- Mayor Must Finance Charter Schools Fairly [Cesar Chavez PCS is mentioned]
- Panel Recommends Shift on School Maintenance Funding [Hospitality PCS is mentioned]
- It's Time to Take the District to Court Over Charter School Funding Equity [FOCUS is mentioned]
- Kaya Henderson: Charters Must be ‘In My Tool Kit’
- Sixty D.C. Classrooms to Be Examined for Potential Cheating
Mayor Must Finance Charter Schools Fairly [Cesar Chavez PCS is mentioned]
The Northwest Current
By Irasema Salcido
March 7, 2012
Being an educator in the District of Columbia also means being an advocate for oneself and one’s school. In that spirit, I accepted a position on the Public Education Finance Reform Commission, created
by legislation when our current mayor was D.C. Council chairman.The commission’s main mandate was to examine the impact of funding inequities between D.C.’s traditional public schools and public charter schools.
After many delays, the commission has finally issued its report. Unfortunately, the final report fell far from achieving the well-intentioned mission.The history of public education in the District —
how it has failed in the past and, more recently, what the city has decided to do to rectify that — is complex. But D.C. law regarding public education financing is not.
The D.C. School Reform Act, the District’s charter school law, was passed in the mid-1990s, when public education in the city had reached its lowest point. It clearly states that charter schools — which are funded publicly but operated independently of D.C. Public Schools — should receive the same per-student funding as D.C.’s city-run schools. Sadly, the city has consistently failed to follow the law in this regard. And now this commission, of which I was a member voting in the minority, has failed to hold our government accountable for this.There are two key dates in the history of the District’s effort to turn around its public education system.
The first is the charter school reform bill in 1996, which allowed educators like myself to open public schools. Under this reform, we are held accountable by an independent charter board, not the city-run school system that failed so many neighborhoods. The second innovation was mayoral control of D.C. Public Schools, which led to school reformer Michelle Rhee being appointed chancellor by former Mayor Adrian Fenty and then her deputy, Kaya Henderson, being appointed by Mayor Vincent Gray.
Sadly, the commission failed to back equitable funding for the first of these reforms. This failure is a tragedy for those children living in D.C.’s many underserved communities. That reform has done so much to transform the educational prospects of children whose need is greatest. Students at D.C.’s public charter schools are 96 percent African-American or Latino, compared to 76 percent of D.C. Public Schools students. Some 75 percent of D.C.’s charter students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch, compared to 67 percent of D.C. Public Schools students.
In 15 years, charters — which enroll 41 percent of D.C. students who are publicly educated — have raised the graduation rate. And from historically disastrous test scores, charters have raised the share of students performing at grade level from 32 to 54 percent in math, and from 39 to 50 percent in reading over the last six years. In D.C. Public Schools, 43 percent of students are at grade level in reading and math.
According to a recent study commissioned by the administration, one-third of charters are high-performing schools, compared to one-fifth of the school system’s campuses. Of these, only six are east of the Anacostia River; all are charters. Surveying how charters have improved public education in the city and the needs they serve, one might wonder why, for example, the city spends nearly twice as much on D.C. Public Schools students in school building funds as on charter students.
This is despite the fact that many charter students are in facilities that lack gymnasiums, auditoriums, cafeterias, playing fields and playgrounds. Or why the total amount of spending and in-kind government services provided outside of the legal formula ranged from $72 million to $127 million over the past several years. At the schools I founded, we work to get kids who start several years behind grade level prepared to succeed in college.
The extra resources the school system receives would be hugely beneficial to our students, who feel the inequity in facility dollars every day, as two of our three buildings do not have a gym, while D.C. Public Schools renovates schools with large gyms and other amenities. The commission has failed, but I remain hard at work on behalf of the city’s disadvantaged children. Will Mayor Gray assist those children who are educated outside of the traditional system, as he promised he would in 2010?
Irasema Salcido is founder and chief executive officer of Cesar Chavez Public Charter School.
