JUNE
22, 1999 JUNE
22, 1999
TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM PEABODY
CHAIRMAN
FRIENDS OF CHOICE IN URBAN SCHOOLS (FOCUS)
AND D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL COALITIONHOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON D.C. APPROPRIATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
Good afternoon Congressman Istook and members of the Subcommittee, and thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I am the chairman of Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS), an organization that provides technical support to D.C. public charter schools and information about charter schools to parents and the community. FOCUS also provides support and leadership to the D.C. Public Charter Schools Coalition, an informal network of charter school leaders and advocates of which I am also the chairman.
This has been a stupendous year, as charter school enrollment has grown from less than 300 to over 3,500 students. We are very impressed by the talent and dedication of the charter school founders and encouraged by the overall quality of the schools.
You have heard something of what public charter schools add to the lives of their students from Ms. Snipes and Mr. Lancaster. Their positive experience of the charter schools is not at all unusual: over the course of the year we have had glowing reports from many, many students and parents. For a large percentage of them, this is the first time school has been a place where they feel that they are known, where their individual needs are addressed, and where they or their children are making real academic progress. As one mother of a charter school student put it in a hearing before the District Council, “charter schools have been like a gift from heaven for me and my son.”
Although it is far too early in the lives of the public charter schools to make precise statements about their impact on student achievement, early returns indicate that, by and large, the positive psychological impact of the schools is being mirrored by increases in student performance on standardized tests. For example, the reports we have so far from the schools indicate that in many cases there has been significant improvement during the course of the year on the Stanford 9 tests.
All of these achievements of the public charter schools this year have been made in the face of a variety of obstacles, some inevitable and some which ought to be addressed.
As difficult as these challenges have been, the public charter school leaders have embraced them. Unfortunately, there have also been unnecessary, public-policy related impediments that threaten the viability of D.C. public charter schools. Specifically, these impediments are lack of access to unused public school buildings; burdensome oversight; and funding problems stemming from lack of clarity in the annual budget process and the failure to fully fund the facilities portion of the per pupil allowance. Ms. Baker will testify to the budget problem but I would like to speak on facilities and on one important budget issue.
Facilities
Of the nineteen D.C. public charter schools in operation this year, only four occupied permanent facilities. Many of the rest operated in decidedly makeshift circumstances, having hastily renovated non-school space or made short-term arrangements to use school system property. Even with the per-pupil facilities allowance passed by the District Council in 1998, many public charter schools this year dipped into operating budgets to pay for commercial rent and/or accelerated renovations. Several schools this year, unable to find large enough facilities, have delayed opening or expanding, reducing charter school enrollment next year by as much as 2,000 students. Six of the nineteen operating public charter schools, even at this late date, have not finalized arrangements for the coming September, including the nationally recognized Cesar Chavez Public Charter High School for Public Policy.
This need not have been so. There are over two million square feet of unused space in the school system and dozens of school buildings that sit vacant, blighting their neighborhoods, deteriorating from neglect and vandalism. There are two distinct categories of unused school space and, in the D.C. School Reform Act of 1995, Congress gave public charter schools preference in the disposition of both of them:
The E.B.T. did not develop a disposition policy until fourteen months after it had been given control of the buildings. The D.C. Public Charter School Coalition worked collaboratively with the E.B.T. to draft that policy, which included a right to match the highest bid in a public bidding contest with a discount of up to 25% or, if no bids were received, a discount from the appraised price. We were pleased to get the process started. However, we were disappointed that public charter schools were forced to compete on the same footing with commercial developers in what became an agonizingly slow series of RFPs, bids, and administrative delays.
In 1998, only four schools acquired buildings through the process. Of these one delayed opening for one year, another opened at reduced size in an alternate facility, and a third incurred $1.2 million in accelerated renovation and repair costs, since they did not get possession of the building until June. The fourth school gained access to their building just eight days before the beginning of the school year and found that it had been stripped of all plumbing and kitchen equipment over the summer. The charter of this school may be revoked, in part because it never fully absorbed the shock of $300,000 in unanticipated repair costs.
