education
from people who should be their allies.That applies, in particular, to those in Congress, the California
Legislature, and the government K-12 school system, many of whom send their own children to private
schools. California should move immediately to enact GI Junior Scholarships for children of military
families. Beyond the benefits already outlined, such a scholarship program could help lift the Golden State
to a position of national leadership in education opportunity.

39
ENDNOTES
1
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “GI Bill Web site,” http://www.gibill.va.gov/; and “GI Bill
History,” http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/history.htm.
2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Montgomery GI Bill Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/post-
911/montgomery-gi-bill/; and “Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty (MGIB-AD/Chapter 30):
Rates effective October 1, 2009,”“Montgomery GI Bill - Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR/Chapter
1606): Rates effective October 1, 2009,” and “2009-2010 Maximum In-State Tuition & Fees,” U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Rates Table Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/resources/benefits-
resources/rates-tables.html; cf. Military Connections, Montgomery GI Bill for Active Duty (also
referred to as MGIB) Web site, http://www.militaryconnections.com/education_gibill_active.cfm.
3 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,The Post-9/11 GI Bill Web site, http://www.newgibill.org/
post_911_gi_bill; cf. U.S. Department of Defense, “GI Bill Transferability Has Arrived,” http://www.
defense.gov/home/features/2009/0409_gibill/; and “New Post-9/11 GI Bill Overview,” Military.com,
http://www.military.com/education/content/gi-bill/new-post-911-gi-bill-overview.html.
4 “2009-2010 Maximum In-State Tuition & Fees,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Rates Table
Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/resources/benefits-resources/rates-tables.html; and Military.org,The
Post-9/11 GI Bill Web site, http://www.newgibill.org/post_911_gi_bill.
5 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Benefits of the Yellow Ribbon Program,” http://www.gibill.
va.gov/post-911/post-911-gi-bill-summary/yellow-ribbon-program.html; cf. Yellow Ribbon Program
Information 2010-2011 School Year Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/CH33/YRP/
YRP_List_2010.htm; Find a School Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/resources/education-resources/
find-a-school.html; Education Programs Web site, http://www.gibill.va.gov/resources/education-
resources/education-programs.html.
6 Michael Sewall, “Veterans Use New GI Bill Largely at For-Profit and 2-Year Colleges,” Chronicle
of Higher Education, June 13, 2010, http://chronicle.com/article/Veterans-Use-Benefits-of-
New/65914/?sid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=en.
7 Ronald Roach, “From combat to campus: GI Bill gave a generation of African Americans an
opportunity to pursue the American dream–Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944–Special Report:
The Integrated Military–50 Years–Cover Story,” Black Issues in Higher Education, August 21, 1997.
Originally Published. Available through FindArticles.com. June 15, 2009, http://findarticles.com/p/
articles/mi_m0DXK/is_n13_v14/ai_20031731/.
8 The Future of Head Start. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education and Health of the
Joint Economic Committee. Congress of the United States, One Hundred First Session, Second
Session, February 26, 1990, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/
detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED331587&ERICExtSear
ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED331587; cf. Online NewsHour, “Remembering the GI Bill,”
July 4, 2000, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/gibill_7-4a.html; The Fund for
Veterans, Education, Fact Sheet, http://www.veteransfund.org/factsheet.pdf; Free Higher Ed, “GI

