[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4330, THE ALL STUDENTS ACHIEVING THROUGH REFORM ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-829 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 24, 2010................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Delaware...................................... 9
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 71
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 6
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, submission for the record:
Report, ``Choice Without Equity: Charter School
Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards,''
Internet address to.................................... 54
Statement of Witnesses:
Ahearn, Eileen M., Ph.D., project director, National
Association of State Directors of Special Education........ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Hehir, Thomas, Ed.D., professor, Harvard Graduate School of
Education.................................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Lake, Robin J., associate director, Center on Reinventing
Public Education........................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Moskowitz, Eva, Ph.D., CEO and founder, Harlem Success
Academy.................................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Richmond, Greg, president and CEO, the National Association
of Charter School Authorizers.............................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Young, Caprice, president and CEO, KC Distance Learning;
board chairman, National Alliance for Public Charter
Schools.................................................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
H.R. 4330, THE ALL STUDENTS ACHIEVING THROUGH REFORM ACT OF 2009
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Scott, Hinojosa,
McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis, Loebsack, Hirono, Altmire,
Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, Polis, Sablan, Titus, Chu, Petri,
Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, McMorris Rodgers, and Cassidy.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Andra Belknap,
Press Assistant; Calla Brown, Staff Assistant, Education; Jody
Calemine, General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau, Senior Education
Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy;
David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Junior
Legislative Associate, Education; Sharon Lewis, Senior
Disability Policy Advisor; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Bryce
McKibbon, Staff Assistant; Charmaine Mercer, Senior Education
Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Lillian Pace,
Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education; Helen Pajcic, Education Policy Associate;
Kristina Peterson, Legislative Fellow, Education; Rachel
Racusen, Communications Director; Alexandria Ruiz,
Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Dray Thorne, Senior
Systems Administrator; Daniel Weiss, Special Assistant to the
Chairman; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Kirk Boyle, Minority General
Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Minority Coalitions and Member Services
Coordinator; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director;
Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Education Policy Counsel;
and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the
General Counsel.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
committee will come to order. I want to welcome all the members
and welcome our witnesses today. Thank you for taking the time
to join us and to give us the benefit of your expertise and
experience.
And I will recognize myself for an opening statement, and
then recognize Mr. Cassidy, and then Mr. Kildee, and you have--
Mr. Castle, I guess, will be here by then, right? We hope.
Today we will examine how charter schools can be used as a
tool to drive innovation in our schools. Specifically, we will
discuss legislation introduced by Rep. Polis that would expand
access to outstanding charter schools.
This hearing kicks off a larger conversation about how we
can educate our way to a better economy, as Secretary Duncan
says, by overhauling our nation's primary education law.
Last week, Congressmen Kline, Kildee, Castle and I
announced that we plan to do this overhaul in an inclusive and
transparent way. We are starting by holding hearings and asking
for input of all stakeholders who want to make meaningful
improvements in the law.
I strongly believe that the bipartisanship will be the key
to getting this rewrite done. Our committee has a tradition of
working across party lines when it comes to education.
Nine years ago, we came together for the historic way to
write the latest version of the law No Child Left Behind. No
Child Left--No Child brought powerful reforms to our schools.
We made clear then--we made it clear that it was time to
end the inequities and low standards that had come to exemplify
schools in this country. We made it impossible for schools to
mask the fact that too many students were falling behind.
This focus on transparency and accountability has forced us
to acknowledge some hard truths. It has shown how far we have
to go to get our schools and students where they need to be.
But we also know that the law didn't get everything right.
We all agree, along with teachers, parents, administrators
and many others, that there needs to be significant changes.
Now, with our economy in need of serious rebuilding, we cannot
afford to wait to fix it.
It is time to realize our vision of world-class schools
that prepare every student to compete in our global economy. To
get there, we need to be open to bold ideas to disrupt our
current system.
We have to pay attention to what is working in our schools
and give other schools the tools to learn from those successes.
Time and again, we have seen this approach work. Innovation and
creativity lead to effective reforms. Effective reforms
transform schools and communities.
One of the best examples of high--is our high-performing
charter schools. These schools are proving that low-income and
minority students can succeed when given the right tools,
challenges and learning environments.
There are now more than 1.5 million children enrolled at
nearly 5,000 public charters across the U.S. In some of these
areas, students were stuck in struggling schools where 70
percent of the students drop out. The opportunity promised by
quality charter schools was their only chance at a better
education.
Take the Green Dot public schools. Green Dot schools serve
students in the highest need in Los Angeles and South Bronx,
where only about 4 percent of the kids graduate from college.
Eighty percent of Green Dot students graduate, and 80 percent
of their graduates are accepted to a 4-year college.
Green Dot schools have their own teachers unions affiliated
with the National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers. Their job security is based not just on
seniority, but how well they are teaching students. These
partnerships show that teachers unions can help lead the way to
building successful charter schools.
Successful charter schools are also welcoming
accountability and data. They value strong principals and
teachers. They support longer school hours and more school days
to help students catch up. They engage parents as active
participants in their school communities.
These are strategies that we should be paying attention to,
not just as we think about how to improve charter schools, but
how to improve all schools. President Obama and Secretary
Duncan recognize this. Their Race to the Top initiative
prioritizes the funding for states that allow more charter
schools.
As a result, Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee and California
have already changed their laws to be eligible. Another six
states also advanced their policies to strengthen charter
schools. We should do everything we can to support these
efforts.
Now, for all that the charter schools are doing outstanding
things, there are also charters that aren't serving students
well and need of the charter schools--now, for all to be shut
down. Charter schools are not a silver bullet to fixing our
schools.
But I think one of our witnesses in a recent hearing,
Colorado's lieutenant governor Barbara O'Brien, put it best
when she said that charter schools are research and development
arms of education.
If our goal is to build world-class schools, we absolutely
need to look at high-performing charter schools for research
and development to replicate what they are getting right. That
is what Representative Polis' bill, the All Students Achieving
Through Reform Act, aims to do.
It would bring to scale what is working in charter schools
and improve the quality of existing schools. It would allow
existing schools to apply for grants to help with
transportation and hire additional staff.
The bill would also create a new competitive grant program
for states and districts that want to expand quality charter
schools in high-need areas.
I would like to thank Representative Polis, who founded two
charter schools in Colorado, for introducing this bill.
I would also like to thank our witnesses for joining us
today. This is one of the--one of many--this and many other
discussions to come where we will discuss these issues raised
here this morning and others and how we can improve No Child
Left Behind.
With that, I would now like to recognize Mr. Cassidy.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
Good morning.
Today we will examine how charter schools can be used as a tool to
drive innovation in our schools. Specifically, we will discuss
legislation introduced by Rep. Polis that would expand access to
outstanding charter schools.
This hearing kicks off a larger conversation about how we can
``educate our way to a better economy''--as Secretary Duncan says--by
overhauling our nation's primary education law. Last week, Congressmen
Kline, Kildee, Castle and I announced that we plan to do this overhaul
in an inclusive and transparent way.
We are starting by holding hearings and asking for input from all
stakeholders who want to make meaningful improvements to the law. I
strongly believe that bipartisanship will be the key to getting this
rewrite done. Our committee has a tradition of working across party
lines when it comes to education. Nine years ago, we came together in a
historic way to write the latest version of this law: No Child Left
Behind. No Child brought powerful reforms to our schools. We made clear
that it was time to end the inequities and low standards that had come
to exemplify schools in our country.
We made it impossible for schools to mask the fact that too many
students were falling behind. This focus on transparency and
accountability has forced us to acknowledge some hard truths. It's
shown us how far we have to go to get our schools and students where
they need to be. But we also know the law didn't get everything right.
We all agree, along with teachers, parents, administrators and many
others, that it needs significant changes. Now, with our economy in
need of serious rebuilding, we cannot afford to wait to fix it. It's
time to realize our vision for world-class schools that prepare every
student to compete in our global economy. To get there, we need to be
open to bold ideas that ``disrupt'' our current system. We have to pay
attention to what is working in our schools and give other schools the
tools to learn from their successes. Time and again, we have seen this
approach work. Innovation and creativity lead to effective reforms.
Effective reforms transform schools and communities. One of the best
examples of this is our high-performing charter schools. These schools
are proving that the low-income and minority students can succeed when
given the right tools, challenges and learning environments.
There are now more than 1.5 million children enrolled at nearly
5,000 public charter schools across the U.S. In some of these areas,
students were stuck in struggling schools where 70 percent of students
drop out. The opportunity promised by a quality charter school was
their only chance at a better education. Take the Green Dot Public
Charter schools. Green Dot schools serve students with the highest need
in Los Angeles and the South Bronx, areas where only about 4 percent of
kids graduate from college.
Eighty percent of Green Dot students graduate and 80 percent of
their graduates are accepted to four-year colleges. Green Dot schools
also have their own teachers unions affiliated with the National
Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
Their job security is based not just on seniority, but on how well
they are teaching students.
These partnerships show that teachers unions can help lead the way
in building successful charter schools. Successful charter schools are
also welcoming accountability and data. They value strong principals
and teachers. They support longer school hours and more school days to
help students catch up. They engage parents as active participants in
their school communities. These are strategies that we should be paying
attention to, not just as we think about how to improve charter
schools--but how to improve all schools. President Obama and Secretary
Duncan recognize this. Their Race to the Top initiative prioritizes
funding for states that allow more charter schools. As a result,
Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee and California have already changed
their laws to be eligible. Another six states have also advanced their
policies to strengthen charter schools. We should do everything we can
to support these efforts. Now, for all the charter schools that are
doing outstanding things, there are also charters that aren't serving
their students well and need to be shut down. Charter schools are not a
silver bullet for fixing our schools.
But I think one of our witnesses at a recent hearing, Colorado's
Lieutenant Governor Barbara O'Brien, put it best when she said
``Charter schools are the research and development arm of education.''
If our goal is to build world-class schools, we absolutely need to
look at high-performing charter schools for research and development--
and replicate what they are getting right.
That's what Rep. Polis' bill, the All Students Achieving through
Reform Act, aims to do.
It would bring to scale what is working in charter schools and
improve the quality of existing schools.
It would allow existing schools to apply for grants to help with
transportation and hire additional staff.
The bill would also create a new competitive grant program for
states and districts that want to expand quality charter schools in
high-need areas. I'd like to thank Rep. Polis, who founded two charter
schools in Colorado, for introducing this bill.
I'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
On this and many other discussions to come, I look forward to working
with all members of our committee to fulfill the promise of an
excellent education for every student.
______
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
And let me begin by welcoming our distinguished panel of
witnesses. We are here this morning to talk about proposals to
expand high-quality charter schools, expand access, a cause
that Republicans have long embraced and we are pleased to see
has drawn increasing support on the other side of the aisle.
The nation's first charter school law was passed almost 20
years ago, and since that time they have taken root firmly in
our educational system, providing parents with a choice and
communities with the innovation and competition necessary to
begin transforming their schools.
Charter schools are the epitome of performance-based
education. In exchange for flexibility and autonomy, they are
held accountable for producing results. And if they fail to
meet accountability standards or attract enough students, their
charters can be revoked.
As it turns out, attracting students for charter schools
has not been a problem. In 2009 an estimated 365,000 students
were on charter school waiting lists, enough to fill more than
1,100 new average-size charter schools. In fact, more than half
of all charter schools nationwide have a waiting list.
Although charter schools are public, they do face
significant disadvantages compared to traditional public
schools. Charter schools generally do not receive facilities
funding, nor can they raise funds through local taxes.
Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have caps
that limit charter school growth. And while the teachers at
many charter schools have chosen to remain independent, there
is a growing movement among labor leaders to organize these
schools and impose rigid collective bargaining agreements that
prevent creative instructional approaches such as longer school
days, years or weekend learning opportunities.
As states and local communities keep working to improve
opportunities for their students, we need to ensure federal
policy keeps pace with and does not get in the way of local
innovation.
The bill we are discussing today is one of several
promising ideas to expand access to quality charter schools by
allowing new schools to be established under an existing
charter. Other opportunities include eliminating state charter
school enrollment and growth caps and improving access to
facilities funding.
As with all federal programs designed to foster local
innovation, we must be careful not to tie the hands of
educators on the front lines. Too many federal mandates can
undermine the flexibility and autonomy that make charter
schools so successful.
At the same time, we must not dilute the value of charter
schools or the funding they receive by broadening the
definition in a way that allows schools without true autonomy
to absorb limited resources or cloud this unique subset of the
public school system.
This morning's hearing is a welcome display of
bipartisanship on the broad issue of expanding access to high-
quality charter schools, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses on how to make that goal a reality.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Cassidy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Cassidy, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Louisiana
Thank you Chairman Miller, and let me begin by welcoming our
distinguished panel of witnesses. We're here this morning to talk about
proposals to expand access to high-quality charter schools--a cause
we've long embraced on this side of the aisle, and one that is drawing
increasing support on the other side.
The nation's first charter school law was passed almost 20 years
ago. Since that time, charter schools have firmly taken root in our
educational system, providing parents with a choice and communities
with the innovation and competition necessary to begin transforming
their schools.
Charter schools are the epitome of performance-based education: In
exchange for flexibility and autonomy, they are held accountable for
producing results. If they fail to meet accountability standards or
attract enough students, their charters can be revoked.
As it turns out, attracting students has not been a problem for
quality public charter schools. In 2009, an estimated 365,000 students
were on charter school waiting lists--enough to fill more than 1,100
new, average-sized charter schools. In fact, more than half of all
charter schools nationwide have a waiting list.
Although charter schools are public, they face significant
disadvantages compared to traditional public schools. Charter schools
generally do not receive facilities funding, nor can they raise funds
through local tax levies. Twenty-six states and the District of
Columbia have caps that limit charter school growth.
And while the teachers at many charter schools have chosen to
remain independent, there is a growing movement among labor leaders to
organize these schools and impose rigid collective bargaining
agreements that prevent creative instructional approaches such as
longer school days and years or weekend learning opportunities.
As states and local communities keep working to improve
opportunities for their students, we need to ensure federal policy
keeps pace with--and does not get in the way of--local innovation. The
bill we're discussing today is one of several promising ideas to expand
access to quality charter schools by allowing new schools to be
established under an existing charter. Other opportunities include
eliminating state charter school enrollment and growth caps and
improving access to facilities funding.
As with all federal programs designed to foster local innovation,
we must be careful not to tie the hands of educators on the front
lines. Too many federal mandates could undermine the flexibility and
autonomy that make charter schools so successful.
At the same time, we must not dilute the value of charter schools
or the funding they receive by broadening the definition in a way that
allows schools without true autonomy to absorb their limited resources
or cloud this unique subset of the public school system.
This morning's hearing is a welcome display of bipartisanship on
the broad issue of expanding access to high-quality charter schools,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how to make that
goal a reality. Thank you, and I yield back.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
I now yield to Congressman Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank our distinguished witness panel for
their participation today. I hope your insights--and I expect
they will--bring us closer to our goal of providing a high
quality of education for all students.
While the American education system is one of the better in
the world, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Higher
standards and better assessments will help, but we must push
the envelope with innovative strategies for reform.
Charter schools certainly hold promise, but only if federal
and state governments do a better job of requiring quality. I
watched a number of charter schools divert resources from the
traditional public school system only to finish the school year
with students farther behind.
Innovation cannot occur without proper oversight. And I
will push for policies that hold these schools accountable for
performance.
I am also concerned that these schools all too often fail
to serve a representative sample of the student population. As
we explore strategies for comprehensive school reform, we
should never lose sight of our commitment to equal access for
all students.
I hope we have the opportunity to discuss these important
issues today so we can move forward with solutions acceptable
to all. I want to thank the chairman for calling today's
hearing.
And I now, Mr. Chairman, wish to yield my remaining time to
my colleague, Representative Polis. As the author of the
legislation we will discuss today and a former charter school
superintendent, he is a real leader on this issue, and I am
confident that he will work hard to make sure we get this
right.
I yield to Representative Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Kildee, for yielding your time.
Chairman Miller. [OFF MIKE]
Mr. Polis. What is that?
Chairman Miller. [OFF MIKE]
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for launching our
committee's bipartisan efforts to reform our federal education
laws.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle.
As we begin to rewrite No Child Left Behind, we renew our
commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring that
each and every child, regardless of economic or ethnic
background, receives a quality education and the opportunity to
succeed.
Seeing the positive impact of excellent charter schools in
neighborhoods across 40 states and the District of Columbia,
parents want more access to excellent charter schools. But
sadly, the demand far exceeds the available seats.
About 365,000 students nationally are on public charter
school waiting lists, including 38,000 in my home state of
Colorado.
To address this problem and expand access to hope and
opportunity, I introduced the All Students Achieving Through
Reform, or All-STAR, Act which enables successful public
charter schools that get the job done to expand and replicate.
All-STAR allows more at-risk students to attend a great school
and realize their full potential.
I know that there are those who wish that charter schools
didn't exist and others who would like to see every public
school converted into a charter school. This bill embraces the
pragmatic common ground.
The public charter schools are an asset to our education
system, but only if they do what they are supposed to do,
expand hope and educational opportunity to those students and
families who need it the most.
We will hear today about the need for charter schools to
improve their performance to better meet the special education
needs of all students.
We will hear about the need for quality authorizers to
intervene or close bad charter schools and ensure a fair
authorizing process.
We will hear about how many superintendents and teachers
see charter schools as a powerful tool in a portfolio
management approach to district governance.
The All-STAR bill is a catalyst, a catalyst for allowing
disadvantaged kids to have a transformative life experience at
a high-quality public school.
As we already recognize through Title 5 funding dating to
the Clinton administration, the federal government has a
critical role in helping new and innovative charter schools get
off the ground.
Serving as laboratories of educational innovation, charter
schools have pioneered some of the most promising and
influential reform strategies. This bill creates a separate and
distinct allocation for the expansion and replication of
successful charter schools.
What is indisputable is that successful innovations have
led to outstanding results. Schools like KIPP, Harlem Success
Academy and Ricardo Flores Magon in my district are defying the
odds and stand quietly as the most powerful testimony in
refutation of those who believe but dare not say that these
children can't learn.
All-STAR schools around the country run by innovators who
succeeded where others have failed are the types of schools we
must invest in to serve more kids. They can transform the lives
of families, break the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance
and replace it with a virtuous cycle of enlightenment and
prosperity.
That is why I have introduced this bill, and that is why I
am proud to invite my colleagues today to join us in learning
from our panel about the opportunities and challenges in the
public charter school movement.
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Miller for launching the Committee's bipartisan
efforts to reform our nation's federal education laws and for your
leadership on serving the needs of all students.
I would also like to thank my colleague on the other side of the
aisle, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, for his support of this legislation and
for his dedication to improving our public schools.
As we begin to rewrite No Child Left Behind, we renew our
commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring that each and
every child, regardless of economic or ethnic background, receives a
quality education and the opportunity to succeed.
At the committee's June hearing on charter schools, we heard how
top-performing charter schools with a rigorous curriculum and high
expectations, are turning around student achievement and providing a
world-class education to at-risk students.
Seeing the impact of such schools in neighborhoods across 40 states
and the District of Columbia, parents want more access to excellent
charter schools but sadly the demand far exceeds the available seats.
About 365,000 students are on public charter school waiting lists
nationwide, including 38,000 in Colorado.
To address this problem and expand access to hope and opportunity,
I introduced the All Students Achieving through Reform (All-STAR) Act,
which enables successful public charter schools that get the job done
to expand and replicate. By building on what we know works, All-STAR
allows more at-risk students to attend a great school and realize their
full potential.
