Board Testimony

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS NIDA, CHAIR
D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
BEFORE THE D.C. COUNCIL

Performance Hearing for the D.C. Public Charter School Board
February 29, 2008

Good afternoon Chairman Gray, and members of the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole. I am pleased to come before you today to discuss the D.C. Public Charter School Board's Performance.

The D.C. Public Charter School Board, in its eleventh year of operation, is entering a new era of authorizing, accountability, student achievement, and collaboration in this city's public education landscape. We have a great deal to report today; renewed commitments to make, and requests of you, the elected leaders, whose support we must have to best serve the interests of more than 22,000 D.C. students.

PCSB's Growth

The Board began in 1997 with two full-time employees and a $150,000 budget. Board members reviewed 26 charter applications, and approved 10 charter schools, seven of which opened the following year.

Five years later, in 2003, we had seven full time employees, and oversaw 21 schools on 24 campuses, serving 8,641 students. Our budget was $1 million.

Last year, our tenth year, we had 14 employees, 37 schools on 47 campuses serving almost 15,000 students. Our budget was $2 million.

Last summer Mayor Fenty and this Council placed a great deal of confidence in this Board, by giving it oversight responsibility for the 18 charter schools on 23 campuses that were previously approved by the D.C. Board of Education. We accepted that responsibility, and began to incorporate those schools into our established processes shortly after the legislation was passed.

We grew to 18 employees, overseeing 56 schools on 82 campuses, serving more than 22,000 students, and a budget of $3 million for this year.

Central Michigan University, another authorizer with a similar reputation for high quality work, oversees 58 schools on more than 70 campuses, serving 30,000 students, with 38 full-time employees and a $5million budget.

With this growth, our cost to tax payers is still miniscule as a part of the total charter school budget of $323 million, and the total D.C. public education budget of $1.2 billion.

PCSB Oversight Performance

The PCSB has always aligned its performance objectives closely with the Board's mission, and the requirements of the DC Charter Law known as the D.C. School Reform Act of 1996. Our mission involves four key functions:
  1. A rigorous application process
  2. A comprehensive system of academic, management, compliance, and financial reviews of charter schools
  3. Technical support to address systemic challenges; and,
  4. Information exchange with the many stakeholders who impact or are impacted by what we do.
I will share our assessment of the D.C. Public Charter School Board's performance objectives and outcomes, with this mission in mind.

Applications for New Charters

The charter law requires that we accept new applications each year, and that each authorizer may approve up to ten new charters each year. Our rigorous application review process is designed to grant charters only to non-profit organizations with highly-qualified founders, experienced school leaders, research-based academic programs, and well-conceived management plans. It involves expert panel reviews, interviews, and public hearings. Historically, we have approved 34% of all applications.

Last year, we received 13 applications, conditionally approved six to open this fall, and rescinded the approval of one of the six applications. With the increasing percentage of D.C. students enrolling in charter schools, and fewer waiting lists at charter schools, we are approaching saturation. We realize that, going forward, we may expand the criteria for approval of new schools, to include factors such as neighborhood concentrations of traditional and charter schools, established needs for particular types of programs, and availability of appropriate facilities.

Charter School Accountability

Lately, we have heard many misinformed statements about the lack of charter school accountability. Quite frankly, when we hear it coming from members of this Council, we get concerned that we have inadequately informed you of our comprehensive accountability systems. We are even more concerned that community members may be misinformed by hearing these statements coming from their elected officials. I would like to take this opportunity to provide clarification about this issue of charter school accountability, and at the end of this testimony I can answer any questions that will give the Council the assurance it needs that we are indeed holding charter schools to higher standards of accountability, in exchange for the autonomy they enjoy.

