Cory Gardner on Education

Filed brief for tax dollars for private religious schools

Corey Gardner: Yes. Filed a Supreme Court brief supporting the use of public funds to pay for educating children in private religious schools.

John Hickenlooper: No. Supports parents selecting the best schools, but "would not support the use of publicly funded vouchers for private or religious school education."

Let employers donate tax free to employees' student loans

Corey Gardner: No general stand found. Did introduce bill allowing employers to contribute tax free to employees' student loans. Discharge federal student loans for the permanently disabled.

John Hickenlooper: Reduce federal student loan interest to 2.5% or less, with "expanded loan repayment and forgiveness programs, tuition-free community college"; minority scholarships.

Focus on accountability, parental involvement and choice

Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program.

1. receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program; or
2. with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty line.

1. the DC public schools to improve public education, and
2. the DC public charter schools to improve and expand quality public charter schools.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Bishop, R-UT]: In 1996, Congress insisted upon a charter school program in DC. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in DC for those charter schools. This bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District. In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed; the bill remedies that.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Hastings, D-FL]: In the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed. In 1981, 89% of the people in a referendum in DC voted against vouchers. So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single public official in this community being consulted. Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour.

$110M per year to teach abstinence in public schools.

Congressional Summary:Authorizes the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to award grants for qualified sexual risk avoidance education to youth and their parents. Requires such education to meet certain criteria, including:

1. being age-appropriate, medically accurate, and evidence-based;
2. teaching the skills and benefits of sexual abstinence as the optimal sexual health behavior for youth; and
3. teaching the benefits of refraining from nonmarital sexual activity, the advantage of reserving sexual activity for marriage, and the foundational components of a healthy relationship.

Opponent's argument against bill: (Nick Wing on Huffington Post) How much could it cost to keep teenagers from having sex? More than $100 million per year over the course of five years would be a good starting place, according to the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act. The bill seeks to award $550 million in Affordable Care Act grants over five years to programs that provide teenagers with abstinence-only education.

The abstinence-only effort stands as an effective counter to the Democratic-backed Real Education for Healthy Youth Act. Introduced the same day as the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act, the bill seeks to "expand comprehensive sex education programs in schools and ensure that federal funds are spent on effective, age-appropriate, medically accurate programs." The legislation would also set down guidelines calling for sexual health programs that receive federal funding to feature LGBT-inclusive language on a variety of issues, reject gender stereotypes and provide accurate information about HIV.