I know that there are those who wish that charter schools didn't
exist, and others who would like to see every public school converted
to a charter school. This bill embraces the pragmatic common ground
that public charter schools are an asset to our education system, but
only if they do what they were supposed to do: expand hope and
educational opportunity to those students that need it the most.
We will hear today about the need for charter schools to improve
their performance to better meet the special education needs of all
students. We will hear about the need for quality authorizers to
intervene or close bad charter schools and ensure a fair authorizing
process. We will hear how many superintendents and teachers see charter
schools as a powerful tool in a portfolio management approach to
district governance.
The All-STAR bill is a catalyst, a catalyst for allowing
disadvantaged kids to have a transformative life experience at a high-
quality public school. It is a catalyst for states to embrace good
policies that promote quality charter growth while strengthening
accountability and oversight. A catalyst to promote best practices
among authorizers and making sure that charter schools successfully
serve the needs of students with disabilities and English language
learners. And a catalyst for proven models to disseminate throughout
our schools, both traditional and charters.
As already recognized through Title V funding, dating to the
Clinton administration, the federal government has a critical role in
helping new and innovative charter schools get off the ground. Serving
as laboratories of educational innovation, charter schools have
pioneered some of the most promising and influential reform strategies,
such as extended learning time, principal autonomy, data-driven
research and instruction, and a laser focus on results.
This bill creates a separate and distinct allocation for the other
major benefit of charter schools. Yes, charter schools cause innovation
to occur and challenge the forces of the status quo to embrace the hard
work of improvement, but so too the best charter schools represent a
part of the solution. Part of the solution for what we all came here
for, why we serve in this Congress, on this committee. Data is a funny
thing, we all try to use it for political advantage. There are studies
that show that charter schools are ``better'' and ``more diverse'' than
other public schools, and studies that show that charters are worse or
less diverse than other public schools.
What is indisputable, however, is that successful innovations have
led to outstanding results. Schools like KIPP, Harlem Success Academy,
and Ricardo Flores Magon in my district are defying the odds and stand
quietly as the most powerful testimony in refutation of those who
believe but dare not say that ``these children can't learn.''
The Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster, Colorado, prepares
kindergarten through eighth grade students for success in school,
college and beyond. The school has a longer school day with five hours
of core subject instruction each day and an extended school year, and
provides for summer enrichment programs and need-based tutoring, as
well as one-to-one and cohort interventions. All students have daily
tennis and chess lessons and all teaching staff undergoes three weeks
of intensive prior to the start of every school year.
Its student population reflects the community: 93% Free/Reduced
Lunch; 90% Latino; and 80% English Language Learners. But its students'
outcomes do not reflect those characteristics. 93% of 3rd graders
scored proficient or advanced in reading, compared to 73% for Colorado.
And each and every student--100% of 3rd graders--scored proficient or
advanced in math, compared to 69% for Colorado.
It is All-STAR schools like these around the country, run by
innovators who have succeeded where others have failed, we must invest
in so they can serve more kids, can transform the lives of more
families, can break the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance and
replace it with a virtuous cycle of enlightenment and prosperity.
That's why I introduced this bill. And that's why I am proud to invite
my colleagues today to join us in learning from our panel about the
opportunities, fairness issues, and challenges in the public charter
school movement.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Castle?
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for holding today's
hearing.
And I thank all of the witnesses and all of you who are
interested in this issue for being here.
As you all know, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, which includes the public charter schools program, is up
for reauthorization.
And with more than 1.4 million students attending over
4,600 charter schools in 40 states and the District of
Columbia, I welcome the opportunity to work in a bipartisan
manner to explore legislation aimed at supporting effective
charter schools.
Charter schools are an important part of education reform
efforts to improve our nation's public school system. Charter
schools offer choices to parents and children who, in many
instances, would otherwise be trapped in chronically
underperforming public schools.
Charter schools also tackle a variety of educational
challenges unique to urban, rural and suburban areas.
In outlining their plan for education reform, President
Obama and his administration have expressed their support for
expanding effective charter schools. The administration has
also called on states to lift caps on the amount of charter
schools they have.
In 2009, an estimated 365,000 students were on charter
schools' wait lists across the country, enough to fill over
1,100 new average-size charter schools.
I agree that one way to meet this demand is for states to
reform or reconsider their caps on charter schools while
continuing to utilize appropriate measures to ensure that new
charter schools are of high quality.
Another thing we can do is look to reform the current
charter school program to allow for high-quality schools to
replicate their services in these communities to meet this
demand.
Like traditional elementary and secondary schools, however,
charter schools vary greatly in quality. And I am pleased to
explore through this hearing and further discussions the role
of the federal government in supporting high-performing charter
schools as well as addressing the issue of charter schools that
are failing our students.
With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act pending, Congress has the opportunity to enhance
charter school programs and help increase the number of high-
quality public charter schools where they are most needed, in
areas where students are trapped in underperforming schools and
who are still today left behind.
With that, I look forward to hearing from today's panel.
Thank you, Chairman Miller, and I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Again, let me just say that pursuant to Rule 7(c), all
members may submit opening statements in writing which will be
made part of the permanent record.
And before I introduce our panel, let me inform the panel
that we operate under the 5-minute rule here. When you begin to
speak, in those little boxes in front of you a green light will
go on. You will have 5 minutes. With 1 minute remaining, an
orange light will go on, so you can think about how you want to
summarize.
And then a red light goes on and we finish--if you would
finish at that point, but obviously finish so you appear to be
coherent and--you know, and the rest of--you get your thoughts
out the way you want.
I think we have got a great panel this morning. Our first
witness will be Dr. Eva Moskowitz, who is the founder and CEO
of Success Charter Network in New York City.
Dr. Moskowitz runs the famed Harlem Success Academies,
which are some of the top performing public schools in the
state. She plans to replicate this successful school model
across the city, ultimately opening 40 charter schools in New
York City.
Dr. Moskowitz has put the charter school concept into
action, and we look forward to learning from her expertise.
Robin Lake is the associate director of the Center for
Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington
where she directs the National Charter School Research Project
and co-directs the Inside Charter Schools project.
Mrs. Lake focuses on the role of charter schools in driving
innovation and district-wide reform. She has authored numerous
studies on public charter policy, development and reform
strategy. Mrs. Lake will discuss the role charter schools play
in district reform and driving innovation.
Greg Richmond is the president of the National Association
of Charter School Authorizers. Mr. Richmond served in the
Chicago public schools for over a decade, making it the first
urban school district to request charter schools, and worked
under Arne Duncan in the district as the district's chief
officer of new school development.
Mr. Richmond will discuss how to build strong charter law
and policy that both supports charter schools and holds them
accountable.
Dr. Thomas Hehir is the director of the Harvard Graduate
School of Education Leadership program. Dr. Hehir served as
director of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Special Education Programs under President Clinton.
Dr. Hehir has devoted himself to the education of students
with disability. He works tirelessly to improve the research,
access and services for students with disabilities in charter
schools.
Dr. Hehir is an expert on how to increase quality and
access for students with disabilities who are in special need
of educational choice.
Eileen Ahearn is the senior policy analyst for the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education. Dr. Ahearn
has extensive experience both in the classroom and in research
into special education issues.
Dr. Ahearn will discuss the relationship between special
education and charter schools at the policy level and in the
classroom.
Caprice Young is the president and CEO of KC Distance
Learning. Dr. Young also served as the board chair of the
National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.
Dr. Young was president of the Los Angeles Unified School
District Board of Education where she played an integral role
in focusing charter school movement on student achievement,
community involvement, teacher quality and effective
management.
Dr. Young will discuss charter school policy that enables
growth of high-quality programs while still holding charter
schools accountable on students and the communities that they
serve.
Welcome to the committee.
Dr. Moskowitz, we begin with you.
I will have to express a conflict of interest here. I
visited Dr. Moskowitz' schools a couple of years ago and was
deeply impressed.
But go ahead.
STATEMENT OF EVA MOSKOWITZ, PH.D., CEO AND FOUNDER, HARLEM
SUCCESS ACADEMY
Ms. Moskowitz. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller, for
holding this hearing and members of the committee.
As a former civics teacher--and some of you are--remember
that there used to be civics in the public school system--it is
an incredible honor to be in these chambers. So thank you for
having me.
My name, again, is Eva Moskowitz, and I am the founder of
Success Charter Network. We have four high-performing schools.
We are opening three more this summer. And our aspiration is
not only to create 40 phenomenal schools and educate the kids
within our four walls exceptionally well, but to change the
rules of the game so that children outside of our four walls
can get the education that they deserve and are entitled to.
Our nation, as you well know, has lost much of its
competitive edge because our education system, particularly the
K through 12 education system, is not what it needs to be,
despite a half century of incredible increases in spending.
That is the bad news.
The good news is that we now have proof points across this
nation of what works. Congressman Polis referred to that in his
opening statement. We now know that there are a lot of great
schools.
And even more importantly for the purposes of this hearing,
we know that there are charter leaders who have not just done
it once but have done it over and over again. And so the time
is ripe to really think through replication and how more
children can take advantage of what is clearly good school
design.
So we have the suppliers, and we certainly have the demand.
We had 5,000 parents at our lottery for Harlem Success Academy
for 475 spots. The people have spoken. They want excellent
education.
Parents are voting with their feet, not only in New York
City but across this nation. Therefore, the time is now for the
federal government to play an important role in reversing our
nation's educational decline by investing in high-performing
charter replicators.
We need a high-occupancy vehicle lane for those folks who
have proven that they can get the job done.
There is an anecdote about General Grant that you may have
heard. Someone told President Lincoln that Grant was a drunk.
Lincoln's response was that someone should find out what brand
of whisky Grant was drinking and send a case of it to all of
his generals. Lincoln's point was when someone is doing
something right, you shouldn't micro-manage them.
I would argue that the federal government has a critical
role to play in supporting fast and smart growth of proven
success. And that is what Congressman Polis' bill does so well.
To do successfully, the federal government must protect the
single greatest ingredient of success, and that is autonomy.
The whole concept of charters, as was mentioned before, was in
exchange for high performance, the operator gets freedom.
I would argue that that is our secret sauce at Harlem
Success. How come kids, I am asked all the time, who are in a
Title 1 school with 18 percent special ed have outperformed
affluent neighborhoods in New York City and around the state?
If I may brag for a moment, we ranked 32 out of 3,500
schools statewide. We outperformed our school district by 20
percent in math, 40 percent in reading. Nearly three-quarters
of our children scored at the highest level, which is a four,
compared to one-quarter in the school district.
Our Harlem children outperformed those in Scarsdale, one of
the wealthiest communities in this country. How is that
possible? The answer is freedom.
We have the freedom to get it right, the freedom to correct
in real time the stuff we get wrong, the freedom to innovate,
the freedom to work longer and harder, the freedom to organize
our schools around children and teaching rather than the
economic interests of grownups. Without this freedom, you would
get the same results that the school districts get.
At Success Academy we have the freedom to invest in
teaching and school leadership talent, so we pay more than the
local teachers contract.
How do we afford this even though our per pupil is less?
Well, we choose to have larger class sizes so we can pay our
teachers more, and we don't rely on a Soviet-style procurement
system of the district. Like many Americans, we go to Costco
and Kmart and Target to buy our supplies.
We have the freedom to make science a non-second-class
subject by teaching it 5 days a week starting in kindergarten.
We have the freedom to use technology in really smart ways,
not only to improve student learning but, more importantly, to
improve teaching. We have emphasized technology way too much on
the student end and not enough on the teaching end.
At Success Academy we organize our resources both in terms
of time and money around helping teachers get better.
I understand my time is running out, so I will cut to the
chase. We are succeeding because of this freedom. But while
there are these proof points of success, I have to run back to
New York to a hearing because there are forces trying to stop
replication.
Whether it is KIPP, or Achievement First, or Harlem Success
Academies, these great proof points are being resisted by the
forces of the status quo.
And I would urge you, Chairman Miller, to be bold, as I
know you have, so that we can give so many more children an
opportunity to learn at an unbelievably high level. Thank you
so very much.
[The statement of Ms. Moskowitz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eva Moskowitz, Ph.D., CEO and Founder,
Harlem Success Academy
Good morning Chairman Miller and the members of the House Committee
on Education and Labor.
It is a great honor to be here. As a former civics teacher (yes,
there used to be such teachers) I consider it a privilege to be in this
hallowed chamber. Thank you for considering my thoughts and views.
My name is Eva Moskowitz. I am the founder of Success Charter
Network. We run four, soon to be seven, high-performing public charter
schools. Our goal is to open up and manage 40 schools of phenomenal
quality. We want to replicate our extraordinary success not only so
that we can educate the kids within our four walls exceptionally well
but so that we can pave the way for much more fundamental, systemic
educational change and improvement.
Our nation has lost much of its competitive edge because while we
have dramatically increased educational spending over last quarter
century, we have failed to fundamentally alter student outcomes.
The good news is that we now have in locations across this country
clear proof points of what works. While not all charters are high
performing, there is a subset of charter leaders who have not only one
great school but have replicated that success at multiple schools.
So we have suppliers. And we certainly have demand. In New York
City, 5000 parents came out to win a spot in one of the Harlem Success
Academies. Parents are voting with their feet, demanding excellent
schools.
The time is therefore now for the federal government to play an
important role in reversing our nation's educational decline by
investing in high performing charter replicators. We need a high
occupancy vehicle lane for our most successful charter leaders.
There's an anecdote about General Grant you may have heard. Someone
told President Lincoln than Grant was a drunk. Lincoln's response was
that someone should find out what brand of whisky Grant was drinking
and send a case of it to all of his Generals. Lincoln's point was that
when someone is doing something right, you shouldn't micromanage them.
I would argue that the federal government has a critical role to
play in supporting fast and smart growth of proven success.
To do so successfully, the federal government must protect the
single greatest ingredient of success: autonomy. The whole concept of
charters is that it is a compact between the state and the operator to
deliver student achievement results in exchange for freedom.
I get asked all the time what is the secret sauce? How come your
kids who are in a Title I school have outperformed affluent
neighborhoods in New York City and around the state on state tests? Our
school was ranked 32 out of 3500 schools statewide. We outperformed our
school district by 20% in math and by 39% in reading. Nearly three
quarters of our children are ``advanced proficient'' in math, compared
with roughly one quarter in our school district. Our Harlem children
outperformed those in Scarsdale--one of the wealthiest communities in
this country.
How is it possible?
The answer is freedom. We have the freedom to get it right. The
freedom to correct in real time when we get stuff wrong. The freedom to
innovate. The freedom to work longer and harder. The freedom to
organize our schools around children and teaching rather than the
economic interests of grownups. Without this freedom, you would get the
same results district schools get.
At Success Academies we have the freedom to invest in teaching and
school leadership talent so we pay more than the local teachers
contract. How do we afford this even though we get less per pupil than
the district? Well, we choose to have larger class sizes so we can pay
our teachers more and we don't rely on the Soviet-style procurement
system of the district. Like many Americans, we go to Costco and Kmart
and Target to buy our supplies.
We have the freedom to make science a non-second class subject by
teaching it five days a week starting in kindergarten. We have the
freedom to use technology in really smart ways, not only to improve
student learning but perhaps even more importantly to improve teaching.
At Success Academies we organize our resources both in terms of money
and time around helping teachers get better. So much so that we are
simultaneously running a school for kids and a school of education. But
to do so requires freedom. Most district contracts only allow teachers
to come in a few days before school starts. Our faculty spend 8 weeks a
year getting training.
But while we are succeeding because we have this freedom, it needs
to be constantly protected because the forces against reform get that
this is the secret to our success. In our state capital in Albany this
winter, politicians have put forth all sorts of bills to curb our
freedom. They range from automatic unionization of charter bills to a
quota system whereby charters would be capped and only allowed to
educate a small percentage of a district. Indeed, replicators like us
are a particular target. State Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem
politician, has a bill that would allow a single charter operator to
educate only 5 percent of a district. These kinds of bills will kill
replication, taking away the very freedoms that make high performing
charters successful.
Chairman Miller and members of House Committee on Education and
Labor: please help charters with a strong record of success serve even
more kids. This entails both financial support of replication but also
not tampering with their secret sauce, autonomy!
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Lake?
STATEMENT OF ROBIN LAKE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Lake. Good morning, Chairman Miller.
Chairman Miller. We are going to have you pull that
microphone a little closer to you.
Mrs. Lake. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller. Is
that better?
Chairman Miller. Yes. Thank you.
Mrs. Lake. Members of the committee, thank you so much for
having us testify today.
My name is Robin Lake. I am with the Center on Reinventing
Public Education. We are a nonpartisan research center at the
University of Washington.
In my view, charter schools are essential to the most
important school district reforms at play today. And this is
especially true in some of the major urban districts, the
megadistricts that we think about, that people had largely
given up hope on in the past.
They had given up hope that reforms would ever overcome
decades of pretty dismal school performance and graduate rates
and dropouts.
This wasn't the case even a few years ago. Most districts
at that point had either ignored charter schools, hoping that
they would be basically a passing fad, go away, or tried to
marginalize their impact for lobbying--by lobbying for state
charter school caps or limited funding.
But district leaders are coming to realize now that charter
schools have an important and, I would argue, in many ways a
game-changing role to play in district reform. And let me give
you just a few examples.
In New Orleans, 60 percent of all public schools are now
charter schools. At first, this is basically a practicality.
After Hurricane Katrina, charters run by nonprofits were the
first schools that were open--able to open quickly enough after
the storm to serve local students.
But now the Recovery School District is actually turning
district-run schools into charters because they are looking at
the performance and realizing they are--the charters are simply
outperforming district schools.
So now 76 percent of charter schools in the Recovery School
District were considered last year academically acceptable or
better, compared to only 15 percent of the district-run
schools.
In Denver, successful college prep charter schools now take
the place of district schools that failed students for decades.
The superintendent there doesn't think of his job as
running a school system. He thinks of himself as running a
system of schools or a portfolio of schools. His job is to get
the best schools possible for the kids in Denver, and he
doesn't particularly care what they are called.
In New York City, district officials say that after having
repeatedly tried and failed to fix their worst schools, they
have no choice now but to turn to charter schools.
The district officials actually lobbied the state
legislature to go ahead and lift the statewide cap so that they
can replace more failing schools.
So these district leaders all have different reforms in the
specifics, but they have one thing in common, and that is they
believe that their work is too urgent and too important to
close off any viable options.
They see charter schools not as a threat but as an
opportunity to overcome school system inertia. They see
charters as a way to give them the political leverage they
need. So instead of trying to compete with charters, they are
trying to co-opt them.
Now, here are four specific things that charter schools
offer smart districts. First, access to new talent. District
leaders know that they can't fix their public schools without
great people. And charter schools tend to attract
entrepreneurial teachers, principals, central office folks who
wouldn't otherwise choose to work in public education.
Second, they offer the opportunity to start schools from
scratch. So they find it is much easier to close low-performing
schools if they can announce that a charter school with a
proven model will take its place. And it is much easier to open
a new school rather than to try to fix a school with a
persistent toxic culture of failure.
Charter schools, third, offer proof that things can be
better, so the proof point that Dr. Moskowitz was just talking
about. The presence of even one charter school that is sending
all of its poor and minority students to college can really be
a game changer for an urban superintendent, and it can take
away excuses that district schools can't do better. It can
inspire people to want to make politically difficult decisions.
Fourth, charter schools can create urgency to resolve
differences. A healthy charter school sector and competition
can actually act as a common enemy that can bring district
management and unions to the table to renegotiate new contracts
that work better for students in all schools.
There are many examples like this of district leaders who
are getting past the charter label and are using charters to do
what they wanted to do anyway. But I know that many of you hear
often from school district leaders who are losing students to
charter schools and see that as a threat.