40
Bill of Rights: A Profitable Investment for the United States,” http://www.freehighered.org/h_gifact.
html; “Pelosi Statement on the Post-9/11 GI Bill,” May 1, 2009, http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.
asp?S=10287601.
9 Michael Sewall, “Veterans Use New GI Bill Largely at For-Profit and 2-Year Colleges,” Chronicle
10 “President Obama Meets with Family Struggling with College Costs, Underscores Need to Eliminate
Wasteful Spending in Federal Student Loan Program, Reinvest Savings in Making College More
Affordable,”White House Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/President-Obama-Meets-with-Family-Struggling-with-College-Costs/.
11 Vicki E. Murray, “Why Not Expand Successful GI Bill Concept to K-12?” Human Events, June 18,
2009, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32343.
12 “Making college more affordable for poor Americans,” board editorial, Human Events, June 9, 2009,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0609/p08s01-comv.html.
13 Quoted in Michael Sewall, “Veterans Use New GI Bill Largely at For-Profit and 2-Year Colleges,”
Chronicle of Higher Education, June 13, 2010, http://chronicle.com/article/Veterans-Use-Benefits-of-
14 Michael Sewall, “Veterans Use New GI Bill Largely at For-Profit and 2-Year Colleges,”Chronicle
15 Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, “Our California Veterans Deserve Better,” FlashReport,
July 30, 2009, http://mckeon.house.gov/this_in_detail.aspx?NewsID=1705.
16 See “Dependents’ Education Programs” in Prepared Statement of The Honorable Clifford L.
Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Before the House Armed Services
Military Personnel Subcommittee, March 17, 2010, pp. 37-38 http://armedservices.house.gov/
pdfs/MP031710/Stanley_Testimony031710.pdf; and U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), “Defense, Education Departments To Sign Historic
Agreement,” News Release No. 534-08, June 25, 2008, http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.
aspx?releaseid=12014.
17 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), “Defense,
Education Departments to Sign Historic Agreement,” News Release no. 534-08, June 25, 2008,
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12014.
18 H. Con. Res. 64, “Urging the President to designate 2009 as the ‘Year of the Military Family,’”
sponsored by Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), passed on March 11, 2009, http://www.govtrack.us/
congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc111-64; and S. Res. 165, “A resolution to encourage recognition of 2009 as the
‘Year of the Military Family,’” sponsored by Carl Levin (D-MI), passed on June 2, 2009, http://www.
govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr111-165.
19 The two million figure represents the authors’ combined state-by-state tally of the 1,970,150 Active
Duty and Selected Reserve members reported by the Department of Defense in Tables 2.27 and 4.29
of Demographics 2007: Profile of the Military Community, pp. 22 and 77, http://www.militaryhomefront.
dod.mil/portal/page/mhf/MHF/MHF_DETAIL_0?current_id=20.20.60.70.0.0.0.0.0.The 70,000
figure is from the “Statement of Kathleen B. Moakler, Government Relations Director, National
Military Families Association, Before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the United States Senate
Committee on Armed Services,” June 3, 2009, p. 19, http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2009/
June/Moakler%2006-03-09.pdf20. See “Subtitle D–Defense Dependents’ Education” in U.S. House
Armed Services Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010: Conference
Report to Accompany H.R. 2647, October 7, 2009, p. 734, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

