FOCUS DC News Wire 10/11/13

 

 

The effect of the federal government shutdown that began nearly two weeks ago is making its way into the District's public charter school system, as officials fret about their ongoing ability to educate students and ensure that faculty and staff remain intact.

 

Ramona Edelin, Public Charter School Board executive director, said that quickly resolving the shutdown is critical to the viability of the 57 charter schools that serve more than 35,000 students — many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

She said that during a recent meeting between Mayor Vincent C. Gray and the Public Charter School Board, it was blatantly stated that unless the shutdown was resolved, no money would be forthcoming this month to the charters.

 

"We feel that the mayor, working with what funds he has, has to consider all the personnel in the local government, and in that case, those reserves will run out at some point," Edelin said. "But as for the quarterly payments that go to charter schools — that's a different issue. If the Oct. 15 payment isn't made, it will seriously compromise the education of the more than 43 percent of students who attend the public charter schools in D.C."

 

Gray has requested via letter to meet with President Obama, Senate House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss the local effects of the country's first government shutdown in 18 years. The furloughs of thousands of federal workers have already brought many essential services and programs to a standstill, and are threatening other public necessities as well.

 

During an Oct. 9 press conference, Gray said because the District lacks budget autonomy and is currently operating emergency funding approved by the D.C. Council, he's worried about how its bills — including the upcoming payment to the charter schools — will be paid.

 

With situation now becoming desperate, "all we want is for the District of Columbia to be able to spend its own money," Gray said.

 

Edelin said that since the charters essentially had no backup plan in case of a shutdown, the schools — each of which act as their own local education agency — are left to largely fend for themselves.

 

"We've made all of our schools aware of the problem, and some of them have already started to get loans from lending institutions," Edelin said. "It's a terrible price to pay because students will suffer the most. … Students at charter schools are performing better than both the city and national averages — and that should not be interrupted with the shutdown."

 

Donald Hense, Friendship Public Charter School CEO and board chairman, agreed.

 

"Charter schools depend very heavily on the per pupil money that comes on the quarterly basis," Hense said. "Unlike District of Columbia Public Schools, we don't get all of our money at the beginning of the fiscal year, and while we got our first payment in July, the second payment [is in jeopardy]. So it's likely that many charter schools will be shy of operating cash at this time."

 

Hense explained that because of their varying enrollments, not all charters have reserve funds on hand.

 

He said that most charter schools are small, and campuses that enroll 500 students are considered as large facilities. Friendship, the largest charter organization in the District, employs more than 600 people and enrolls at least 6,000 students at its six academies.

 

"Our charter school organization made an arrangement with a local bank and if Friendship and other charters qualify, they can obtain bridge loans involving a private application process," Hense said.

 

Another concern is that because charter schools are subjected to credit ratings, they have to pay their bills on time.

 

To that end, "it stands to reason that if our credit is bad, no one's going to lend us money," Hense said. "At this point, Mayor Gray, who has about a month to three months of money available, is at the limit of what he can do, and there's no place else for him to get more money. The worst case scenario is that our students and employees will be sent home — and our bills won't be paid."

 

 

There shouldn’t be any controversy surrounding D.C. Council member David Catania’s “Promise” initiative. But you never know. Some folks might actually believe that it’s scandalous to make children and their future the city’s top investment priorities.

 

Fortunately, those folks are likely to be in the minority. So when Catania (I-At Large) next week introduces his “DC Promise Establishment Act of 2013,” which would create a framework for providing money for college to thousands of D.C. families, expect a rush of people who want to sign up. That’s because, as Herbert Tillery, executive director of the College Success Foundation, puts it, “This is a great thing to do for the city.”

 

Education has always been perceived as the great equalizer. In the District, however, simply flashing a high school diploma won’t get you very far. Consider that wards with some of the highest household incomes — wards 2 and 3, for example — also are places where large numbers of people have post-secondary degrees. Ward 8, with the lowest income, has the fewest young adults with such degrees. The need for specialized training or, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree isn’t likely to change.

 

“That we can be separated by six or seven miles and have that degree of income inequality is an affront to our shared values,” Catania, who chairs the council’s education committee, told me this week. How, he asked, can people in a city with such disparities form a common bond? “It comes through continuum of opportunity.”

 

“The needy kids in D.C. are really needy. Anything that we as a city can do to help them is very important,” said Peter MacPherson, a Ward 6 resident and public education advocate.