In response to those complaints, many states have capped
charter school growth to protect districts, and others have
tried to ease the financial pain, and at the same time policy-
makers wonder why charter schools aren't causing widespread
school improvement. But that can't happen if states continue to
protect districts from competition.
So if we want charter schools to be a tool for district
reform beyond just a handful of forward-thinking districts, it
is time to level the financial playing field so that charters
have access to decent facilities and an equal share of public
funding. And it is time to stop protecting school districts
with arbitrary statewide caps.
It is also true, though, that policy-makers have one more
obligation if the charter sector is to be taken seriously by
district leaders. Too many charter schools, as we have heard
this morning, are mediocre, and many are performing very badly.
Lawmakers should insist that states and districts take
performance oversight very seriously and close down charter
schools that aren't effective. And they need to promote and
replicate more high-performing charter schools, as this bill
tries to do.
To close, then, the strategy of chartering is increasingly
seen by school districts as an opportunity to create the
schools they need. But that very promising strategy is unlikely
to happen in more than just a handful of districts that we are
hearing about today until states commit to fair competition
and, probably more importantly, performance-based
accountability.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Lake follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robin J. Lake, Associate Director,
Center on Reinventing Public Education
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
Charter schools are responsible for some of the most important
school district reforms at work today. This is especially true in some
major urban districts where people had largely given up hope that
reforms would ever overcome decades of dismal school performance.
This was not the case even a few years ago. Most districts either
ignored charter schools hoping that they would be a passing fad or
tried to marginalize their impact by lobbying for state charter caps or
limited funding.
But district leaders are coming to realize that charters have an
important and--in some cases a game-changing role--to play in public
school improvement. Let me give you just a few examples.
In New Orleans, 60% of all public schools are now charter schools.
At first this was simply a practicality. After Hurricane Katrina,
charters run by non-profits were the first schools able to open quickly
enough to serve local students. But now the Recovery School District is
actually turning district-run schools into charters because they are
simply outperforming district schools. Seventy-six percent of charter
schools in the Recovery School District were considered Academically
Acceptable in 2009 compared to only 15% of the RSD operated schools.
As school choice becomes the norm in New Orleans, poor parents are
developing a new attitude. After years of accepting sub-par schools
because it was their only option, they are now coming to believe that
their kids are actually entitled to schools that will fully prepare
them to go to college.
In Denver, successful college prep charter schools now take the
place of district schools that failed students for decades. The
superintendent doesn't think of his job as running a school system. He
runs a system of schools. His job is to get the best schools possible
to the kids in Denver. He doesn't particularly care what they are
called.
In New York City, district officials say that after having
repeatedly tried and failed to fix their worst schools they have no
choice but to turn to charter schools. District officials actually
lobbied their state legislature to lift a statewide cap on charters so
that they could replace more failing schools.
These district leaders all have different reforms in the specifics.
But they have one thing in common. They believe that their work is too
urgent and too important to close off any viable options. They see
charter schools not as a threat but as an opportunity to overcome
school system inertia. They see charters as a way to give them the
political leverage they need. Instead of trying to compete with
charters, they are co-opting them.
Here are four specific things that charter schools offer smart
districts.
1) Talent: District leaders know that they can't fix their public
schools without great people. Charter schools attract entrepreneurial
teachers, principals, and even central office staff who wouldn't
otherwise choose to work in public education.
2) The opportunity to start schools from scratch. It is much easier
for districts to close low-performing schools if they can announce that
a charter school with a proven model will take its place. And it is
much easier to close and reopen a school than to try to fix a school
with a persistent toxic culture of failure.
3) Proof that things can be better. The presence of even one
charter school that is sending all of its poor and minority students to
college can be a game changer for an urban superintendent. It can take
away excuses that district schools can't do better and it can inspire
people to want to make politically difficult decisions.
4) Urgency to resolve differences. A healthy charter sector can act
as a common enemy that actually can bring district management and
unions to the table to negotiate new contracts that work better for
students in all schools. As a result of competition from various choice
options, Minneapolis Public Schools dropped from the largest to the
fourth-largest district in Minnesota in just a few years. This
downsizing led to massive teacher layoffs. The Minneapolis teachers
union responded by pushing for new state legislation to allow
autonomous, but still unionized, district schools.
There are many examples of district leaders who are getting past
the charter label and are using charters to do what they wanted to do
anyway. But I know that many of you hear from school district leaders
who are losing students to charter schools and see that as a threat.
In response to those complaints, many states have capped charter
school growth to protect districts from charter competition. Others
have tried to ease the financial pain of enrollment loss by providing
aid to districts that lose students to charter schools. At the same
time policy makers wonder why charter schools are not causing
widespread school improvement.
We should not expect charter schools to inspire improvement if
states continue to protect districts from competition. If we want
charter schools to be a tool for district reform beyond just a handful
of forward-thinking districts, it is time to level the financial
playing field so that charters have access to decent facilities and an
equal share of public funding. It's time to stop protecting school
districts with arbitrary statewide caps.
It's also true however, that policy makers have one more obligation
if the charter sector is to be taken seriously by more districts. Too
many charter schools are mediocre and many are performing very badly.
Lawmakers should insist that states and districts take performance
oversight seriously and close down charter schools that are not
effective. And they need to promote and replicate more high performing
charter schools.
To close, then, the strategy of chartering is increasingly seen by
school districts as an opportunity to create the schools they need. But
that very promising strategy is unlikely to happen in more than a
handful of urban districts until states commit to fair competition and
performance-based accountability.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Professor Hehir?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS HEHIR, ED.D., PROFESSOR, HARVARD GRADUATE
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Mr. Hehir. Good morning, Mr. Miller and the committee. I am
very pleased to be back here after many years away.
I am here today to talk about special populations in
charter schools. I would like to begin by expressing my strong
support for charters and for public school choice, which
charters represent.
I would like to also say that I have prepared many students
at Harvard University who have gone out to run charters and
teach in charters, and I am very, very pleased with their work.
Charters represent a tremendous opportunity for special
populations. Parents of children with disabilities need
choices. Parents who are very affluent often move from one
district to another to find a school that is accepting of their
children and provides good support.
Middle-and low-income parents do not have that option. And
charter schools provide that option for many parents of
children with disabilities in this country. And that should be
supported and increased.
Also, charter schools are viewed by many activists within
various special populations as an opportunity to address issues
that have been poorly addressed in traditional systems. For
instance, the National Council of La Raza is supporting the
establishment of over 50 charter schools to expand
opportunities for children who are English language learners.
The Chime Charter School in Los Angeles was designed by
parents of children with disabilities who were seeking
inclusive options for their children.
Also, many charters, certainly charters that I have looked
at in my research, often are based on the principles of
individualization and often employ strong efforts in direct
instruction. These are exactly the sort of things that many
children with disabilities as well as other children who
struggle need.
The problem, as I see it, as it relates to charters--and I
keep having to pronounce that explicitly with my Boston accent,
charters--is under-enrollment, that if you look at charters in
many places, the number of kids with disabilities who are
enrolled in those charters is significantly below what exists
in traditional schools.
For instance, in San Diego, where I have done research, in
2005-2006, the percentage of children in non--what are called
non-conversion charters--in other words, charters that start
from scratch--is 5.8, compared to 12 percent of the overall
traditional public school population.
Also, in San Diego, very few children with complex
disabilities are enrolled in charters. And when I did my
research, there were only three--this is three individual
children--with mental retardation enrolled in the non-
conversion charters and only two children with autism in San
Diego.
In Los Angeles, there is a similar pattern, where the
likelihood that a child with a more complex disability is
enrolled in a charter is one-fourth that of traditional public
schools.
Many places, a similar pattern exists for English language
learners--that in Boston, for instance, where 20 percent of
children are English language learners, there is only one
charter that exceeds 4 percent in its enrollment of English
language learners.
Why is this a problem, this under-enrollment? Number one,
it compromises the charter experiment. In other words, if you
are not serving comparable kids, it is difficult to make
assertions.
Secondly, it raises civil rights concerns. Third, the
financial burden for educating these children may fall
disproportionately on the traditional public schools.
In light of this, I recommend the following. One, that
states proactively address the issue of underrepresentation of
special populations. The secretary of education should be
required to approve authorizing regulations to make sure that
federal statutes are adhered to when schools are authorized.
But also, states should be required to demonstrate to the
secretary that they are supporting charters in serving special
populations. Most charter operators want to do this but need
assistance in doing this.
And last, I believe we should be funding, as the bill calls
for, research on best practices in charter schools. And I
believe it is time for us to have a systematic study done by
the National Research Council on the service for special
populations in charter schools.
Charters are no longer an experiment in the American
education system and, thankfully, they are a well established
part of the education system. But it is time for us to make
sure that charters serve all children.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Hehir follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Hehir, Ed.D., Professor,
Harvard Graduate School of Education
My name is Thomas Hehir. I am a Professor of Practice at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education where I teach courses on educating
students with disabilities and federal education policy. I also work as
a consultant in the area of special education primarily with large city
school districts. My clients have included New York City, Los Angeles,
San Diego, and Baltimore among others. I have spent my entire career in
the field of special education as a classroom teacher, local
administrator in both Boston and Chicago, and as a university
professor. I also served as Director of the Office of Special Education
Programs for the U.S Department of Education during the first six years
of the Clinton Administration.
In relationship to today's hearings I do not purport to be an
expert on all aspects of charter schools. My expertise is primarily in
special education. My knowledge of charter schools is based on work I
have done in San Diego and Los Angeles assisting these districts to
improve their programs for students with disabilities. I have also,
supervised two doctoral students who have conducted research on the
participation of students with disabilities in charters in
Massachusetts and New Orleans, reviewed the literature in this area in
preparation for teaching my courses. Further I have consulted with
faculty colleagues who have done research on charters, and consulted
with many of my former students who run charters. I have done research
in three charter-like ``pilot schools'' in Boston that have enrolled a
diverse population of students with disabilities that are outperforming
their urban counterparts. I have also had the opportunity to speak with
numerous parents of children with disabilities who have enrolled their
children in charters or have considered the option.
I would like to state from the onset that I am a proponent of
charter schools. I believe that parents, particularly those who reside
in urban and low-income areas should have choice within the public
system. The need for choice is even greater for families of students
with disabilities given the huge variability between schools in
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Opportunity Charters Present for Special Populations
Charters provide choice to all parents. For parents of students
with disabilities choice is highly valued due to the high degree of
variability that exists across public schools in educating their
children. Though we have made great strides in improving educational
offerings for students with disabilities, non-compliance with IDEA
continues in many schools. Affluent parents sometimes move to get their
children into schools that welcome their children and provide them with
a high-quality education. I have done work with a high school in the
Boston suburbs that does a great job including students with
disabilities. I have met a number of parents who moved to this
community simply to allow their children to attend this school. Poor
and middle class parents do not have that option. Charters can and in
some cases do provide this option.
Some charter schools have even been created by activists who are
seeking a more inclusive and effective option for children with
disabilities. The Mary Lyons School, Boston Arts Academy pilot schools,
Democracy Prep Charter in Harlem, and Chime Charter in Los Angeles are
examples of schools that from their onset have sought to be inclusive
of a diverse population of students with disabilities.
There is also evidence that charters may serve students with
disabilities in more inclusive settings than traditional public
schools. Chris Wilkens, a doctoral student at Harvard, found that urban
charters in Massachusetts were more likely to serve similar students
with disabilities in inclusive settings than traditional urban public
schools. His research also found that over-placement of African
American students in special education was far less of a problem in
charters than traditional urban public schools.
Many charters focus intently on individualization that is a central
tenet of IDEA. Others such as the KIPP schools focus on explicit direct
instruction needed by many students with disabilities and other
students who may struggle in school. These approaches may account for
some of the lower levels of special education identification in charter
schools. To the extent that these practices prevent inappropriate
referrals to special education, they should be encouraged.
A similar dynamic exists for English language learners and other
special populations. Like students with disabilities, English language
learners participate in charters in much smaller numbers than they
exist in the population at large. However, some advocates for English
language learners have seized upon the opportunity provided by charters
to promote better education for these children. For instance, the
National Council of La Raza has supported the establishment of over 50
charters in their efforts to expand educational opportunity for this
population.
The Problem of Charters and Special Populations
Research on the participation of special populations and charters
demonstrates that in most places these students are under-represented.
For instance in the area of disability, charters generally serve fewer
children with disabilities than traditional public schools. When one
looks at students with more significant or complicated disabilities in
general, charters serve far fewer students and in many instances none
at all. Research conducted in a number of major cities bears this out.
In San Diego, close to 10% of all students now attend charter schools.
Though the enrollment of students with disabilities in traditional
public schools overall approaches 12%, the average enrollment of
students with disabilities in non-conversion (from scratch) charter
schools during the 2005-2006 school year was 5.8% (Hehir & Mosqueda,
2008). With respect to students requiring extensive special education
services, the imbalance is even more dismal. For example, during the
2005-06 school years, there were only three children with mental
retardation in all San Diego non-conversion charter schools combined;
traditional schools across the district, meanwhile, educated almost one
thousand students with mental retardation. That same year, non-
conversion charter schools in San Diego educated just two students with
autism.
The picture is quite similar in Los Angeles. The enrollment of
students in charter schools throughout the city is large (approximately
8%). The enrollment of students with disabilities across the district
averages over 11%, while the enrollment of students with disabilities
in independent charter schools averages fewer than 7% (Independent
Monitors Office, 2009). As in San Diego, the distribution of disability
types within independent Los Angeles charter schools is skewed; for
students with disabilities requiring extensive special education
services, the likelihood they will be enrolled in independent charter
schools is one-fourth that of traditional public schools.
Similar data emerges for charters serving urban areas in
Massachusetts. For the 2006-07 school years, the percentage of enrolled
students with disabilities in traditional urban schools was 19.9%,
while the percentage of enrolled students with disabilities enrolled in
urban charter schools was significantly lower, 10.8%. As is the case in
Los Angeles and San Diego, significantly fewer students were enrolled
in all urban charter schools who had more substantial needs such as
mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and autism. Several cities'
charter schools enrolled none of these students.
The under-enrollment of English language learners in charters
mirrors that of that of students with disabilities in many places. In
Boston where approximately 20% of students are English language
learners, only one charter school enrolled more than 4%. In NYC a
similar pattern emerges where the district enrollment is 15% English
language learners and the charters serve approximately 4%.
As for disadvantaged students, there is some evidence that charters
in some places may enroll a more advantaged population. However the
vast majority of charters are enrolling large number of disadvantaged
students.
Why is under-representation a problem?
The under-representation of special populations in charter schools
is a problem on a number of levels:
a. First low participation rates raise potential civil rights
concerns. Students with disabilities, English language learners and
homeless students have rights as American citizens both granted to them
by the Constitution and within various federal education laws.
Anecdotal information suggests that some parents are discouraged from
applying to charter schools and that some charter schools ``send back''
students with complicated needs to traditional public schools. America
has opened doors to previously excluded groups through the Civil Rights
Act, the IDEA and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The
federal government needs to assure that discrimination is not occurring
within the charter sector.
b. The ``experiment'' that charters represent is compromised when
charters do not serve the same populations as traditional public
schools. One of the primary justifications for allowing charters to
exist is to demonstrate better approaches for educating students for
whom the current education system has failed. If they fail to serve
representative populations their claims to being exemplary are
significantly compromised.
c. The failure of charters to enroll representative populations of
students from special populations can disadvantage traditional public
schools financially. As the San Diego school system demonstrates, the
financial responsibility for educating students with disabilities rests
with the traditional public schools. Yet, the charters receive roughly
the same amount of money per-capita. It should be noted the per-capita
cost in most school districts include the cost of educating special
populations and that this cost is higher per pupil. For instance the
cost of providing language supports to English language learners or
transportation to homeless students increases the financial burden on
school districts. In the case of students with disabilities this cost
can be much higher. The population least represented in charters,
students with low incidence and more complex disabilities, are the most
expensive for schools to educate.
d. There is financial incentive for charters not to educate
students for whom additional costly services may be necessary. Under
the current system many charters receive the same amount of money per
student whether they educate students with more complex needs or not.
Many charters, like many traditional public schools, encumber most of
their money on the first day of school by hiring staff. When an
unforeseen need arises during the year they may not have the resources
to address that need. In traditional public schools the central office
may step in with needed support or the anticipated needs of students
from special populations are budgeted upfront. Some charters have
established similar mechanisms but many have not. Therefore, when a
child with additional needs becomes apparent the charter may not have
the resources to meet this need. I am aware of charters that have not
even budgeted for a single special education teacher upfront.
Policy Considerations
In my opinion, it is time for policy makers to directly address the
issue of imbalanced enrollment of students from special populations in
charter schools. Though some may have argued in the past that charter
schools needed time to get established, and to have flexibility to
experiment, they are now a well-established segment of our education
system. The charter choice should be available to all students and
parents. Toward that end I believe the federal government has a role in
assuring equity and promoting more effective public school choice for
parents of children from special populations. The following
recommendations are offered:
(1) The federal government should require states to proactively
address issues of access involving special populations as a condition
for receiving federal funds.
The US Department of Education historically has played a crucial
role in promoting equity in education in the areas of racial
desegregation, gender equity and disability access among others. The
lack of access for special populations to some charters raises serious
equity and civil rights concerns. At a minimum, states should be
required to submit their authorizing regulations to their Departments
of Education for approval. States should further be required to
investigate charters that enroll significantly fewer students from
special populations than their surrounding area contains. It is
important to emphasize here that states should be allowed flexibility
as there should not be an expectation that charters always mirror the
population of the surrounding area. Some charters may have lower
special education counts simply because they have been successful in
eliminating inappropriate referrals to special education. Others may
have been established to serve English language learners. These
innovations should not be discouraged. The point here is that the state
needs to reasonably assure the federal government that special
populations' access to charters is not impeded.
States should also be required to assist charter operators in
meeting their obligations to provide access to special populations. The
vast majority of charter operators I have met want to address the needs
of all students. Again, this may take many forms and states should be
allowed a good deal of flexibility in meeting this requirement.
(2) The federal government should establish a federal technical
assistance center focusing on the needs of students from special
populations in charter schools.
This center would primarily serve the states in meeting their
obligations detailed above. Such a center could provide states with
model authorizing documents as well as information about successful
practices in charters serving special populations. This model has
worked very effectively in IDEA and the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act as a vehicle to promote better practices in the schools.
(3) Fund research on serving special populations in charter
schools.
Though I am sure Congress has gotten advice from many quarters on
how to address these issues, there is no consensus on the range or
extent of the problems concerning special populations and charter
schools. I believe this issue is important enough to warrant a National
Research Council study. Such a study would provide an objective picture
of the current state of charters and special populations and identify
promising practices. Congress should also fund a research program to
investigate ways in which charters can better serve special
populations.
Final Reflections
This past year I assisted my cousin in choosing an elementary
school in Boston for her four year-old twin boys. Having worked in the
Boston system from 1977-1987, I was pleasantly surprised at how much
the system had improved. My cousin is currently considering two public
charters and two traditional public schools for the boys. All four are
strong choices. This contrasts to the system I left where parents were
often given few or no choices and were forced to send their children to
underperforming schools. I believe Boston is a far better system for a
number of reasons but one is parental choice. Boston outperforms most
major cities on the National Assessment of Educational Progress as does
the state of Massachusetts. Parental choice is deeply embedded in the
state as well. The challenge facing Massachusetts as well as Congress
is how we make this choice real for all parents.
