Most interesting parts of last night’s monthly D.C. charter board meeting were not on the agenda

Let me start my summary of Monday evening’s meeting of the DC Public Charter School Board by pointing out the improvements that have been implemented for those who watch the proceedings on the web. The issue around the sound not being at a sufficient level has been solved, and now there are fancy graphics that announce the subject matter before the members. Both changes elevate the professionalism of the experience.

The PCSB gave the green light to 15-year charter renewals, all without conditions, to DC Bilingual PCS, E.L. Haynes PCS, and Two Rivers PCS. The schools received tons of accolades from the board, and I’m sure the members were tremendously relieved that attorney Stephen Marcus was not at the witness stand once again trying to fend off charter revocation for one of his clients. It was a welcome respite.

As in the past, many people have figured out that much of the real action occurs during the comment sections that are available at the beginning and end of these proceedings. Yesterday, it was a perfect opportunity for teachers from Cesar Chavez Prep PCS to flood the public testimony list. Just last week the school announced that it would shutter this campus, as well as the one on Capitol Hill, in order to consolidate its offerings as a consequence of declining enrollment. The board will consider the restructuring next month and vote on the plan in March.

One after another the instructors spoke, railing against the administration of Chavez, and specifically, the TenSquare Group, that just helped this charter management organization dramatically improve last year’s results on the Performance Management Framework. From TenSquare’s press release:

“All four Chavez Schools’ scores went up—6 points on average. Chavez Parkside High School (Ward 7) received the highest score in the network—59.8, up 7.6 points over last year—putting the school within striking distance of Tier 1 status.”

It was actually a clever strategy by the Prep teachers. Chavez was not on the agenda so they used the board’s consideration of a new school transparency policy to argue that individual charters should be subject to Freedom of Information Act Requests and have to operate under D.C.’s Open Meeting Act, two stipulations not included in the document. They then went on to complain that the proposed changes at their school were done behind closed doors and without their involvement. I have to say that in the end the entire charade made little sense. These are the same people who voted to have a union intercede in their relationship between themselves and management. That decision really makes it exceedingly difficult to buy into the notion that they should now have a seat at the table. In addition, the employees would have had much more credibility if they had come to the gathering in shirts labeled with the Cesar Chavez logo. Instead, all wore red tops that proclaimed that they were members of DC ACTS, a collective bargaining unit associated with the American Federation of Teachers. It belied who they were really there to support.

Also not on the list for discussion, and passed without discussion, was approval of LEARN DC PCS’s request to extend the deadline to March 1, 2019 for its response to conditions imposed on the school by the board at the December monthly meeting. The original deadline was January 25th. The meeting material states that the delay is needed “because LEARN DC is still having internal discussions about the conditions.” Could it be that LEARN is actually reconsidering whether to come here in the aftermath of having to comply with the long list of rules? I have no evidence that this is the case, but a move of this kind would certainly make a significant statement.

1,700 charter school students may need to find new classrooms next term

The Washington Post’s Perry Stein claimed yesterday that approximately 1,700 students attending charters will have to find new schools to attend for the 2019-to-2020 term. The number is the product of the decision announced a couple of days ago by the Cesar Chavez PCS for Public Policy to shutter two of its campuses and actions by the DC Public Charter School Board to close City Arts and Prep PCS, Democracy Prep PCS, and National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS. This news comes in the wake of charter school enrollment in the 2018-to-2019 school year dropping a percentage point compared to those attending DCPS. The decrease is a first in the over twenty year history of charters in the nation’s capital.

As a reminder, here is the reaction of Scott Pearson, the executive director of the DC PCSB, to the demographic shift:

“For the 10th yr enrollment has increased in public schools but the 1st time the percentage of DC charter school students has gone down. This slight decline reflects our commitment to opening good schools and closing low-performing ones. It’s about quality and choice, not numbers.”