Panel Recommends Shift on School Maintenance Funding [Hospitality PCS is mentioned]
The Northwest Current
By Deirdre Bannon
March 7, 2012
A commission established by the D.C. Council to examine potential funding disparities between the city’s traditional public schools and its charter schools recommended last month that the city allocate building
maintenance funds based on individual school needs, rather than student numbers. The recommendation was one of several made by the 15-member D.C. Public Education Finance Reform Commission, which met over three months before releasing a final report in February.
The document states that the needs of individual schools vary greatly, so the schools should be treated differently. “What we discovered as a commission is that the maintenance costs of DCPS are likely to be a lot higher than a typical charter school because they use much older buildings,” said Ed Lazere, executive director of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and chair of the commission. “While the mayor was supplementing DCPS’s maintenance budget, it was because it needed it, not because he wanted to give them more money.”But many charter school proponents, including D.C. Public Charter School Board executive director Scott Pearson, oppose the idea.
“Many tens of millions of dollars of city services are applied to DCPS without being equally applied to public charter schools — the most significant among them is building maintenance,” said Pearson. Under the current system, charter schools pay for building maintenance costs out of their allocation from the city’s per-pupil funding formula. Charter schools can also use part of the additional $3,000 per student they receive for capital costs.Still, Pearson says supplemental funding for the city’s traditional public schools puts charter schools at a disadvantage.
“For FY2012, the mayor is currently on the record as requesting a $25.2 million supplemental appropriation for DCPS. ... If there’s extra money allocated to DCPS, then the equivalent amount should be allocated to charter schools,” he said.
The D.C. Council voted to establish the finance commission in 2010 after charter schools raised just such concerns. Charter backers said implementation of the city’s “Uniform Per Student Funding Formula,” which ties school funding to enrollment numbers, is tilted toward traditional public schools.Some on the commission argued that traditional public schools are actually underfunded when it comes to building maintenance.
“When the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula was set up, it assumed DCPS was using buildings that were in good repair with no deferred maintenance costs,” said commissioner Mary Filardo, executive director of the local nonprofit 21st Century School Fund. “That’s not the case, and as a result, DCPS is underfunded by about 35 percent,” she continued. “Charter schools, on the other hand, start with no obligations and can lease or buy and develop the amount of space they need.” One solution the commission discussed is for traditional public and charter schools to share public school buildings that might not be fully utilized due to low enrollment.
It’s a strategy already in place in one D.C. spot: Hospitality High School occupies the third floor of Roosevelt High School on 13th Street NW. Because the commission didn’t have much time to iron out the complex issues involved — commissioners were appointed in September 2011 and submitted their final report to D.C. Deputy Mayor for Education De’Shawn Wright Feb. 17 — they recommended more study.
Members suggested that the Office of the State Superintendent lead a technical working group to regularly assess the District’s education funding needs and consider whether the city is meeting them. They also recommended that the District conduct a yearlong adequacy study to determine what it actually costs to meet established academic standards. But Filardo questioned whether such a study is needed. “The deputy mayor for education, OSSE, DCPS — they really should have that answer already,” she said.
“They have more cost information than anybody, and they should be doing some analysis of it.” One confusing aspect of funding is that the city’s use of the per-pupil formula doesn’t mean funds allocated for individual students go directly to the schools they attend. Because D.C. Public Schools is considered one school system, Chancellor Kaya Henderson has the authority to distribute the pot of money among the various schools.
Alternatively, each charter school is considered an individual school system (those with multiple campuses are counted as one). Also among the commission’s recommendations — and drawing wider support — was adding weighted funding for schools that serve a high percentage of low income students or students performing below grade level, and providing more transparency so residents can better understand how each school spends its funds. For more information go to pefrc.org
It's Time to Take the District to Court Over Charter School Funding Equity [FOCUS is mentioned]
Examiner
By Mark Lerner
March 8, 2012
Word came out yesterday from FOCUS that the Mayor's 2013 budget includes, once again, a charter school $2,800 per student facility allotment. This, in spite of the fact that charter leaders have been arguing strongly for years for at least a $3,000 floor with DCPS receiving $3,200 to $3,400 per pupil for facilities on an annual basis.
I hope now that everyone recognizes that Mr. Gray's prior assertions that he wants funding equity for charters compared to DCPS to be the sham that they are. He now has had several opportunities to set the record straight which he has passed up without so much as a comment.
1. Mary Levy's report that DCPS receives $72 million to $127 million in funding a year outside of the Uniform Per Pupil Funding Formula which is not provided to charters receives silence from the Administration.
2. The Mayor issues the long-waited study of the District of Columbia Public Education Finance Commission which is silent on the funding inequities between the two public school systems.
3. The Mayor finds an extra $42 million in this year's budget and is silent as to why he gives half to DCPS and none to charter schools.
It now clearly appears that the only way to get this Administration to provide public schools students attending charters the same opportunities that those attending DCPS facilities receive is through the legal system.
The Washington Post
By Bill Turque
March 8, 2012
This is the second part of last week’s Q-and-A with D.C. Chancellor Kaya Henderson. The highlights: why she wants DCPS to be a charter authorizer, possible changes for the IMPACT teacher evaluation system, and her reasons for rebuffing a proposal from food service director Jeff Mills to take all meal preparation in-house--a plan supported by Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), author of the D.C. Healthy Schools Act.
The interview was edited for clarity and length.
BT: When you raised the idea of D.C. regaining chartering authority, it reminded people of the so-so record the District had the last time. What makes you think that it would be better?
KH: When the Board of Education had chartering authority, it was in the beginning of the charter movement here. I don’t think the infrastructure was built out to appropriately support that work. And I don’t believe everybody was on board with this really working. Now we have 10 or 15 years of experience in this city. We’ve seen what it takes to be a good authorizer [the D.C. Public Charter School Board is currently the sole authorizer] and what it takes to be a good oversight body. I think we are committed to schools that have a different level of autonomy.
Here’s the thing. A charter operator is not the key difference. But it’s the conditions under which you do your business. If some of my principals sitting right here in DCPS buildings had those same kinds of autonomies, they would do just as well.
Why is it that we believe the only place smart, good school leaders can do the work is outside of the school district? I want to turn that notion on its head. I don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all model around managing schools. Hire good people and trust them to meet the expectations you set. You have to allow them to do their thing. If the only place they can do their thing is outside the system, then the system is going to continue to produce....
BT Sounds like you have specific principals in mind...
KH: I just know I need every tool in my tool kit to produce a district that is going to be successful. If one of them is providing leaders with autonomy, then I need that. If one of them is attracting high-performing [charter] schools and leaders back into the district, then I need that. I don't know what it’s going to look like just yet. But I believe I’ve got to have the flexibility the same way that principals have the flexibility to determine who is on their staff.
BT: You told the D.C. Council that you anticipated some significant changes to IMPACT next year. Can you tell me a little about them?
KH: Not yet. One of the questions that has come up for both teachers and principals is workload and frequency of observations. To shift the culture from where principals were going into a classroom once a year, maybe, to going in three times a year, we needed to mandate that. Now that it’s becoming practice, we have to ask ourselves whether or not that’s the right number of observations and whether the write-up time [time it takes principals to write reports on their classroom visits] is appropriate.
[Another issue is] what we’ve heard a lot from teachers is that the effective teachers don’t get anything, don't get recognized. So are there things we should be doing for our effective teachers?
BT: So like the Standing Ovation for the highly effective teachers, you have something like a Hearty Handshake for the effective teachers?
KH: Tom Friedman talks about Standing Ovation in his new book, which I think is shocking to people. But he talks about how that ceremony values teachers in a way that we ought to be doing nationally. People have said it’s too much and blah blah and all of that jazz. But I don’t believe that. And I believe we are making an important statement to the teachers that we value most by celebrating them. And we won’t back off of that or cheapen that. The effective teachers, we can figure out what else to do for them. But Standing Ovation is really a key piece of our strategy.