Finally, in doing research for this testimony I relied on an old
and tested method; Facebook. I posted a request for assistance to my
former students many of whom work in charters. They responded well to
their old professor. One related that she was working as a psychologist
in a major city with troubled youth many of whom are in the foster care
system. Many of her students have opted for charters in lieu of large
impersonal high schools that had utterly failed them. She found that
charters had been particularly effective in serving GLBT youth who felt
unsafe in traditional high schools. Another student related how her
sister had placed her son in a local charter school and how happy she
was that she was not forced to send him to an underperforming
elementary school. However, she has another child with disabilities for
whom this choice was not an option. For her disabled daughter, she had
no choice and was forced to place her in the same underperforming
school she avoided for her son. She has been forced to file for a due
process hearing in order to get an acceptable choice for her. This will
be a huge financial burden on the family. Public school choice is an
incomplete option for this family.
It's time for the adults who run charters and for those who
authorize them to act. The charter ``experiment'' has gone on long
enough. Access to all must become a priority. When PL 94-142 was passed
in 1975 opening up the doors of schools to thousands of previously
excluded students with disabilities Congressman Miller stated, ``I
believe the burden of proof * * * ought to rest with the administrator
or teacher who seeks for one reason or another to remove a child from a
normal classroom * * *'' We need to provide that same logic to charter
schools and special populations. The burden of proof should fall on
government officials, charter school operators and charter advocates
who need to take proactive responsibility to deal with the very real
issues of access for special populations.
I hope Congress leads the way.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Richmond?
STATEMENT OF GREG RICHMOND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS
Mr. Richmond. Good morning, Chairman Miller and members of
the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you
today.
I am Greg Richmond, president of the National Association
of Charter School Authorizers. NACSA is a membership
organization not of charter schools but of the agencies that
oversee charter schools.
We work with our member agencies to grow the number of
high-quality charter schools across the nation by setting
professional standards for authorizing and providing technical
assistance directly to authorizers.
Over the past 15 years, the federal government has spent $2
billion to support the creation of new charter schools. This
has been a good and appropriate investment, creating better
educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of
children.
Yet during that same time, the federal government has
invested almost nothing--less than $2 million, or one-tenth of
1 percent--to ensure that those schools are held to high
standards and properly monitored by a competent authorizing
agency.
It is as if the federal government had spent billions for
new highway construction but almost nothing to put up
guardrails along the sides of those highways. Yes, new highways
will allow drivers to get where they are going faster, but the
lack of guardrails will sometimes lead to horrible accidents.
Authorizers, if you will, are the guardrails of the charter
school sector. They are the institutions that oversee public
charter schools on behalf of the public.
While some think of authorizing as a one-time action to
approve a new school, in reality authorizers have three core
responsibilities that continue throughout the life of the
schools they oversee.
First, authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high
standards and to hold schools accountable for achieving those
standards. Organizations that would like to start a new charter
school should be required to demonstrate a high capacity to
succeed and to educate students to achieve high standards.
Second, authorizers have a responsibility to protect
student and public interests. This means that authorizers must
ensure that all students are treated fairly. Admissions
processes must be conducted fairly. Students with disabilities
must receive appropriate services.
And to protect the public, authorizers must put in place
monitoring systems particularly to ensure that public funds are
used appropriately.
Third, authorizers have a responsibility to preserve the
autonomy of the schools they oversee. Autonomy is a--is
critical to charter school success.
Freedom from vast mandates and regulations allows charter
schools to be innovative and to excel. On a day-to-day basis,
authorizers must preserve that autonomy and refrain from re-
regulating the schools they oversee.
High standards, student and public interests, and autonomy.
So how well are authorizers meeting those responsibilities
on behalf of the public? The record is mixed. Some are doing a
good job, but others are not doing well at all.
Indeed, many charter school problems you may hear about are
closely related to poor authorizing. Low-performing charter
schools are sometimes allowed to stay open because their
authorizers don't have the data or don't have the will to close
them.
Students may not be treated fairly because basic monitoring
is not occurring. Or a school may go bankrupt while its
authorizer did not require an annual audit.
In some cities and states, these problems are rare because
authorizers have developed professional systems to fulfill
their responsibilities. But in other places, professional
authorizing practices are seriously lacking.
It is easy to forget about highway guardrails until the
moment you lose control of your car. The same is true for
charter authorizing. Without strong authorizer practices in
place, a school drifting off course quickly becomes a disaster
for its students, parents and the public.
So what can you do? First, as you consider legislation like
the All-STAR Act or the reauthorization of ESEA, be certain to
include provisions that require authorizers to meet minimum
professional standards.
Also, as you vote to authorize funds for more charter
schools in the future, ensure that some of those funds go to
support improved authorizing.
And finally, as you talk with officials of the Department
of Education, let them know that you believe authorizing is an
important component of a quality charter school sector, not
only in the future but also right now.
My organization and our members see the positive power of
charter schools every day. From coast to coast, we work with
hundreds of excellent schools that are making a real difference
in children's lives. But we also know that harm can be done if
charter schools are not properly monitored.
Authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high
standards, protect student and public interests, and preserve
school autonomy. And with your support, more authorizers can
successfully fulfill those responsibilities now and in the
future.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Richmond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Richmond, President & CEO,
the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
Good Morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I am
Greg Richmond, President and CEO of the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers.
NACSA is a membership organization, not of charter schools, but of
the agencies that oversee charter schools. We work with our member
agencies to grow the number of high-quality charter schools across the
nation by setting professional standards for authorizing, evaluating
the practices of authorizers and providing assistance directly to
authorizers.
Over the past fifteen years, the federal government has allocated
$2 billion to support the creation of new charter schools. This has
been a good and appropriate investment, creating better educational
opportunities for hundreds of thousands of children. Yet during that
same time, the federal government has invested almost nothing, less
than $2 million, or one-tenth of one percent, to ensure that those
schools are held to high standards and properly monitored by a
competent authorizing agency.
It is as if the federal government had spent billions for new
highway construction, but nothing to put up guardrails along the sides
of those highways. Yes, new highways will allow drivers to get where
they are going faster, but the lack of guardrails will sometimes lead
to horrible accidents.
Authorizers, if you will, are the guardrails of the charter school
sector. They are the institutions that oversee public charter schools
on behalf of the public.
While some think of authorizing as a one-time action to approve a
new school, in reality, authorizers have three core responsibilities
that continue throughout the life of the schools they oversee.
First, authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high standards
and to hold schools accountable for achieving those standards.
Organizations that would like to start a new charter school should be
required to demonstrate a high capacity to succeed. Charter schools
that are already operating should be required to demonstrate a track
record of academic achievement in order to stay open.
Second, authorizers have a responsibility to protect student and
public interests. This means that authorizers must ensure that all
students are treated fairly. Admissions processes must be conducted
fairly. Students with disabilities must receive appropriate services.
Discipline and expulsion processes must be fair. To protect the public,
authorizers must put in place monitoring systems, particularly to
ensure public funds are used appropriately.
Third, authorizers have a responsibility to preserve the autonomy
of the schools they oversee. Autonomy is critical to charter school
success. Freedom from vast mandates and regulations allows charter
schools to be innovative and to excel. On a day-to-day basis,
authorizers must preserve that autonomy and refrain from re-regulating
the schools they oversee.
High standards, student and public interests, and autonomy. How
well are authorizers meeting these responsibilities on behalf of the
public? The record is mixed. Some are doing a good job, but others are
not doing well at all. Indeed, many charter school problems you may
hear about are closely related to poor authorizing.
Weak proposals for new schools are sometimes approved because some
authorizers do not have a strong application evaluation process in
place. For example, our survey of authorizer practices from across the
nation found that 13% of authorizers do not conduct an in-person
interview with organizations applying for a new charter.
Low-performing charter schools are sometimes allowed to stay open
because their authorizers don't have the data or don't have the will to
close them. Our national survey found that one-quarter of authorizers
do not have guidelines for making renewal decisions and one-fifth of
authorizers do not apply consistent academic standards across all of
the charters they oversee.
Students may not be treated fairly because basic monitoring is not
occurring. Forty percent of authorizers reported that they do not have
sufficient resources to perform their responsibilities.
Finally, a school may go bankrupt while its authorizer did not
monitor its finances, because 15% of authorizers surveyed do not
require an annual audit.
In some cities and states these problems are rare because
authorizers have developed professional systems to fulfill their
responsibilities. But in other places, as noted above, professional
authorizing practices are seriously lacking.
It is easy to forget about highway guardrails until the moment you
lose control of your car. The same is true for charter authorizing.
Without strong authorizer practices in place, a school drifting off
course quickly becomes a disaster for its students, parents and the
public. So what can you do?
As you consider legislation like the All-STAR Act, be certain to
include provisions that improve authorizing. While my organization
supports the overall goals of the All-STAR Act, the provisions related
to authorizing are inadequate and need to be improved.
All-STAR does not require grant applicants to have any plans to
strengthen authorizing. In fact, the ``Use of Funds'' section of the
bill does not allow grant recipients to use funds for any activities to
improve authorizing.
All-STAR identifies preferences for grant applications in three
areas that are related to quality authorizing: contracts, public
reporting, and authorizer evaluation. Applicants with those three
elements are more likely to receive funds. We are pleased by those
elements but must recognize that they are optional, not required.
All-STAR literally does not require quality authorizing practices
to be in place as a condition to receive federal funds and specifically
does not permit funds to be used to strengthen authorizing. NACSA does
not believe that quality authorizing should be optional.
Beyond the proposed All-STAR Act, as you vote to authorize funds
for more charter schools, ensure that some of those funds go directly
to support improved authorizing. And as you talk with officials at the
Department of Education, let them know that you believe authorizing is
an important component of a quality charter school sector.
While I have been pleased by Secretary Duncan's strong support for
the growth of quality charter schools, the Department of Education
needs to be equally supportive of quality authorizing. For example,
within the Race to the Top competition, the criteria related to
authorizing are relatively weak. And despite a $40 million increase for
charter schools in the 2010 budget, the Department is not planning to
dedicate any new funds directly for authorizing.
Just as in years past, more money for new highways and no money for
guardrails.
My organization and our members see the positive power of charter
schools every day. From coast to coast, we work with hundreds of
excellent schools that are making a real difference in children's
lives. But we also know that harm can be done if charter schools are
not properly monitored.
Authorizers have a responsibility to the public to maintain high
standards, protect student and public interests, and preserve school
autonomy. With your support, more authorizers can successfully fulfill
those responsibilities. Thank you.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Dr. Ahearn, welcome.
STATEMENT OF EILEEN AHEARN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Ms. Ahearn. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you and discuss these important issues related to
charter schools.
My name is Eileen Ahearn, and I come to this discussion
with a long background in both general and special education. I
have been a public school teacher, a director of a special
education collaborative, a district director of special
education, and the superintendent of a school district.
I came to NASDSE, the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, in 1991 to work on national and
state policy issues. I have directed three federally funded
projects that specifically focused on special education in
charter schools.
These projects have produced targeted resources, especially
the series of Primers on Special Education in Charter Schools,
that provide information and assistance for authorizers,
operators and state officials who are involved with charter
schools.
The primers are now part of a Web site that includes
additional resources that my colleagues and I developed on the
topic of special education in charter schools.
I currently serve as a consultant to the charter school
community on special education issues while continuing to work
at NASDSE on other projects. I see many parallels between the
special education and the charter school movements.
At their core, special education and charter schools are
different approaches to providing students with educational
opportunities that ideally match their unique educational
needs.
Any discussion of special education in charter schools must
start with a clear understanding of the basic feature of
charter schools--that is, parental choice. Students can be
enrolled in charter schools only if their parent makes that
choice.
States have adopted charter school laws to provide
additional options for parents so that they can access what
they consider to be the best type of school program for their
child to succeed.
Charter schools may be waived for some--from some state or
local requirements, but they are part of the public education
system and, as such, they are subject to all federal laws and
regulations related to students with disabilities, especially
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
The requirements can pose problems for charter schools that
are also mandated by state law to fulfill the mission for which
they were approved when they were authorized to operate.
Research has identified the policy tension between the
prescriptive requirements of IDEA and the identifying features
of charter schools that include the exchange of autonomy for
accountability and placement based on parental choice.
Most people are not aware of the many complexities involved
in providing special education in a charter school. For
example, the majority of charter schools are considered to be
part of the school district that authorized them--that is,
their LEA--and it is the LEA that can decide what, when and how
special education will be provided in the charter school.
Conversely, a charter school may be considered to be its
own LEA under state law and hold full responsibility for all
special education services its students need. That means that
this type of charter school must provide all special
instruction and related services in a student's IEP, such as
speech or occupational therapy, or even the assignment of an
aide specifically for that student.
Further, the state location of a charter school is one of
its predominant and most critical characteristics because
requirements differ so widely among states. However, most
states have not developed technical assistance to help charter
schools meet these responsibilities.
Some, however, have developed state-specific technical
assistance that could be replicated for other states so that
future charter schools can be better prepared to meet the
special needs of students with disabilities before they open
their doors.
Over the more than 30 years that IDEA and its implementing
regulations have been in effect, many changes have occurred. A
major theme that has come from those revisions is an increased
emphasis on educating students with disabilities with their
non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible.
This approach, known as inclusion--that is, keeping
students with disabilities in the general ed classroom,
learning through standards-based general education curriculum.
There are many charter schools that are prime examples of
successful inclusion.
There are also charter schools that are designed primarily
to serve students with disabilities, and they also provide an
important resource to parents and school systems.
There is a significant need for policy clarification and
technical assistance to help charter schools carry out their
responsibilities for special education. The application process
of many authorizers pays little or no attention to how the
charter school will amass the capacity to meet the needs of
students with disabilities who enroll in their schools.
Many of the charter school administrators I have worked
with have sincerely demonstrated their interest in and support
for serving students with disabilities.
Charter schools have become an important addition to
America's public education system, and many of them have
successfully served students with disabilities just as
successfully as traditional public schools have done.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
committee, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The statement of Ms. Ahearn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eileen M. Ahearn, Ph.D., Project Director,
National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, Senior Republican Member Kline and
Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
and discuss important issues related to charter schools.
My name is Eileen Ahearn and I come to this discussion with a long
background in both general and special education. I have been a public
school teacher, a director of a special education collaborative, a
district director of special education and the superintendent of a
school district. I came to NASDSE (the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education) in 1991 to work on national and state
policy issues. NASDSE is a nonprofit national organization that
represents the state directors of special education in all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, the Bureau of Indian Education, the
Department of Defense Education Agency, the federal territories and the
Freely Associated States.
I have directed three federally funded projects that specifically
focused on special education in charter schools. These projects have
produced targeted resources, especially the series of Primers on
Special Education in Charter Schools, which provide information and
assistance for authorizers, operators and state officials who are
involved with charter schools. The Primers are now part of a website
that includes additional resources that my colleagues and I developed
on the topic of special education in charter schools. I currently serve
as a consultant to the charter school community on special education
issues while continuing to work part-time at NASDSE on other projects.
I see many parallels between the special education and charter
school movements. At their core, special education and charter schools
are different approaches to providing students with educational
opportunities that ideally match their unique educational needs.
Any discussion of special education in charter schools must start
with a clear understanding of the basic feature of charter schools,
that is, parental choice. Students can be enrolled in charter schools
only if their parent makes that choice. States have adopted charter
school laws to provide additional options for parents so they can
access what they consider to be the best type of school program for
their child to succeed.
Charter schools may be waived from state or local requirements, but
they are a part of the public education system and, as such, they are
subject to all federal laws and regulations related to students with
disabilities, especially the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). The requirements can pose problems for charter schools that
are also mandated by state law to fulfill the mission for which they
were approved when they were authorized to operate. Research has
identified the policy tension between the prescriptive requirements of
IDEA and the identifying features of charter schools that include the
exchange of autonomy for accountability and placement based on parental
choice.
Most people are not aware of the many complexities involved in
providing special education in a charter school. For example:
The majority of charter schools are considered to be part
of the school district that authorized them, i.e., their LEA, and it is
the LEA that can decide what, when and how special education will be
provided in the charter school.
Conversely, a charter school may be considered to be its
own LEA under state law and hold full responsibility for all special
education services its students may need. That means that this type of
charter school must provide all special instruction and related
services in a student's IEP, such as speech or occupational therapy or
even the assignment of an aide specifically for that student.
Further, the state location of a charter school is one of
its predominant and most critical characteristics because requirements
differ so widely among states. However, most states have not developed
technical assistance to help charter schools meet their special
education responsibilities. Some, however, have developed state-
specific technical assistance that could be replicated for other states
so that future charter schools can be better prepared to meet the
special needs of students with disabilities before they open their
doors.
Over the more than 30 years that IDEA and its implementing
regulations have been in effect, many changes have occurred. A major
theme that has come from those revisions is an increased emphasis on
educating students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers to
the maximum extent possible. This approach is known as inclusion, that
is, keeping students with disabilities in the general education
classroom, learning through the standards-based general education
curriculum. There are many charter schools that are prime examples of
successful inclusion. There are also charter schools that are designed
primarily to serve students with disabilities and they also provide an
important resource to parents and school systems.
There is a significant need for policy clarification and technical
assistance to help charter schools carry out their responsibilities for
special education. The application process of many authorizers pays
little or no attention to how the charter school will amass the
capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities who enroll in
their schools. Many of the charter school administrators I have worked
with have sincerely demonstrated their interest in and support for
serving students with disabilities. Charter schools have become an
important addition to America's public education system and many of
them have successfully served students with disabilities just as many
traditional public schools have done.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the Committee
and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Young?
STATEMENT OF CAPRICE YOUNG, ED.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, KC
DISTANCE LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE
Ms. Young. Thank you, Chairman Miller and members of the
Education and Labor Committee. Good morning.
And thank you for the opportunity to testify today at your
first hearing in the 111th Congress on reauthorization of
elementary and secondary school education.
It is especially an honor that you are focusing your first
committee hearing on charter schools and their effectiveness.
It is an honor for the movement, because it says to us that we
have arrived, that we are taken seriously, and that the kinds
of gains that we are making with students will have a chance to
be integrated into the larger education system as a whole.
My day job is that I am the CEO of KC Distance Learning,
and we enable education innovators to create high-quality
online programs for charter and non-charter public school
students as well as private schools in grades 6 through 12
across the country.
And I am here today in my role as chair of the National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, where we represent charter
schools and the students and parents and teachers and other
educators in those charter schools throughout the country.
It is a nonprofit organization that is bipartisan and is
working hard to improve not just charter school education but
public education as a whole.
Before I go forward with more of my comments, I just wanted
to take a minute to preface my remarks with some personal
information that I think is important because it is the
foundation that underlies my testimony.
I was raised as one of two biologically connected children
in a family headed by a special education teacher and sculptor
and a juvenile probation officer who is also a minister. They
served as foster parents for 45 years.
By the time I went to college, I had had more than two
dozen brothers and sisters of all different ethnicities and
backgrounds. But the one thing that they all had in common was
an unrealized potential due to the situations in which they
were born.
And during my career I have been honored to have been
responsible for 68 high school students complying with their
court-required community service; more than 1 million early
childhood education, kindergarten through 12th grade and adult
learning students in L.A. Unified School District; a quarter of
a million charter schools in California; and 63,000 online
students learning who attend our IQ Academies, who are enrolled
in Aventa courses and The Keystone School.
I am the mother of three girls who span the spectrum of
having special needs, being typically developing, and being
highly gifted. So when I talk about my commitment to high
quality education for all school--for all students, it comes
from a very personal experience of the diversity of learners
that we have a responsibility to teach.
Basically, I support the philosophy of education by all
means necessary. And I know that the members of this committee
share a similar depth of commitment based on your own personal
stories.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue by just giving you
an aphorism that I was raised with, and that is that it is
very--it is very important to experiment, and new charter
schools are doing great experimentation.