We feel our strength is in our accountability systems. The D.C. Charter Law requires us to hold charter schools to very specific accountability standards. The Federal No Child Left Behind legislation adds another layer of accountability, which we have incorporated into our accountability system. The reason our oversight practices are considered among the best in the country among authorizers is that our execution is systematic, comprehensive, and fair. Most importantly, our analyses and judgments are made with the interests of children in mind, before the interests of adults or institutions. Each school has an assigned PCSB program manager who oversees each school's performance through the following school reviews:
  • Self-Study Reviews during each school's first year;
  • Program Development Reviews - review the quality of the academic program; schools may undergo annual program development reviews each year, until their reviews show consistent progress and quality. Schools that consistently receive high ratings in each category are scheduled to be reviewed in the third and fifth year of the five-year cycle.
  • Special Education Quality Reviews - review quality of special education programs and services for students identified with special needs. Schools that consistently provide high quality special education services are reviewed every three years. Schools that do not demonstrate high quality are reviewed as warranted.
  • Compliance Reviews - ensure that schools are in full compliance with all applicable local and federal laws and regulations. Every campus of every charter school undergoes a compliance review each year.
  • High School Transcript Reviews - verify that high school students complete all courses required for graduation before the PCSB signs off on diplomas. All high schools are reviewed.
  • Financial Management Reviews - includes first-year financial management reviews, monthly or quarterly financial statement reviews, and annual fiscal audit reviews, to ensure that charter schools are using public funds appropriately. All fiscal audits are produced by independent auditors, reviewed by staff and consultants, and forwarded to the Chief Financial Officer for further review.
  • Charter Review - the high stakes review every five years, that determines whether a charter school will be allowed to continue another five years, or have its charter revoked. Every school undergoes charter review after each five year period of operation. A preliminary charter review gives schools a warning based on four years of performance in the fifth year if they are in danger of losing their charter. Also, the amended Education Reform Act of 2007 allows the PCSB to initiate revocation proceedings at any time during the life of the charter.
In addition to these reviews, the PCSB reviews all contracts over $25,000; must approve all enrollment increases, location changes, and additional campuses; as well as any substantial changes to school curricula or program offerings. Charter schools are also required to submit daily attendance and truancy data through our Online Attendance Management System, as well as written documentation of all suspensions over 5 days, and expulsions.

During FY 2007 PCSB staff and consultants completed all scheduled reviews, completed written reports for each review, and reported any schools that showed deficiencies to the Board for possible board action. They completed:
  • 19 program development reviews;
  • 6 self-study reviews;
  • 46 compliance reviews;
  • 22 special education reviews;
  • 16 transcript reviews;
  • 5 financial management reviews;
  • 37 fiscal audit reviews;
  • 148 financial statement reviews;
  • 1 preliminary charter review; and,
  • 3 five-year charter reviews.
In total, the PCSB conducted 303 oversight reviews during FY07. Based on documented reviews, the Board issued sanctions against 8 schools.

In addition, the Board decided on 50 school approval requests related to charter amendments, enrollment ceiling increases, location changes or additions, accountability plan revisions, and technology plans, during monthly meetings. For the tenth consecutive year, the PCSB met all of its oversight goals.

School Closing

The Board did not revoke any charters during the 2006-2007 school year. However, this year one school relinquished its charter at the beginning of the school year, due to underenrollment. Additionally, we did facilitate our first mid-year closing, this year, as a result of the transition of charter schools previously authorized by the Board of Education. The closing of Washington Academy came about because of our oversight practices. Soon after Mayor Fenty's reform legislation was passed in June 2007, we accepted responsibility for the schools previously under the Board of Education's authority. When schools opened in the fall, we immediately began with financial management reviews, followed by academic and compliance reviews of those schools.

Our staff quickly determined that Washington Academy was operating in a deficit, and had failed to pay payroll taxes. After further investigation, it became clear that the school would run out of cash before the end of March 2008. We made the decision to facilitate the school's closing before March 1st, in order to minimize the disruption for the students. Rather than simply close the school and leave 250 students and their parents to find other placements mid-year, we asked charter schools with solid financial positions and proven academic programs, to submit proposals to extend their programs to Washington Academy students, in the same school buildings.

