Testimony by Ariana Quiñones-Miranda DC Public Charter School Association D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Ariana Quinones-Miranda and I am the Executive Director of the new District of Columbia Public Charter School Association (DCPCSA). I began full-time on Monday, April 26th, and I look forward to making myself available to work with you closely on education issues in the District.
Charter schools are public schools and an integral part of education and child development in the District. The Mayor, the City Council, the State Education Agency, the DCPS Board of Education and Superintendent, and the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board must balance the needs and resources of the various forms of educating and supporting children in this city in a way that does not pit one against another. We have families where one child attends a charter school, another sibling attends a traditional public school, and conceivably a third may receive a scholarship to attend a private school. For most parents and families, the selection of a school for their child is not a political decision, yet we as leaders often make it so. As a parent, I consider the political climate because of the implications it has on whether the charter school I want my daughter to attend will be able to secure a site, stay in the same location for a reasonable period of time, and have enough funding left after lease or mortgage payments to obtain appropriate staff and instructional materials. If the charter school leaders must spend time “advocating” for things that often come automatically to traditional public schools, it will inevitably affect the quality of the educational program.
State Education Agency (SEA) Functions. As the District’s educational system becomes more complex, the current governance and oversight systems need to evolve. Although some might disagree, when DCPS was the only Local Education Agency, having it combined with the State Education Agency was not especially problematic. Now that we have traditional public schools, public charter schools, and soon, private and parochial schools all providing educational services to District families, a fully-functioning and independent SEA is extremely important. There is an inherent conflict of interest in having DCPS handle what are normally SEA functions (including federal grants). All state level functions should be handled by one agency and should not be bifurcated as they are now. The creation of the State Education Office was a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough. All of the issues I address in one way or another highlight the need for coordination across the three sectors and an independent SEA could greatly assist in the coordination and “depoliticization” of education in the District.
This disconnect impacts various areas, from facilities, to federal funding, to compliance and monitoring, professional development, and many others. To illustrate, one specific example is the communication across each of the sectors as it relates to compliance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). AMAOs, or Annual Measurement Achievement Objectives, are targets set by each state for English language proficiency attainment as required by Title III. Title III of NCLB requires that limited English proficient students be assessed for English proficiency in kindergarten through grade twelve. In effect, AMAOs are the equivalent to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets but are specific only to students who are limited English proficient. The reason I bring this up is that with all the attention paid to NCLB and AYP, most people, including educators, have never heard of AMAOs. And since the state sets the AMAO targets, in this case DCPS, the SEA has a role in ensuring that the charter schools are apprised of the targets and their responsibilities in ensuring that students meet them.
This could easily be an area where that information is not shared with the charter schools simply because there is not a formal mechanism built in for it to happen. However, unlike in some DCPS departments, the Director of the DCPS Office of Bilingual Education has personally made the effort to include the charter schools in her outreach efforts. Still, with the current structure, there would be no consequences if she did not make the effort; and in many cases, DCPS staff do not.
The latest version of Mayor Anthony Williams’s plan to take control of the DCPS schools addresses this matter, at least at the governance level. The plan would reconstitute the Board of Education as a “true state board of education” with the power to set such state educational policies as minimum academic standards, attendance rules, and teacher certification and licensure requirements. The State Education Office, now under the control of the mayor, would become the “secretariat” of the state board and in that capacity would be charged with implementing the policies promulgated by the board. If the plan were adopted by the Council, authority over the 18 Board of Education charter schools would be given to the D.C. Public Charter School Board, which would become the sole chartering authority in the District.
While this proposal seems appropriate, we are concerned that having only one chartering authority may be a step backward for the District’s charter school movement by creating a charter school monopoly. Leaving aside the question of whether the BOE should or should not be in the charter school business (many think not), having multiple chartering authorities is the hallmark of a healthy charter school movement. Around the country, those states that have more than one chartering authority have more charter schools and more vibrant charter school movements.
Facilities Access. As you well know, the issue of charter school facilities is probably the most daunting challenge for local schools, although it need not be. With the multiple organizations and programs (Building Hope, CityBuild, Charter Schools Development Corporation, NCB Development Corporation, LISC, Raza Development Fund, etc.) that exist locally and nationally to support facilities financing, and the number of potential buildings in the District, increasing access to appropriate facilities for all students is be a goal we can accomplish. While some positive steps have been taken, there is more that can be done. In order for schools to obtain facilities, there are three prerequisites: training and technical assistance to prepare school leaders to navigate the facilities acquisition process, financing opportunities, and available buildings. The organizations mentioned above are taking care of the first two prerequisites. What schools struggle with is the third. To be clear, there is not a shortage of facilities, but an imbalance in terms of the accessibility of facilities. The table below provides an overview of the numbers.