But at some point you also need to do more of what works,
and less of what doesn't work, and you have to know the
difference. As my family would say, more of what works, less of
what doesn't, and know the difference. Or as other people might
say, is if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. But it is
more than that.
Over the last several years, we have been engaged in
activities to grow the charter movement, working with both
schools and support organizations, all with a focus on quality.
Importantly, too, the movement has and continues to support
the closure of low-performing charter schools, which is all
about doing less of what doesn't work.
And we also support the closure and restructuring of any
public school that is not meeting the student educational
needs. It is that kind of balance that makes us credible. We
hold ourselves to the same high standards we would demand of
any other public school.
Inherent in the charter concept that everyone here has
identified is this responsibility in exchange for autonomy. And
we strongly support that and support regulations that support
that as well.
To give you a sense of how the charter school movement has
grown--and you have identified some of that--in 1994 when the
charter school program was originally created, there were only
seven states with charter school laws and only 60 schools in
existence.
By the time No Child Left Behind was signed into law there
were slightly more than 2,000 charter schools in 37 states and
the District of Columbia. Today, there are almost 5,000 charter
schools educating more than 1.6 million children in 39 states
and the District of Columbia.
To give that a regional flavor, when I started on the
school board in Los Angeles, we had about a dozen charter
schools. Some of them were independent and some of them were
district-created charter schools. Now they have more than 160,
more than 160 schools.
The charter school movement just in the state of
California--if you were to measure it by size equivalent to
other school district, it would be fourth in the country in
terms of the size of the movement. So clearly, we have gone
beyond experimentation to actually serving the educational
needs of students.
I am almost out of time. To conclude, I wrote a lot in my--
you know, in my statement that was in the record. But the
bottom line is this. If we want to be able to have a great
education system, we have to do more of what works, less of
what doesn't. And charter schools are doing that all across the
country.
And I appreciate your support for expanding the charter
schools program to be able to make those kinds of changes
effective.
[The statement of Ms. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Caprice Young, President and CEO, KC Distance
Learning; Board Chairman, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the Education
and Labor Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today at your first hearing in the 111th Congress on
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA). I am Caprice Young, President and CEO of KC Distance Learning,
a leading provider of distance learning programs for 62,000 public and
private school students in grades 6 through 12 across the country, and
I am also the board chairman of the National Alliance for Public
Charter Schools, a nonprofit organization representing all sectors of
the national charter school movement.
I would like to preface my remarks with some personal information
that underlies my testimony. I was raised as one of two biological
children in a family headed by a special education teacher/sculptor and
a juvenile probation officer/minister who served as foster parents for
45 years. By the time I went to college, I had had more than two dozen
brothers and sisters from a variety of ethnicities and backgrounds. The
one thing they all had in common was unrealized potential due to the
situations into which they were born. During my career I have been
responsible for 68 high school students complying with their court-
required community service; more than a million early childhood
education, K-12, and adult school students in LAUSD; a quarter of a
million charter school students in California; and 63,000 online
learning students who attend IQ Academies, or are enrolled in Aventa
Learning courses and The Keystone School now. I am the mother of three
girls who span the spectrum of having special needs, developing
typically and being highly gifted. When I talk about my commitment to
high quality education for all students, it comes from a very personal
experience of the diversity of learners we have a responsibility to
reach. I support the philosophy of education by all means necessary. I
know the members of this committee share a similar depth of commitment
from your own stories.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that you have called the first ESEA
reauthorization hearing to discuss new ways to support charter school
replication and expansion is a huge honor for the public charter school
movement. I recognize there are many reform ideas and proposals to
consider, and I thank the Committee for leading off its reauthorization
efforts by highlighting ways America can more fully and robustly
support the growth, replication, and expansion of high quality
charters, while also infusing charter concepts throughout ESEA with the
intention of improving all public schools. Together, in a bipartisan
fashion, the charter school movement looks forward to working with
Members to support these goals. I also recognize that as ESEA is
reauthorized, and the charter school programs are reauthorized, more
focus must be placed on ensuring our best charter models are enabled to
grow (rewarding success) and that the federal programs are updated to
encourage state policies governing charter schools improve.
Over the last several years, I have, along with organizations such
as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, engaged in
activities to grow the charter school movement, working with both
schools and support organizations, all with a focus on quality.
Importantly too, the movement has, and continues, to support the
closure of low-performing charter schools. Inherent in the charter
concept, and essential for success, is an agreement that in exchange
for autonomy, quality schools will be developed or they will be closed
down. I'd like to highlight a couple noteworthy activities of the
movement in support of these goals: the National Alliance for Public
Charter Schools created the ``Task Force on Charter School Quality and
Accountability'' in 2005, which established the principle that the
movement will flourish only if charter schools grow in quality as well
as in numbers; it created a new model state charter law, developed
through extensive consultation with policy experts and charter movement
leaders; In 2009, the National Alliance released the first-ever ranking
of all state charter school laws based on the full range of values in
the public charter school movement, including quality and
accountability--which includes closing low-performing charter schools--
funding, and growth; and, The Allianceit developed a framework for the
redesign of the Federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) with a new
emphasis on quality startups and replication of effective charter
models. I share these same objectives, beliefs, and goals.
Over the past several years, the charter school movement has been
fortunate to work extremely closely with this Committee on charter
school matters. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 2904, a bipartisan proposal
authored by Congressmen Boustany and sponsored by Congresswoman
McCarthy, as well as several other Committee Members was introduced to
redesign the current public charter school programs for the 21st
Century. In 2009 and continuing to this day, I have been fortunate
enough to see the great work of Rep. Polis on H.R. 4330 which has
garnered bi-partisan Committee support from Rep. Ehlers. This is a
proposal to support the replication and expansion of the best charter
models while also encouraging and incentivizing states to dramatically
improve policies authorizing and overseeing public charter schools.
Additionally, I've watched work undertaken with the Senate on
charter proposals too; ranging from Senator Vitter's recently
introduced S. 2932, a proposal to redesign the current charter school
programs, to ongoing work with Senator Landrieu and Senator Hagan on
yet-to-be-introduced bills supporting education reforms and public
charter schools. And, directly related to today's proceedings, I know
the there is ongoing work with Senator Durbin on a Senate companion
bill to the All Students Achieving through Reform Act (All-STAR).
Throughout my career including my work with the National Alliance,
the focus has been on good policy and working in a bipartisan manner.
It is my hope that any ESEA reauthorization includes critical elements
of improved charter policy supported by all of the Committee. As a
professional who has worked in multiple roles representing the public
charter school movement, my goal today is to impress upon the Committee
the need to update the federal charter school programs. Specifically,
To ensure the federal government reauthorizes them with certain key
additions, continues to provides resources when states and locals do
not meet their obligations to charter schools, that federal policies
encourage states to improve their charter laws, that federal policies
continue to support both the growth of new charters and also the
replication and expansion of the best models, and that ultimately
chartering is an education reform that benefits all public school
children by having advantageous elements of charters infused throughout
the traditional public school system.
Included in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the U.S.
Department of Education is new language enabling funding from the
Federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) to support the replication and
expansion of successful charter models; this was the first legislative
change to the programs since 2001 when they were reauthorized as part
of the No Child Left Behind Act to meet the needs of parents and
children across the country. Authorized in 1994, the CSP was originally
created when there were only seven states with charter school laws, and
only 60 schools in existence. By the time NCLB was signed into law,
there were just slightly more than 2000 charter schools in 37 states
and the District of Columbia. Today, there are almost 5000 charter
schools, educating more than 1.6 million children in 39 states and the
District of Columbia. The movement's growth has been dramatic, and that
growth has been sustained and encouraged because of parent demand and
persistent educators combined with the right resources and policies.
The CSP was designed as a competitive grant to encourage states to
not only pass public charter school laws, but to enact quality charter
school laws. Although much attention is placed on newer competitive
grants and a potential for more, the CSP has long been a competitive
grant program intended to reward states for implementing education
reform policies in line with supporting quality charter school growth.
Each time it has been updated, new elements have been included that at
the time were seen as critical components of quality state charter
legislation, elements which would foster the growth of a high quality
schools. This emphasis must continue, and new policies must be adopted
at the federal level which to continue push states to improve their
charter laws and environments. In California, as president of the
California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), we often leveraged the
CSP to encourage state policy changes.
One vital new direction for federal policy is ensuring the ability
to support the replication and expansion of effective public charter
schools. After almost 18 years of chartering, it is clear certain
charter schools are some of the best schools, private or public, in
America--more must be done to offer children an opportunity to attend
them. As charter schools have grown, many have tried to replicate
campuses or expand grades served to align K-12 offerings. Neither of
these practices can be funded under current law, however. I encourage
the Committee to consider changes via reauthorization to fully
accomplish this goal. As mentioned before, via this year's
appropriations process, new abilities were granted to the Department to
fund the replication and expansion of the best charter models; however,
this was a short term remedy, a release valve to help the schools
currently trying to replicate but lack support. When ESEA is
reauthorized, a more complete approach will need to be crafted. For the
time being however, this new direction will be a dramatic help to
schools around the country. For instance, the Knowledge is Power
Program (KIPP) started 18 new schools in 2009, of those only 6 were
able to receive CSP funding. Other high-performing charter management
organizations (CMOs) share this problem. Uncommon Schools, a highly
successful CMO operating schools in New York, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts, plans to open 20 new schools in the next three years.
Only six of these are eligible for CSP funding under current law.
Achievement First, another nationally known high-quality CMO operating
schools in Connecticut and New York, plans to open 10 schools in the
next three years, but only three are currently eligible for CSP funding
under current law.
Ultimately though, even with federal funding able to support
replication and expansion of the best charter models, state policies
are, and will always likely be, the main factor in determining the
environment in which charters operate. It is critical that federal
policies be structured in alignment with good state policy. When this
occurs, a constant loop of feedback can be set up. Federal incentives
can encourage states to adopt the right policies, including equitable
funding for charters, quality oversight of authorizers and all parties
involved in chartering, equitable access to facilities and facilities
support, and high levels of autonomy in exchange for high degrees of
accountability. These will help create more high quality charter school
sectors, like in New York City where ``gold standard'' study after
study shows the city's public charter schools excelling and
outperforming the traditional public schools in the city. Federal
programs can reward states for setting up these policies, and then
states can ultimately develop new and improved policies that can be
adopted in the future via reauthorization. A closed circuit of
improvement can be created between federal and state legislation, the
federal law incentivizing states to develop better policies, and then
the federal law adopting the best state practices to encourage
additional states to adopt the successful policies.
Currently though, the CSP has just three priority criteria for
awarding grants to States:
(A) the State has demonstrated progress in increasing the number of
high quality charter schools that are held accountable in the terms of
the schools' charters for meeting clear and measurable objectives for
the educational progress of the students attending the schools, in the
period prior to the period for which a state Education Agency or
eligible applicants applied for a grant under this subpart
(B) The State----
(i) Provides for one authorized public chartering agency that is
not a local education agency, such as a State chartering board, for
each individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school pursuant
to such State law; or
(ii) In the case of a State in which local educational agencies are
the only authorized public chartering agencies, allows for an appeals
process for the denial of an application for a charter school.
(C) The State ensures that each charter school has a high degree of
autonomy over the charter school's budgets and expenditures.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Charter Schools Program Section 5202 (e)(3) at: http://
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg62.html#sec5202
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are additional assurances that states must make when
applying for CSP grants, these are the only priority criteria in
determining grants to states. While these criteria have been helpful in
addressing certain factors in state policies, and should continue to be
priority criteria for federal charter funding, they do not reflect the
full spectrum of policies at the state level to ensure quality charter
growth.
In 2007, a bipartisan bill was put forward to amend the Charter
School Programs: H.R. 2904 and then subsequently adopted into the House
2007 NCLB discussion draft. Many of these proposals included updating
the priority criteria as well as enabling new usage of funds to better
meet the growth of high quality schools. The six key changes were:
Enhancing Support for Start-Ups and Replications. First,
while helping charter school start-ups remained the foundation of the
CSP, H.R. 2904 also provided greater support for the expansion and
replication of successful charter models. In particular, the bill
allowed more than one CSP grant per recipient and permitted charter
support organizations to receive grants to undertake expansion and
replication activities. CCSA undertook significant steps to engage
charters in CA's school turnaround efforts highlighted by the work at
Gompers and Keiler traditional public schools which became successful
charter schools. This change of who can directly administer the CSP
grant would enable other groups to take on and support this activity
more robustly like CCSA.
Strengthening Priority Criteria for State Grants. Second,
the legislation strengthened the priority criteria by which the
Secretary of Education may award grants to states. An ideal state
charter school law encourages growth and quality as well as a high
degree of school autonomy and accountability. To motivate states to
adopt the ideal law, the bill added priorities to encourage the
creation and support of non-district authorizers, the strengthening of
charter school autonomy and accountability, and the provision of
equitable funding to charter schools.
Allowing Authorizers to Serve as Grant Administrators.
Third, the bill strengthened the administration of the CSP by allowing
charter school authorizers to serve as grant administrators in addition
to state education agencies (SEAs). In some states, the SEA may be the
best organization to manage CSP funds. These SEAs have involved their
state's public charter school leaders in the administration of their
grants and in developing programs that reflect their state's specific
needs. In states where SEAs have fallen short in administering (or even
applying for) the program, however, charter schooling in those states
will be enhanced by allowing charter school authorizers to compete for
the CSP grant administrator role.
Granting Funding Discretion to the Secretary. Fourth, the
bill allowed the Secretary of Education to allocate funds as needed
between the Charter Schools Program and State Facilities Incentive
Grants Program. This funding challenge is further exacerbated by the
reservation of up to $100 million in new CSP funds for the State
Facilities Incentive Grants Program. By granting discretion to the
Secretary, the bill allowed for federal appropriations to respond to
the needs of the states, recognizing that in certain years more money
will be needed for the CSP, while in other years more money will be
needed for the State Facilities Incentive Grants Program.
Creating a National Dissemination Program. Fifth, the
legislation created a national dissemination program. As charter
schools continue to grow, the best practices developed in these
innovative public schools must be disseminated to all other public
schools. Previously, the CSP's dissemination activities were primarily
state-focused. As proposed by the legislation, a new national
dissemination program will encourage the sharing of charter schools'
best practices among public schools across the nation.
Reauthorizing the Credit Enhancement Program. Finally, the
draft incorporated reauthorization of the Credit Enhancement for
Charter School Facilities Program, an important vehicle for encouraging
private sector investment in charter school facilities, into the CSP.
This change will enhance administrative efficiency in the overall
charter schools programs.
But, time has passed since 2007, and it has been almost 10 years
since the CSP was last reauthorized. These last several years have
shown the charter movement additional key steps the federal government
should take to incentivize improved state policy environments. One
critical area where federal law is silent is on quality authorizing.
Any reauthorization must include core elements of quality control
around authorizing, including: priority criteria for a transparent
charter application, review, and decision-making process; requirements
for performance based contracts between schools and authorizers;
comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes;
clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions; and
oversight of all parties involved in chartering from the schools to the
authorizers too. I strongly encourage the federal government to adopt
measures to encourage states to hold all parties accountable in the
chartering process. Too often the emphasis is on just one entity, but
many parties are ultimately responsible and accountable for charter
school success.
The All-STAR legislation, includes many of the elements described
above, and paints a comprehensive picture for how to move the federal
charter programs forward. A critical new addition though is a
significant focus on authorizer oversight and oversight of
authorizers--highlighted by a priority criteria for states that have or
will have in place policies for reviewing the effectiveness and quality
of their charter authorizers, as well as additional priority criteria
on charter schools having equitable access to pre-K and adult education
funding streams; equitable and timely funding compared to traditional
public schools, including facilities funding, that includes bonding
revenues and millage revenues; options to be their own Local Education
Agency; a renewed focus on charter autonomy including explicit
requirements for written performance contracts that ensures charter
schools have independent and skilled governing boards; and, a
requirement for these successful, all-star schools to have in place
plans to share their best programs, practices, or policies with other
schools and LEAs. The bill moves federal statute in new directions as
well, including allowing grant recipients to retain a portion of their
grant in a reserve account to help cover the costs of expanding and
replicating, even keeping the interest earned on the funds to help
further the purposes of the program. IMPORTANTLY, this proposal unlike
previous proposals is focused on rewarding the best charter public
schools, enabling these entities to replicate and expand--a necessary
plank of any reauthorized ESEA's support for charter schools.
All of these proposals contain critical additions to the CSP and
ESEA, and I strongly encourage the Committee to adopt them in its
reauthorization legislation. Unlike the majority of programs in ESEA,
the CSP has always been intended to drive state policy changes, and
this emphasis must not be lost. It must however be modified to ensure
it encourages the best policies for growing quality charter schools.
The ideas embodied in the proposals outlined above are those elements.
And, it is only with the right policy settings that charter schools
will fully be able to succeed.
Today, over 600,000 children are on charter school waiting lists
across the country, enough demand to create over 2,000 new average
sized charter schools.\2\ And, with growing bipartisan support, demand
from parents and grassroots activists, charter schools not only afford
parents and children new high quality public school options, but can be
a dramatically effective tool in our nation's education reform efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Alliance for Public Charter School Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Los Angeles, the school board recently approved a plan to turn
over 250 campuses to charter schools and other independent school
operators. This was a powerful showing from our nation's second largest
school district that charter schools have a critical delivery role to
play in educating its children, and it clearly showed that charters are
having a competitive effect on traditional public schools. In New York
City, the Chancellor there is planning to have 200 charter schools by
the 2013-2014 school year educating approximately 100,000 children--a
full \1/10\ of our nation's largest school system's children. But,
beyond large urban school districts, in communities and locales across
the country, charters are opening up and serving students and families
who want and need them. In fact, of the almost 5000 charter schools, 54
percent are in urban areas, 22 percent are in suburban communities,
approximately 9 percent are in towns, and 15 percent are in rural areas
according to the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core
of Data for the 2007-2008 school year. Charter schools provide parents
and communities across the country--from the largest city to the most
rural--true local control over their public education, they afford
parents a choice and they are accountable for their performance.
Whether in rural locations benefitting from online schooling or as in
the Los Angeles neighborhood of Granada Hills, where the Granada Hills
Charter High School in 2003 converted from a traditional public school
to a charter school and became the largest comprehensive independent
conversion charter school in the nation, charters are meeting the needs
of communities across America.
Another example of charters meeting the needs of the local
community, is the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools in
California (For more information on this network of schools, please see
Appendix I). With significant expansion and replication plans, the
Alliance has had to rely on private fundraising and philanthropic
support to replicate and expand, and currently is on track to run 20
schools in Los Angeles, making it the largest operator of charter
schools in LA. The Alliance for College Ready-Ready Public Schools has
thrived since opening its first schools nearly six years ago,
consistently posting test scores and attendance rates that far outpace
surrounding district schools. Expectations and demands on students and
teachers are high, with an extended school day running from 7:45 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. as well as mandatory after-school and weekend classes for
struggling students. All students are required to complete a rigorous
course-load of college-preparatory classes and must repeat any classes
in which they earn less than a C. Enrollment at high schools is limited
to 500 students, and fewer at middle schools, while the ratio of
students to teachers in classrooms does not exceed 25 to one. Many of
the Alliance schools also use online learning to broaden the curriculum
and offer individual students the opportunity to make up courses they
failed the first time.
