A fascinating article by Susan Dynarski, a professor of education, politics, and economics at the University of Michigan, appeared in the New York Times Business Section last Sunday that made the case that the academic achievement gap in this country is actually much wider than has been estimated.  Here is the basis of her argument:

“Nearly half of students nationwide are eligible for a subsidized meal in school. Children whose families earn less than 185 percent of the poverty threshold are eligible for a reduced-price lunch, while those below 130 percent get a free lunch. For a family of four, the cutoffs are $32,000 for a free lunch and $45,000 for a reduced-price one. By way of comparison, median household income in the United States was about $54,000 in 2014.”

The author’s point is that when the public school academic achievement gap between the affluent and poor is measured in this country, the classification for children as low-income is made when they come from families qualifying for free or reduced lunch.  But in the preceding paragraph Ms. Dynarski illustrates that the cutoff for the definition of poverty is not far from the median household income level.  She takes her assertion further:

“In Michigan, as in the rest of the country, about half of eighth graders in public schools receive a free or reduced-price lunch. But when we look more closely, we see that just 14 percent have been eligible for subsidized meals every year since kindergarten. These children are the poorest of the poor — the persistently disadvantaged.”

Professor Dynarski’s conclusion:  “The achievement gap between persistently disadvantaged children and those who were never disadvantaged is about a third larger than the gap that is typically measured.”

This statistic has practical results when it comes to the classroom.  When Ms. Dynarski looked at the differences in academic standing for eighth graders in math she found a two-year deficit for those qualifying for free or reduced meals but a three-year difference for the chronically disadvantaged.  In addition, this gap did not first manifest itself when the students made it to the eighth grade.  Ms. Dynarski determined that for persistently poor kids the knowledge variance was there in the third grade.  Moreover, when it comes to these pupils, living in poverty can be traced back to the time that they were in kindergarten.

Here in the nation’s capital, last year’s first administration of the PARCC assessment clearly demonstrated the city’s stubborn and highly disturbing academic achievement gap. In English language arts the variance between white and economically disadvantaged students was 79 percent and 14 percent, respectively, in the college readiness score of four and above.  That is a difference of 65 points with charter schools scoring only slightly better than DCPS.  For math the achievement gap is slightly lower with white students at 70 percent in level four and above and poor pupils at 15 percent for a span of 55 points, with charters results again somewhat narrower.

However, if we are to believe the thesis of Professor Dynarski, the real variation between these results is a third higher for the chronically disadvantaged.  These academic achievement gaps would then grow to a shocking 86.7 percent in English and 73.3 percent in math.

Why is this important?  Ms. Dynarski opines that “many federal, state and local programs distribute money based on the share of a district’s students who are eligible for subsidized meals. But schools that have identical shares of students eligible for subsidized meals may differ vastly in the share of students who are deeply poor. The schools with the most disadvantaged children have greater challenges and arguably need more resources.”

What all this means in Washington, D.C. after 20 years of hard-fought public school reform is impossible to say.

In today’s Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews writes an open letter to Mayor Muriel Bowser begging her to cancel the national search for a Chancellor to replace Kaya Henderson.  He writes:

“The alleged stars hired in these fantasy adventures usually have little familiarity with the administrators, teachers, parents, students and power brokers in the school district or have little knowledge of its history. They lack trusted allies. Some of the most valuable people they must work with resent their presence.”

I agree.  Fortunately, we have someone here in D.C. that can ameliorate all of these concerns. That individual is Scott Pearson, the current executive director of the DC Public Charter School Board.

What a perfect choice this would be.  In his five years at the job Mr. Pearson has demonstrated a laser focus on improving the quality of the schools his organization oversees.  In fact, almost all of the charters graded as Tier 3 institutions on the Performance Management Framework are no longer around.  According to the PCSB’s 2015 Annual Report “of 23 schools rated Tier 3 since 2011, 6 have improved and 19 have been closed.”  He is used to holding schools accountable for results and yet he is always conscience of the need to extend as much autonomy as possible.  In other words he is not a micromanager.

In addition, Mr. Pearson has proven himself to be a skilled administrator.  Under his direction, the PCSB has gained a reputation as being perhaps the best at what it does.  According to testimony given last year to the D.C. Council by past board chair John “Skip” McKoy “both the National Association of Charter School Authorizers and the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools have recognized D.C. as the strongest charter sector in the nation, and PCSB as a leading authorizer.”

