Every year since 1995 funding for the charter school sector has grown. Now, in the FY19 budget, the District of Columbia budget includes nearly $1 billion which goes to the over 60 D.C. private not-for-profit organizations that have been awarded charters by the D.C. Public Charter School Board (PCSB). Even as the sector impacts far more than education, at every turn the PCSB has objected to Council regulation. The theory is that granting and revoking charters under the halo of “school choice” is a virtuous self-regulating system.
In testimony before the Council in favor of a sparsely worded “Public Charter School Closure Amendment Act of 2019,” Public Charter School Board Director, Scott Pearson stated that “Over the next two school years, DC PCSB will conduct a high-stakes review of 29 different public charter schools. Some of these reviews could result in a school closure.” He alludes to problems with revoking charters. Pearson reports, without specifics, of charter boards providing golden parachutes to administrators, teachers leaving mid-year, and students’ education suffering from closings. He alludes to real estate issues. Director Pearson is right that these problems need to be addressed, and that they are outside the scope of the PCSB’s current powers.
Uncharacteristically, he asks for authority to reduce charter autonomy. The Closure Amendment would give the Public Charter School Board the authority to “…impose such interim conditions as it determines reasonably necessary…” when revoking a charter. The PCSB is seeking authority over the students in the closing schools; their cash reserves, which could be in the millions; and their real estate (much of which is former DCPS buildings). It is silent about their long-term debt, which is close to $1 billion for all D.C. charters.
This proposal is not a technical fix. These proposed changes, given the size and footprint of the charter sector, will affect families, residents, taxpayers, charter operators, and DCPS dramatically. Before the Charter School Board’s powers are increased, the Council needs to:
- Ask the PCSB to specifically identify and document problems associated with revoking charters;
- Request that the DC Auditor audit each of the previous 40 charter closings;
- Make the report(s) public and hold an open discussion about the problems of revocation;
- Entertain proposals for remedies that address the problems, including who should be responsible for them;
- Draft legislation that addresses the problems; and
- Hold hearings on the legislation.
The District of Columbia system of public education is complicated, and the Council often characterizes taking responsibility for public education as “micromanaging,” so it is no wonder the PCSB is trying to solve these problems itself. But it is the responsibility of the Council, not the PCSB to “safeguard funds, ensure positive outcomes for students, and provide for an efficient closure or asset acquisition”—the stated purpose of the Closure Amendment. The PCSB should have a role in this, but this proposed amendment is over-reach for PCSB and should be a worry to charters and to the public.
No Comments