41
getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:hr288.111.pdf; and Military Impacted Schools
Association (MISA), “Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children,” http://
www.csg.org/programs/policyprograms/NCIC/interstatecompact_militarychildren_edop.aspx.
21 Air Force Community, Child Education Web site, http://www.afcommunity.af.mil/childeducation/;
cf. Library of Congress, S. 1390, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01390:.
22 For a summary of research on this issue, see Bradford Booth, Mady Wechsler Segal, and Nick
Place, National Leadership Summit on Military Families Final Report, prepared for the Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Military Community and Family Policy, November 2009, pp.
12-14, http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil/portal/page/mhf/MHF/MHF_DETAIL_0?current_
id=20.20.60.70.0.0.0.0.0; Anita Chandra, behavioral scientist, RAND Corporation, “Children
on the Homefront: The Experiences of Children from Military Families (CT-341),”Testimony
presented before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel on
March 9, 2010, http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/MP030910/Chandra_Testimony030910.pdf;
and Leonard Wong, Research Professor, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, “The
Effects of Multiple Deployments on Army Adolescents: Statement before the House Armed Services
Committee Subcommittee on Military Personnel, U.S. House of Representatives,” March 9, 2010,
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/MP030910/Wong_Testimony030910.pdf; cf. U.S. House of
Representatives, Armed Services Committee, meeting of the Military Personnel Subcommittee to
hear testimony on the effects of deployment on military children, March 9, 2010, http://armedservices.
house.gov/hearing_information.shtml.
23 Casey Family Programs, Improving Educational Continuity and School Stability for Children in Out-of-
Home Care, December 2009, p. 22, http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/BreakthroughSeries_
ImprovingEducationalContinuity.htm.
24 Both the Chicago and California studies are cited in Casey Family Programs National Working
Group on Foster Care and Education, “Fact Sheet: Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth
in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care,” December 2008, p. 2, http://www.casey.org/Resources/
Publications/pdf/EducationalOutcomesFactSheet.pdf.
25 Military Impacted Schools Association (MISA), “Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity
for Military Children,” http://www.csg.org/programs/policyprograms/NCIC/interstatecompact_
militarychildren_edop.aspx.
26 Department of Defense, Military Homefront Reports Homepage, March 2008, p. 30, http://
www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil/portal/page/mhf/MHF/MHF_DETAIL_0?current_
id=20.20.60.70.0.0.0.0.0.
27 On October 28, 2009, the president signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (H.R. 2647), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647.
28 U.S. House Armed Services Committee, “House-Senate Committee Agreement Reached On Fiscal
Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill,” October 7, 2009, Press Release, p. 1, http://armedservices.
house.gov/pdfs/BillLanguage/SkeltonPR100709.pdf.
29 Patricia Davis, testimony to U.S. Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, June 3, 2009, p. 13, http://
armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/06%20June/09-38%20-%206-3-09.pdf; cf. Leo Shane
III, “Senate panel mulling school vouchers for military families,” Stars and Stripes (Mideast edition),
June 6, 2009, http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63133; and Military Officers
Association of America, “Military Spouses Speak Out on Healthcare, Ops Temps, and Impacts
on Children,” June 4, 2009, http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/lac_issues_
update_090605.htm.
30 Leo Shane III, “Senate panel mulling school vouchers for military families,” Stars and Stripes
(Mideast edition), June 6, 2009, http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63133.

42
31 Military Officers Association of America, “Military Spouses Speak Out on Healthcare, Ops Temps,
and Impacts on Children,” June 4, 2009, http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/lac_
issues_update_090605.htm.
32 Ibid.
33 U.S. Department of Defense, Deferred and Noncash Compensation, vol. II of Report of the Tenth
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, July 2008, pp. xxii-xxiii, http://www.defense.gov/news/
QRMCreport.pdf.
34 William H. McMichael, “Study backs vouchers for military children,” Marine Corps Times, September
8, 2008.
35 Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk, “Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of
Enlisted Troops and Officers,” Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis
Report no. 08-05, August 21, 2008, pp. 7-9, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/08/
Who-Serves-in-the-US-Military-The-Demographics-of-Enlisted-Troops-and-Officers; cf.
map 2, Enlisted Representation Ratios for 2007, http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/
B781D9F5D0E30F338496ACBF91B021B4.gif.
36 U.S. Department of Defense, Deferred and Noncash Compensation, vol. II of Report of the Tenth
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, July 2008, p. 103, cf. pp. xxv-xxvi and 104, http://www.
defense.gov/news/QRMCreport.pdf.
37 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Armed Services Committee Completes Markup
of National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010,” June 26, 2009, press release, p. 10,
http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/10mark.pdf. See also S.Amdt. 1633 to S. 1390: National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.
xpd?session=111&amdt=s1633; and Library of Congress, S.Amdt. 1633, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP1633.
38 “There’s no reason why you ought to be required to fund private school education [at personal
expense],” according to Sen. Chambliss. Quoted in Military Officers Association of America, “Military
Spouses Speak Out on Healthcare, Ops Temps, and Impacts on Children,” Legislative Update, June
4, 2009, http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/lac_issues_update_090605.htm. See
also Vicki E. Murray and Evelyn B. Stacey, Down but Not Out in D.C.: Bi-Partisan, Bi-Cameral Efforts
to Continue the Opportunity Scholarship Program, Independent Women’s Forum, Policy Brief no. 25,
August 13, 2009, http://www.iwf.org/publications/show/21880.html.
39 Patrick Wolf, Babette Gutmann, Michael Puma, Brian Kisida, Lou Rizzo, Nada Eissa, and Marsha
Silverberg, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program Impacts After Three Years, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, March 2009, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20094050.
40 Vicki E. Murray, “ED’s ‘What Works’ Division Validates Voucher Program the ‘Fund Whatever
Works’ Obama Administration Killed,” Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell Blog, February 24,
2010, http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/22696.html; cf. Down but Not Out in D.C.: Bi-Partisan, Bi-
Cameral Efforts to Continue the Opportunity Scholarship Program, Independent Women’s Forum, Policy
Brief no. 25, August 13, 2009, http://www.iwf.org/publications/show/21880.html; “Death of D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program Would be ‘A Tragedy and an Outrage’,” Independent Women’s
Forum Inkwell Blog, February 4, 2010, http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/22631.html; and “Scrooging
Schoolchildren,” Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell Blog, December 14, 2009, http://www.iwf.org/
inkwell/show/22464.html.
41 Quotation from “Research Finds Vouchers Boost High School Graduation Rates,” June 22, 2010,
press release, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas College of Education and
Health Professions, http://newswire.uark.edu/Article.aspx?id=14329; cf. Patrick Wolf, Babette