Mr. Pearson already has a strong working relationship with all the major stakeholders in public education in the nation’s capital.  The PCSB executive director has had a particularly good rapport with Ms. Henderson, consistently treating her with dignity and respect.  He has worked collaboratively with the Deputy Mayor for Education, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, and DCPS on highly successful projects such as the common lottery and the development of equity reports.

Finally, Mr. Pearson values the traditional schools.  In a 2015 Washington Post editorial written with Mr. McKoy he stated:

“Right now, the District has the best of both worlds: a vibrant charter sector that offers a wide range of learning models from some of the best school leaders and a strong, improving and growing DCPS that has responded to charter competition by revitalizing its commitment to quality. D.C. schools are nowhere close to perfect. But the current model, with two public school systems pushing each other to be better and cooperating whenever possible, is proving to be the right mix for the District’s schoolchildren.”

In making Mr. Pearson Chancellor we could get a true win-win situation.  Someone who knows and revers the major education players in the city, and at the same time, a leader who will try new ways in order to continue the rise in academic achievement demonstrated under Ms. Henderson’s tenure.

The decision for the Mayor is clear and simple.

Today’s Washington Post includes an article by Perry Stein in which she reveals that her newspaper and the Associated Press has obtained an email from Kaya Henderson which demonstrates that the Chancellor solicited money to support her system’s annual teacher recognition ceremony from Chartwells-Thompson Hospitality, a food vendor that a whistleblower lawsuit had accused of stealing millions of dollars from DCPS.

The reporter adds that the 2013 email to Warren Thompson, the president of the food vendor, came two months after the lawsuit was filed and at a time that the contract with DCPS was coming to an end.  Apparently the Chancellor asked the company to contribute toward her event at the highest level which at the time was $100,000.  The firm ended up committing to $25,000 to which Ms. Henderson reacted by exclaiming “You Rock!”  The money went to the DC Education Fund, a non-profit that hosts the gala.

The Post quotes Michelle Lerner, the DCPS spokeswoman (no relation) as commenting about this story,  “We followed all the rules here.”

Let me be as clear as I can.  Ms. Henderson did absolutely nothing wrong.

First of all, the Chancellor has no role regarding DCPS vendor selection.  This is done through the D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement.  These decisions then must be approved by the D.C. Council.  Councilman David Grosso, the chairman of the Council’s education committee, states that he never has discussed DCPS contracts with the Chancellor.

But all of this is really beyond the point.  Organizations and companies frequently fundraise for events from the vendors with which they do business.  This to me seems only natural.  Good vendors become strong partners in the mission of the groups to which they provide products or services.  This is true in the for-profit world and it applies equally for 501(c)3s.  I’m sure if you looked at money raised for charter school events you would find instances absolutely identical to the one written about this morning.

Ms. Perry indicates that the City Bridge Foundation, FedEx and Cisco have all donated in the past to the Standing Ovation for D.C. Teachers gala.  That’s a great start.  I hope that these are only a sample of names, and that in the future the list of those supporting hard working educators in this town becomes much much longer.

Last week I had jury duty.  Everyone living in D.C. knows the drill.  You go down to the Moultrie Courthouse on Indiana Avenue N.W. and enter a large room where you sit and wait to see if your name and number will be called to serve.  In order to make the day go by faster, during the frequent 15 minute breaks I would go into the courtroom located next door and watch the proceedings.  What I saw was heartbreaking.

I was able to observe a multitude of cases come before the judge.  Prisoners were brought in one at a time under armed guard and shackled in chains that restricted the movement of their hands and feet.  Each of the names called by the clerk located on the podium at the front of the room was different but the reason for their incarceration was similar.

Before me appeared one African American man after another.  I say man but these were really not more than kids; I would guess each was between the ages of 18 and 21.  All had been convicted or accused of a crime such as robbery or theft.  One person was there because a witness said the defendant had threatened to kill him by firing a gun.  From the conversations I learned that many of those being incarcerated were homeless.

As the judge discussed the scenarios that had caused these people’s lives to become deeply intertwined with the legal system there was one common denominator.  Each had been found to be using drugs when they were arrested.

As I watched this sad parade of broken human beings I was reminded that we are now in year 20 of education reform in the nation’s capital.  Anger started to boil up in me as I recalled that after all of this painstaking effort and money we have reached the staggering point in which only 25 percent of our public school pupils are proficient in reading and math.  For those living in poverty, average reading and math proficiency rates were 11 percent, thereby guaranteeing that their futures were passing right in front of my eyes.

