Now that school year 2026-27 is well underway, let us get to some recent events:

–As you may have read, a federal grand jury has been convened in an investigation of DCPS. The investigation apparently revolves around truancy, attendance, and graduation rates.

Now, while those rates in DCPS have not been good, they have also not been good in DC charters, which educate the other half of DC’s students.

For instance, at about the same time that the grand jury was considering evidence in DCPS schools, the charter board released its annual report on attendance and discipline in DC charters. As in years past, the data was broken out by school only for attendance and not for expulsions and suspensions. That was possibly because while rates for suspension, expulsion, and truancy decreased from last year, they still remain high, with the highest charter truancy rates more than 60% and the highest charter suspension rate topping 30%. 

Relatedly, DC’s test scores also came out recently—and it wasn’t rosy news for either of DC’s publicly funded education sectors. At its August 31 meeting, the charter board had a sober discussion of this slide deck, concluding that much work remains to be done, especially as test scores in DC charters lag behind city-wide averages. The charter board’s slide deck highlighted a few bright spots for the sector, as page 8 showed that 28 charter campuses “outperform the state [average] in ELA” and “28 campuses outperform the state [average] in math.” Paradoxically, the next pages stated (boldface mine) that “27 public charter campuses outperformed the state in ELA” and that “26 public charter campuses outperformed the state in math.” 

So: Is it 26, 27, or 28 campuses outperforming state averages? In this, it is possible, if not likely, that the folks who created that slide deck are as confused by the charter board’s definition of a campus as I am. (***See below for another issue around multi-campus schools.) 

–Also at its August 31 meeting, the charter board discussed its proposed financial oversight policy. The changes are coming in the wake of multiple DC charter operators going belly-up and increased scrutiny of charter oversight. 

But only a few people provided public testimony on the policy. That may have been because (as my testimony outlined) the policy posted for public comment had utterly no detail on timelines, metrics, or processes. 

Shockingly, however, I had only to wait a minute after delivering my testimony to get a clue about the policy’s timelines, metrics, and processes. 

That was when the CEO of Friendship (Patricia Brantley) testified, urging release of the policy’s “implementation guide”—which, incredibly, apparently contains all of the processes and other details missing from the posted proposed policy.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, that implementation guide remains unreleased to the public. (See Brantley’s jaw-dropping written testimony here.)

That 8/31/26 charter board meeting also made clear that some (possibly all) charter LEAs have already seen the implementation guide–and probably agreed to an omerta about it. For instance, when I asked the charter board for a copy of the guide, spokesperson Tomeika Bowden emailed me that the guide is “currently being reviewed by schools to ensure it is clear” and that “we will make it available once the board has approved the financial oversight policy.”

So what role, if any, have DC charter schools had thus far in “reviewing” that guide? Will there be changes to it and the posted oversight policy based on their review now?

And if schools are reviewing it and proposing changes (or have already proposed changes), why is the public not also being afforded that chance? 

After all, until the charter board votes on the (posted) policy later this month, the actual policy will never have been released to the public in its entirety. If that is not by itself a violation of the School Reform Act, it certainly is a violation of democracy—not to mention a pathetic example of regulatory reform in the face of multiple DC charter operators going bankrupt and DC taxpayers on the hook for 100% of those failures. 

Because of all of that, last week I emailed a variety of DC elected and appointed officials and asked for help getting the guide. 

To date, I have gotten no replies (and no bounces). 

Captured regulators, anyone?

–In late August, the DC auditor published a report on certifications for administration of emergency medicines in DC’s publicly funded schools. Our publicly funded schools are supposed to have a plan for designated staffers to administer medication in emergency settings (see here and here). Those plans are supposed to be signed off by the office of the state superintendent of education (OSSE), with designated school personnel trained by the DC department of health.

But the auditor discovered that in SY25-26, OSSE had approved these plans for fewer than half of DC’s publicly funded schools (113, out of a total of 246). While most schools (245) submitted plans to OSSE, the majority were either in the process of getting certified (including training of personnel) or needed revision to their plans. 

Naturally, OSSE pushed back on the auditor’s findings. The agency noted that it is neither responsible for training school staff nor for poor plan compliance at the school level. The auditor in turn noted that “the DC council may wish to strengthen the language [in the governing legislation] to provide additional clarity on where responsibility for compliance resides.”

That is fine and well—except that all of this underscores what the charter board’s new financial oversight policy rollout has: The buck in DC’s publicly funded schools seems to stop nowhere. Consider that no one appeared able to address that in multi-campus schools (or what counts for them; see above ***), personnel approved for one location will not necessarily be available in an emergency at the other location of that same school, which could be a considerable distance away. (The report listed six such schools in a footnote.) Given that DC (still) does not have full-time nurses in every school (see the latest stalled legislation here), this reality is potentially life-threatening—and completely needless.

Possibly because of this, the council is holding a hearing on September 24 at 10 am on three bills related to student health:

One bill, introduced in May, would (among other things) transfer the jurisdiction of epinephrine in schools from OSSE to the department of health. It is unclear what, functionally, this means for schools and students (though one can hope it bypasses some of the problems outlined in the auditor’s report).

Another bill, introduced in July, would allow families to submit school health forms digitally and would not permit doctors to collect fees to fill out the forms. 

And yet another bill–sadly reflecting the moment we find ourselves in–would protect healthcare providers from liability for administering vaccines. Indeed, given the realities of a federal government arrayed against the public, and public education, at every turn (such as a current proposal to cancel federal education grants for political reasons), it is easy to lose hope. 

BUT take heart: inquiring minds want to hear from you! 

Not only is the public comment period for that harmful proposed change in federal education grants still open, but mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George has been conducting listening sessions in every ward of the city. In addition, the WTU is going ward to ward, holding community conversations with DCPS parents, teachers, and community members.

May we all go forth in democratic power this new school year.