The early results have been impressive, with nine of every 10
Alliance students who enrolled as ninth-graders expected to enroll in
two-or four-year colleges. In 2008, the Alliance launched a
performance-based incentive program, in which teachers and
administrators received salary bonuses when their students hit
performance targets, merging many of today's most promising education
reforms under one roof--autonomy as a public school in exchange for
high stakes accountability, an ability to reward excellent and
effective teachers, a longer school day, and rigorous expectations for
all students enrolled in the school. Expanding the number of Alliance
schools would send more historically underserved students to college,
students who would otherwise be pushed out of high school by low
expectations and a tragic lack of rigor or support.
As evidenced by this hearing, there is strong rationale and support
for the growth of high quality public charter schools like the Alliance
for College-Ready Public Schools. Never before has there been such
strong support from policymakers across the political spectrum for the
replication and expansion of our best models. Federal policy should
support this activity, but it must also continue to support the
creation of new quality charter schools. Undoubtedly, the federal
support for charter schools has been critical in taking the movement
from 60 schools in 1994-1995 to almost 5000 in just 15 years, and it
has been invaluable in shaping state policies that govern charter
schools. As ESEA is reauthorized, the past objectives must be married
with the new goals and work together to push simultaneously the
expansion of our best charter models.
As evidence for the strong bipartisan belief in charter schools,
the President has included significant support for them in his fiscal
year 2011 budget request. While I am excited about the opportunities
stemming from this request, there is cause for concern. Included in the
Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget is a proposal to support the
growth of ``autonomous public schools'' in addition to charter schools.
Although the charter school movement considers this on one hand a
success, that traditional public schools are reacting to the pressures
from public charter schools and are adopting successful practices from
charters, I am concerned that the federal charter school funds will
lose their purpose. These programs were established to support the
growth of public charter schools, and although the Administration
proposes many exciting ideas via its consolidation of programs in the
fiscal year 2011 Budget's Expanding Educational Options category,
including a way to combine support for growing high quality charter
schools with ensuring parents have the information necessary to know
about their choices (supply and demand), the new ability to fund
autonomous public schools lessens the impact of the federal charter
school programs. Furthermore, even the most successful examples of
autonomous public schools, the Pilot Schools in Boston, are not
achieving at the same success rates as Boston's public charter
schools.\3\ According to ``Informing the Debate: Comparing Boston's
Charter, Pilot, and Traditional Schools,'' a report prepared for the
Boston Foundation, Boston's public charter schools are doing
significantly better than pilot and traditional public schools in
raising student achievement. This includes results from randomized
studies designed to reduce the possibility that charters might benefit
from having more motivated students or parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility--Navigation/
Multimedia--Library/Reports/InformingTheDebate--Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal charter programs were designed to support the growth of
public charter schools because state and local governments do not
provide funding to support new charter schools. State and local
governments already provide funds for the creation of new traditional
public schools, including autonomous public schools. Besides being
duplicative of current state and local funds, it is difficult to
envision the Department of Education ensuring that all ``autonomous
public schools'' receiving funding under this new authority are truly
autonomous public schools. Furthermore, the achievement results of
these schools are in many place is less than charter schools. And,
although the Department has set out ambitious targets for what an
autonomous public school would be, I await additional details on this
proposal.
I do understand though that the Administration and Congress want to
examine all possible promising education reforms. And, I look at the
push for truly autonomous public schools as a validation of charter
schools having a systemic impact on public education. However, when
ESEA is reauthorized, if it includes a new push for autonomous public
schools in addition to public charter schools, it must ensure several
things. In the current Congressional Budget Justification for the
FY2011 ED Budget, the Department defines autonomous public schools as
``* * * charter and other public schools that have autonomy over key
areas of their operations, including staffing, budget, time, and
program and are subject to higher levels of accountability than other
public schools.'' \4\ Congress must establish clear guidelines and
principles for states that set out clear definitions for all these
terms, and ensure ``that higher levels of accountability'' means
closure for not meeting academic performance objectives. Clearly
defining and defending these terms is critical for these schools to be
successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/
justifications/f-iit.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lesson can be clearly learned here form charters. Charter schools
around the country are facing regulatory creep, where third parties are
unfortunately infringing upon their autonomy. For instance, in
Baltimore, KIPP Ujima Village which is Baltimore's most successful
middle school, with its students consistently achieving some of the
highest test scores in the state may have to dramatically alter its
successful program because the Baltimore Teacher's Union is demanding
dramatically higher pay--something that hasn't been a concern of the
Union for the past seven years the school has been operation. Despite
the fact that the school's teachers are already among the city's
highest paid (on average receiving 18 percent more than the salary
scale) the union is demanding 33% more than the salary scale. In
Arizona, the state attempted to align charter schools teaching
schedules with ones imposed on traditional public schools. Ultimately,
a settlement was reached and the state did not impose a rigid annual
schedule for instructing students. Clearly though, this is an example
that in even some of the most ``progressive'' charter states, attempts
are constantly being made to ``standardize'' charter schools in the
name of alignment.\5\ These efforts to create a ``level playing field''
by handcuffing charters are backwards. I would instead recommend
removing the handcuffs from non-chartered public schools and increase
their accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/
0804charter0804.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example comes from Wisconsin, where ``charter schools''
were established as programs within traditional public schools and used
as a revenue source via the federal charter programs rather than as new
schools. When the federal funding expired or was exhausted, these
``charter schools'' were absorbed back into the district. This practice
stems from a lack of clear state law on the independence of charter
schools, and federal law must take steps to prevent states from
``gaming the system.''
As the committee moves forward with potentially marking up this
legislation and considering additional ESEA ideas with the goal of
reauthorizing the statute, I know the national charter school movement
stands ready to help support an ambitious agenda for reforming and
improving our nation's public education system. In the discussions that
surround this goal though, there are critical elements that must be
adopted to ensure charter schools can meet the Committee's objectives
as a powerful education reform vehicle.
Congress must develop significant and wide-ranging policies for
replicating and expanding our best charter schools. By increasing the
capacity of these ``all star'' schools to serve more students, we will
dramatically improve our nation's high school graduation rates and
importantly our college attendance and success rates. As highlighted by
the recent EdNext study conducted by Kevin Booker, Tim Sass, Brian
Gill, and Ron Zimmer recently, ``charter schools are associated with an
increased likelihood of successful high-school completion and an
increased likelihood of enrollment at a two-or four year college is two
disparate jurisdictions, Florida and Chicago.'' \6\ Although this
examines just two jurisdictions, it clearly reinforces the necessity of
policies being structured to ensure charter school success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://educationnext.org/the-unknown-world-of-charter-high-
schools/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the name of scaling up though, the charter concept must remain
true to its objectives and goals; public charter schools must remain
autonomous public schools that are held accountable for their results.
They must have control over their budget, personnel, programs, and
other elements critical to their success. Watering down the charter
concept in the name of scaling will not achieve the success Congress
wants nor the public demands from public schools.
I have greatly appreciated the chance to speak to the Committee and
its Members today, and I will gladly take any questions you may have.
appendix i--information on the alliance for college-ready public
schools
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And thank you to all of you for your testimony.
It has been mentioned by a couple of you that this is part
of our beginning the process of--and Congressman Castle
mentioned this--of the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
And this is part of a larger set of questions in hearings
about what are the tools and assets that are available to
districts as they think about going through the process of
improving their schools, reconstituting their schools.
We had sort of strict plans, annual plans, that districts
had to go through under No Child Left Behind. They didn't seem
to work very well. And I know that the administration has
talked about reconstitution of schools and what that means.
And really, Mrs. Lake, we are following your research--
there really has to be a portfolio of tools--options available
to school districts and they--there is different fits in
different places.
But clearly, charter schools are a very important part of
that--of that portfolio, so--just so people have the context of
this hearing.
I would like to--my time is limited, like your time was
limited.
But, Dr. Hehir, in your testimony--and I am--Eva, you said
you had about 14 percent special ed.
Ms. Moskowitz. Eighteen.
Chairman Miller. Eighteen percent. So you are going to be
included in this question.
Low participation rates raise potential civil rights
issues. Students with disabilities, English language learners
and homeless students have rights as American citizens both
granted them under the Constitution and within various federal
education laws.
And then in the next paragraph, you say the experiment for
charters represents--the experiment that charters represent is
compromised when charters do not serve the same populations as
traditional public schools. If they fail to serve
representative populations, their claims of being exemplary are
significantly compromised.
You then go on later in your testimony--and I think this is
the tension here--it is important to emphasize here that states
should be allowed the flexibility as there should not be
expectations that charters always mirror the population of the
surrounding area.
That doesn't mean that those populations don't get served.
It means that particular school, as in public schools in some
cases, traditional public schools.
And you make the very, I think, important point--and part
of this tension is that these innovations should not be
discouraged. The point here is that states need to reasonably
assure the federal government that special populations' access
to charter schools is not impeded.
Clearly, under 94-142, that is the law of the land. Now,
how you serve those children we do give flexibility and options
because of the different needs of different populations.
Dr. Ahearn has just talked about the technical assistance
that could help school districts, help states and others, to
develop this as we move to a more of a portfolio model, if you
will, in helping those students achieve high educational
outcomes.
So I want to raise that issue--and, Mrs. Lake, this is part
of the portfolio issue for you, too--on how do we reconcile
those--that inherent tension here, because as we know, in many
instances, those populations aren't represented here.
That may be because of parental choice, that they chose not
to--not to go there, they have chosen another educational
opportunity for their--for their children and their students--
the parents might have.
Mr. Hehir. I think Mr. Richmond's testimony actually spoke
to this, and I----
Chairman Miller. Right.
Mr. Hehir [continuing]. I think it is very important to
address this issue on the authorizing level, and--because
states vary tremendously on how they authorize charter schools.
Some pay a lot of attention to the--serving kids in a way that
is consistent with federal law. Others do not.
And I think that the--that, number one, these authorizing
regulations should be reviewed by the secretary of education
and approved by them--by him, because we do that with special
education regulations, and we should do that with charter
schools, in my view.
But also, I think another piece of this is that states
should be able to demonstrate to the secretary that they are
assisting charter schools.
So on the one hand, we want to make sure that there are not
barriers to parents being able to choose charter schools, but
also that states are assisting charter schools, because there
are charter schools--and I have done some research in three
charter-like schools in Boston--that do an absolutely terrific
job of serving diverse populations of kids with disabilities.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Moskowitz? We have all got to live
inside my 5 minutes, so----
Mr. Hehir. I am sorry. I am sorry.
Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I would just say that I was very
involved in the first charter school for autistic children in
New York City, and one of the first problems we had was that
they said you couldn't select kids who were autistic. So you
know, that creates challenges, and that speaks to your point.
We were able, through several years of going back and
saying, ``Look, we want to serve our autistic children. We have
got to be able to select.'' And there are many different types
of autism, and any given school may not be able to serve every
child with that very, very broad label.
The other thing, I think, to understand for high-performing
charters--and going back to the replication bill--is that we
are going to have to solve some of the funding issues and the
bureaucratic issues.
So I have 18 percent in my school. I have to serve children
who have IEPs and, I believe, have special needs long before I
get my measly check to educate them, because the bureaucracy--
it is the one area, special ed, where I am not free from a
bureaucracy that has historically served children with special
needs very, very poorly.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. Lake?
Ms. Moskowitz. So I have to wait a very long time.
Chairman Miller. So how does this fit into the idea that
these----
Mrs. Lake. Right.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. Children--that their
opportunities won't be diminished in this portfolio as we think
about school reform?
Mrs. Lake. Right. So the districts that are embracing
charter schools as a part of their reform strategy aren't
looking at each school's special ed numbers and worrying about
those numbers.
What they are doing instead is they are looking at the kids
and their community that they are trying to serve and trying to
identify gaps in that service and fill those gaps.
And so they might say, ``You know, our kids on the autism
spectrum are being underserved by our district schools and our
charter schools. Let's think about whether we can put out an
RFP for a school to serve--to serve these kids well.''
What they are also doing is sitting down at the table with
their charter schools and their district-run schools to work
out some strategies for support structures and application
processes and things to work as a partnership.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Dr. Ahearn?
Ms. Ahearn. I think it is really important to note that
charter schools, when they are authorized, have to in their
application describe a particular mission that they feel their
school can address to meet needs in the area they are going to
locate.
That mission may or may not attract parents of students
with disabilities. It is designed to put in place something
that is missing in that area or that district.
It is also important that districts that authorize schools
take the time and participate in the marketing of that school
as an option for people in their districts.
And there are a lot of districts in this country--they are
the largest number of authorizers are school districts, so it
is really important that they are involved in recruiting
students for charter schools.
Chairman Miller. But is there not also the issue of parents
who may select a charter school--they may select a traditional
public school, but in some instances they are essentially
counseled out of that selection.
Ms. Ahearn. There is----
Chairman Miller. And that may be on the level or it may not
be on the level, I guess is my question.
Ms. Ahearn. There is anecdotal information around that
there is counseling out from--of students with disabilities
from charter schools. There is the same kind of level of
information about counseling in of students that a district
doesn't want to serve itself.
So this is all hearsay. There has really never been any
kind of review of this. And I am sure some of it goes on,
because you do hear about it. But in essence, the emphasis must
be on the appropriate placement of the charter school in its
district and the appropriate recruiting of students for that
charter school.
Chairman Miller. My time is running out, and I raise this
issue not to put this burden on charter schools, but I raise
this issue because I think what is important is to understand--
and we know that in many of the populations of students with
disabilities, when they are properly matched with educational
services, they thrive beyond what many people believe they are
capable of achieving, and we have seen that to some extent on
the Boston exams--I mean, the Massachusetts exams, where
their--their performance.
And I think we have to keep that in mind. And I think so we
don't kill the innovation and the flexibility that we keep in
mind this idea of portfolios, that there--how this population
is served is the issue, not whether they are served in direct
proportion to the attendance area or what you would
traditionally think as the service area--geographically, I
guess, is what I am trying to say.
How we do that--we need your help. And so I just wanted to
raise that issue at the outset, as one of the last surviving
members of Congress who was here when we did 94-142. I still
have a very, very strong commitment to that--to that
legislation.
So thank you.
And now I recognize----
Voice. Mrs. Biggert.
Chairman Miller. Welcome. The gentlewoman is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Had a little trouble
here. And thank you for having this hearing.
I was just looking at a couple of the bios and see that the
two gentlemen were--have been in the Chicago school system and
in Illinois, and I was in the Illinois legislature when we
first put the charter schools--or came into existence there.
And I can remember taking piles of paper to go to a
national meeting with how the charter schools were created in
Chicago, and I am glad to see that there is still an emphasis
on that in Chicago.
So I have got just a couple questions for--first for Mr.
Richmond.
Mr. Hehir has stated in the--that he believes in--charter
schools do not serve equal percentage of students with
disabilities--kind of goes back to this question.
But, Mr. Richmond, you said in your testimony that it is
the responsibility of the authorizers to ensure that the
students with disabilities receive appropriate services. And
how can authorizers draft better charters that ensure access to
these students?
And I guess authorizers, to me, is a new concept that
obviously has just come into----
Mr. Richmond. Sure.
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. Last year that was just put in,
so----
Mr. Richmond. Right.
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. Does that work to help to make
sure that----
Mr. Richmond. Right.
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. That the authorizers do this?
Mr. Richmond. Authorizing is a new concept. It often in
school districts has been noted--most school districts can
authorize charter schools, but sometimes it is a state
education department or a university or even others.
Just to add briefly to the great conversation that has
happened on special ed, one role of an authorizer, I believe,
is to be actively involved in refereeing, if you will, being an
intermediary between a charter school that has students that
may need service and a special education department that has
resources that could serve those students.
One of the problems in this space is that there aren't
enough special ed teachers, there aren't enough assistants,
there isn't enough money for anyone. So there needs to be a--
including district schools.
So there really is inside these school systems a very
active role that needs to be played to try to make sure, if a
charter school has a student that has a disability and needs
services that those resources are being delivered to that
school.
When that doesn't happen, that is why you sometimes hear
these anecdotes about counseling out, where a school says,
``Well, I have tried to''--you know, to the parent, ``I have
tried to get services for your student but we can't get them.''
And that sometimes causes the parent to go somewhere else where
they can get it.
So authorizers should be refereeing that activity, helping
to connect the resources to the student.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Is there any other suggestions that you
have for making the authorizing method for charter schools more
efficient and provide for more quality schools?
Mr. Richmond. Well----
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. To refereeing with--in all
instances, I guess----
Mr. Richmond. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. But not just disabilities that
would----
Mr. Richmond. You know, I like Dr. Moskowitz's analogy
about adding a high-capacity lane to the highway--I mean,
this--what the All-STAR bill--one of the things it is
contemplating doing and which speaks to me is as we--as the
charter sector gets more sophisticated and develops more along
those lines, we need to make sure the public oversight related
to that keeps pace with that.
And that is to the point in my testimony that the federal
government has done a terrific job supporting the growth of the
charter school sector but has not put resources into that
public oversight function, and that is a critical need, in our
opinion.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. And then is it--and this is an issue, I
think, that comes up a lot. Is it your understanding that
charter schools should be subject to the same school
improvement measures, like AYP processes and sanctions, that
apply to other public schools under ESEA?
Mr. Richmond. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. Yes. That is an easy answer.
Would anybody else like to comment on that?
Ms. Ahearn. I think it is important to note that charter
schools are public schools. And as part of the public system,
they need to comply with all of the requirements, especially
the accountable for achievement. That is a big part of the
federal NCLB law.
Mrs. Biggert. Anybody else?
Ms. Young. I served as both an authorizer and a leader of
charter schools and strongly believe that the law is correct in
holding charter schools to an even higher level of
accountability, because with charter schools all of them have
to be accountable to AYP, but they also have to be able to
prove to their authorizer that they are doing the great work
for kids that they promised in their charter.
They also have to prove that to the parents, because if the
parents leave the charter school, there is no more charter
school. And so all those--these three things make very direct
accountability.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you think--well, how about the----
Mr. Polis [presiding]. Do you want a quick final question?
That is fine.
Mrs. Biggert. No. All right.
Mr. Polis. Okay.
Mrs. Biggert. I will yield back.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, gentlelady. Thank you for your
questions.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we have got several examples of excellent
charter schools before us today, but it seems to me that we
can't always assume that if we expand the number of charter
schools they will all be as good as the ones we get.
Let me ask anybody who wants to respond, if we expand, can
we expect all of the charter schools to be good charter
schools, or will some be good and some be bad?
Ms. Young. The question----
Mr. Scott. Dr. Young?
Ms. Young [continuing]. If you don't--if I could answer,
the--your question, the bill that is on the table today will
allow us to actually have many more great charter schools
opened than bad ones, because it is really focusing on
expanding the grade levels and duplicating charter schools that
are already a proven success.
To give a specific example, two of my two younger daughters
attended the Chime Charter School that was referenced before,
which is a brilliant school that does special ed inclusion.
Mr. Scott. Well, I mean, I am sure we could fund some good
schools, but will we also----
Ms. Young. No----
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Be funding some bad schools?
Ms. Young. But here is the point. Chime Charter School
cannot grow. It is kindergarten through eighth grade. And
because there isn't seed funding for them to add high school
grades or replicate----
Mr. Scott. Right. We will be doing some good schools. Will
we also be funding some bad schools?
Dr. Hehir?
Mr. Hehir. I think so, because, again, charter schools vary
tremendously. A bigger concern of mine would be unless the
issue of underrepresentation of special populations is
addressed in charter schools, the traditional public schools
are going to have disproportionate numbers of those kids if you
vastly expand the charter sector.
So this issue needs to be addressed, I believe, in order
for the charter school system to--and traditional public
schools----
Mr. Scott. I have a----
Mr. Hehir [continuing]. Prosper.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Report from the Civil Rights
Project at UCLA that suggests that if we have more charter
schools we will have more segregation. Does anybody disagree
with the findings in this report?
