FOCUS DC News Wire10/8/2014

Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS) is now the DC Charter School Alliance!

Please visit www.dccharters.org to learn about our new organization and to see the latest news and information related to DC charter schools.

The FOCUS DC website is online to see historic information, but is not actively updated.

  • Charter schools sue for more funding, and the result could be a setback for home rule [FOCUS, Eagle Academy PCS, and Washington Latin PCS mentioned]
  • D.C. Council approves special-education bills, aims to speed delivery of services
  • Study: New York preschool push benefits wealthier families first

Charter schools sue for more funding, and the result could be a setback for home rule [FOCUS, Eagle Academy PCS, and Washington Latin PCS mentioned]
Greater Greater Washington
By Natalie Wexler   
October 7, 2014

A group of charter schools claims the DC government spends about $2,000 less per student on the charter sector than on DC Public Schools each year, in violation of federal law. Opponents say that requiring strict equality in funding between the sectors makes no sense.

But if a federal court buys the charters' legal argument, its decision could have far-reaching implications not only for education in DC but also for the issue of home rule in general.

The DC Association of Chartered Public Schools, which represents 39 charter schools, filed a complaint in federal court in July along with two individual charters, Eagle Academy and Washington Latin. The schools say the District has shortchanged the charter sector by more than $770 million over the past eight years.

The group is not seeking to recover that amount, but it does want the court to order DC to fund the two sectors equally in the future. The group claims the DC School Reform Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996, required the DC Council to create a per-pupil funding formula that is the same for both DCPS and charters, and not to supplement that amount with any additional funds for DCPS.

"Nobody really wants to sue," says Robert Cane, executive director of a charter advocacy organization called FOCUS. But, he says, the charter community has been trying to negotiate with DC on the funding issue for many years, without success.

Last week, the DC Office of the Attorney General (OAG) asked the court to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that even if the funding is unequal—something DC isn't conceding—the DC Council had the right to amend the federal statute under the Home Rule Act.

Legal issues and home rule

Everyone agrees that under the Home Rule Act, passed in 1973, Congress delegated legislative control to the DC Council over local matters like education. All legislation in these areas passed by the Council goes to Congress for a 30-day review period, but if Congress doesn't act, the legislation goes into effect.

But the charters argue that when Congress passed the School Reform Act 23 years later, it was reclaiming the legislative authority over DC granted to it by the US Constitution. That means, they say, that the DC Council has no authority to change fundamental provisions of the Act. The District says this argument is a "novel" one that has no basis in the law. The charter group will file its response to DC's legal arguments in November.

Some observers argue that the charter group's interpretation of the law would be unworkable. Under their view, says Matt Frumin, a DC education activist, "in order for the District to make any significant modifications to education, we would need to have a law passed by two houses of Congress and signed by the President."

Cane counters that congressional action is only needed for "substantive changes that violate the letter of the law or the intent of Congress," not for "technical fixes." But Frumin responds that that the School Reform Act doesn't make that distinction. Nor, he says, is it clear who would decide what is "substantive" and what is merely "technical."

Different sectors have different costs

Aside from the legal issues, some say there are policy reasons to treat charters and DCPS differently. A DC-commissioned study released last year found that it was impossible to compare costs in the two sectors accurately. Each charter school has its own accounting system, and DCPS has yet a different one.

While the study acknowledged that DCPS gets more funding per pupil, it also concluded that DCPS's per pupil costs are much higher. Not only does DCPS, unlike the charter sector, need to pay union wages, it also has to maintain a lot of unused space because it's required to serve all grade levels in every neighborhood. The study estimated that DCPS needs only about 70% of the space it's currently maintaining.

DCPS schools also include facilities like pools and auditoriums that serve other community purposes. And DCPS buildings also tend to be older than those used by charters and more expensive to maintain.

Given the sectors' different cost structures, Frumin argues that charter advocates "are saying either give DCPS less than it needs to succeed, or give charters more, in the name of mathematical parity." Instead, he says, schools should be funded on the basis of what they actually need to educate children well.

