By the end of 2023 (or, as it’s now looking, the beginning of 2024), DC will have both a new boundaries study as well as a new iteration of its master facilities plan (MFP). As both are integral to the future of DCPS, this is the third of four blog posts on the subject exploring past and more recent events that relate to it. The first post was on DCPS closures; the second was on the MFP and boundaries process; and the last will be on an attempt to change zoning rules for DC charter schools.

Charter Expansion Grants

Back in December 2022, the DC office of the state superintendent of education (OSSE) put out a call for public feedback on proposed changes in the definition of “significant expansion” for charter school eligibility for DC’s portion of the federal government’s new Charter Schools Program (CSP) expansion grants.

The then-current definition in DC of “significant expansion” was increasing current student enrollment by more than 50% or adding two or more new grade levels over the course of the 2-year award period.

OSSE’s proposed (and now enacted) language was this:

““Significant expansion” means to increase the enrollment ceiling by at least 20 percent or 100 students, whichever is fewer, or to add at least one new grade level, over the course of the two-year award period.”

This language ensures that the threshold to qualify is much easier to achieve, thus giving DC charter schools more money, and faster, to expand.

Notwithstanding that this grant program is entirely optional, there’s also the inconvenient truth that DC already has more than 35,000 unfilled seats at its existing, publicly funded schools, per the deputy mayor for education (who, ironically, oversees OSSE).

Then there’s the additional irony that the idea behind this federal money is to promote education quality—not just to fund charters faster.

(Yes, Virginia, those are two different things–although their conflation in DC says everything you need to know about DC education leadership and the power of charter lobbying.)

Perhaps in keeping with that, OSSE provided no public context for its proposed change. That includes not explaining

the extent to which these grants have been used in DC;
how and for what they have been used; and
how much money, if any, has been returned to the federal government because it was not awarded.

When I sought out some background, Brianna Griffin, manager of OSSE’s office of federal programs and strategic funding, told me that only one such expansion grant had been awarded since 2015, under the prior grant program. She noted that under this new grant program, grants will range from $250,000 to $950,000 and confirmed that this change in language will allow more money to be awarded to more charters.

Still, there was a bit of mystery, inasmuch as there are apparently several different grant categories for DC charters—specifically, money for “replication,” “school takeovers,” and these grants, for “expansion.”

I quite inadvertently stumbled over this when a now-defunct OSSE website on these federal grants mentioned federal grants for “replication” given to seven DC charters.

While I apprehended the school takeover bit, Griffin kindly clarified the other grants for me, noting that replication grants are for a new campus of an existing charter school—whereas expansion grants are for increasing enrollment at an existing campus.

(Or, what one might call a distinction without meaning for the purpose of public funding.)

Nonetheless, OSSE’s new (and improved?) website on this subject (see also here) appears to bundle the three types of grants together, while making clear what schools have been awarded which grants in the last few years.

In keeping with the general public opacity, OSSE’s call for public feedback on the rule change appeared to be made in one place only: the DC Register. It was not on OSSE’s website or twitter feed as far as I could see. Not being a habitual reader of the DC Register, I learned about the call for public feedback from an acquaintance only a few days before comments were due, on January 8.

The public comments themselves form an interesting coda to such civic opacity.

Starting in early March, I asked Griffin when we could expect the public comments to be published. She repeatedly told me that the comments were “under review” and thus were not (yet) publicly available.

But on July 18, Griffin confirmed that OSSE was not planning to post the public comments at all–but noted that I could request them via FOIA.

So I did—and here they are.

Of the eight total comments, seven were against changing the definition for grant eligibility–for the following reasons:

–The work of the MFP and boundaries committee needs to inform this, not vice versa.
–Underutilization of facilities across sectors is a problem already.
–DC has overcapacity of seats relative to student population.
–Thousands of currently unfilled seats means any expansion is fiscally irrational.
–There was no context for this change, while it represents fiscal waste in ensuring current schools must make due with fewer students and thus reduced budgets.

Not surprisingly, the one comment in favor of the changed definition was from a charter lobbying organization.

Given that imbalance and the poor effort to solicit public comment, it stands to reason OSSE preferred to bury public comments while quietly changing the definition to what it had wanted all along.

Sadly, all of this is of a piece with ongoing work around the MFP and boundaries. So hang on for an

Update On MFP/Boundary Stuff (Sigh)

As you may recall, there were two MFP town halls on July 12 and 13 (which 88 and 86 people, respectively, attended).

I attended the July 13 town hall and was amazed to see that the people running the meeting had disabled the chat, such that only they could view questions from attendees. (See here for a full description of how this July 13 town hall went down.) To be sure, meeting organizers said they would make comments from the chat available—but only as they recast them.

As it was, much of what I put in the chat was ignored, like the following:

–What is the fiscal problem of underutilized DCPS schools of right? That is, it’s a sunk cost, isn’t it? So why are underutilized schools a problem if it’s not fiscal?
–Are you going to analyze the condition of DCPS modernizations? It’s not WHETHER a school was modernized, but to what level and how well.
–Why should we care about the adequacy of funding for charter buildings? Right now, DC gives facilities money to charters based on their student enrollment for use for anything, without tracking, which is supposed be about charters’ freedom. If the charter buildings are not adequately funded, that is SUPPOSED to be the problem of the private nonprofit running the charter. 
–My kid’s school is falling apart less than 10 years after being modernized. The school before that my kid attended was falling apart less than 5 years after being modernized.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of that above was in a list that organizers of the July 19 meeting of the boundaries advisory committee presented as items the public raised at the July MFP town halls. (See the official list at about the 10-minute mark of the meeting video or slide 9 of the meeting presentation here.)

There were other interesting artifacts of that July 19 boundaries advisory committee meeting:

–A member from Ward 5 (Annie Wright?) has resigned—except that someone with that name doesn’t appear to ever have been listed on the member page for the advisory committee (see here for the website–and here as that website appeared on July 26). A replacement member from Ward 5 is apparently being sought.

–Planner Patrick Davis revealed that draft recommendations for the MFP would be released in September, ahead of future public town halls for the MFP. But as advisory committee member Cathy Reilly pointed out at the 11-minute mark of the July 19 video, because the advisory committee is not meeting in August, this means that the advisory committee will have nothing to do with those draft MFP recommendations nor will those draft recommendations necessarily take into account the thoughts or actions of the advisory committee—despite the overlap of those two areas and the fact that the SAME people are in charge of both the boundaries study and the MFP.

–At the 27-minute mark of the July 19 advisory committee meeting, deputy mayor for education staffer Jennifer Comey introduced a worksheet of challenges, which her office apparently compiled based on a variety of sources. Before the advisory committee then took the better part of an hour to discuss the worksheet, committee member Marla Dean pointed out (again) how miscast some of it was, noting that one of the items—specifically, “inequitable access to specialized programming”–is in fact NOT an issue. Rather, as Dean pointed out at the 35-minute mark, the real issue is inequitable access to robust programming, such that music and the arts are consistently removed from schools with the poorest students in what Dean noted is a “narrowed” curriculum.

–At the 1 hour, 6 minute mark, a staffer running the meeting pushed back on members’ repeating this and other specific points to strengthen DCPS, asking for any ”counterpoint.” That staffer then recognized the head of Friendship charter school, who brought up an “emphasis on consolidating.”

(Just in case this isn’t clear: The head of the second largest charter network in DC was speaking up to offer a “counterpoint” to strengthening DCPS programming across the board by mentioning an emphasis on consolidating DCPS schools (i.e. closures)—which would fiscally benefit her own charter network, among others, and do nothing for strengthening the DCPS network. Counterpoint indeed.)

–A moment later, while acknowledging the group’s (oft-repeated) desire for robust programming in all DCPS schools, staffer Jennifer Comey noted that three-fourths of families do not choose their in bounds school and presaged “harder conversations.” (Gosh, I wonder what that’s about??)

So, dear reader, this is where we’re at:

–OSSE didn’t appear to much want to solicit, much less feature, public comment on a rule around funds to allow charters to expand and replicate faster—and then enacted the rule even though all but one of the public comments OSSE received were against it.

–Public comment at the July MFP town halls was purposefully limited and recast by meeting organizers.

–The deputy mayor for education’s team (which is overseeing both the MFP as well as the boundary study) repeatedly misinterpreted what the boundary advisory committee said about strengthening DCPS programming, while a meeting organizer invited “counterpoint” to that, specifically from someone suggesting a need for DCPS closures who also stands to fiscally benefit from such closures.

–A member of the deputy mayor for education’s team then threatened “harder conversations” regarding what advisory committee members repeatedly said they wanted around strengthening DCPS programming.

–The deputy mayor for education’s team is also actively shutting out the boundaries advisory committee from any input on draft recommendations for the MFP, despite the intimately related work and the fact that the same team from the deputy mayor for education is working on both the MFP and boundaries.

–And while all this was going down, the DC council gave charter teachers money to balance out what DCPS teachers earned and fought for themselves. (Apparently, approving those tens of millions during budget tightening did not constitute one of the “harder conversations.”)

Gosh, what’s not to like about regulatory capture?