43
Gutmann, Michael Puma, Brian Kisida, Lou Rizzo, and Nada Eissa, Matthew Carr, and Marsha
Silverberg, Evaluation of the Impact of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report (NCEE
2010-4018), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, June 2010, http://ies.
ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/index.asp.
42 Thomas Stewart, Patrick Wolf, Stephen Q. Cornman, Kenann McKenzie-Thompson, and Jonathan
Butcher, Family Reflections of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (SCDP Report
0901), School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, January 2009, pp. 7-9, 26-28, 31
ff., http://www.washingtonscholarshipfund.org/news/news/SCDP_FULLREPORT.pdf.
43 Dan Lips and Paul DiPerna, “Fork in the Road: Where Does the District Go in K-12 Education,”
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, July 28, 2009, http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/
newsroom/ShowNewsReleaseItem.do?id=20131.
2010 (H.R. 2647), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647. See also S.Amdt.
1633 to S. 1390: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, http://www.govtrack.us/
congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1633; Library of Congress, S.Amdt. 1633, http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP1633:; and Evelyn Stacey, “Senator Proposes Vouchers for
Military Kids,” School Reform News, October 2009, http://www.heartland.org/publications/school%20
reform/article/26038/Senator_Proposes_Vouchers_for_Military_Kids.html. See also National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2647 (111-288), October 7,
2009, pp. 105-106, and 734, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_
reports&docid=f:hr288.111.pdf.
2010 (H.R. 2647), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647. See subtitle D, Sec.
537 (a) (2). Study on options for educational opportunities for dependent children of members of the
Armed Forces when public schools attended by such children are determined to need improvement,
pp. 104-105.
46 On June 7, 2010, Vicki Murray contacted the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services
Subcommittee on Military Personnel to obtain a copy of the study. In response, the subcommittee
official explained via email, “The report, although required by March 31, is expected to be issued near
the end of the calendar year.”
47 Military Child Education Coalition, “Facts About Military Children with Special Needs,” http://
www.militarychild.org/education/special-education-leaders-institute/.
48 Jessica Butler, “Congressional Briefing: Overcoming Barriers Faced by Military Children with Special
Needs,” Blue Star Families, February 21, 2010, http://www.bluestarfam.org/drupal/?q=node/2794.
49 Jeremy Hilton, “A Military Family’s Point of View in Regards to the Pilot Special Education
Scholarship Program in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act,” provided to Vicki Murray
by Mr. Hilton via email on July 14, 2010; and Jessica Butler, “Congressional Briefing: Overcoming
Barriers Faced by Military Children with Special Needs,” Blue Star Families, February 21, 2010, http://
www.bluestarfam.org/drupal/?q=node/2794; cf. Jeremy Hilton, “The Military Child and Special
Education,” EP [Exceptional Parent] Magazine, September 2009, pp. 78-80.
50 National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 (S. 3454), Sec. 583. Pilot Program on Scholarships for
Military Dependent Children with Special Educational Needs, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
F?c111:1:./temp/~c111XlO2ss:e253196; cf. full text of S.3454–National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011, Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3454:.
51 The National Coalition for Public Education, “Vouchers Do Not Help Special Needs Students of
Military Families,” June 18, 2010, flier.
52 Summary prepared by Andrew Campanella, the American Federation for Children, and provided to
the author via email on July 10, 2010.