And I ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the
record.
Mr. Polis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The report, ``Choice Without Equity: Charter School
Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards,'' may be
accessed at the following Internet address:]
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-
and-diversity/choice-without-equity-2009-report/frankenberg-choices-
without-equity-2010.pdf
______
Ms. Moskowitz. I was wondering if I could weigh in there.
You know, it is very--obviously, it is a very, very important
goal to have both racial and ethnic integration but also
socioeconomic integration. This has been a long struggle in
this country's history.
You do have to understand that charter schools and
operators come in to neighborhoods that are not integrated. So
I operate in Harlem, and we are--by law must be reflective of
the district. That is what our authorizer demands of us.
Mr. Scott. Well, is that the law all over the country?
Ms. Moskowitz. Every charter state has their own law. In
the state of New York, we give preference to the district.
Mr. Scott. Well, do you have information to--that would
contradict what is in the report, that there would be a
tendency toward segregation?
Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I just think that there is a
tremendous value in having schools in Harlem.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well----
Ms. Moskowitz. Nineteen out of the 23 zone schools in the
neighborhood----
Mr. Scott [continuing]. I only have----
Ms. Moskowitz [continuing]. Are failing schools, and so if
I don't go into a neighborhood that is not integrated, I will
fail to serve those kids. And that is a dilemma----
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Ms. Moskowitz [continuing]. That we face.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, so segregation is just something we
need to accept.
Dr. Hehir, you are a professor doing research. One of the
things that is--you do in research is try to isolate your
variables, get control groups, try to replicate.
The way we are funding charter schools and trying to find
out what is going on--is this a good way to research charter
schools?
Mr. Hehir. The way we are funding them, Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. The way we are trying to find out the ones that
work and the ones that don't work. Are we doing good research?
Mr. Hehir. I think you need to do two things. This is one
of the reasons why I have suggested to the committee they
consider a National Research Council study.
We really need to get the data. There is a lot of--like Dr.
Ahearn said, there is a lot of hearsay out there, and there
certainly is evidence that in some places kids get counseled
out of charters, but there is also evidence that in some places
school districts, as Dr. Ahearn said, try to push kids into
charters.
We need to have--we do need to have a study that looks at
the big picture. But however, the other type of research, which
is research that I have conducted looking at successful both
traditional public schools as well as pilot schools in Boston,
which are charter-like, as it relates to serving inclusive
populations of kids with disabilities, is also an important
line of research.
We need to be looking at what works. We need to be looking
at the--at both traditional public schools as well as charter
schools around what works.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Cassidy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cassidy. (OFF MIKE)
Mr. Polis. Could you put your mike on, please?
Mr. Cassidy. This is really bipartisan. [Laughter.]
Mr. Polis. My first time as chair, and the microphone
breaks.
Mr. Cassidy. I feel I should be at a wedding, crooning.
Anyway.
Thank you again for--from the people of Louisiana and thank
you--thanks to Congress, because you took a school system which
was awful, consigning people to a life of irrelevency and you
have given them an opportunity.
Now, based upon that experience, which I have a little bit
of knowledge about, what would you say to Mr. Scott's question
regarding the issues of segregation in the New Orleans Parish
School System?
Mrs. Lake. Right, thanks. I mean, I think your thanks are a
little bit misplaced. I am not responsible for what is
happening in New Orleans--just an observer.
But as an observer, I think--and a researcher, I think that
the important thing to think about when you are thinking about
segregation and studies of segregation is that charter schools'
concentration of students--minority students is largely a
reflection of where they choose to locate.
They choose to locate in urban areas that are very often,
as in New Orleans, majority minority districts. And so if you
just take a broad stroke look at kind of the state numbers of
kids attending charter schools, it is easy to think that that
reflects a segregative effect.
What you want to do as a researcher is instead look at
where the kids--the schools that the kids left to attend the
charter school and then the charter school, and compare those
two schools.
When some researchers have done that--Ron Zimmer, Brian
Gill and others--they find very little evidence of any
segregative effect.
Mr. Cassidy. Now, let me ask you--next thing regarding New
Orleans--now, I am in Louisiana, so I am aware of this. The
school system prior to Katrina was one that destined children
for academic failure.
And frankly, some of the impression back there was it was
the restrictive work rules, it was the encroachment of the
school board upon the autonomy of schools, et cetera, that
frustrated people.
And Paul Vallas, who is now the superintendent--doing a
wonderful job, and he has changed that. I think one of the
concerns on the Republican side is that as we suggest new
regulations we may encroach upon the freedom that Vallas and
others have used to create the school system, defeating the
original purpose.
Any comments?
Mrs. Lake. Yes. I mean, it is always a fear with the
charter school system that over time it will come to look more
and more like the system that it tried to fix or change.
And you know, it is a delicate balance. When we talk about
performance accountability, we first go to the idea of
regulation. If we can instead talk about performance outcomes
and stay at kind of the high level, rather than regulating
inputs, we are in pretty good shape, I think, with the charter
sector.
And I think Paul Vallas would probably agree with that.
Mr. Cassidy. In fact, on the authorization aspect of it,
Mr. Richmond, it almost seemed like if you take as your primary
variable how the kids do, then everything else takes care of
itself.
I mean, if your dependent variable is that the guardrails
are up, but the primary variable is do they get to--safely to
the end of the road, then that seems like a better way to
approach the problem than having, you know, the traditional way
of----
Mr. Richmond. Right.
Mr. Cassidy [continuing]. A 360 microscope.
Mr. Richmond. Well, I think that is right. And you want to
make sure that whatever we all talk about and have these good
discussions that that is our ultimate objective. Are we doing
things that help more kids get a better education and go on to
succeed in life?
And we want to have those guardrails on the side so we
don't lose kids along the way. We want all kids to be able to
get there.
Our organization has done a lot of work in New Orleans with
Paul Pastorek and with Paul Vallas. And what has struck me is
the comparison. That was a closed system before the hurricane.
There was really not energy, not vitality. There wasn't
community engagement in public schools. It was closed. It was a
closed bureaucracy.
And what you have seen happen is the charter sector has
opened it. The level of community engagement in public
education in New Orleans now is astronomically higher than it
was before. It didn't exist before. How----
Mr. Cassidy. And that crosses all socioeconomic----
Mr. Richmond. Absolutely. Absolutely. These are schools
that are in communities throughout the entire city serving the
populations of the entire city and involving in a much more
open way and, most importantly, better results for kids.
Mr. Cassidy. Now, let me ask you--you or Mrs. Lake--you
have both done research there, apparently. There is a concern
that we may fund bad schools. Now, it is my understanding,
though, that the charter schools in New Orleans that are
performing poorly are being shut down or changed over, is that
correct?
Mr. Richmond. It is a legitimate question about are we
going to have more bad schools potentially. There is no
guarantee in this. There could be, and there will be in the
future, schools that open that aren't as good as we want. That
absolutely will happen. It happens in the district sector and
it happens in the charter sector.
The key is the charter sector is better at closing those
schools. In the district sector they continue on indefinitely.
Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Hinojosa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Acting Chairman Polis.
I want to commend Chairman Miller, thank him for having
this hearing on H.R. 4330, entitled The All Students Achieving
Through Reform Act.
As we move to increase educational opportunities for all
students, it is critical, in my opinion, to ensure that all
children have access to a high-quality education. Furthermore,
this includes our public charter schools.
I commend Congressman Jared Polis for his leadership to
author this bill.
I have two questions for Professor Thomas Hehir. In your
testimony, you mention that students with disabilities and
English language learners participate in charters in much
smaller numbers than they exist in the student population at
large.
Based on your expertise, give me the two percentages, one
on ELLs who currently participate in public charter schools,
and the percentage estimates for ELLs with disabilities in
charter schools.
Mr. Hehir. I don't--and nor do I think anybody can give you
the overall numbers as far as that is concerned. My research is
in specific communities. And this is, again, one of the reasons
why I think you need to have a study that really looks at these
issues systemically across the whole country.
But in the communities that I have looked at--Boston, San
Diego, Los Angeles--the percentage participation of children
with disabilities is significantly below what exists in
traditional public schools, and there are very little to none
children with significant disabilities being served in them.
And that raises very serious concerns, in my way of
thinking.
Mr. Hinojosa. Okay.
Mr. Hehir. The same is true with----
Mr. Hinojosa. Time is of the essence, and I will interrupt
you.
Mr. Hehir. Well----
Mr. Hinojosa. I will wait to see if there is some studies
done on that--on the answers to my questions.
Can you elaborate on one other recommendation you made that
the federal government possibly require states to proactively
address issues of access involving special populations as a
condition for receiving federal funds? Give me your thoughts.
Mr. Hehir. Well, again, my thoughts about this are informed
by my experience in the area of special education, where it
wasn't until the federal government stood up to the plate and
insisted that all children be educated that they were.
And the special education--the federal involvement in
special education has, I think, been very positive. And so in
my view, the--given that what we know about underserving of
these populations, it is important for the federal government
to play a role in this, both in terms of making sure that
states monitor this issue, but also in--equally important, in
my view, is states assisting charters in addressing this issue.
Mr. Hinojosa. I want to state that I served on the state
board of education in Texas and was chairman of special
populations committee, which included bilingual education
students, gifted and talented, children with disabilities and
migrant and seasonal farm workers' children.
And I found that the mindset there was that the smallest
percentage investment of our budget went to the special
populations. And so I met with parents and they just couldn't
understand how we didn't give them same opportunities as
needed.
So I agree what you are saying, and I want to follow up
with you later on.
My next question is to the first panelist, Dr. Moskowitz.
Yesterday Univision plus several other groups, including the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Department of
Education, many Latino leaders and community-based
organizations launched the Es El Momento, which translates into
The Time is Now Campaign.
This is a multimillion-dollar, 3-year national education
initiative aimed at increasing high school graduation rates,
college readiness, college completion and engaging Latino
parents in the education of their children.
So can you tell me what strategies have public charter
schools used to engage low-income children and the minority
parents in the education of their children?
Ms. Moskowitz. Thank you for your question. We serve at
Success Academy charter schools--where all of our schools are
Title I schools. And I just came from a meeting yesterday
morning where we have 514 children at one of my schools, and we
had 507 parent representatives. We had a few women go into
labor so they were not there in the morning.
But we have enormous parental involvement in our schools,
and we are often asked, ``Well, how do you get on a math
night--how do you have 100 percent attendance?'' And it takes a
lot of hard work and a lot of relentlessness on the part of
teachers and school leaders.
But we say to parents from the get go something that I
think has gotten lost in America, that----
Mr. Hinojosa. I apologize. Time has run out, and there are
other members that need to ask--have time to ask their
questions. Thank you for your response.
Mr. Polis. And I remind members of the committee that
questions can be submitted in writing up to 24 hours, and the
panel will answer those for the record--14 days you have to
submit those in writing.
I thank the gentleman from Texas.
And the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Would
that it were more time.
I have also been informed, by the way, that we will have
votes starting at about quarter till, perhaps a little after,
so this committee will probably go until right before noon. We
will not be reconvening, so I will ask all members to stick
within their 5 minutes. Try to be a little bit briefer if at
all possible.
I will start with a couple of quick questions.
Dr. Moskowitz, you mentioned that your school has about 18
percent special education. How does that compare to the rate
for New York City or the state of New York?
Ms. Moskowitz. In charters or the district?
Mr. Polis. For the district.
Ms. Moskowitz. Well, in our co-located buildings, we are
higher than three of the four schools.
Mr. Polis. Okay. The next question is a follow-up question
for Dr. Ahearn. And a couple of you mentioned counseling in. I
am well aware of that and have experienced that in the charter
schools that I ran.
I would like you to define that for the committee and talk
about that practice.
Ms. Ahearn. Well, when parents are--have a child who is
having difficulties, that parent will frequently go to the
traditional school and talk with a counselor and say, you know,
``What is best for my child,'' or, ``What can we do to help?''
And rather than trying to perhaps plan a program within the
traditional school, it is not uncommon for a counselor or
anyone that parent speaks to to say, ``Why don't you take your
child to another school?'' And it may be a good recommendation.
It may not be.
We don't know a lot about how this happens, but we know it
happens because we have had charter schools complain that
students come because the counselor told me to come here.
Mr. Polis. Would you say it sometimes happens that students
are counseled that the district feels--the districts might not
want to serve students that they feel are more expensive to
serve? Is that what you feel might be at play?
Ms. Ahearn. I don't know if it is more expensive to serve
or more difficult to serve, because some children are more
difficult to serve than others.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
The next question is for both Dr. Ahearn and Professor
Hehir. With regard to economic equivalency--and so while some
charter schools might not serve the same percentage or might
serve higher percentages of special ed students, there are some
agreements or charters that establish economic equivalency in
that--and, for instance, in examples of charter schools that I
started, New America School, it pays a set special education
amount to the district who then handles the special education
needs for the charter.
And I am wondering if you can comment briefly on the--how
effective or widespread that sort of practice is.
Ms. Ahearn. The practices vary greatly by state. And one of
the models, as you just explained, is commonly called an
insurance model, where a charter school has to pay a certain
amount to its authorizing district per student, and then the
authorizing district is responsible for taking care of special
education in that school, but the charter school usually has
very little, if any, control over making that happen.
In other cases, funding is done on a completely different
basis.
Mr. Polis. And my question for Professor Hehir would be is
that a reasonable or fair way to do it, given that, of course,
this is a network, the needs of a student might be best met
somewhere else?
Is this type of economic equivalency, where you can make
sure that it makes economic sense, a fair or reasonable way to
do it?
Mr. Hehir. I think in theory it is. I think one of the
issues around serving kids with disabilities in charter schools
is if you give parents the true choice of charter schools,
there will be parents who will want to enroll their children in
charter schools that may have expensive and unusual needs that
the charter school is not able to meet.
It is not that they don't want to. They are unable to meet
it. Charter schools----
Mr. Polis. As, I might add, might be many other schools in
that district that are public schools.
Mr. Hehir. Exactly, but the public schools have the backup
of the school system.
Mr. Polis. Right.
Mr. Hehir. And charter schools do not. Having a mechanism
like you described I think is very important, whether it is
something that is created by charters themselves in
collaboration with one another or it is created by the state or
the local school district.
I think that type of mechanism is central here.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
I would like to also respond briefly on the issue of
segregation. I believe that this bill can help reduce
segregation by giving a preference to schools that serve low-
income students, particularly through cooperative agreements,
including transportation.
I would also like to share with our committee briefly the
experience in our district of the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy,
which is a K-8 school that has a longer school day, 5 hours of
core subject instruction, summer enrichment, daily tennis and
chess lessons, and the results really speak for themselves.
First of all, it has 93 percent free and reduced lunch,
higher percentage than the school district; 90 percent Latino;
and 80 percent English language learners. Its student outcomes
are, simply put, incredible and transformative.
Ninety-three percent of the third graders scored proficient
or advanced in reading, compared to 73 percent for Colorado.
And each student, every student, 100 percent of third graders
scored proficient or advanced in math, compared to 69 percent
of Colorado.
And again, while the school is 90 percent Latino, and the
district is slightly less than that, these students are
achieving, and that is why students choose that school.
You have a sometimes cross odds of economic diversity and
ethnic diversity. We have another successful charter school in
Pueblo, Colorado, Cesar Chavez Academy, that had very
successful test results, started out at a--very high percentage
Latino.
As all the parents saw that it had very good test results,
it attracted a lot more white families. So it became less
segregated but it served less at-risk kids as a result. So you
can't have it both ways sometimes.
I think that charter schools that have as a goal serving
diverse communities are what this bill seeks to fund.
With that, my own time has expired.
And I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Washington, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a number of questions, too. I wanted to start with
Dr. Moskowitz, and I just wanted to ask you to talk a little
bit more about the autonomy at the charter schools and why that
is so important, and maybe give us an example.
And then I had--my second question was you also mentioned
that in the last 50 years that we have really increased funding
for our educational system but yet we aren't seeing the
outcomes associated with that increased spending. And I wanted
to ask if you would give us an example of how you are able to
do more with less.
Ms. Moskowitz. Sure. Well, my example of the freedom that
gets to the heart of teaching and learning is the New York City
contract, teachers union contract, gives one 50-minute prep
period a day. We give our teachers three, minimally. Sometimes
it is four.
But we expect an incredibly high level of preparation. I
don't think that the teachers union contract giving one 50-
minute period could result in high levels of preparation, so
that would be one, but there are many, many other examples.
In terms of spending, I am most familiar with the details
in New York City, but we went from $15 billion--in the year
2000, a $15 billion operating budget to a $21 billion operating
budget today.
Charters have not been the beneficiary of all that money.
We get significantly less than the district. We get $12,443 and
the buildings that I am co-located with get between $19,000 and
$21,000 a child. So there is a wide disparity in funding.
How we are able to do it--and the ``it'' is important to
understand. It is a longer school day, a longer school year. We
go 6 days a week starting in second grade, and we go from 7:30
in the morning till 4:30; if you are struggling, from 4:30 to
5:30. Meanwhile, we are offering art, music, chess, dance, and
every kid plays a team sport.
We are able to do that with larger class sizes, frankly. I
have 28 in kindergarten. And we are able to do that because we
aren't subject to a Soviet-style procurement system, and that--
if you look at the New York City school system, how they find
basketballs for the amount of money they pay for basketballs, I
don't know, because I haven't been able to find them for that
price. We are able to be nimble about our procurement.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Great. Thanks.
Mrs. Lake, I wanted to--I was intrigued that you were--your
center is at the University of Washington, as I come from
Washington State, and we have not been successful in allowing
for charter schools in Washington State yet--served in the
state legislature during some of those debates, and I know that
we have--we battled this issue for many years.
And one of the arguments used against charter schools was
that they would cream the best, and especially in high--and
take away from those that have high needs. I find the
discussion related to special needs to be very interesting.
I have a son with special needs, so I am starting--he is
three, so I am just starting through this whole process, and I
must admit I am looking for options right here in D.C. because
I want those options for my son.
But can you just speak to the high needs--meeting the needs
of a high-need area, especially as it relates to--and how
charter schools can do that?
Mrs. Lake. Right. Well, we are not only fellow
Washingtonians, but we are also fellow moms with special need
kids.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Oh.
Mrs. Lake. So we are bonding. [Laughter.]
On the question of creaming, I mean, that was one of the
earliest concerns about this charter school movement. I think
at this point we don't hear a lot of discussion about it,
because the facts just haven't panned out to support the idea
that charter schools would go after the elite kids in
districts.
You know, overall, charter schools tend to serve much
higher numbers of minority and kids who qualify for free and
reduced lunch. And then when you make kind of apples to apples
comparisons in the districts where they are located, they tend
to be basically on par or more aggressively serving those kids.
And the reason is if you think about it from the
perspective of somebody who wants to open a school, it is hard
work, doesn't pay very well. Folks like Dr. Moskowitz are not
going to go into the business to serve kids who are already
being well served.
And the kids who are coming to charter schools are not
coming to charter schools to escape, you know, a high-
performing school. They are coming to escape a low-performing
school. So I think, you know, it is really time to put the
creaming argument to rest.
I think there are some second generation issues with the
charter schools that--with special needs----
Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Polis. I would like to encourage--strongly encourage
committee members to, if possible, stick to 3 minutes so that
everybody can get in. You are really recognized for 5, but try
to keep it below that if possible.
With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman who cast
his 20,000th vote in the United States Congress yesterday, my
esteemed colleague and chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Kildee of
Michigan.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And some of those
votes were right.
In my home state of Michigan, students attending
traditional public schools outperformed those attending charter
schools in the Michigan math and English language arts test
over the last 4 years, by 10 to 21 percentage points.