An additional five schools, in a similarly protracted and last-minute process, acquired one-year leases for space still in the D.C.P.S. inventory.
Regrettably, this already bad situation deteriorated when the realty process came to a dead halt in October of 1998. The applications of the Washington Math Science Technology and Hyde public charter schools, which had been in the bidding process for 18 months, stalled. In March the E.B.T. voted to kill both proposals, which would have revitalized landmark buildings for public benefit. The Control Board overturned the E.B.T.'s decision on the Hyde School's Proposal, but by that time a charter school that had agreed to sublease decided it was too late to move forward. The deal fell through. The Control Board's review of the Washington Math Science Technology bid is still pending.
We were pleased to learn recently that Mrs. Newman, Vice Chair of the Control Board, has assumed responsibility for the “excess” properties until a new policy has been developed. We appreciate her action and hope very much that as major stakeholders charter school leaders will again be invited to assist in the policy making process. We hope Congress will also assist by further clarifying the preference language in the law to give public charter schools a first preference on the “excess” properties.
As for schools seeking to renew or initiate leases on inventory property, negotiations have been interrupted by a succession of appointees to the D.C.P.S. Realty Office. Four charter schools, all of which initiated the lease process months ago, still are not sure what their lease cost will be or even if a final lease will be approved. Several other charter schools unwilling to subject themselves to this process have been desperately looking for space; we know of several creative but fragile partnerships that appear to be coming together just this week.
Public charter schools welcome oversight consistent with the D.C. charter law and very much believe in maintaining high standards. However, there must be a balance between the need for accountability and the need for independence from excessive bureaucratic intervention and burdensome reporting requirements
Charter school leaders this year have had to cope with the challenges of start-up while also accommodating multiple sets of audits and site visits. The schools' finances were audited by their chartering authorities, by an accounting firm hired by the District's Chief Financial Officer, and by D.C.P.S.'s Office of Categorical Funds, each of which required somewhat different modes of documentation. Enrollments were also audited periodically by multiple entities, and documents were often requested with very little notice or well ahead of announced deadlines. Some schools faced three audits simultaneously.
In general, the District's two chartering authorities, the Board of Education and the D.C. Public Charter School Board, have done a good job creating a rigorous application process, approving many top-notch schools, and, in the case of the Public Charter School Board, making the accountability process as constructive and collaborative as possible. However, the Board of Education's oversight program at this point seems less focused on helping schools overcome obstacles than on monitoring administrative details.
Two Board of Education-chartered schools have been put on probation this year; the process of charter revocation has begun for one of them. We recognize that this latter school has serious deficiencies, and we support the closing of charter schools that do not properly serve the interests of their students. However, we also feel strongly that chartering boards should take constructive measures early on if a school shows evidence of trouble. Furthermore, it is imperative that standard rules of fairness and due process be followed -- including adequate time to address problems -- before any punitive action is taken.
As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Baker will address in detail various problems in charter school funding. I will discuss only one, which arises from the fact that D.C. uses an October 1st fiscal year. Because of this, new public charter schools must survive for thirteen months on twelve months of funding in their first year. The D.C. charter school law originally created a special payment for a school's initial September, equal to 1/12th of the school's projected annual allocation. However, this provision was inadvertently repealed in November of 1997. We calculate that new public charter schools in FY1999 lost approximately $1.8 million, or $550 per pupil. We hope that Congress will restore this funding provision in the law and reimburse the schools that started in 1998 for their loss.
In conclusion, in spite of the many serious obstacles just discussed, this has been a wonderful year for the public charter schools in D.C. When we look at what matters most – the progress being made by the 3,600 children who this year attended the charter schools -- we see that the promise of the public charter schools has already begun to be realized. We are convinced that public charter schools are on their way to radically improving the quality, diversity, and accountability of public education here. For the charter school movement in the District to reach its full potential, however, the problems discussed by the speakers here today must be addressed soon.
Thank you again for your interest in D.C. public education, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.