April
12, 2000April
12, 2000
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF CHOICE IN URBAN SCHOOLS (FOCUS)
DISTRICT COUNCIL
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
Good Afternoon Mr. Chavous, members of the Committee, and staff. Thank you for providing this opportunity to testify.
Public Charter Schools are PublicAs you know, Public charter schools are every bit as public as DCPS schools. They are free and open to all District resident students. No admissions testing or screening is permitted; students must be admitted without regard to academic ability, disability, or any other factor. Public charter schools are publicly accountable to the elected Board of Education or to the DC Public Charter School Board, whose members are appointed by the Mayor.
Public Charter Schools Serve the District's Neediest Children
Public Charter Schools serve the same “public” as does DCPS. A recent study by George Washington University found that approximately 82% of D.C.'s public charter school students are African-American, 17% are Hispanic, 15% are in special education, and 68% are eligible for free and reduced lunch. The overwhelming majority of these students, like those they left behind in DCPS schools, are one, two, or more years behind academically (one public charter school flunked 75% of its 9th-grade students at the end of the school's first year).
Unfortunately, as the recent uproar over the conversion of Paul Junior High School into a public charter school demonstrates, the general public's -- and many District politicians' -- understanding of public charter schools has not grown nearly as fast as public charter school enrollment.
This is lamentable, as public charter schools are providing new hope for a decent education to the District's most disadvantaged families.
Current Law Protects Parents and Teachers Affected by School ConversionsDuring the brouhaha that surrounded the Paul Jr. High conversion, which led to the bills we are discussing today, we repeatedly said that the current charter school law provides for much more parent and community input in the case of a conversion than is provided for when the school system makes a change that dramatically affects an individual school.
The intense parental and student opposition to the DCPS takeover of Backus Middle School for an arts and technology magnet proves this point in a much more dramatic way than we ever could.
According to reports in the press and elsewhere, not only was the wider community not consulted about this change but neither were the Backus parents. The new program itself was designed without input from the Backus principal or teachers, all of whom will have to reapply for their jobs.
The contrast between how change was accomplished at Paul and at Backus is striking. Two-thirds of the Paul parents and teachers had to sign a petition for the conversion to move forward. Community meetings were held. And no administrators or teachers are being asked to reapply for their jobs.
Those who fought against the Paul conversion claimed they were standing up for children whose parents did not want them to attend the public charter school. Where would these parents send their kids, they asked? But where are the upset Backus parents supposed to send their kids? And where are the Ward 4 politicians and the teachers' union who were so strident in their condemnation of the conversion? Not a word has been heard from them.
Any New Legislation Should Guarantee that Conversion Schools Continue to Serve as Neighborhood Schools and Should Protect Parents' and Teachers' Right to Seek Conversion
We believe that, unlike the school system's conversion of Backus into a magnet school, the process to convert Paul into a public charter school was fair and equitable. However, we would be happy to support amendments to the law that would (1) guarantee that a conversion public charter school will continue to serve as the neighborhood school and (2) provide for participation in the conversion process by feeder school parents and the community at a level that will not frustrate the will of a conversion school's parents and teachers.
What must be avoided at all costs is legislation that will prevent conversion. Contrary to what the opponents of the Paul conversion would have us believe, preventing school conversion would be very bad for school reform in the District.
Conversion permits troubled schools to take control of their own destinies and provide a better environment and educational program to their students now, not at the end of an incremental system-wide improvement program. It also allows schools like Paul to move to a much higher level of performance without having to wait until the other schools in the District are brought up to its current level.
Yes, conversion badly upsets people in the school system. Even so, conversion schools are good for DCPS reform. As we saw with Paul, the threat of conversion to public charter school status pushes the system to abandon tinkering and undertake immediate, significant reforms. Although DCPS botched the Backus reform effort, over time it can be expected to learn from the public charter schools and democratize the change process. Wonderful things are likely to result.