Howard Road Academy, an award-winning school that has made AYP the past two years, and has its main campus in Southeast, was chosen to expand to the former Washington Academy locations. With this solution, we were able to offer students a better academic program, with new school leaders, while keeping the students and many of the teachers together at least until the end of the school year. Further, we were able to engage the parents in the process, and though they were deeply disappointed at first, we hope we conveyed to them that our actions were made with the best interests of their children in mind.

Technical Assistance

As part of our oversight processes, we try to identify systemic issues that might be addressed with technical assistance resources. We also provide support to schools so that they are able to meet our compliance and reporting requirements. We have sponsored programs such as standards-based planning and instructional training, special education training for regulatory compliance, NCLB compliance, and governance training for school trustee boards, among other programs. In total, we offered at least eight different training opportunities to help schools understand and meet our oversight standards. Several years ago, we developed a Fiscal Policy Handbook and a Policies and Procedures Manual, both of which are revised each year, so that schools have standard guidance for their financial reporting and operational compliance requirements.

Stakeholder Engagement

A large part of our stakeholder engagement activities include informing stakeholders about our work, and most importantly about school and student outcomes.

The Board produces a printed Annual Report which describes all of the board's activities, including application review process and outcomes, accountability processes and outcomes, technical assistance, outreach efforts, and all board decisions. We publish the annual School Performance Reports, which provide detailed information on each school under the Board's authority, including school profiles, summaries of reviews, test data, NCLB and AYP report cards, and any board actions related to the school. All board publications are mailed to key stakeholders, and community members who request it, and are available for download on our website. They are hand-carried or delivered to each member of the Council and the Mayor, or their designated representatives.

Our website www.dcpubliccharter.com has an exhaustive array of information for those who have internet access. It provides basic information like profiles of our board members, contact information for our staff members, board meeting dates, the list and description of charter schools, and an explanation of the enrollment process. It also provides more complicated information such as data for media and researchers, per pupil formulas, school performance and accountability, the charter application process, as well as news releases, board decisions, a visitor survey, and frequently asked questions, among many other features. The website is updated daily, and is adapted to the needs and requests of our stakeholders. We are planning substantial improvements to our website that will allow us to post even more information, facilitate more interaction with community members, meet stakeholders' needs for greater transparency.

We maintain an ever-expanding email listserv, which we use to keep community members informed of key board events and decisions, such as new school approvals, public hearings, charter revocations, and community meetings.

Those without internet or email access may call our offices at 202/328-2660 (for the benefit of those watching). The telephone is always answered by one of three staff people who are prepared to answer common questions, and will connect callers to the appropriate person if they are unable to answer their question.

The Board asks for public input every time it makes a key decision regarding charter schools. We ask for input from community members on decisions regarding charter applications, amendments, five-year reviews, and revocations. All of our monthly meetings are open to the public, and all public hearings are publicized in the Washington Post and on our website. We are looking forward to working with OSSE and the Office of Cable Television to have our meetings televised for residents who are unable to personally attend the meetings.

A major goal of this board is to meet regularly with the Mayor and each councilmember and/or their designated staff members, so that we can keep you abreast of the major issues that affect charter school performance, and impact the overall education landscape. We would also like to build upon our collaborative relationships with Chancellor Rhee and Superintendent Gist, and develop some shared objectives, that can benefit all of the stakeholders in the overall public education system.

PCSB Accountability

Just as we hold the schools under our oversight accountable for sound fiscal stewardship and quality performance outcomes, we expect to be held to those same standards by our stakeholders. Our annual fiscal audits, conducted by independent auditors, have been unqualified every year of our operation. We look forward to the upcoming financial performance hearings to share in more detail the quality of our financial stewardship. Each year we have succeeded in meeting or exceeding all of the requirements of the D.C. Charter Law, as well as our own goals and standards for high quality authorizing.

