April 12, 2000

Testimony of Glenda Partee
DISTRICT COUNCIL
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING

Following are my reactions to the two proposed bills—

• Bill 13-582, to require notification of the Superintendent that an existing public school has filed a charter petition; the development of an impact statement by the superintendent on the effect of the potential conversion on current students and feeder students; and priority admission (a change in word from “may” to “will” in the current law) of in-boundary and feeder students for five years.

On its face, this bill looks like is a benign requirement, which if implemented objectively in an environment that views charter schools as just one among a variety of public supported education offerings in the community, could result in an orderly planning process for students and the school system. If implemented subjectively, it will only lead to misunderstanding and the spread of misinformation throughout the community.

For example, we have read the vitriolic propaganda and misinformation disseminated by the Superintendent's office to inflame the community in the case of the Paul Junior High School conversion. (See attached memo to NAC Chairpersons from Leonard L. Haynes III, assistant to the Superintendent.)

The notification of the Superintendent is good—but only if notification does not result in repercussions and retaliation to the school staff and parents who have initiated the conversion process. I might stress that making application for conversion, is only signaling the beginning of a what can be a lengthy process to win the approval of two-thirds of the current parents and staff of the school. In the case of Paul Junior High School, this process took three years to complete! The notification, while appearing to be the only “civil” thing to do, can be interpreted as a signal for the central administration to bring out all its cannons (all its Leonard Haynes and sugar coated proposals) and begin the bombardment process we have witnessed over the last few months in the case of Paul Junior High School.

The preparation of an impact statement is a good idea, but could be improved upon if done by a neutral party with no conflict of interest as exists currently with the Superintendent of Public Schools. If the memo penned by Superintendent aide Leonard Haynes is any indication, we already know the tone of the impact statement. The “impact” and “options” provided by the Superintendent's office will be of their own crafting—as enticing, as helpful or off-putting as they care to make it.

Finally, requiring priority in admissions for in-boundary students for a five-year period is a good idea and will ensure the time required for the school to transition from a neighborhood school (if it is already one) to a city-wide charter. If it is not a neighborhood school (as are some schools that currently draw enrollment citywide), this law is unnecessary.

• Bill 13-583, to require a petition for conversion to include the signatures of two-thirds of the registered voters within school attendance boundaries; to require the chartering authority to notify all Advisory Neighborhood Commissions within school attendance boundaries of the receipt of a petition to convert and of the scheduled hearing date; and to require the chartering authority to establish a procedure by which petitions may be challenged by individuals living within school attendance boundaries.

This is legislation by sledgehammer and is a recipe for total gridlock. It might as well repeal the conversion option totally. It is unrealistic to get two-thirds of the registered voters within the school attendance to agree on anything. Worse, in the case of a school with “no attendance boundaries,” as with many public schools, two-thirds of “the total number of parents of students attending all feeder schools” could represent the whole city. If we start down this slippery legislative pathway, we might as well have a law requiring two-thirds of all registered voters to elect the mayor or city council people.

Further, the bill is overly vague on the issue of petitions of challenge of a charter conversion. Depending on the language developed, “one monkey could stop every show in town.” By saying that the process of conversion could be “challenged by individuals who reside within the attendance boundaries" or "if there are no attendance boundaries . . . by parents of children in all feeder schools” you are saying that anybody anywhere with any reason related or not related to the education of children could stop the process dead.

In conclusion—

These bills, particularly the latter, do not recognize that all of the taxpayers and their eligible children are not being served or are being served inadequately by DCPS. The growing percentage of children being served through alternative means (whether private schools, charters, home schooling and or moving to other parts of the region to find better schools) proves that. The number of out-of-boundary students that seek admission to some of the better DCPS schools and programs further affirms this.

These bills are masked in the guise of great planning and control when in actuality the total opposite is the rule.

For the last eight years, Districts superintendents have actively promoted the development of local school control. That is, let a thousand flowers grow. In my view, while this approach gives more local say in developing schools that are responsive to community needs, it does not necessarily result in a great school system with strong schools. Missing has been a citywide vision of the types of schools we need and should have. With the advent of the weighted school formula and more forceful language from the central administration that local councils are indeed expected to make the changes in staffing and offerings that could create more individual schools, we may in time see some real movement toward distinctive schools. But this is not the case now.

In the meantime, we have charter schools and private school options to fill in the huge programmatic gaps in areas where DCPS dares not to go. Continued efforts to limit and corral the development of charter schools at a time particularly when DCPS is focusing on infrastructure issues, not programmatic issues, does the citizenry a disadvantage.

In stead of trying to hamstring the charter conversion process (which never will be that great of an issue, since it is so awfully hard to convert given the existing law), there are a lot of things that the City Council should turn its attention to:

• Many buildings are not ADA compliant.
• There are great inequities in the way the out-of-boundary policy (or lack there of) is applied. Boundaries in general need to be revisited and equity imposed on the process.
• Student transportation issues need to be discussed. This is a small city and there is no reason why we don't make all schools, schools of choice.
• In all the discussion that has gone on about the school board, about governance and superintendents, about facilities and fire codes, etc., there has been little if any time and discussion devoted to deciding what is good, quality schooling for our children, what types of schools parents want and what types of schools are required to produce competitive graduates. How much do these types of schools cost and what kind of investment are we willing to make? (I'm talking about up-scale science and technology-focused schools, career-focused schools, second language and arts focused programs, expeditionary and alternative schools for different kinds of learners; college dual admission programs, etc.)

If the Council wants to do something, you should work with the mayor and the community in laying out a vision of the kinds of schools we want and need. This will provide a much-needed blueprint to the school system as well as to existing and potential charters. The kind of over regulation proposed doesn't do anything to improve our school system.