I agree with the charter board’s emphasis on quality.  Moreover, while the decisions by the board may not be purely about numbers, this assessment may at the same time not be completely accurate. Recently, Lenora Robinson-Mills, the PCSB’s chief operating officer, wrote a heart-felt article about her own feelings about charter revocation in which she compared the action to the death of a family member. She opined:

“We’re working internally now to figure out how to provide better support sooner to families affected by the closing of their school, but it’s difficult to navigate the school’s right to due process. Maybe the answer is a lottery preference or lottery bypass for students attending closing schools? Perhaps it’s more and better communication with families before the final decision gets made so that they can take action sooner? Maybe it’s having someone at DC PCSB who can be the life-saving surgeon in my presenter’s death analogy. But that’s outside the role of the authorizer… “

My question today is if the PCSB could provide services that could help turnaround a school, would that really be considered outside the role of the authorizer? After all, the mission of the board “is to provide quality public school options for DC students, families, and communities. ” Is the board actually fulfilling its stated mission if it is authorizing new schools, allowing good schools to grow and replicate, and closing those that are under performing? What about helping those that are in need of assistance before getting to the point of terminating their operations?

With 1,7000 scholars now looking for new places to learn, perhaps we need a different answer to my last question.

Cesar Chavez PCS is closing Chavez Prep

Yesterday afternoon Cesar Chavez Public Charter School for Public Policy announced several changes to its network in the wake of lower than expected student enrollment. A letter from the school’s board of directors explains:

“The Board of Trustees, which includes a Chavez graduate, two current parents, our founder, and education, civic and business leaders, has spent more than a year analyzing city enrollment trends and school options, the operations and performance of the network, and the financial viability of operating three disconnected school buildings at a lower-than-planned student enrollment. In 2010, Chavez Schools secured $27.2 million in bonds, financing the purchase and renovation of our three school buildings. This bond structure was based on enrollment growing to 1,500 students, targeting a 2020 refinance. Today, with enrollment at only 956, the network must be reconfigured for the organization to meet its financial obligations and ensure continued viability.”

Chavez is therefore consolidating its Capitol Hill High School, housed in a location that it rents with a lease that concludes next year, with its Parkside High School campus, in a building that it owns. The Capitol Hill site currently enrolls 235 pupils on a site that holds more than 400 students. The relatively low number of students makes it difficult to offer a high school program. Chavez indicates that the majority of children that attend Capitol Hill live in Wards 7 and 8, so the new location will actually be closer to home. When I was on the board of the William E. Doar, Jr. Public Charter School for the Performing Arts, and the school was desperately looking for a place to open, we tried to obtain this facility but lost out to Chavez.

In December, 2017, The DC Public Charter School Board forced Chavez to begin the closing of its Parkside Middle School due to low academic performance. It therefore stopped accepting sixth grade students the following term and now instructs only seventh and eight graders. These scholars will graduate in 2020 and will then be able to join the CMO’s Parkside High School. Eventually, Chavez plans to rebuild its middle school at the Parkside campus.

One of Chavez’s goals regarding these changes is to create a truly first rate high school. Again, according to the board’s announcement:

“Investing in the Parkside campus will include: more Advanced Placement (AP) courses and advanced electives, more dual enrollment early college opportunities, more SAT preparation and support, a greater focus on college matching and alumni support, more public policy internships and policy curriculum offerings, more supports for students with special needs and for those learning English, and an even stronger athletic program than we already have. It also means building improvements, technology upgrades and greater support for teachers, staff and community.”

Consistent with focusing on developing a stellar high school program, Chavez also announced that it is shuttering its Chavez Prep Middle School location at the end of the current school year. Similar to the Capitol Hill campus, student enrollment is way under capacity with 238 kids in a building that seats 420. The number of pupils is down 34 percent since 2015 in a structure that a decade ago saw a $10.8 million dollar investment in improvements that is still being financed. But much more important than Chavez getting out of the middle school business is the fact that closing this school will terminate teachers’ union involvement in charters in the District.

As the only unionized charter, there were a lot of shenanigans taking place at Chavez Prep, including teachers protesting on the street and complaints to the National Labor Relations Board. After the staff voted to join the American Federation of Teachers in 2017, and following a series of exceptionally challenging negotiations, a collective bargaining agreement with management has never been finalized. I have consistently expressed the view that teacher union membership is inconsistent with the operational freedoms associated with running a charter school, and therefore have called for Chavez to close this property.

Christian Herr, the Chavez Prep teacher behind the unionization effort, stated that employees were crying after learning on Wednesday that the school was going out of business. I’m sure this is true. He is probably upset that he is losing further opportunities to interfere with the administration of the school. He remarked that the union will investigate this action.

All I can say is that I am tremendously proud of the moves by the Chavez board of directors for their efforts in protecting and strengthening the future of their school.  I also applaud the leadership of Josh Kern as head of the Tensquare Group that is currently leading an academic turnaround at this charter. Just as in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, when the book’s hero architect Howard Roark destroyed his housing complex for low-income residents when it wasn’t being built to his high-level specifications, in closing Chavez Prep Mr. Kern has taken a gigantic step in protecting the integrity of our local movement of innovative schools. Therefore, I now consider Mr. Kern the Howard Roark of the D.C. charter movement.

In addition, the news for me could not come at a better time. Next Wednesday I mark ten years of covering our city’s charter schools through my blog.

D.C. charter board closes National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS

As predicted, yesterday afternoon the DC Public Charter School Board voted to revoke the charter of National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS. The members were distressed by the school’s poor academic results, low high school graduation rates, and the inability to retain students from one term to the next. The PCSB also felt that the turnaround plan came too late for them to assess whether it had a realistic chance of succeeding.

The only real debate occurred over the timing of the end of operations. Some argued that the school should be allowed to continue for three more years without accepting new pupils so that those currently enrolled could graduate and others could find a new facility. In the end it was decided that the doors would be shuttered at the conclusion of the 2020 term, unless the charter fails to agree to conditions established by the board in the coming days. Closure would also occur sooner if the school discontinued offering a full range of academic courses, neglected to protect the health and safety of its students, and proved to be not financially viable.

I’m sure that the parents and students of this Ward 8 community are exceptionally upset with the decision of the charter board. However, I would argue that this anger is misdirected. Instead, they should be disappointed with the management of the school and its board of directors, which failed them.

The only hope now is that another charter agrees to come in and takeover this campus. The logical choice is Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS. However, in this case the timing is not good as this school in in the midst of a search for a new executive director. Richard Pohlman announced last November that this school year would be his last in his position.

D.C.’s National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS should be closed

Last Wednesday evening the DC Public Charter School Board held a public hearing regarding its decision at the December monthly meeting to begin charter revocation proceedings against National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS. If you are interested in the mechanics of the operation of our local movement then this session is a primer in charter oversight. Come with me for a first-hand excursion through the three hours and fifty minute gathering.

Attorney Stephen Marcus was back representing a school facing closure, and he and his associate Sherry Ingram seemed completely undeterred by their recent loss regarding the saving of City Arts and Prep PCS. Mr. Marcus made a stunningly brilliant first move in facilitating the discussion by flipping the order of presentations. On this night the parents, students, and staff of the school would speak before management. It was smart because most people, like me, would normally watch the arguments by the charter board and the administration and then call it a day. But in having stakeholders go first, it elevated the respect shown to members of this Ward 8 residents while simultaneously setting the stage for sympathy for the plight of the organization.

The long lineup of people testifying did not disappoint. Parent Camilia Wheeler, who last year addressed the board as a mom with a student at WMST PCS, asked where these students are supposed to go if this school no longer exists. She indicated that between the years 2012 and 2017 twenty-six charters have been closed by the PCSB. Ms. Wheeler wanted to understand why the board was taking the easy way out by shutting these facilities. Instead of taking this route, she implored, the body should be helping these institutions.

Common themes that emerged from the highly passionate remarks involved the fact that this is the only school offering an International Baccalaureate program east of the river. Many pointed to the value of a school that allows its eleventh graders to travel to Panama each term, as one student indicated with all expenses paid. Others highlighted the importance of its STEM curriculum that emphasizes computer science, the training students receive in Sankofa, its teaching of soft skills initiative, and the instructors who are willing to assist their scholars at anytime.

However, what made this hearing especially poignant, and at the same time contentious, was the feeling that the PCSB was coming to take action against a population that was completely alienated from its way of life. School supporters said in no uncertain terms that shutting the doors to this school would open the doors to jail or death. The most striking example of the disconnect between the board and the community was when Scott Pearson asked a current student why only one out of three pupils returned to the charter this school year. The seventeen year old responded that he did not know the answer. A teacher soon called out this line of inquiry as an illustration of the lack of dignity that is routinely shown to those living in Anacostia. He explained that the high school student should have been prepared in advance for the interrogation. The accusation resulted in an apology by the PCSB executive director.

Everything was going the school’s way until it was time for the leadership team’s presentation. Here the picture of the path forward became murky. National Collegiate founder and chief executive officer Jennifer Ross put together a turnaround plan for the school that had been delivered to the board earlier in the afternoon. It includes enlisting Heather Wathington, formally the CEO of Maya Angelou PCS and its See Forever Foundation, as its board chair and leader of this effort. A major component includes the hiring of Blueprint, a consulting firm that has worked to improve academic performance with charters in Boston, Denver, and other locations. Founder and CEO Matthew Spengler was in attendance and reported some spectacular results by his company since its start in 2010, especially in the area of math proficiency.

The questions by Mr. Pearson regarding the new structure were instructive. You had to know how to read between the lines of the information he sought to see the points he was trying to make. Through his probing he cast doubt that Ms. Wathington has the time to play the role envisioned for her since she is currently the president of a Philadelphia private school for children of low-income single parents or guardians. He brought to light the fact that Blueprint had just visited Collegiate Prep the week before for three days, and that no actual contract, scope of work, or monetary structure had been finalized for continued assistance. Mr. Spengler also gave the impression that their business model involves communications with the charter remotely with major deliverables dependent on follow-up by the current head of school. It was clear that Mr. Pearson was wondering why TenSquare had not been brought in since it already has extensive experience in the D.C. market, especially since its modus operandi is that it brings in its own manager to increase the probability that desired results are achieved.

The essence of the proposed solution to what ails this charter, and the arguments that ensued over whether it met its established charter goals, is that it is all too little too late. National Collegiate has been graded six times on the Performance Management Framework during its decade of operation and the results in 2018 were its lowest yet at 26.7 percent. It has been a Tier 3 school for the last three years. When the school first reached this level in 2016 is when a serious turnaround should have begun. Let’s sincerely hope for these parents and children that another charter will take it over after its charter is revoked in a special meeting this afternoon.




Exclusive interview with Rick Cruz, chairman DC Public Charter School Board

I had the distinct pleasure of sitting down recently for an interview with Rick Cruz, the chairman of the DC Public Charter School Board.  I asked Mr. Cruz for his feelings about the state of the local charter movement.

“I think there are a number of things that are going well,” he answered without missing a beat.  “We released our School Quality Reports in November and the number of schools ranked Tier 1 continues to grow.  More of our students are attending Tier 1 schools than ever before and the number of Tier 3 schools and the pupils attending them are decreasing.  These phenomenons are, of course, not a complete picture of our sector but it’s a good indication that the schools that are bench-marked against overall city data are improving.  It is definitely a good sign.” 

“The performance of children in our subgroups,” Mr. Cruz added, “is also continuing to get better.  Black and Latino students, kids with different needs, such as special education children or English language learners, are performing well.  There are a number of our schools that teach the most difficult to educate children such as those living in poverty that have reached Tier 1 status.  This is especially hard work.  I feel good about the health of the local charter school movement.  The board is careful about burdening schools but we want to make sure they’re respecting every student’s rights and that’s the role we play when it comes to compliance.  But we also realize that we are a long way from the old days of being a handful of schools with 15 percent of the public school population.  We want cohesion in our buildings, and we want to make sure we are good stewards of public money, but we also need to balance these ideals with a freedom of schools to innovate.”

I then wanted to know from the PCSB chair if the board is trying to reduce the amount of information it is requesting from the schools it oversees.  “We think a lot about streamlining the material,” Mr. Cruz responded.  “For example, if we ask for data and the same information is required for The Office of the State Superintendent of Education then we report it to them.  We try and prevent the same statistics from being required of schools in different forms.  The board also invests in systems to improve the efficiency of reporting, and we strive to provide clarity around timelines and expectations.  We will also question the U.S. Department of Education, OSSE, or other groups as to the rationale for asking for numbers from our charters.  We are always looking for ways to make it easier for schools to respond to information requests.”

Mr. Cruz assumed his position at the PCSB last February.  I asked him if he had specific goals for his tenure as chair.  “Yes,” he affirmed.  “The first is the natural continuation of increasing the quality of our schools and the creation of more high quality seats.  I want to stay true to the processes that we have implemented, and we want to find other means to help schools get better, such as our middle schools.  One of the efforts we have made is to increase mental health services.  We want to aid social and emotional learning, decrease depression among our students, reduce bullying, and help young adults that are discovering aspects of their identity that may not be widely accepted.  Our staff tries to connect resources in our city that can benefit our children and families.”

“Next,” Mr. Cruz detailed, “I really want to work to ensure that charters have access to suitable facilities.  Our new schools cannot open, and others cannot grow and replicate, without adequate buildings.  The board has been a strong advocate with city leaders regarding spaces that would make great homes for our charters.  Scott Pearson, the PCSB executive director, argued the same point on the D.C. Cross-Sector Collaboration Task Force.  One idea our staff has had around facilities is to encourage developers to include charter schools in their projects.  Another avenue we can look at, although it might not be optimal for school leaders, is to expand co-locating with other schools like they do in New York City.  We also need to effectively communicate the facility needs to our parents so that they can understand how important their voice is as advocates.  About a month ago we had more than 200 students in front of the D.C. Council.  Fundamentally we need facilities where children have a place to exercise and to be able to go outside, and therefore our buildings must have gymnasiums and fields.  We have many schools that are obtaining excellent academic results without these amenities, but if we want our children to have a joyful experience then they have to look more like real schools.”

Another focus of the PCSB chairman is to do more work around the ecosystem of education.  Mr. Cruz stated, “We can strive to increase mental health services as I’ve mentioned.  We can also assist with transportation, making sure it is safe for students to travel from one part of town to another, help obtain crossing guards and school resource officers.”

Mr. Cruz mentioned that transparency is a major objective of his time in office.  “This comes from my role as head of the board’s Finance Committee,” he imparted.  “We want to continue to find ways for citizens, school partners, and public officials to have access to financial information about our schools.  For example, we currently share our quarterly report from our Finance and Operations committees meetings online.  This tells you what schools we have concerns about. I asked Mr. Cruz if individual charter schools should be required to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, which will require a change in the law.  The PCSB chair indicated that in his opinion this was not a role for charters.  “One of the challenges,” Mr. Cruz asserted, “is that we need to protect the flexibility of schools. They need to focus on academics, safety, finances, facilities, personnel, and meeting their specific goals.  I think the current level of transparency is sufficient.  Our aim is to make it easier to look inside of these schools.”

I then asked Mr. Cruz if he was concerned about the relatively low number of applications to open new schools the charter board has been receiving in recent years.  It was obvious to me that he has given much thought to this issue.  “For myself,” Mr. Cruz replied, “I love it when there are a lot of groups wanting to open schools.  The current situation does make me take pause.  Is it because of the difficulty of obtaining facilities that prevents them from applying?  Is a 150-page application too long?  Is the board too hard on charters?   But you also have to realize that we are now in a mature charter school market.  There is a lot of competition for teachers, school leaders, facilities, and students.  We need to look at a particular geography and see what we are offering.  We also are interested in learning how to create a pipeline of leaders for our campuses.”

I brought up the subject of schools contracting with the TenSquare Group to improve their academic performance and I wanted to know if Mr. Cruz had an opinion on charters taking this step.  “School turnarounds are immensely difficult,” the PCSB chair offered.  “Some organizations accomplish this by being absorbed by a high performing CMO like ATA PCS did with KIPP DC PCS.  Others need help and contract with TenSquare and have seen some positive results.  Our job on the board is to hold schools responsible for making smart decisions in investing in their kids and teachers.  Academic performance is always the best indicator as to whether they made the right move.”

I mentioned to Mr. Cruz that I heard him say at a recent board meeting that he was disappointed with the academic performance of national charter management organizations that came to the District.  He was eager to respond to my observation.  “I’m extremely disappointed,” Mr. Cruz indicated, “when you look at Harmony PCS, Democracy Prep PCS, and Somerset Prep PCS.  These are schools that are doing great work in other locations.  We need to question their judgement and ours.  When a school decides to open here it needs to bring its ‘A’ game.  But Rocketship PCS has been an exception.  You look at the two campuses Rocketship has opened so far and the kids that they serve.  It is getting fantastic results.  I believe schools really need to perform a due diligence before coming to D.C.  They need to understand whether they have the right model and are going to offer the right grades.  They need to really get a grasp on who they are going to serve.  In addition, schools must respond extremely quickly to the results they are seeing in the first few weeks and months after opening.  How is the school doing with its homeless population, special education students, and English language learners?

All of this is to say that the board understands how difficult it is running a school.  It is really, really hard.  That is why we approach our roles with humility.  We want to preserve the flexibility and independence of schools.  We want the decision making to be done at the school level and provide them with support.  We recognize that their jobs are vitally important and we really don’t want to interfere with their work.”

Mr. Cruz ended our conversation by reiterating the importance of the DC Public Charter School Board’s role to hold schools to high standards, create the conditions for educators to lead, and to provide lots of quality information to families and provide assurance these public funds.   

“I am the undertaker.” D.C. charter board’s COO on closing schools

In an exceptionally well written piece, Lenora Robinson-Mills, the chief operating officer for the DC Public Charter School Board, reflects on her role in working with schools whose charters have been revoked by her organization. She states:

“In the presenter’s scenario, where school closure is the death, the school community dies, and I am the undertaker. And the grief counselor. Part of my role at DC PCSB is to manage the wind-down of the school and support families in finding new schools once our Board makes that final decision. And, I was onboard with the presenter using the metaphors ‘death’ and ‘funeral’ to symbolize school closure (‘yes, we should give families time to grieve!’) until I remembered how it usually plays out in our city. I remembered why we’re pushing students and families to pick a new ‘parent’ so quickly: usually, the final closure decision by our Board happens very close to (and in some cases past) the My School DC common lottery application deadline. So to ensure the families of closed public charter schools have access to as many quality options as possible, we push… hard. We call, email, text, send snail mail, and host school fairs. We have the school make calls, send letters, emails, texts, send robocalls, and hold parent meetings. We listen to family concerns and considerations with empathy, and then we ask, beg, and plead with them to submit their lottery applications TODAY!”

Ms. Robinson-Mills openly grapples with the entire process around school closure. She mentions that a charter often does not inform their parents that it is in trouble before the decision is made by the board to close the doors. If the word got out early and families left, and then by some chance the school was allowed to keep operating, then it may not have sufficient revenue to keep going. She is talking about the inherent financial paradox of running a charter school. Newly approved institutions are required to sign leases on buildings when they do not know how many children will enroll. Add to this the fact that no charter opens with its full enrollment, almost all open with a couple of grades and then add a grade a year until they reach their ceiling, and you get just one sense about the difficulty of managing this business. Founders must complete an arduous application process, secure a facility, hire the staff, sign up the pupils, comply with a myriad of reporting requirements, and then after one year of grace, become accountable to a grade on the Performance Management Framework. You can see why I refer to these leaders as heroes.

The PCSB COO wishes that no school had to face closure. She yearns for a surgeon that could come in and medically repair the ill patient. Ms. Robinson-Mills knows this is not the role of authorizer. In D.C. we have TenSquare that can play the part of doctor but their fixes have recently been the subject of intense criticism. Attorney Stephen Marcus has gallantly tried to block the executioner from casting the final vote to end the existence of schools, however his argument that there is a bias built into the PMF against low-income children has now been firmly rejected.

All of this points to the tremendous differences between charters and traditional schools in this city. The fact that DCPS faces none of the challenges is a testament to charters that teach almost 44,000 students or 47 percent of all public school students in the District of Columbia. There are 123 schools run by 66 non-profit entities in the city. This is an unbelievable achievement.