I find this data alarming. While there may be some model
charter schools, in my state, on average, these schools are not
producing results as good as the traditional public school
system.
Now, I know, just--I know Michigan very well, having lived
there 80 years--that one of the reasons, obviously, in Michigan
is that the charter schools are concentrated in your older
industrial cities that are in some degree of decay.
You don't find many charter schools out in the wealthier
areas, so that is one of the factors why the--they are not
performing as well as the public school system.
I will start with you--let's see--Mr. Richmond first, then
Mr. Hehir. What other reasons might there be that they are not
performing as well as the traditional public school?
Mr. Richmond. One reason is that in some places weak
proposals for charter schools are approved that should never
have been approved in the first place.
We know a lot more now in 2010 than we did 15 years ago
about how to evaluate someone who wants to start a school and
how to do a better job of making the right picks, how to
approve more good schools and not approve weak schools. We
didn't know how to do that very well when this all started. We
now know how to do that much better than we did before.
The challenge is we do have excellent schools around the
country, but then we had schools that were approved 10 or 15
years ago that maybe they shouldn't have been, but now they are
here. And we need to--they either need to improve their
performance or need to be closed.
So one of the roles of the authorizer, first, is to make
those selections like your voting record--get it right as often
as possible, right? And then, after the schools are running,
the authorizer should be enforcing those high standards and
allowing good schools to stay open, supporting the creation of
more good schools and closing those that are not delivering a
high-quality education.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Hehir?
Mr. Hehir. Again, I think that the studies in this area are
all over the place. I mean, one of the better controlled
studies which was done in Massachusetts by a colleague of mine
at Harvard, Tom Kane, compared people who were successful--
children who were successful in charter lotteries with children
who were unsuccessful in charter lotteries.
So this, in other words, is apples to apples. And he
actually found that the charters were performing at a higher
level, not a lower level. So I think these studies are all over
the place, and I think that is one of the reasons why it is
important to do some much more extensive research in this area,
in my view.
And I think that the Congress and this bill supports that.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
The gentleman has yielded his time back.
To make sure that everybody gets in, we will be setting the
timer to 3 minutes, and I ask my colleagues to ensure that the
rest of their colleagues can speak that they get their comments
and questions in in a 3-minute period.
With that, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Chu, for 3 minutes.
Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was interested, Mr. Richmond, in your statement on the
necessity for improving the process for authorizing charter
schools. And I am in particular concerned about English learner
students. I represent a district in California with many of
them.
And in California, they are looking at data with regard to
English learner students and thus far it shows that charter
schools are enrolling fewer English learners than traditional
schools, and many do not differentiate their program or their
instruction to address the various English proficiency levels
of their students.
And there is also a study that just came out for
Massachusetts which identified several significant issues
regarding how charter schools are not meeting the educational
needs of English learners. And it reveals that fewer English
learners and fewer recent immigrants are enrolled in charter
schools.
And there are also some concerns that charter schools are
only keeping the best students and counseling ESL students back
to public school.
Can you tell me whether charter schools are subject to the
same data collection in terms of attrition and also data on
English learner students, as well as the other kinds of data,
including gender and race?
And should this data reporting be in the reports that are
submitted by charter schools, especially as its relevant to
authorizing?
Mr. Richmond. Sure. A common theme developing around the--a
need for better data, better research, and I would echo and
reinforce that strongly.
What we have seen across the country--that there isn't a
single charter school sector. There are 41 charter school
sectors, 41 different states, each with their own different
laws, their different practices, their different requirements
around data collection, their different habits around who is
paying attention, if anyone is paying attention.
And some states do this work well, and some do it much less
well. So to your point specific--well, we want to learn from
those that are doing well and help replicate what works. So I
think it is important to realize that we have that opportunity,
that we can see what does work well and try to replicate that.
To English language learner students, one of my
experiences--when we did this in Chicago, one of the great
benefits from the beginning we didn't fully understand at the
time is that we included all the kids in the charter schools in
our student information data system.
So we knew who they were. We knew their addresses. We knew
whether they needed special education services, English
language learner services, whether they were free and reduced
lunch. And that allowed us as a system to do a much better job
making sure those kids were getting the services they needed.
If you don't know that, if you have an authorizer that
doesn't have that information, it is very difficult to address
the concerns you are concerned about. So we want to see a much
better job of authorizers doing that data collection.
Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Woolsey, for 3 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have more time than you realize. I mean, once
the bells ring, we have got 20 minutes.
Mr. Polis. We will absolutely go back for a second round
after everybody has completed, if time permits.
Ms. Woolsey. So I want to thank the witnesses and
congratulate the charter movement for fulfilling what I
believed was to be your mission in 1993 when I was sworn in
here and became a member of this committee.
And that mission was to prove that--to educators and to
authorizers that in many, many cases there--new and better
education practices work.
So I have been on this committee, as I said, for 18 years.
And over that time, the charter movement was born and grew. And
later, No Child Left Behind was passed. And now we are
preparing to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
So back to the charter and your speech--your presentations
today. You have shown us that absolutely more individual lesson
plans, parental involvement, more autonomy, more freedom--all
of that works, including chess or dance. Of course it works.
You have provided members of this committee some very
proven successful practices to the public education system.
So I want to ask you, how are we going to integrate this
into elementary-secondary education reauthorization without
splitting our public education system down the middle? You have
shown us that there are better practices. The public education
system has better practices when it comes to English learners,
to special needs kids, to homeless.
How are we going to marry that together? Because I am
scared to death that we are going to start marching down a path
where we have two public education systems, one for those that
are better off, and one for those in need. And I am not going
to be satisfied with that. That will not work.
You have proven to us that if we integrate new and better
ways into the public education system, we will be able to
educate all children, and all children--in a world so they can
compete worldwide.
So that is my question to you. Does anybody want--have time
to respond?
Ms. Young. Absolutely. In Los Angeles, they made a historic
vote yesterday that didn't make everybody in the charter school
movement happy, but they voted to give several dozen of their
campuses to internal staff teams that create great schools to
charter schools to create schools.
And by bringing the charter school movement into
competition but also collaboration with district families and
teams, they began that integration. And I think that is going
to be one of the ways that other school districts can focus on
this.
Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare,
for 3 minutes.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Moskowitz, let me just give you my opinion here. I have
heard you mention Soviet-style twice in your testimony. While I
appreciate the fact that you are genuinely concerned and
obviously into the thing, I think the rhetoric on that might
get toned down a bit.
I mean, I think we are all in this to try to make sure--but
you know, the Soviet-style, I think, to be honest with you,
troubles me greatly.
Let me just ask you--the panel quickly--I represent West
Central Illinois, a lot of rural area. And my concern is the
rural schools face a lot of unique challenges, such as limited
resources, small student body populations, geographic
isolation.
And I am concerned that promoting charters in rural America
may not be--may be unrealistic. My question for this panel is
can charter school models be replicated in rural communities.
If they can be--or outside of urban areas, and if they can, can
you explain to me how you can do that?
Ms. Young. Absolutely. There are wonderful replication
models of charter schools throughout the country, and a lot of
those charter schools are using a combination of students
coming to a particular campus to have some of their classes and
then doing some of the work from home in online programs.
And this is happening in rural areas throughout the
country, and it makes it possible for students who would
otherwise ride a school bus an hour and a half each way to
school to instead come to the school site 2 or 3 days a week
but then have the other days to use that time more productively
by doing their course work online.
And so we are seeing that growing throughout the country.
It is also the case that there are school districts that have
only one or two schools in them that are choosing to make a
charter school and a non-charter school in that school district
so that they can have the experimentation of both and have more
options for kids.
Mr. Hare. (OFF MIKE)
Ms. Young. It is by agreement with the school district to
make sure that that funding is available.
Mr. Hare. (OFF MIKE)
Ms. Ahearn. Certainly, and I think also we are working on
the topic of special education and virtual schools at this
moment, and it is really important that a lot of innovation has
been grown out of the virtual movement, moving toward virtual
schools, and delivery of special education services as well. So
it can work.
Mr. Richmond. I will add, in 10 seconds, if you--you know,
Wisconsin actually has had many small school districts adopt
and grow charter schools--dozens actually embraced by
superintendents in Wisconsin--as a means of doing what you are
interested in.
Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Tierney, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. I haven't moved. I am still from
Massachusetts, so we----
Mr. Polis. Yes, you are. The chair stands corrected.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Look, I think we have good public schools and bad public
schools. We have good charter schools and bad charter schools.
And the good public schools do a lot of the things that the
good charter schools do. Some do longer days, longer school
years, you know, and all of that stuff.
So I mean, I think that Ms. Woolsey gave you a lot of
credit, but I think it should be shared, that there are good
public schools in a lot of different places.
But in the aggregate, the reports that I am familiar with
shows that charter schools perform slightly below the public
schools. In the aggregate, charter students demonstrate
slightly lower proficiency on national tests. And in the
aggregate, a slightly higher percentage of charters fail to
make annual yearly progress.
So as I say, some are low performing and, as one of our
witnesses said, we have some that are low performing, but they
are allowed to stay open for various reasons. Well, that is the
same thing with public schools.
And we have some schools that sometimes are approved, and
now they are here, and we have to do something about that.
Well, that is the same thing with public schools.
So the concern that I have here is we are recreating the
wheel, that we know what works. In the last panel it
apparently--by the committee here to have duplicate hearings on
charter schools on that--is that some things work.
We have now done a lot of research and studying. We know
what works. The thing I am concerned is why we are trying to
make it work in one area instead of not just making it work in
one area but trying to bifurcate it off of there.
So you know, now they know that some don't work, so they
want help for the 3 percent of students that are in charters to
sort of replicate what is right and move away from what is
wrong.
There is nothing in my observation that stops local
education agencies and states from doing what is right, except
maybe we don't have enough public pressure, and we are not
moving through on that.
We can hire, promote, retain principals and teachers that
operate the way we want them to. We could support them. We
could even work with teachers to do peer review and weed out
the ones that aren't doing as well as we want, or mentor or
train the ones that have to do better and concentrate on that
part.
But I wonder, what could states and local education
agencies do with the $310 million that the president proposes
for charter schools. Instead of taking it, you know, and
putting it there, instead of adding it and doing the things
that are right in the existing system, I think it would make a
world of distance--difference.
And I wonder why it is in charter schools we will support
public money for bricks and mortars, where historically we have
never done that for the public schools, and wouldn't those
public schools have liked to have had that opportunity.
So I just have that question going through my mind--is it
would--that this is not actually helping but maybe just sort of
bleeding it out and taking the concentration away from what we
need to do for all children, not just 3 percent.
I want to leave you all with a question and ask you, if you
would, and if the chair would ask you, to submit it in writing
to me. It has been mentioned that mandates and regulations are
something that charter schools have to be shielded from.
And that is why, you know, you want to do--so if you would
provide to the committee so that I can look at it as well as
the other members what alleged mandates and regulations do you
say charter schools should be shielded from, and that would
assist us, I think, in our work.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus,
for 3 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to continue this same line of thought. Nevada
has had a mixed experience with charter schools. So we have
what we call empowerment schools. Empowerment schools are, in
many ways, similar to charter schools. They have a lot of
autonomy in exchange for accountability in governance,
budgeting, staffing, instruction and time.
But they operate on extended days, extended years, more
flexibility in hiring, more flexibility in use of their per-
student allocation of funding. And they have proven to--shown
that they do better.
The way they are different, though, is rather than focusing
on one particular population, they still remain neighborhood
schools, so they serve all the children in the neighborhood.
They just serve them better.
And they are accountable to the school district, as opposed
to being approved by the state board of education, which makes
them really more centered in that community, with parent
involvement and teachers and principals.
I just wonder how you could argue that charter schools are
really a better way to go than, say, empowerment schools that
would, indeed, use the funding that Mr. Tierney addressed in a
fairer kind of broader way.
Ms. Young. One of the ways is that this 75-page document is
the California charter school law, and most of the charter
school laws in the country are that small compared to, say, the
average state ed code, which is about 2,000 pages.
And that gives charter schools the opportunity to really
tailor their program to the students they serve. For example,
if a charter school wants to have specialized programs, or
teachers that are trained in a particular rigorous area that
matches the needs of the kids that wouldn't otherwise belong in
a school because of the education code, charter schools can do
that.
And so one of the things that traditional public schools
can do is get the same kind of waivers as charter schools get
if they want to improve their programs, and that is one of the
ways we are seeing that charter school law influenced
traditional school districts, because now, more and more,
traditional school districts are asking for waivers from the
regulations that keep them from being able to do charter-
school-like things.
Ms. Titus. And I think that is accurate, and that is why I
wonder why we don't spread that money across, allowing more of
those schools to become empowerment schools rather than just
centralizing it with charter schools.
Ms. Young. Well, I think the key reason is not--I don't
think that it is one or the other. It needs to be both. But
when you have an empowerment school, in terms of make it
sustainable and to make it a high-quality school, it needs to
have at least solid independent governance. It needs to be
judged based on student outcomes.
The leadership of the school needs to have the ability to
manage their own budget and to hire and fire the people who
work in the school. And if it has all of those things, and
freedom from the regulations that--them away, it will be
successful.
Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair would also like to thank Dr. Moskowitz, who has
to depart, as will the rest of us shortly.
With that, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from New
York, Ms. Clarke, for 3 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good seeing you, Dr. Moskowitz. Dr. Moskowitz and I
served on the New York City council together, so it is good to
see her in her new capacity here in Washington.
Let me just raise a couple of issues about the charter
schools as they were established in the early 1990s. It was
sort of our thinking that we could use these as incubators for
innovative educational ideas and new teaching methods and that
ultimately these new ideas and teaching methods would be shared
with and scaled up for dissemination in the wider public school
community.
In New York City, this is not taking place. And I am a bit
concerned, because I think you have heard a lot of the concerns
coming from my colleagues about a bifurcated public school
system--there is a public non-charter school system, and there
is the public school system. And it is as though never the
twain shall meet.
I know that in speaking with a number of the chartered
schools in my district, there is never a conversation in our
governance structure with the city's department of education
where charter school administrators actually meet with the
regular public school administrators to talk about what their
experiences have been.
I am just a bit concerned about where we get to the tipping
point and what is the end game here. And I don't know whether
that has been a conversation in the charter school movement,
but I think it is a very valid one.
And when people talk about cherry-picking, let me just
explain how that happens. There are some parents who are in the
know. There are some parents who constantly interact with other
folks and navigate the system very well.
Those parents are the parents who always look after their
children's education and they are always going to find the very
best educational system for their children. They tend to be a
very slim part of a large community of parents that never know
what is going on.
And what I have found is that a lot of the parents who
could best benefit from the charter school movement are never
informed, never get the message. So you do get this
perpetuation of a cherry-picking phenomenon, whether you intend
to or not.
And I think we really need to address that. In a huge
public school system like New York City's it is becoming very
contentious. So I would just like to get some feedback from you
about how we get to this tipping point or at least this
reconciliation so that when we talk about doing ESEA we know
what direction we are heading in and we are not heading for a
collision course.
Mr. Richmond. I will try to speak to that very quickly. I
think you are right, there has been less direct sharing from
school to school between charters and district schools than
people expected. I think that is an accurate assessment. People
expected more, and there is less happening than we want.
But where we have seen it is on a higher level around
standards, better teacher recruiting, better teacher training,
better assessments--policy level those lessons have carried
over into the rest of public education--reauthorization of ESEA
now.
Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Payne, for 3 minutes, our final questioner.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Sorry that I was unable to hear the testimony, but it is
something that I am very interested in. As a former public
school teacher, I certainly have a strong interest in
education. And I do think that the charter school movement have
really provided some good results.
We have North Star Academy in my district that has done
very well. It is--was visited by the Secretary of Education,
Duncan.
I just would like to reiterate what the gentlelady from New
York says, that, you know, your job is not to worry about those
students who are not in the charter movement. I mean, you are
in the charter movement and therefore your obligation is to
your movement and moving forward with it.
However, it is a system, as it has been indicated by the
gentlelady from New York, that it takes, first of all, a parent
who is--has initiative, so the argument could be, ``Well, why
should you penalize children of parents with initiative?'' Very
good argument.
The thing that we have in our state is that, you know, once
a child is in, then the lottery allows them to have siblings.
So you got the parent who has a lot of initiative. She gets the
first child in. The other siblings automatically qualify
because that is the way they do it in New Jersey.
And once again, the expulsion from charter schools
certainly is high. The number of charter school children that
have been put out and back into the public school system is
definitely an indication that, once again, we have a--sort of a
select--you have to earn the right to stay, whereas public
schools--by law, you must stay.
And so I think that what you are doing is fine. I would
just hope that--matter of fact, in New Jersey, you can't have
more than 15 kids in a class. I wish that were for every
school.
So I am not knocking and certainly complimenting the
success, because we have them in my town. I am just basically
concerned about the others, and that is, like I said, not your
worry. That is the public schools' problem, and they should
deal with it.
But I do see more of a segregated type of a system, and I
just hate to think that we are getting back to 1896 and Plessy
v. Ferguson of equal but separate is okay.
I think my 3 minutes are up. Yield back.
Mr. Polis. Thank the gentleman.
I would like to thank all of our panelists today. We deeply
appreciate you spending your time educating this committee.
I would like to thank the many progressive and civil rights
organizations that support the All-STAR bill, including the
Center for American Progress, the Thomas Fordham Foundation,
the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, the United Negro
College Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the
Education Quality Project, as well as the Black Alliance for
Educational Options, for helping to support this bill.
And thank you for educating our committee about a bill that
can make sure that charter schools have strategies to serve
more at-risk students, can help desegregate our schools by
looking at cooperative agreements and transportation agreements
to help provide more diversity in our charter schools, and a
bill that helps replicate successful charter schools as well as
ensuring that there are strategies to close or intervene in
unsuccessful charter schools.
We can all hope that this can move the movement forward and
help ensure that the promise of hope and opportunity is a real
one for more American families.
Without objections, members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials or questions for the hearing record.
And without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Michigan
Chairman Miller and Senior Republican Kline, I thank you for
holding this important hearing on maintaining quality in charter
schools.
I also thank Representative Jared Polis for his work on the All
Students Achieving through Reform Act of 2009, or the All-Stars Act. I
was very pleased to join him as an original cosponsor.
Throughout my career, both in Lansing and in Washington, I have
been an ardent supporter of good public and private schools. I strongly
believe that we should work to improve our federal education laws to
incentivize more effective schools and options for parents and
students.
Charter schools provide Michigan families with an educational
choice. Having a choice of quality schools is very important for
students' education and for our communities. In fact, I have noticed
that parents tend to be quite involved in their child's education when
they choose to live near the school they want their child to attend.
Developing good schools takes work. Officials in my state have
spent considerable time and effort in ensuring that public charter
schools are effective. According to the Center for Education Reform,
Michigan's charter school laws rank the 6th strongest in the county. In
my state, no other public schools are scrutinized like charters are.
Charter authorizers (often state universities) have large staffs that
monitor the schools and ensure compliance with lengthy, written
performance contracts. Charters keep their contracts if they are
academically and fiscally sound, and lose them if they are not. Even
more importantly, charter schools are held accountable by parents who
are there by choice and can ultimately ``vote with their feet'' by
choosing another school if they are not satisfied.
While there are approximately 240 public charter schools in
Michigan, very few serve the high school grades. In 2008, a new public
high school charter opened in Grand Rapids, and served 150 students
with a waiting list within its first year of operation.
The All-Stars Act would provide federal grant funds to replicate
successful charter schools. It also would ensure high levels of charter
school authorizer reporting and accountability.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses today, and hope
that other members of this Committee will join me in supporting the
All-Stars Act.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]