In a conversation about this subject yesterday with a member of the DC Public Charter School Board staff the individual pointed out to me that the problem in the black community goes much deeper than education.  But on this topic I turn to the words of the past chancellor of New York City Schools Joel Klein in his fine book Lessons of Hope:

From the day I became chancellor, many people told me, “You’ll never fix education in America until you fix poverty.”  I’ve always believed that the reverse is true:  we’ll never fix poverty until we fix education.  Sure, a strong safety net and support programs for poor families are appropriate and necessary.  But we’ve recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, and it seems fair to say that we must seek new approaches as our problems increase.

Safety-net and support programs can never do what a good education can; they can never instill in a disadvantaged child the belief that society can and will work for him in the same way that it works for middle- and upper-class children.  It is the sense of belonging -the feeling that the game is not rigged from the start- that allows a child to find autonomy, productivity, and ultimately, happiness.  That’s what education did for me.  And that’s why, whenever I talk about education reform, I like to recall the wise, if haunting, words of Frederick Douglass, himself a slave, who said, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”

My question to all of you is simply this:  When are our education leaders and public officials going to express outrage at these standardized test score results?

I’ve been receiving the email messages and viewing the blog posts about how we are all supposed to be celebrating the fact that 20 years ago the first charter school opened its doors in the District of Columbia.  Please excuse me if I skip the party.

Don’t get me wrong.  Much has significantly improved since 1996.  At that time the primary reason parents sought these experimental educational institutions was that they were safe.  This says all you really need to know about the state of DCPS.  Thanks to our local movement many children have attended college who never would have gone; in fact the word university never would have passed through the lips of their parents.  It is also not an overstatement to say that for numerous young people charters have meant the difference between life and death on the streets of our city.

But I’m far from satisfied at the progress.  I started my involvement with charters near the end of 1999 when I was a volunteer tutor at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter High School for Public Policy.  There I was introduced to ninth and tenth graders who could not read, write, or complete basic mathematical problems.  With the release of the PARCC standardized test results showing that our students have a proficiency rate in English and math at 25 percent, it appears that if I showed up at a public school today to work with a high school student my observations would not be much different.  The academic achievement gap between rich and poor and black and white is not shrinking; it is actually moving in the opposite direction.

Moreover, after a quarter of a century at this the funding inequities between charters and the regular schools persist.  We still haven’t figured out how to provide a permanent facility for all charters that need one.  There is a desperate shortage of high quality seats.  Parents trying to get their children into many Performance Management Framework Tier 1 schools face a waiting list of over a thousand scholars.  For the third year in a row charters make up 44 percent of all kids attending public schools in the nations capital.

Yes, much has improved over the last two decades.  But if we really want to change our society to one in which each and every young person receives the education they deserve, I’m afraid we have stalled.

Last Saturday, the Washington Post’s Colbert King opined about the growing academic achievement gap found in D.C. schools which was highlighted by this year’s PARCC standardized test results.  About the elementary and middle school scores he writes:

“Overall English and math proficiency rates reached 25 percent and 24 percent, respectively, only because white students, who make up 12 percent of the school system, scored proficiency rates of 79 percent in English and 70 percent in math.

The stark truth: Black students, who constitute 67 percent of the school population, had a 17 percent proficiency rate in both English and math, trailing Hispanics, who comprise 17 percent of the school population and recorded proficiency rates of 21 percent in English and 22 percent in math.”

The issue does not get any better regarding the high school findings.  Mr. King points out that while 52 percent of white children were proficient on the geometry test, that number is at 8 percent for Hispanics and 4 percent for Black kids.  In English, 82 percent of white students were found to be proficient while only 25 percent of Hispanics and 20 percent of Blacks were college ready.

I  share Mr. King’s unhappiness that after almost 20 years of school reform here in the District we have this persistent and stubborn achievement gap.  But his solution does nothing to help.

“This new year, responsibility for a turnaround rests not only on principals and teachers but also on mothers and fathers behaving like supportive, participating parents, and a community — business, religious and social leaders, including elected officials — bent on providing all that is necessary, both school resources and family support, to close one of the widest racial academic achievement gaps in the country.”

We have waited long enough for parents, community leaders, and politicians to fix this problem.  There are proven charter schools that already know how to bridge the achievement gap like KIPP DC PCS, DC Prep PCS, Achievement Prep PCS, Friendship PCS, and Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS. As a society we should do everything we can do to help these charters and others that have been successful at this work expand and takeover traditional schools that aren’t.

I have a New Year’s resolution to replace the one offered by Mr. King.  By the end of this year, 2016, there will be an action plan for each facility that has a lower than 25 percent student proficiency rate in English and math which includes the takeover by a high performing charter.