 

“We have to make sure [the legislation] will, in fact, help poor and immigrant kids,” said Tillery, who wasn’t speaking in his official capacity.

 

The DC Promise initiative would establish a fund to provide college grants and scholarships to public school students — traditional or charter — who entered at least by ninth grade and stayed enrolled continuously until graduation. Students would be eligible for up to $20,000 per academic year, but that would be paid to a college or university only after they’ve been accepted for full- or part-time study. At least 48 months of residency in the District would be required prior to receiving any funds. Further, family incomes could not exceed $250,000.

 

“If we don’t do something, we are going to have to pay for it through incarceration or welfare or these other negative ways,” said Tillery, who was deputy mayor for operations under Anthony A. Williams.

 

“This would be helping to change the trajectory out of poverty not only for these kids but for future generations,” Tillery continued, adding that support services for the students will help to ensure they graduate from college.

 

Years ago, District leaders were able to persuade Congress to provide funds to help high school graduates attend colleges outside the city. But federal sequestration has imperiled the Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG) program. Still, TAG would be not supplanted but augmented by DC Promise.

 

While he doesn’t mention this, DC Promise is not your average scholarship program. It has the potential for strengthening the District’s economic health by attracting families to the city and expanding the public school population. Since students who enter in sixth grade would receive the maximum financial benefit, the program would serve as a kind of recruitment tool for the city’s middle schools; currently, many families leave the public school system after fifth grade.

 

Equally important, the initiative would prevent the brain drain that is encouraged, albeit unwittingly, by TAG, which provides grants for students to attend out-of-state schools without the requirement they maintain any connection to the District. DC Promise, on the other hand, would require recipients to maintain their residence in the city throughout their college career.

 

Other jurisdictions, including Washington state and Kalamazoo, Mich., have Promise programs that have been quite successful. There is evidence, said Catania, of a reduction in truancy, an increase in graduation rates and greater access to college. Still, he is quick to caution that the initiative is “not a panacea” and every detail has not been “prescripted.”

 

The initiative won’t be cheap. At full implementation, it could cost as much as $75 million annually. A finite calculation has yet to be conducted, however. Still, such an expenditure might cause sticker shock for a city considering changes to its per-pupil education-funding formula, even as it deals with the decisions of an erratic Congress that could affect the economic vitality of the region. Nevertheless, using a long lens, there is little question the District’s children are worth the money.

 

With a $10 billion budget, the city should be able to find the funds. “We’ve done enough small thinking in our city,” said Catania. “If we can’t find 1 percent [in the budget] for our future, shame on us.”

 

 

I appreciate The Current’s continuing coverage of management issues related to D.C. Public Schools athletics. It is clear that much remains to be done in terms of providing ample opportunities for girls, as well as providing timely, well-managed programs throughout the city, even in schools with not particularly active parent associations.

 

The education landscape has changed dramatically in the District. Enrollment in charter schools is now almost the same as it is in traditional public schools, and the figure is likely to rise in coming years. It is time that D.C. Public Schools’ sports management adapted to the changed structure of D.C. education and to the changing interests of its students.

 

What needs to change? First, the league itself needs to change.

 

To stay relevant, the D.C. Interscholastic Athletic Association needs to broaden the competitive field to offer a more meaningful schedule to its athletes. In many sports, one or two teams dominate, so a schedule of only DCIAA matches becomes almost meaningless. This hurts both the strong teams and the weak teams. Weak programs struggle to field teams when each and every game is a loss, often by a lopsided score. Such matches also don’t improve the play of the stronger teams.

 

The league should look to develop divisions that include charter schools as well as independent schools and allow equivalent teams to play each other. Programs that progress can then move up a division the next year, or fall back as the case may be. Having equivalent divisions will help schools keep teams going, rather than simply folding, as has happened at a number of schools in both boys and girls sports.

 

Second, DCIAA needs to work with all the various sports leagues and the D.C. State Athletic Association on how to determine and enforce residency in a timely and consistent way. It seems to be a well-known secret that there are many non-D.C. residents attending D.C. public schools, with families using the addresses of grandparents or other relatives to maintain enrollment. Go to any D.C. public school in the morning and you are sure to see students being dropped off by cars with non-D.C. tags. Yet it seems to have become an annual ritual as the championship games arrive in high-profile sports such as football that suddenly the residency of students who have played the whole season comes into question.

 

Last year’s Turkey Bowl saw all participating programs disqualified and their season wins tossed due to the involvement of ineligible players owing to nonresidency. This is likely to occur regularly unless new and clear rules are implemented and enforced. Should a team’s season be tossed out due to the ineligibility of one or two players who seemingly had provided accurate residency information? This needs to be resolved.

 

Thirdly, D.C. schools need to offer more sports that meet the interests of their students. While D.C. Public Schools recently expanded offerings for girls to include bowling and flag football, it has not established programs in lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, field hockey or rugby. There are no D.C. schools that have bowling lanes, nor are there any lanes at D.C. recreation centers to my knowledge, so why encourage that sport? And colleges do not offer scholarships in flag football.

 

What is now happening is that D.C. public schools are not keeping up — so students and their parents are passing them by. More and more schools are forming “club” teams, which allow parents and schools to hire coaches. This expands the pool beyond just the teachers who might have an interest (the traditional choices when D.C. public schools fill positions in the recognized sports). Going “club” also allows schools to schedule more meaningful games — against schools and programs of equivalent size, thereby offering a chance at more balanced competition.

 

The D.C. Public Schools system needs to embrace change in order to provide a better experience for students. Officials must recognize that athletics, like arts and other activities, are an integral part of the learning experience.

 

 

My wife Michele and I had the distinct pleasure of attending the Center for Education Reform’s 20th anniversary Gala and Awards Show Wednesday evening. The Washington Hilton ballroom was filled with a who’s who of education reformers on both the local scene and national stage. At one end of the room was Kevin Chavous, Michelle Bernard, and Chester Finn while at the other was Joe Bruno and Brian Jones. Josh Kern joined us as did Lisa Graham Keegan, who was recently inducted into the National Charter Schools Hall of Fame. Also in attendance was my hero Donald Hense. The event was indeed a celebration as eight individuals were honored for their groundbreaking work in improving public education for those who, because of their low economic status, are the least able to be able to fight for themselves.

 

But the night was also bittersweet. The men assembled in black-ties and the women in formal gowns knew that together we were marking the end of an era. For it was at this moment in time that Jeanne Allen was stepping down as president of the Center for Education Reform, the school choice support organization she founded twenty years ago. How perfectly appropriate, then, that her husband, Dr. Kevin Strother, sang our National Anthem with passion usually reserved for our most solemn occasions.

 

The master of ceremonies for the program was none other than Michael Musante, the government relations expert for Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS). Based upon his performance at the Gala I really think he should consider changing jobs. He moved through the crowd as if he was floating on air, sometimes telling jokes, other times singing classic Frank Sinatra songs with the assurance that comes from an experienced nightclub professional. After all you have to have talent if you are able to pull off “Mack the Knife” with credibility bestowed by the outstanding SunRay Orchestra. Among the others who sang beautifully at the event was Bob Bowden, producer of the exceptional movie “The Cartel.”

 

Those recognized included Yvonne Chan, Barbara Dreyer, William Bennett, James, Janis, and Tracy Gleason, Deborah McGriff, and Michael Moe. You can read their biographies here. Each award was preceded by the performance of a classic song made famous by the Ratpack. Included in the program was a well-produced slide show of reformers who are no longer with us because they have passed away moderated by Ms. Allen and Mr. Chavous. I very much appreciated Mr. Chavous’ discussion of the prominent role Joseph E. Robert, Jr. played in his understanding of the value of private school vouchers in education reform.

 

There were a couple of highlights for me. Hearing Bill Bennett speak was a privilege. The former U.S. Department of Education Secretary addressed the crowd with such authority and confidence that it made us feel uniformly proud that we were engaged in the struggle to let parents decide where they can send their children to school. His one sentence summary of the overriding public policy mission in public education as “determining who gets to teach and what do they teach when they are there” immediately ceased any stray conversation in the ballroom.

 

The other noticeable theme of the event was the words offered by presenters and awardees about the work of Jeanne Allen. It may be impossible for many to grasp now but when the idea of school choice was first promoted as a means to fixing our failing public schools most people thought the idea was crazy. It was crystal clear from the remarks that Ms. Allen literally held the hand and supported the back of those brave people who paved the way for the creation of the charter and private school voucher movements so prevalent in America today. The fact that so many of these programs now seem commonplace is the highest accolade that can be bestowed to this fine individual.