Robert Cane of FOCUS responds that DCPS hasn't been forthcoming about its true operational expenses, and that the numbers the school system puts out have varied wildly. "This is all made up after the fact," he says.

Cane acknowledges that the per-pupil allotment for charters in DC is generous compared to what charters get in many other jurisdictions, but he says that's not the issue.

"It's very expensive to educate these kids," he says. "We have more poor and minority kids than DCPS has. If we have more of these kids, why should we have less money?"

The implications of the lawsuit

But the federal district court isn't considering these policy questions. It's only concerned with the law. If the court sides with the charter group and requires strict equality in funding, the result will be either that DCPS funding goes down or charter funding goes up.

If DCPS loses funding, it will have an even tougher time competing with the charter sector. If charter funding goes above its current relatively generous level, even more charter operators may be drawn to the District, and the charter sector's share of students could grow well above the 44% it stands at now.

Beyond that, the charter group's interpretation of the law of home rule would significantly limit DC's autonomy. If the courts accept the charters' argument, any time Congress passes legislation specifically directed at the District, DC authorities will lose their ability to change that law and then interpret congressional silence as acquiescence.

DC's charter sector has some legitimate grievances, especially when it comes to the difficulty of finding suitable space for schools. And no doubt charters here could find good uses for additional funds.

But it's far from clear they need more money to do a good job of educating their students. DC's charter sector was recently declared the best in the nation by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. And most charters here have a comfortable financial cushion, with the sector as a whole listing $283 million in assets at the end of fiscal year 2013.

Given those circumstances, it's difficult to see why they would choose to jeopardize DC's hard-won legislative autonomy in a bid for more funding.

D.C. Council approves special-education bills, aims to speed delivery of services
The Washington Post
By Michael Alison Chandler 
October 7, 2014

The D.C. Council has unanimously approved a trio of bills designed to overhaul special-education services in the city, aiming to speed delivery of services to students with special needs and give parents better information and resources they can use to advocate for their children.

Special-education advocates said the bills, nearly a year in the making and approved Tuesday, will move the District closer to the services that higher-performing school districts and private schools provide to their students.

“I feel like we won a victory for D.C. special-needs kids and their parents today,” said Greg Masucci, a father who has struggled for many years to secure appropriate services for his 7-year-old son, who has autism.

David A. Catania (I-At Large), the council’s Education Committee chairman and the bills’ sponsor, called the legislation a “historic” response to long-standing problems.

“I have heard the desperation of parents, overwhelmed by the challenge of securing an adequate education for their children” and the “frustration of educators and school leaders, who don’t have the resources they need to serve their students,” said Catania, who is running for mayor.

More than 13,000 students in the District have disabilities that affect their education. The city has made strides during the past several years to improve services, adding dozens of special-education classrooms and reducing the number of students with disabilities who attend private schools at taxpayer expense. The number of due process complaints also has declined, but the quality of services remains a fundamental concern.

One in 5 special-education students in the city are proficient in reading and about 1 in 4 are proficient in math, according to 2014 city standardized tests. The U.S. Education Department classifies the city as a “high-risk” grantee that requires monitoring.

The legislation reduces the amount of time it should take between when a child is referred for special-education evaluation and when that evaluation must take place, from 120 days — currently the longest waiting time in the nation — to 60 days.

The bills expand eligibility requirements for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with developmental delays, opening such services to more children before elementary school begins.

For older students, the law requires schools to begin planning for the transition to adulthood earlier, when a student turns 14. The District currently starts the process when students are 16, which families say is too late for teens who need substantial support. The measures are slated to be implemented during the next three years to give schools time to prepare for the extra responsibilities and costs.

Early and timely intervention is key, Masucci said. He said it took a year after his son, then 2, was referred for a special-education evaluation to get a diagnosis that allowed them to pursue the services he needed.

“That could have been a critical year,” he said. “Months matter. Days matter. Weeks matter.”

Another bill improves parents’ access to information so they can advocate more effectively for their children. It requires that they receive relevant documents five days in advance of special education meetings, and it gives parents or experts the right to observe children in current or proposed classrooms.