BT: [Questions about the performance of food service contractor Chartwells, the recently issued RFP looking for new vendors, and the Mills proposal, which made its way to Cheh’s desk before it was withdrawn by Henderson]
KH: I think people have disparaged Chartwells in a way that they don’t deserve to be disparaged.We signed a contract with Chartwells and we agreed to a fee structure that doesn’t work for us. If Chartwells prepares 100 meals and only two get eaten, we pay for 100 meals. Two years ago we piloted a different structure with multiple vendors [Revolution Foods and D.C. Central Kitchen]. If only two meals get eaten, we pay for two. That’s a model that works better for us. The RFP is looking for multiple vendors with that model. And Chartwells should absolutely apply.
BT: You haven’t discarded the idea of going totally in-house with food service?
KH: No. My people have gone and done best-practice research. I think it is something we should absolutely look to doing. The problem is you can’t do that overnight. For me jumping in with two feet, at the same time that we’re rolling out a completely new math curriculum, at the same time that we are focusing on our 40 lowest-performing schools and expanding a hybrid learning model across the district, and take on all the responsibilities of test integrity you want me to...Is this worth taking on right now? For me the answer is no. I don’t have all the stuff I need to know and so I can’t guarantee I’m going to deliver in August. And if I don’t deliver, you know and I know that Mary Cheh will be busting my head.
BT: Do you feel that Mills tried to go around you [in making his pitch to Cheh]
KH: You’d have to ask him that.
BT: I’m asking you if you feel like you were circumvented.
KH: I don’t know how it ended up with Mary Cheh. I don’t know it if was a mistake or whether it was intentional. So I can’t say what peoples’ motives are. But I can say this. At the end of the day I’m the person who is responsible, right? And I get all kinds of ideas from my staff. We all sit down together and figure out what we can do and can’t do. And that’s how we roll.
The Washington Examiner
By Lisa Gartner
March 8, 2012
Sixty D.C. Public Schools classrooms are being investigated for possible cheating on 2011 standardized tests -- up from just 18 classrooms in 2010 -- as city officials are now allowing D.C. Public Schools as well as the state schools agency to flag suspected teachers.
The Office of the State Superintendent of Education identified 24 classrooms with unusual numbers of incorrect answers erased and changed to the correct ones, or with unusually high test score gains on the D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System tests. DCPS flagged 36 classrooms using different formulas. The 60 DCPS classrooms to be investigated are spread across 30 schools, and represent 5 percent of all classrooms the DC CAS was administered to in 2011.
In 2010, OSSE asked Caveon Test Security to investigate 18 classrooms. Three of those DCPS classrooms saw their scores thrown out for suspected or confirmed cheating. One teacher was fired, while two left the school system.
"Even one example of impropriety poses a threat to the hard, demanding work that each and every one of our employees puts in on a daily basis," said Cate Swinburn, DCPS chief of data and accountability. "But we in no way should jump to conclusions -- an investigator's presence in a particular school or in [a] particular classroom over the next few months is not an indictment. ..."
A new firm will replace Caveon as the auditor of whether testing irregularities add up to cheating.
Global firm Alvarez & Marsal, selected by OSSE, will investigate the classrooms and report back on any confirmed instances of cheating.
OSSE spokesman Marc Caposino said he could not comment on why OSSE recommended a new firm. "I believe it has something to do with the process of vendors that weren't selected, that's why we can't comment," he said.
DCPS officials said they supported OSSE's recommendation.
John Fremer, president of Caveon, said he was unsure why D.C. was moving in a different direction. Fremer said he had been misquoted in reports claiming that DCPS only let Caveon do a shallow probe; rather, he said, his firm had done everything possible.
Local political analyst Chuck Thies said the city was replacing Caveon because the public still believes cheating in D.C. schools hasn't been investigated thoroughly enough.
"This is politics and this is public relations, and sacrificial lambs are a part of the business," Thies said. "If [Caveon is] getting thrown under the bus and losing business from the District, well, they're a casualty of this war."
Mailing Archive: