Bowser administration admits that DCPS revenue outside of UPSFF is illegal

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser released her proposed 2020 budget this week and it has some good news for charter schools. First, she is requesting that the charter school per pupil facility fund be increased another 2.2 percent to $3,335. This would be the second year in a row that this number would go up by this proportion. The jump is important, because as Two Rivers PCS’s executive director Jessica Wodatch explained at last night’s 2019 FOCUS Gala, the cost of construction in the nation’s capital is rising tremendously.

Still, I’m not quite sure about the Mayor’s strategy here. It seems like instead of turning over vacant DCPS buildings to charters she is encouraging them to rent space in the commercial real estate market. Wouldn’t it be preferable to have these schools lease from the city instead of turning taxpayer money over to developers? What am I missing?

In addition, the mayor’s budget blueprint also has the per pupil expenditure rising by 2.2 percent. However, Irene Holtzman, FOCUS’s executive director, stated that this number is insufficient:

“FOCUS is pleased that Mayor Bowser delivered on her commitment to increase the facilities allotment for public charter schools by 2.2 percent. The predictability of facilities funding is crucial to public charter schools as they plan to make needed improvements to their buildings or lease facilities to accommodate their student bodies. This is a wise long-term investment that helps ensure that the nearly 50 percent of students attending public charter schools have buildings that enhance, rather than hinder, their experience.
 
Simultaneously, we are concerned that the increase to the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (UPSFF) falls short of the needs of all D.C.’s students. The 2.2 percent increase in the base UPSFF does not keep pace with the District’s funding pressures or inflation, and increases the gap between the current level of funding and the city’s own definition of funding adequacy as defined in the 2013 report Cost of Student Achievement: Report of the DC Education Adequacy Study.
 
In addition, a broad coalition of advocates for children and youth have been working diligently to ensure that our schools have the mental health supports they need to manage the level of trauma experienced by our students. Not increasing the funding to support at-risk students  will leave schools scrambling to ensure that our most vulnerable students have the supports they need to be successful in school.
 
We urge the D.C. Council to remedy this gap in funding by making at least a 3 percent increase in the UPSFF, and, better yet, funding a 4 percent increase that, if followed annually, could get DC to ‘funding adequacy’ in five years. In addition, Council should prioritize increasing the at-risk weight to enable schools to continue to grow and strengthen the wraparound supports we know our students both need and deserve.”

I did some poking around the budget and I stumbled on something fascinating. Embedded in the document is an admission from the Mayor that all public funding for both charters and the traditional schools must come through the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula. Here is the exact language:

“The District’s public charter schools receive Local funding through the UPSFF. This system of funding was established by the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 and was designed to ensure that all public schools across the District receive the same level of funding on a per-student basis, regardless of what neighborhood the school is in or where students live. The UPSFF is intended to cover all local education agency operational costs for District public schools including school-based instruction, student classroom support, utilities, administration, custodial services, and instructional support, such as curriculum and testing. The UPSFF is based on a foundation amount, which is then enhanced according to different weights for higher-cost grade levels and supplemental funding weights for students with special needs. The FY2020 UPSFF foundation increased 2.2% from $10,658 per pupil to $10,891 per pupil. The average cost per student, based on the proposed enrollment of 44,486 and a proposed gross budget of $898,494,213, is $20,197.”

In other words, the very argument that charters have been making for years that is contained in the FOCUS engineered funding inequity lawsuit against the city is affirmed in the administration’s own budget. Can we now settle this thing and reimburse charters for the approximately $100 million a year in revenue provided to DCPS that the other sector did not receive?

What is the next step?

For D.C. charter schools to survive they must remember they are part of a national movement others want ended

Washington City Paper writer Rachel Cohen has come out with her next in a series of articles meant to destroy our local charter school movement.  This one deals with the financial compensation that some school leaders are receiving. From her article:

“Summary statistics aside, the sector is replete with examples of steep salaries and quick raises. Allison Kokkoros, the head of Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School and the highest-paid charter official in D.C., received a 24 percent salary increase between 2015 and 2016, from $248,000 to $307,000. Then, in 2017, she received another 76 percent increase, bumping her compensation to $541,000. Patricia Brantley, head of Friendship Public Charter School, received a 33 percent raise between 2016 and 2017, increasing her pay from $231,000 to $308,000.

Outside of school heads, other high-ranking charter administrators also claimed significant salaries. In 2017, KIPP DC had four administrators making approximately $200,000 annually, and its president earned $257,000. The chair of Friendship, Donald Hense, earned over $355,000 annually between 2015 and 2017, and its CFO earned between $171,000 and $197,000 in each of those years. DC Prep’s Chief Academic Officer earned $203,000 in 2015, and $223,000 one year later. The board chair of AppleTree Early Learning earned over $231,000 annually each year since 2015, reaching $245,000 in 2017. 990 tax forms list another 110 charter administrators earning between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, although this list is likely not comprehensive, as schools are only required to disclose their top five highest-paid employees. 2018 figures are not yet available.

In one remarkable instance, Sonia Gutierrez, the founder and former CEO of Carlos Rosario, who now sits on the school’s board, earned $1,890,000 between 2015 and 2017. Board chair Patricia Sosa, when contacted about this large sum, says much of that had been awarded as deferred compensation from Gutierrez’s time working between July 2010 and December 2015. However, according to tax records, she was also paid an average of $326,000 annually during that period.”

I do not have sufficient information to say if these earnings are justified or not.  But I will make this important point.  Although charters were established in the nation’s capital over twenty years ago, there are still many people who wish they would go away.  The notion still exists that they are stealing money from DCPS and that charters are private schools run with public funds.  The issue is not unique to us locally.  For evidence of the hatred toward charters all you have to do is look at the inflammatory language that was targeted at them during the recent strike by teachers and their union in Los Angeles. Here is one key paragraph from the New York Times in a story written by Jennifer Medina and Dana Goldstein about the work stoppage:

“But the defeat in the court of public opinion is clear: After years of support from powerful local and national allies — including many Democrats — charter schools are now facing a backlash and severe skepticism.”

In order to reduce the likelihood of backlash and skepticism, all financial decisions at charter schools must be viewed through the lens that this information will end up on the front page of the Washington Post or the City Paper.  If the school’s action can withstand this level of scrutiny, then it is appropriate.  But if spending does not pass the smell test for being an ethical and market-based expenditure, then it needs to be abandoned.  No less than the future of our sector is dependent on making these calls correctly.

When I was a board chair I would open many of our meetings with a news article that described controversies involving charter schools.  I wanted the trustees to understand that they were part of something that others found distasteful.  Because of the political environment in which we operate, everyone involved with charters has to conduct business at an exemplary level of integrity.  It is a standard that as courageous professionals we should accept and embrace so that we can continue to provide the exceptionally high quality education our students deserve.

D.C. charter school lawsuit continues; a second one should be filed

The Washington Post’s Perry Stein reported last week that the ruling issued almost exactly a year ago by a federal judge against the FOCUS coordinated charter school funding inequity lawsuit brought by Washington Latin PCS, Eagle Academy PCS, and the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, has been appealed.  A federal judge heard oral arguments on November 5th that mostly revolved around whether it is appropriate that the matter be heard in federal court.  The original legal action by the plaintiffs claimed that charter schools receive less money in revenue from the city compared to the regular schools, a figure that has totaled $770 million from 2008 to 2015, and equates to $1,600 to $2,600 per pupil every year.

The supplemental payments to DCPS have come mostly in the form of services the regular schools receive for free that charters do not, such as building maintenance and legal assistance.

The most significant information coming out of Ms. Stein’s story is that legal representation for the charter schools is now being provided by an attorney from WilmerHale, a law firm handling the case on a pro bono basis.  The attorney replaces Stephen Marcus, who was intimately involved in this lawsuit even before it was brought before the court four years ago.

The charter school argument is based upon the School Reform Act.  Passed by Congress and incorporated into local law by the D.C. Council, it states that all financial support for public schools, both charter and traditional, must come through the Uniform Per Student funding formula.  This means that the additional no-charge benefits that DCPS has been receiving over the past twenty years are illegal.

The current situation is unjust and is harming charter schools’ ability to care for the almost 44,000 children sitting it its classrooms.

It is, in fact, difficult to find a more straightforward public policy.  However, you are in luck.  Because on this dark and cold November morning I have found one more, a legal rule that I consider practically a tie in clarity with the dictate on the manner in which our schools receive their operating cash.  Ready, here it is:

All excess DCPS buildings will be offered to charter schools on a right of first offer basis.

As I pointed out yesterday, it is estimated that there is approximately one million square feet of vacant or underutilized DCPS facility space to which charters cannot get access.  An empty site has not been turned over to charters for about four years.  This is severely negatively impacting their ability to expand and replicate.  Now I will ask you a really simple question.  It is early so I don’t want to make it too difficult.  If charters can sue over illegal funding should not the sector also mount a court battle over access to physical structures?

I’ll await your response.

 

 

 

D.C. charters must appeal funding inequity lawsuit ruling

Patricia Brantley, the chief executive officer of Friendship Public Charter School, and Irene Holtzman, the executive director of Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, wrote an excellent editorial that appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post regarding the recent decision by a federal judge throwing out the funding inequity lawsuit brought by charters against the city.  It makes the point that if you were to see children playing on a public park equally enjoying the amenities you would have no idea that, when it comes to their education, there is a substantial difference regarding the funding the school they are enrolled in receives depending upon whether it is a part of DCPS or a charter.

Charters receive less money.  Much less.  The disparity in revenue is estimated to have equaled $770 million from 2008 to 2015.  This corresponds to $1,600 to $2,600 fewer dollars per student per year.

The fundamental problem, and it is truly fundamental, is that the regular schools are provided revenue and services by the Mayor or the city council outside of the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula.  But the 1995 School Reform Act, which dictates how schools cover operating expenses, could not be clearer on the mechanism for providing taxpayer money to all public schools:

“Annual payment under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be calculated by multiplying a uniform dollar amount used in the formula established under such paragraph by:

(A) The number of students calculated under § 38-1804.02 that are enrolled at District of Columbia public schools, in the case of the payment under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection; or

(B) The number of students calculated under § 38-1804.02 that are enrolled at each public charter school, in the case of a payment under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection.”

In other words, revenue for both DCPS and charters is to be provided by law though the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula based upon a dollar amount multiplied by the number of kids enrolled.

Because the law, and the intention behind the law, are so clear, charters really have no choice but to appeal the court’s decision.  They cannot give up because people involved in our local charter movement never give up.  These are the same individuals who find teachers when there are none to be had, obtain facilities when no buildings are available, and make payroll when the bank account has been expended.  I have known these brave souls for more than 20 years.  I have been on the other end of the telephone line when it appeared all hope of continuing was lost, only to find them fighting to keep going for another day.

Over 41,500 pupils, 47 percent of all public school students, are depending upon them not giving up.

One judge made one bad decision.  So what?  There are plenty more judges out there.

 

 

Federal judge dismisses D.C. charter school funding inequity lawsuit

The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss reported last evening that U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has rejected a three year old lawsuit coordinated by FOCUS and brought by Washington Latin PCS, Eagle Academy PCS, and the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools charging that DCPS has for years illegally received, and continues to receive, funding outside of the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula.

Charters contend that the traditional schools have been provided about $100 million per year more than the charters through services and other revenue sources to which charters do not have access.  The case was a major test of language contained in the School Reform Act dictating that money for public schools must be allocated according to the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula based solely on the number of pupils enrolled.  The argument, most forcefully made by the former FOCUS executive director Robert Cane, was that the Mayor and City Council have no legal authority to provide dollars to the regular school system to which charters are not also granted.  His point was solidly supported in the 2013 Adequacy Study, which was completed under the prior Deputy Mayor for Education Abigail Smith.

Apparently, the decision came down last Saturday.  Little information is currently available about the ruling except for Ms. Strauss’ assertion that “the judge stated clearly that the District’s funding practices do not violate the School Reform Act and that the plaintiffs have ‘no standing to challenge the District’s enrollment calculation method for’ D.C. Public Schools.”

The legal action only came about after years of negotiations between charter and government leaders got nowhere.  The news of a lawsuit was announced here.

This is a major blow for funding equity in the nation’s capital between the two sectors, and it will have major implications.  For example, as part of the new DCPS contract with the D.C. Teachers’ Union, and the retroactive raise in salaries that it contains, it was estimated that charters would get an additional $51.2 million in extra funding due to the UPSFF.  Now, it is unclear whether the city is bound to that commitment.

More information will be shared as the ruling becomes publicly available.  Also, not known at this time is whether attorney Stephen Marcus is planning on appealing Judge Chutkan’s opinion.

But for now, it is an extremely dark day for fairness, equality, justice, and dignity when it comes to the way our city, the nation’s capital, supports our public schools.

 

 

New union contract for D.C. traditional school teachers is a boon for charters

The contract is retroactive to last October and includes a four percent pay increase for that year, a three percent increase for the following year, and a two percent raise for year three.  The Post points out that it amounts to a 1.3 percent bump in salary for each year from 2012 to 2019.  Most significantly, it raises the starting salary of new teachers to $56,313 a year, which the writers say is the highest teacher starting compensation in the country.  The agreement also apparently has the fastest route to earning over $100,000 and a new cap at $126,000 a year.

The additional dollars, which needs to be approved by union members and the D.C. Council, would be paid for out of the city’s surplus reserve.

The reporters indicate that because of the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula charters would get an additional $51.2 million over three years, roughly equivalent to the 46 percent share of students with DCPS getting $61.6 million.  It is encouraging to see the city comply with the law when it comes to the union agreement.  However, we still have no resolution to the FOCUS-coordinated charter school funding inequity law suit that has been going on now for three years.  As a reminder, when the legal action was taken, it was estimated that charters received over the last seven years $1,600 to $2,600 per student in less revenue compared to the regular schools.  With Mayor Bowser beginning to think about re-election this would be a fantastic moment to settle this matter once and for all.

On another subject, one of the authors of the piece on the DCPS teachers’ contract is Emma Brown.  Ms. Brown announced last week on Twitter that she will be ending her coverage of education to join the Washington Post’s investigative team. While I often strongly disagreed with Ms. Brown, especially regarding her views on private school vouchers, I have found her to be a talented and thorough writer.  Let’s hope that the Post’s educational reporting does not suffer with her transition.

 

D.C. school Chancellor admits money does not increase school academic quality

Yesterday, the D.C. council’s education committee under chairman David Grosso voted to increase the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula by 2.38 percent as part of the city’s fiscal 2018 budget.  The move is significant because Mayor Bowser proposed just 1.5 percent more in per pupil spending after an Office of State Superintendent of Education task force that included many leaders in our local charter school movement recommended a 3.5 percent jump.  There was a broad boisterous outcry from members of the public when Ms. Bowser released her planned allocation of education dollars.

Except from her new D.C.P.S. Chancellor.  Antwan Wilson stated that he was fine with the money he was to receive, and yesterday, in an article by the Washington Post’s Alejandra Matos,

His words are actually a breath of fresh air.  The Chancellor must be recalling the fine work of the Cato Institute’s Andrew Coulson, who, before he passed away in last year, loved to show the graph below to anyone who would listen.  The chart clearly illustrates that while the money spent on public education has grown exponentially over time reading and math test scores have remained flat.

At last week’s FOCUS Gala, Mayor Bowser announced a one-time bump for the UPSFF to 2.0 percent.  Now the Council has gone beyond her suggestion in pumping another $12.5 million into her $105 million hike.  Look for the full Council to easily approve the new number.  This change comes on top of a 2.2 percent growth of the charter school facility allotment to $3,193 per pupil.

OSSE recommends 3.5% increase in funding education in the District; Mayor budgets 1.5%

There was outrage on Tuesday by many leaders of D.C.’s charter school movement as the Mayor released her proposed fiscal year 2018 budget that included a 1.5 percent increase in the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula.  This despite the fact that for the first time in years Ms. Bowser put in a 2.2 percent increase in the per pupil facility allotment.  What’s the reason for the controversy?

The reason is simple.  In 2016, as is required by law to be done every 24 months, the State Superintendent of Education convened a working group to review the level of the UPSFF.  Participating in this body, among 13 others, were Irene Holtzman, the executive director of FOCUS; Scott Pearson, the executive director of the DC Public Charter School Board; and representatives from KIPP DC PCS, Two Rivers PCS, Appletree PCS, DC Prep PCS, Friendship PCS, E.L. Haynes PCS, Next Step PCS, and St. Coletta PCS.  This is the group that came up with the push for the recommended increase.  It is fascinating to see the reason for their conclusion.  From the report:

“Increasing the base rate significantly, above the rate of inflation, continues to treat the Adequacy Study, the most recent, thorough and comprehensively researched examination of the UPSFF, as the “North Star” for guidance on the rate. By default, an increase in the base rate impacts the amounts in weights across the board.

An increase in the base rate provides: The greatest flexibility to meet the diverse needs of the greatest number of schools, and schools with varying demographic populations, including alternative schools, charter schools and DCPS schools. Funding for the single greatest cost for providing students a high quality education: the cost of salaries and benefits for the educator workforce. This includes, for example, the rising cost of healthcare and the interest of DC schools to have competitive compensation with surrounding jurisdictions.

  • A significant increase of 3.5% to the base rate specifically helps to:
    Further defray the costs of transition from the previous summer school weight to the implementation of the at-risk weight, especially given evidence that some LEAs and schools gained more funding from this transition than others.
  • Provide the most flexible funding for core program services, and is enough to help fill identified gaps in funding at DCPS. Ensure that there is adequate funding for all students, and ensure that funding distributed from the at- risk weight is better leveraged and remains a supplement for the needs of those students most at risk.”

Is is astonishing that after six months of work the Mayor would ignore the findings of the task force whose membership possesses so much expertise in the area of  school funding. But for me there was one silver lining contained in this document.  It refers back, as stated above, to the Adequacy Study as the “North Star” for “guidance on the rate.”  The Adequacy Study was groundbreaking in that it put in writing for the first time by the government that the traditional schools were receiving significant dollars in the neighborhood of $100 million a year, in dollars outside of the UPSFF which is against the law.  When then, will the FOCUS engineered lawsuit on the inequitable funding of charter schools be resolved?

Mayor Bowser builds on funding inequity for D.C. charter schools

Last Friday D.C. Mayor Bowser announced that beginning with the 2017-2018 school year an additional $6.2 in supplemental dollars will be provided for DCPS in an effort to improve the offerings in the traditional middle schools and high schools.  According to Ms. Bowser:

“These investments will transform the middle and high school experience for students throughout DC, and ensure that we are setting more students up for success,” said Mayor Bowser. “In Washington, DC, we value public education, and we know that investments in our schools are really investments in the future of our community. By adding more extracurriculars, more STEM classes, and additional college and career support, we will be able to engage more students and keep them on track to succeed beyond high school.”

The only problem is that this money will not “transform the middle and high school experience for students throughout DC” because once again charter schools are left out of the sharing of the wealth.  Moves such as this are why there is currently an unresolved lawsuit brought by the DC Association of Chartered Public School, Eagle Academy PCS, and Washington Latin PCS that was engineered by FOCUS against the city regarding inequitable funding for DCPS compared to charter schools.  By law, Ms. Bowser and the Council cannot simply add resources to the schools they control without doing the same for charters through the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula.

The situation is now completely out of control.  Before this latest gift by the Mayor, and at the time the lawsuit was brought, FOCUS estimates “this illegal under funding has amounted to $770 million from 2008 to 2015, which amounts to $1600 – $2600 per student every year for the last seven years.”

The Washington Post’s Alejandra Matos rubs it in by explaining what new DCPS chancellor Wilson aims to do with the cash:

“The school system plans to increase extracurricular activities in middle schools to give every student the option to participate in at least one program outside the regular school day. The new programs will include coding clubs, lacrosse, wrestling, rugby, archery, and hockey, as well as wheelchair track and field and basketball for students with disabilities.

DCPS plans to purchase 750 new computers and add engineering and computer science electives to its middle schools. All DCPS middle schools also plan to offer algebra in the 2017-18 school year.

For high schools, DCPS will hire college-and-career coordinators to help students create a personal plan for their future after graduation. It also plans to put more resources into its four alternative high schools, which enroll students who once dropped out or are far behind in traditional school.”

According to the Post reporter, “The proposal would be in addition to at least $25 million in spending growth in the next fiscal year to cover enrollment increases and other costs, school officials say. The current year’s spending plan totals $910 million.”

This is quite different from the situation I learned about last summer while visiting Denver, Colorado.  In this city, thanks to a Denver Public Schools and Charter Schools Collaboration Compact, the two sectors share revenue on an equitable basis.  From the agreement:

“[District schools] commit to ensuring equitable resources for charter schools. This includes not only per pupil revenue, but, to the greatest extent possible, an equitable share of all other district resources including Title funds, existing bond funds, application opportunities for future bond funds, mill levy funds, curriculum and materials purchased with federal funds, and grants for programs that could benefit charters. This would also include an opportunity for the charter schools to play a meaningful role in shaping expenditures of funds made on their behalf.”

Mr. Wilson spent more than a decade as a leader in Denver Public Schools.  Perhaps he will be the one to recognize the blatant cruelty of what public school financing has become in the nation’s capital.

Baltimore City charters have also filed a funding inequity lawsuit

Erica Green of the Baltimore Sun reports that eight of the Baltimore City’s highest performing charter schools have sued Baltimore City over its recently revised funding formula.  These schools enroll 3,600 of the city’s 13,700 kids that attend charters.

The new formula provides charters with about $9,300 per student with the school system spending about $13,000 a pupil.  The problem with the change is that 26 of the Baltimore City’s 34 charters would receive drastically less money under the plan.

One interesting point Ms. Green makes in her story is that in Baltimore City charters by law must receive cash in lieu of services that the central office provides to traditional schools that they don’t receive.  Perhaps this is a solution to D.C.’s charter school funding inequity problem.

The charters are seeking $75,000 as a remedy.

Meanwhile, Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Black has asked University of Baltimore president and former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke to mediate the revenue dispute.  If he is successful there, perhaps he could just come down to D.C.