Finally, it must be remembered that schooling happens at individual schools, not at school system headquarters. This simple truth, so often ignored, is the reason that no urban school system has been able to effect significant generalized improvements in the academic performance of its students. Some individual schools within each of these systems are good – even outstanding. But their results have not been and can not be replicable across the system. The only hope for real school reform throughout the District is to put school reform in the hands of those who work in and send their children to the schools. What difference does it make whether real reform happens at a traditional public school or at a charter public school? In either case those who benefit are D.C. school kids.
Bills 13-582 and 13-583 Would Not Guarantee Neighborhood School Status for Conversion SchoolsThe bills we are discussing today do not guarantee that conversions will remain neighborhood schools. Bill 13-582 makes mandatory the admission priority for children in the conversion school's neighborhood. We support this change. But this is only half of what is necessary to guarantee that the conversion school continues to serve as the neighborhood public school. The other half is a guarantee that the school will be able to remain in its school building as exclusive occupant. What is the point of giving neighborhood kids an admissions preference if you're going to take the school building away from them?
During the debate over Paul the superintendent and her political supporters repeatedly said that allowing conversion schools to stay in their buildings would make it impossible for DCPS to plan for its facilities needs. This argument has little force, given that DCPS is underutilizing so many of its buildings and is losing enrollment each year. But even if the possibility of conversion schools were to make DCPS's planning more difficult, it must be remembered that these facilities were built by the people of the District for the purposes of public education. There are now two forms of public education in D.C., and both have an equal claim to use these publicly-funded buildings. A new, independent State Education Agency should be given control over these public education assets, with the mandate to preserve all school buildings for public education and to equitably apportion their use.
Bills 13-582 and 13-583 Would Make It Impossible For Parents and Teachers to Convert Their Schools to Public Charter SchoolsBill 13-583 would condition conversion on the approval of 2/3 of all registered voters within the school's attendance boundaries. This is absurd. In this country we're lucky to turn out even 1/3 of the voters for anything; and when was the last time we impeached a president or passed a Constitutional Amendment – also requiring a 2/3 vote?
There are plenty of other objections to this provision. Most people don't have children in the public schools and aren't terribly interested in school issues. You'd never get most of them to vote. More fundamentally, why should the will of the parents and teachers of a converting school be subject to override by people who aren't connected with the school? And if a school converting to a public charter school should have to get voter approval, shouldn't a traditional public school converting to a magnet school have to get such approval?
The requirement in Bill 13-583 for 2/3 approval by the parents of all the kids in all the feeder schools is almost as excessive and unfair as the requirement for voter approval. If a so-called feeder school historically has sent only 5, 10, or 20% of its students to the conversion school, why should 2/3 of all the parents in the feeder school have to approve the conversion? Most of them have no interest in the school seeking to convert and would likely not consider sending their kids to it. Should they be able to veto the decision of the converting school's parents and teachers?
Bill 13-583 contains other provisions that are just as offensive as the ones just discussed. For example, even if a school seeking to convert manages through Herculean effort and great expense to obtain the approval of 2/3 of the registered voters or feeder school parents, the bill would force it to endure a challenge by any registered voter or feeder school parent who didn't like the way the vote turned out. Do we want our other elections to be handled this way?
The Provision for a “School Impact Statement” in Bill 13-582 Would Inject Bias into the Conversion ProcessThe superintendent is on record as opposing the conversion of DCPS schools to public charter schools. She tried to evict the Paul charter school from its building, then tried to cram a competing program into the same building. Yet in spite of this clear conflict of interest, bill 13-582 would give responsibility to the superintendent for informing the community about the impact a conversion school would have on current students and feeder school students. The pro-DCPS bias of this section is evident from the list of the information that must be included in the impact statement. For example, item six requires the superintendent to report on the classes or programs of the former school that will not be carried over to the conversion school. But there is no requirement to report on the new classes and programs that will be available at the public charter school.
If the Council feels that some sort of impact analysis should be provided to the community, it should be developed and carried out by a neutral agency. This would be an appropriate role for a new, independent State Education Agency.
Conclusion: What a Good Bill Would Look LikeA constructive bill to amend the conversion provisions of current law would contain the following provisions:
To Guarantee that A Conversion School Remains a Neighborhood School: