On September 16, the DC charter board voted to approve an expansion of BASIS into elementary grades. A large part of the board’s justification was that BASIS offers “high-quality seats.”

This is hardly surprising, as the (racist, ableist, classist) lie of “high-quality seats” has been embraced by education reform proponents nationwide. But the charter board’s approval of BASIS DC’s expansion provides a useful tool to explore the enduring power of this lie in DC.

Demographics Unbound

In SY23-24, BASIS DC had 690 students, of whom <10% were at risk, while the student body was 19% Black and 49% white. Special education students at BASIS DC that year comprised less than 10% of the student body, while English language learners comprised less than 2%.

Now, none of this is representative of DC’s public school student population in at least the better part of a century.

But it IS representative of a school that has consistently great test scores, which is the apparent reason for saying that BASIS DC has “high-quality seats.”

To be sure, there are plenty of studies showing test scores are correlated with household income. How this works in BASIS DC was recently outlined by DC education researcher Betsy Wolf.

Wolf also described how BASIS DC conducted a survey of prospective families (see p. 87ff of its expansion application). The survey showed (per Wolf, quoting p. 14 of the application) that “the best predictor of interest in BASIS was parental education attainment, specifically parents with advanced degrees “who are seeking K-12 schools that will set their children up for similar future academic success”.”

That’s all fine and well–but no matter where BASIS DC students are coming from, a major factor behind the school’s (unrepresentative) demographics is that BASIS DC has accepted students initially at only one grade (5th) and has severe drop-off of students thereafter, with little (or no) backfilling.

Indeed, looking at BASIS DC’s annual reports from SY17-18 through SY22-23 (6 recent school years), I calculated that 92 kids withdrew mid-year. That does not count those who didn’t return after completing the school year (a number that is greater than 0—see school report card data on BASIS DC re-enrollment).

The “who” and “how” behind this attrition has been notable for a long time.

Using data in the school’s 2024 expansion application, I observed that a large part of the attrition appeared to be students with disabilities (SWD). That is, while numbers of SWDs at BASIS DC are very small, the percentage attrition of SWDs at the school is high.

Attrition at BASIS DC also appears to be related to non-white students. In 2019, for instance, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) began investigating the school for potentially discriminatory discipline practices as well as potential employment discrimination. Writing about that 2019 investigation, Advocates for Justice and Education opined that “BASIS DC has created a culture that discourages students of color from enrolling or remaining in the school.”

While this DOE investigation is apparently ongoing, it represents only one in a long line of allegations and investigations at BASIS DC around student discrimination.

For instance, per a November 2013 DOE document, BASIS DC was ordered to revise its practices around students with special education needs as well as English language learners on the basis of complaints filed with DOE. Here is a news story around this—and here’s how the charter board covered it.)

When the complaints behind that DOE order were filed, BASIS DC had been in operation less than a year, having started in SY12-13. Earlier in 2013, when BASIS DC asked the charter board for an enrollment ceiling increase to cover debt obligations (yes, really), the charter board memo advocated against approval because of “some troubling early data that leads staff to recommend not increasing the school’s enrollment ceiling at this time. This includes high levels of midyear withdrawals and low levels of special education students.”

Fascinatingly, the minutes of the April 15, 2013 charter board meeting (where the enrollment ceiling increase was not approved) reveal oddly familiar arguments behind BASIS DC’s request (boldface mine):

“Mr. Morrissey [then head of school] stated that the need for a ceiling increase of 35 more students is to cover the debt obligation services, such as an increase in rent payment from $1 million to $2 million dollars. Mr. Soifer [board member] asked Mr. Morrissey to speak to the request educationally. Mr. Morrissey said that by offering the students thirty-five more seats, it gives the students a chance to succeed in their curriculum and in a school that holds high standards. Opening thirty-five more seats will give thirty-five more students the chance to succeed. Mr. Soifer asked what grade level the new seats will fill. Mr. Morrissey answered 5th grade. Ms. Mead [board member] asked Mr. Morrissey about the significant mid-withdrawals currently in the school. Mr. Morrissey answered that Basis DC PCS has a total of 709 students pre-enrolled for next year. Mid-year withdrawals are more common in the opening year. The reason is that when a Basis school comes into a market, there are students who understand what the workload is and what it takes to be successful at Basis DC PCS; however, other students are not prepared to do the work. Ms. Mead stated that she would not feel comfortable voting for an increase until the board sees a second year decline in the mid-year withdrawals.”

Starting in July 2013, and continuing into summer 2014 and SY14-15, the charter board commenced more scrutiny of BASIS DC’s provision of special education services. In April 2015, the charter board appeared satisfied with changes BASIS DC made. But then in 2017 DOE apparently began investigating BASIS DC for not providing a free appropriate education (FAPE) and Title VI violations.

By October 2016, BASIS DC made its first application for grade level expansion–a gambit to eventually have two elementaries. At that point, the school had been in operation less than 5 years. Like its 2024 application, the 2016 application spoke of a need for “high-quality seats.”

Ahead of the board’s October 17, 2016 meeting, charter board staff discussed a wide variety of items with BASIS staff on September 22, 2016. The transcript of the October 17, 2016 charter board meeting, where members discussed the proposal, showed skepticism around the school’s demographics. Less than a month later, and days before the charter board was to vote, BASIS DC withdrew its application. There was no public explanation.

Taken together, all of this outlines how students in demographics less likely to score well appear to be more likely to leave BASIS DC, for whatever reason–or simply less likely to apply in the first place. Coupled with the school’s limited initial access point (only 1 grade of 8) and very limited backfilling, the school’s student body has been almost inevitably majority white, not at risk, and with few disabilities or language needs.

So, What IS “Quality”—And For Whom?

As discussed in its 2024 application and both the June and September 2024 board meetings, the idea appears to be that if BASIS DC got younger kids, it would be able to ensure they are prepared for the rigors of its existing middle and high school. Quality for everyone AND at every age!

Fair enough—except that the graphs below (of future enrollment in various growth models, taken from p. 22 of the 2024 BASIS DC application) show huge attrition continuing and no points at which enrollment grows and backfills to offset the losses:

According to p. 2 of its 2024 expansion application, the DC charter board and BASIS had been in discussions about this expansion for more than a year. The “conservative” growth model shown above was apparently a brainchild of that collaboration–and something that the charter board staff advocated for in its September board memo as well as in its June board memo.

Yet in both proposed models, BASIS DC appears to do exactly what it currently does and apparently always has done, in limiting access and not slowing down attrition.

This, in light of the school’s demographics, suggests that whatever “quality” is here is less in the seats than in who is sitting in those seats (i.e. students more likely to do well on tests). Such “quality” apparently is not for everyone, but rather (as a document on p. 284 of the 2024 application eloquently puts it) for the “fraction” of families who apply who “truly and deeply desires what we [BASIS DC] specifically offer.”

(Yes, they really said that.)

To be sure, I am hardly the first to have noted any of this. Here’s charter advocate Mark Lerner in 2019 (boldface mine):

“Across the [DC] charter sector, black enrollment is at approximately 75 percent while at Basis DC High School it is 36.6 percent. In charters in the nation’s capital white attendance is at about five percent while at the Basis High School this statistic is at 39.1 percent. Economically disadvantaged pupils make up 22.1 percent of the student population at Basis while for charters as a whole this number is over 70 percent. English Language Learners comprise approximately eight percent of charter student bodies while at Basis this statistic is at two percent. Finally, Basis High School has a special education enrollment of four and a half percent, while charters see about 12 percent of students requiring Individualized Education Plans. In other words, Basis has been able to shape its student body in a manner that would increase the probability that its student would be able to meet the demands of the school’s rigorous academic curriculum. . . . The misalignment of this charter’s population with the rest of the movement has been known for some time and was predicted here when the school applied to open in D.C.”

When public witnesses outlined such problems at the June 2024 board meeting, charter board member James Sandman asked BASIS DC to respond. What BASIS DC sent (either on July 29 or September 10, depending on whether you look here or here) was a bald reiteration of its application–and a belief that its high-quality seats would benefit everyone. Such a response didn’t address any of what I, for one, raised in my June testimony including

—What grades will be open for new students after full enrollment is achieved?
—What will be done to ensure that the LEA’s tremendous attrition and withdrawal rates are reduced?
—Will BASIS DC backfill and, if so, when and how?
—What is happening with the DOE investigation of discrimination at BASIS DC?
—What is happening with its property acquisition?

In fact, days ahead of the September 16 charter board meeting, I asked charter board members if they thought that the BASIS DC response addressed public concerns raised in June and, if not, whether board members would ask BASIS to respond directly to those concerns.

I got no response.

OTOH, I did get a response of sorts by way of the September 16 charter board meeting, where the lie of “high-quality seats” smoothed over the rough edges of all of that.

To wit:

Not long into the September 16, 2024 discussion about the BASIS DC proposal (at about the 2 hour, 23 minute mark in the hearing video), school officials made clear that the “conservative” growth model (pictured above) was not financially viable. The preferred model for growth would open all elementary grades at once, while the “conservative” model would add grades and enrollment more slowly. Either way, BASIS DC would reach full enrollment in 4 years.

At the 2 hour 45 minute mark, board member Sandman noted he supported the expansion despite empty seats elsewhere in DC’s publicly funded schools, saying that there is no surplus of “high-quality seats” in DC. The next board member to speak, Nick Rodriguez, reiterated the jargon, with only board member Shantelle Wright getting to the bait and switch (at the 2 hour 54 minute mark), noting that “having a quality seat that doesn’t serve all students causes the question about where the quality is coming from.” (No kidding.)

Fascinatingly, in response to Wright’s question about BASIS DC not backfilling, the former head of school noted (at the 2 hour 57 minute mark) that not backfilling is—wait for it–a facility issue. About 20 minutes later, he noted the school’s desire for a new elementary facility with “proximity” to the current one (in Ward 2)—and outlined how they were looking at sites in wards 4, 5, 2, 6, and 7, along with the “waterfront.” He construed that geographic outreach as part of the school’s effort to increase diversity.

It’s hard to find the bottom here:

The school not being able to financially withstand 150 fewer students for just 2-3 years (as the conservative model outlines) feels a bit of a piece with the school asking in 2013 to expand by way of 35 students to cover its costs. (To be sure, that is not the only instance of a DC charter indicating that expansion would improve its finances–hey there, Eagle!)

As it is, at no point in 2024 did any DC education leader note that BASIS DC’s historical attrition issues, limited access, and (as noted by Betsy Wolf) limited participation in the lottery’s equitable access program are not a facility issue, but choices that the school has made again and again and again apparently in service of one goal: to effectively ensure a student population more likely to succeed on the school’s terms.

Even if we simply dismiss my critique here as a misunderstanding of “high-quality seats” (and/or unfairness on my part), at no point did any of the many thousands of words spoken and written about BASIS DC in 2024 outline advanced courses or unique offerings that would differentiate this school from existing ones in DC. For instance, if we accept that “high-quality seats” mean advanced courses, unique offerings, and/or students able to score well on tests, certainly BASIS DC isn’t alone among DC’s publicly funded schools.

More importantly, if anyone thinks there are not enough of such “high-quality seats” in DC’s publicly funded schools, they need to ask why Banneker HS isn’t filled to capacity.

(I’ll wait.)

Nor has any DC education leader noted that it is possible to have academic excellence AND low test scores. For instance, years ago I discovered that charter schools gave their students the PARCC pre-algebra test for math, while some DCPS middle schools gave their students more advanced PARCC tests for geometry and algebra 1.

The upshot was that charter middle school students (including those at BASIS DC, most of whom were taking advanced math classes) did exceedingly well on the (lower level) PARCC math tests, while DCPS middle school students who took the more advanced tests (because they were also taking advanced math classes) looked like slackers by comparison. The cherry on top of this (rotten) sundae is that DC education leaders knew about this test switching and never made it widely known, publishing the test scores as if they were for the same tests at all schools and for all students.

Shouting The Quiet Parts

Given their silence about promulgating what some might call test result fraud, it is not entirely surprising that DC education leaders have also been silent about the following from the 2024 expansion application of BASIS DC:

–A 2023 document from the school on p. 283 of its application states that “we believe we do receive enough applications from at risk families.”

So: What constitutes “enough”? Is there a limit, after which there are too many at risk families applying?

–On p. 7 of the application, the school notes that “we believe strongly that our K-12 educational programs should be available for any family and any student who wants to work hard and succeed.”

So: What is “succeeding” in this context: doing calculus at age 12 or reading at a 4th grade level at age 12 after reading a year earlier at a kindergarten level?

What about students who are “succeeding” in this definition and NOT working “hard”? And are students who are working “hard” and not “succeeding” (however it is defined) not worth the trouble?

–On p. 442 of the application, in the document on space 2025 goals, there is the following statement: “We are one of the top ten most diverse schools in the city, and we are proud of that!”

So: What metrics are being used as the basis for saying this? Is the touted diversity simply that of the wealthier students without disabilities (often white) who have for at least a decade formed the majority of the school’s student population–and are not the majority of DC’s student population?

–On p. 6 of the application, it says that “BASIS DC has been a sector leader in teacher retention, with typical retention rates over the last five years that are approximately 10% higher than in other charter schools.”

Yet p. 4 of the application suggests high staff turnover by noting that “internal recruitment data . . . shows an average of 40 new applicants for each new filled position, with a total of over 2000 applicants for just over 50 positions hired.”

As shown in annual reports, here is BASIS DC’s annual teacher attrition at its single location:

17-18: 36.95%
18-19: 18.8%
19-20: 27%
20-21: 13%
21-22: 26%
22-23: 38%

–On p. 228 of the application (in appendix D), it states that “school should be hard and joyful.”

So: What does “hard” mean in this context: a child reading several grade levels below her grade who may be attempting to read at grade level? Or is “hard” a child with years of advanced math doing calculus or algebra? And what happens when “hard” makes “joyful” impossible?

In truth, there is no bottom to any of this.

At the September 16, 2024 charter board meeting, for instance, the executive director of BASIS asked (at about the 3 hour and 5 minute mark of the video) about a “compromise” on its growth scenario and “what might work.” Incredibly, a few minutes later (at the 3 hour, 8 minute, and 44 second mark), the charter board’s executive director offered to do an analysis to see what would be possible.

So DC taxpayer money has now been committed by a DC public servant to help a privately run LEA achieve a private goal because of the promise of “high-quality seats” that aren’t even a real thing!

(Move over, Disney!)

The charter board closed its September meeting with a vote to support BASIS DC expanding by way only of the conservative growth model. As with its vote on Eagle in August, the charter board thus ensured that it did not do the right thing. In Eagle’s case, the right thing for the charter board would have been to vote to rescind Eagle’s charter at the July 10 board meeting, which revealed the (long) extent of time that the charter board knew of Eagle’s fiscal problems and how families were not involved for most of it. In the case of BASIS DC, the right thing for the charter board would have been to vote on what BASIS DC said it wanted and proposed—which was not the conservative growth model–and reject the request outright.

Thus, with its September vote, the charter board left open the possibility that BASIS DC will (with the help of charter board staff on DC taxpayers’ dime) come up with a new and shiny version of its expansion that the charter board can say it approved—possibly, with a potemkin village hearing before the end of 2024.

(Good old “quality.”)