June 16, 2004 Chairperson Linda W. Cropp Councilmember Harold
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
June 16, 2004 Chairperson Linda W. Cropp Councilmember Harold Brazil Councilmember Carol Schwartz Councilmember David A. Catania Councilmember Phil Mendelson Chairman Pro Tempore Jack Evans Councilmember Kathleen Patterson Councilmember Adrian Fenty Councilmember Vincent B. Orange, Sr. Councilmember Sharon Ambrose Councilmember Kevin P. Chavous Councilmember Sandy (Sandra) Allen Mayor Anthony A. Williams Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President, District of Columbia Board of Education C. Vannessa Spinner, District of Columbia State Education Office Dear Councilmembers, Mayor Williams, President Cafritz and State Education Officer Spinner, The Washington Post recently reported that the next superintendent of schools might be given authority to manage both the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) and the State Education Office (“SEO”). While we are pleased that the Mayor has decided to withdraw his takeover proposal and support extension of the current hybrid board, our research suggests that consolidating authority over DCPS and the SEO will only worsen the conflicts of interest inherent in DCPS’ overseeing both itself and the District’s public charter schools. The SEO was intended to administer state- level educational functions impartially. We urge you to keep the SEO’s intended purpose in mind as you consider whether to vest responsibility for local and state educational duties in one person. We also reiterate our hope that the Council _______________________ 1 Valerie Strauss, Education Office Chief Resigning, Washington Post B1 (June 10, 2004). 2 As you know, our interest in school governance issues is longstanding. In a 1999 report, we considered the appropriate functions of local school boards, differing ways of selecting board members, and rationalization of responsibility for state-level educational functions then performed by DCPS in its role as a state education agency. That report was one factor that led to the creation of the current “hybrid” Board of Education. In an October 21, 2003 letter to Councilmember Kevin Chavous, we recommended that DCPS transfer its state-level functions to the SEO (this letter is attached). Most recently, in January of this year, we testified to the same effect before the City Council. will transfer authority for state-level educational functions from DCPS to the SEO. 3 I. Consolidating Authority over DCPS and the SEO Would Perpetuate the Conflict of Interest that DCPS Currently Faces. In our 1999 report and our letter of October 21, 2003 to Councilmember Chavous, DC Appleseed urged the Council to separate state and local educational functions in order to eliminate the conflict of interest between DCPS and the charter schools, and to allow the school system to focus on its core mission – educating students. DCPS competes with charter schools for students and funding. When DCPS acts as the state education agency (“SEA”) for charter schools, it has an inherent conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the SEA function and is perceived to prejudice the charter schools. This conflict – in and of itself – suggests that the Council should transfer fundamental SEA functions away from DCPS. Until recently, the merger of state and local functions under one agency was less problematic because DCPS was the only local school district in the District of Columbia. Today, however, there are 48 charter schools in the District, serving 18% of public school students in the District. Those numbers will increase next year. The legislation that establishes charter schools treats each charter as its own LEA – responsible for applying for and managing grants; developing and implementing personnel policies; planning curriculum; and promulgating all local school policies.4 In some other cities, local school systems act as chartering authorities. Those systems, however, are structured to avoid conflicts of interest. In DC, charter schools were designed to compete with DCPS and thereby to provoke improvements in the public school system.5 This is because the District’s system of calculating school funding on an enrollment formula creates an incentive for schools to keep students, while the open enrollment policy mandated by the charter school legislation6 means that any student can enroll in any charter school if there is space. Since the advent of the charter schools in 1997, DCPS enrollment has 3 Contributors to this letter include: Deborah Spitz, DC Appleseed Center; Mary Levy, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights; Nicholas Fels, Covington & Burling; Aaron Lewis, University of Michigan Law School; and Gary Ratner, Citizens for Effective Schools (affiliations listed for purpose of identification only). 4 D.C. Code § 38-102.00, et seq. Charter schools are treated as LEAs for almost all purposes, including Title I, the largest federal education grant for schools and districts serving low-income children. The principal exception is that charter schools elect whether or not to designate themselves LEAs solely for purposes of IDEA, the federal legislation providing for special education grants. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq. DCPS has chosen to treat charter schools as separate LEAs for all grant-making purposes. 5 See, e.g., Jay P. Greene & Greg Forster, Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio, Civic Bulletin 27, New York, NY: Manhattan Institute (2002) (concluding that increased exposure to choice increased public school test scores); see also Dan Goldhaber, School Choice as Education Reform: What Do We Know? ERIC Digest 165, available at http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed455342.html. 6 D.C. Code § 38-1802.06(a)(b). 2 decreased by nearly 10,000 students. At an average of at least $7,500 per student in revenue, DCPS is now foregoing approximately $75 million dollars per year in per-pupil funding.7 Given this competition for dollars, DCPS has an inherent conflict of interest when, acting as SEA, it makes funding-related determinations involving charter schools. Such decisions are frequent: DCPS is responsible for establishing the actual criteria used for the distribution of most federal grants; conducting competitions for grants between itself and individual charter schools; applying for federal grants with the option of designating itself either an SEA or an LEA (depending on which is more advantageous); and monitoring the use of federal funds by itself and charter schools. Nor is the concern about conflicts limited to competition for funding. Conflicts arise when DCPS is required to monitor both itself and the charter schools for compliance with federal laws. For example, the No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) requires the SEA to take corrective action against local school districts that fail to meet state-established criteria. Putting the Board of Education – or the Superintendent who answers to the Board – in control of charter school funding or operations would, we believe, conflict with federal law. The D.C. School Reform Act of 1995, federal legislation that established charter schools in the District, specifically exempted charter schools from the Board of Education’s authority, stating that “[a] public charter school: (A) Shall exercise exclusive control over its expenditures, administration, personnel, and instructional methods, within the limitations imposed in this subchapter; and (B) Shall be exempt from District of Columbia statutes, policies, rules and regulations established for the District of Columbia public schools by the Superintendent, Board of Education, Mayor, District of Columbia Council … except as otherwise provided in the school’s charter or this subchapter.8 In addition, the Reform Act provides that “[t]he Board of Education may not direct a public charter school in the school’s use of funds under part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.”9 Both these provisions address authority generally exercised by state education agencies over local school districts, and clarify Congress’ intent that the Board of Education and DCPS are to be prohibited from exercising any state-level authority10over public charter schools. 7 According to data provided by the SEO and Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS), DCPS enrollment in School Year 1997 was 77,111. In 2002, the enrollment was 67,522. While charter school enrollment in School Year 2002 was approximately 11,500, it cannot be concluded that all of those students would have otherwise gone to a DCPS school. See Jay Mathews, “Charter Schools Keep Public School Enrollment Up,” Washington Post, July 15, 2003. Total public school enrollment in the District has remained stable for the last twelve years, despite a significant decline in the birthrate. 8 D.C. Code § 38-1802.04(c)(3). 9 D.C. Code § 38-1802.10(a)(4). 10 As a charter school authorizing agency, the Board of Education has the authority to grant charters and to renew or revoke those charters; however, these responsibilities are narrowly defined by the School Reform Act and do not apply to all charter schools in the District. See D.C. Code § 38-1802.11,12,13. 3 II. The Council Should Transfer State Educational Functions to the SEO. State standards and accountability systems under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The District combines state and local functions in DCPS. In contrast, all states, with the exception of Hawaii,11 have separate state and local education systems. With the enactment of NCLB,12 this separation has become increasingly important because that law requires SEAs