It also shifts the burden of proof away from parents during due process hearings, requiring schools to demonstrate that placements are appropriate. If parents prevail, the law allows them to be reimbursed for expert witness fees, within limits established to prevent abuse.

The third bill makes it possible for charter schools to give preference in enrollment lotteries for students with a particular disability, encouraging charter schools to develop targeted programs. And it safeguards unspent special education funds — which have traditionally been used for private school tuition — so they instead can be used to improve the city’s special-education services.

Some advocates said they appreciated the collective process Catania used in drafting the legislation; it involved hundreds of hours of meetings and hearings with parents, experts and education officials from charter, private and traditional schools.

“We’re really happy that everyone came to the table for this,” said Lisa Ott, executive director for the D.C. Association for Special Education, an alliance of private and charter schools that provide special-education services. “We really think special education in the city is going to improve because of this legislation.”

Study: New York preschool push benefits wealthier families first
The Washington Post
By Michael Alison Chandler 
October 8, 2014

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s push to provide universal preschool to the city’s 4-year-olds has so far disproportionately benefited children from middle- and upper-income families, according to a report released Wednesday that the mayor’s office is disputing.

In the first year of expansion, the number of pre-kindergarten seats in the city’s public schools increased by 36 percent in Zip codes where families earn more than the city’s average income of $51,865, according to the analysis of city data by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley. That was more than twice the rate of growth in the poorest quartile of city Zip codes, the report found.

The report questions whether the new slots are being allocated fairly and whether the imbalance could exacerbate the inequalities and achievement gap that the program seeks to address.

“The evidence is quite strong that pre-k lifts kids from poor communities. It’s much weaker in that it lifts kids from affluent or middle-class families,” said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy who directed the study and who has advocated for targeting preschool expansion efforts to poor children. “If we are going to move toward universal pre-k, let’s ramp it up carefully.”

De Blasio campaigned on a pledge to provide free, full-day pre-kindergarten for all of the city’s 4-year-olds. His push echoed national efforts to expand access to preschool to help children prepare for the increasing academic rigors of elementary school.

Wiley Norvell, City Hall spokesman, said that the Berkeley study is based on “errors and false assumptions.” Comparing the percent growth in various Zip Codes is ultimately misleading, he said, because many poor neighborhoods already had high numbers of prekindergarten seats.

“Our pre-K expansion is reaching thousands of low-income families in its first year and is providing this free, life-changing opportunity to families in greatest need,” he said.

The District funds universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds. President Obama has been advocating for government-funded preschool programs for all children from low- and middle-income families, as education experts believe such programs can be tied to lasting social and emotional gains.

The New York mayor battled the state legislature to secure the necessary funds during his first nine months in office, and he then pushed for universal expansion within two years.

De Blasio’s administration added more than 23,000 slots, a combination of new full-day seats and the conversion of half-day seats to full day, by the start of this school year in public schools or community organizations, the report said. It was a significant boost from the 58,528 previous seats.

But higher-income neighbors and boroughs benefited the most from the first year’s roll out, the study found.

In the Bronx, the city’s poorest borough with a median household income of $32,568 in 2010, there was a 10 percent increase in the number of pre-k slots in school-based programs. By contrast, Queens, with a median income of $53,052, had a 36 percent increase in seats. Staten Island, with a median income of $70,560, had a 63 percent increase.

Community-based organizations host more than half of the new pre-k seats, but the study showed that the new seats were more concentrated in wealthier areas.

W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University who has seen the report, also questioned the geographically based analysis and said it could be misleading, since it does not reflect the actual number of low-income studnets that are served in each place.

The report suggests that the imbalance is tied to the greater availability of classroom space in more affluent neighborhoods and a stronger demand expressed by more economically secure families.

Fuller, who has studied preschool access across the country, said that middle-class mothers who work outside the home full time have been vocal advocates for preschool. “The demand is much softer in poorer communities,” he said, where mothers work part-time or irregular hours.

Mailing Archive: