FOCUS DC News Wire 1/18/12

 

 

‘Levy Report’: DCPS Gets Millions More Than Charters [FOCUS is mentioned]

The Washington Post

By Bill Turque

January 17, 2012

 

In September 2010, D.C. Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi hired education finance expert Mary Levy as a consultant to study the funding of public and public charter schools. Over the next five months, Levy said, she wrote a large chunk of a report that was never released. Gandhi spokesman David Umansky, asked about this a few months ago, said there was never any report contemplated, only “an information gathering exercise.”

 

There wasn’t much mystery about what came to be known in the charter community as “The Levy Report.” It showed that DCPS received operating funds not available to charter schools. So the city’s two leading charter advocacy groups, FOCUS (Friends of Choice in Urban Schools) and the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools hired Levy so that they could push her findings into public view. Among them is that DCPS receives between $72 million and $127 million a year in operating funds that public charter schools do not.

 

The money comes to DCPS from outside the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula, the legal mechanism designed to ensure that all public and public charter school students are funded equally. The current “base” amount is $8,943 per student, which is weighted according to grade level and for children with additional needs, such as special education or limited English proficiency.

 

Some of the extra support comes in the form of mid-year appropriations to cover DCPS overspending — like the $21 million Mayor Vincent Gray proposed to give the system last month. It also includes the value of in-kind services DCPS receives from other city agencies for functions that are supposed to be financed within the formula, such as building maintenance (covered by the Department of General Services) and legal services (provided by the Office of the Attorney General). Charter schools generally cover these costs with their formula allocations.

 

Other money is the result of differences in budgeting practices. DCPS is funded each spring for the following school year based on enrollment projections. If the actual enrollment is lower than projected, which is usually the case, the system's budget is not reduced. Charter schools are funded by the city in quarterly installments based on actual enrollment. If it declines, allotments are cut.

 

FOCUS has sent the report to the Public Education Finance Reform Commission, formed by the D.C. Council in 2010 to look at these kinds of issues. Its next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday evening. In a joint statement issued Friday with the report, FOCUS executive director Robert Cane and Ramona Edelin, executive director of the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, said:

 

“These payments violate the requirement of D.C. law that DCPS and the public charter schools receive equal funding on a per-student basis. They also violate principles of equity, which require that we give each of our school children an equal chance to succeed regardless of which public school he or she attends.”

 

The report comes from two groups that want every public penny they can get for charters. So it notes only in passing that public charter schools also receive money from outside the local funding formula--from federal grants and private foundations. Some charter schools have collected significant sums from private foundations, as have the D.C. organizations promoting the charter movement. FOCUS, for example, received $567,000 from the Walton Foundation in 2010, according to a listing on the Walton site.

 

Levy also reports that charters are often excluded from services traditionally provided by other city agencies to DCPS without charge. The Metropolitan Police Department, for example, has 46 “resource officers” assigned to help with security at DC public schools, but only 11 at public charters. The Department of Mental Health has 30 full-time specialists serving non-special education students at 41 public schools, and none at charters, according to Levy.

 

The report also addresses charter school facilities, even though the issue is not part of the commission’s charge. Because charters do not use District-backed bonds to finance their buildings, they receive an additional per-pupil facilities allotment, currently $2,800, which is used to lease buildings or to help secure independent financing. Levy cites a 2008 OSSE study that found charter school facilities are “far more likely to be crowded and to lack adequate educational spaces such as a gymnasium, library, art room or other specialty spaces.” According to 2009 D.C. Council testimony by the Public Charter School Board, the average charter school provided 100 square feet of space per student, much lower than DCPS standards.

 

FOCUS is recommending that the allowance be set at $3,000 per student, with a construction cost inflation escalator to help charters get bank financing for construction.

 

 

 

 

DCPS Receives Illegal Funding [FOCUS is mentioned] 

The Examiner

By Mark Lerner

January 18, 2012

 

The Washington Post's Bill Turque wrote a long piece yesterday about the "Levy Report," a financial analysis comparing D.C.'s public funding of charters and the traditional schools.  The story is interesting in that the study was begun by Ms. Levy at the request of D.C. Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi but the information was never released.  She was then hired by FOCUS and the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools so that the results could be made available to the public.

 

The major finding by Ms. Levy is that each year DCPS receives between $72 and $127 million in funding outside of the Uniform Per Pupil Funding Formula, which is the way by law that each system is supposed to have its revenue level established.  But a couple of other conclusions of her research caught my eye.

In 2011 the City Council mandated that all education costs for DCPS come out of the Uniform Per Pupil formula and that "the Formula not be funded again in other DC agency budgets."  But DCPS receives building maintenance, legal assistance, and I.T. support outside of formula money.  This is clearly against the law.

 

In addition, both charter school and DCPS operating revenues are by legislation to be based upon student enrollment.  However, Ms. Levy determined that DCPS, instead of using an actual student head count as charters do each October, base their number of pupils on an estimate.  This difference in the way DCPS states its enrollment results in an extra $4 million to $45 million a year.

 

The other day I wrote about how charters were being shorted in desperately needed funds by the Gray Administration.  It seems that this was only the tip of the iceberg.

 

 

 

 

Mayor Gray Should Keep Promises on Education Funding 

Greater Greater Washington

By Steven Glazerman

January 17, 2012

 

The DC government found a magic pot of money this year, and it totals $42.2 million according to CFO Natwar Gandhi's latest estimates. 

It's laudable that Mayor Gray wants to put half toward education, according to the Post's Bill Turque. What's not so laudable is his plan to give all the money to DCPS schools and neglect public charter schools.

 

DCPS schools enroll 60% of the city's public school students. They would receive $21.1 million under the mayor's proposal. Meanwhile, public charter schools, which enroll the other 40%, would get nothing.

 

This decision breaks the mayor's campaign promises of funding parity for both district and charter schools. It also violates a 1995 law that allocates money between these two types of public schools using a formula. 

 

A fairer solution would be to allocate those dollars according to the uniform per pupil formula that is already in place. That formula is designed to ensure that each DC school child gets the same amount of funding, regardless of where he or she goes to school.

 

DCPS has completely legitimate funding needs. They want to use the money to increase food service contracts, supplement teacher salaries, and for other personnel costs. DC's public charter schools also have legitimate funding needs. In fact, they have exactly the same needs to feed their students and pay their teachers and other staff.

 

Public charter schools already have costs that don't apply to DCPS schools. For example, a new charter school has to find, buy, and outfit a building, while a DCPS school does not. But all the charter schools want is equal funding and an equal chance to prove their worth, knowing they can lose their charter if they don't perform well in educating their students.

 

Mayor Gray still has time to do what's right and fix this by distributing the newfound revenues in accordance with the existing funding formula. Equal funding for all of DC's public school students is not only good politics, it's the law, and it is in keeping with the promise of One City.

 

 

 

 

D.C. Ranks High Among States With Charter Schools 

NPR News

By Kavitha Cardoza 

January 17, 2012

 

A national charter school advocacy organization has ranked D.C. among the top places in the country for having pro-charter laws. The same report places Maryland and Virginia at the bottom.

 

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranks D.C. 11th of 42 jurisdictions with charter school laws. That's three spots lower on the list than the District ranked last year, according to Todd Ziebarth, vice president of state advocacy and support for the alliance. There are two main reasons, he adds.

 

"Their policies around ensuring that kids in charter schools get the same amount of public funding as kids in traditional schools is severely lacking," Ziebarth says. "At the same time that's been happening, we've seen a number of states significantly improve their laws over the last few years and they've moved ahead in ranking."

 

For example, New Mexico moved from 20th to fourth place and Indiana from 25th to sixth.

 

Maryland is ranked 41st on the list, and Ziebarth says the charter school laws in the state are "weak." Teachers in charter schools are rarely unionized, he points out, which gives principals more flexibility and autonomy. But in Maryland, that's not the case.

 

"It's one of the few states in the nation that require charter schools to be part of district and union collective bargaining agreements," Ziebarth says.

 

Virginia's ranks 37th on the list this year. 

 

"It's a state that passed it's law in '98 and 14 years later, has all of four charter schools," Ziebarth says. "It's similar to Maryland and needs improvement across the board."

 

Maine is ranked first for pro-charter laws while Mississippi was last. 

 

 

 

 

Recession Slows Growth in Public Prekindergarten

The Washington Times

By Kimberly Hefling

January 17, 2012

 

The expansion in public prekindergarten programs has slowed and even been reversed in some states as school districts cope with shrinking budgets. As a result, many 3- and 4-year-olds aren’t going to preschool.

 

Kids from low-income families who start kindergarten without first attending a quality education program enter school an estimated 18 months behind their peers. Many never catch up, and research shows they are more likely to need special education services and to drop out. Kids in families with higher incomes also can benefit from early education, research shows.

 

Yet, roughly a quarter of the nation’s 4-year-olds and more than half of 3-year-olds attend no preschool, either public or private. Families who earn about $40,000 to $50,000 annually face the greatest difficulties because they make too much to quality for many publicly funded programs, but can’t afford private ones, said Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.

 

And as more students qualify for free or reduced lunch — often a qualifier to get into a state-funded prekindergarten program — many families are finding that slots simply aren’t available, he said.

 

In Arizona, a block grant that funded prekindergarten for a small percentage of kids was cut altogether, although a separate public fund still supports some programs. In Georgia, a drop in state lottery dollars meant shaving 20 days off the prekindergarten school year. Proposed cuts in such programs have led to litigation in North Carolina and legislative battles in places like Iowa.

 

But even in states like New York, where state funding available for prekindergarten has remained relatively steady in recent years, fewer children have access to the programs because inflation has made them more expensive or districts can’t come up with the required matching dollars, said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education in Albany, N.Y.

 

Today’s climate contrasts with that of 2007, when then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer promised universal, public prekindergarten for all 4-year-olds. Other governors made similar commitments when the economy was stronger.

 

Far from meeting Spitzer’s goal, just 40 percent of 4-year-olds attend a state-funded prekindergarten program in about two-thirds of the state’s school districts, according to the advocacy group Winning Beginning NY.

 

“I think it’s a moment in time when we have to really push harder,” Easton said. “Pre-K is proven to be the most effective education strategy that we can invest in. What it means is that because we failed to live up to our commitment so far to our youngest children, more of them will end up out of work or they will make less money than they would’ve otherwise and more of them will end up in prison.”

 

Barnett’s institute has estimated it would cost about $70 billion annually to provide full-day prekindergarten to every 3- and 4-year old in America, including before- and after-care services.

 

About 40 states fund prekindergarten programs, typically either in public schools or via funds paid to private grantees, for at least some children. That’s in addition to the federal Head Start program, which is designed to serve extremely poor children and offers a broader range of social services. In some places, state-funded prekindergarten and Head Start programs are combined.

 

Typically, state-funded prekindergarten programs have a narrower focus on education and cognitive development and serve a broader population than the federal Head Start program, which serves nearly 1 million kids.

 

In Wisconsin, school districts that offer prekindergarten to 4-year-olds must offer it universally, and roughly 90 percent of districts do. But budget cuts mean districts are forced to make other changes like increasing the size of pre-K classes.

 

“Unfortunately, as the awareness and the need (for early learning) becomes more and more evident, our money gets tighter and tighter and tighter and more programs are not instituted in those areas,” said Miles Turner, executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators.

 

Three states offer prekindergarten to all 4-year-olds, according to Pre-K Now, a decade-long project of the Pew Center on the States.

 

The District of Columbia goes a step further, with universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds. The program is viewed by many as not just a way to help low-income children in the historically low-performing district, but also as a driver to keep middle- and upper-class families in the city and the school system.

 

At D.C.’s Powell Elementary School, 3- and 4-year-olds sit cross-legged with whiteboards and black markers in hand as teacher Laura Amling belts out, “Up, down, up, down” over classical music. The tots scribble marks similar to an “M” at her command.

 

This program is not child care. The schedule is filled with Spanish and other lessons, including “buddy reading,” with kids describing books to one another.

 

The kids eat breakfast and lunch family style, so they learn proper etiquette. Songs are sung as the children move to activities to help curb behavior problems. Teachers teach children coping skills and make home visits to bond with parents and children.

 

While it’s too early to know the long-term impact, Principal Janeece Docal says kindergarteners with a pre-K background are writing sentences and discussing books with 3rd-grade level content.

 

“They trust their teachers. They love their friends,” Docal said. “They are invested in their education and you can see that they own that classroom.”

 

Over the past decade, state dollars for prekindergarten more than doubled nationally to $5.1 billion, while at the same time access increased from a little more than 700,000 children to more than 1 million, according to Pre-K Now.

 

But cuts in state-funded programs began showing up in the 2009-10 school year, according to Barnett’s group. He said he’s concerned not just that fewer children will be served, but that the quality of the programs will also be affected.

 

Still, early childhood learning advocates say they are encouraged, in part, because of a recent federal emphasis on improving early childhood programs.

 

Nine states were awarded a collective $500 million in grants last month to improve access to and the quality of early childhood programs for kids from birth to age 5. A month earlier, President Barack Obama announced new rules under which lower-performing Head Start programs will have to compete for funding.

 

Not everyone is convinced it’s worth the cost.

 

Chester E. Finn Jr., president of Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, said the government should tightly target its resources on families who really need the prekindergarten programs and otherwise aren’t going to get them.

 

Finn, who has written a book about preschool policy, said Obama’s effort on Head Start is a beginning, but more needs to be done. Finn also questioned whether the government was capable of funding universal prekindergarten at a quality level.

 

“What the universal programs do is they provide an unnecessary windfall for a lot of families that are otherwise doing this on their own just fine, or pretty well, and not enough for kids who really need it,” Finn said.

 

Richard M. Clifford, senior scientist at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said other developed countries — including much of Europe — provide prekindergarten programs.

 

“Kids come into the regular school better prepared to succeed in school,” Clifford said. “In the long term, eventually, I think you’ll see all 4-year-olds be eligible for pre-K in this country, but it will take a long time.”

 

 

 

 

By Lyndsey Layton

January 17, 2012

 

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have built digital warehouses and filled them with academic data for every public school child, but many states are not adequately sharing the information with teachers and parents or using it in sophisticated ways to improve classroom learning, according to a new study.

 

“States have done the hard work of building these systems,” said Aimee R. Guidera, executive director of the Data Quality Campaign, an advocacy group funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “But all this data collection won’t amount to anything if we don’t change the culture and really promote the value and help every single stakeholder — teachers, parents, students, policymakers and taxpayers — have access to this information.”

 

The campaign will release the findings of its study Wednesday at a “data summit” with U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and a panel including former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle A. Rhee.

 

The study found that nearly all states and the District have assigned a unique identification code for each student and collected student-level enrollment, demographic and curriculum data, as well as high school graduation data and college-readiness test results. Nearly all states also can track academic growth from year to year using students’ test scores and audit their data for quality.

 

But just a handful of states are sharing that data with parents, and many have not trained teachers and principals in how to use it to improve classroom learning, the study said. In this region, Maryland and the District have taken four of 10 actions recommended by the campaign, and Virginia has implemented six.

 

Some analysts say the digital warehouses lack important privacy protections.

 

“This is a set of data meltdowns waiting to happen,” said Joel R. Reidenberg, who founded the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham University’s law school. He said most of the state databases include a raft of personal information about students that could easily be obtained by hackers or others without a legitimate claim to the data.

 

The creation of statewide databases began in the 1990s but has leapt forward in the past five years with a push from the federal government. The Obama administration has encouraged states to build data warehouses by awarding more than $500 million in grants through stimulus spending and other funding sources.

 

Federal officials envision data systems that can track student performance from pre-kindergarten through college.

 

The idea is fairly simple: If analyzed correctly, student test data can tell educators what works in the classroom and what needs to change. It can tell administrators where to invest resources and which educators are effective. And it can help parents better understand how their children are learning.

 

Advocates for the use of data are especially interested in “value-added” test results, which show how much a student has grown during a period of time, as opposed to overall proficiency, because they think the growth measure can suggest the effectiveness of a teacher.

 

For Katie Hartley, a junior high math teacher in Casstown, Ohio, a glimpse of “value-added” scores 10 years ago was a revelation. Hartley, who considered herself a good teacher, realized that her high-achieving students were doing well but that low-performing classmates were not growing at a satisfactory rate.

 

“I immediately tried some interventions,” she said. “I would stay after school to help those kids, create weekly math review sheets, challenge some of the lower-achieving students to experience the curriculum at a deeper level — and we had tremendous results the following year.”

 

Some teachers worry that an emphasis on data ignores other progress that can’t be measured on a test, such as emotional and social development. Others are concerned that the data could be used against them.

 

“That’s a rational reaction when you think about how data has been used in the past,” Guidera said. “We have to transform the way we think about data from a hammer that’s going to hurt teachers to a flashlight that’s going to help them.”