Tensions over DCPS-charter planning reflect different perspectives

Recent calls for coordinated planning between the DCPS and charter sectors have led to the fraying of a once-cordial relationship between the two. But the underlying tensions aren't new.

Photo of glasses from Shutterstock.

Recently, the DCPS Chancellor and the Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) have called for "joint planning" between the traditional public school and charter sectors that would place limits on the growth and location of new charters. The charter sector has adamantly resisted that suggestion.

To Chancellor Kaya Henderson and DME Abigail Smith, along with some DCPS parents, joint planning signifies rationality and an end to a wasteful duplication of resources. To many in the charter sector, the phrase smacks of bureaucracy, centralization, and dangerous inroads on the autonomy that has enabled them to thrive.

As someone with a foot in each education sector, I can understand and sympathize with both points of view. I'm a member of the board of a DC charter, and I've tutored in two DCPS high-poverty schools. I've contributed financially to both DCPS and charters. And I've had both formal and informal conversations with educators and officials in both sectors, from classroom teachers to top administrators.

DCPS's perspective

DCPS wants to ensure that the plans it's making aren't undermined by charter competition. Henderson would like to avoid situations where charter schools locate close to DCPS schools that have a similar focus, as will happen in one DC neighborhood this fall, and lure away students the system expects to serve.

Henderson has said that she would like to see a process that allowed officials of DC's Public Charter School Board (PCSB) to join with other DC policy-makers in identifying which neighborhoods most need new schools or specialized programs. The PCSB, which is the District's charter authorizer, would then use those priorities when it considers new charter applications.

The DME's recent proposal to redraw DCPS boundaries and feeder patterns has put a spotlight on the difficulty of making plans for DCPS without knowing how many more charters will spring up and where they will locate. The proposal, for example, calls for DCPS to open several new middle schools. But what if, after DCPS spends millions of dollars renovating or constructing these schools, new charter middle schools locate nearby?

As the charter sector has grown rapidly, DCPS has faced significant challenges. The District now has the third-largest charter sector in the nation, enrolling 44% of the students here, and it's poised to grow larger.

When students leave DCPS for charters, they take money with them—around $10,000 per student, per year. You might think that DCPS's costs would go down commensurately. But there are fixed costs associated with maintaining under-enrolled school buildings. And it's hard to provide a full range of programs at schools with few students. Those are the reasons that prompted Henderson's decision last year to close 15 DCPS schools, in addition to the 23 closed by her predecessor.

As Henderson tries to plan to serve students in the future, not knowing where or when competing charters will pop up, she may feel like a bride reciting her wedding vows while the groom eyes the attractive bridesmaids standing nearby.

The charter sector's point of view

The charter sector, for its part, wants as few restrictions placed on it as possible. Leaders of high-performing charters in DC feel, justifiably, that their relative nimbleness and freedom to experiment has enabled them to devise ways of educating kids more successfully than DCPS. And they want to expand, rapidly, in order to bring the benefits of their innovations to more students.

They also argue that DCPS enjoys advantages that charters don't, particularly when it comes to buildings. DCPS is able to draw on hundreds of millions of dollars in government funds for renovated or new buildings, many of which are dazzling—and, in some cases, half empty. Charters receive far less to fix up, rent, and maintain their facilities and often have to draw on private contributions to do so.

More fundamentally, it's notoriously difficult for charters to find suitable space at all in DC, and charter leaders complain that DCPS has been slow to release its vacant school buildings for their use. While some have been leased to charters in recent years, securing one is a lengthy, uncertain, and time-consuming process. And there are still around 20 buildings DCPS is sitting on, hoping to use them again someday.

In fact, the charters point to the lack of available space as one reason that joint planning between the sectors wouldn't work. At the time they apply for authorization, prospective charter operators never know exactly where they'll be able to find a place to locate.

Charters are proud that, despite these obstacles, they've been able to compete and generally outperform DCPS, especially in raising the achievement of low-income students. Competition, they say, has improved the quality of education for allincluding, to some extent, those remaining in DCPS.

And, unlike DCPS, charter advocates see no reason to limit that competition. If DCPS students leave for the charter across the street, so be it. Why, they ask, doesn't DCPS just make its schools better? Privately, they may attribute DCPS's lagging performance to incompetence and overspending on a bloated bureaucracy.

I can see legitimate points in both the charter and DCPS perspectives. But I also see what appear to me to be some blind spots as well. In a future post I'll elaborate on those and discuss how the two sectors may yet be able to work together towards their common goal of raising the quality of education for DC's students as quickly as possible.

Natalie Wexler blogs at DC Eduphile and is a contributor to the Washington Post. She serves on the boards of DC Scholars Public Charter School and The Writing Revolution and chairs the DC Regional Leadership Council of the Urban Teacher Center. She has also been a volunteer tutor in reading and writing in DC Public Schools. 


Add a comment »

Charters have not outperformed DCPS and have not improved the quality of education for all. Linking to opinion pieces doesn't make it true. This, like most articles about charters, is rather disingenuous.

by erik on Jul 22, 2014 11:05 am • linkreport

Erik - The opinion piece was based on, and cited, a Stanford University study that showed DC charters outperform DCPS schools on test scores. Here's a link to the study: http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf

by Natalie on Jul 22, 2014 11:25 am • linkreport

There are way too many schools in DC. Bad legacy of segregation and now pandering.

I'd set a cap, and let DCPS and charters compete.

I'd also force charters to go with the historical school names if they take a property. Build their own, they get to name it.

by charlie on Jul 22, 2014 11:52 am • linkreport

when you compare kids achieving at successful DCPS schools vs. successful charters it's a wash. I feel for kids assigned to lousy neighborhood schools and can see the benefits of KIPP over [insert failing DCPS school], but I fail to see the benefit for advanced kids in highly successful neighborhood schools where they are currently thriving.

by anon_1 on Jul 22, 2014 12:02 pm • linkreport


The 2009 study showed no difference. The 2013 study shows some differences (and charters better than "TPS", traditional public schools).

But the "Virtual Control Record" which "matches" TPS with charter school students is a low quality control which captures only the very basic student descriptors and ignores the family characteristic, parental involvement or advocacy for their child.

Combining 27 different states and DC into a single data-set also is a bit suspect given the vast disparities in the areas under study.

There were racial differences (Hispanics did worse in charters, blacks...)

The study's worth is over-hyped. Charter advocates can use it so "show" that charters now do better than TPS. This is solid gold to charter advocates, but realistically, there are enough problems with the study that this turns out to just reinforce a previously held opinion.

by Stanford study hyped on Jul 23, 2014 9:02 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

You can use some HTML, like <blockquote>quoting another comment</blockquote>, <i>italics</i>, and <a href="http://url_here">hyperlinks</a>. More here.

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.