Opportunties for Improvement

Throughout our history, we have remained reflective about improving our processes, in ways that are the least distracting and inhibiting to charter schools, but enable us to comprehensively evaluate how well students are being served. We have received input from all of our stakeholders, most importantly students, parents, and school leaders. That input has enabled us to revise policies, or adapt new ones, and develop practices that are sensitive to school needs, and supportive of student achievement.

We recognize that many stakeholders have been challenged when trying to compare and contrast the benefits and values of individual schools. Considering the depth of information available about each school, we realize that sorting through it all can be a daunting task for busy, working parents, community members, and public officials. We are finishing the development of a comprehensive overall performance evaluation that goes far beyond Adequate Yearly Progress. The tool, called the GPA, will evaluate academic, financial, and governance performance, using objective measures across all schools. Though each school is unique and establishes its own accountability goals, these objective measures will enable the Board to develop a ranking system that will be first discussed with each school, then published for public review.

We continue to invite input from community members, and elected and appointed officials about how the D.C. Public Charter School Board can improve upon its work. We recommit ourselves each year to reflective practice and proactive efforts that will ultimately serve the best interests of D.C. students.

Support Needed from the Council

We have identified several ways that the D.C. City Council can support the work of our Board, as a way to improve the charter school options for D.C. residents.

Safety Nets

In ten years of authorizing, it has become clear that, like traditional public schools, charter schools need safety nets. There are two particular areas of unaddressed needs directly affecting students.

The first is an alternative site for long-term suspensions. Most often when a charter school student is disciplined with a long-term suspension, they must remain at home for the length of the suspension. DCPS, as an LEA, pays for its own CHOICE alternative program, for DCPS students on long-term suspension. It would not be cost-effective, or even affordable for most charter schools, which are each LEAs, to establish their own alternative programs. Without a solution to this challenge, these students find themselves in compounding troubles, which become challenges for law enforcement, communities, or neighborhood schools, where parents often transfer their children rather than allow them to remain unsupervised for the duration of the suspension. We would like to work with the Council, the Office of the State Superintendent to develop a viable alternative for charter school students, so they are not out of school and unsupervised during long-term suspensions.

The other needed safety net is in short-term financial reserves. Charter schools are not allowed to operate in a deficit, and they are not given the opportunity to request budget supplements. Occasionally, schools have to deal with delayed payments or other financial hardships that are out of their control. Schools that are otherwise using responsible financial management practices, but find themselves in short-term cash crunches, could benefit from a financial safety net. A relatively small reserve fund, for bridge loans, could be managed by the PCSB and/or OSSE.

Facilities

Though it's been said before, we can't stress enough how charter schools, and more importantly their students, could benefit from the support of the Council and the Mayor, with access to vacant or underutilized school or city buildings. The argument has been made many times about how everyone can benefit from allowing charter schools to access these facilities. The millions of public dollars being paid to private landlords, and used for capital improvements on privately leased buildings could be used to benefit taxpayers. Furthermore, community members express concern to members of this Council and our Board when buildings that were not intended to be places of learning as used to house charter schools. Everyone wins when the tax dollars, and the facilities stay in the public realm. Students and communities are the greatest beneficiaries of beautiful school buildings situated in neighborhoods that can support the students. On behalf of the 22,000 charter school students and their parents, we ask for your support for charter school access to unused or underused city buildings.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, we believe that we have demonstrated our effectiveness as an independent authorizer, and as an integral part of the DC public school system. With limited resources we have effectively managed steady growth of charter schools, and our oversight of those schools, for the last decade. We often say in board meetings that this is attributable to having the best staff in this city. We hope that the Council will recognize and support the D.C. Public Charter School Board as one of the most cost-effective and productive independent agencies in the D.C. Government, and will support us continuing in this role. Thank you for the opportunity to report our progress. I invite any questions you may have at this time.

Testimony Graphs

Please click here for graphs related to PCS annual growth.