Charter Board Chief Says Proposed Rules Already on Books

Council Bill Seeks New Requirements

The chairman of the D.C. Public Charter School Board said yesterday that much of the legislation introduced by two D.C. Council members to change how charter schools are regulated is not necessary because the proposals are already a matter of policy.

Thomas Nida also complained that the co-sponsors of the bill, council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) and member Tommy Wells, had not consulted with the seven-member board before introducing the measure Tuesday.

Its provisions include a 15-month planning period before newly approved schools can open, academic and financial requirements for charter schools that wish to expand and a D.C. residency requirement for board appointees.

"I would have felt better if I had had a conversation with the sponsors beforehand," Nida said. "Some of these are already in our policies and procedures." But, he added, "I'm open to working with the council to satisfy their concerns."

Wells (D-Ward 6) said yesterday that he raised many of the issues directly with Nida when he testified at a Feb. 29 council hearing. Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Gray, said there should have been "no big surprises" in the bill. She said there will be other opportunities to comment at future hearings.

Charter school supporters, expressing concern that the council is poised to halt the growth of the charter movement, were scheduled to rally at Freedom Plaza this morning and present petitions to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and the council calling on the city government not to interfere. They also want the city to make public school buildings that are scheduled to be closed available for charters.

The measure would amend a 1995 law authorizing the creation of charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently operated as alternatives to traditional public schools. Charters cost the city about $320 million annually, and the proposal reflects increasing dismay on the council that the schools' rapid growth -- there are 55 on 82 campuses, serving about 22,000 students -- has come at the expense of quality and accountability. Last year, only 10 public charter schools reached annual math and reading test benchmarks established by the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The council measure was prompted in part by the likelihood that the District will have to pay at least $7 million to fund seven financially struggling Catholic schools that would reopen in the fall -- on an accelerated three-month timetable -- as public charters under a proposal the board will consider at its June 16 meeting. The legislation, however, would not affect those seven schools. Most public charter schools, which initially lack buildings, staff and students, take more than a year of planning before they open.

Nida said that the board already has stringent requirements in place for established schools that wish to convert to charter status in less than 15 months. These include a fully developed curriculum, a certificate of occupancy for the building the school will use and a strategy for enrolling enough students so that the school is financially sound. Nida also said existing charter schools that wish to expand must have academic programs and financial controls that have received positive reviews from the board, as well as a history of meeting enrollment projections in the previous two years.

Wells said his bottom line is that the charter board is spending enormous sums of city money, but that, under existing law, has little or no relationship with the council.

"If they continue to grow, there ought to be some coordination," Wells said.

That includes, he said, a board made up of D.C. residents. There is no residency requirement for service on the panel, which is appointed by the mayor from a list of possible members approved by the U.S. Department of Education. Two of the current board's seven members live outside the District.

Nida said a residency rule would be "an appropriate step to take."