44
53 The Foundation for Educational Choice, “McKay Scholarships Program for Students with
Disabilities,” from the ABCs of School Choice, 2009-10 Edition, http://www.edchoice.org/newsroom/
ShowProgramItem.do?id=16.
54 Florida Department of Education, “McKay Scholarship Program: Fast Facts and Program Statistics,”
October 2009, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/files/Fast_Facts_McKay.pdf;
and McKay Scholarship Program Web site, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/.
55 Florida House of Representatives, “CS/HB 1505: Education Programs for Children with
Disabilities,” http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=44335&Session
Id=64; cf. Foundation for Florida’s Future, “Foundation for Florida’s Future Applauds the Florida
Legislature for Expansion of McKay Scholarships,” April 30, 2010, Press Release, http://www.
afloridapromise.org/PressReleases/2010/Foundation_for_Floridas_Future_Applauds_the_Florida_
Legislature_for_Expansion_of_McKay_Scholarships.aspx.
56 Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster, Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida’s
McKay Scholarship Program, Manhattan Institute, Civic Report 38, June 2003, http://www.manhattan-
institute.org/html/cr_38.htm.
57 National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 (S. 3454), Overview, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=s111-3454.
58 Michael J.R. Schindler, “Military transfers made easier on families,” Washington Times, May 21, 2009,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/transition-made-easier/.
59 Counsel of State Governments, Military Interstate Compact Children’s Commission, http://www.csg.
org/programs/ncic/InterstateCommissiononEducationalOpportunityforMilitaryChildren.aspx.
60 “Statement of Kathleen B. Moakler, Barbara Cohoon, Kelly Hruska, Candace Wheeler, and Katie
Savant of the National Military Family Association before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
of the United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee,” p. 21, March 15, 2010,
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/MilPers031510/Joint_Testimony031510.pdf.
61 U.S. Department of Defense, “GI Bill Transferability Has Arrived,” http://www.defense.gov/home/
features/2009/0409_gibill/; and “New Post-9/11 GI Bill Overview,” Military.com, http://www.
military.com/education/content/gi-bill/new-post-911-gi-bill-overview.html.
62 See remarks of Patricia Davis and Melida Collins in Bradford Booth, Mady Wechsler Segal, and
Nick Place, National Leadership Summit on Military Families Final Report, prepared for the Office
of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Military Community and Family Policy, November
2009, Appendix A, p. 23, http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil/portal/page/mhf/MHF/MHF_
DETAIL_0?current_id=20.20.60.70.0.0.0.0.0. See also Appendix X p. 29, and Appendix H, pp. 187
and 190.
63 See Title IV–Military Personnel Authorizations, Subtitle G–Defense Dependents’ Education Sec.
561. Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees; and Sec. 562. Enrollment
of dependents of members of the Armed Forces who reside in temporary housing in Department
of Defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools in the National Defense
Authorization Act FY2011 (H.R. 5136), on the House Armed Services Committee Web site, http://
armedservices.house.gov/; cf. Mark Heller, “Armed Services panel OKs impact aid to school districts,”
Watertown Daily Times, May 13, 2010, http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100513/
NEWS03/305139943.
64 See, for example, Lynn Olson, “Financial Evolution,” Education Week, January 6, 2005, http://www.
edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/01/06/17overview.h24.html. For research on the lack of evidence on
the relationship between higher spending and improved student achievement, see Andrew J. Coulson,
“President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending. Here’s a Look at How that’s Worked in the Past,”
Cato@Liberty Blog, January 27, 2010, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/27/president-to-call-

GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California

GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California

Similar to GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California (20)

GI Junior Scholarships Could Expand Education Options for Military Children in California